South Australian State govt aiming for uranium enrichment !
South Australia digs deep on future of uranium http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/south-australia-digs-deep-on-future-of-uranium/story-fnii5yv7-1226905247217 SHERADYN HOLDERHEAD MILES KEMP THE ADVERTISER MAY 04, 2014
THE State Government’s mining department has continued to explore uranium enrichment, despite the minister saying there is no business case for it. Documents released under Freedom of Information also show the State Government wants to ship the uranium ore already mined in SA through eastern ports to make it more cost effective.
Emails between Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy Department executives shows they planned a meeting in December with a University College London Master’s graduate whose thesis showed the State Government should invest in uranium enrichment.
The emails suggested the graduate give a talk to the Olympic Dam Task Force and attached a summary of the paper, which stated that the SA Government should invest in uranium enrichment company URENCO.
The summary states a strategic investment would provide access to profits without the risk of developing a new technology and leaving options open for Australia to construct a future uranium enrichment facility.
Another report prepared for the State Government into how to make the state’s uranium industry more profitable and allow new mines to open suggests eastern states be lobbied to allow shipment from higher-traffic ports such as Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne. Its report says found government should take a leadership role in lobbying for improvement which included a “discussion document around options for addressing access to east coast shipping ports”. Adelaide and Darwin are the only ports from which uranium shipping is now permitted.
A spokeswoman for Queensland Premier Campbell Newman said there were no plans to export uranium from Queensland ports. A Victorian Government spokesman said that “the proposal is not something that has been considered … Any proposal would need to be assessed to consider environmental implications, port handling and also transport arrangements’’.
In 2011, Mining Minister Tom Koutsantonis, publicly backed by then treasurer Kevin Foley, called for change from the traditional approach of simply mining uranium and sending it offshore.
“We’ve got to value add here in SA. Down the track, I would like to see some form of enrichment, some sort of value add. We have to go out and passionately support the uranium industry,’’ he said at the time.
But in April last year, he said there was no case for it “any time in the near future” because it was not commercially viable.
Mr Koutsantonis said the department was not “investigating” uranium enrichment but that it was “keen to foster relationships between universities” and was often approached to discuss a range of policy issues.
He said that SA Government has not been presented with a viable business case for enrichment, and had not approached the eastern states to use their ports.
Family First MLC Robert Brokenshire said the government needed to “come clean” with their plans for uranium. “They’ve tricked their way back into office and it’s no longer acceptable for them to sidestep important issues on alternative energy sources,” he said.
“Why are they doing secret work, what are their intentions? And if they’re not considering it, then why allow the department to look at options?”
Australia’s Treasurer Joe Hockey on the attack against wind energy
What hope green energy? Hockey says turbines “utterly offensive” http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/hope-green-energy-hockey-says-turbines-utterly-offensive-72824 By Giles Parkinson on 2 May 2014 The prospects of a re-start of large scale renewable energy projects in Australia dimmed further on Friday when Treasurer Joe Hockey described the sight of wind turbines as “utterly offensive.” Hockey, speaking to ultra-conservative shock-jock Alan Jones on radio 2GB, said wind turbines were a “blight on the landscape” and vowed to axe “the vast number” of environmental agencies
Hockey’s comments were made after Jones asked him about the “nonsense” of climate change, and renewable energy policies, and asked why – when the government had rejected support for SPC Admona and car makers – was it “chasing” Thai and Chinese-made wind turbines.
This is the conversation from there:
Hockey: “If I can be a little indulgent, I drive to Canberra to go to parliament and I must say I find those wind turbines around Lake George to be utterly offensive.”
Jones: “Correct.”
Hockey: “I think they’re just a blight on the landscape.”
Jones: “Correct. The people you are talking to are paying for them. When are you going to knock them off?”
Hockey: (chuckling) “Well, we can’t knock those ones off, they are into locked into a scheme. There is a certain contractual obligation, I’m told, associated with those things. But you will see in the budget we will address the massive duplication that you have talked about, the vast number of agencies involved in the same thing. We have considered that very carefully. When I say we’ve seen the age of entitlement, that applies to business as much as it applies to the rest of us.”
Hockey also told Jones that the government would cut a swathe through environmental agencies, including, he said, the Clean Energy Regulator, which environment minister Greg Hunt says we need to manage and operate the emissions reduction fund in the ludicrous Direct Action scheme.
Hockey probably meant the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. Attention to detail has not been the government’s strong point, and it has been determined to dismantle any authority or scheme with the words “clean” or “climate” or “carbon” in front of it – the carbon price, the Climate Commission, the Climate Change Authority – even the Cleantech awards had to be renamed.
The CEFC, along with the Export Finance Investment Corporation, attracts private funds, and delivers a positive return to the government. But even EFIC has been slated for closure in what the AFR’s Chanticleer columnist described as one of a series of “brain explosions” from the Far Right revealed in the National Audit Commission.
The wind turbines around Lake George that Hockey finds so offensive are part of Infigen Energy’s Capital wind farm (pictured). Neighbouring regions areas are a hot-bed of anti-wind farm activitism, particularly from business leaders such as Maurice Newman, Abbott’s hand-picked head of his business advisory body.
Local state MP Pru Goward, the newly appointed minister of planning for NSW, has described wind turbines as “hideous”, and federal MP Angus Taylor is one of the many fierce opponents of wind farms in the Coalition. Amid all this, the ACT government is trying to commission 200MW of wind capacity as part of its plans to go 90 per cent renewable.
The federal government, on the other hand, appears comfortable with 90 per cent fossil fuels. It has commissioned a review panel to assess the renewable energy target, and has chosen a team led by climate change denier Dick Warburton, who has said that nuclear energy is the only viable alternative to coal, to make a judgement on the scheme that is designed to bring in more wind and solar energy to the energy system.
The constant uncertainty about green energy policy has meant that no new large scale wind farms have been committed in Australia since 2012 – apart from some solar farms supported by other schemes, and the massive investment by Australian households in rooftop solar. The emergence of solar, and soon enough storage, as a cost competitive alternative to energy delivered through expensive networks, is causing Australia’s major utilities to reassess their business models, and the way they deliver electricity. However, they lament that politicians and regulators are looking to the past, rather than the future.
They have argued, as has Tony Abbott, that the renewables scheme is very expensive, even though regulators note that it adds only about 3 per cent to consumer bills.
The Clean Energy Council this week produced a report that suggested that the fall in wholesale prices caused by the influx of renewables would offset the cost of certificates and actually lead to cheaper bills for consumers in the medium to long term.
This assessment was rejected by Hunt this week. And in a further sign of the government’s, and the panel’s hard-line attitude to renewables, Warburton said a complete dismantling of the renewable energy target could not be ruled out, even though this would lead to billions of dollars in losses, and to the removal of the “contractual obligation” that Hockey appeared to lament.
The Australian Renewable Energy Agency is also in danger of having its funding stripped and of being absorbed back into a government department.
Australia’s Anti Environment Minister either doesn’t understand renewable energy modelling, or is working for the coal industry
Hunt disputes CEC modeling on renewable energy target http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/hunt-disputes-cec-modeling-renewable-target-82441 By Giles Parkinson on 1 May 2014 Every day there is a new reason for the renewable energy industry in Australia to become increasingly despondent about its future.
On Thursday, it was environment minister Greg Hunt, who ostensibly has some influence over renewables policy, taking issue with modelling released by the Clean Energy Council which showed thatconsumer bills would fall, not rise, if the RET was retained, or even increased. Hunt said he had read the report, and agreed with some of it, and disagreed with other bits. On the latter, it appeared to be the idea of a “negative cost” of the RET policy that “did not make sense” to the minister for the environment. Hunt said that if that was the case, then renewable energy projects would not need a subsidy. “Some say that it is a negative cost, but that doesn’t make any sense because you wouldn’t need subsidy if that was the case. It is effectively a cross subsidy from one form of electricity to another, ” he told the Municipal Association of Victoria Environment Conference in Melbourne, in response to a question from Surf Coast Shire Councillor Eve Fisher.
The CEC modelling said that the cost of the RET, in the form of certificates bought by retailers and the cost passed on to consumers, would be around 3-4 per cent of electricity bills – a figure agreed on by Hunt. But the CEC modelling also noted that this impact would be offset by the reductions in the wholesale price, caused by the presence of more renewable energy, which has a minimal short-run cost and forces wholesale electricity prices down. These are conclusions arrived at elsewhere in the world, including by the International Energy Agency, and for what it’s worth is the very argument presented by the fossil fuel industry, as it seeks to have the RET reduced or dismantled entirely. They fear that their profits will be eroded by the expected fall in wholesale prices. They argue that the wholesale cost reductions should not be passed on to consumers. The reason why a RET is warranted – apart from its obvious environmental benefits – is that it requires retailers to write contracts for new wind or solar farms. Without this mechanism, they wouldn’t be built, because of an oversupply of coal and gas fired generators. The incumbents simply want to keep operating these as long as they can. The fact that Hunt doesn’t understand how this works suggests one of two things. The first is that he is possibly confusing the concept of negative cost abatement with his emissions reduction fund, which will allocate money to the cheapest bid in an auction. (Hardly likely that any of those bids would be negative, otherwise it would be the private sector giving a grant to the government.) The Abbott government is already struggling with the concept of negative abatement, given its refusal to allow the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to continue despite its promise that it could do the same by unlocking vast sums of private money. It also suggests that Hunt’s instinct is to side with the fossil fuel industry rather than consumers, which is why the Abbott government insisted on the RET review in the first place, and insisted it be led by the likes of Warburton, rather than the Climate Change Authority, which made the very point that the Clean Energy Council was making this week.
Australia to be hit by $40 billion costs due to Tony Abbott’s climate ppolicies
Tony Abbott’s climate policies a $40 billion budget slug, says Climate Institute – Peter Hannam
Environment Editor, The Sydney Morning Herald 1 May 14, The Abbott government’s changes to existing climate change policies would cost the budget as much as $40 billion by 2020, according to the Climate Institute, and the cost will blow out even further if it weakens the renewable energy target.
The estimated costs stem in part from payments to polluters to curb greenhouse gas emissions under the government’s Direct Action emissions reduction plan. This tally includes the $2.55 billion for the first four years of the Emissions 
Reduction Fund and an estimated $1.2 billion annually after that.
“This is a friendless piece of policy and not many people are standing up to defend it,” said John Connor, chief executive of the Climate Institute.
A bigger blow to the budget, though, will come from the loss of the carbon tax revenues if, as expected, the new Senate votes to repeal it after July 1. Current laws indicate the price – now a tax but due to convert to a floating price by mid-2016 at the latest – will bring in more than $18 billion.
That combined tally, at about $24 billion, swells to more than $40 billion by 2020 if the Abbott government sticks with its plan to block the purchase of cheaper international emission reductions to meet domestic commitments, the institute said……..
The costs of the Direct Action will balloon further if the government undermines other policies limiting carbon emissions, such as the Renewable Energy Target. The target, now set at supplying 41,000 gigawatt-hours of renewable energy by 2020, is currently being reviewed by businessman and climate change sceptic, Dick Warburton.
The current climate policies of the government are “a growing slug on taxpayers, and barely tenable now”, Mr Connor said. “If they start to weaken other measures, they’ll have to buy more” carbon abatement, he said.: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbotts-climate-policies-a-40-billion-budget-slug-says-climate-institute-20140430-zr1yh.html#ixzz30V7Nazbj
Bernie Fraser on ABC radio “sick and disappointed” about Abbott’s attack on renewable energy
The price of power http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/
Abbott’s renewables attack makes Fraser “sick and disappointed” http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/abbotts-renewables-attack-makes-fraser-sick-and-disappointed-19255 By Giles Parkinson on 28 April 2014
Fraser says investment in large-scale renewables was being cut back and delayed, and it was quite likely that the current 41,000GWh target would not be reached because of the uncertainty caused by Abbott’s new RET review. The CCA in late 2012 rejected attempts by the incumbent coal-fired industry and network operators to wind back the RET, saying it had clear benefits and little cost to consumers.
However, one of its chief recommendations, to replace the two-yearly review with a four-yearly review to provide the market with certainty, was not adopted by the then Labor government, clearing the way for Abbott to commission another review. This review, being led by a panel led by climate change denier and pro-nuclear advocate Dick Warburton, rather than the CCA, has effectively stalled investment.
“Investment is actually being cut back and delayed, and I think because of that I think it is apparent that the 41,000GWh for large-scale renewable energy power plans it not going to happen,” Fraser told the ABC Radio National’s Background Briefing program.
“ I think that is what the opponents and the critics of renewable energy want to see.” Asked about the political rhetoric around renewables in Australia, Fraser said:
“It makes me feel sick and disappointed. Policy makers need to look beyond short-term economic considerations and the interests of some of the big companies, and to longer term community interests. That’s what governments are supposed to do. Unfortunately, it’s not happening at the present time.
“It’s very disappointing that we are we falling behind, and we are falling behind what many other countries are doing.”
Fraser’s comments about the stalling in projects is supported by data that shows no new large-scale renewable energy projects have been committed since the start of 2013. The only four projects that are going ahead are those supported by either the ACT government’s auction scheme, the now defunct solar flagships proposal, and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which the government wants to close.
The appointment of Warburton, the narrow terms of reference that ignores many of the benefits of renewables, and the hiring of a consultancy firm whose highly contested modeling formed the basis of the coal industry’s attack on the RET in 2012, has left the renewables industry despondent about its future.
The Australian Solar Council predicts that the entire government rebate for small-scale rooftop systems could be removed. Larger project developers believe that the 41,000GWh will be severely diluted.
“We know that the government is going side with big business,” ASC’s chief executive John Grimes told the program.
“They want to protect the big utilities. And the way they will do that is to eliminate all support for rooftop solar. And we think that that’s outrageous.”
Matthew Warren, the head of the Energy Supply Association of Australia, which represents major suppliers, says the RET is “broken” and needs to be wound back.
The ABC said that neither Industry minister Ian Macfarlane, whose portfolio covers energy, nor environment minister Greg Hunt would agree to be interviewed for the program.
(We recommend the program as an excellent backgrounder on the economics and the politics of renewables. RenewEconomy even makes some cameo appearances!)
Abbott’s Direct Action plan will cost tax-payers, not the polluting industries
Direct Action transfers emission cutting costs from polluters to taxpayers, SMH, April 26, 2014
“…..the Abbott government’s official position is that greenhouse emissions created by humans are contributing to the dangerous warming of the planet, and that it must do something about it. Precisely what this government proposes to do is a matter of great public interest.
So it was unhelpful that Hunt chose to release those details – as scant as they were – shortly before the close of business on the eve of the Anzac Day long weekend.
Taxpayers have every reason to be sceptical about his motives. They, after all, will be the ones paying for the government’s so-called Direct Action climate change strategy. Its centrepiece is an ‘‘emissions reduction fund’’, a pool of $2.55 billion of taxpayers’ money in the first four years, from which some of the nation’s biggest polluters will be paid incentives to cut their greenhouse gases.
To be clear, creating this fund will transfer the cost of cutting emissions from the polluter to the taxpayer, should the government succeed in pushing its bill through the Senate.
The fund would displace both the carbon tax and the emissions trading scheme that had been advocated not only by Labor but by the Howard government in 2007. ‘‘To reduce domestic emissions at least economic cost, we will establish a world-class domestic emissions trading scheme,’’ the Howard policy had promised.
The Liberals now in power may still believe in market forces, but not yet for carbon abatement. Instead of making the biggest emitters pay, they are asking taxpayers to reward them for reducing their pollution. This would be done by means of a ‘‘reverse auction’’. The firms proffering the lowest bids – the least expensive way to reduce emissions – would get government subsidies…….
government is asking taxpayers to relieve industry of the cost of carbon abatement at the same time that it tells Australians they must make many other sacrifices. …….
The case for shifting the carbon burden from polluters to taxpayers, however, is yet to be made. The government still needs to convince Australians and a hostile Senate.
It could have done much better than calling a news conference at 3pm on the eve of Anzac Day to produce a flimsy policy in the hope that nobody would notice. ……. http://www.smh.com.au/comment/smh-editorial/direct-action-transfers-emission-cutting-costs-from-polluters-to-taxpayers-20140427-zr04d.html#ixzz30DsXmZG3
Australian right-wing politicians surprisingly may vote against Abbott’s “Direct Action” climate policy
Direct action could fail even without Palmer United Party April 26, 2014 Lisa Cox , 26 April 14 National political reporterTony Abbott’s “direct action” climate change policy is almost certain not to pass the Senate in its present form – even if the Palmer United Party were to change its position and vote for the plan.Independent senator Nick Xenophon said on Friday that he would not vote for the Coalition’s policy unless there were substantial changes, including measures to ensure companies comply with the scheme.
Fellow crossbench senator John Madigan, of the Democratic Labour Party, said he doubted whether the government was committed to the policy.
Environment Minister Greg Hunt on Thursday unveiled key details of the centrepiece of direct action, an emissions reduction fund, and declared the government would ”easily” reach an emissions reduction target of a 5 per cent cut below 2000 levels by 2020.
Senator Xenophon said he was not convinced by the white paper, which proposes a $2.55 billion fund to pay polluters to cut their emissions. Companies would bid for funding through a reverse auction process run by the Clean Energy Regulator……..
Tony Abbott has a Creation Science believer as his top adviser!
Maurice Newman Rejects Climate Change, Because God. In Other Words, by Tom Cummings, 24 April 14 “…….Newman rejects the findings of thousands of scientists from hundreds of organisations scattered across 195 countries, because of the analysis of one man: Roy Spencer.
The farce that is the Australian government’s Renewable Energy Review
“Farcical” start to Tony Abbott’s renewable energy review, REneweconomy, By Giles Parkinson on 24 April 2014 Tony Abbott’s controversial review of Australia’s renewable energy target (RET) made a “farcical” start to its public deliberations on Wednesday, attracting new accusations of bias and of having a pre-determined outcome.
Clean energy representatives were shocked by the panel’s appointment as chief advisor and modeller of ACIL Allen, a consultancy seen as close to the fossil fuel industry, and whose highly contested research formed the basis of the coal industry’s attempts to dismantle the RET in 2012.
Not only will ACIL Allen do the modelling for the RET Review panel, some of the assumptions that will form the basis of that modelling have also stunned the clean energy industry, and been branded as a farce.
This includes an apparent refusal to measure the benefits of renewable energy – including the health benefits, job benefits, and the network benefits – which the panel has dismissed as “too hard to model” and little more than a “transfer of wealth”, presumably away from the coal generators and network providers. There is concern about how it will model the reduction in wholesale prices – the main complaint from the existing fossil fuel industry.
Around 50 people who attended the RET Review panel’s modelling forum at the Mercure hotel near Sydney’s international airport were also told that the modelling will assume that there will be no carbon price out to 2030, and will not factor in any abatement targets. In other words, it is assuming there will be no carbon restrictions on the sector for another two decades.
John Grimes, the CEO of the Australian Solar Council, echoed the thoughts of many who attended the meeting and were interviewed by RenewEconomy when he said it appeared clear that the RET Review will serve only to protect the vested interests in the current electricity market.
“I’ve got to say – this is much worse than we had anticipated,” Grimes said. “This entire review process needs to be revealed for the sham that it is … we can only conclude that the RET Review process is heading to a biased and predetermined outcome.
“Instead of making customer benefits the key measure of a successful energy market, this review is set to side with big business, giving little or no weight to the benefits of solar for householders, business and the community.
“Clearly any model that fails to consider a carbon price (in any form) up to 2030, in the face of international action on climate change, is negligent and lacks any credibility. “ The RET review was already controversial because of the Abbott government’s decision to by-pass the Climate Change Authority (which dismissed the ACIL Allen modelling and the coal industry’s protestations in its 2012 review), and appoint a panel led by climate change denierand pro-nuclear advocate Dick Warburton.
He will be supported by fossil fuel lobbyist and former ABARE chief Brian Fisher, and Shirley In’t Veld, the former head of WA’s biggest coal generator, Verve Energy. The secretariat will be housed in Abbott’s own department.
Clean energy attendees said they were shocked by some of the statements – including Warburton’s apparent ignorance that the Abbott government went to the election with a “million solar rooftops” commitment, as well as assumptions by the panel that the current 41,000GWh could not physically be met.
The panel reportedly claimed that no large renewable energy projects would be able to be built for another 18 months, and no more than 1,000MW to 1,200MW of wind capacity would be possible in a single year, making it impossible to reach the current target. Both these claims were reportedly vigorously contested by the representative of the Clean Energy Council.
However, it was ACIL Allen’s appointment that confirmed the worst fears of the renewable energy industry……….
Even the Murdoch-owned Business Spectator made a spectacular demolition of ACIL Allen’s research, pointing to its previous reports that claimed that carbon pricing would eradicate the LNG industry, would force the closure of all brown coal generators by 2020, its predictions that geothermal would account for 30 per cent of the Renewable Energy Target, and how on two occasions it grossly miscalculated the uptake of rooftop solar……..
the problem that the renewable energy industry faces – incumbents and ageing engineers and business people who reject the science, simply do not understand or accept that renewable energy sources can be effective and cost competitive, and cannot imagine an energy system any different to the centralised model that has dominated for the past 100 years, and/or who are merely seeking to protect their vested interests.
The problem is that not only do they now have the ear of the current government, they have their hand on the wheels – and their foot on the brakes. http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/farcical-start-to-tony-abbotts-renewable-energy-review-14978
Tony Abbott’s review of Renewable Energy Target – a complete scam!
Coalition’s renewable energy review an ‘unprecedented scam’, industry says, The Guardian, Lenore Taylor,
Review assumes fossil fuel investors won’t need to factor in any risk due to climate policies for decades theguardian.com, Thursday 24 April 2014 The renewable energy industry has labelled a controversial Abbott government review an “unprecedented scam” and a “stitch-up” after learning that it was conducting electricity industry modelling on the assumption there would be no risk or cost to investments in coal-fired power stations in the next few decades.
The review of the renewable energy target – headed by veteran businessman and self-professed climate sceptic Dick Warburton – and its modellers from ACIL Allen consulting held a workshop with industry participants on Wednesday at which they revealed the modelling would assume investors in fossil fuel generation would not need to factor in any risk due to climate policies for decades – neither a carbon price, nor a requirement to invest in emission-reducing technologies, nor any cost from any other government policy or regulation.
Many of the 50 participants said this assumption was entirely unrealistic………
n setting up its own RET review, the government bypassed the Climate Change Authority – which it wants to abolish – but which is required by legislation to undertake regular reviews of the RET. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/24/coalitions-renewable-energy-review-unprecedented-scam
Australian government, and Renewable Energy Panel chief Dick Warburton are fans of nuclear power
Wind and solar generation half the cost of nuclear REneweconomy, By Sophie Vorrath on 23 April 2014 “………in Australia, the government looks to be eyeing nuclear power as a clean energy option for the country’s future, alongside its dreams of abundant “clean coal.”Last year, an issues paper released ahead of the Abbott government’s energy white paper noted that slow development in carbon capture and storage, and difficulties with hydro, meant nuclear technologies continued “to present an option for future reliable energy that can be readily dispatched into the market.”
And Dick Warburton, Abbott’s hand-picked head of the federal government’s RET review panel, hasrevealed himself as a big fan of nuclear energy, describing it once as the only alternative to fossil fuel generation.
In an article published in Australia’s Quadrant magazine in 2011, Warburton and his c0-author wrote that “except for nuclear power, there are no straightforward strategies for reducing dependence on fossil fuels without large economic costs.” http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/wind-and-solar-generation-half-the-cost-of-nuclear-95493
Labor and Liberal keen on uranium mining, and on promoting geothermal energy
Dennis Matthews, 24 April 14 The hot rocks geothermal energy industry has been generously supported by both Labor and Liberal governments. The first grant was $1million from the Federal government to the University of NSW in September 1999. Since then grants totaling about $300million have been made in support of the industry.
Focusing on one particular grant (The Advertiser, 24/4/14) obscures the real problem of why so much effort has gone into supporting this industry.
Funding has often been accompanied by considerable media hype. Claims of cheap, low greenhouse gas emission, renewable, electricity have not been realised and issues of water use and radioactivity have not been adequately addressed.
Although wishful thinking seems to have been a major factor, bi-partisan political support for the mining industry, particularly uranium mining, seems to have played a major role.
Australia’s commission of audit not allowed to cost Abbott’s “Direct Action” climate policy
Audit not privy to multibillion-dollar direct action plan to reduce emissions http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/audit-not-privy-to-multibilliondollar-direct-action-plan-to-reduce-emissions-20140424-zqya6.html#ixzz2zro4nYhK April 24, 2014 Lisa Cox National political reporter The Abbott government’s multibillion-dollar “direct action” carbon reduction plan was not considered by the commission of audit, and key details of the scheme remain unknown.
The head of the audit of government spending, Tony Shepherd, told Fairfax Media that the commission had not considered the controversial $3.2 billion policy because it was not provided with any details.
The comments come ahead of the imminent release of the government’s “direct action” white paper – expected as early as Thursday – elements of which have been closely guarded by the office of Environment Minister Greg Hunt. The paper is expected to clarify key pieces of information, including how “direct action” will work and the mechanisms behind the key component of the policy, the $1.55 billion emissions reduction fund.
Mr Shepherd said on Wednesday the commission had been unable to assess “direct action” because there was no information available on the policy during the three months it was conducting its review.
“The Commission of Audit couldn’t really look at it because we didn’t have a policy to look at,” he said.
“If they had a policy and it was out there we would have had a look at it, but in the absence of any detail we couldn’t.”
Mr Shepherd said that as a result, the commission’s report contained no information on “direct action”, although he did not necessarily view that as a problem, despite the scheme carrying a price tag of up to $3.2 billion.
“There’s a number of other government policies and things that are evolving at the moment,” he said.
“You’ve got to draw the line somewhere.”
The government is facing a tough battle to win over MPs with its plan to replace Labor’s carbon tax.
Labor and the Greens do not support “direct action” and Fairfax MP Clive Palmer declared this week that his Palmer United Party also would not back the “hopeless” policy.
Mr Palmer has threatened to reconsider his position on the carbon and mining taxes if the government does not bring direct action legislation to the Senate for debate.
Maurice Newman, Abbott’s top adviser, informs us that climate change is not real!
No evidence that man has caused warming Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Lateline Broadcast: 22/04/2014 Reporter: Emma Alberici
Maurice Newman, the chairman of the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council discusses climate change and says that there is little correlation between carbon dioxide and the warming of the planet.
Transcript
EMMA ALBERICI, PRESENTER: One of Tony Abbott’s first acts in Government was to appoint Maurice Newman as the head of his Business Advisory Council. Mr Newman is the former Chairman of both the Stock Exchange and the ABC. He’s our guest this evening and he joined me earlier in the studio for this exclusive interview. ……..
EMMA ALBERICI: It’s no secret that you don’t agree that man-made CO2 is causing global warming. Given there is now consensus among 97 per cent or so of climate scientists across the world that the view – around the view that human activity is responsible for climate change, what would it take to convince you?………
MAURICE NEWMAN: I just look at the evidence. There is no evidence. If people can show there is a correlation between increasing CO2 and global temperature, well then of course that’s something which we would pay attention to. But when you look at the last 17.5 years where we’ve had a multitude of climate models, and this was the basis on which this whole so-called science rests, it’s on models, computer models. And those models have been shown to be 98 per cent inaccurate.
EMMA ALBERICI: By?
MAURICE NEWMAN: By Roy Spencer, who’s carried out a thorough review of all of the models and the empirical data which against both land-based and satellite-based measuring. And they were found to be wrong………
EMMA ALBERICI: He is. He was at NASA. His colleagues at NASA disagree with him…………
Clive Palmer says that Abbott’s “Direct Action” climate policy useless and a waste of money
Direct Action is a waste of money: Palmer Herald Sun, 21 April 14 FEDERAL MP Clive Palmer has strongly indicated his party won’t support the Abbott government’s climate change direct action plan, labelling it a “token gesture” and a waste of money.
The Palmer United Party leader and mining magnate said the money allocated for the policy should be used for pensions, which could be under review in the May budget.
Mr Palmer said the rights of pensioners were more important and had greater priority than “a token gesture to addressing carbon issues”…….http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/direct-action-is-a-waste-of-money-palmer/story-fni0xqi4-1226891204355
1 This month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/235274195556
21 April Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-04-21 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-04-21 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
Event Type: Virtual
A virtual link will be communicated before the event.
Host Contact Info: australia@icanw.org
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 