Australian Community Renewable Energy Plan, a Greens initiative
Greens Launch Australian Community Renewable Energy Plan http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=3903 23 Aug 13 Power to, for and by the people is the essence of the Greens’ Community Renewable Energy Plan.
As we mentioned in June, dozens of communities throughout the nation have expressed a desire to develop community owned wind and solar farms; but few have received funding to assist in the early stages. At that point in time, a call went out for $50 million in funding to help kick-start these projects.
On Wednesday, the Australian Greens have launched a fully costed $100 million initiative over 5 years to provide funding for feasibility grants, project management and specialist expertise for community owned renewable energy projects. Continue reading
Christine Milne announcs Greens policy to promote community renewable energy.
Greens to give power to people : http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/greens-to-give-power-to-people-20130820-2s9dk.html#ixzz2cjGRYj August 21, 2013 Heath Aston
Political report Local communities could own and produce their own renewable power under a $100 million election plan to be announced by Greens leader Christine Milne on Wednesday.
The Greens would provide the money as seed funding to enable communities to invest in green energy to reduce or end their reliance on the fossil fuel-powered electricity grid. Similar schemes in Germany have involved small cities establishing hydro power schemes using the run of rivers.
In the US, communities have banded together to invest in solar.
Investment in wind power and other renewables has been hit by Labor’s promise to rush to an emissions trading scheme.
Peter Moran, Greens candidate for Throsby promoting steelworks in vestment in renewable energy technology
Illawarra Greens call for steelworks to invest in renewable energy technology ABC News by Nick McLaren 21 Aug 2013, The Greens candidate for Throsby Peter Moran says the local steel industry is unlikely to survive unless it starts producing products for renewable energy generation.
The Illawarra’s Greens candidates are calling on both major parties to invest more in renewable technology saying local businesses and manufacturers would benefit.
Mr Moran says the Coalition and the Labor parties both plan to cut clean energy funding.
He says more government assistance for BlueScope Steel would ensure the company remains viable. “Not just cleaner ways of producing steel but also increasing the amount of product that the Australian steel industry can sell into the market that will in fact create extra jobs in clean energy,” he said.
“For instance you can’t build wind turbines without using steel.”….
When you vote – how to manage the preferences maze
Below The Line http://www.belowtheline.org.au/ Your vote. Your preference. Your deal.
There are over 50 small parties running in this election — does one of them suit your vision for Australia better than Labor, Liberal, the Nationals, or even Family First or the Greens?
In Australia, you cannot throw away your vote.
Well, you can vote informally but simply putting a non-major party as your first preference won’t mean your vote is wasted. If your first preference candidate isn’t elected your vote goes to another candidate instead.
If my vote isn’t thrown away, where does it go?……. Vote below the line! Yes, it’s a lot more boxes to fill in but that’s where we can help. We’ve decoded the parties’ preferences to show you exactly what that means for your vote. If you like what they’re doing, you can vote above the line and know your preference is doing what you want. But if it doesn’t we provide you with the tools to make your vote do what you want without the problems of having to work out who all those people are once you’re in the polling booth.
If you’re ready to give it a go, let’s get started!
Victorian Liberal Sarah Henderson supports the anti wind farm campaign
Pollie Watch: Coalition candidate for Corangamite backs Baillieu’s anti-wind farm laws http://yes2renewables.org/2013/08/21/pollie-watch-coalition-candidate-for-corangamite-backs-baillieus-anti-wind-farm-laws/August 21, 2013 by Leigh Ewbank The Coalition candidate for Corangamite Sarah Henderson‘s support for renewable energy is in question as it was revealed she endorses Ted Baillieu’s controversial anti-wind farm laws. The revelation emerged in a community forum in Torquay on 13 August, in which Sarah Henderson expressed her support for the restrictive laws, saying that wind farms were “dividing communities.”
Of course, the only thing dividing communities are anti-wind campaigners and the restrictive laws preventing farmers from a drought-proof income stream. Ms Henderson’s claim wind farms divide communities ignores all of the available public polling which shows that three quarters of the community support more wind farms. Wind farms are even highly popular among Coalition voters.
The anti-wind farm laws Ms Henderson thinks is “good” policy has already affected one local proposal. Ted Baillieu’s anti-wind farm laws killed off the Surf Coast Energy Group‘s proposal for a community-owned wind farm, denying farmers a chance for a steady income as well as costing jobs in manufacturing, construction and maintenance.
Victoria’s restrictive wind farm laws also have implications for the Surf Coast Air Action group, who will release a detailed report on how Anglesea’s coal mine and power plant could be replaced by renewable energy sources, including wind energy.
Henderson’s endorsement of Victoria’s anti-wind farm laws may lead some to speculate whether her stance is influenced by her partner, state MP Simon Ramsay.
Mr Ramsay is associated with anti-wind farm campaigns. In 2012, Victoria’s shadow planning minister Brian Tee accused Mr Ramsay of misusing his parliamentary position to campaign against a wind farm near his property near Colac.
Poll after poll shows strong public support for wind farms. Yes 2 Renewables encourage Ms Henderson to reexamine her stance and adopt a position that aligns with mainstream views. It’s time for political leadership on wind energy, not more pandering to a noisy band of anti-wind farm campaigners.
Take Action
Greens maintain their stand for renewable energy, and mining tax
Greens reiterate commitment to mining tax and renewable energy in election lead-up http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-20/greens-reiterate-commitment-to-mining-tax/4900456 The Greens have launched their WA federal election campaign, naming the mining tax and renewable energy as focus points in the lead up to September 7.
The Greens say a 40 per cent tax rate for all big miners would not cripple the industry.
The party has already announced its plan to increase and broaden the mining tax as one of its key initiatives.
In Perth for the launch, leader Christine Milne says the industry can afford to pay.
“The political power of the big miners have frightened the old parties and instead they would rather take the money out of the pockets of single parents, take it out of universities, than take it out of the pockets of the big miners,” she said.
Last week, Labor’s national executive ordered the party to preference the Greens ahead of all others in every state except Queensland.
It boosts WA senator Scott Ludlam’s chances of returning to Canberra.
His seat is critically important if the party has any hope of maintaining the balance of power.
Senator Ludlam says he is focused on gaining primary votes rather than preference deals and he is not resting on his laurels.
“I think we’re in really good shape here but we’re on a knife edge and there are only a handful of seats between Tony Abbott and complete control of the parliament, and one of those is here in Western Australia,” he said.
“I feel nothing like a shoo-in, there is no such thing as a safe seat in politics and senate races are extraordinarily difficult to predict.”
Australia’s major parties ignore climate change and renewable energy
Despite efforts by some media to bring climate change to the forefront – as witnessed by the SMH editorial today – such pleas are likely to fall on deaf ears in the current campaign.
Neither Treasurer Chris Bowen nor Opposition spokesman Joe Hockey mentioned climate change or a clean energy transition in their hour-long debate on Monday, focusing instead on an absurd argument about revenue and budget forecasts in forward estimates – a complete irrelevance to everyday Australians and the major issues confronting the country.
Renewables future no more costly than fossil fuels REneweconomy, By Giles Parkinson on 21 August 2013“……..The consideration of future costs is a crucial point in the current federal political debate, where policies such as high emission reduction targets and high renewables scenarios – as proposed by The Greens – are seen as reckless, dangerous, marginal or fringe policies.
The frustration is that while such targets form part of the mainstream policy discussion in most other countries, each of the big parties in Australia are as keen as the other to put as much distance between themselves and the Greens. So while most other countries debate how quickly they should be moving to decarbonise the economy, the overall theme in Australia is how slowly it should be done.
The common reason for this is cited as cost to the consumer, but the reality is that the cost to consumer is no greater in these ambitious scenarios than it is under the more modest transitions modeled by Treasury. And if other environmental costs are included, such as the health impacts of fossil fuels, then the numbers change again. Continue reading
Tony Abbott keen to sell uranium to India, but Kevin Rudd is not
Australia and the great Indian uranium sale debate By Geoff Hiscock, CNN August 20, 2013 “…….Both the Labor and Liberal parties have a policy that they will sell Australian uranium to energy-starved India. So on paper, it looks like a bipartisan position.
But Rudd is a reluctant helmsman for his party’s policy, believing India must accept stringent conditions before it gets Australian uranium for its power plants. In his first stint as prime minister in 2007-2010, he was adamant that because India was not a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, uranium sales to it were precluded.
He said this was not a policy directed against India, but one that applied globally.
When Julia Gillard, the deputy prime minister who overthrew Rudd for the leadership in June 2010 (before herself being ousted in June this year by Rudd), decided to push through a Labor Party policy change on the uranium issue in late 2011, Rudd was not consulted.
Rudd has said that India does not need to source uranium from Australia. It gets most of its supply now from Russia, France and Kazakhstan.
Abbott’s Indian ambitions
In contrast, Abbott is happy to see Australian uranium shipped to Indian nuclear power plants. At the India Australia Friendship Fair in Sydney last year, he said: “Yes, we will sell uranium to India because we know that India is one of the world’s great democracies.”……
If Abbott wins office on September 7, expect Australia to give even more priority to India. If Rudd retains office, it will be a case of “steady as she goes.”
Ahead of his last visit to India in 2009, Rudd noted that like most of Australia’s relationships, the one with India “has some bumps in the road” occasionally. “But we can work our way through them,” he said. Uranium likely will continue to be one of those bumps. http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/19/business/australia-election-india-uranium/
Under Abbott’s “Direct Action” climate policy, the tax-payer pays the polluters
The Coalition’s climate change policy: it’s the public, not polluters, who pay The shortcomings of the Direct Action Plan are striking. If the Coalition is serious about tackling climate change, then it must offer voters a credible alternative to the carbon price The Guardian, Lisa Caripis 19 Aug 13
You don’t have to be a policy expert to realise that if the Coalition is serious about climate change, it will have to take its Direct Action Planback to the drawing board.
Having spent time analysing the parties’ climate change policies for the University of Melbourne’s Election Watch, I’m disappointed that yet another speech by Greg Hunt, the shadow minister for climate action, failed to answer key questions about the Coalition’s climate policy. As it stands, the Direct Action Plan falls short as a policy model for climate action: it’s questionable whether it will enable us to control and reduce our emissions at all, let alone to do so in a way that’s cost effective and fair.
The Coalition has said it accepts the climate science and is committed to Australia’s internationally binding target to cut emissions by 5-25% by 2020. The climate science makes it clear that without good policy intervention, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will continue to rise far above safe levels.
The first move of a Coalition government would be to repeal the laws establishing the current carbon price policy and replace them – by the middle of next year at the earliest – with a policy called Direct Action……..
The Coalition’s policies also jeopardise investment in renewable energy. It has promised to scrap the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the $10bn body set up to stimulate private investment in renewable and clean energy technologies, and to review the Renewable Energy Target (RET) in 2014. According to the chair of the peak body for the clean energy sector, the uncertainty created by the prospect of a second review of the RET in two years is deterring investment in renewable energy. Coupled with abolition of the carbon price, this uncertainty will make it more expensive to meet the RET.
Some have pointed out that at best Direct Action is a short-term model that is not viable in the long run. Yet the shortcomings of the Direct Action Plan as it stands are striking. If the Coalition is serious about tackling climate change, then it must offer voters a credible alternative to the carbon price. The various iterations of Direct Action the Coalition has presented to us so far simply don’t cut it. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/20/coalition-climate-change-direct-action
Australia’s unbalanced election debate – the environment is left out
One of the Australian economy’s strongest comparative advantages has been the wealth of the nation’s natural environment. Weak laws allow state governments and industry to further undermine this increasingly vulnerable natural resource base. Northern Australia is being targeted for a new era of dam building and agricultural industrialisation. But state water management regimes across the north are a shambles.
Australia’s environment and economy are bound together. Good economic management will protect and replenish our natural wealth. Bad economic management will destroy it.
When the federal election zoo closes down on September 7 the environment and economy will still be bound together. Question is, will the next federal government have noticed?
Environment lost in election zoo http://www.smh.com.au/comment/environment-lost-in-election-zoo-20130819-2s6du.html August 19, 2013 Paul Sinclair Australia’s environment is being held captive in a viewing cage in the federal election zoo.
The environment policy enclosure is located in a dilapidated, hard-to-find part of the zoo.
(At left, false economic thinking – environment is last consideration )The “economy” is the zoo’s premiere exhibit. The economy spends all day pacing a little square of synthetic grass in a deep, concrete-lined enclosure.
The poor thing is disconnected from every other living thing that has shaped what it is and could be. (At right – true economic thinking, with environment as the resource base)
By putting the economy and environment in separate cages Australia fails to properly manage either. Continue reading
What an Abbott government would do to Renewable Energy
Election could leave Australia with AUS$4 billion clean energy funding gap http://www.pv-tech.org/news/election_could_leave_australia_with_aus4_billion_clean_energy_funding_gap 20 Aug 13 Liberal Leader Tony Abbott’s climate approach could cut funding and policy incentives for renewable energy. Image: Flickr/TonyAbbott
If the Coalition defeats the current Labor government in Australia’s general election on 7 September, it could create an AUS$4 billion (US$3.7 billion) gap in funding for the renewable energy sector and other carbon cutting measures, research claims.
The centre-right Coalition, which currently leads opinion polls, would repeal the AUS$10 billion (US$9.2 billion) Clean Energy Finance Corporation, a state-backed financing vehicle, but supports the AUS$3 billion (US$2.7 billion) research focussed Australian Renewable Energy Agency, according to a report by the Climate Institute think-tank. Continue reading
Coalition election win would mean $4 billion in private funding sucked away from Australia’s renewable energy industry
Climate of uncertainty August 19, 2013 SMH, Ben Cubby, Tom Arup About $4 billion in private funding would be sucked away from Australia’s solar power and renewable energy industries over the next three years if the Coalition wins government, confidential data obtained from banks and financial analysts shows. Continue reading
Abbott and Rudd’s rush to Northern Territory – destructive to Aboriginal culture
Rudd and Abbott charge the north Eureka Street Dean Ashenden | 19 August 2013 Kevin Rudd has now joined Tony Abbott in a charge to the North. The common idea is that a substantial fraction of Australia’s population and economic activity can be pushed up and across the northern half of the continent. The assumption is that northern Australia is ours to do as we like with. In fact, it’s not.
Much of Australia’s Aboriginal population lives in northern Australia, and Aboriginal people make up a far higher proportion of the population there than anywhere else. They own or co-own, in both Western legal terms and in customary law, vast tracts of land, many of which are open to non-Aboriginal people only with Aboriginal permission. In northern Australia, Aboriginal people have constructed a distinctively Aboriginal way of life, as different from the mainstream as it is from ‘traditional’ Aboriginal society.
What the major parties are proposing is not necessarily a bad thing from Aboriginal points of view. What is bad is the assumption about our prerogatives. Official Australia has long looked at the north as a tabula rasa awaiting ‘development’, an unmissable opportunity and an infuriating failure. And apparently it still does………
Comment: Nearly forty years ago our family witnessed the process of European take over Aboriginal lands for mining and national parks. This was top end NT – where ‘consultation’ was a token one way talk in condescendingly broken English (‘leaders’ were largely identified by the Europeans as those closest to European culture) and trinkets were offered in the form of land tenure ‘privileges’ and co investments in mining, tourism amongst others along with employment opportunities and western education. I say ‘trinkets’ because most of this was as meaningless as the shiny mirror of eighteenth century. Today, little has changed except perhaps a few more Europeanised Aboriginal people are accepting opportunities on western terms and that makes the statistics look good for those who need them. Definitive statements on health and education policies and employment prospects are announced – ultimate solutions to persistent commitment to Country and cultural bewilderment leading to too many profound personal tragedies. How familiar these ‘new’ solutions are – nothing new, nothing new. The Top End has a very tough climate: towns are airconditioned refuges more often than not, surrounded by comforting gardens of southern or British plants. It is inhospitable to agriculture (we are to be the next ‘food bowl’ – check out the amount of sprays and fertilisers used to grown western foods). And it is only truly understood as an environment and as a living entity in its own right. – Jane .http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=37087#.UhP0g9Jwo6I
.http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=37087#.UhP0g9Jwo6I
What exactly IS the Coalition’s “Direct Action” climate policy?
The Coalition’s climate change policy: it’s the public, not polluters, who pay The Guardian, Lisa Caripis 19 Aug 13 “….. Essentially, Direct Action is a scheme that rewards entities that voluntarily reduce their emissions. So, if you’re an emitter you can propose an emissions reduction project to the government − it might be to improve your energy efficiency, store carbon in the soil or plant trees. The government compares your proposal to other project proposals, and picks the ones that will be the cheapest to implement. If it picks yours, you enter into an agreement to cut your emissions and are paid once you’ve delivered the emissions cuts.
You don’t have to be a policy expert to see where major cracks could form in this policy model. First and foremost, if the cash reward is to be the driving incentive, how large would the pool of funds need to be to drive the level of emissions reductions necessary to meet our 5-25% target? A report published last week estimates that, depending on the level of Australia’s 2020 target, it would cost $4-15bn more than the Coalition has currently budgeted. In fact, the report claims that the funding the Coalition has pledged is so inadequate that emissions would rise by 8-10% by 2020.
Under Direct Action it is the public, not polluters who pay. Is that fair? Unlike under a carbon price, there’s no cost, no disincentive, to keep polluting at the same rate. Indeed, Hunt recently suggested that the Coalition no longer even intends to penalise polluters that increase their emissions. So, Direct Action (ie taxpayer) funded projects would need to cut enough emissions to offset the emissions of non-participants.
Predicting and controlling the trajectory of Australia’s emissions under Direct Action would be quite a challenge. Without an annual cap on emissions or price per tonne of emissions as is in place under carbon price models, how would a Coalition government ensure that we are on track to meet our international obligations and reduce emissions to safe levels? What happens if projects fail to deliver the cuts as promised? Can we afford a policy that could leave our health, communities and property exposed to the substantial risks posed by climate change? …. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/20/coalition-climate-change-direct-action
Australian renewable energy jobs at risk, due to political uncertainty
Climate of uncertainty August 19, 2013 SMH, Ben Cubby, Tom Arup “………The renewables sector, which now employs more people than Australia’s car industry, is nervously awaiting the election result.
”Australia’s significant clean energy potential is being held back by seemingly endless rounds of review and, like the rest of the energy industry, our main need is for policy stability to drive investment in major projects,” said the chief executive of industry group the Clean Energy Council, David Green.
It comes as a survey of businesses found uncertainty about the future of the carbon price has had a negative impact on more than half the responding firms. The survey by consultants AECOM covered 180 leading companies, firms having to pay the carbon price and members of the group Business for a Clean Economy.
It found 65 per cent of businesses supported an emissions trading scheme, while 29 per cent supported a carbon tax. Just 7 per cent of businesses supported the Coalition’s direct action policy.The Business for a Clean Economy group – which was set up to endorse carbon pricing – includes energy giant AGL, furniture retailer IKEA, Westpac and multi-national Unilever.
A spokesman for the group, Andrew Petersen, said: ”While businesses across all sectors are getting on with the job of transitioning to a clean economy, substantial investment is being delayed due to the uncertainty around retention of the carbon price.” : http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/climate-of-uncertainty-20130818-2s55k.html#ixzz2cYRJLlFn
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 