Nuclear Lobby’s Warren Mundine and Tony Abbott are kindred spirits
Indigenous affairs: Tony Abbott says he and Warren Mundine are ‘kindred spirits’ Coalition
leader wants to work in close partnership with Mundine, who would head a new indigenous advisory council under an Abbott government Paul Owen in Sydney and agencies theguardian.com, Saturday 10 August 2013
The Coalition leader said there was a need to convert all the good thinking from indigenous leaders such as Mundine, Noel Pearson and Alison Anderson into practical action on the ground.
“Warren and I are kindred spirits and I’m really excited at the changes that have taken place in thinking about these issues over the last decade or so,” he told ABC radio on Saturday morning.
Abbott said he wanted to work in close partnership with Mundine, who would head a new indigenous advisory council under a Coalition government, and said the arrangement could make the difference needed to improve indigenous lives…… Mundine, the executive chairman of the Australian Indigenous Chamber of Commerce, is to spell out his vision at the Garma Festival in the Northern Territory on Saturday night. That will reportedly involve abolishing a range of indigenous governance bodies and excising townships from community-owned land to allow for private ownership of homes and businesses….. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/10/indigenous-affairs-tony-abbott-warren-mundine-kindred-spirits
Senator Ludlam asks awkward questions on Wiluna uranium mine project
WILUNA URANIUM PROJECT – MINE CLOSURE PLAN http://www.greens.org.au/wiluna-uranium-project-mine-closure-plan Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications
Legislation Committee Answers to questions on notice Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities portfolio
Budget Estimates, May 2013
Topic: Wiluna uranium project – mine closure plan
Senator Ludlam asked: But how much work around mine closure had been assessed by the minister? Presumably, something must have been done or he would not have had the confidence to give this thing the tick, even a conditional tick?
Ms Jones: Through the assessment process there were assessment documentation in draft and final form. Supplementary information was sought by the minister from the proponent on issues that cut across this matter. To give a succinct response, I would probably have to take that on notice and come back to you, Senator.
Senator LUDLAM: Maybe if you could, yes. I am interested in the degree to which the approval conditions side is open-ended. Does it have any lapse date at all, or is this an approval in eternity? If the company comes back in 20 years, will it be live, or does it have a lapse date?
Answer:
The proposed action was assessed by the Western Australian Environment Protection Authority under the bilateral agreement between the Commonwealth and Western Australian Government. The State assessment report addressed the issue of mine closure, including assessment of an Environmental Management Strategy for Mine Closure and Rehabilitation provided by the proponent. The Minister considered the State assessment report. The Minister also sought further information from the proponent in relation to the long-term integrity of the tailings storage facility, which was reviewed by the Supervising Scientist Division, Geoscience Australia and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency.
The approval is valid until 31 March 2043. Condition 2 of the approval states that if, at any time after five years from the date of this approval, the person taking the action has not commenced the action, then the person taking the action must not commence the action without the written agreement of the Minister.
Australian political parties’ policies on nuclear power and uranium mining
Well – you’d be hard put to find out about this. I scoured the web to get anything up to date about this. But no ! – in spite of all the media rubbish going on lately about how great nuclear power would be for Australia – no political party has a word to say about nuclear issues.
It seems that they think (even the Greens) that nuclear power is just irrelevant to the coming Australian election.
As for uranium mining – well despite its disastrous financial and environmental state, Australia’s mainstream media regards uranium mining as a great investment, terrific, we all love it
Indeed, the mainstream media does not cover nuclear/uranium issues as relevant. Even the current radiation crisis at Fukushima is not relevant news. (The ABC is an exception) Hiroshima Day came and went, as far as I could see, it was ignored by the mainstream media.
If it weren’t for Gem Romuld Outreach Coordinator International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons- Australia www.icanw.org.au we just wouldn’t know about our election parties’ nuclear policies.
So, thanks, Gem, for taking the trouble to let us know about party policies on nuclear power
Australian political parties’ policies on climate change and environment
Environment policy: where the parties stand ABC, By Sarah Clarke and Andrew Greene Aug 5, 2013 After slipping from the national agenda, the environment and climate change are now back to prominence. When the ALP was elected in 2007, prime minister Kevin Rudd made climate change centre-stage at the UN climate meeting in Bali, where he declared that Australia would ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
Mr Rudd first proposed an emissions trading scheme but postponed the idea. When she became prime minister, Julia Gillard revived a carbon price, in the form of a carbon tax, as a condition for getting the independents and Greens on side to form minority government.Following her departure, Mr Rudd has declared the carbon tax “terminated” as Labor promises to move to an emissions trading scheme by July 2014, one year earlier than planned.
The Coalition plans to scale back staff in the newly created Climate Change department, and merge it with the Environment Department. Under its “Direct Action” policy a number of initiatives and agencies set up by Labor will go.
On an international scale, Australia is one of the largest per capita emitters in the developed world. Australia’s carbon pollution represents 1.5 per cent of global emissions of greenhouse gases and our emissions are projected to continue growing by almost 2 per cent a year.
What aspects do the major parties agree/disagree on?
Greenhouse gas emission reduction targets
Both ALP and the Coalition agree on the science of climate change, and have formally backed Australia’s emissions reduction target of 5 per cent by 2020. But there are some differences:
- ALP: Committed to 5-25pc reduction on 2000 levels by 2020, based on the ambition of global agreement and 80pc reduction by 2050 which is in line with the UK and Germany. Signatory to second commitment period of Kyoto Protocol for 2020 reduction and intention to ratify.
- Coalition: Committed to the 5-25pc reduction on 2000 levels based on ambition of global agreement. Review in 2015 to consider longer term target in light of international agreement. Coalition has stated “in principle” support for second commitment period of Kyoto Protocol but no position on ratifications announced.
- Greens: Committed to 25-40pc reductions on 1990 levels by 2020, net zero emissions by 2050 and the second period of the Kyoto Protocol.
Carbon price
- ALP: Carbon pricing legislated in 2011 along with independent Climate Change Authority, Clean Energy Regulator, and Australian Renewable Energy Agency. Climate Commission established administratively in February 2011 to explain the science of climate change. Announced in July 2013 bringing forward emissions trading scheme to 1 July 2014 and cutting back Energy Security Fund from $4.3 billion to $2.5 billion.
- Coalition: Committed to abolish carbon price. Abolish the Climate Change Authority, Climate Commission, and the Energy security fund. Retain the Clean Energy Regulator and the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme (NGERS) as part of the administration of the Emissions Reduction Fund. Committed to introducing a carbon buyback via an Emissions Reduction Fund.
- Greens: Made carbon pricing a condition of supporting the Gillard Government after the 2010 election, including the creation of Multi Party Climate Change Committee. Do not support bringing forward emissions trading to 1 July 2014.
Clean Energy Finance Corp
- ALP: CEFC legislated in 2012 with funding of $10 billion over 5 years to leverage private investment to deploy and commercialise large scale renewable energy and energy efficiency projects with funding from July 1, 2013. Investment functions of Low Carbon Australia now merged into CEFC.
- Coalition: The CEFC to be axed and contracts already issued will not be acted on.
- Greens: Will oppose any attempt to repeal the CEFC.
International climate deal
- ALP: Labor supports a global deal through the United Nations negotiations and along with all member countries has agreed to set up a legally binding international deal for all major emitters by 2015 in Paris, to be up and running by 2019. Supports G20 and Major Economies Forum to shape global solution and climate deal.
- Coalition :The Coalition supports the role of the UN and will be engaged in the international negotiations. In addition, the coalition believes that as Chair of the G20 there’s an opportunity for Australia to further negotiations between the US, China, India and the EU to secure an international deal.
- Greens: Greens support a legally binding global deal through the UN negotiations by 2015.
Renewable Energy Target (RET)
- ALP: Committed to the RET of at least 20pc by 2020 which maintains target of 41,000 GWh large scale renewable energy generation by 2020. Commitment not to review RET until 2016.
- Coalition: Committed to the RET of 20pc by 2020 but will review it in 2014.
- Greens: Committed to the RET of at least 20pc by 2020 which maintains target of 41,000 GWh large scale renewable energy generation by 2020; 2030 RET target is 90pc.
Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA)
- ALP: Established ARENA but cut its budget in 2013. Approx $3 billion of support maintained and receives dividends from the CEFC.
- Coalition: Maintain ARENA and accepts Labor’s budget cuts. Would not receive dividends from CEFC if it was abolished.
- Greens: Opposed Labor’s cuts to ARENA in the 2013 Budget.
Carbon farming
- ALP: Set it up and committed $290 million to Carbon Farming Futures and Skills program. $44 million for complementary improvements in Natural Resource Management planning. Adopted new international rules which allow virtually all Carbon Farming Initiative credits to be sold to all polluters in the carbon pricing mechanism.
- Coalition: Committed to keeping it, and vowed to expand to include a wider range of emissions reduction methodologies to be available for purchase via the Emissions Reduction Fund.
- Greens: Supported the establishment of the CFI and negotiated amendments under the auspices of the Multi Party Climate Change Committee adding a ‘negative list’ which bans a range of project types……. http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/policy/climate-change/
Hypocrisy of Foreign Minister Carr: Australia DOES have the power to help Julian Assange
Australia could seek an assurance from Sweden that following the completion of all Swedish legal proceedings that Assange would be deported to Australia. This would be an entirely appropriate outcome for an Australian citizen who has been subject to extradition to a foreign country.
If the Gillard government was able to obtain these diplomatic assurances, which are consistent with international law, then Assange would face his accusers in Sweden and not face the prospect of onward extradition to the United States.
How Australia can end the Assange stalemate The Drum Australia can help Julian Assange negotiate his legal problems while remaining consistent with the norms of international law and with the level of assistance that would be offered to other Australians, writes Donald Rothwell. …….. the UK has indicated that it does not recognise Ecuador’s granting of asylum and if Assange were to leave the Embassy he is liable to arrest and extradition to Sweden.
Ecuador revealed in mid-August – as the Assange matter reached a pivotal point- that Britain had threatened to rely on its Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act and revoke the Ecuadorian Embassy’s diplomatic protection so as to enter and seize Assange.
This threat was extraordinary and without modern precedence and it was unsurprising that the Ecuadorian Government responded with such fury. British Foreign Secretary William Hague has now downplayed any suggestion that the Ecuadorian Embassy will be raided, and emphasised Britain will act consistently with international law.
Nevertheless, Hague and the British government have made it clear that they have a legal obligation to Sweden to extradite Assange and that they will continue to seek his arrest for breach of his bail conditions……..
Australia has been remarkably silent on some of these recent developments. Throughout the year Assange has been highly critical of what he claims has been a lack of support from the Australian government, but Foreign Minister Bob Carr insists that Assange has received more consular assistance than any other Australian in similar circumstances.
The reality is that Australia can still play a proactive, and perhaps even pivotal role, in seeking to bring about a resolution to the current stalemate. Continue reading
Tony Abbott aims to shut down clean energy initiatives
Renewables fear the worst as Tony Abbott targets clean energy REneweconomy, By Giles Parkinson on 6 August 
2013 Australia’s clean energy industry leaders have been invited to a special meeting next week to discuss the future of renewable energy policy in the country and to contemplate the unpalatable, as Coalition leader Tony Abbott began his campaign with an early lead and a call to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to cease its operations immediately.
A meeting of the CEOs of Australia’s largest companies involved in the renewable energy industry is believed to have been called by AGL Energy managing director Michael Fraser, who doubles as chair of the Clean Energy Council, to discuss strategies to protect the renewable energy target (RET). Or indeed to assess whether they have the political capital or influence to maintain the target as is under a Coalition government.
The crisis meeting comes as the Coalition takes an early lead in the first days of the election campaign, and with increasing uncertainty about the likely make-up of the Senate. The renewables industry fears that with a Coalition win, the lobbying from incumbent utilities and generators, including the Business Council of Australia, to have the RET diluted or removed will intensify, and there may be little political protection for the current target.
The renewable energy industry is probably the industry sector most directly affected by the outcome of this election. While Labor has vowed to push the next RET review out to 2016, the Coalition wants to have yet another review of the RET in 2014, and has expressed sympathy with pleas to dilute the fixed 41,000GWh target because of falling demand.
The uncertainty that this has created has already brought most large-scale developments to a halt. Continue reading
Labor’s “captain’s pick” Northern Territory candidate opposes Muckaty nuclear waste dump
Nova happy to spoil the party, NT News XAVIER LA CANNA | August 1st, 2013 LABOR’S “captain’s pick” Senate candidate Nova Peris said she would have crossed the floor to oppose the Muckaty nuclear waste dump – and would vote against her party if she felt strongly about other issues.
Ms Peris said the Muckaty nuclear waste dump – planned to be built near Tennant Creek – was one area where she would go against Labor Party policy.
“I met with the anti-nuclear campaign people and I also met with the NT environment mob, and I have met with the Tennant Creek residents, I have met with the unions and I have met with three of the traditional owner groups,” Ms Peris told the NT News .
“In my view I do stand with them in opposing that (nuclear dump).” Continue reading
Abbott’s gung-ho plans for Northern Australia might meet Aboriginal resistance
Developing Australia’s ‘frontier’ may be political pipedream
Stuff NZ, JAMES REGAN 29/07/2013″………ABORIGINES CONTROL THE NORTH Australia’s miners and Aborigines are uncomfortable bedfellows. The minerals beneath aboriginal land in the north can benefit the nation’s most disadvantaged people, but often mineral wealth clashes with their ancient beliefs.
In 1991 Australia’s then prime minister stopped then BHP’s planned Coronation Hill gold mine because of local Aborigines believed a giant serpent lived beneath the hill. A fifth of the Northern Territory is now owned or controlled by aboriginal groups and Abbott will need to convince them of the benefits of mining if he is to see a new resources boom.
Many Aborigines have joined environmentalist to discourage mining. Electronic sensors have even been installed in some places to warn if mining companies trespass.
The Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corp is campaigning for the massive Jabiluka uranium deposit, 300kms (185 miles) south of Darwin, to be included in the nearby Kakadu National Park to stop further development. Resources multinational Rio Tinto’s Energy Resources of Australia Ltd subsidiary is permitted to mine uranium around the site until 2021 but only as long as it adheres to restrictions imposed by indigenous land owners.
Green politicians, likely to be key swing votes in the upper house Senate after the election, oppose Abbott’s plan.
 Reply |
Forward |
 |
Click here to Reply or Forward
|
Global warming – a crisis not really recognised by Rudd or Abbott
”It’s a gradually building crisis, or a looming emergency, which makes it hard for people to grasp and for politicians to react to,” he says. Woods likens the rise in average global temperatures (which are incontrovertible by anyone sensible) to the frog which is slowly boiled.It might not feel like a crisis now, but we will still be cooked by the end of it.
When everything is a crisis, whom should you believe July 27, 2013 The Age, Jacqueline Maley Parliamentary Sketch Writer for the Sydney Morning Herald “………..some crises are sexier than others.
Most credible scientists would call the warming of the planet a crisis, or at least an impending problem, but you will not hear either Rudd or Abbott declare it one. For different reasons, it is not in their political 
interests to do so.
Rudd has moved heaven and earth (and created a budget hole of $3.8 billion) to neutralise the opposition’s anti-carbon tax campaign. The Prime Minister acted to ease voter concern about rising cost of living pressures, which rather disrupted the Gillard government’s narrative that the cost of living had either not risen, or where it had risen, had been offset by government compensation.
It’s a confused message, and it’s difficult to believe the government has designed the best possible emissions abatement scheme when it was initially created as a political fix, and then tampered with for another political fix.
Meanwhile, though Abbott points to the Coalition’s 30-page Direct Action Plan as evidence he can be taken seriously on climate change, it is difficult to believe it is a policy area close to his heart when he has previously declared the science ”crap” (comments he made in September 2009 to a Liberal Party function, reported by the Pyrenees Advocate. Abbott has since said he believes climate change to be real).
But now the heat has come out of the carbon tax debate, which was so rageful for so long, it might actually be possible to set Direct Action side by side with the government’s emissions trading scheme, and compare the policies with (dare I write it) cool heads. Continue reading
Australia’s right wing in a right mess about policy on wind energy
The debate over climate change has been an intellectual debacle for the political right. Their tribal hatred of environmentalists has driven them into a position of denouncing any technology favoured by their enemies. The only invisible substance with which Abbott and his backers should be concerned about is their disappearing intellectual credibility.
The right’s anti-wind campaign is pure scaremongering http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/23/abbott-wind-turbines-health-effects by John Quiggan, 25 July13 Climate change is a debacle for the Australian right. Their tribal hatred of environmentalists has driven them to denounce any technology favoured by their enemies Tony Abbott’s quip that emissions trading schemes represent “a so-called market in invisible stuff” has been rightly derided as a dog-whistle to climate denialists, unsuccessful only in that it was not pitched high enough to escape detection by the rest of us. Critics have had plenty of fun pointing out the many examples of “invisible stuff” that is, like carbon dioxide, critically important despite the fact that we can’t see it – electricity, financial risk, and so forth.
A point that has attracted rather less attention is the extent to which the views of Abbott’s team on climate are being driven by claims about something that is not only invisible and inaudible, but indeed non-existent – namely the supposed health effects of wind farms. The belief that wind farms are dangerous to human health has been widely propagated on the political right, despite the absence of supporting scientific evidence.
The leading Australian promoters of wind paranoia are the Waubra Foundation, the Australian Landscape Guardians and 
the Australian Environment Foundation (AEF). These groups are often linked with each other and with rightwing organisations like the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA). The AEF in particular is a straightforward front group – it was set up by former IPA senior fellow Jennifer 
Marohasy and originally operated out of the IPA offices in Melbourne.
The supposed health risks of wind turbines have also been pushed byGraham Lloyd in The Australian newspaper, other rightwing columnists like Miranda Devine, and conservative politicians including Craig Kellyand John Madigan.
To get the boring scientific facts out of the way, the National Health and Medical Research Council investigated the issue in 2009 and 2010. The review considered the potential health impacts of infrasound, noise, electromagnetic interference, shadow flicker and blade glint produced by wind turbines and concluded that, “at the time of writing, there was no published scientific evidence to positively link wind turbines with adverse health effects.” Continue reading
Australian politicians not keeping up with the renewable energy trend
Australia’s large-scale renewables ambition dashed by policy vacuum REneweconomy, By Giles Parkinson on 24 July 2013 If the Australian renewables industry was looking for affirmation from Australia’s two mainstream parties at the industry’s major annual conference this week, then it might have been disappointed. Instead, it appears destined for yet more uncertainty and a less ambitious conclusion.
An industry that is craving some level of “policy certainty” may have to wait another year or 18 months, depending on the result of the upcoming election, and there is growing concern that the ability of Australia to meet its minimum 20 per cent renewable energy target is becoming increasingly difficult. So much so that some in the industry appear ready to accept a delay in the target’s deadline.
Over the next seven years, more than $20 billion is expected to be spent on new wind farms, solar farms and other large-scale renewable energy projects – not counting the billions of dollars that are expected to be invested by households in rooftop solar.
All this was to be built to meet the fixed renewable energy target of 41,000GWh, which is supposedly a bi-partisan goal. Right now, however, while households continue to invest heavily in rooftop solar because it saves them money from their electricity bills, a lot of the large-scale investment is at a standstill.
This is due to the uncertainty created by the upcoming election, the insistence of the Coalition in having yet another review of the renewable energy target in 2014, and the failure of Labor to legislate for that review to be held in 2016 – as was recommended by the Climate Change Authority’s review of the RET, which was completed just seven months ago.
Further adding to the problems for renewables is the decision to move more quickly to an emissions trading scheme, which will result in a higher price for renewable energy certificates, and a complication of the politics around renewables, if the carbon price stays low…….
David Green, the CEO of the Clean Energy Council, said earlier that the two-year review was a recipe for instability for the market. One wonders if the industry regrets not pushing Labor to take on the Opposition and put the four-year review to a parliamentary test, given the uncertainty that is now created, and the growing possibility that a target will be diluted or deferred.
But Green, and Fraser, noted how the energy industry is changing – mostly as a result of the rooftop solar and the growth of “distributed generation”.
“The structure of the energy industry is changing,” Green said. It was moving from large-scale investment in pipes and poles to more active engagement with consumers, and more smaller-scale investments, embedded in the system. “We are beginning to shift the way we use electricity and the other fuels in the industry,” he said.. http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/australias-large-scale-renewables-ambition-dashed-by-policy-vacuum-26250
Gary Gray, Minister for Energy is loyal to the nuclear lobby, not to Australia
Gray shows folly of making ex-mining boss a Minister by backing nuclear power – again http://greensmps.org.au/content/media-releases/gray-shows-folly-making-ex-mining-boss-minister-backing-nuclear-power-%E2%80%93-again17 Jul 2013 Resources and energy Minister Gary Gray has again advocated nuclear power and uranium mining, showing his loyalty to the mining industry is distorting his judgement, the Greens warned today.
Senator Scott Ludlam said “An economists report has found the proposed first uranium mine for Western Australia – Toro’s Wiluna project – could only scrape a profit if the taxpayers foot the bill for the closure and clean-up of the site. The uranium sector is terminal, and it seems Gary Gray needs to be dragged kicking and screaming to the funeral”.
“At today’s uranium conference Minister Gray praised the Ranger mine’s output without mentioning its long and sorry history of accidents and spills.
“The deliberate myopia was particularly bad when the Minister mentioned the Fukushima Daiichi ‘incident’ and the fall in the world uranium price, ignoring the fact the uranium price had been disintegrating for four years prior to Fukushima, from a record high of almost $140 a pound to around $65 a pound. Minister Gray also neglected the fact Australian uranium was in all four reactors at Fukushima.
“Minister Gray’s claim that there is a significant role for uranium to play in addressing climate change is pure fantasy. In Europe 150 nuclear power stations are ear-marked for closure as countries such as Germany, Spain and Switzerland lead the way with huge and growing renewable energy sectors.
“Labor and the Coalition are in lock-step supporting the dangerous, dirty and obsolete nuclear power sector. Only the Greens are standing up for the clean energy and sustainable jobs the renewable energy sector will deliver.”
Tony Abbott wrong, Kevin Rudd running scared, on climate change
Dancing to Abbott’s tune SARA PHILLIPS ABC Environment 16 JUL 2013 Opposition leader Tony Abbott is wrong when he says the world is moving away from pricing carbon.
Abbott’s climate statements are incorrect and Rudd seems to be running scared on climate. Meanwhile the majority of voters still want a leader who is strong on climate change.”……It always surprised me that Abbott, as leader of the party that champions the power of a free market, would be opposed to a mechanism for reducing greenhouse gases that aims to harness this power.
And then there’s his comment that everyone else in the world has moved away from carbon pricing.
This statement is flatly incorrect. First there’s the European Union’s emissions trading scheme, which has been running since 2005 and encompasses 15 nations. Then there’s South Korea, New Zealand, India, parts of China and California (whose economy is bigger than most countries). Meanwhile a separate group of US states have come together with the aim of building an emissions trading scheme. Even Kazakhstan has an emissions trading scheme.
The World Bank released a report (pdf) in May which said “Regional, national and sub-national carbon pricing initiatives are proliferating. Despite weak international carbon markets, both developed and developing countries are mainstreaming carbon pricing initiatives in national climate change and development strategies.”……http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2013/07/16/3803539.htm
Abbott’s comments on carbon dioxide as being an “invisible substance” appeal to those who don’t believe that greenhouse gases are a problem. But the majority of Australians care about the climate and are prepared for action on climate to be taken.
Rudd should remember that he was propelled to power in 2007 partly because of his stronger stance on climate change than John Howard. His expulsion from the top job was in part because he softened his climate approach.
Moving faster to the ETS looks like running scared, when Australians have historically rewarded those who have stood firm on climate.
By dancing to Abbott’s tune, Rudd tangos to a man whose climate statements are incorrect. It’s not a good look for either of them.
Family First Senate candidate Bob Day is keen for Australia to build nuclear submarines
“Informed defence opinion tells us we need, as a minimum, three nuclear powered and six diesel powered subs. …..Australia should consider entering a joint venture with the UK to build our own nuclear powered submarines in the UK with the inclusion of South Australian labour”. Family First federal chairman and SA Senate candidate Bob Day quoted in – Australian Conservative, 17 July 13
Study finds that the Coalition’s carbon storage plan is not viable
Coalition’s soil carbon plan ‘unviable’, study finds SMH, uly 17, 2013 Peter Hannam Carbon economy editor The Coalition’s plan to store carbon dioxide in soil as a central plank of its climate policy has been thrown into further doubt by new research showing Australian soils are unlikely to offer low-cost emissions cuts.
A University of Melbourne survey of hundreds of Australian studies going back three decades found that using the country’s soils to offset a significant proportion of national greenhouse gases “is technically limited and economically unviable at the present time”. Published in the journal Nature Scientific Reports, it suggests farmers would lose out through soil-carbon projects at carbon prices backed by both the government and the opposition.
Report co-author Rick Roush, the Dean of the Melbourne School of Land and Environment, said most active soil scientists thought it would be “a stretch” for farmers to use the Carbon Farming Initiative – a policy that encourages soil-carbon projects and is backed by both major parties……
Sequestering carbon would likely be restricted to the top 10 centimetres of soil, and be limited by low-nutrient levels and water scarcity. Application of fertiliser would boost the sink capacity of soils but at a rising cost to farmers, Professor Roush said.
Better investment Carbon is slow to accumulate in the soil, and the agricultural methods mostly likely to encourage it, such as no-till farming, are already widely used, he said.
While the survey focused on Australian studies, Professor Roush said carbon bio-sequestration may not have much greater promise overseas. “Our gut suspicion is that it will also be disappointing even in areas that have better rainfall and better soil fertility to start with, for the same reasons,’’ he said. ‘‘It’s difficult to keep soil carbons accumulating when you continue to plough and cultivate annual crops.”http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/coalitions-soil-carbon-plan-unviable-study-finds-20130717-2q3e3.html#ixzz2ZQw8eNMA
1 This month.
20 September –National Day of Action in Melbourne on the International Day of Peace
Help Aunty Sue Protect Her Land and Sacred Sites From Destructive Rocket Testing.
.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 