8 May – antidote to uranium lobby lies about the “benefit” to Western Australia
AUSTRALIA’S URANIUM EXPORT REVENUE IN PERSPECTIVE YELLOWCAKE FEVER Exposing the Uranium Industry’s Economic Myths , Australian Conservation Foundation “….In WA, the Liberal National Government’s ‘Royalties for Regions’ policy was meant to use mining royalties to fund schools, health services and other community infrastructure. But $80 million was redirected to support mineral exploration and a significant amount has gone to uranium companies despite the promise that the Government would not fund uranium mining.
This issue was highlighted in the March 2013 state election context when community opposition led to the WA Nationals commitment to end R4R uranium funding…..” http://www.acfonline.org.au/sites/default/files/resources/ACF_Yellowcake_Fever.pdf
Deputy Liberal leader Julie Bishop promotes nuclear power for Australia
Bishop urges resources industry to back nuclear energy Financial Review, JONATHAN BARRETT, 8 May 13,
Deputy Liberal leader Julie Bishop has urged the resources industry to try to win public support for the politically sensitive case for nuclear energy.
Sitting in the audience at a business event in Perth on Tuesday, Ms Bishop asked a panel whether miners were doing enough to defeat “social activists” opposed to the development of the country’s natural resources……..
Many Liberals, including leader Tony Abbott, have argued that Australia should seriously consider nuclear energy as a means to reduce carbon emissions, even though it is not an official policy being promoted before the federal election.
Ms Bishop, the shadow minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, has just returned from Russia, which recently received its first shipment of uranium from Australia. Her comments indicate she would also like to see Australia consider using its own vast reserves of uranium to produce nuclear power…… http://www.afr.com/p/2100/bishop_urges_resources_industry_TxeDLLGD90FDbofFcD4R9L
Australia’s Opposition Party and the sound-bite media
UKIP’s dangerous precedent for Australian conservatives, REneweconomy, By Giles Parkinson on 6 May 2013″………modern media has trained their readers to consumer news and politics in uncomplicated sound-bites, and now want their policy platforms to be delivered in the same way. It’s worked marvellously for Tony Abbott. The Australian Opposition leader popularity is based around three-word homilies such as “Stop the boats” and “axe the tax”. Never mind the detail – these policies bear little scrutiny and are impossible or impractical to implement: In sound-bite politics, no-one cares.
It shouldn’t be forgotten that Abbott was delivered to the top job in the Coalition – and a likely prime ministership – by a highly conservative rump of the Coalition that ended bipartisan support on climate change policies. It was led by senior politicians, such as Nick Minchin, who didn’t and don’t accept climate change science. Many still remain in the party.
Even more dangerously, bipartisan support is now fracturing around renewables, despite the fact that theAustralian Energy Market Operator has found that 100 per cent renewables is emminently achievable, and not so costly, and that other studies such as Bloomberg New Energy Finance suggests that wind, and soon solar, are cheaper to build than new coal and gas fired generation – all of which needs to be replaced in the coming decades.
Despite this, all the state-based coalition governments remain married to the policy altar that deems that renewables are costly and useless, and don’t reduce emissions, and they want the renewable energy target killed or neutered.
Many of its new recruits – such Nahan, the Nationals’ Angry Anderson, the Liberals Angus Taylor and Zed Seselja, and the Canberra based would fit comfortably within the UKIP platform. As would many of the incumbents – Joyce, Corey Bernardi, Eric Abetz, Andrew Robb, Simon Birmingham, Michaelia Cash, Alby Shultz, Bill Heffernan, Ian Macdonald, and a host of others.
John Howard had just as many arch-conservatives in his own party, but he had the strength of leadership to keep the factions under control. The importance of this should not be underestimated. Even Labor’s right factions would have fought hard against progressive climate change and energy policies if they hadn’t been effectively neutered by the coalition with the Greens and the country independents.
The question is whether Abbott has the authority to keep these Tea Party and UKIP style politics under control, or even if he wants to. He owes a debt to those who thrust him into power in the first place, and has never convincingly laid his “climate change is crap” remark to rest. He may just gladly go along with those that want to extend those policies to curb renewables. Has anyone heard a Coalition politician say they shouldn’t? http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/ukips-dangerous-precedent-for-australian-conservatives-13428
Politicians against renewable energy are losing in USA, but perhaps not in Australia?
In Australia, a similar battle is about to be waged. The difference here is that renewable energy targets are a federal policy mechanism, but the four mainland conservative state governments (Queensland, NSW, Victoria and Western Australia) are lined up firmly against them, and the new energy minister in WA, Mike Nahan, has upped the ante – possibly in anticipation of the Coalition winning the federal poll in September.
Are renewables doomed to failure in Australia?, REneweconomy By Giles Parkinson 3 May 2013 Across the United States right now, a pitched battle is being fought over the future of renewable energy targets in the 29 states that have them. Already, 16 of these states are considering legislation – templated by a fossil fuel-sponsored lobby group, the American Legislative Exchange Council – to repeal or dilute the ambition of renewable standards.
So far, the campaign – boosted by Tea Party radicals in the Republican movement – has not been successful. In the past week, North Carolina rejected the idea after leading utilities such as Duke Energy, and big data centre operators such as Apple and Google expressed their support for wind and solar projects.
In Colorado, the ALEC bill met a similar fate, with the state deciding instead to lift its clean energy standard for rural electric cooperatives to 25 per cent by 2020 — a 15 percentage point jump from the current 10 per cent.
Still, the fate of other state-based RPS schemes remains in the balance. ALEC task force director Todd Wynn recently told Bloomberg that 2013 will be the most active year yet in efforts to repeal renewable energy standards. “Natural gas is a clean fuel, and regulators and policy makers are seeing how it’s much more affordable than renewable energy.” Continue reading
Australia’s Labor and Liberal Energy Ministers wage war against renewable energy
Are renewables doomed to failure in Australia?, REneweconomy By Giles Parkinson 3 May 2013“…….The appointment of Nahan [as Minister fotr Energy, W.A. ]– along with Queensland’s Mark McArdle, NSW’s Chris Hartcher, and Victoria’s Michael O’Brien – and the impending return of the federal Coalition’s Ian Macfarlane, has doomed the industry to another period of uncertainty and inaction. All, it would seem, in the name of ideology. Look-alike energy ministers in Canberra
On the subject of federal energy ministers, it was fascinating to hear the newly appointed Federal Minister for Resources and Energy Gary Gray speak about the issue at a conference in South Australia this week.
As RenewEconomy pointed out after the resignation of former minister Martin Ferguson last month, he and his ultimate successor, the Liberal energy spokesman and former minister Ian Macfarlane, were like two peas in a pod – sharing like-minded, highly conservative views on Australia’s energy policies and how its energy system should evolve.
Gray – who says he is no longer a climate skeptic – is probably only keeping the seat warm for a return of Macfarlane come the September election, but he wants it known that he is of the same ilk as Ferguson, whom he labelled as a sometimes grumpy but “hardworking visionary,” and his Coalition counterpart.
“In many ways it really doesn’t matter from a Federal perspective if you look back at any (Federal Energy Minister), Ian Macfarlane or you look at Martin Ferguson, hopefully myself, you effectively see the same person,” Gray told a resources conference in Whyalla. “You see a Canberra political system that places the resource industry and the resource sector above politics, that cares deeply for the success of this sector and enjoys its success in the most obvious way.”
In the case of all three, it’s a matter of stepping on the gas. Gray is convinced the shale gas boom will deliver lower gas prices to Australia, notwithstanding that everyone else, including the gas operators themselves and market analysts, point out that gas prices will match export prices – and that means they are going up………. http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/are-renewables-doomed-to-failure-in-australia-47501
Mike Nahan from Institute of Public Affairs – Western Australia’s Minister Against Renewables
Are renewables doomed to failure in Australia?, REneweconomy By Giles Parkinson 3 May 2013 “………Mike Nahan (Western Australia) is an interesting choice as energy minister. For supporters of renewable energy, he’s actually quite a frightening one.
The American-born Nahan is a former executive director of the conservative, pro-market, anti-renewable think tank, 
the Institute of Public Affairs, which is so intertwined with conservative policy making that many Coalition politicians refer journalists to the IPA for comment on issues such as energy and climate.
A collection of Nahan’s thoughts on climate and energy can be found on the IPA website as, like his contemporaries and successors, he was a prolific contributor to (mostly Murdoch-owned) newspapers. They give an interesting insight into his views on all things climate, energy and environment.
In 2005, he questioned the science of climate change. “Not only is the fact of global warming unclear, but a fully honoured Kyoto Agreement would have had only a trivial effect on temperatures,” he wrote in theHerald Sun.
In 2006, in the same paper, he hallelujahed the creation of the pro-nuclear and pro-business Australian Environmental Foundation, which has strong links to anti-wind farm groups. He also praised the expansion of the massive Hazelwood brown coal-fired power station, describing one of the country’s most polluting power plants as “efficient, profitable and clean.”
And, of course, he doesn’t like the Greens, accusing them of being “Watermelons” – former socialists who were red on the inside and green on the outer. He even decried the focus of Environment Day, saying such events should be a celebration of achievements – such as the fact that there were, he wrote in 2004– enough whales to support large whaling fleets.
Elsewhere, Nahan mocks the idea that the planet is depleting its resources, praises Conservative pin-up boy Bjorn Lomborg, and suggests that the global environment is actually improving rather than degrading. He also scoffed at suggestions that the Murray Darling Basin had water or salinity issues – both here and here.
Elsewhere, he dismissed the concept of “negawatts” – the idea promoted by the likes of the International Energy Agency that energy efficiency can play a critical role in decarbonising the world’s energy system, and to save money – as “activist jargon for subsidised energy conservation.” His preferred term was ‘megawatts’ – code for building more coal, gas and nuclear plants and burn as much fuel as possible.
Just in case you thought he might have evolved since being elected to state parliament in 2008, his views of wind and solar remain staunchly conservative, old school and just plain wrong. In a recent parliamentary debate, Nahan insisted wind energy required “one-for-one” backup by fossil fuel generators and did not reduce greenhouse gases, said solar cells were “hugely more costly” than polluting alternatives, and the only “low-cost, baseload, greenhouse-low energy” that existed was nuclear power.
He said Western Australia should consider nuclear power, but conceded they “do not fit the grid, because they are too big; they are too lumpy … our system is too peaky and nuclear would not fit. And then he goes on to suggest that the government should “consider nuclear power for the Pilbara,” which is an even smaller grid…………http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/are-renewables-doomed-to-failure-in-australia-47501
Australia has yet another Minister For Promoting Nuclear Energy, Gary Gray
we thought we would have a Minister for ALL Resources and Energy – such as for Renewable Energy. But we thought wrong!
New Federal Resources and Energy Minister Gary Gray says he supports nuclear energy industry, Adelaide Now, by Valerina Changarathil, 1 May 13, FEDERAL Resources and Energy Minister Gary Gray has thrown his support behind developing a nuclear energy industry in Australia but says it will happen in a “timely fashion”.
Minister Gray’s comments came in response to a question at the South Australian Resources and Energy Investment Conference specifically about considering changes to current legislation that prohibits nuclear power generation in Australia given the power requirements of the resources industry.
“Yes. I am a real optimist for the future of the uranium mining industry,” Mr Gray said. He said he was pleased to see approval for the latest uranium project by SA company Toro Energy in WA had passed “through the system”.
“We can’t discount the importance of what is happening in the global uranium markets,” he said.
The global uranium industry is currently reviewing its processes after the Fukushima nuclear plant disaster in Japan triggered by the earthquake in 2011.
“I am optimistic that we will get (power) generation issues attended to and that it will be done in a timely fashion.”
Labor is opposed to nuclear power generation……
At the uranium conference on Monday, SA Mineral Resources and Energy Minister Tom Koutsantonis said there was no business case for nuclear enrichment facilities here and that it was not commercially viable.
“I don’t see a case for it in the near future,” he said, although he has expressed support for it in the past.
“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 a conference in 2011……
Mr Gray has been in the role for a month and replaced Martin Ferguson who was sacked. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/sa-business-journal/new-federal-resources-and-energy-minister-gary-gray-says-he-supports-nuclear-energy-industry/story-e6fredel-1226633083969
Senator Ludlam calls on Australian government to press Britain to compensate Maralinga veterans
British Government fails test on Australian nuclear victims, but fight continues 29 April 2013. Efforts to secure Act Of Grace payments for the victims of British nuclear testing will be stepped up after the British Government’s disappointing response, Senator Scott Ludlam said today.
“I call on Foreign Minister Bob Carr to raise this proposal directly with his UK counterparts.
“Because of difficulties victims of the British nuclear testing were facing in the courts, I wrote to British Foreign Secretary William Hague twice making the case for ex gratia payments to Australians exposed to British nuclear testing in the 1950s and ‘60s.
“The British Minister for Defence Personnel Welfare and Veterans Mark Francois has now responded by washing his hands of the deadly legacy his government left in Australia, paradoxically arguing that because the victims of nuclear testing could not prove in court their higher rate of radiation-related illness was caused by the nuclear testing, they would not receive Act Of Grace payments.
“The point of Act of Grace payments would be to circumvent the inappropriate burden of proof of causation being imposed on the victims – yet Minister Francois applies the same utterly unreasonable standard that has hampered attempts to secure justice through the courts.
“Australian nuclear veterans are pursuing the matter through the Human Rights Commission and strongly support this action, but they should not have expend this ongoing time and effort to get what is rightfully theirs.
“The Australian Government must bring diplomatic pressure to bear on the British Government to do their duty and compensate the people exposed to radiation; to make amends and to ensure they and their families can afford medical care.”
These are the questions that journalists should be asking of politicians
Your MP doesn’t ‘believe’ in climate change? Ask the tough questions, The Conversation, Brad Farrant, Fiona Armstrong, 
Karen Kiang, Mark G Edwards , 27 April 13, “….
we propose a series of questions that journalists (and the public) should be asking politicians on global warming, and how governments should respond to it.
- Are you aware that over 97% of climate scientists globally, the CSIRO, the Australian Academy of Science and every major national science academy in the industrialised world (whose membership includes climate scientists) agree that the planet is warming, that the observed climate change is mostly human caused, and that if we continue with business as usual, harsh impacts and irreversible changes to the climate system will occur?
- Do you accept that the human population is making a substantial contribution to climate change via our greenhouse gas emissions? If not, what specific scientific sources and references do you rely on to justify going against the scientific consensus?
- Is it your position that Australia and the rest of the world need to urgently adopt policies to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions in line with scientific recommendations? If not, what specific scientific sources and references do you rely on to justify rejecting the scientific consensus?
- Are you aware that the impacts of climate change in terms of increased risks to human health and climate change related deaths is already being measured by medical and public health professionals worldwide?
- Do you accept that anyone who argues that we continue with business as usual and emit greenhouse gases beyond levels that the consensus of climate scientists says is dangerous for humanity (and the ecological system on which humans depend) should bear the burden of proof to show that this is safe?
- Do you accept that, in light of the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence and the long-standing consensus of climate scientists, politicians have a responsibility to immediately implement strategies to prevent dangerous climate change?
- Given that climate scientists have been advising the urgent reduction of greenhouse gases for decades, do you accept that politicians who fail to implement policies to prevent dangerous climate change should be held responsible for harm that results from this inaction?
- Do you accept that climate change is occurring? If not, what specific scientific sources and references do you rely on to justify rejecting the scientific consensus? http://theconversation.com/your-mp-doesnt-believe-in-climate-change-ask-the-tough-questions-13432?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The+Weekend+Conversation&utm_content=The+Weekend+Conversation+CID_746b0f21860e09252d87a376993410ea&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Your%20MP%20doesnt%20believe%20in%20climate%20change%20Ask%20the%20tough%20questions
- We might ask politicians a few of these ourselves. Have a go yourself – and let us know how you get on. We’d be pleased to write about it.
Australia’s Opposition climate change spokesman Greg Hunt talks nonsense on CEFC
CEFC may write financing contracts before July, REneweconomy By Giles Parkinson 26 April 2013 “…..Hunt’s big dodgy number games
Last Sunday, Opposition climate change spokesman Greg Hunt appeared on the Bolt Report, the program hosted by noted climate skeptic and News Ltd journalist Andrew Bolt, complaining about the government’s“dodgy numbers” on its climate policy.
Hunt knows something about dodgy numbers. That’s how most experts describe his Direct Action policy, but on ABC Radio on Wednesday he came up with a new one when he said (unchallenged) that the CEFC would spend up to $240 million a day between July 1 until the writs for the election are issued in early August. Hunt was so satisfied with his statement that he tweeted it too.
Of course, it’s utter nonsense, as Hunt well knows. He arrives at that figure by dividing the $10 billion in funds the CEFC will have at its disposal over 5 years, by the number of days between July 1 and the election writs. But these funds are only allocated in $2 billion batches over 5 yeas, so even if the CEFC spent its entire 2013/14 budget is the first six weeks, it would be well short of Hunt’s number. But, the bigger the number, the bigger the scare.
And the CEFC is not likely to rush its entire funds out the door in one fell swoop. The CEFC can only be disbanded by an act of government, which makes it as easy, or as difficult, to unravel as the carbon price. Unless the Coalition gets a majority in the Senate, or the Labor rump rolls over, then the CEFC could continue for a while longer.http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/cefc-may-write-financing-contracts-before-july-28670
South Australian Premier admits mistake in over promoting uranium and rare earths projects
VIDEO Mining promises too bold, concedes SA Premier http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-23/mining-promises-too-bold-concedes-sa-premier/4645662 Apr 23, 2013 South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill has conceded the Government needs to be more cautious about spruiking mining opportunities in the state. Rare earths company Arafura Resources is to scrap a minerals processing plant planned for Whyalla and keep more of its operations close to the mine site north of Alice Springs.
Mr Weatherill said he agreed with the Opposition the Government had a track record of overselling mining projects but underdelivering.
“I think this was a bit over-spruiked. It was always a speculative project but at the time it was always one that was a realistic project,” he said.”We did no more or less than back up what the company was saying about what they proposed to do, but I think we should be a little more cautious about that and obviously cases like this indicate that.”
Mr Weatherill said with both the shelved BHP Billiton Olympic Dam mine expansion and now Arafura’s project, the Government only backed up what the companies had told it.
“We did the thing we could do which was to provide speedy approvals, now to the extent to which we jump up and down and say this is going to happen is something we can control and we have to take a bit of care about that,” he said.
“It’s difficult to underestimate the significance of these projects, because they are significant.”
Dave Sweeney from the Australian Conservation Foundation said the loss of hundreds of potential jobs was a disappointment for Whyalla, but the decision against shipping material south for processing was a win for the environment.
“There are real concerns with this sort of processing and rare earth processing – you’re dealing with radioactive materials including uranium,” he said.”You would have radioactive exposures and elevated radiation levels in the area, you’d be left with a waste stream that would include a range of radioactive materials that pose a long-term human and environmental problem.”
No to uranium mining in Queensland: ALP reaffirms their stand
Qld State ALP reaffirms support for uranium ban http://workersbushtelegraph.com.au/2013/04/17/qld-state-alp-reaffirms-support-for-uranium-ban/ “Environmentalists welcome the State ALP’s reaffirmation of their policy of opposition to uranium mining in Queensland” said Friends of the Earth spokesperson, Ms Robin Taubenfeld.
Yesterday Jackie Trad, State ALP member for South Brisbane tabled a report, published by environmental groups and trade unions, in State Parliament.
The report, “High Risk – Low Return: The case against uranium mining in Queensland” exposes the State Government’s claims about jobs and royalties as being without substance.
Jackie Trad MP argued that the uranium industry was only likely to create 155 long-term jobs, according to a Deloitte Access Economics report from 2008. Jackie Trad MP argued that the risk to agricultural and tourism jobs far outweighed claims made by the Premier, claiming “The risks to both the reputation and sustainability of our agricultural industry and food security from uranium mining are real.”
Ms Trad has said that “Queenslanders need to ask themselves this very important question – is the small economic return on uranium mining worth the risk it poses to established industries, our precious environment and the health and safety of workers?”
Robin Taubenfeld said “State investment in renewable energy would create more jobs. The uranium industry has a terrible accident history and this poses a significant threat to the environment and our way of life in Queensland.”
The “High Risk – Low Return” report can be downloaded from http://www.qnfa.org.
Victoria’s Premier Napthine hypocritically toes the fossil fuel line on wind energy
I love them, but we can’t have them everywhere: Premier on wind farms, The Age, Tom Arup, 13 April 13, Premier Denis Napthine has declared his personal love for wind turbines, but says his government’s restrictions to where they can be built won’t change….. ”
“I think they are majestic, and I actually love them.”..…
A review by the National Health and Medical Research Council found in 2009 that there was no published scientific link between wind farms and adverse health impacts. The council is now updating its review to
be released later this year.
A report by Sydney University public health expert Professor Simon Chapman this year concluded heath impacts attributed to wind farmswere more likely the result of alarm caused by activists circulating health warning. http://www.theage.com.au/environment/energy-smart/i-love-them-but-we-cant-have-them-everywhere-premier-on-wind-farms-20130412-2hq81.html#ixzz2QNN2B3sA
Julian Assange brings fresh vision into Australia’s threatened democracy
That Assange’s Wikileaks movement is growing a political arm in
Australia is a logical step. There is no party in this country which
unambiguously believes that we need to roll back the surveillance
state. Greens Senator Scott Ludlam from Western Australia has been a
champion of this issue but he is too often a lone voice in the Senate.
The Wikileaks Party and Julian Assange are filling a gap in the
political ideas marketplace in Australia. Its fresh approach to
policy making and to democratic values is compelling.
Running the Assange Senate campaign like racing into cold surf on hot
day https://australiansforhonestpolitics.wordpress.com/2013/04/05/running-the-assange-senate-campaign-like-racing-into-cold-surf-on-hot-day/
Greg Barns April 5, 2013
Julian Assange has been treated appallingly by the Gillard government,
and the Tony Abbott led Opposition for that matter. But Mr Assange’ s
Wikileaks and its underpinning philosophies of both blowing open the
world of secrecy that permeates bureaucracies and the political
masters they serve – and reducing the footprint of the state in the
lives of individuals in a democracy – are highly attractive. Continue reading
Abbott’s carbon tax policy doesn’t make sense – report finds
Report says Coalition carbon tax policy doesn’t add up http://www.miningaustralia.com.au/news/report-says-coalition-carbon-tax-policy-doesn-t-ad 3 April, 2013 Matt McDonald According to modelling by research group RepuTex, scrapping the carbon tax without implementing other industry changes would put a stop to investment in Australia’s renewable energy sector.
As SMH reports, if the Coalition wins the next election it plans to cut the carbon tax and retain the renewable energy target (RET).RepuTex’s associate director of research, Bret Harper says that the existence of the carbon tax is what makes renewable energy a viable investment option.
Without the tax $23 per tonne carbon price and the renewable energy certificate of about $32 per megawatt-hour, renewable energy is just not a realistic investment option.
“The carbon price is linked to the renewable energy target. For those who support the RET but not the carbon price, there’s a gap in the logic there,” Harper said.
Harper says that, given that the federal government has left the RET at 41,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity each year from 2020, between 2014 and 2020 the nation will need to increase its renewable energy capacity by about three times as much as it has in the past ten years.
So, if a future coalition government were to repeal the carbon tax it would also need to substantially increase the value of the renewable energy certificate to meet this ambitious RET. But as it stands, Coalition policy is to repeal the tax but leave other market conditions unchanged. “The existing scheme has a penalty price, which is effectively a price cap. If you remove the support of the carbon price but you don’t adjust the cap, then you will not see the renewable projects being built,” Harper said.
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
20 May – Webinar – The dangerous world of AUKUS, US, military occupation and suppression of dissent
National Webinar, 20th May, 2026, 6.30pm AEST. Confronting laws restricting/suppressing protest speech and action
Speakers: Former Sen. Rex Patrick, Lawyer Nick Hanna ,Arthur Rorris ,Jorgen Doyle, Sen David Shoebbridge,
Facilitator Kelley Tranter.
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 