Greens leader Adam Bandt introduces climate emergency Bill
‘People are angry and anxious’: Adam Bandt introduces climate emergency 
bill, https://www.sbs.com.au/news/people-are-angry-and-anxious-adam-bandt-introduces-climate-emergency-bill Greens leader Adam Bandt has introduced a bill to formally declare a climate emergency and set up a ‘war cabinet’ to tackle the crisis.
Greens leader Adam Bandt has painted a post-apocalyptic future for Australia unless the government declares a climate emergency.
Mr Bandt told parliament on Monday that “environmental collapse was here” as he introduced his bill to formally declare the crisis.
“It is not scaremongering, it is hard physics and we have just had a taste of it over the last summer,” he said.
He said northern Australia would be inhospitable for parts of the year, one-in-six native species would be extinct, mosquito-borne diseases will travel south and the country’s river systems will see more algal blooms that lead to mass fish kills in the Murray-Darling.
Under the bill, the government would be required to set up a “war cabinet” to tackle the crisis, government agencies would refer to the declaration of a climate emergency when developing policy and table annual reports on how they were meeting their obligations.
Mr Bandt’s bill was seconded by independent MP Zali Steggall, who knocked off former Liberal prime minister Tony Abbott for the NSW seat of Warringah at the last election.
“There is no doubt we are in the midst of a climate emergency,” Ms Steggall said.
We have a duty to Australian people … it is time for us all to be accountable.”
A climate emergency motion moved in October fell four votes short.
Greens Senator Hanson-Young calls for Senate Nuclear Waste Inquiry to meet in Whyalla, South Australia
 Nuclear bill referred to inquiry https://www.whyallanewsonline.com.au/story/6653019/nuclear-bill-referred-to-inquiry/?cs=1550&fbclid=IwAR3AvrninZlnLmX8r79QDkQopkBb5hXoWhguw106lCyiisCDdmWMy714MPM, Louis Mayfield 27 Feb 20,
The formal process for the federal government’s push for a nuclear waste dump in Kimba will be put under the microscope by the Senate Economics Committee, with a Greens Senator calling for hearing in Whyalla. On Thursday the Greens announced they would be referring the government’s legislation for the Nuclear Radioactive Waste Management Facility to a Senate Inquiry for ‘scrutiny of the laws and the process that led to this point’. South Australian Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young requested that the committee organise a public hearing in Whyalla and a visit to the federal government’s chosen site for the facility at Napandee.
“I have requested a hearing in Whyalla because it shouldn’t be left to the suits in Canberra to decide, anything less would be offensive to the communities involved,” she said. Senator Hanson-Young also claimed the site selection for the facility had been ‘dodgy from the start’.
“It’s ripped small communities apart and Traditional Owners have vehemently objected to the proposal,” she said. “It’s clear there isn’t broad community support for a nuclear waste dump in Kimba, despite what former Minister Matt Canavan would have everyone believe.”
“Port Augusta, Whyalla, Port Pirie and Port Lincoln and every town living along potential transportation route, should have been consulted and given an opportunity to have their say,” she said. “The Greens aren’t leaving it to the community of Kimba to hold the line on their own. A Senate Inquiry will give the entire proposal the scrutiny it needs.” The committee has resolved to report on the legislation in June, submissions to the committee are now open and will close at the end of March. |
|
#ScottyFromMarketing a ‘predatory’ centrist on climate policy with no plans for meaningful emissions reduction
 Wayne Swan Morrison a ‘predatory’ centrist on climate policy with no plans for meaningful emissions reduction, says SwanLabor president says party must work against PM’s PR strategy and get on with ‘solving the bloody problem’, Katharine Murphy Political editor, Sun 1 Mar 2020
Labor federal president Wayne Swan says Morrison does not have a serious climate policy ‘but as you would expect from a marketing guy, [he has] a clearly articulated PR strategy to use climate as a wedge. Labor’s federal president Wayne Swan will accuse Scott Morrison of engaging in “predatory centrism” on climate policy by styling himself as the pragmatist between the extremes of climate emergencies and denialism, when the government has no intention of driving meaningful emissions reduction. In a speech to be delivered on Sunday, Swan will argue Labor will only win the decade-long climate wars if it approaches the challenge with “pragmatic policy and ruthless organisation”. According to speech notes, Swan will say Labor needs to articulate a roadmap for the domestic coal powered industry “which manages its decline”……. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/01/morrison-a-predatory-centrist-on-climate-policy-with-no-plans-for-meaningful-emissions-reduction-says-swan |
|
In Victoria the goal of the nuclear lobby is to remove Victoria’s Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act
Nuclear lobby takes aim at Victoria to tackle prohibitions, Michael West Media, by Noel Wauchope | Feb 26, 2020 Having dithered on real action to tackle global warming, some in the Coalition are now taking a keen interest in solving it — by going nuclear. Noel Wauchope investigates what’s behind the sudden push to overturn legislation prohibiting the exploration and mining of thorium and uranium and puts a definitive case against a nuclear industry in Australia.
A batch of Coalition MP’s are pushing nuclear power as Australia’s answer to climate change. The group includes Katie Allen inner-city Melbourne Liberal, Ted O’Brien, Queensland LNP, Trent Zimmerman, North Sydney Liberal, Bridget Archer Tasmanian Liberal, David Gillespie Nationals NSW, Rick Wilson West Australian Liberal, and Keith Pitt, LNP from North Queensland, who was this week promoted to cabinet as Resources Minister. Former deputy prime minister and Nationals leader, Barnaby Joyce, is also a staunch proponent of nuclear power.
Arguing that nuclear power is the answer to bushfires and a heating climate when these are conversely nuclear’s greatest threat is akin to an argument by the Mad Hatter and the March Hare. The US National Academies Press compiled a lengthy and comprehensive report on risks of transporting nuclear wastes. They concluded that among various risks, the most serious and significant is fire. And indeed, climate change, in general, carries serious threats to nuclear reactors and the entire nuclear fuel chain.
But any port in a storm when you’re trying to sell a product that is expensive, unpopular, illegal in Australia and has the problem of long-lasting toxic wastes.
The Australian public’s renewed enthusiasm for action on climate change was timely. The nuclear lobby had, coincidentally already geared itself up for a campaign to overturn Australia’s State and Federal nuclear prohibition laws. The current Victorian inquiry is the latest in a spate of Parliamentary Inquiries aimed at removing these laws. Submissions are due by this Friday, 28 February.
The Inquiry’s Terms of Reference (TOR) are narrow:……..
It is clear the goal is to remove Victoria’s Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act 1983. The very first TOR makes the mining of uranium and thorium as the prime concern. Given Victoria could run a nuclear power station with uranium/thorium sourced from elsewhere, it is clear that, after years of pressure by thorium lobbyists, the underlying goal of this inquiry is to overturn the legislation prohibiting the exploration and mining of thorium and uranium in Victoria.
The Victorian legislation was brought in to protect this State’s precious agricultural land and iconic ocean coast from polluting mining industries. South Gippsland is particularly rich in thorium.
Nuclear lobby tries to water down Victorian prohibition
The Terms of Reference are overtly biased: with no qualification, they promote the nuclear industry as undoubtedly beneficial to Victoria. This is ludicrous, as the global nuclear industry is in a state of decline.
Meanwhile, the renewable energy technologies of wind, solar and storage are now recognised by CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator as, by far, the cheapest form of low carbon options for Australia, and are likely to dominate the global energy mix in coming decades
This first Term of Reference assumes that the “exploration and production” will result in nuclear power plants for Victoria, otherwise why do it? It also assumes that nuclear power will be effective in lowering C02 emissions.
However, there is no point in this “exploration and production” as it has been repeatedly demonstrated that nuclear power is no solution to climate change as in Dr. Paul Dorfman et al’s response to James Hansen on 20 December 2019 in the Financial Times.…….
The Terms of Reference are overtly biased: with no qualification, they promote the nuclear industry as undoubtedly beneficial to Victoria. This is ludicrous, as the global nuclear industry is in a state of decline.
Meanwhile, the renewable energy technologies of wind, solar and storage are now recognised by CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator as, by far, the cheapest form of low carbon options for Australia, and are likely to dominate the global energy mix in coming decades
This first Term of Reference assumes that the “exploration and production” will result in nuclear power plants for Victoria, otherwise why do it? It also assumes that nuclear power will be effective in lowering C02 emissions.
However, there is no point in this “exploration and production” as it has been repeatedly demonstrated that nuclear power is no solution to climate change as in Dr. Paul Dorfman et al’s response to James Hansen on 20 December 2019 in the Financial Times.……… .https://www.michaelwest.com.au/nuclear-lobby-takes-aim-at-victoria-to-tackle-prohibitions/
Legislation banning nuclear power in Australia should be retained
| Jim Green, Online Opinion, 27 Feb 2020, https://onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=20758&page=0
Nuclear power in Australia is prohibited under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999. A review of the EPBC Act is underway and there is a strong push from the nuclear industry to remove the bans. However, federal and state laws banning nuclear power have served Australia well and should be retained.
There are many other examples of shocking nuclear costs and cost overruns, including: * The cost of the two reactors under construction in the US state of Georgia has doubled and now stands at A$20.4‒22.6 billion per reactor. * The cost of the only reactor under construction in France has nearly quadrupled and now stands at A$20.0 billion. It is 10 years behind schedule. * The cost of the only reactor under construction in Finland has nearly quadrupled and now stands at A$17.7 billion. It is 10 years behind schedule. * The cost of the four reactors under construction in the United Arab Emirates has increased from A$7.5 billion per reactor to A$10‒12 billion per reactor. * In the UK, the estimated cost of the only two reactors under construction is A$25.9 billion per reactor. A decade ago, the estimated cost was almost seven times lower. The UK National Audit Office estimates that taxpayer subsidies for the project will amount to A$58 billion, despite earlier government promises that no taxpayer subsidies would be made available. Nuclear power has clearly priced itself out of the market and will certainly decline over the coming decades. Indeed the nuclear industry is in crisis ‒ as industry insiders and lobbyists freely acknowledge. Westinghouse ‒ the most experienced reactor builder in the world ‒ filed for bankruptcy in 2017 as a result of catastrophic cost overruns on reactor projects. A growing number of countries are phasing out nuclear power, including Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Belgium, Taiwan and South Korea. Rising power bills: Laws banning nuclear power should be retained because nuclear power could not possibly pass any reasonable economic test. Nuclear power clearly fails the two economic tests set by Prime Minister Scott Morrison. Firstly, nuclear power could not possibly be introduced or maintained without huge taxpayer subsidies. Secondly, nuclear power would undoubtedly result in higher electricity prices.
Former US Vice President Al Gore summarised the proliferation problem: “For eight years in Too slow: Expanding nuclear power is impractical as a short-term response to climate change. An analysis by Australian economist Prof. John Quiggin concludes that it would be “virtually impossible” to get a nuclear power reactor operating in Australia before 2040. More time would elapse before nuclear power has generated as much as energy as was expended in the construction of the reactor: a University of Sydney report concluded that the energy payback time for nuclear reactors is 6.5‒7 years. Taking into account planning and approvals, construction, and the energy payback time, it would be a quarter of a century or more before nuclear power could even begin to reduce greenhouse emissions in Australia (and then only assuming that nuclear power displaced fossil fuels).
Water consumption of different energy sources (litres / kWh): * Nuclear 2.5 * Coal 1.9 * Combined Cycle Gas 0.95 * Solar PV 0.11 * Wind 0.004 Climate change and nuclear hazards: Nuclear power plants are vulnerable to threats which are being exacerbated by climate change. These include dwindling and warming water sources, sea-level rise, storm damage, drought, and jelly-fish swarms. Nuclear engineer David Lochbaum states. “I’ve heard many nuclear proponents say that nuclear power is part of the solution to global warming. It needs to be reversed: You need to solve global warming for nuclear plants to survive.”
By contrast, the REN21 Renewables 2015: Global Status Report states that renewable energy systems “have unique qualities that make them suitable both for reinforcing the resilience of the wider energy infrastructure and for ensuring the provision of energy services under changing climatic conditions.”
To give one example (among many), the National Radioactive Waste Management Act dispossesses and disempowers Traditional Owners in many respects: the nomination of a site for a radioactive waste dump is valid even if Aboriginal owners were not consulted and did not give consent; the Act has sections which nullify State or Territory laws that protect archaeological or heritage values, including those which relate to Indigenous traditions; the Act curtails the application of Commonwealth laws including the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 and the Native Title Act 1993 in the important site-selection stage; and the Native Title Act 1993 is expressly overridden in relation to land acquisition for a radioactive waste dump. No social license: Laws banning nuclear power should be retained because there is no social license to introduce nuclear power to Australia. Opinion polls find that Australians are overwhelmingly opposed to a nuclear power reactor being built in their local vicinity (10‒28% support, 55‒73% opposition); and opinion polls find that support for renewable energy sources far exceeds support for nuclear power (for example a 2015 IPSOS poll found 72‒87% support for solar and wind power but just 26% support for nuclear power). As the Clean Energy Council noted in its submission to the 2019 federal nuclear inquiry, it would require “a minor miracle” to win community support for nuclear power in Australia. The pursuit of nuclear power would also require bipartisan political consensus at state and federal levels for several decades. Good luck with that. Currently, there is a bipartisan consensus at the federal level to retain the legal ban. The noisy, ultra-conservative rump of the Coalition is lobbying for nuclear power but their push has been rejected by, amongst others, the federal Liberal Party leadership, the Queensland Liberal-National Party, the SA Liberal government, the Tasmanian Liberal government, the NSW Liberal Premier and environment minister, and even ultra-conservatives such as Nationals Senator Matt Canavan.
Australia can do better than fuel higher carbon emissions and unnecessary radioactive risk. We need to embrace the fastest growing global energy sector and become a driver of clean energy thinking and technology and a world leader in renewable energy technology. We can grow the jobs of the future here today. This will provide a just transition for energy sector workers, their families and communities and the certainty to ensure vibrant regional economies and secure sustainable and skilled jobs into the future. Renewable energy is affordable, low risk, clean and popular. Nuclear is not. Our shared energy future is renewable, not radioactive. More Information * Don’t Nuke the Climate Australia, www.dont-nuke-the-climate.org.au * Climate Council, 2019, ‘Nuclear Power Stations are Not Appropriate for Australia – and Probably Never Will Be’, https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/nuclear-power-stations-are-not-appropriate-for-australia-and-probably-never-will-be/ * WISE Nuclear Monitor, 25 June 2016, ‘Nuclear power: No solution to climate change’, https://www.wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/806/nuclear-power-no-solution-climate-change Dr. Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia. |
Barngarla Aboriginal Corporation lobby Senators- to oppose Bill to set up Kimba nuclear waste dump
|
Native title holders will travel to Canberra to lobby senators against the dump, saying they were excluded from community vote on the facility, Guardian, Sarah Martin Chief political correspondent @msmarto, Wed 26 Feb 2020 03.30 The government is pushing ahead with the legislation, despite the ballot being challenged in the federal court by the Barngarla native title holders, who were excluded from the vote because they are not ratepayers. Jason Bilney, chairman of the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation, said the 200 local native title holders were excluded from the Kimba community ballot despite repeated requests to both the council and the federal government to be included. The corporation is challenging the ballot in the federal court, claiming their exclusion is a breach of the racial discrimination act. The full court of the federal court heard the matter last Friday. “It is a simple truth that had we, as the first people for the area, been included in the Kimba community ballot rather than unfairly denied the right to vote, then the community ballot would never have returned a yes vote,” Bilney told Guardian Australia ahead of a visit to Canberra next month. “Many of our people were born in Kimba, and we have significant native title land near the proposed facility. This native title land allows us to live on and use the land. However, because it is not rateable, we were excluded from the Kimba community ballot on a technicality,” he said. The Barngarla claim the Coalition’s bill has been introduced to make it impossible to challenge the decision to locate a facility at Kimba, even if the court appeal is successful, effectively removing the protections of the Race Discrimination Act. “These amendments would entirely remove any court oversight, right in the middle of existing federal court proceedings. This would entirely deprive any protections for our people,” Bilney said. The group is expected to meet with crossbench senators in Canberra in the current session of parliament, explaining their concerns about the ballot process and pushing for the legislation to be blocked. Centre Alliance has already expressed reservations about supporting the legislation, saying Canavan had not been upfront about what constituted “broad community support” before the results of the ballot were known. “No one goes into a vote without understanding what the pass criteria is,” SA senator Rex Patrick told Guardian Australia. “I support the need for a national facility, but it should only be located where there is broad community support.” Labor discussed the party’s position regarding the legislation in a caucus meeting on Tuesday, with MPs resolving to wait until the bill had been considered by the senate economics committee and until the federal court decision had been handed down. A final decision will then be considered by the shadow cabinet and caucus and will also go through the First Nations caucus committee. Labor’s shadow industry minister, Brendan O’Connor, is expected to outline the party’s concerns when debate gets under way in the House of Representatives on Wednesday, but told MPs that there was a need for Australia to establish a national radioactive waste management facility. ….. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/feb/26/south-australia-nuclear-waste-dump-could-face-roadblock-in-senate
|
|
How would nuclear benefit Victoria?
|
Nuclear lobby takes aim at Victoria to tackle prohibitions, Michael West Media, by Noel Wauchope | Feb 26, 2020 “…………..The Terms if Reference ask for the “economic, environmental, and social benefits to Victoria.” Victoria is moving towards a renewable energy revolution, with a significant uptake of renewable technology by the State Government. Victoria has set a renewable energy target of 50% by 2030 and Melbourne’s iconic tram network is to be powered by solar energy. The Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority (NRPA) revealed that thorium-based nuclear energy plants – once vaunted as a clean alternative type of nuclear energy – is not an environmentally safe alternative. Thorium leads to highly radioactive nuclear waste. Consequently, the risk of accidents will always be present the report said. Uranium mining has widespread effects, contaminating the environment with radioactive dust, radon gas, water-borne toxins, and increased levels of background radiation. As to the “social benefits”, the introduction of any part of the nuclear fuel chain into Victoria would particularly impact rural Victorians. The effect on tourism and farming industries has not yet been adequatley analysed, whereas solar and wind technologies can be developed alongside agriculture and tourism. Economist John Quiggin told Michael West Media last week that he’d support the removal of Australia’s ban in exchange for the establishment of a carbon price. Quiggin believes that this would put the nuclear proponents on the spot and open up the subject of the poor economics of the nuclear industry. You can read Quiggin’s submission here. This Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry may not succeed in promoting the thorium or the pro nuclear cause. However, it is part of what looks to be a co-ordinated national attack on nuclear prohibition laws. The mainstream media, particularly the Murdoch press, seems to toe the nuclear industry line that the way to fix global warming is to go nuclear. This Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry may not succeed in promoting the thorium or the pro nuclear cause. However, it is part of what looks to be a co-ordinated national attack on nuclear prohibition laws. The mainstream media, particularly the Murdoch press, seems to toe the nuclear industry line that the way to fix global warming is to go nuclear. Nuclear power is not supported by either Labor or the Greens.https://www.michaelwest.com.au/nuclear-lobby-takes-aim-at-victoria-to-tackle-prohibitions/ |
|
Bridgat McKenzie fires up for nuclear
McKenzie fires up for nuclear THE AUSTRALIAN 26 Feb 20 Former Nationals deputy leader Bridget McKenzie has thrown her support behind nuclear and hydrogen energy….(subscribers only)
Celebrities urge ScottyFromMarketing to to shift from coal to renewable energies.
 Aussie celebrities appeal to Prime Minister on climate policies, https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2020/02/24/greenpeace-celebrities-climate-policies/ Australian celebrities are calling on Prime Minister Scott Morrison to take action on the nation’s energy policies in a campaign aimed at preventing new bushfires.Voices such as actor Simon Baker, musician Julia Stone and footy player Dyson Heppell have appeared in a Greenpeace video released on Monday, ask Scott Morrison to shift from coal to renewable energies.
The new campaign features bushfire survivors and Aussie personalities asking the Prime Minister “what sort of world” he wants his daughters to grow up in as a family man. Imploring Mr Morrison to act so Australia stops “falling behind the rest of world”, the video lists the “unprecedented fires”, “extreme drought” and “flash flooding” that have devastated communities in a “black summer”. The message from the Dear Scotty campaign claims to be directed to “both sides of politics” and calls for “change, unity, and leadership” to tackle the country’s future. “People have lost their lives, families have lost their homes, and koalas have burnt alive all over Australia,” Greenpeace Australia Pacific Senior Campaigner Nathaniel Pelle said. “Everyone is feeling the impacts of this coal-fueled bushfire crisis and we need Scott Morrison to act for their future and the future of all Australians.” |
|
#ScottyFromMarketing dodges the question of how much “climate business as usual will cost the economy
Morrison admits there are climate costs, but won’t say what 3C heating would do to economy
Ahead of the release of its technology roadmap, the Coalition tries to ramp up pressure on Labor over its net zero emissions target, Guardian, Katharine Murphy Political editor, @murpharoo, Mon 24 Feb 2020 Scott Morrison has acknowledged there are “costs associated with climate change” but has declined to spell out what 3C heating would do to job creation and economic growth in Australia.
Ahead of the release of its technology roadmap, the federal government is attempting to ramp up political pressure on Labor over its commitment to a net zero target by 2050, blasting the opposition for adopting a target without a fleshed-out strategy to meet it, and pointing out that CSIRO research cited positively by Labor assumes a carbon price of more than $200 to drive the transition.
But the government is also having to fend off sustained questions about basic contradictions in its own messaging…….
While keeping all its options open, the government has been signalling for some days it is unlikely to adopt a 2050 target. …… https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/feb/24/morrison-admits-there-are-climate-costs-but-wont-say-what-3c-heating-would-do-to-economy
Bill in Aust Parliament names South Australia as the Nuclear Waste State
the Bill makes provision for the Federal gov. to pass Regulations to name and over-ride specific State Laws. For instance, it may be the case that the Federal gov. requires to pass a Regulation to name and over-ride the public interest protections in the SA “Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000”, and potentially to also do so regarding the SA “Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988”.
David Noonan, 24 Feb 20, Bill names SA as the Nuclear Waste State:
The Bill specifies South Australia as a nuclear waste dump state.
And specifies Napandee near Kimba as a Nuclear Waste Store – which effectively also targets Whyalla Port for multiple nuclear waste shipments.
The Bill has been to the HoRep’s and now goes to the Senate:
“to enable the decision about the location of the facility to be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny”
(see the Bill Explanatory Memorandum Outline p.1).
For access to the doc’s and to speeches, and to Track the Bill – so as to receive e updates…
The Bill is expected to be Referred by the Aust Greens around Wed 26th Feb to a short Inquiry by the Senate Standing Economics Legislation Committee. The Bill may go to a vote in Senate in the last week of May.
If the Bill is passed, the Federal gov. then instigates a Licensing process on the NRWM Facility by the nuclear regulator ARPANSA, and in parallel makes a referral for environment assessment of the proposed NRWM Facility under EPBC Act.
ARPANSA are expected to conduct separate Licensing processes for the above ground interim Nuclear Waste Store, and for the so-called Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility. ARPANSA may require the Federal gov. to make separate Licensing Applications for the two types of waste facilities.
The Federal gov. can-not assume that both facilities will be approved by the regulator.
It is arguably likely that Licensing for the NRWM Facility, and in particular for above ground interim Nuclear Waste Store, should and will fail – leaving the amended Act stranded will a failed single specified site and no provision for consideration of any further siting elsewhere in SA or in other States / Territories.
However, the Bill is said by the Minister and the Department to provide ‘certainty’.
Notes on Bill:
The Bill names and specifies South Australia, and omits “the State or Territory”, for siting a NRWM Facility and to register acquired lands;
The Bill specifies Napandee as the NRWM Facility site and amends the 2012 Act to that effect as a single site;
The Explanatory Memorandum (EM, Outline p.2) says: “Additional land will not be able to be acquired to establish a second facility”;
The Bill “Notes on Clauses” p.22 states: “Once established, it is expected to be in operation for 100 years.”
The Bill “Notes on Clauses” p.14 claims: “there is broad support in the community for the project.”
The Bill strengthens the Commonwealth powers to use the 2012 Act to over-ride State laws and to impose the NRWM Facility on unwilling communities;
The Bill specifically asks Senators to vote to approve a set of powers to over-ride any State law (or other Cth law), Continue reading
Labor’s Chris Bowen: Renewables make much more sense than ‘nuclear fantasy’
  Labor’s Chris Bowen: Renewables make much more sense than ‘nuclear fantasy’, The New Daily, Colin Brinsden , 23 Feb 20,
Federal Labor frontbencher Chris Bowen has criticised the Morrison government for even considering nuclear power as an option in the future energy mix, calling it a “fantasy and a furphy”……… Mr Bowen, the former shadow treasurer and now the opposition’s health spokesman, told reporters in Sydney that billions of dollars will be “unleashed” by renewable energy investment that will create jobs. Asked by a journalist if he would be open to nuclear power, Mr Bowen said: “No”. “The economics of nuclear power don’t stack up. You could start building a nuclear power station today and it wouldn’t be ready for decades,” Mr Bowen said. “The idea that this is part of the mix to Australia’s response to global warming is a fantasy and a furphy.”……. https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2020/02/22/labors-bowen-rejects-going-nuclear/ |
|
Barngarla Aboriginal people take legal action against Australian govt’s planned Kimba nuclear waste dump
  Indigenous group fights on to stop SA dump https://www.9news.com.au/national/indigenous-group-fights-on-to-stop-sa-dump/d72f3453-28e8-4182-a9bb-6c9390098bf6?fbclid=IwAR3l91JVzBoJhkIhnf49 Feb 21, 2020 Native title holders on South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula are continuing their court fight to stop the federal government establishing a nuclear waste dump near Kimba.
The government recently named a site on a local station as the location for the dump which will take Australia’s low to medium level nuclear waste material.
The government’s decision was informed in part by a ballot of local residents which supported the proposal.
But it’s that ballot that the Barngarla people are fighting in new Federal Court action.
They’re appealing against a court judgment last year that the council had not acted wrongly in excluding about 200 native title holders from the vote.
Counsel for the Barngarla, Daniel O’Gorman SC, told the court on Friday that their request to take part in the ballot should have been granted.
“They, therefore, are part of the community,” he said.
“This was a ballot of the community, the Kimba community. They are the native title holders of the land surrounding the sites in question.
“Therefore, we submit, they clearly had an interest in the ballot, they clearly had an interest in the dump and whether it goes ahead or not.
“Their mere standing as native title holders, warranted them being included as part of the community.”
The ballot ultimately returned about 62 per cent support for the dump, which then Resources Minister Matt Canavan accepted as broad community backing.
Those still opposed to the dump going ahead include some locals, environmental groups as well as indigenous communities.
Earlier this month, legislation to allow construction of the waste facility was introduced to federal parliament.
The underpinning laws allow for acquisition of land for the facility as well as a $20 million payment for the community to help establish and maintain the site which is expected to operate for at least 100 years.
The Federal Court’s ruling on the Barngarla appeal is expected to be handed down on a date to be fixed.
|
|
|
No place for nuclear energy in Australia: Labor’s Josh Wilson spells it out
There is still no place for nuclear energy in Australia
Josh Wilson MP ‒ federal shadow assistant minister for the environment.
February 21, 2020
I find it astonishing that while our communities and ecosystems alike suffer through Australia’s first national climate change disaster there are politicians who seek to distract from the key challenges before us by jumping on the old nuclear hobbyhorse.
More than 10 years on from the Switkowski review, all the relevant considerations have tipped further away from nuclear power. It continues to be expensive, slow, inflexible, uninsurable, toxic, and dangerous at a time when renewable energy generation and storage is becoming faster, cheaper, and more efficient. And in the meantime we’ve experienced Fukushima, which has displaced 40,000 people, still leaks radiation into the sea, and will cost Japan more than $200 billion.
The clearest point made in evidence to the recent nuclear inquiry was that settling a national energy policy is our highest priority. Without this framework, Australia’s progress towards a decarbonised energy system with better co-ordination and lower prices remains stymied. Despite that call being made by Ziggy Switkowski, Ian MacFarlane, our energy regulators and various economic and energy experts, government members of the committee couldn’t bear to see this sensible recommendation in print. Why? Because they knew it reflected poorly on the government.
The hard conservative core of the Coalition doesn’t believe in climate change and sees renewable energy as a similarly “green-left” plot. This wild disconnection from science, economics, and public consensus is hurting Australia. Even the mild courage required to deliver their own National Energy Guarantee cannot be found within the current circus.
Instead, we get the rising hum of nuclear fairy tales and the wishful myths that go with them. Top of that list is the furphy that nuclear energy, while risky and poisonous and productive of waste that no one knows how to safely store, is somehow comparatively cheap. That’s just rubbish. The definitive analysis of energy costs in the Australian context is the recently updated AEMO/CSIRO GenCost report. It confirms under various scenarios that nuclear power simply cannot compete on cost with firmed renewables.
The latest darling of the ever-faithful nuclear fan club is the small modular reactor. SMRs, we are told, will be magically cheaper and safer. Such claims have been made by the nuclear industry about each new generation of technology right up to the point at which they turn out to be spectacularly untrue. At the moment SMRs simply don’t exist.
Myth number two asserts that as a matter of fact it is impossible to reach 100 per cent zero-emission energy without nuclear. Also wrong. Those making the claim are the same people who said that a 20 per cent renewable energy target for 2020 was reckless, and that a 50 per cent target for 2030 would be “economy wrecking”. Experts at the ANU gave evidence pointing to Australia’s potential as a renewable energy superpower with both generation and storage meeting our electricity needs and allowing us to export emission-free hydrogen.
The third myth is that Australia is missing out on the popular uptake of nuclear technology. In reality nuclear energy worldwide is in serious decline. The latest issue of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report shows that the nuclear share of electricity generation has dropped from its 1996 high of 17 per cent in 1996 to 10 per cent in 2018.
Countries that have relied on nuclear energy in the past are winding down their reliance. France has a target to reduce nuclear energy by a third. South Korea has decided it will no longer build nuclear. The UK is grappling with the costly implications of a new reactor that is years behind schedule and billions over budget, propped up by a 35-year power purchase agreement at double the current cost of electricity.
The most absurd myth of all is that we are being prevented from having a conversation about nuclear because of the current moratorium. Really? The claim is made in the report of yet another Parliamentary committee inquiry, which, in addition to receiving thousands of submissions, also involved public hearings in Brisbane, Melbourne, Sydney, Perth, Canberra, and Adelaide. Our inquiry followed the Switkowski review, the South Australian Royal Commission, and sits alongside a Victorian upper house inquiry.
There is nothing wrong with keeping an open mind on any topic but it shouldn’t be a blank mind. All the evidence shows there is no place for nuclear energy in Australia. Our policy paralysis is holding back our potential to be a renewable energy superpower. Those who agitate for an ongoing conversation on nuclear are spruiking a dangerous distraction.
Conflict in the COALition over climate change and emissions reduction
Mathias Cormann says Coalition will ‘finalise longer-term target in time for Cop26’ but Angus Taylor commits only to ‘long-term strategy’, Guardian, Paul Karp @Paul_Karp – 21 Feb 20 Senior Morrison government ministers are publicly at odds about whether Australia will take a long-term emissions reduction target to global climate talks in November after Labor unveiled a target of net zero emissions by 2050.On Friday the finance minister Mathias Cormann confirmed the government “will be finalising a longer-term target in time for Cop26” but the emissions reduction minister would commit only to “a long-term strategy” despite repeatedly being asked about a new target.
As revealed by Guardian Australia, Anthony Albanese used a speech to a progressive thinktank on Friday to commit the ALP to adopting a net zero target by 2050 if it wins the next federal election, without the use of carryover credits from the Kyoto period.Senior Morrison government ministers are publicly at odds about whether Australia will take a long-term emissions reduction target to global climate talks in November after Labor unveiled a target of net zero emissions by 2050.
On Friday the finance minister Mathias Cormann confirmed the government “will be finalising a longer-term target in time for Cop26” but the emissions reduction minister would commit only to “a long-term strategy” despite repeatedly being asked about a new target.
As revealed by Guardian Australia, Anthony Albanese used a speech to a progressive thinktank on Friday to commit the ALP to adopting a net zero target by 2050 if it wins the next federal election, without the use of carryover credits from the Kyoto period.
Scott Morrison is holding off from making a commitment to carbon neutrality by 2050, partly because of an internal brawl within the Coalition and partly because the prime minister says Australia should not sign up to targets in the absence of costings.
Some in the government have noted publicly in recent weeks that Australia implicitly accepted the net zero pathway when the Coalition signed and ratified the Paris agreement, and Liberal moderates are now pushing to make net zero an explicit target beyond the 26-28% emissions reduction promised by 2030…..
Despite the Coalition criticism, business rode to Labor’s defence. Australian Industry Group chief executive Innes Willox said the net zero target “is increasingly widely supported by Australian businesses, industry advocates such as Ai Group, the wider community and governments of all complexions”.
“That growing consensus is important to guide and discipline the development of efficient, trade neutral and fair policies to get there,” he said.
“We shouldn’t underestimate the challenge of net zero, which goes well beyond generating cleaner electricity……
Every state and territory has expressed at least an aspirational objective of achieving net zero emissions by 2050, and Australia has been urged by the UK and its Pacific neighbours to sign up to that target.
Albanese noted on Friday that the Business Council of Australia is calling for it as well as major corporates including AGL, Santos, BHP, Amcor, BP, Wesfarmers and Telstra.
“Seventy-three countries, including the UK, Canada, France and Germany, many with conservative governments, have already adopted it as their goal,” he said. “Australia should too
Earlier, Labor’s climate change spokesman, Mark Butler, told Radio National the opposition would set out a detailed policy about how to achieve targets and its cost “well before” the next election.
Butler argued that the cost of reducing emissions should not be divorced from the cost of inaction and noted Melbourne University research had found actions to reduce emissions have a benefit cost ratio of 20 to one. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/feb/21/coalition-ministers-at-odds-over-emissions-target-after-labor-commits-to-net-zero-by-2050
1 This month
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
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
19 May – Webinar- Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-05-19 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-05-19 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
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 