Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

Four ways a smart government can create jobs and cut emissions — RenewEconomy

 

Done well, post-Covid government spending can make Australia’s economy more productive, improve quality of life and help the low-carbon transition. Here’s how. The post Four ways a smart government can create jobs and cut emissions appeared first on RenewEconomy.

via Four ways a smart government can create jobs and cut emissions — RenewEconomy

June 15, 2020 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Adani news, June 2020 — John Quiggin

Amid the coronavirus pandemic, the climate crisis rolls on, slowed a bit by the economic impact of travel restrictions. The campaign to stop carbon dioxide emissions, including those from the Adani Carmichael project, has to continue as well.It’s now almost a year since Adani Mining gained the final environmental approvals for the construction of the…

via Adani news, June 2020 — John Quiggin

June 15, 2020 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Government -owned Woomera a better site than agricultural land, for nuclear waste dump

June 13, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics | Leave a comment

Town of Kimba depicted as failing, desperate to have nuclear waste dump for its survival

June 13, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, secrets and lies, spinbuster | Leave a comment

Former weapons chief executive now South Australian Premier’s top advisor

This could shed some light on the South Australian government’s silence on the Federal plan for a nuclear waste dump in South Australia.  We can expect the South Australian government to now support the nuclear waste dump at Napandee, and to promote schemes to make south Australia a nuclear hub, especially with nuclear submarines production.

 

June 13, 2020 Posted by | politics, secrets and lies, South Australia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Anne Wharton- appalled at exclusion of Barngarla from nuclear waste dump decision-making: a national issue, not just local

Anne Wharton to Senate Committee on  National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions]  Submission 43 
I am appalled at the Federal Government’s decision to site a nuclear waste dump at
Kimba. I am especially appalled that the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation
were denied the right to vote in the community ballot and the Federal Court has now
dismissed their appeal. The people in these communities have never been asked what they
think about having a nuclear waste dump on their land, and they need to be listened to.
This is a huge transgression of their basic human rights.
For the last 20 years, SA has had legislation prohibiting any nuclear waste dump being
established in SA (the “Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000”).
Recently the Federal Morrison Government has introduced legislation to over-ride this
legislation. This is appalling – another violation of every citizen’s basic human rights.
I urge the Federal Government to withdraw this Bill and observe the rights of all citizens.
As this affects every citizen of Australia, there should be a national inquiry into the need
for, and role of, a national nuclear waste dump in Australia.

June 13, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Climate change is enhancing ocean waves – bigger ones, and more often

EXTREME WAVES SET TO BE BIGGER AND MORE FREQUENT
As the planet warms, researchers are warning that the frequency and magnitude of extreme wave events may rise by around 10 per cent by the end of century, increasing flood risks.
Pursuit, By Dr Alberto Meucci and Professor Ian Young University of Melbourne, 13 June 20

When most of us think about what climate change will do to our coastlines we tend to focus on how sea-levels are rising as the polar ice caps melt and the oceans warm. But that is only part of the story.

What many don’t realise is that at the same time as sea levels are rising, storms are increasing in magnitude and frequency, resulting in larger ocean waves. These waves increase coastal erosion and the risk of flooding.

Our new research suggests that by the end of the century the magnitude of extreme wave events will have increased by up to 10 per cent over extensive ocean regions, and the frequency of storms that generate extreme waves will have increased by five to 10 per year.

This may not sound like a big increase, but it means that almost 60 per cent of the world’s coastline will experience larger and more frequent extreme waves.

At a time when 290 million people already live below the 100-year flood level (that is, they live below levels where there is at least a one per cent probability of flooding every year), an increase in the risk of extreme wave events may be catastrophic, as larger and more frequent storms will cause more flooding and coastline erosion.

Extremes are defined as unexpected, unusual and sometimes unseasonal events. Like extreme floods, extreme waves are classified by the frequency with which they tend to occur, and this frequency drives the design requirements for ocean structures or coastal defences. For example, defences may be designed to cope with a 100-year wave event.

Extreme ocean waves generated by strong surface winds can reach heights of over 20 meters at the high latitudes of the globe – that’s as high as four double-decker buses stacked on top of each other.

But the surface winds that drive wave heights are in turn driven by the climate system, and so are subject to climate change. A warming planet is causing stronger and more frequent storm winds which in turn trigger larger and more frequent extreme waves, and the 100-year events may begin to occur every 50 or even 20 years.

Estimating the probability of occurrence of extreme waves is challenging, let alone estimating how their frequency and magnitude may change in the future. This is due to the small number of ocean observations available.

The buoys and offshore platforms scientists use to observe ocean movements are sparsely distributed, and satellite measurements are limited in how often they sample a single location.

But advances in computing technology and the modelling of data, allows us to simulate the Earth’s changing climate under different wind conditions, recreating thousands of simulated storms to evaluate the magnitude and frequency of extreme events.

Our research used a unique statistical ensemble approach, where we pooled data from an unprecedented collection of thousands of modelled ocean wave extremes to estimate future extreme events. These extremes were derived from global wave models based on wind forces generated from seven different global climate models.

The vast amount of modelled ocean extremes generated allowed us to apply an ensemble statistical analysis that reduces the uncertainty around the estimation of future projections of extremes. ……..  Co-authors of the research are: Dr Mark Hemer, CSIRO, Oceans and Atmosphere, Hobart Australia; Professor Roshanka Ranasinghe, Department of Water Science and Engineering, IHE-Delft, Netherlands; and Ebru Kirezci, University of Melbourne

June 13, 2020 Posted by | General News | Leave a comment

Australian Government’s Covid-19 advisory body – stacked with fossil fuel big-wigs, but their conflicts of interest kept secret

June 13, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming, secrets and lies | Leave a comment

A housewife will run as candidate for Iwaki City Election 2020: “I want to protect Iwaki’s children” — Fukushima 311 Watchdogs

[Iwaki City Election 2020] “I want to protect Iwaki’s children” A housewife who has continued to measure radioactivity decides to run for a bid. Translated by Hervé Courtois June 11, 2020 A housewife working on the nuclear accident problem that has been going on since 2011 will run for the Iwaki City election […]

via A housewife will run as candidate for Iwaki City Election 2020: “I want to protect Iwaki’s children” — Fukushima 311 Watchdogs

June 12, 2020 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

June 12 Energy News — geoharvey

 

Science and Technology: ¶ “Climate Crisis To Blame For $67 Billion Of Hurricane Harvey Damage – Study” • At least $67 billion of the damage caused by Hurricane Harvey in 2017 can be attributed directly to climate breakdown, a study published in the journal Climatic Change says. The finding could lead to a radical reassessment […]

via June 12 Energy News — geoharvey

June 12, 2020 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

South Australia – Citizens’ Jury rejected nuclear waste dump in 2016. Decision should not be made by a tiny community

Confidential to Senate Committee on National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 31 We strongly oppose the proposal of a low and intermediate level radioactive waste storage facility at Kimba or anywhere in South Australia.We are concerned, saddened and offended that we need to write this letter.

In 2016 the South Australian State Government undertook and formed a citizens jury.The citizens jury marked the beginning of a state-wide consultation program to investigate the possible construction of a nuclear waste storage facility in South Australia.The jury members comprised 350 randomly selected South Australian residents. The jury met over six days (three weekends).The jury rejected the proposal of a nuclear waste storage facility in South Australia by an overwhelming two/thirds majority.

Why is the federal government ignoring the wishes of the South Australian residents following the citizens jury outcome?This is not a decision for only the Kimba community but for all South Australians and ultimately all Australians.We do not believe a small productive agricultural community should be placed in a position to make this decision which will have such long term and irreversible consequences for future generations.

Minister Pitt, we suggest you investigate and set up a citizens jury in your home state of Queensland.You may be able to find a suitable site for a nuclear waste storage facility in Queensland with wide community consent. You could ship and truck the radioactive waste in and out of Brisbane and offer the chosen community $32 million. Maybe the chosen Queensland community wouldn’t think thismoney is a bribe.We live on the Eyre Peninsula in South Australia and again advise we strongly oppose a low and intermediate level radioactive waste dump at Kimba in South Australia.

June 12, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Australia’s govt rushes nuclear waste Bill through Lower House, but this story is not over.

The federal government’s radioactive waste laws the House of Representatives today, however they failed to win broad support or approval.

Importantly, Labor joined with Greens, Centre Alliance and independents to vote against the contested push to move Australia’s radioactive waste from ANSTO’s secure Lucas Heights facility in southern Sydney to a site near Kimba in regional South Australia.

While accepting the need for improved radioactive waste management, Labor MPs highlighted deep concerns with the government’s approach and called for further detail and review.

Concerns included:

  • The double handling of problematic and long-lived Intermediate Level Waste (ILW) through the unnecessary transport from an above-ground extended interim storage facility at ANSTO to an above-ground extended interim storage at a less resourced regional facility.
  • The continuing opposition of the region’s Barngarla Traditional Owners.
  • The lack of a rationale for a new set of waste laws.
  • The government’s decision not to de-couple consideration of the different waste streams (ILW and Low Level Waste). Labor urged the government to allow wider project consideration, including through a current Senate review.

The Greens spoke strongly against the plan – as did Zali Steggall. Andrew Wilkie and Centre Alliance’s Rebekah Sharkie also voted against the legislation – further details in the Hansard transcript and voting record attached fyi

From here – among other things – we need to work to highlight and detail the unresolved concerns via the Senate review (still tracking to report at the end of July) and the subsequent Senate consideration and vote on these laws.

Today the government has had a short-term political win at the expense of building consensus or credibility – we saw a political numbers exercise but we did not see agreement, evidence or responsibility. The government’s plan is deeply deficient and more people are seeing and acknowledging this – this story will grow  and change the approach to radioactive waste management.

June 11, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics | Leave a comment

Australia’s House of Representatives passed the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill

11 June 2020, Federal  govt just passed the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill through the lower house of federal parliament, which sounds like bad news but could be good news, an own goal by the government and minister Keith Pitt

Labor voted against the Bill and spoke strongly against it (including the shadow minister Brendan O’Connor, SA MP Tony Zappia and others) … raising issues of Traditional Owner opposition, double-handling of intermediate-level waste, etc etc. I’m guessing Labor also pointed out that voting on the Bill before the Senate Inquiry is complete is poor form.

Zalia Steggall spoke strongly, linking the dump to BLM and raising numerous other issues.

Andrew Wilkie voted against.

Some recent lobbying by Maritime Union of Australia might have been useful in getting the ALP to show some decency, as well as lobbying by Dave Sweeney and David Noonan

The Senate Committee is meeting tomorrow to discuss the inquiry into the Bill.

June 11, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics, wastes | Leave a comment

The Maritime Union of Australia (SA branch) rejects Nuclear Waste Bill, discusses transport dangers

the proposal to move long-lived intermediate-level waste (ILW) from interim above-ground storage at Lucas Heights to interim above-ground storage at the Kimba site….exposes communities to unnecessary risks, and it exposes workers (including MUA members) to unnecessary risks. .. and raises “implications for security”… the considerable distances involved create a whole additional level of risk.

MUA policy is that our members will not be involved in moving nuclear waste. The toxicity
of the waste is severe.

The Maritime Union of Australia (SA branch) to Senate Committee on  National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 19   The Maritime Union of Australia (SA branch) recommends that the Senate Committee rejects the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 (hereafter the NRWM Amendment Bill).

The Bill is designed to advance a fundamentally flawed radioactive waste management process which should be put on hold until such time as a comprehensive independent inquiry is held to investigate all options for managing radioactive waste

The Committee should recommend repeal of the unacceptable and draconian overrides of Commonwealth and state laws in the existing National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012. Further, the Committee should recommend rejection of the NRWM Amendment Bill which would worsen the situation by giving the Federal Government additional sweeping
powers to override Commonwealth and state laws.
The Federal Government’s own 65% benchmark for ‘broad community support’ has not been met; only 43.8% of eligible voters in the combined Kimba and Barngarla ballots supported the proposed nuclear waste facility. The Federal Government has not demonstrated ‘broad community support’ along potential transport corridors or statewide
in SA. The proposed nuclear waste facility is illegal under South Australia’s Nuclear Waste Facility (Prohibition) Act. Instead of respecting that state legislation, the Federal Government intends to override it and the NRWM Amendment Bill outlines a regulatory mechanism to override SA law and thus to undermine democratic rights.
The proposal to proceed with the nuclear waste facility despite the clear opposition of Barngarla Traditional Owners ‒ and their representative body, the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporate ‒ is unacceptable and must not be allowed to stand. Continue reading

June 11, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Desmond Menz – Constitutional problems in Nuclear Waste Bill – could lead to High Court case?

why ultimately was South Australia the only state to contain the final three sites?

A tiny community poll seems to have informed the final decision, and contradicts the Minister’s stated position of “broad community support”. Just 0.037% of the voting public in SA have had a say.

why did South Australia become the only state to be chosen for the nuclear waste site, knowing that a Citizens Jury in 2016 had rejected a major nuclear waste storage industry in South Australia following the outcomes of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission? The Citizens Jury was substantially more representative of the views of the people of SA, in comparison with the very small poll of the eligible residents of the District Council of Kimba..

former Minister Canavan’s snap decision? The decision on site selection was announced on Saturday morning 1 February 2020, and by the afternoon Senator Canavan had resigned

Desmond Menz  SUBMISSION TO ECONOMICS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE OF THE
AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT ON THE National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020  Submission 13   

In September 2019 ….I raised critical concerns about the validity of the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 (NRWM Act) in relation to the Australian Constitution, and also the lawfulness of the process about site selection. I also raised concerns about breaches of South Australian law. It seems that my concerns were either ignored or dismissed. I again raise these critical matters for the attention of the Economics Legislation Committee. If they are not responded to, then it would not be too much a stretch of the imagination to have them resolved in a higher court of law, quite possibly the High Court of Australia. In my view, the Economics Legislation Committee should not make any decision on the Amendment Bill until all issues I have countenanced have been resolved.

Main Concerns
1.It is contended that inconsistency between the federal National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 (NRWM Act) and the South Australian Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000 (NWSP Act) (and other similar state/territory laws), has been manufactured by the Australian Parliament. This is a serious issue, and one that not even the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has acknowledged. It is incomprehensible why this matter was not addressed way back in 2010 during the establishment of the NRWM Act.

It is also contended that there are Constitutional matters that need to be resolved to affirm the safety of the federal law, including the Amendment Bill, because at the moment there are sufficient concerns relating to inconsistency between federal and state laws to inhibit the lawful and constitutional passage of the Amendment Bill.   [here he gives an example from a previous High Court case]……… Continue reading

June 11, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, legal, politics | Leave a comment