Howard admits to killing Iraqis for oil security

July 5, 2007: Despite the denials of 2003, the Howard Government has now admitted that oil security is indeed a major factor in Australia's perpetual military involvement in Iraq. Defence Minister Brendan Nelson says oil was a factor in Australia's contribution to the extremely unpopular war. He said "energy security" in the Middle East would be crucial to the nation's future. Dr Nelson said defence was about protecting the economy.

Dr Nelson also said it was important to support the "prestige" of the US and UK...

"The entire (Middle East) region is an important supplier of energy, oil in particular, to the rest of the world. Australians and all of us need to think well what would happen if there were a premature withdrawal from Iraq?" said Dr Nelson.

In a major speech outlining the Government's defence priorities, Mr Howard said Australian troops need to stay in Iraq to ensure a continued supply of oil, as well as to assist the United States.

In 2003, as Australia followed the US invasion into Iraq, Mr Howard told Australians it was because Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction".

Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd said the conflict had killed 600,000 Iraqis while pushing their country into civil war, jeopardising global oil supplies and strengthening Iran's threat to Iraq. Mr Rudd said: "When Mr Howard was asked back in 2003 whether this war had anything to do with oil, Mr Howard said in no way did it have anything to do with oil. This Government simply makes it up as it goes along on Iraq."

As a "magnet, inspiration and training ground for international jihadists", the Iraq war has boosted Australia up the ranks of countries targeted by terrorism, Mr Rudd said. It had been a mistake to send troops into Iraq, he said.

"Australia's involvement in the Iraq war continues to make Australia a greater terrorism target than we'd otherwise be. The uncomfortable fact for Australia is that we have now become a greater terrorist target as a consequence of our military involvement in Iraq, a fact acknowledged by many experts in the field," said Mr Rudd.

Greens Leader Bob Brown said the Prime Minister's belated admission that the invasion of Iraq is linked to 'the major stake of energy dependency' underlines his dishonesty in 2003. "Saddam Hussein's oil, not weapons of mass destruction, was in the Bush-Blair-Howard mindset in this monumental mistake which has cost a
reported 67,000 civilian lives (the Lancet estimates 655,000 deaths)," Senator Brown said.

"It has boosted global terrorism and undermined Australia's homeland security. Mr Howard has put oil corporations' interests ahead of Australians domestic security," Senator Brown said.

Democrats leader Senator Lyn Allison said the government had been denying the link between oil and the war for years. "After years of denials the Howard government has finally conceded that oil and powerful mates were behind sending Australian troops to a bloody war in Iraq," she said. "This has been a despicable fraud. Countless lives have been lost and a society torn apart based on lies. And yet the prime minister's repeated refrain is 'trust me'. How can we believe anything this man says about anything?"

"The reality is money and oil and powerful mates were always key reasons for going into Iraq despite ruses about weapons of mass destruction. Now he says the international terror threat is one reason for staying the course but that terror threat would not have been so great had it not been for catastrophic policy decisions like the ones the Howard Government has made," said Senator Allison.

Meanwhile a new report suggests that Australia is not directly threatened by terror. A national security review has found Australia faces no direct conventional threat but ought to be ready anyway for unforeseen events. The review, Australia’s National Security: A Defence Update 2007, was released today by prime minister John Howard at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s Global Forces 2007 conference.

An increase of 47 percent in the Defence budget since the Howard government came to power has provided the Australian Defence Forces with a greatly enhanced military capability. Howard, who has committed Australia's military to a $43bn build-up, said Canberra had buried the "self-defeating" idea that Australia's military should be based on home defence.

Australia has about 1,500 troops in and around Iraq.

SOURCES:
The Age
The Australian
The Australian
ABC Radio
Aljazeera
Courier Mail
Independent Broadcast Network
ABC News

Warning: A barrage of Howard bullshit on Climate Change

June 7, 2007 - Australians are being warned to prepare for a "barrage of lies" from the Howard Government on climate change in the lead-up to the Federal election. Last night Treasurer Peter Costello deliberately misinformed television viewers in an attempt to claim credit for stopping landclearing in Australia as a practical measure to reduce greenhouse emissions, when it was an initiative of the climate action campaigners and the Beattie Government who did the work.

Yet, when a team of German researchers asked hundreds of experts around the world to score industrialised countries according to their commitment to tackle climate change, Australia ranked second last, with only the US doing worse...

Australian Greens climate change spokesperson, Senator Christine Milne says: "This lie is offensive in the extreme to the many campaigners and the Queensland Government who worked hard to slow landclearing in order to protect Australia's biodiversity well before the election of the Howard Government."

"The Howard Government took advantage of other people's great work to negotiate an easy target at Kyoto. But their wilful negligence in the years since then has seen ongoing old growth logging, ongoing landclearing, and unrestricted growth in emissions from energy, all dwarfing the landclearing gains and putting our Kyoto targets out of reach," Senator Milne said in a media release today.

"Treasurer Costello's lie follows the Prime Minister's outrageous lie that reducing Australia's emissions to 20% below 1990 levels by 2020 would require us to close down every power station in the country and take every car off the road," said Senator Milne. "The Howard Government is clearly desperate on climate change and is willing to do anything to neutralise the issue - except take real action. Prepare for a barrage of lies."

Labor's environment spokesman Peter Garrett has accused John Howard of being "all talk and no action" on climate change. Mr Garrett says Mr Howard is simply trying to prove he is a leader on climate change before this year's election... [He has] a set of convoluted ideas it seems, but without any real commitments for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions which is so sorely needed at this point in time," he said.

"This speech is all about Mr Howard positioning himself [before] the election as someone who can take an active leadership role on climate change. I think this is more about the politics of the upcoming election than it is about a substantial attempt at reducing emissions worldwide," said Mr Garrett.

Propaganda often works through "fabrications so audacious that it is hard to know how to respond," argues Clive Hamilton - executive director of the Australia Institute, and author of Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change. This technique has been adopted by the federal Environment Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, in his frequent claim that Australia is "leading the world" in the response to the climate crisis.

Clive Hamilton writes that since the Howard Government came to power, Australia's emissions have increased by 19 per cent, a growth rate more than double the average of all other industrialised countries. Hamilton says the Government expects them to grow by another 25 per cent by 2020. This is at a time when the world's climate scientists say we must reduce our emissions to avoid the worst effects of global warming.

"When deploying the "big-lie technique" there are rules to be followed: be audacious; never admit fault; never accept the possibility of alternatives; and repeat the falsehood so often that people end up accepting it as truth," writes Clive Hamilton in the Sydney Morning Herald.

The Government has repeatedly displaced responsibility from itself, first by fingering developing countries as being "exempted" from Kyoto (itself a lie, as almost all developing counties have ratified the treaty).

Most recently, the bizarre policy of allocating $200 million to reduce logging in the Third World is another attempt to shift responsibility from the need to reduce fossil emissions at home. Australia, which along with the United States has refused to be part of the Kyoto initiative, announced in April that it would put up $200 million to keep tropical tree cover in Indonesia.

The science behind that assertion is published in the journal Science co-authored by Pep Canadell from the government's CSIRO research body. Canadell worked with colleagues in the US, Britain, Brazil and France to show the benefits of keeping forests as carbon sinks. They found forests do not release carbon back into atmosphere as some have suggested. Canadell estimated deforestation accounts for 20 per cent of the carbon emissions attributed to human activity.

More recently the Howard Government has shifted the blame to China, stating there is no point acting if China "pollutes the environment to its heart's content", in the words of Alexander Downer. Ten years lost in the battle against Climate Change will translate into enormous additional human misery later this century, says Clive Hamilton.

It seems John Howard's task group on climate change is still playing for time, writes Tim Colebatch in The Age. The task group report, written by business and departmental chiefs led by the secretary of the Prime Minister's Department, Peter Shergold, set out the kind of emissions trading scheme it (and the prime minister) wants to see. The report was silent on the size of emissions cuts needed, and the carbon prices required, saying that should wait for more modelling.

Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull says the Howard Government has the cool heads and steady hands to ensure our response is both environmentally effective and economically responsible. Turnbull says in a opinion piece for The Age newspaper: "Deforestation is the second-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions after electricity generation. If we were only to halve the rate of deforestation we would cut global greenhouse gas emissions by 10 per cent."

Meanwhile, it seems the world has more than enough sustainable energy and technology to curb climate change, but only if key decisions are made within the next five years, according to new research by World Wildlife Fund (WWF).

The world has never been more aware of climate change, or the urgent need to slow its advance," said James Leape, WWF International's Director General. "The question for leaders and governments everywhere is how to rein in dangerously high levels of carbon dioxide emissions without stunting development and reducing living standards."

"The Climate Solutions report shows not only that this can be done, it shows how we can do it. We have a small window of time in which we can plant the seeds of change, and that is the next five years. We cannot afford to waste them."

SOURCES:
These lies will end in our misery - Clive Hamilton SMH
ABC News Stuff
Senator Milne - Media Releases
WWF
Monsters and Critics
The Age

End Olympic Dam special treatment

June 6, 2007: Greens want to end Olympic Dam's special treatment - The Greens will move in the South Australian Parliament to scrap exemptions to state laws given to BHP Billiton's Olympic Dam mine in outback SA. The $7 billion BHP Billiton Olympic Dam project is planned to become the world’s biggest uranium producer, the third or fourth largest copper mine, and one of Australia’s largest gold mines...

Greens MLC Mark Parnell will introduce a private member's bill to remove the mining company's exemptions from laws on Aboriginal heritage, environment protection and natural resource management. He says the exemptions were granted 25 years ago and times have changed.

Mr Parnell is also concerned that BHP Billiton is not bound by the same water use laws as other companies, giving it an unfair advantage. "I think that there are certainly problems with water resources. This mine does not have to comply with the same regime as everyone else and they're also not bound by the same pollution laws that other companies have to operate under," he said. "If the company is as good as the Government says then there should be no problem in removing these special exemptions.

"I think now that the only fair way is to make sure that all industrial players in this state operate under the same rules. You shouldn't have special rules for your favourite companies and other laws for the rest."

A spokesman for BHP Billiton says the indenture legislation does not allow the company to evade its legal obligations and the Olympic Dam mine is the most intensively regulated operation in SA.

BHP Billiton is considering a further major expansion of Olympic Dam to more than double its current production capacity - proposing to expand its mining and processing from around 200,000 tonnes per year of copper to approximately 500,000 tonnes per year. BHP Billiton would then be the world's biggest spender on an open cut mine. It would be a bigger hole than Kalgoorlie's "Super Pit", with more than a pit 3.6km x 3.65km and 1km deep.

Olympic Dam has long term contracts for the sale of uranium oxide concentrates to customers in the United Kingdom, France, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Canada and the United States.

It is expected that at least 160 million tonnes of radioactive waste will be produced over the life-span of Olympic Dam mine. The waste includes radioactive wash water known as tailings which are stored in 75 hectare retention ponds with levees 30 metres high.

The Olympic Dam operations secured exemptions to the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988, the Development Act 1993, the Environmental Protection Act 1993, the Freedom of Information Act 1991, the Mining Act 1971, Natural Resources Act 2004 (including the Water Resources Act 1997)

This raft of exemptions embodied in the Roxby Downs Indenture Act effectively places this mine outside the law protecting accepted social, environmental and cultural values, and makes the company’s commitments to complying with strict standards manifestly unbelievable.

Radioactive and highly acidic tailings are a by-product of the milling process at Olympic Dam. Currently these are stored in a Tailings Dam called the Tailings Retention System (TRS). This system is vast, covering more than 500 hectares and standing 10 metres in height. More than 10 million tonnes of tailings per year are added to this massive reservoir.

In 1994 a massive leak from the TRS was reported. Over four years, three million cubic metres of liquid leaked through the aquifer.

Meanwhile, Safework SA is investigating an explosion at the Olympic Dam site in May. Contact was made with explosive during drilling work, causing the explosion. A worker was treated for injuries caused by rock debris.

In July 2005, a worker died while blasting a tunnel at the Olympic Dam mine.

SOURCES:
ABC News
Mine Web
ABC News
BHP
BHP: olympic dam eis
Wikipedia - Olympic_Dam
Olympic Dam Mine
MPI
ANAWA

Students of Sustainabilty Conference 2007 - Murdoch Uni - Get some!

Students of Sustainabilty Conference 2007 - Respect Nyoongar Country

SoS_07 - July 9-15, 2007 - Students of Sustainability (SoS) is the largest student-run environment based conference in Australia. The next SoS convergence will happen July 2007 in Perth, Western Australia at Murdoch University...
Check out the website:
http://studentsofsustainability.org

So, what is SoS? Each year SoS offers an amazing opportunity for students, activists, academics, environment and Indigenous groups, and members of the wider community from around Australia to come together to share and gain knowledge, skills and information on environmental and social justice issues.

Please feel free to get involved with the organisation of SoS 2007.

We are all students of sustainability!

FIND OUT MORE:
http://studentsofsustainability.org

Rising Tide Perth condem BP/Rio Tinto giant coal plant for Kwinana

MAY 23, 2007 - Rising Tide Perth - Action against Climate Change

Perth Rising Tide crew, are gearing up to take action against the recently announced massive BHP/RioTinto Coal plant for Kwinana...

Rio, BP considering $2b coal-fired power project in WA: 21st May 2007 - Rio Tinto Ltd’s new joint venture with oil giant BP has unveiled plans for a $2 billion clean-coal power generation project at Kwinana.

Hydrogen Energy’s project, which will the subject of a feasibility study, would be fully integrated with carbon capture and storage to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases. The power station could generate 500MW of electricity.

This would be the first new project for Hydrogen Energy, which was formed to develop decarbonised fossil fuel projects around the world, with the contribution of two existing projects in Scotland and in the US.

The industrial-scale coal-fired power and carbon capture and storage plant in Kwinana would generate enough electricity to meet 15 per cent of the demand of South-West WA.

It would capture and permanently store about four million tonnes of carbon dioxide.

The plant would draw on locally-produced coal from the Collie region to produce hydrogen and carbon dioxide. A decision to invest in the project is likely by 2011, and it could begin operating in 2014.

Energy Minister Fran Logan welcomed the announcement, saying the project had the potential to provide substantial benefits to WA and the nation.

Perth Rising Tide is a West Australian-based grassroots independent climate action collective. Perth Rising Tide say there are serious climate issues occurring within WA right now that require immediate grassroots action to aid their defence. Lets amalgamate, converge and take positive direct action against rapid-onset human-induced Climate Change at a local level...

Rising Tide Principles:
http://perthrisingtide.wordpress.com/principles/

We invite anyone with an interest in climate change issues to get involved. Join this WA autonomous movement against climate change. Please email us here: perthclimatealliance@yahoo.com.au

WEBSITE:
http://perthrisingtide.wordpress.com/

CLIMATE JUSTICE! - International Day of Direct Action against Climate Change and the G8 Friday 8th June 2007: The 8th of June International Day of Action Against Climate Change and the G8 has been called by the International Rising Tide Network.

This is a call for autonomous, decentralised actions appropriate for your town, city, or local area. Use this international day of action to support local struggles against oil refineries, gas pipelines, strip mines and coal-fired power plants. Disrupt the financial backers of the fossil fuel industry. Organise workshops to spread sustainable post-petroleum living skills. Find a weak point in the infrastructure of resource exploitation and throw a literal or symbolic wrench in the works. It’s time to visit your local polluters and give ‘em hell!

By 8th June actions will be planned around the world. Pass this call out on to all environmental justice, climate action, radical sustainability and related movements in all the G8 countries and the Global South.

Rising Tide will create a collection of outreach and agit-prop materials (including this call out in five different languages) that can be used by groups around the world to organise locally.

These materials will be downloadable from
http://risingtide.org.uk
and http://risingtidenorthamerica.org

Direct action and civil disobedience are the rational response in this time of crisis. Support the 8th of June International Day of Direct Action against Climate Change and the G8! Tell us about planned actions for climate justice being planned in your community.

Contact us - info@risingtide.org.uk and contact@risingtidenorthamerica.org In June 2007 the G8 will understand the meaning of rebellion, revolt and revolution. Their recipe for catastrophe will be met with our global resistance!

READ MORE
http://perthrisingtide.wordpress.com

Power cut off prior to Karrinyup fire deaths

April 10, 2007 - Power cut off before fire deaths: There has been controversy surrounding the incident after it was revealed the electricity had been cut off to the property in the weeks leading up to a tragic fire in a Karrinyup Homeswest house last week. The WA Opposition is concerned that the woman and her two sons may have lived without power in the weeks before their deaths.

Cozette Pickering, her eight-year-old son Shayden and Rhys, 12, died when their Homeswest house burnt down on Friday.

Opposition spokeswoman for child protection Robyn McSweeney says she will raise the matter in Parliament. She says utilities are not turned off without a series of checks by the suppliers, and there are protocols in place to help people who cannot pay their bills.

"I will be bringing it up in Parliament. I've checked out what happens to people who can't afford to pay with Alinta Gas and Western Power," she said. "I do know that there's a process in place and I want to see that that process was followed."

The State Government and the Department for Community Development have declined to comment on Ms Pickering's situation because the deaths are to be investigated by the coroner. Electricity retailer Synergy and gas supplier Alinta will not say whether they had spoken to Ms Pickering about her accounts.

The ex-husband of a mother of four who died with her two young sons has described the blaze as a tragic accident.

Fire investigators have been unable to say what caused the fire but today Michael Pickering confirmed that forensic officers had told him there were no suspicious circumstances surrounding the fire:

"They can only confirm that the fire started in the kitchen, they will never know what caused it because the fire was such an intense one. There were no accelerants, they don’t know whether it was a candle, gas, or whatever, they will never know apparently."

Speaking for the first time, Mr Pickering told the West Australian newswpaper how the fire that started at the Finnerty Street home about 9pm quickly turned into an inferno that engulfed the home. He said the kitchen became a fireball, which quickly spread through the house, collapsing the roof. Mr Pickering had separated from his ex-wife four years ago. He was working in the Pilbara when the fire happened.

The Homeswest house did not have smoke detectors or power and lacked proper water pressure. Opposition child protection spokeswoman Robyn McSweeney says the property did have gas connected. Ms McSweeney says the boys' father, Michael Pickering, is angry at Government housing provider Homeswest for not installing smoke alarms.

She says Mr Pickering was also concerned by a lack of water pressure in the street. "The water was restricted and it came to mind that somebody had of picked up the hose to put out some flames then they probably wouldn't be able to use that hose because of the water restrictions going through it," she said.

Neighbour Steven Clements said residents had unsuccessfully tried to smash their way into the burning house before firefighters arrived.

SOURCES:
The West
ABC News
ABC
Home destroyed in fatal fire lacked smoke alarms - ABC
Family visit the site of fatal fire

Leave that fucking shit in the ground

March 30, 2007 - International nuclear expert is visiting Canberra this week to warn Australians about the dangerous impact of the waste produced by uranium mining. Kevin Kamps, from the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, says the waste produced by uranium mines in the US has had a great impact on the community.

Mr Kamps says the search for storage sites for nuclear waste often targets the living areas of traditional inhabitants.

"It's having some of the greatest public health and environmental impacts because of the carelessness with which it's disposed of," he said...
"So it's just dumped on the surface and it blows with the wind and it flows with the water and that is unfortunately the state of practice with uranium mining."

Washington-based Kevin Kamps, who is on a national tour with the Wilderness Society, said the public's primary concern should be where the governments planned to store nuclear waste.

He said US experience showed reactors, generally located near cities, had been forced to store toxic waste while the argument of where to build a national dump continued.

Mr Kamps also says the search for storage sites for nuclear waste often targets the living areas of traditional inhabitants.

Last year the Australian federal Government passed legislation that could mean a nuclear waste facility will go ahead at Muckaty Station in the Northern Territory, even though only some of the traditional owners agreed.

Mr Kamps says a similar situation occurred in the US state of Nevada.

"One of the parallels that is very apparent is that often times it's politically vulnerable locations and even Indigenous people's lands that are targeted for these waste dumps," he said. "So that same environmental injustice seems to be at play here in Australia with the proposed Commonwealth dump in the Northern Territory, again on the land of traditional owners."

NIRS reports that nuclear power stations are a sunset industry. Despite so-far hollow nuclear industry claims of a "resurgence," the reality is that the world’s nuclear reactors continue to decline in number.

In the largest single-day shutdown in history, seven commercial atomic reactors closed permanently on December 31, 2006. These included Kozloduy in Bulgaria; Bohunice in Slovakia; and Dungeness, Sizewell in the United Kingdom.

American nuclear reactors produced up to 30 metric tonnes of waste each year, which posed serious health and environmental risks, he said.

"Nuclear power is still a very contentious issue in the US with most people asking where do we put the waste," he said. "If reactors are built, they will serve as waste storage sites for many years in the future and there is a massive risk for accidents."

Mr Kamps pointed to the Yucca Mountain proposed dump in Nevada that had now been delayed as a groundswell of opposition grew. He said nearby residents and environmentalists did not want the dump because of the site's location on a fault line, near drinking water supplies and on volcanic land. He argued that the same problem would happen in Australia if nuclear energy was developed.

Last month the South Australian city of Port Augusta, north of Adelaide, was named the most likely location for Australia's first nuclear power plant by The Australia Institute thinktank.

Mr Kamps dismissed the argument put by Prime Minister John Howard that nuclear energy was needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions produced by coal. "The creation of a nuclear power industry to decrease emissions trades one ecological disaster for another," he said.

Despite the misinformation campaign by the nuclear industry, nuclear power is not a carbon-free technology.

Only the reactors themselves are carbon-neutral. But the rest of the nuclear fuel chain (including mining of uranium, milling, processing and enrichment of uranium, construction of reactors and other necessary major nuclear facilities, and radioactive waste storage) results in significant release of carbon.

To the extent that nuclear reactors would directly replace existing coal plants, modest carbon reductions would occur; to the extent that new reactors would represent new capacity—the result would be an increase in greenhouse gases, not a decrease. Nuclear power is far more costly than most other alternatives, especially when the full cost of the entire nuclear fuel chain is considered.

NRIS reports that spending the levels of resources necessary to build dozens of new reactors, not to mention thousands, would result in insufficient resources to deploy essentially carbon-free technologies and thus would prevent the world from achieving the level of greenhouse gas emissions cuts now widely regarded as necessary (about 80% cut by mid-century).

Mr Kamps says in the the US the nuclear energy industry is propped up by billion-dollar government subsidies and renewable energy industries such as wind power are growing quickly.

"Wind is the fastest growing new source of electricity in the United States," he said. "You can put up wind turbines in a matter of months, where it takes years and years [for a nuclear reactor], the last built reactor in the United States cost $7 billion and took 23 years to build and we need to act in the near term to address the climate crisis - we can't wait for nuclear power."

At best, construction of 2-3,000 new reactors would result in emissions reductions of around 20%, but would require capital costs of $4-8 trillion or more. Far greater emissions reductions could be obtained by using our resources to fully develop and deploy more advanced and sustainable technologies.

However, the world is unlikely to be able to provide enough resources to implement large-scale nuclear and the more sustainable technologies.

SOURCES:
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
Campaigner warns against uranium mining - ABC
Alternatives to Nuclear
Wikipedia: Nuclear_Information_and_Resource_Service
Reactors to become 'nuclear storage sites' - News Ltd
US waste specialist warns against nuclear energy - ABC News

Largest-producing solar power plant inaugurated

March 29, 2007 - LISBON: The world's largest-producing solar power plant was inaugurated yesterday in Portugal. The 11-megawatt 61m-euro ($78.5m) plant, a joint project of US energy companies GE Energy Financial Services, PowerLight Corporation, and Portuguese renewable energy company Catavento, spreads across a 60-hectare hillside in Serpa, 200 km southeast of Lisbon. Southern Portugal, one of the sunniest places in Europe, has as much as 3,300 hours of sunlight a year. The new plant will produce enough power to supply 8,000 homes and will also prevent the emission of 30,000 tons of greenhouse gases a year when compared to fossil fuels.
The photovoltaic system it uses employs silicon solar cell technology to convert sunlight directly into electricity. It will produce 20 gigawatt hours of power per year. Construction of the plant began in June 2006. It started working partially in January 2007. The facility is owned by GE Energy Financial Services, and will be operated and maintained by PowerLight, which also designed it. Management services will be undertaken by Catavento, which developed the project.

"This project is successful because Portugal's sunshine is plentiful, the solar power technology is proven, government policies are supportive, and we are investing ... to help our customers meet their environmental challenges," said Kevin Walsh, managing director and leader of renewable energy at GE Energy Financial Services. "This is the most productive solar plant in the world, it will produce 40 percent more energy than the second largest one, Gut Erlasse in Germany," said Howard Wenger principal of Powerlight.

Piero Dal Maso, co-CEO of Catavento, said the project "serves as a beacon to the world to show how to overcome challenges of scale and complexity." Co-CEO Rui Pimenta said he hoped the government would clear remaining roadblocks "so solar power can truly radiate across Portugal."

Portugal is almost entirely dependent on imported energy, but is developing large wave and solar power projects and building wind farms to supply some 750,000 homes. It also is exploring new hydropower projects and plans to invest 8bn euros ($10.8bn) in renewable energy projects over the next five years.

Prime Minister Jose Socrates said in January that his Socialist government wanted 45 per cent of Portugal's total power consumption to come from renewable sources by 2010. Though it is a 12-megawatt plant, Gut Erlasse solar park in Bavaria produces less electricity because it is located at a higher latitude with less sun.

The scheme fits into Portugal's plans of reducing its reliance on imported energy and cutting output of greenhouse gasses that feed global warming. Portugal's emissions have surged about 37 per cent since 1990, one of the highest increases in the world. By bringing modern technology to one of western Europe's poorest regions, the $US75-million plant is expected to bring alternative development to the Alentejo.

There are also plans to build a solar power plant in the neighbouring town of Moura.

Press Release from PowerLight Corporation
Images

Howard's Nuclear Future - Reeks of Cronyism, Hypocrisy and Misinformation

MARCH 5, 2007: The controversial appointment of high profile nuclear-power proponent, Ziggy Switkowski - to head Australia's nuclear research body (ANSTO) has been widely criticised. Dr Switkowski's report to Prim Minister Howard late last year proposed a scenario of 25 Australian nuclear reactors. Critcs say "due process had been thrown out the window in the nuclear debate".

“We are talking about the world’s most hazardous energy source, yet the Government process to investigate whether Australia should adopt it has not been independent, not rigorous, not transparent, not robust. It is simply not good enough,” said ACF nuclear campaigner Dave Sweeney.

Meanwhile, John Howard's push for dozens of Australian nuclear reactors and his relationship with nuclear reactor proponents - Ron Walker and friends - highlights the cronyism and hypocrisy of a nuclear power push in Australia...
The Federal Opposition has criticised the Government's appointment of Ziggy Switkowski as chairman of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO). Science Minister Julie Bishop says Switkowski is the ideal choice to head ANSTO, as Australia considers nuclear power as an alternative to coal.

Labor's Kim Carr is critical of Switkowski's ANSTO appointment, saying: "his recent report for the Prime Minister lends weight to the view that he will be pursuing an agenda by this Government, for this Government, to impose nuclear power upon Australia."

With the Prime Minister's push for nuclear reactors, and his dubious relationship with nuclear-reactor proponent Ron Walker, the subject of intense scrutiny, the nuclear power hypocrisy deserves to be put under the microscope.

Howard admitted last week that Liberal powerbroker Ron Walker was setting up a nuclear energy company around the same time he announced the taskforce, headed by former Telstra chief Switkowski. Mr Walker and fellow businessmen Robert Champion de Crespigny and Hugh Morgan registered Australian Nuclear Energy Pty Ltd on June 1 last year, five days before Mr Howard set up his prime ministerial taskforce. ANE was forced to deny newspaper reports that it was planning to build Australia's first nuclear power station in either Victoria or South Australia.

ANE issued a statement saying it was a "private company established to examine potential commercial responses to future energy needs" and denied it had proposed to build nuclear power plants.

Greens' nuclear spokesperson, Senator Christine Milne, said Howard and Rudd need to be straight with the community about uranium mining, exports, nuclear reactors and waste dumps and the discussions they are having with party backers, pollsters, the mining industry and nuclear proponents.

"It is no wonder Australians are confused about how Australia is suddenly in the grip of a major nuclear push when overwhelmingly the community opposes it. Conflicts of interest, hypocrisy, and cronyism are rife. Transparency of process and freedom of information are the cornerstones of democracy. They are sadly lacking in Australia right now," Senator Milne said.

The federal opposition says the new chairman of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) has been appointed to follow the government's agenda. "Whatever Mr Ziggy Switkowski's considerable professional qualifications, this will be seen as a highly controversial appointment," Labor's science spokesman Kim Carr said.

Despite scientists and the community objections, Switkowski's report proposed that nuclear-power would offset climate change because it would be clean and cost competitive in its own right.

Labor's Energy spokesman Chris Evans says Mr Howard is pushing an agenda. "It's clear that the Prime Minister is encouraging people to go down the path of nuclear energy," he said. "The Howard Government's plan to take us down the nuclear path is much more advanced than people thought."

The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) says Switkowski's appointment represents a conflict of interest. ACF's Dave Sweeney said Switkowski's appointment showed that due process had been thrown out the window in the nuclear debate currently raging in the country. Mr Sweeney said the appointment highlighted the Government's quest to push nuclear energy, especially when the Government had not yet responded to Dr Switkowski's nuclear inquiry report.

"We are talking about the world's most hazardous energy source, yet the government process to investigate whether Australia should adopt it has not been independent, not rigorous, not transparent, not robust," he said. "It is simply not good enough."

Mr Sweeney said the Prime Minister's haste towards a nuclear program had seen an unashamedly pro-nuclear Mr Howard hand-pick a taskforce to examine domestic nuclear power and then appoint as taskforce chairman a man who was on the board of Australia's largest nuclear agency.

He said the taskforce delivered a "one-eyed pro-nuclear report" that lacked detail on costing and siting, failed to address the two key issues of nuclear safeguards and radioactive waste, and was widely criticised. "Before the dust settles on this report, before the Government has even formally responded to this report, its chief author is promoted and put in charge of its implementation," Mr Sweeney said. "Mr Switkowski has a clear conflict of interest. "

Labor called Dr Switkowski a "pawn for the Government". But Dr Switkowski said his experience heading up the nuclear power study would be an advantage in his new position. "ANSTO itself, I think, is well progressed in its thinking around all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle," Dr Switkowski said on ABC radio. "The fact that I now return as chairman will lead to a situation where the board will continue to be, I think, conversant with and in some cases quite expert in the areas of ANSTO, which is what you would want."

Meanwhile, John Howard himself told Parliament last week that: "I might remind the leader of the Opposition that the laws of the Commonwealth and the state as they now stand, prohibit any nuclear power generation in Australia..."


The Premier of Victoria, Steve Bracks, said he would hold a plebiscite if the Federal Government tried to override state laws and build a plant in Victoria. "There's no safe way of storing radioactive waste, No. 1," he said. "No. 2, the general safety of the plan is questionable, and No. 3, the economics are just not there." The South Australian Premier, Mike Rann, said no reactor would be contemplated while he was premier.

Labor's environment spokesman, Peter Garrett, said he was surprised the plans to build a plant were so advanced. "Australians are very clear that they don't want nuclear energy and nuclear power in this country."

The Wilderness Society spokeswoman Imogen Zethoven said any Australian nuclear plan must be stopped. "If we just went blindly down this path of producing nuclear power we would just end up with this massive waste problem which would become Australia's biggest waste problem ever and for an extremely long time."

The 'debate' continues...

---

SEE RELATED:
Suburban homes uninsured against nuclear accidents || NT Uranium Mine Danger: Heavy rains pose radioactive risk to Kakadu

---

SOURCES:
ABC News
Media Release - Senator Milne
The Age
News Ltd
Ziggy’s promotion a process meltdown - ACF
WA Business News
Govt to nuclear company - ABC PM
Howard's nuclear plan 'more advanced' - ABC News
Sydney Morning Herald
Businessmen deny nuclear proposal - SMH

Coal lobby censors climate change website

5 March 2007: MINING INDUSTRY SILENCING DISSENT: A satirical website created by climate action group Rising Tide Newcastle has twice been shut down this fortnight by powerful coal industry lobby group, the NSW Minerals Council...
The website is a parody of the NSW Minerals Council's big-budget spin-doctor campaign to promote the 'virtues' of the coal industry.

Climate activist group Rising Tide built the site to highlight the growing contribution coal exports make to climate change.

Greens MP Lee Rhiannon has criticised the powerful coal industry lobby group, the NSW Minerals Council, for attempting to censor the climate change debate by getting their lawyers to shut down a community based climate change website.

"This is an extraordinary case of censorship by the powerful coal industry," said Ms Rhiannon. "The NSW Minerals Council is pulling out all stops to censor public debate on the deadly impact of coal on our climate at a time when robust open debate on the future of coal is urgently needed."

"A recent Hunter survey that showed more than half of people in the Hunter now feel the negative impacts of coal far outweigh the positive benefits, has pushed the powerful coal lobby to this desperate measure."

After lawyers for the NSW Minerals Council complained to the website hosting company that Rising Tide's content was in breach of copyright, the website was shut down. Rising Tide contested this claim and hit back by re-designing the website to ensure it was not subject to copyright, but the lawyers moved in a second time and had the website shut down again. Rising Tide has now filed a counter claim that the NSW Mineral Council's grounds were spurious, and have re-launched their website today using an overseas internet service provider to protect the site from further attack.

"The NSW Minerals Council must be prepared to face open debate about coal instead of censoring community opinions that they are uncomfortable with," said Ms Rhiannon.

- NSW Mineral Council's coal public relations website – www.nswmining.com.au
- Rising Tide's parody website – www.miningnsw.com.au

The website was conceived as a response to the Minerals Council's “Life. Brought to you by Mining” advertising campaign.

The Minerals Council campaign, which argues that mining is inextricable from modern luxury can be viewed at www.nswmining.com.au. Rising Tide members created a parody website at www.miningnsw.com.au in order to present the other side of the story and address the damage wrought by mining to the local and global environment and to the local community.

Steve Phillips, spokesperson for Rising Tide Newcastle said, “The coal export industry constitutes NSW's biggest single contribution to global climate change. There is also growing public awareness of the terrible impacts of coal mining on biodiversity, water and air quality. The Minerals Council want people to know that luxury is dependent on mining: All we want is for the public to be fully informed about the consequences of that luxury, and to realise that while we can have jobs without coal, and we can have energy without coal, we cannot have a coal industry without climate change.”

Rising Tide has now moved the site to an off-shore host in order that the information contained within it can remain in the public domain.

“The Minerals Council is abusing legal process to ensure that its public-relations spin is unquestioned and that community criticism of its methods or message is quashed as quickly as possible” said Ned Haughton, the site’s graphical designer.

Mr. Phillips continued, "We have issued a counter-notice rejecting the Minerals Council's spurious claims. The Minerals Council now has ten days in which to take the matter further."

“The Minerals Council say they want a “balanced debate” on the impacts of coal mining on local, regional, and global environments – we welcome that wholeheartedly. Their rhetoric however, is sharply at odds with their attempts to silence legitimate criticism from community groups.”

For more information:

Ned Haughton on 0417 484 735
Steve Phillips on 0437 275 119.

Background:
* On February 19th this year, the NSW Minerals Council (NSWMC) launched an expensive public relations campaign with the slogan “Life: Brought to you by mining.” The campaign includes billboards, television, and newspaper advertisements, and the website www.nswmining.com.au

* Shortly after the launch of the NSWMC website, Rising Tide Newcastle (RTN)set up a satirical and critical website at www.miningnsw.com.au. This website was a mirror image of the NSWMC website, except that the text was different, describing the negative social and environmental effects of the mining industry.

* The hosts of the RTN website were contacted by NSWMC lawyers within 24 hours of the launch of the site. The NSWMC lawyers abused a clause of the Commonwealth Copyright Regulations to forced the website hosts to remove the site. RTN created the original website as a satirical imitation of the NSWMC site, with rewritten commentary. While this was most probably legal under the Copyright Act's Fair Dealing clause as a parody, the hosts were legally required to remove the site pending a response to the Minerals Council's claim of copyright infringement, which did not specify the articles of alleged copyright.

* RTN then completely re-made the site, with original layout and images that were either original or used with permission, in order to remove all possibility of copyright infringement. The NSWMC lawyers nevertheless contacted the new website hosts within 24 hours, with a similar claim letter, and again had the site removed under Regulation 20J of the Copyright Regulations.

* While the site had not contravened any copyright laws, as the lawyers for the NSWMC may well have known, the host was again legally obliged to remove the site.

* RTN have submitted a counter-notice, rejecting the allegations of the NSWMC. The NSWMC now have a 10 period in which they can take the matter further, which would require taking RTN to court over the incident.

* In the meantime, the RTN website has been relaunched with an offshore host. International copyright law does not have the same automatic take-down clause of Australian copyright law.

SOURCES:
melbourne.indymedia.org/news...
Parody Site: miningnsw.com.au
risingtide.org.au
Sydney Indymedia - Climate Mining

WA government let Woodside's bulldozers destroy Burrup rock art

February 28, 2007: Bulldozers turned loose on the Burrup rock art - The Western Australian Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Michelle Roberts, has given her approval for energy giant WOODSIDE to clear a large expanse of land on the Burrup Peninsula, in the WA's north-west, as part of its massive Pluto gas development. Mrs Roberts says the project is too significant to be abandoned. But critics of the plan to detroy some of the 30,000 year-old rock art say Minister Roberts is "bloody-minded" and "Orwellian" in her refusal to discuss the simple alternative of relocating the site, not the rock art...
"The Western Australian Government is treating Aboriginal heritage with contempt," says WA Greens Senator Rachael Siewert. "Traditional Owners opposed development in this area... the Aboriginal Cultural Materials Committee opposed development in this area," said Senator Siewert. "But through sheer bloody-mindedness and refusal to consider alternate locations, Woodside has been given approvals to destroy the area."

Mrs Roberts approval ignores calls for the project to be moved to protect its ancient rock art, with Federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull refusing to safeguard the site by giving it a national heritage listing. Roberts' approval will almost certainly cause even more damage to the already descrated Burrup Peninsula rock art province. It seems WOODSIDE and the WA Government are acting against the wishes of hindreds of thousands of people across the planet, as well as the site`s Aboriginal custodians and the scientific community.

"It is ironic that Woodside will have to 'provide a comprehensive cultural management plan' for the areas that have been spared from the bulldozers," said Senator Siewert. "This kind of Orwellian language would not be necessary if the Government was properly upholding its responsibilities to look after cultural heritage."

Indigenous Affairs Minister Michelle Roberts gave Woodside the green light to develop Site B on its $10 billion Pluto gas project on the Burrup Peninsula, arguing the dollar value of the controversial development was too great to ignore - despite the potential solution of shifting the site.

But Mrs Roberts claims there were no economically viable alternative sites to Pluto site B. The project is still awaiting further environmental approvals and a final investment decision by Woodside is not expected until the middle of the year, but its LNG exports are set to start in 2010.

According to The West Australian Newspaper, Woodside welcomed Mrs Roberts’ decision but said it was one of several approvals it required for the project to proceed. Liberal MP Colin Barnett — who has been campaigning to move the project to a cleared, adjacent site leased by the North-West Shelf Venture Partners — said he was disappointed with the decision. Mr Barnett said Woodside could face legal ramifications because Pluto had not been subject to a State agreement.

The Burrup Peninsula is the world's largest outdoor rock engraving site, containing rock art of world importance possibly dating back to 30,000 years ago, including possibly the first ever representation of the human face in history.

Pictures of rock art removal on the Burrup peninsula show hundreds of boulders lying in piles amid red dust and rubble, after being bulldozed in recent weeks to make way for Woodside Petroleum's Pluto gas processing plant. The secretly taken photographs show the extent of removal of rocks containing ancient Aboriginal carvings dating back as far as 10-20,000 years. Scraped and smashed rocks, with carvings visible on some surfaces, lie in piles several metres high.

The National Trust of Australia, says the government has effectively sanctioned the continued destruction of one of the world's great rock art galleries. "It's an absolute disgrace and there will be outrage internationally," state National Trust executive director Tom Perrigo said, describing the government as having
"utter contempt for this national treasure."

Senator Siewart says: "This is a unique place that meets the criteria for heritage listing. He is making Australia an international laughing stock. Following delays by both WA and Federal for heratige listing, Site A of the Woodside development has been bulldozed, resulting in the removal of hundreds of pieces of rock art and loss of their cultural value."

No moves had been made by the Commonwealth or State governments to discuss the possible co-location of the Woodside development.

"I ask once again - why hasn't the Commonwealth used its influence to try and facilitate such discussions? Mr Turnbull is failing Australia's heritage, and one can only presume the reason for delay is to let development proceed without heritage listing," Senator Siewert said.

Friends of Burrup Rock Art convenor Robin Chapple said the federal and West Australian governments should halt further clearing and direct Woodside to relocate its Pluto plant to a cleared site owned by the North West Shelf joint venturers. "Otherwise we'll end up as international pariahs viewed in the same light as the Taliban when they blew up the Bamiyan statues," he said.

Burrup rock art vigils held in recent weeks in several countries, including at the foot of the Eiffel Tower, have intensified international coverage of the Burrup's fate. More vigils are planned at the mouth of France's rock art-decorated Lascaux Caves, in Rio de Janeiro and in Canberra.

SOURCES:
ABC News
The West
standupfortheburrup.com
Media Release
The Australian
burrup.org.au/

BHP: 30 million litres of water per day for free - despite $8 billion 6 month profit

February 7, 2007 : Free water despite $8 billion 6 month profit

On the back of this morning's announcement of a 6 month profit of $8billion, Greens MLC Mark Parnell has called on BHP Billiton to start paying for water from the Great Artesian Basin as part of a complete renegotiation of the special deal that the Roxby Downs mine receives...
Mr Parnell says most Australians struggling with water restrictions would be very upset to learn that a company making an $8 billion profit in just 6 months is getting 30 million litres of water a day for free.

"BHP Billiton is laughing all the way to the bank - not only do they get special exemptions from a whole range of laws, they have an ridiculously generous deal on water," said Mr Parnell.

Since 1982, the Roxby Downs Indenture Act has granted extraordinary and unique exemptions from basic South Australian regulations and laws that all other miners and developers are required to follow. These include the South Australian Freedom of Information, Environment Protection, and Natural Resource Management Acts.

"On the back of the proposed massive expansion of the mine, and the switch to an open cut process, it is time to renegotiate the whole deal. Everything in the 1982 Roxby Downs Indenture Act should be back on the table, including water," he said.

The Roxby Downs mine is the single biggest user of water from the Great Artesian Basin, and the largest single-site industrial user of underground water in the Southern Hemisphere. When asked specifically by Phil Coorey of the Sydney Morning Herald about the amount of Great Artesian Basin water the Olympic Dam mine is using, and is likely to use in its expansion, John Howard stated last week that 'everybody's got to make a contribution to solving this problem'.

"Even John Howard has called for caps and pricing on Great Artesian Basin water, yet the Rann government still continues to give millions of litres of water away free every single day. This has got to stop," said Mark Parnell.

WA to trial fifty Zero Emission Vehicles

Friday, 9 February 2007 - Back in the 1950s, an electric car was among the fastest, most efficient cars ever built. It ran on electricity and produced no carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Almost 60 years on, as peak oil approaches and with CO2 vehicle emissions contributing to rapid global warming, electric cars are coming back. Despite strong community support, Australia has been slower on the uptake. But tow the Western australian government is calling for a trial of zero emission vehicles..
In an announcement today, the WA Government says it will allow a trial of 50 small zero emission vehicles (ZEV-lites), making it the first and only to do so - provided the Federal Government permits the cars to be imported into Australia.

Planning and Infrastructure Minister Alannah MacTiernan today said: "These types of electric vehicles are already a common sight on London’s streets where they also attract benefits such as free parking, on street recharging points, and exemption from the congestion charge".

With a maximum speed of around 70km/h and a range of 100km, the vehicles have very low running costs and when recharged using renewable energy such as GreenPower, produce no particulate or greenhouse gas emissions. Even with ordinary electrical energy it is still far more greenhouse friendly than any other low emission vehicle on the road. In the past, safety concerns had been raised as the reason for blocking the use of these vehicles in Australia.

However, French Government figures show that ZEV-lites had lower accident and fatality rates than cars, motorbikes and mopeds. The WA trial would enable a limited number of ZEV-lites to be closely monitored to assess the vehicle’s performance under Australian road conditions. The Federal Government had previously declined to issue import approvals for ZEV-lites claiming that no State had showed an interest in registering the vehicles.

"We urge the Federal Government to reconsider this decision given that WA has confirmed it is prepared to shoulder the burden of managing the trial of the vehicles," the Minister said. Ms MacTiernan said that a combination of climate change and peak oil would require significant changes in the transport sector and that ZEV-lites could offer a versatile and environmentally sound transport option.

The Australian Greens welcomed the WA government's decision to trial 50 Reva electric cars and called on the Howard government to issue an import permit. Greens transport spokesperson Senator Christine Milne said the electric car could play an important role in helping to reduce the growing greenhouse emissions from the transport sector but the "Howard government had so far thwarted a trial. The WA government is to be congratulated for taking on the Howard government over the use of the Reva electric car on Australia's roads," Senator Milne said.

She said the vehicles are approved for use on public roads in many countries but the Howard government has frustrated the efforts of people to import the Reva and has refused to create an appropriate vehicle licensing category for the electric car.

"Instead of promoting fuel guzzling V8 vehicles as Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane is, the federal government should help redirect Australia's automotive manufacturers towards producing vehicles with improved environmental performance, thereby ensuring a long-term future for the industry," said Senator Milne

In November 2006, the South Australian-based owners of an electric car that had been destined to be crushed were given a reprieve by the Western Australian Government. The Solar Shop imported the Reva Electric car a year ago, but has been unable to comply with Australian Design Rules and feared they would have to destroy it to avoid a fine.

The Western Australian Government wrote to the Federal Government to ask for an extension on their import approval certificate. Solar Shop manager Adrian Ferraretto says, while he is happy the car will not be crushed, they were hoping for a different outcome from the Federal Government.

"They've been asking us to treat it as a conventional car as opposed to the category to which it was designed to, which is a heavy quadricycle," he said last year. "The reason why we have issues with this is because pretty much every other country in the world has a light vehicle category and pretty much every electrical vehicle in the world falls within this category, so if we don't have a light vehicle category, we don't have electric vehicles in Australia."

The Federal Government says the calls for a new category are unrealistic.

In November 2006 Greens WA MLC Giz Watson said it was time the Federal Government recognised the need to establish a new category and suitable safety standards to facilitate the rollout of clean green cars in Australia.
CAR makers are dragging the chain on introducing alternative-fuel vehicles into Australia, despite high oil prices and growing consumer demand.

Despite countinuosly higher petrol prices, Australian car makers have no immediate plans to go greener. American parents of Ford and Holden offer several alternative-fuel options in the US, where hybrids made up 1.2 per cent of vehicle sales. Environment groups are calling for government intervention to ensure the introduction of cleaner, more economical vehicles.

"We would buy them if they were here," Jeff Angel of the Total Environment Centre said. "The more they produce, the cheaper these cars are going to become. Car manufacturers should start becoming part of the solution."

SOURCES:
WA calls for trial of zero emission vehicles - Media Statement
Greens welcome Reva car decision - Media Release
Top car makers stall on hybrids in Australia - SMH
WA intervenes to save electric car - ABC News. November 6, 2006
Road, safety chiefs 'ganged up' to stall electric cars - Sydney Morning Herald, 4 October 2006
Who killed the electric car? - Giz Watson
REVA Australia website
Start your (electric) engines: the race to revive the electric car is on - WWF
Movie: Who Killed the Electric Car
Reva wins ‘Most Ethical car’ award in the UK - ENS News

Australia should stop dirty exports - coal is the new asbestos

February 9, 2007: Australian of of the Year, Professor Tim Flannery, said exporting coal is not in Australia's national interest and the Federal Government should no longer be supporting the industry.

"This government has let the country down. This government has become a menace to the future of our children."

Greens Leader Bob Brown says Australia should phase out coal exports within the next three years. Brown's proposal follows comments by Professor Flannery, who said the "social licence" of coal is being withdrawn across the globe because of its massive contribution to greenhouse gas emissions...
Prime Minister John Howard is at odds with Australia's most celebrated climate scientist over coal. After being named Australian of the Year and vowing to criticise the government, Professor Flannery has called for an end to coal exports.

Dr Flannery said exporting coal could no longer be considered to be in Australia's national interest. "The social licence of coal to operate is rapidly being withdrawn globally, and no government can protect an industry from that sort of thing occurring," he said. "We've seen it with asbestos, we'll see it with coal." Professor Flannery said it was too late for the planet to clean up coal.

Dr Flannery said rather than dirty coal, solar thermal and geothermal technologies could form the basis of meeting Australia's energy needs and they were better options than, for example, nuclear power.

Senator Bob Brown agrees. "Neither the Howard Coalition nor Rudd Labor will tackle our biggest cause of climate change - burning coal. Both the parties support burning more, not less," Senator Brown said. "This is an extreme position considering the massive economic and environmental crisis the world is facing."

"The nation should rapidly transform to being the world's largest exporter of solar power technology, other renewable energy options and energy efficiency technology - creating thousands of jobs and a multi-billion dollar export income in tandem with the replacement of coal," Senator Brown said.

However Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce says Australians would be "living on the streets under a tarpaulin" if the country adopted the plan. Senator Joyce said coal was Australia's major trade export earner, and ceasing exports would cause untold economic harm. Senator Joyce said Australia should be pursuing research into clean-coal technology, but not at the expense of the coal industry.

Senator Brown said Howard's silver bullet of "clean coal" technology was at least a decade away and the government could not wait to phase out coal over 30-years.

Senator Brown proposed a reduction of coal exports and their replacement with exports of renewable energy. He said Australia had fantastic solar energy research which could save the planet but which was being purchased by foreign companies. "We do need extreme measures compared to what has happened in the past," he said. "This government has let the country down. This government has become a menace to the future of our children."

Senator Brown said the Greens saw it as politically unacceptable to have a phase-out over 30 years which would wipe out the lifestyle, economy and jobs of future generations. "The Greens are talking about intervening on the market. The big parties won't and so are therefore saying let this country and the rest of the planet go to perdition because we won't take action," he said.

"We are a rich and wealthy country. We can look after the coal miners and we can replace their fortunes with a much more job-productive industry." Senator Brown said he was proposing a reduction of coal exports and replacing them with exports of renewable energy.

He said Australia had fantastic solar energy research which could save the planet but which was being purchased by foreign companies. Australia can no longer put its head in the sand. Even if we do nothing to phase out coal exports, our customers will. The Europeans are already talking about sanctions and restrictions on coal imports. The issue is not just what we think the future of coal is, but what our customers think the future is. Business in Europe is not going to accept the Australian government freeloading with coal," Senator Brown said.

Greens MP Lee Rhiannon has called on NSW Premier Morris Iemma to meet with
Professor Tim Flannery to discuss the future of the coal industry. "The best thing Mr Iemma could do ... is to announce an end to coal exports and no new coal projects. Voters are looking for leadership and real solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Now is the time ... to move past the coal age. A good place to start would be to talk with Professor Flannery," Ms Rhiannon said.

"The links between the expansion of the coal industry and global warming are beginning to resonate with the electorate. We can have a win for the environment and for jobs by phasing out coal. Generating a unit of energy from wind power creates about four times the number of jobs as coal. The Greens are working with a range of community groups to plan for a just transition from the era of coal to a renewable and energy efficient future," said Ms Rhiannon.

Others are saying Professor Flannery should address Parliament about his proposal for solar-thermal geothermal energy to replace the dirty coal industry. WA Rights group Project SafeCom said "Mr Howard stumbles around in Parliament like a greedy child in a pitch-dark school tuck shop on environmental issues, and that Mr Howard can only do what he thinks is best - and that is to support his 20th Century friends in the coal industry."

"The Prime Minister either has no idea that solar technology already can supply all base load energy for Australia's energy needs, or - more likely - that he tries to hide these options at all costs, even showing that he and his government is prepared to lie about the baseload generation capacity of these technologies. Tim Flannery can wake them up, and make them think clearly again. He should be given the opportunity to make his case in Parliament in a joint sitting of both Houses." Mr Smit said.

Greens climate change and energy spokesperson Senator Christine Milne said Labor's refusal to accept that coal is part of the greenhouse problem shows it has failed to come to terms with climate change and the actions needed to combat it.

"The Australian Labor Party cannot expect to be taken seriously on climate change while it adopts the coal industry's line that exporting fossil fuels to power the world is of no consequence for global warming," Senator Milne said in Canberra. "Australia under the Howard government has spent 11 years evading its international responsibility to help reduce emissions while making handsome profits from selling coal. We have plenty of other options, including solar thermal power, wind, biomass and geothermal. It's time to get on with creating more jobs and wealth from building these industries."

Meanwhile, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, which represents coal miners, declared its support for establishing a carbon market. "Coal miners have voted to support carbon trading and, frankly, it is a disgrace that the Howard government has taken 10 years to even start talking about it," CFMEU president Tony Maher told the ABC. The prime minister disagreed. "Union leaders don't necessarily speak for workers," Mr Howard told parliament. For the last 10 years, a lot of coal miners have voted for us."

Mr Howard said coal-fired power stations were a very cheap source of energy in this country, and Australia was the largest coal exporter in the world. Ignoring the benefits and availability of Renewable energy, Mr Howard said as "clean" coal became more expensive, we could then start to look at nuclear power. "At the moment nuclear power is not economic, compared to dirty coal. But if you apply new technology to that, the cleaner technology becomes dearer and make nuclear power economically more feasible."

Professor Flannery said that in the future, coal would be seen as just as dangerous as asbestos is now. "As the situation unfolds and the matters get more critical, the world is not going to allow people to pollute our common atmosphere, as occurs at the moment," he told ABC. Dr Flannery said solar thermal and geothermal technologies could form the basis of meeting Australia's energy needs and they were better options than nuclear power.

His comments were immediately dismissed by the Prime Minister, John Howard, who said money would be better spent on developing technologies to clean up coal production.

Meanwhile, Beach Petroleum last month announced a $30 million investment in Petratherm's hot-rock project in South Australia. If successful, the project will supply electricity to the Beverley uranium mine and eventually link to the national grid. Petratherm is also working to help China establish its geothermal potential.

The Earth's atmosphere is not as big as many assume it is, for example, it is much smaller than the ocean. Professor Flannery says our thin atmosphere is about one 500th the size of the ocean.

He says "that explains why we've had three atmospheric emergencies, if you want, through my lifetime, you know. We had acid rain, then we had the hole in the ozone layer and now we’ve got greenhouse gases and climate change. We haven’t yet precipitated a global oceanic pollution crisis. It is not that we don't throw rubbish into the oceans, it’s just that the oceans are so much bigger."

--

Coal exports earned the nation $25 billion last year. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, coal mining employs 28,300 workers. Over the last 12 months, employment growth was over 299,000.

SOURCES:
PM fights Flannery at coalface - February 8, 2007 News Ltd
PM, Flannery clash on coal industry - February 8, 2007 SMH
Brown back eventual coal export ban - February 8, 2007 The Australian
Flannery should address solar-thermal power - February 8, 2007 SCOOP
Labor's climate policy in tatters over coal exports - February 8, 2007 Greens Media Release
oyce blasts Greens over coal exports- February 9, 2007 The West
Coal will be the new asbestos, says Flannery - February 9, 2007 SMH
The Australian Editorial: Keeping the message cool on climate - February 9, 2007
ABC LATELINE Tim Flannery

Why nuclear energy is not the solution to climate change

February 1, 2007: Faced with unrelenting local and global pressure over climate change, Prime Minister John Howard punches the nuclear power button almost every time he opens his mouth these days. His recent taskforce, looking at alternatives to fossil-fuel, yet stacked with nuclear industry proponents, announced over New Year 2007 that uranium mining be expanded and that nuclear energy is a viable option for Australia.

But nuclear power is not an answer to climate change...

If the argument is about greenhouse gases, Peter Bradford, former member of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, says that: even if nuclear is fast-tracked over all other energy prospects, nuclear cannot provide more than 10-15% of greenhouse gas displacement likely to be needed by 2050.

Bradford says: "Not only can nuclear power not stop global warming, it is probably not even an essential part of the solution to global warming."

Extensive studies have shown that humans urgently need to shift to cleaner, safer energy sources to tackle the challenge of debilitating global climate change. And according to Friends of the Earth, there is no case for nuclear power to be part of the future energy mix. The environmental organisation said in November 2006, that nuclear power was a "dangerous distraction" from the safe solutions to the global crisis of climate change.

Globally, nuclear power currently supplies around three per cent of global energy - albeit at massive economic and environmental cost. Yet Friends of the Earth say renewable energy sources can supply considerably more than the International Energy Agency's highest global energy forecasts.

There are vast solar energy resources in Australia's deserts, for example, which can be converted to electricity by simple and safe mirror-based technologies. Globally, these could generate power on a scale of between ten and hundred times greater than any feasible nuclear expansion. And this technology is available right now.

Yet John Howard regurgitates the uranium industry line that nuclear power is "clean and green," when it is simply not true.

Nuclear power is not good for greenhouse gas reduction, because it requires huge amounts of fossil fuels - for mining, milling and enrichment of uranium. Furthermore, nuclear energy is dependent on the concentration of the uranium ore - and as more uranium is used, the quality of ore is depleted. According to recent analysis, even with high-grade ore, it would take 10 years to "pay back" the energy used in construction and fuelling of a typical reactor. And with lower-grade ore - if nuclear power were to be widely expanded - the net emissions would be far greater than a gas power station. Other studies show that uranium reserves would be depleted within 5-10 years if used to replace Coal as an energy source globally.

Water is also an issue in the nuclear energy cycle, consuming millions of litres of water to produce any fuel. Yet many towns and shires across Australia are struggling to get enough drinking water - let alone enough to satisfy the amount a nuclear station would need to guzzle. This is water that we simply cannot afford as chronic drought and looming climate change dry up water supplies in this country.

There is also the perpetual issue of nuclear waste. The nuclear industry is a producer of highly toxic, radioactive and hazardous waste. Yet in over 50 years, scientists have still not found a viable solution to the ongoing problem of radioactive waste. Nuclear power stations produce the most dangerous industrial wastes known to humankind. Reports estimate that even without expansion, by 2015 there will be roughly 250,000 tonnes to deal with. Beyond the waste issue, radioactive leaks continue. Since Chernobyl in 1986, more than 22 serious leaks have been documented. There are far greater safety issues involved with nuclear energy than any other method of generating power.

In terms of economic efficiency, nuclear power is the most expensive way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear power is not economically viable without significant government subsidies. It is well known that the nuclear energy industry is heavily subsidised by taxpayers across the planet. Canada for example has a 4 billion dollar debt attributed to nuclear energy. And the USA provides direct subsidies to nuclear energy totalling $115 billion, with a further $145 billion of indirect subsidies.

But similar support has not been forthcoming for renewable energy. If the money invested in nuclear and fossil fuel subsidies were spent on energy efficiency and developing renewable energy sources - perhaps we would be much closer to meeting our needs at a far lower cost to the environment and power consumers.

Wind power, for example, is the fastest growing energy source in the world, and is far cheaper than nuclear. For the same investment, wind generates more electricity, and offers more jobs. Renewable energy is getting cheaper the more we produce in Australia. In recent years, over 6,000 megawatts of wind generation have been installed every year in Europe. This is the equivalent of three nuclear power plants.

Australians want renewable energy. A National Poll in 2003 found that 76% of respondents would pay an additional 5% on their energy bills for a 10% increase in renewable energy - when the alternative was cheap energy at any environmental cost.

Professor Ian Lowe, Australian Conservation Foundation President says, "be in no doubt: renewable energy works. Renewables now account for a quarter of the installed capacity of California, a third of Sweden's energy, half of Norway's and three-quarters of Iceland's. It is time we joined the clean energy revolution sweeping the progressive parts of the world," he said. "Renewables can meet Australia's energy demands. Just 15 wind farms could supply enough power for half the homes in NSW," said Professor Lowe.

Fitting solar panels to just half the houses in Australia could supply 7% of all our electricity needs, including industry needs - enough in fact for the whole of Tasmania and the Northern Territory. Currently, nuclear is a marginal energy source, supplying a small percent of the world energy demand.

Nuclear energy only produces electricity and can not replace petrol or diesel as fuel for cars, trucks, ships and planes - road transport is currently the source of 22% of carbon dioxide emissions, and aviation is the fastest growing source of CO2 emissions.

Nuclear power is not a sustainable energy source - it is greenhouse intensive, it is costly, dangerous, and produces toxic waste which hangs around for hundreds of thousands of years.

But don't let John Howard distort and polish the dubious reality of nuclear power, find out for yourself...

Sources:
- Media Release - FOE
- International Energy Agency
- Professor Ian Lowe. National Press Club, October 19, 2005
- Nuclear Power - Dr Helen Caldicott
- Boston Globe
- John Busby
- Sustainable Development Commission

Decommisioned toxic nuclear reactor parts to be dumped in Australian desert?

JAN 30 2007: Used reactor parts: Environmentalists have warned against dumping radioactive waste from Australia's Lucas Heights old nuclear reactor parts in the Northen Territory. Federal Science Minister Julie Bishop says its not yet known which site in the NT will be chosen as Australia's first central nuclear waste dump. The 50-year-old HIFAR reactor in Sydney's south is being decommissioned. Minister Bishop shut down Australia's first nuclear reactor today...

January 30, 2007 marks the end of the Sydney's Lucas Heights nuclear reactor in the city's south, after almost 50 years of operation. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) says it is confident ongoing problems with Australia's next nuclear reactor "will be fixed by the time it is meant to come on line."

The work of the reactor will be taken over by the new Argentinian-designed research reactor called OPAL. The new $350 million OPAL reactor replaces the old facility, which opened in 1958 as Australia's first nuclear reactor.

ANSTO chief executive Ian Smith says he expects the new reactor to be up and running by April, despite some teething problems in the commissioning phase - citing certain leaks as one of the problems.

The federal government plan to build a nuclear waste dump in the NT. But critics have warned against dumping the Lucas Heights reactor's old radioactive parts in the desert. But Arid Lands Environment Centre spokeswoman Natalie Wasley says it would be much better for the old parts of the reactor to remain at Lucas Heights. "The Australian Nuclear Association have all said that there is room here, they have the technology, they have the capability and they have the storage room," she said. "Also there are trained personnel here who deal with radioactive material, and they'll be on site all the time. So that's definitely a lot better option than sticking it out in a remote area in the desert."

Wilderness Society nuclear spokeswoman Imogen Zethoven says the Federal Government should say where it is planning to dump radioactive waste from the decommissioned site. "We don't believe that the dismantled reactor should be shifted across Australia, through local communities, past people's homes and put in someone's backyard that doesn't want it," she said.

"We actually think that the reactor, now that it's shut down, should stay where it is and be managed locally."

The $50 million decommissioning process has begun with the official shutdown of the facility. Fuel will then be removed and fluid drained from the facility, before radioactive materials within the reactor are left there to decay.

NSW Greens senator Kerry Nettle said she feared the decommissioning process of the old facility would not be as successful as hoped. Science was not far enough advanced to safely dispose of nuclear waste, she said.

"Not one single commercial nuclear power reactor around the world has been successfully decommissioned," Ms Nettle said. "We know from the evidence this nuclear site may never become safe, regardless of any new reactor. We don't have the technological and scientific answers of how to dispose of this waste."

The Wilderness Society called on the Federal Government to fully outline its plans for the disposal of radioactive waste from the reactor. "The Federal Government must make clear to local communities where they plan on storing this nuclear waste that remains toxic for millions of years," said society spokeswoman Imogen Zethoven. "Local communities along transport routes will also be concerned about the tonnes of dangerous nuclear waste that will be trucked past their homes."

Over its 40-year life, OPAL will generate several cubic metres of high-level waste, which it intends to store in a remote location in the Northern Territory.

SOURCES:

Nuclear group says new reactor ready soon - ABC
Science Minister turns off nuclear reactor - ABC
Nuclear reactor's life coming to an end - ABC
Curtains for Lucas Heights after nearly 50 years - SMH
New nuclear reactor fires up energy debate
Where are they planning to dump radioactive waste? - MIM
Arid Lands Environment Centre

ACTION: Stand Up for the Burrup this week!

::STAND UP FOR THE BURRUP::
Protest: The needless desecration of sacred art

The Burrup site, containing hundreds of thousands of rock carvings, said to date back thousands of years is under destruction.

From 12:30pm on Monday January 22 and Thursday 25, 2007 vigils will take place at the headquarters of Woodside in Perth to demonstrate against the relocation of rock art and destruction of the heritage values of the Burrup Peninsula.

Imagine a cultural icon six times older than the Pyramids, eight times older than Stonehenge. Imagine probably the earliest surviving rock carvings on this planet. Most Australians have never even heard of these rock carvings on the Burrup Peninsula, and have no idea this silent world treasure is being needlessly pulled apart and destroyed from blind industrial development...

The National Trust of Australia says the Burrup site, in north-west Australia, contains one of the world's largest and most important collections of petroglyphs - ancient rock carvings - dating back as far as the last ice age. It says the collection of standing stones may be the largest in the world.

In December 2006, Federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell turned down an application for emergency heritage listing of the Burrup Peninsula rock art site, which is under threat from a major gas installation. Senator Campbell said that he did not believe the threat was sufficient to warrant emergency listing.

The application was made by Australian Greens senator Rachel Siewert, Labor MP Carmen Lawrence and independent MP Peter Andren. Senator Campbell said there were believed to be up to one million pieces of rock art in the Dampier Archipelago, including in the Burrup area. As a result of Campbell's rejection, Woodside will start initial preparation works at Site A, including engineering works and fencing.

Woodside announced last week that it has commenced work to remove ancient rock art from the Burrup. There has been opposition to its location because the company will have to move 150 ancient Aboriginal rock engravings to make way for the development. The plant is due to be operational by 2010.

"Woodside is needlessly vandalising the priceless heritage values of the Burrup when perfectly acceptable industrial land is just a few kilometres up the road," Friends of Australian Rock Art spokesperson Dr Sylvia Hallam said this morning. "The Government has failed to stop the desecration of Burrup Peninsula rock art, meaning it is up to the community to take their concerns directly to Woodside."

"This is a company that should seriously consider how further destruction on the Burrup will affect its' reputation. These vigils will be the first of many opportunities for us to talk directly to people about how Woodside's activities are ruining the ice age heritage of the Burrup."

Dr Hallam said that there are other sites nearby that should be used for Woodside's proposed Pluto LNG facility.

VIGIL:
Corner of St Georges Terrace and Milligan Street, Perth
Vigil 1 - Monday 22 January 2007, 12:30 - 1:30
Vigil 2 - Thursday 25 January 2007, 12:30 - 1:30
Contact: Dr Sylvia Hallam 9386 1366 or 0402 664 503

On the 9 January 2007 Woodside announced that work had started on the initial preparation phase of Woodside's Pluto project on the Burrup Peninsula. Woodside said site preparation work for LNG storage tanks will include fencing, road access and relocating cultural heritage material over the first half of 2007.

WA Senator Rachel Siewert says it's not too late to change the location. The Woodside project has drawn criticism because the company plans to move 165 Aboriginal rock carvings. A Woodside spokeswoman said the rock art relocation would start within two or three weeks, depending on the progress of other work.

Australian Greens federal Senator Rachel Siewert said the federal government and Woodside would be remembered as vandals for allowing the destruction of rock art. She said it was not too late to change the location of the plant to an already cleared adjacent site.

"Woodside have not even made the final decision to commit to the project... yet they are still proceeding with initial site works," Senator Siewert said in a statement," said Senator Siewert. "We need to ask why they are rushing to clear the site now, is it simply because in the New Year period they think people won't be paying attention?"

"This Government and Woodside will go down in the history books as vandals for allowing the destruction of rock art on the Burrup", said Senator Rachel Siewert. "I can not believe that in this day and age our Governments think it is acceptable to destroy ancient rock art to allow development," said Senator Siewert.

"It is not too late to relocate the development onto already cleared land next-door to the current site. Surely Woodside can negotiate with its joint venture partners to protect this unique rock art?" said the Senator. "Woodside have not even made the final decision to commit to the project, and reportedly will not be making this decision until later in the year - yet they are still proceeding with initial site works," said Senator Siewert. "I simply cannot understand why the Federal Government is not requiring Woodside to co-locate the plant just a couple of hundred metres up the road - thereby enabling the development to proceed and saving the rock art. Our failure to protect our unique Indigenous heritage is an international shame," she said.

Woodside is Australia's largest publicly traded oil and gas exploration and production company with a market capitalisation of more than A$25 billion

SOURCES:
Destruction of rock art to commence on the Burrup - Greens
Burrup.org.au
Vandalism/Destruction of Burrup rock art to begin - International Shame: Perth.indymedia
Protest Woodside's destruction of The Burrup. Perth.indymedia
Burrup tragedy: Campbell sends in the bulldozers. Perth.indymedia
Work starts on Woodside plant on Burrup - SMH January 8, 2007
Campbell rejects listing for Burrup site - The West December 22, 2006
GetUp Campaign to save the Burrup
Woodside reports record revenues. Perth.indymedia
Would the Egyptians knock down the Pyramids? Adelaide.indymedia
woodside.com.au