Mood:  accident prone

Picture: Australian PM John Howard peers into the reactor at Lucas Heights. Will Australia like the USA be promoting unsafe nuke energy in South East Asia?

Here is a story that senior writer Marian Wilkinson of Sydney Morning Herald reported from Darwin APEC energy minister's conference yesterday 30th May 2007 but it only appeared on the web (!?) not our press version (reproduced in full below).

We telephoned her about this and apparently there was lack of space. But first her pithy story builds on another by the competition here a week earlier from Nigel Wilson, 15 years in that role:

The Herald ran another story to the Darwin fracas 30 May 07 instead about Morris Iemma repudiating John Howard's nuclear plans

Advice found on axing state bans on nuclear - National - smh.com.au

[which is funny because it runs in the press but is missing from the web based text index for 30 May. But a bit of googling throws it up here for a different date. Advice found on axing state bans on nuclear - Sydney Morning Herald - 29 May 2007. The googling is guess work because the article is actually printed under the headline "Bid to overturn nuclear ban" bottom right page 6. ]

Whatever the confused (deliberate or otherwise) Herald indexing, the issue of nuclear energy expansion in Australia was the question time strategy it seems in both NSW and State Parliament. Seems its not just Premier Iemma and Opposition leader Rudd who will fight the nuke expansion plans on the beaches: Singapore are obviously very alarmed at the lack of safety implicit in the sleep walk to nuclear proliferation by Vietnam and Indonesian governments. But what about Australia's role in our neighbours' planning? We would be selling the raw materials and probably much technical support out of Lucas Heights reactor, do yer think? Is the Pope a Catholic? Does the bore hole ooze hot mud (ie a disaster in Indonesia recently)?

As explained to journo Wilkinson we see one alternative future like this on a 5 or 10 year horizon:

- USA promotes missile defense system vis a vis Nth Korea, Iran, China leveraging support of Japan, South Korea, Australia, Taiwan and likely others.

-  An arms race to prevent USA first strike capacity (via foolproof shield) ensues.

- Tensions rise. Allies of the USA feel the need for a nuke weapon deterrent of their own, as Japan is flirting with right now.

- Australia's PM seeks nuclear energy dual use capacity in order to prepare for this strategic security possibility.

- Somewhere along the line someone makes a human error or comparatively minor clashes are exagerated like the precursor to the Vietnam War, and a nuclear weapon is launched by someone.

- Apocalypse. Do not collect, do not pass go. Game over.

No wonder Singapore are scared about this kind of future, even likelihood under a Howard Bush style regime of the future.

We tipped off some others like MP Peter Garrett and Senator Bob Brown's office about this report of diplomatic rage up in Darwin, and here is the rather scary story in full:

http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2007/05/29/1180205251031.html

Asia-Pacific nuclear authority plan scuttled after safety debate

Date: May 30 2007

Marian Wilkinson in Darwin

A plan to set up a regional nuclear safeguards authority for the Asia Pacific has been ditched after an intense debate at the APEC energy ministers conference in Darwin which centered on the importance of nuclear safety.

The proposal was dropped from the final declaration of the conference, despite being included in earlier drafts. But the Industry Minister, Ian Macfarlane, denied there had been a "bitter debate" over the issue after Singapore raised questions over nuclear safety.

The discussion on the role of nuclear power as an option to lower greenhouse gas emissions in the APEC region was strongly supported by the US Deputy Secretary of Energy, Clay Sell. Mr Macfarlane said Singapore had requested that any decision by an APEC country to pursue the nuclear mix should be made in consultation with their neighbours.

Officials from both Vietnam and Indonesia told the APEC conference their countries were studying the option of nuclear power stations that could come on line in the next decade.

The final declaration contained a watered down clause encouraging APEC members to join the organisation's nuclear technologies group to ensure the "safety, security, seismic health and waste handling aspects" of nuclear power were "adequately addressed".

The final declaration by the 21 APEC countries also supported sharing technologies on energy efficiency, biofuels, clean coal and renewable energy as well as measures to increase energy security in the growing APEC region. But there was little support for a regional carbon trading emissions scheme that would put a price on greenhouse gas pollution from fossil fuels across APEC.

A report on emissions trading is set to be delivered to the Prime Minister, John Howard, tomorrow. But it is now believed it will be unlikely to set hard targets for Australia to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. Mr Macfarlane strongly signalled in Darwin that the targets will be left to another economic committee to assess how they can be achieved without cutting into economic growth.

Mr Macfarlane told reporters any target will depend on the technology capable of achieving it. "The challenge at the moment is not to set targets, the challenge is to actually have the technology to achieve targets."

Labor has set a long-term target of reducing Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent by 2050, based on emissions in the year 2000 which the Government has dismissed as irresponsible.

Tomorrow's report will, however, pave the way for Australia to finally establish an emissions trading scheme that will put a price on Australia's greenhouse gas pollution.

The importance of clean coal technology in achieving a target for greenhouse gas cuts was highlighted yesterday when a slanging match broke out between Mr Macfarlane and the Queensland Premier, Peter Beattie, over his state's high profile "zero gen" clean coal project.

Mr Macfarlane told reporters in Darwin the project has "collapsed" but Mr Beattie said he had "no idea" what Mr Macfarlane was talking about. "Why would the coal industry invest $600million in clean coal if they weren't serious?" Mr Beattie said. "Ian Macfarlane is repeatedly trying to undermine clean coal technologies?"

..............................

Postscript #1 1st June 2007

By coincidence (or not ?) a prominent reflection on widespread public fears of nuclear apocalypse was published today in the high circulation Sydney Daily Telegraph:

 Shute's sands of timeBy Gideon Haigh: THEY don't make novelists like Nevil Shute any more: a self-made millionaire who served in both

Posted by editor at 2:20 PM NZT

Updated: Friday, 1 June 2007 1:04 PM NZT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  blue

We now publish Dr Jim's ezine as promised for the Monday following the NSW election. (We will publish later today some post mortems on the election including Minister Tebbutt going directly to the back bench, do not collect $200, do not pass go. )

We have one minor criticism about Dr Jim's newsletter. We disagree that Matthew Warren of The Australian is a safe reporter on climate change issues (as here Rebels of the sun | Science & nature | The Australian ) when it's well known that organ is financially conflicted with its paid for massive 'Special Advertising Reports' pandering to the Fossil Fool and uranium mining sector here in Australia:

Examples are not limited to the March 19th 2007 "Paydirt uranium conference/ A SPECIAL ADVERTISING REPORT" pages 38 and 39 including 'story' with no byline "SA Labor presses for end to no-nukes policy".  

Indeed Dr Jim has agreed in correspondence now that such a major reservation is in order when gleaning any value from the corporate voice of one Matthew Warren, as if he can really as mere journo expertly second guess the UN IPCC and other world class scientists like the USA based NASA scientist Dr Jim Hansen. I don't think so.

In this way Warren must be read down severely just as reputable scientists are being attacked for speaking up in the USA under the Bush administration.

Here is our second try at posting this item:

Image provided by Friends of the Earth Scotland.

March 15, 2007

Posted by editor at 12:35 PM NZT

Updated: Monday, 26 March 2007 5:33 PM NZT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  accident prone

Here is cleric George Pell on the strength of one PR sponsored visit to the new expensive Lucas Heights reactor such that he thinks he has a good handle on this big big white elephant: 

So much so he rushes into print without being briefed by the no case.  That's a high risk approach to public policy if ever I saw one. Or a biased approach.

One visit with the PR merchants gives the Cardinal about as much credibility on this issue as it does this writer on theological matters having once been an alter boy, 30 years ago at the local Catholic church in Warrnambool.

For instance Pell ignores waste problems: The UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority http://www.nda.gov.uk in 2006 estimated 70 billion pound$ clean up cost for their old nuclear gear, admittedly a much bigger sector there:

 http://www.foe-scotland.org.uk/press/pr20060314.html

Postscript #1

As if to reinforce the real dual use purpose of nuclear power programmes, the Epoch Times (Australia) runs a biggish story "UK's atomic quest goes on" p5 31 Jan-6th Feb 07, noting the renewed debate over trident nuclear missiles on a new generation of submarines, and noting the UK nuclear arsenal is about 200 strong. Link to story asap, general link here http://en.epochtimes.com

Posted by editor at 8:12 AM EADT

Updated: Thursday, 8 February 2007 7:56 AM EADT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  blue

SAM has been reporting China's massive economic dependence on Iranian oil, and China's not very coincidental awesome demonstration of ability to knock USA military satellites out of the sky, which would be necessary for the USA to effectively menace or even politically annexe Iran as it has other Middle East states.

VP Cheney who is visiting here in the next month (refer below), was quoted a few days ago in the major press regarding USS Stenner aircraft carrier steaming into the Persian gulf as 'evidence' of the US intent to curb Iran's influence in Iraq. This reads like putting a brave face on China's frightening warning to back off their oil investment in Iran, that is, to physically stay out of Iran itself.

Now all the chatter in the Big Media is not about military strikes on Iran's dual use peace/weapon nuke research and development sites but a new vicious cold war 'shoot to kill' policy for any 'Iranian agents' found in Iraq, which is after all a neighbour to the war torn country with sympathy over religion and ethnicity.

This reads like something of a tantrum by Secretary of Defence Gates and the US military industrial complex after the China 'test' for being blocked in their escalation agendas against Iran by the next biggest (mostly soft but also hard military) power on the planet .

If these massive geo political players can't fool little old SAM website here about this full on power struggle over US/Iranian influence in the Middle East and its oil resouce or relations with Israel they are not fooling most other serious observers.

Further this scary unstable reality feeds into little old Australia. Paul Dibb ex ASIO for 25 years, now ANU academic, in The Australian newspaper recently reported his 1976 research 'proving' Australia was a nuke target priority of the Soviets back then.

Australia today is surely in the nuke geo politik strategic balance. There was a rumour that US Secretary of State Rice and Australian PM Howard talked about 10 or 15 nuke silos in Australia last June 2006. It's a logical suggestion. We have US military communications sites at Pine Gap, North West and some others from memory. We have Dibb's advice back to 1976, and now we have strategic movement in all of the East Asia: Japan, let alone South Korea, debating nuke weapon deterence on North Korea. Taiwan with nuke power similarly vis a vis China menaces of their democracy. Indonesia, a huge Islamic country, seeking nuke power capacity which again is dual use by 2015 (only 8 years from now), earthquake zone notwithstanding. Iran arming up nuke wise vis a vis Israel already 2nd or 3rd in the world nuke weapon capacity.

Anyone who thinks either the United States Govt or the Australian Govt is not looking at nuke weapons here as part of their global network of super power control has not been paying attention. And Cheney's visit is surely not for holiday talk. World scale politicians like Cheney are not like that. They visit to do serious things.

More here: http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/cheney-to-visit-australia/2007/01/30/1169919313080.html

including these quotes:

Posted by editor at 7:48 AM EADT

Updated: Thursday, 8 February 2007 8:02 AM EADT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  incredulous

This writer was working in the meat grinder (external and internal issues) of The Wilderness Society world where there was no time for illusions, with plenty of bruises along the way. I recall one commentator telling me privately that the then Liberal's Evironment Minister Hartcher was "a boy" compared to the other thugs in the power game like Peter Cochrane MP (Cooma Monaro), Albie Schultz MP (Tumut area) Deputy Premier Armstrong (Nationals) etc.

HG carries this lead story today:

Posted by editor at 10:00 AM EADT

Updated: Thursday, 8 February 2007 7:00 AM EADT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  blue

Press release follows

Selling uranium to China a mistake

5 January 2007

Australian Greens Senator Kerry Nettle said the federal government's
decision to permit the sale of Australian uranium to China was a mistake
which will fuel regional insecurity and that Prime Minister John Howard
will bear responsibility for the consequences.

The government today announced that Australia and China have ratified an
agreement to permit the sale of Australian uranium, from as early as
this year.

"Selling uranium to China is a mistake with potentially catastrophic
consequences", Senator Nettle said.

"Prime Minister Howard has ignored serious concerns in paving the way
for Australian uranium sales to China and he will bear responsibility
for the consequences.

"A report by federal parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Treaties
on the bilateral agreement to permit this trade last month highlighted
serious shortcomings in safeguards, including deficiencies in the
international inspection regime and the ability to ensure our uranium is
not misused.

"The world doesn't need more uranium and nuclear power. Australia should
be developing and selling clean and safe renewable energy technology to
China, not adding to regional instability.

"The Greens call on Foreign Minister Downer to rule out selling uranium
to India, which is not a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty."

Contact: Max Phillips 0414 ... ....

Posted by editor at 8:30 PM EADT

Updated: Thursday, 8 February 2007 7:05 AM EADT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink