Category: Archive

Aboriginal groups have given divergent responses to the moratorium announcement on Wild Rivers legislation, reported Queensland Country Life (22 June 2006 p3).

Pearson takes a firm stand: Indigenous leader Noel Pearson told a meeting in Cape York that the struggle against Wild Rivers was about the future viability of indigenous and non-indigenous communities in the region. "If we are serious about underwriting a future for indigenous people, we have to fight resolutely against this process," he said. Pearson was also reported as saying it was important the different groups worked together to counter the influence of environmentalists.

"The way this policy will work out, Indigenous people will die on welfare. No prospect for development, no prospect for jobs, no prospect for developing the lands that they already have," he said.

Fine tuning not the answer: "The Government can fiddle with the Code and even remove the ‘big axe’ from the legislation, but this Code will kill industrial development with a death of a thousand cuts," Mr Pearson said.

Legislation needs to be thrown out: "We have to deliver a full-frontal attack on this legislation and try to connect with the people in Brisbane and South East Queensland, so that they hear what we are say – that it is absolutely unfair that our rights and our children’s rights should be ignored like this."

Carpentaria LC pro-legislation: Meanwhile Gulf regional chairman of the Carpentaria Land Council, Barry Walden, said traditional owners supported the declaration of the Wild Rivers that fell within his group’s traditional country.

Cultural significance before economic development: Mr Walden said the Settlement, Staaten, Morning Inlet and Gregory Rivers were an important cultural resource to indigenous people. "Many people don’t understand that the river systems and floodplains contain our dreaming tracks and stories. A focus on short-term economic gain means that our spiritual and cultural customs are overlooked," he said.

Queensland Country Life, 22/6/2006, p. 3

Source: Erisk Net  

The chief executive of Australia’s largest renewable fuel company Australian Renewable Fuels, Daryl Butcher, said the government had reneged on a pledge by scrapping the tax-free status of biodiesel, and this could push $60 million in planned investment offshore, reported The Australian Financial Review (26/6/2006, p.9).

ARF loses $4.5m contract: Butcher said the decision, which passed the Senate last week and becomes effective next month, had already cost his sharemarket-listed Australian Renewable Fuels (ARF) a $4.5 million contract.

No rebate for biodiesel: The legislation means commercial vehicles using biodiesel will not get the 38c-a-litre rebate available to users of regular diesel.

CEO angry with feds: "This is disgraceful," Butcher said. "We were given an undertaking by the Federal Government that nothing it did would disadvantage the biodiesel industry."

$150m in biofuels investment: In the past two years, $150 million has been invested around the country in biodiesel plants that convert animal fat and used cooking oils into fuel. Queensland Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce, who voted against the legislation, said the abrupt change in policy would make biodiesel uncompetitive and "chop the industry off at its knees". He said the change came after lobbying from the big oil companies.

Rural plants not likely: ANZ Banking Group said the legislation would prevent its infrastructure funds building any further plants in rural Australia. The head of ANZ infrastructure services, John Clarke, said Australia was the only country in the world with a discriminatory tax on biodiesel.

$60m plans at stake: ARF has two plants in Australia and had planned to build a further three at a cost of $60 million, but Butcher said those investments were now in doubt. One mining company had planned to convert its entire fleet to biodiesel, a contract worth $4.5 million a year, but had cancelled.

The Australian Financial Review, 26/6/2006, p. 9

Source: Erisk Net  

The states have crushed a Federal push for uniform guidelines on wind farms, dismissing it as a "bureaucratic speed hump" to slow the development of renewable energy, reported The Australian (24 June 2006, p.10).

Existing approvals process "sufficient": A meeting of State and Territory Environment Ministers has voted down a national code granting communities greater say over wind farms, saying they already underwent a rigorous approval process at State and local government level.

Campbell to push on regardless: But Federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell vowed to push ahead with a national round table on wind farms, involving local government, community and wind energy representatives. Senator Campbell described the vote as a "slap in the face" for communities looking for greater control over the spread of wind turbines across rural Australia.

States "deaf to community concerns": "An increasing number of communities are expressing concern about the potential impact of wind energy installations on landscapes, amenity and threatened species … but it apparently isn’t being heard by the state and territory governments," he said.

Will work co-operatively: Senator Campbell played down his defeat at the Environment Ministers’ meeting in Sydney, saying he would work co-operatively with the States to reach agreement.

The Australian, 24/6/2006, p. 10

Source: Erisk Net

New evidence suggests global warming from fossil fuel emissions could be up to 78 per cent higher than previously believed, lending weight to claims that Australia should strongly back non-emitting energy sources such as nuclear and solar power, reported The Australian (21 June 2006, p.38).

Worse than expected: When combined with other findings, the article said, the results from Dutch climate expert Marten Scheffer and his British and German colleagues mean the planet may be an average of nearly 8C warmer by the end of the century.

Back to the drawing board for atmospheric modellers: That estimate fits with a report from the Australian National University, showing that global warming could heat the world as much as 5.8C. Computer models had predicted temperature increases of 1.5C to 4.5C.

Aust in the gun: Australia may be hard hit as the atmosphere is heating up faster in subtropical areas, experts at Seattle’s University of Washington reported in Science magazine.

Positive feedback the hidden problem: Dr Scheffer and his team of Wageningen University agreed with scientists from the University of California at Berkeley that present predictions don’t take into account a "positive feedback" mechanism involving greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane.

Magnitude of problem under-estimated: "We are underestimating the magnitude of warming because we’re ignoring the extra carbon dioxide dumped into the atmosphere because of warming [itself]," he said.

Ice core data: Dr Scheffer and his team used new data, obtained from polar ice cores, about temperature and atmospheric gases during the Little Ice Age (1550-1850). Reports will be printed in Geophysical Research Letters.

The Australian, 21/6/2006, p. 38

Source: Erisk Net  

The USA now seeks to do nuclear waste dumps deals with other countries after the USA EPA set a high standard of radiation emission the US Government must meet for 10,000 years to 1 million years into the future.

Yucca Mountain waste dump an election issue: On August 9, 2005, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a limit of 350 millirem per year for that period. Also the local folk – Nevada citizens – opposed the dump plan. In March, 2006, the majority staff of U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works issued a 25 page white paper "Yucca Mountain: The Most Studied Real Estate on the Planet".

Science versus politics: Because of questions raised by the State of Nevada and Congressional members about the quality of the science behind Yucca Mountain plans, the Department of Energy announced on March 31, 2006 the selection of nuclear researcher Oak Ridge to provide independent expert reviews of scientific and technical work on the Yucca Mountain Project.

Rethink planned: The US Department of Energy began studying Yucca Mountain, Nevada, in 1978 to determine whether it would be suitable for the nation’s first long-term geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Currently stored at 126 sites around the nation, these materials are a result of nuclear power generation and national defense programs.

Plan to move waste to Yucca: By early 2002, 7 billion US dollars had been spent on the project which has made Yucca Mountain the most studied piece of geology in the world. Total cost is expected be between 50 and 100 billion dollars. The cost of the facility is being paid for by the public using nuclear generated electricity and the federal government for disposal of defense nuclear waste.

2012 the start date: Sometime between 2012 and 2015 was the projected date that the facility will begin to accept waste. This project is widely opposed in Nevada and is a hotly debated topic. Polls indicate that most Nevadans are against the repository.

Nevada NIMIBY factor: There was also general resentment felt by many Nevada residents over the fact that 87 per cent of the land in Nevada was federal property. Although about 15 per cent of its electricity comes from the Palo Verde nuclear station in Arizona, many Nevadans feel it was unfair for its state to have to store nuclear waste when there are no nuclear power plants in Nevada.

Waste piles up: Because of delays in construction, a number of nuclear power plants in the US have resorted to storing waste onsite indefinitely in nearly impervious steel and concrete casks. It is possible that a temporary facility may open at the Yucca Mountain site or somewhere else in the American west if opening of the underground storage continues to be held up.

False documents? On February 17, 2006, the Department of Energy’s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) released a report confirming the technical soundness of infiltration modeling work performed by US Geological Survey (USGS) employees. In March 2005, the Energy and Interior departments revealed that several US Geological Survey hydrologists had exchanged e-mails discussing possible falsification of quality assurance documents on water infiltration research.

http://www.ieer.org/latest/yuccaepapr0805.html).
http://epw.seriate.gov/repwhitepapers/YuccaMountainEPWReport.pdf)

Erisk Net, 23/6/2006