Category: Archive

Archived material from historical editions of The Generator

  • Monaro, Snowy debate wind farms

    Debate on the possible expansion of the controversial wind farm industry in the Monaro and Snowy Mountains is under way again.

    Business group Cooma Unlimited says the community needs to make up its mind regarding wind farms and their effects on the landscape.

    The Snowy River Shire Council has already approved plans for a wind farm in the Snowy Plains area and other projects are on the drawing board.

    But Cooma Unlimited president Dugald Mitchell says debate on the issue so far has not addressed the issue of where the farms should be located.

    "The debate started last year regarding wind power – it wasn’t completed because it is possible to place these things in certain areas on the Monaro where they wouldn’t be seen," he said.

    "Some people say we want to see them, some people say, ‘No, we don’t want to see them, we want to reserve our heritage landscape’.

    "How we do that, we want to do that, hasn’t been publicly debated."

    © 2007 Australian Broadcasting Corporation
    Copyright information: http://abc.net.au/common/copyrigh.htm
    Privacy information: http://abc.net.au/privacy.htm


  • Costello warns against emission ‘zealots’.

    A Federal Government appointed task group will report on a potential national emissions trading scheme next month.

    Mr Costello, who is in Washington for a meeting of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), wants to make sure any future system does not cripple the mining industry or send the economy into a downward spiral.

    "Nobody should be thrown out of work or lose their business or lose their home because of a zealot, or zealotry in relation to policy," he said.

    But the federal Opposition has criticised Mr Costello for branding the state and territory leaders’ call for a national carbon trading system as zealotry.

    Opposition spokesman for the environment Peter Garrett says the scheme keeps people in work while enabling them to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

    "It’s extraordinary that the Treasurer should be going on the public record talking about zealotry in relation to establishing a market to trade a commodity, something which businesses want to do," he said.

    "I’ve had no suggestions from anybody about a national emissions trading scheme is actually going to be designed to put people out of work, in fact it’s designed to do the opposite."

    © 2007 Australian Broadcasting Corporation
    Copyright information: http://abc.net.au/common/copyrigh.htm
    Privacy information: http://abc.net.au/privacy.htm


  • Courts and Greens – Times Editorial

    The courts, of course, have hardly been alone in this struggle. When the history of this administration’s endless tussles with environmental law and practice is written, the various advocacy groups that challenged the administration in court at nearly every step of the way will occupy a major role. So, too, will an often underappreciated group, the states’ attorneys general, particularly those from California and the Northeast.

    It was Eliot Spitzer, for instance, then New York’s attorney general and now its governor, who helped revive a dormant provision of the Clean Air Act known as “new source review” to force the cleanup of dirty plants grandfathered in under the original law. And it was New York, 11 other states, three cities (including New York City, which served as the lead city petitioner), American Samoa and various environmental groups that together brought the global warming case to the Supreme Court.

    Yet all of these efforts would have been for naught had the courts not read the law the same way. Some cases, of course, were easier than others. In the salmon case, for example, the government advanced a weak (and preposterous) salmon “recovery” plan that, among other things, argued that dams were immutable parts of the landscape, like mountains, and could not be tampered with to help fish. James Redden, a federal district court judge, saw through this nonsense and ordered the government to draw up a more plausible plan. This week, he was resoundingly upheld by the Ninth Circuit.

    The clean air cases were more difficult, involving complex industry arguments about measuring pollution — arguments that would essentially have allowed industry to evade the law. The Seventh Circuit ruled against industry’s position and the Fourth Circuit for it, but when the Fourth Circuit case reached the Supreme Court, the court (ruling on the same day it issued its global warming decision) came down firmly on the side of the law.

    Nothing inspires litigation like environmental regulation, so these cases are hardly the end of the struggle. But so far — given the administration’s determination to roll back the law and the acquiescence, until recently, of Congress — we can be grateful for the existence of the third branch.

  • Turnbull touts metered farm water

     

    Australia’s Environment Minister says water meters will become a key part of Australian agriculture in the next few years.

     

    Malcolm Turnbull yesterday unveiled an $18 million water efficiency scheme in north-west Tasmania.

     

    Hydro Tasmania’s new meter measures up-to-the-minute water use and availability.

     

    Results are sent to a central database where more than 3,000 Tasmanian farmers will log on by the end of next year.

     

    Mr Turnbull says improving efficiency is a key part of his water security plan and nearly all Australian farms will eventually need water meters.

     

    "This will be a bigger and bigger part of water management, everywhere in the world," he said.

     

    Hydro Tasmania’s Christoff LeGrande says the new invention is ready to lead the way.

     

    "There are already trials running in Queensland and South Australia and there’s then the potential of taking it internationally," he said.

     

    He says the new water meters are quicker and more accurate than manual monitoring.

  • Low level radiation may be major cancer cause

    New work by Kai Rothkamm and Markus Loebrich show that low level ionising radiation may be more likley to cause cancer than previously thought.

    Until now the response ofthe human body to radiation has been based on studies of people at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl, who were exposed to extremely high levels of radiation. The effects of low levels of radiation has been calculated by extrapolating thedata from those studies.
    The new work indicates that the body responds quite differently to low levels of radiation, and that response means that the way DNA is repaired is more likely to cause mutation of cells possibly leading to cancer.

    Details of how the body heals breaks to both strands of DNA in a cell are available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_repair#Double-strand_breaks and http://theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/cgi/content/full/10/5/361
    The new research which indicates that low levels of radiation my lead to higher than predicted rates of cancer is available  at

    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=154297&blobtype=pdf