EcoRadio

Category: General news

Managing director of Ebono Institute and major sponsor of The Generator, Geoff Ebbs, is running against Kevin Rudd in the seat of Griffith at the next Federal election. By the expression on their faces in this candid shot it looks like a pretty dull campaign. Read on

  • “Vigilantes and saboteurs”? ACF
    More

    3 of 56

    “Vigilantes and saboteurs”?

    Inbox
    		 x

    Geoff Cousins, ACF Unsubscribe
    2:25 PM (5 hours ago)
    to me

    Hi

    This is extraordinary. Rattled by the Federal Court overturning approval of the Carmichael Coal Mine, the government plans to rush a bill through Parliament tomorrow to rip out the laws that allow Australians to challenge dangerous projects – like new coal mines – in court.

    Our national nature protection laws were introduced by the Howard government to provide sensible checks and balances.

    Yet our current Prime Minister calls the Mackay Conservation Group’s legitimate legal challenge to the Carmichael Coal Mine sabotage. And Attorney-General George Brandis calls environment groups vigilantes.

    The Australian Government wants to make it easier for big polluters to pollute and damage life, and harder for Australia to become powered by clean renewable energy. We want a society powered by clean energy that protects life and empowers communities.

    Thankfully, many people and communities are willing to speak up for the places and wildlife they love and depend on.

    The Places You Love alliance – who I stood with at an emergency press conference this morning – represents 1.5 million Australians.

    We’re working together to mobilise supporters and you have a critical role to play as a part of this huge alliance. It’s time to up the ante.

    Will you email your local Member of Parliament and tell them you care about protecting our land, water and wildlife? Say you want them to protect the community’s legal right to challenge government decisions to approve massive coal projects that fuel global warming and damage life.

    Tens of thousands of ACF supporters took action last week, and together, we can get the emails rolling in to Members of Parliament all across the country.

    It’s just a small handful of politicians – fuelled by greedy coal lobby groups – who are trying to take away the voice of our communities.

    Today’s action by the Abbott Government is part of the big polluters campaign to revoke environment groups’ charity status and remove your ability to give tax deductible donations and raise funds to challenge big polluters. The Abbott Government is using the language of terrorism to describe reasonable people working within the laws of our country.

    The Guardian said the Abbott Government war on green ‘saboteurs’ is Laurel and Hardy slapstick – but the consequences are severe.

    National environmental law exists for a reason – to protect the life, land, water and wildlife.

    The truth is our national environment law, the EPBC Act, has prompted very little court action. While more than 5000 projects have been referred under this law, only 27 have been brought before the court for judicial review.

    Governments should welcome public transparency and scrutiny of polluting and damaging industrial developments.

    The Australian Government’s extreme reaction to the Federal Court’s decision against the development of the Carmichael Coal Mine make it clear – it’s time for a new generation of environmental laws. We need a healthy and robust nature protection framework that can’t be exploited by big polluters.

    To find out more about the campaign, you can listen to my interview with ABC radio this morning.

    Local people have the courage to protect the places, water and wildlife Australians love and depend on from the big polluters. And it’s up to us to keep this right alive.

    Will you send an urgent email today to your representative in Parliament? Tell them you’re from their electorate and you want them to protect Australia’s environmental law.

    Thanks for all you do,

    Geoff

    Geoff Cousins
    President
    Australian Conservation Foundation

  • Arctic Ocean Seafloor Features Map
    geology McAfee SECURE sites help keep you safe from identity theft, credit card fraud, spyware, spam, viruses and online scams

    Home » Articles » Oil & Gas » Arctic Ocean Seafloor Features Map

    Arctic Ocean Seafloor Features Map

    Major Basins, Ridges, Shelves and Bathymetry

    Arctic Ocean Seafloor Features Map

    Arctic Ocean Seafloor Features Map: International Bathymetric Chart of the Arctic Ocean annotated with the names of seafloor features

    Arctic Ocean: History and Now

    The Arctic Ocean has played a minor role in world history. Ice cover severely hinders navigation; the area is remote; there is almost no infrastructure; winters are dark and very cold; summer days are short and foggy. These challenges make the Arctic Ocean a hostile and difficult area.

    Today, we are at a time when interest in the Arctic Ocean is growing steadily. A warming climate is thinning and shrinking the polar ice pack to allow increased navigation. New oil and gas assessments have revealed an enormous energy resource. And, the Law of the Sea Treaty has motivated nations to clearly define their exclusive economic zone in the Arctic Ocean.

    The new interest in the Arctic Ocean is not confined to its surface; it extends to the bottom where information about its structure is needed by geologists, oceanographers, biologists and other people who work there. The primary physical features of the Arctic Ocean seafloor are labeled on the bathymetry map above and described in the paragraphs below. Maps in the right column illustrate navigational, physical and mineral resource features.

    Arctic Ocean Geography

    The Arctic Ocean has a surface area of about 14.056 million square kilometers (5.427 million square miles), making it the smallest of Earth’s five oceans. Baffin Bay, Barents Sea, Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, East Siberian Sea, Greenland Sea, Hudson Bay, Hudson Straight, Kara Sea, and Laptev Sea are generally considered to be part of the Arctic Ocean. It is connected to the Pacific Ocean through the Bering Strait and connected to the Atlantic Ocean through the Labrador Sea and the Greenland Sea.

    Lomonosov Ridge

    The dominant topographic feature of the Arctic Ocean seafloor is the Lomonosov Ridge. This feature is thought to be part of the Eurasian continental crust that rifted from the Barents-Kara Sea margin and subsided in early Tertiary time (about 64 to 56 million years ago). The side of the Ridge facing Eurasia is bounded by half-graben faults and the side facing North America is gently sloping.
    Blood Diamonds
    What Causes a Tsunami?
    Marcellus Shale
    Rare Earth Elements

    The Lomonosov Ridge traverses the Arctic Ocean from the Lincoln Shelf (off Ellesmere Island and Greenland) to the New Siberian Islands off the coast of northern Russia. It divides the Arctic Ocean into two major basins: the Eurasian Basin on the Eurasian side of the ridge and the Amerasian Basin on the North American Side. It rises over 3000 meters above the floors of these basins and at its highest point is about 954 meters below sea level. It was discovered by Russian scientists in 1948.

    In 1982 a United Nations treaty known as “The Law of the Sea” was presented. It addressed navigational rights, territorial waters limits, exclusive economic zones, fishing, pollution, drilling, mining, conservation and many other aspects of maritime activity. It was the first attempt by the international community to establish a formal agreement on a logical allocation of ocean resources. Under the Law of the Sea, each country receives exclusive economic rights to any natural resource that is present on or beneath the sea floor out to a distance of 200 nautical miles beyond their natural shorelines. In addition to the 200 nautical mile economic zone, each country can extend its claim up to 350 nautical miles for those areas that can be proven to be an extension of that country’s continental shelf.

    Nations could use the “Law of the Sea” treaty to determine who owns the Arctic Ocean seafloor. Russia has presented a claim to the United Nations that the Lomonosov Ridge is an extension of Eurasia and that entitles Russia to an extended exclusive economic zone. Canada and Denmark make similar claims to extend their control from the opposite side of the Arctic Ocean.

    Amerasian and Eurasian Basins

    The Lomonosov Ridge divides the floor of the Arctic Ocean into two major basins. The Eurasian Basin is on the Eurasian side of the Lomonosov Ridge and the Amerasian Basin is on the North American side of the Lomonosov Ridge.

    The Amerasian and Eurasian Basins have been subdivided by ridges. The Gakkel Ridge, a spreading center responsible for the rifting of the Lomonosov block from the Eurasian continent, divides the Eurasian Basin into the Fram Basin on the Lomonosov side of the ridge and the Nansen Basin on the Eurasian continent side. The Alpha Ridge divides the Amerasian Basin into the Canada Basin on the North American side of the ridge and the Makarov Basin on the Lomonosov side of the ridge.

    Continental Shelves

    The Amerasian Basin and the Eurasian Basin are surrounded by extensive continental shelves. These include the Chukchi Shelf and the Beaufort Shelf along North America; the Lincoln Shelf along northern Greenland; the Barents Shelf, Kara Shelf, Laptev Shelf and East Siberian Shelf along Eurasia.

    Enormous amounts of natural gas are believed to be beneath the Barents Shelf and the Kara Shelf as parts of the East Barents Petroleum Province and the West Siberian Petroleum Province. Oil and natural gas are believed to be beneath significant parts of the Chukchi Shelf, Beaufort Shelf and Canada Basin as part of the Arctic Alaska Petroleum Province and the Amerasia Petroleum Province (see map in right column).

    Rift Basins

    Greenland is flanked by two rift basins: the East Greenland Rift Basin and the West Greenland Rift Basin. These basins connect the Arctic Ocean with the Atlantic Ocean. Each of these basins is thought to be underlain by a significant oil and natural gas resource.

    Navigation Through the Arctic Ocean

    Two potentially important navigation channels pass through the Arctic Ocean (see map in the right column). The Northwest Passage is a sea route that connects the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean across the northern coast of North America and through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. The Northern Sea Route is a similar route that connects the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean across the northern coast of the Eurasian Continent.

    Both of these routes have been virtually impassable in the past because they are covered by thick, year-round sea ice. However, they have been relatively ice-free for a few weeks in recent years (see map in right column) and have attracted a small amount of commercial shipping. Each of these routes cuts thousands of miles off of a trip from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Both routes face jurisdictional problems and questions over who has a right to use them and under what conditions.

  • The trillion-dollar hole in Abbott’s climate policy logic

    4

    The trillion-dollar hole in Abbott’s climate policy logic

    By on 18 August 2015
    Print Friendly

    A new report from global investment giant Citigroup has blown a great big hole in the Abbott government’s logic for aiming low on emissions reduction and renewable energy growth.

    The Coalition’s justification for its low-ball climate targets has been, consistently, relentlessly, that it was the economically responsible policy path for the government to take. On the other hand, it argues, the costs of Labor’s “ideological obsession” – a proposed 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2030, and more ambition on emissions reduction – would be “simply catastrophic.”

    Unfortunately for Tony Abbott and his environment minister Greg Hunt, the report published by Citi on Tuesday suggests this line of logic is deeply flawed.

    The report, which seeks to objectively analyse the economics of acting – or not – on climate change, finds that its ‘Action’ scenario – in which governments invest heavily in overhauling their energy markets, transport sectors and industries to a low-carbon mix – results in an undiscounted saving of $1.8 trillion out to 2040.

    Screen Shot 2015-08-18 at 10.37.24 am

    This is because, while governments spend more on renewables and energy efficiency in the early years (and yes, Citi does factor in the cost to existing industries of a massive shift to low-carbon energy sources), the savings in fuel costs in later years offset earlier investment, says the report.

    Moreover, it adds, “if the scientists are correct,” – and strangely enough Citi believes they are – “the potential liabilities of not acting [listed further on in the report as global food shortages, widespread drought, mass population displacement, increased flooding, etc] are equally vast.”

    “The cumulative ‘lost’ GDP from the impacts of climate change could be significant, with a central case of 0.7%-2.5% of GDP to 2060, equating to $44 trillion on an undiscounted basis,” the Citi report says.

    Screen Shot 2015-08-18 at 10.37.39 am

    The report finds that the cumulative losses to global GDP from climate change impacts (‘Inaction’) from 2015 to 2060 are estimated at $2 trillion to $72 trillion depending on the discount rate and scenario used. Lower discount rates encourage early action.

    If emissions continue to rise and therefore temperature continues to increase after 2060, the negative effect on GDP losses could become more than 3% of GDP with estimates ranging from 1.5% to almost 5%.

    More worryingly, the report notes that under an ‘Inaction’ scenario, the world would be locked to a high-emissions infrastructure and the damages could continue for more than a century, with the highest impacts of GDP foreseen in south and south-east Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

    “The estimated damages could be larger as these economic studies only measure those impacts that are quantifiable and largely concentrate on market or near market sectors. Other impacts such as tipping points, weather related events or catastrophic risks are not included in the studies.”

    Screen Shot 2015-08-18 at 12.05.52 pm

    One the other hand, says Citi, “if we derive a risk-adjusted return on the extra capital investment in following a low carbon path, and compare it to the avoided costs of climate change, we see returns at the low point of between 1% and 4%, rising to between 3% and 10% in later years.”

    So, on a risk adjusted basis this implies a return of 1-4 per cent at the low point in 2021, rising to between 3-10 per cent by 2035, the report finds.

    “Not spectacular returns,” Citi concedes, “but against current low yields… it represents a relatively attractive option.” And, of course, there is the added benefit of avoiding catastrophic global warming.

    Summing up, the Citi report has this to say: “With a limited differential in the total bill of Action vs Inaction (in fact a saving on an undiscounted basis), potentially enormous liabilities avoided and the simple fact that cleaner air must be preferable to pollution, a very strong ‘Why would you not?’ argument regarding action on climate change begins to form.”

    Can someone let Abbott know?

  • Rare Earth Elements and their Uses

    geology McAfee SECURE sites help keep you safe from identity theft, credit card fraud, spyware, spam, viruses and online scams
    Geology.com News Rocks Minerals Gemstones Articles Dictionary US Maps World Maps Geology Store
    Advertising
    Categories

    Astronomy
    Careers
    Diamonds
    Earthquakes
    Energy
    Fossils
    Gemstones
    General Geology
    Geologic Hazards
    Geologist Information
    Geology Tools
    Gold
    Igneous Rocks
    Landslides
    Metals
    Metamorphic Rocks
    Meteorites
    Minerals
    Oceanography
    Oil and Gas
    Plate Tectonics
    Rocks
    Rock Tumblers
    Satellite Images
    Sedimentary Rocks
    Teacher Resources
    U.S.A. Maps
    Volcanoes
    World Maps
    World Records

    From Our Store

    All Products
    Field Books
    Fossil Fish
    Gem & Mineral Books
    Gfeller Leather Cases
    Gold Books & Maps
    Rock Hammers
    Rock & Mineral Kits
    Roadside Geology Guides
    Topographic Maps
    Tumbled Stones
    Wall Maps
    Waterproof Paper

    Map Collections

    Alabama Map
    Alaska Map
    Arizona Map
    Arkansas Map
    California Map
    Colorado Map
    Connecticut Map
    Delaware Map
    Florida Map
    Georgia Map
    Hawaii Map
    Idaho Map
    Illinois Map
    Indiana Map
    Iowa Map
    Kansas Map
    Kentucky Map
    Louisiana Map
    Maine Map
    Maryland Map
    Massachusetts Map
    Michigan Map
    Minnesota Map
    Mississippi Map
    Missouri Map
    Montana Map
    Nebraska Map
    Nevada Map
    New Hampshire Map
    New Jersey Map
    New Mexico Map
    New York Map
    North Carolina Map
    North Dakota Map
    Ohio Map
    Oklahoma Map
    Oregon Map
    Pennsylvania Map
    Rhode Island Map
    South Carolina Map
    South Dakota Map
    Tennessee Map
    Texas Map
    Utah Map
    Vermont Map
    Virginia Map
    Washington Map
    West Virginia Map
    Wisconsin Map
    Wyoming Map

    Home » Articles » REE – Rare Earth Elements

    REE – Rare Earth Elements and their Uses
    The demand for rare earth elements has grown rapidly, but their occurrence in minable deposits is limited.

    Rare Earth Element Production
    This chart shows a history of rare earth element production, in metric tons of rare earth oxide equivalent, between 1950 and 2013. It clearly shows the United States’ entry into the market in the mid-1960s when color television exploded the demand. When China began selling rare earths at very low prices in the late-1980s, mines in the USA cut production and then went inactive in the late 1990s. When China cut exports in 2010, rare earth prices skyrocketed. That motivated new production in the United States and other countries.
    What Are Rare Earth Elements (REEs)?

    Rare earth elements are a group of seventeen chemical elements that occur together in the periodic table (see image at right). The group consists of yttrium and the 15 lanthanide elements (lanthanum, cerium, praseodymium, neodymium, promethium, samarium, europium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, holmium, erbium, thulium, ytterbium, and lutetium). Scandium is found in most rare earth element deposits and is sometimes classified as a rare earth element. The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry includes scandium in their rare earth element definition.

    The rare earth elements are all metals, and the group is often referred to as the “rare earth metals.” These metals have many similar properties and that often causes them to be found together in geologic deposits. They are also referred to as “rare earth oxides” because many of them are typically sold as oxide compounds.
    Uses of Rare Earth Elements

    Rare earth metals and alloys that contain them are used in many devices that people use every day such as computer memory, DVDs, rechargeable batteries, cell phones, catalytic converters, magnets, fluorescent lighting and much more.

    During the past twenty years, there has been an explosion in demand for many items that require rare earth metals. Twenty years ago there were very few cell phones in use, but the number has risen to over 7 billion in use today. The use of rare earth elements in computers has grown almost as fast as cell phones.

    United States Usage
    (2013 data from USGS)
    Chemical catalysts
    65%
    Metallurgy & alloys
    19%
    Glass polishing
    6%
    Permanent magnets
    9%
    Other
    1%
    Many rechargeable batteries are made with rare earth compounds. Demand for the batteries is being driven by demand for portable electronic devices such as cell phones, readers, portable computers, and cameras.

    Several pounds of rare earth compounds are in batteries that power every electric vehicle and hybrid-electric vehicle. As concerns for energy independence, climate change and other issues drive the sale of electric and hybrid vehicles, the demand for batteries made with rare earth compounds will climb even faster.

    Rare earths are used as catalysts, phosphors, and polishing compounds. These are used for air pollution control, illuminated screens on electronic devices, and the polishing of optical-quality glass. All of these products are expected to experience rising demand.

    Other substances can be substituted for rare earth elements in their most important uses; however, these substitutes are usually less effective and costly.

    From the 1950s until the early 2000s, cerium oxide was a very popular lapidary polish. It was inexpensive and very effective. The recent price increases have almost eliminated the use of cerium oxide in rock tumbling and the lapidary arts. Other types of polish, such as aluminum and titanium oxide, are now used in its place.
    Critical Defense Uses

    Rare earth elements play an essential role in our national defense. The military uses night-vision goggles, precision-guided weapons, communications equipment, GPS equipment, batteries and other defense electronics. These give the United States military an enormous advantage. Rare earth metals are key ingredients for making the very hard alloys used in armored vehicles and projectiles that shatter upon impact.

    Substitutes can be used for rare earth elements in some defense applications; however, those subsitutes are usually not as effective and that diminishes military superiority. Several uses of rare earth elements are summarized in the table below (5).

    Defense Uses of Rare Earth Elements
    Lanthanum night-vision goggles
    Neodymium laser range-finders, guidance systems, communications
    Europium fluorescents and phosphors in lamps and monitors
    Erbium amplifiers in fiber-optic data transmission
    Samarium permanent magnets that are stable at high temperatures
    Samarium precision-guided weapons
    Samarium “white noise” production in stealth technology
    Are These Elements Really “Rare”?

    Rare earth elements are not as “rare” as their name implies. Thulium and lutetium are the two least abundant rare earth elements – but they each have an average crustal abundance that is nearly 200 times greater than the crustal abundance of gold (1). However, these metals are very difficult to mine because it is unusual to find them in concentrations high enough for economical extraction.

    The most abundant rare earth elements are cerium, yttrium, lanthanum and neodymium (2). They have average crustal abundances that are similar to commonly used industrial metals such as chromium, nickel, zinc, molybdenum, tin, tungsten and lead (1). Again, they are rarely found in extractable concentrations.
    History of Rare Earth Production and Trade

    Pre-1965

    Before 1965 there was relatively little demand for rare earth elements. At that time, most of the world’s supply was being produced from placer deposits in India and Brazil. In the 1950s, South Africa became the leading producer from rare earth bearing monazite deposits. At that time, the Mountain Pass Mine in California was producing minor amounts of rare earth oxides from a Precambrian carbonatite.

    Color Television Ignites Demand

    The demand for rare earth elements saw its first explosion in the mid-1960s, as the first color television sets were entering the market. Europium was the essential material for producing the color images. The Mountain Pass Mine began producing europium from bastnasite, which contained about 0.1% europium. This effort made the Mountain Pass Mine the largest rare earth producer in the world and placed the United States as the leading producer.

    China Enters the Market

    China began producing noteable amounts of rare earth oxides in the early 1980s and became the world’s leading producer in the early 1990s. Through the 1990s and early 2000s, China steadily strengthened its hold on the world’s rare earth oxide market. They were selling rare earths at such low prices that the Mountain Pass Mine and many others throughout the world were unable to compete and stopped operation.

    Defense and Consumer Electronics Demand

    At the same time, world demand was skyrocketing as rare earth metals were designed into a wide variety of defense, aviation, industrial and consumer electronics products. China capitalized on its dominant position and began restricting exports and allowing rare earth oxide prices to rise to historic levels.

    China as the Largest Rare Earth Consumer

    In addition to being the world’s largest producer of rare earth materials, China is also the dominant consumer. They use rare earths mainly in manufacturing electronics products for domestic and export markets. Japan and the United States are the second and third largest consumers of rare earth materials. It is possible that China’s reluctance to sell rare earths is a defense of their value-added manufacturing sector.

    China’s Apex of Production Dominance?

    The Chinese dominance may have peaked in 2010 when they controlled about 95% of the world’s rare earth production and prices for many rare earth oxides had risen over 500% in just a few years. That was an awakening for rare earth consumers and miners throughout the world. Mining companies in the United States, Australia, Canada and other countries began to reevaluate old rare earth prospects and explore for new ones.

    High prices also caused manufacturers to do three things: 1) seek ways to reduce the amount of rare earth elements needed to produce each of their products; 2) seek alternative materials to use in place of rare earth elements; and, 3) develop alternative products that do not require rare earth elements.

    This effort has resulted in a decline in the amounts of rare earth materials used in some types of magnets and a shift from rare earth lighting products to light-emitting diode technology. In the United States, the average consumption of rare earths per unit of manufactured product has decreased but the demand for more products manufactured with rare earth elements has increased. The result has been higher consumption.

    China Buying Resources Outside of China

    Chinese companies have been purchasing rare earth resources in other countries. In 2009 China Non-Ferrous Metal Mining Company bought a majority stake in Lynas Corporation, an Australian company that has one of the highest outputs of rare earth elements outside of China. They also purchased the Baluba Mine in Zambia.

    Rare Earth Production Outside of China

    Mines in Australia began producing rare earth oxides in 2011. In 2012 and 2013 they were supplying about 2% to 3% of world production. In 2012, the Mountain Pass Mine came back into production and the United States produced about 4% of the world’s rare earth elements in 2013. India has been producing about 3% of the world’s supply for the past decade. Indonesia, Russia, Nigeria, North Korea, Malaysia, and Vietnam are minor producers [3].

    As of 2013 rare earth assessments were underway in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Finland, Greenland, India, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, South Africa, Sweden, Tanzania, Turkey, and Vietnam [2]. Some of these might result in additional production.

    The United States Geological Survey estimates that although China is the world-leader in rare earth production they only control about 50% of the world’s reserves. This provides an opportunity for other countries to become important producers now that China is not selling rare earth materials below the cost of production.

    Dangers of a Dominant World Producer

    Supply and demand normally determine the market price of a commodity. As supplies shrink, prices go up. As prices go higher, those who control the supply are tempted to sell. Mining companies see high prices as an opportunity and attempt to develop new sources of supply.

    With rare earth elements, the time between a mining company’s decision to acquire a property and the start of production can be several years or longer. There is no fast way to open a new mining property.

    If a single country controls almost all of the production and makes a firm decision not to export, then the entire supply of a commodity can be quickly cut off. That is a dangerous situation when new sources of supply take so long to develop.

    In 2010 China significantly restricted their rare earth exports. That was done to ensure a supply of rare earths for domestic manufacturing and for environmental reasons. This shift by China triggered panic buying and some rare earth prices shot up exponentially. In addition, Japan, the United States, and the European Union complained to the World Trade Organization about China’s restrictive rare earth trade policies.
    World Rare Earth Mineral Resources

    “Rare earths are relatively abundant in the Earth’s crust, but discovered minable concentrations are less common than for most other ores. U.S. and world resources are contained primarily in bastnäsite and monazite. Bastnäsite deposits in China and the United States constitute the largest percentage of the world’s rare-earth economic resources, while monazite deposits in Australia, Brazil, China, India, Malaysia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the United States constitute the second largest segment.

    Apatite, cheralite, eudialyte, loparite, phosphorites, rare-earth-bearing (ion adsorption) clays, secondary monazite, spent uranium solutions, and xenotime make up most of the remaining resources. Undiscovered resources are thought to be very large relative to expected demand.” Quoted from the United States Geological Survey’s Mineral Commodity Summary (2).
    Rare Earth Element Outlook

    The global demand for automobiles, consumer electronics, energy-efficient lighting, and catalysts is expected to rise rapidly over the next decade. Rare earth magnet demand is expected to increase, as is the demand for rechargeable batteries. New developments in medical technology are expected to increase the use of surgical lasers, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography scintillation detectors.

    Rare earth elements are heavily used in all of these industries, so the demand for them should remain high.
    Contributor: Hobart King

  • Who’s a dirty rotten tax dodger? Daney – GetUp!
    More

    1 of 51

    Who’s a dirty rotten tax dodger?

    Inbox
    		 x

    Daney – GetUp!
    3:41 PM (3 minutes ago)
    to me
    Dear NEVILLE,

    In shocking whistleblower revelations last night, ten foreign multinationals shifted $31 billion in revenue in one year to dodge Australian tax.1

    Among the worst of the corporate tax dodgers are the dirty old energy companies.

    These big polluters pay nothing on their carbon pollution emissions and receive enormous government handouts – a whopping $1,712 from every Australian.2 All the while, they’re shipping billions in Australian profits to overseas investors, with little to no tax paid into our economy to help fund our public schools and hospitals.

    Well, their day of reckoning is coming with a Senate inquiry likely kicking off next week. But there’s a catch: if no one’s paying attention, it tells our politicians we don’t care and gives them little incentive to take action. These companies could walk away scot-free, while ordinary Australian taxpayers are left to pick up the bill.

    So to show the Abbott Government we mean business, we’re doing an Australian first: placing the biggest ad possible in a major newspaper to draw attention to these critical Senate hearings. (We’re checking ad prices now and need to book soon.)

    Click here to check out our ‘Who’s a Dirty Rotten Tax Dodger?’ ad and chip in to make sure all eyes are on the explosive hearings into tax dodging by dirty energy companies.

    Here’s some of the dirty details we know already. Shell service stations paid $0 tax on $60 billion in Australian revenue over the past three years.3 And a group of multinationals, including Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell, have allegedly arranged to extract $60 billion in tax free profits from the massive Gorgon gas project.4

    Then, last night’s Channel 7 exclusive revealed that:

    • Ten corporations sent $31 billion in profits to offshore tax havens to avoid paying tax in Australia;
    • One corporation alone sent an enormous $11 billion in revenue from Australia to Singapore to avoid paying tax in Australia;
    • Up to $30 billion in tax revenue is lost to Australia thanks to corporate tax dodging each year.5 That’s enough to eliminate the deficit and roll back the Abbott Government’s massive cuts to our schools and hospitals.

    Last time we checked, Australian workers don’t get to ship their wages to overseas tax havens to avoid paying tax. Yet Treasurer Joe Hockey is hinting at GST hikes for everyday Australians, proving that when multinational corporations don’t pay their dues, we pay the price.

    Chip in to place an ad in a major newspaper to call out the worst of the corporate tax dodgers and hold our politicians to account over their inaction: www.getup.org.au/tax-time

    Mr Hockey can’t dodge immense public pressure to deal with corporate tax dodgers, but it all depends on how much we can crank up the volume on these Senate hearings. Let’s make sure that all eyes are on the tax dodging of the dirtiest energy companies next week.

    Thanks for speaking out,
    Daney, Mark, Nat and Alycia, for the GetUp team

    PS – Today, the Senate committee investigating corporate tax dodgers handed down a damning interim report. The report included some key recommendations that would force more transparency on these companies and give regulators new powers to crack down on corporate tax dodging. Whether these recommendations get up will depend on how much pressure the Abbott Government feels to finally do something. If each of us chips in a small amount today, we can shine a big spotlight on the actions of tax dodging fossil fuel companies next week – but we need to act quickly to get the ad space booked. Click here to chip in

    References
    [1] Exclusive: $31 bn sent offshore to avoid tax, Sunday Night, Channel Seven, 16 August 2015
    [2] G20 countries pay over $1000 per citizen in fossil fuel subsidies, The Guardian, 4 August 2015
    [3] Shell pumped $20 billion a year from motorists but paid no tax, Sydney Morning Herald, 9 August 2015
    [4] ATO looks into Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell’s $60 bn tax-free windfall, Australian Financial Review, 17 August 2015
    [5] Exclusive: Corporate tax dodge, Sunday Night, Channel Seven, 16 August 2015

  • CCL event in Ultimo on Thursday the 20th of August at 7pm

    CCL event in Ultimo on Thursday the 20th of August at 7pm

    Inbox
    		 x

    Jeevan Witt <jeevan@ccl.org.au>
    Attachments9:40 PM (5 minutes ago)
    to bcc: me
    Hi All,
    Would you like to attend the CCL (Citizens’ Climate Lobby) event in Ultimo this Thursday the 20th of August at 7pm?  This is the first event for the Sydney electorate.  More details on the flyer attached.  We are planning to have a short pub dinner before hand at the Lord Wolseley Hotel Ultimo at 6:00pm.  Please reply by Tuesday for this event and dinner.
    We are also considering having another event in the evening on Thursday the 10th of September if there is interest.  I am looking forward to meet you and the other Sydney members soon.
    Kind Regards,
    Jeevan Witt