Author: admin

Non-target damage to cotton and so on: There have been incidents of 2, 4-D esters causing non-target damage to cotton, grape and horticulture crops. APVMA principal scientist, Dr David Loschke, said a report into the proposed deregistration of the chemicals had been released for public comment with submissions closing on 31 May.

The best chemicals replacement: "We will do what we can to make things work for the industry," he said. "The best replacement (chemicals) will be the low-volatile ester forms which have all the same uses growers are accustomed to using the short-chain esters for."

The Land, 18/5/2006, p. 9

Source: Erisk Net  

Hit and miss process overcome: This compares with the normal direct seeding where gemination rates can be as low as five per cent. “Large scale direct seeding of saltbush is very attractive to environmental managers because it costs about a third of the price of seedlings," Dr Stevens said. "But until now it has been a very hit-and-miss process – in both success rates and timing.”

Basic seed science works wonders: The research is showing that a basic understanding of seed dormancy and germination requirements has the potential to significantly improve field emergence of saltbush species.

Further investigation planned: Dr Stevens has been working with three common varieties of saltbush, but the others, old man saltbush from Australia and wavyleaf saltbush from Argentina, had not had the same results from the gibberellic acid. But other treatments, such as removing bracteoles (the wings around the saltbush seed) before planting, were increasing rates of emergence significantly, as did salicylic acid (the active ingredient in aspirin). These will be investigated further in coming months if funding is available.

Contact: Dr Jason Stevens. Phone: (08) 9480 3639. Email: jstevens@bgpa.wa.gov.au

Focus on Salt, 3/2006, p. 18

Source: Erisk Net  

Fears rise after tumour discovery: The Electrical Trades Union ban came as preliminary testing at RMIT University’s business school found no evidence that rooftop phone towers caused brain tumours in seven staff since 1999. While medical experts said there was no proven link between phone towers and cancer, fears rose after it was revealed that tumours were found in staff working on the top floor.

Tumours linked to long-term electromagnetic exposure: Electrical union state secretary Dean Mighell said there was overseas evidence linking tumours to long-term electromagnetic radiation exposure, whether from high-voltage power lines or phone towers. "Saying it is inconclusive is not good enough," he said. "It needs to be conclusive that it’s safe, and when there is so much evidence saying it’s not, we think it is time the telecommunications industry adopts the same standards as the power industry and protects workers and residents."

Safety measures demanded: Mighell urged communications companies to adopt regulations forcing electrical workers to wear protective equipment, carry radiation meters and work on towers for limited periods. City authorities have sought council control over medium-sized phone towers through planning permits. There are 169 mobile phone network masts in the Melbourne CBD.

Executives label union attempt unjustified: Chief executive Chris Althaus said the ETU’s move was unjustified and unwarranted. Althaus said agency studies had noted AM radio contributed about 91 per cent of radio frequency emissions while mobile phone towers contributed only 1.4 per cent.

The Age, 19/5/2006, p. 6

Source: Erisk Net  

Young people prefer cities: Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) mining and energy division president, Tony Maher, says the industry is often viewed by young people as a dinosaur and there is a strong tendency for young professionals to seek employment in one of the big cities rather than regional locations. "The big attraction for workers is the lifestyle that companies can offer, which does make it more difficult in remote areas."

No problem in Hunter Valley That’s a view shared by Xstrata Coal chief executive, Peter Coates. Xstrata is one of the nation’s big three coal producers, along with BHP and Rio Tinto. Xstrata’s operations are in the Hunter Valley in NSW and Bowen Basin in Queensland. "In the Hunter Valley we have no difficulty, in attracting workers. It is the ultimate location for a mining workforce in the country."

Big Three finds biggest obstacle to expansion is locating workers: In Western Australia, Worsley has said the biggest obstacle to a proposed $1.5 billion expansion of its alumina operations is finding the 1000 workers needed to do the expansion. BHP has made the same statement regarding its proposed $7 billion expansion of the Olympic Dam copper and uranium mine in South Australia. The company needs thousands of workers when work commences early next decade and is hoping that attractive residential developments at the remote Roxby Downs town site that will be onsold to workers at cost will be a drawcard.

The Australian, 13/5/2006, p. 6

Source: Erisk Net  

EON UK biggest emitter: It produced a table identifying EON UK, the electricity generator that owned Powergen, as Britain’s biggest corporate emitter of greenhouse gases.

Who the other four are: EON UK produced 26.4 million tonnes tonnes of CO2 last year. The other four companies named were RWE Npower, Drax, Corus, and EDF. EON, RWE Npower, Drax and EDF are all involved in electricity generation while Corus is mainly a steel producer.

Five emit more than 100 million tonnes: The Guardian table showed these five companies produced a combined total of more than 100 million tonnes of CO2 in 2005, compared to the annual average of 81 million tonnes produced by the nation’s 26 million private cars.

Efforts by individuals and household make little difference: The figures, which prompted new calls for tighter restrictions on corporate pollution, showed that efforts by individuals and households to cut their carbon footprints would make little difference unless accompanied by greater action by industry.

Huge gains from slight improvement in efficiency: The newspaper noted that a 1 per cent increase in the efficiency of the giant Drax power station in North Yorkshire – the largest in Europe and the single biggest polluting site in the UK – would save the typical carbon emissions of 21,000 households. Drax alone produced 20.8 million tonnes of CO2 in 2005.

EON cites its green energy record: A spokeswoman for EON said: "We are one of the leading green generators and invest more per customer in green energy than any other major supplier in the UK."

Test depends on extent of change: A spokesman for RWE Npower said: "We’re one of the UK’s biggest power generators, so of course we’re going to have more emissions than, say, a single power station somewhere. The test of ‘green-ness’ is how much you are changing."

Details of 700 UK industrial sites: The CO2 emissions of more than 700 industrial sites across Britain were contained in figures released on Monday by the European Commission. They detailed the UK’s participation in the first phase of a Europe-wide scheme intended to tackle climate change by capping the amount of carbon the heaviest polluters can emit.

Reference: Digest of latest news reported on website of Climate Change Secretariat of United Nations Framework on Climate Change Control (UNFCCC). 16 May 2006. Address: PO Box 260 124, D-53153 Bonn. Germany. Phone: : (49-228) 815-1005, Fax: (49-228) 815-1999. Email: press@unfccc.int
http://www.unfccc.int

The outcry over Bolivia’s renationalisation and the silence over Chad’s betrays the hypocrisy of the critics

George Monbiot
Tuesday May 16, 2006
The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1775751,00.html

You can probably guess how this has gone down. Tony Blair urged him to use his power responsibly, which is like Mark Oaten lecturing the Pope on sexual continence. Condoleezza Rice accused him of "demagoguery". The Economist announced that Bolivia was "moving backwards". The Times, in a marvellously haughty leader, called Morales "petulant", "xenophobic" and "capricious", and labelled his seizure of the gas fields "a gesture as childish as it is eye-catching".

Never mind that the privatisation of Bolivia’s gas and oil in the 1990s was almost certainly illegal, as it took place without the consent of congress. Never mind that – until now – its natural wealth has only impoverished its people. Never mind that Morales had promised to regain national control of Bolivia’s natural resources before he became president, and that the policy has massive support among Bolivians. It can’t be long before Donald Rumsfeld calls him the new Hitler and Bush makes another speech about freedom and democracy being threatened by freedom and democracy.

This huffing and puffing is dressed up as concern for the people of Bolivia. The Financial Times fretted about the potential for "mismanagement and corruption". The Economist warned that while the government "may get richer, its people are likely to grow even poorer". The Times lamented that Morales had "set back Bolivia’s development by 10 years or so … the most vulnerable groups will find that an economic lifeline is soon removed from their reach". All this is humbug.

Four days before Morales seized the gas fields – on May 1 – an even bigger expropriation took place in an even poorer country: the African republic of Chad. When the Chadian government reasserted control over its oil revenues, not only did it ensure that an intended lifeline for the poor really was removed from their reach, but it also brought the World Bank’s claims to be using oil as a social welfare programme crashing down in flames. So how did all those bold critics of Morales respond? They didn’t. The whole hypocritical horde of them looked the other way.

The World Bank decided to fund Chad’s massive oil scheme in 2000, after extracting a promise from the government of Idriss Deby – which has a terrible human rights record – that the profits would be used for the benefit of the country’s people. Deby’s administration passed a law allocating 85% of the government’s oil revenues to education, health and development, and placing 10% "in trust for future generations". This, the bank said, amounted to "an unprecedented system of safeguards to ensure that these revenues would be used to finance development in Chad".

Without the World Bank, the project could not have gone ahead. It was asked to participate by Exxon, the leading partner in the project, to provide insurance against political risk. The bank’s different lending arms stumped up a total of $333m, and the European Investment Bank threw in another $120m. The oil companies (Exxon, Petronas and Chevron) started drilling 300 wells in the south of the country, and building a pipeline to a port in Cameroon, which opened in 2003.

Environmentalists predicted that the pipeline would damage the rainforests of Cameroon and displace the indigenous people who lived there; that the oil companies would consume much of Chad’s scarce water and that an influx of oil workers would be accompanied by an influx of Aids. They also argued that subsidising oil companies in the name of social welfare was a radical reinterpretation of the bank’s mandate. As long ago as 1997, the Environmental Defence Fund warned that the government of Chad would not keep its promises to use the money for alleviating poverty. In 1999, researchers from Harvard Law School examined the law the government had passed, and predicted that the authorities "have little intention of allowing it to affect local practice".

In 2000, the oil companies gave the government of Chad a "signing bonus" of $4.5m, which it immediately spent on arms. Then, at the beginning of 2006, it simply tore up the law it had passed in 1998. It redefined the development budget to include security, seized the fund set aside for future generations, and diverted 30% of the total revenues into "general spending", which, in Chad, is another term for guns. The World Bank, embarrassed by the fulfilment of all the predictions its critics had made, froze the revenues the government had deposited in London and suspended the remainder of its loans. The Chadian government responded by warning that it would simply shut down the oil wells. The corporations ran to daddy (the US government) and, on April 27, the bank caved in. Its new agreement with Chad entitles Deby to pretty well everything he has already taken.

The World Bank’s attempts to save face are almost funny. Last year, it said that the scheme was "a pioneering and collaborative effort … to demonstrate that large-scale crude oil projects can significantly improve prospects for sustainable long-term development". In other words, it was a model for oil-producing countries to follow. Now it tells us that the project in Chad was "less a model for all oil-producing countries than a unique solution to a unique challenge". But, however much it wriggles, it cannot disguise the fact that the government’s reassertion of control is a disaster both for the bank and for the impoverished people it claimed to be helping. Since the project began, Chad has fallen from 167th to 173rd on the UN’s human development index, and life expectancy there has dropped from 44.7 to 43.6 years. If, by contrast, Morales does as he has promised and uses the extra revenues from Bolivia’s gas fields in the same way as Hugo Chávez has used the money from Venezuela’s oil, the result is likely to be a major improvement in his people’s welfare.

So, on the one hand, you have a man who has kept his promises by regaining control over the money from the hydrocarbon industry, in order to use it to help the poor. On the other, you have a man who has broken his promises by regaining control over the money from the hydrocarbon industry, in order to buy guns. The first man is vilified as irresponsible, childish and capricious. The second man is left to get on with it. Why? Well, Deby’s actions don’t hurt the oil companies. Morales’s do. When Blair and Rice and the Times and all the other apologists for undemocratic power say "the people", they mean the corporations. The reason they hate Morales is that when he says "the people", he means the people.

· The references for this and all George Monbiot’s recent columns can be found at www.monbiot.com