Author: Neville

  • Albanese say he didn’t make train comments

    Albanese say he didn’t make train comments

    AAPMarch 20, 2013, 8:01 pm

    tweet

    Email
    Print

    AAP © Enlarge photo

    Federal Transport Minister Anthony Albanese says he did not say pollution from coal trains is not significantly higher than from passenger trains.

    An AAP story published on Saturday said Mr Albanese and a spokesman said the level of particulate matter emitted by coal trains was not statistically significantly different to passenger trains.

    Those comments came from an Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) 2012 report, Mr Albanese told parliament on Wednesday.

    “I made no such statement nor did my spokesperson,” he said in parliament.

    “The quotes that are attributed to me in the article are in fact from the ARTC report, not from myself.”

    The ARTC is an independent corporate entity responsible for managing more than 8500km of rail track around the country.

    Mr Albanese said he did not want to comment on a statement made by Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon on Saturday.

    “I make it a policy to not respond to all of Lee Rhiannon’s obsessive comments about me because I have a real job to do,” he told parliament.

    “But with regard to this, I did not make a statement, any such statement.

    “My spokesperson made no statement whatsoever to AAP.”

    An AAP reporter did speak to Mr Albanese’s spokesman on Saturday. But the coal dust comment was mistakenly attributed to Mr Albanese instead of the ARTC report.
    A correction has since been issued.

    tweet

    Email
    Print

  • Scripps Lecture to Explore Crossroads of Science and Religion

    Scripps Lecture to Explore Crossroads of Science and Religion

    Free public Rosenblatt Lecture scheduled April 2 by expert on science teaching and evolution-creation debate

    Scripps Institution of Oceanography / University of California, San Diego
    Join Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego for a lively presentation at the hotly debated crossroads of science and religion. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education and an internationally known expert on the evolution-creation controversy, will present “In the Beginning: Science, Religion, and Origins” during the annual Richard H. and Glenda G. Rosenblatt Lectureship in Evolutionary Biology.

    The event is scheduled for 3 p.m. on April 2, 2013, at the Robert Paine Scripps Forum for Science, Society and the Environment (Scripps Seaside Forum) on the Scripps Oceanography campus (8610 Kennel Way, La Jolla, CA 92037). The event is free and the public is invited. Seating is available on a first come, first served basis.

    During the presentation Scott will address the origins of life, Earth, and the universe, topics pondered by religions around the world.

    “Science, as a relatively recent actor on the intellectual stage, also considers these topics, coming up with answers at variance with those of most religions, including Christianity,” says Scott. “How do these two approaches differ? Are there similarities? And is there an uncrossable divide between the two? The answer is not just philosophically interesting, but directly relevant to decisions being made about what to teach in public school science courses.”

    In her current position, Scott oversees the National Center for Science Education, a not-for-profit membership organization of scientists, teachers, and others who seek to improve the teaching of science, evolution, and climate change. A former college professor, Scott is regularly featured in news reports regarding science teaching.

    Four years ago Scientific American named Scott “one of 10 outstanding leaders involved in research, business, or policy pursuits that have advanced science and technology.”

    She authored the book Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction and co-edited Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools, in addition to many articles in science journals.

    In addition to holding several honorary degrees, Scott has been honored with several prestigious awards from a long list of scientific organizations, including the National Academy of Sciences Public Welfare Medal, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility, and the California Science Teachers Association Distinguished Service Award.

    # # #

  • Methane hydrates – bigger than shale gas, “game over” for the environment?

    Plugged In

    ——————————————————————————–

    More than wires – exploring the connections between energy, environment, and our lives
    Plugged In HomeAboutContact

    Methane hydrates – bigger than shale gas, “game over” for the environment?

    By Melissa C. Lott | March 19, 2013| 6

    Share Email Print

    ——————————————————————————–

    Methane hydrate deposits could hold up to 15 times the amount of gas as the world’s shale deposits. At the same time, they represent more carbon than all of the world’s fossil fuels combined. So, it’s no wonder that the response to recent announcements by the Japanese has been a bit mixed.

    Methane hydrates (a.k.a. methane clathrates or fire ice) are solid compounds where methane is literally trapped in water. The substance looks like ice and can be found deep on the ocean floor, locked under layers of sediments.

    Last Tuesday, Japan announced that researchers have successfully produced natural gas from offshore methane hydrates in the the Eastern Nankai Trough. In the words of energy analyst Jesse Jenkins, this success could have explosive implications. In his article, posted Friday on The Energy Collective, Jenkins explains his views on the impact of unlocking this resource, stating that:

    “Of course, just as with shale gas, not all of this potential energy resource will prove technically recoverable. Yet if (or should we say when?) technology to commercially extract gas from hydrates is developed, the implications for global energy markets are staggering nonetheless.”

    Below if a portion of his piece, which was originally published on Friday on The Energy Collective. In it, Jenkins presents the big economic and environmental considerations that have come to the forefront of the methane hydrates discussion.

    “Hydrates could remake energy markets
    Methane hydrates are the world’s largest source of untapped fossil energy. And they are widely distributed across the world, as indicated in the graphic from the US Geological Survey (USGS) below…

    …Japan is currently the world’s largest importer of liquefied natural gas and faces gas prices roughly four-times higher than those enjoyed in the United States. The development of hydrates could potentially erase that price differential.

    “Depending on where the final cost of capturing methane hydrates ultimately rests, this can mean large reductions in natural gas prices throughout the world,” explains [Christopher] Knittel, [MIT energy Professor of energy economics].

    In short, methane hydrates could once again reshape global gas markets, just as the development of shale gas has done in the last decade.

    “Game over” for the climate?
    While hydrate resources look like an enormous boon to energy-starved nations like Japan, all that carbon and methane has climate scientists and advocates concerned.

    Developing methane hydrates would be “game over for the climate,” writes green blogger Mat McDermott.

    It’s easy to see why he’d be concerned: methane hydrates contain more carbon than all the world’s other fossil resources combined, according to USGS estimates.

    If developed at a significant scale, hydrates would certainly be more than enough to cook the climate.<

    Depending on how cost-effective production of gas hydrates proves, this vast new fossil energy resource could lower energy prices worldwide. “These lower prices almost certainly will lead to an increase in fossil-fuel consumption on an energy basis,” says Knittel. “That’s the bad news, from a climate perspective.”

    But in principle, clean-burning natural gas from hydrates could also help displace coal consumption in places like China and India, just as cheap shale gas is now driving coal out of U.S. electricity markets. That scenario could potentially yield climate benefits and cleaner air — assuming the displaced coal stays in the ground and hydrates aren’t used to simply prolong reliance on fossil fuels.

    To preserve any climate benefits of this hypothetical coal-to-gas shift, hydrate drillers would also have to be wary of letting methane leak out of hydrate deposits and into the atmosphere. Methane is an extremely potent greenhouse gas, and even modest leakage rates could nix any potential climate benefit of burning gas from hydrates instead of coal…”

    Methane hydrates represent a huge potential energy resource, with correspondingly significant economic and environmental impact potential. How to best manage the balance between the two is an open question that it appears that society will be facing sooner rather than later.

    Photo Credit: USGS and U.S. EIA

    About the Author: An engineer and researcher who works at the intersection of energy, environment, technology, and policy. Follow on Twitter @mclott.
    More »

  • ICAC hears Doyle’s Creek mining lease granted by Ian Macdonald netted John Maitland $15m

    ICAC hears Doyle’s Creek mining lease granted by Ian Macdonald netted John Maitland $15m

    Amy Dale
    The Daily Telegraph
    March 20, 201311:13AM

    Increase Text Size
    Decrease Text Size
    Print
    Email
    Share

    THE idea of a training mine at lucrative Doyle’s Creek was considered by senior government staff to be nothing more than “a thought bubble” in the head of former union boss John Maitland, ICAC has heard today.

    Barry Buffier, the former director general of the Primary Industries department, is the corruption inquiry’s first witness in the investigation into the granting of a mining lease at Doyle’s Creek by disgraced former resources minister Ian Macdonald.

    Mr Buffier said he considered the idea of having a training mine at Doyle’s Creek only to be “a thought bubble” of Mr Maitland, the former national president of the CFMEU and the man said to have made a profit of $15 million from the mining lease from an original output of $165,000.

    Mr Buffier said proposals to have a training mine there in 2007 was a time when the state “was in the middle of a coal boom.”

    “These were valuable assets for the state,” he said.

    ICAC alleges Mr Macdonald granted the lease to Doyle’s Creek Mining without a competitive tender, a decision which went against department and industry advice.

    The inquiry heard Mr Buffier believed “he had burst the thought bubble” about the training mine despite the one time union heavyweight’s “keenness to pursue it”, particularly as it hadn’t been endorsed by the Mine Safety Advisory Council.

    Mr Buffier said having a training mine at the site wouldn’t “extract the real value of this lease” and the proposal “certainly wasn’t the right way to be going with this.”

    The inquiry continues.

    Print
    Email

  • Torbay referred to ICAC

    Torbay referred to ICAC

    Date March 20, 2013 – 1:52PM 188 reading now

    Read later

    Sean Nicholls

    Sydney Morning Herald State Political Editor

    View more articles from Sean Nicholls

    Follow Sean on TwitterEmail Sean

    inShare.
    Pin It
    submit to reddit
    Email article
    Print
    Reprints & permissions

    .

    .

    Torbay: Premier ‘surprised as anyone else’

    NSW Premier, Barry O’Farrell, responds to the resignation of state independent Richard Torbay.
    Autoplay OnOff
    Video feedback
    Video settings

    Information that led to Richard Torbay’s dumping as a federal Nationals candidate and his resignation from the NSW parliament over links to the Labor powerbroker Eddie Obeid has been referred to the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

    There is speculation that the government will make an announcement about the referral to the corruption watchdog today.

    This morning Mr Torbay resigned as the independent state member for Northern Tablelands, effective immediately.

    Referred to ICAC … Richard Torbay. Photo: Jim Rice

    The resignation came only hours after he was forced to quit as the Nationals candidate for the federal seat of New England, where he was to challenge the independent MP, Tony Windsor at the September 14 federal election.

    Advertisement

    In a statement, Mr Torbay cited the amount of pressure placed on his family by politics, but also acknowledged he had brought forward the decision.

    On Monday night the NSW Nationals were reportedly given information related to Mr Torbay’s acceptance of funding from the Labor party to run against Nationals candidates.

    The party’s state chairman, Niall Blair, would not disclose the nature of the information, but said the party was seeking legal advice.

    Mr Torbay’s resignation from the NSW parliament will spark a by-election in Northern Tablelands, which he has held as an independent MP since 1999.

    The Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce has indicated his willingness to stand in the federal seat of New England if he is endorsed by the party.

    It is understood the Nationals move to dump Mr Torbay was related to concerns about his links to the family of the Labor powerbroker Eddie Obeid, who is the subject of the largest ever corruption investigation in NSW.

    Mr Obeid, a former upper house MP, is accused of conspiring with the then minerals minister, Ian Macdonald, in 2008 to rig a tender for a lucrative coal exploration licences.

    On Monday, Mr Windsor called on Mr Torbay to explain himself over claims by the Labor strategist Shane Easson that Mr Obeid had helped kick start Mr Torbay’s political career.

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/torbay-referred-to-icac-20130320-2gez8.html#ixzz2O3ABJLsx

  • Out of touch and out of their depth (Editorial)

    Out of touch and out of their depth

    The Daily Telegraph
    March 20, 201312:00AM

    Increase Text Size
    Decrease Text Size
    Print
    Email
    Share

    3

    FOR anyone who believes in a free press, or indeed even free speech, some of the astonishing revelations from the parliamentary hearings chill the blood.

    Is it evidence of gross misconduct by media organisations? No.

    Is it evidence of phone hacking or bribery, the overseas crimes for which the government has decided to punish Australian media organisations? No.

    It is evidence of something far more disturbing than that: It is evidence that the very people leading this bull in a china shop assault on free journalism are so confused, ignorant, ill-informed and naive that they have in the most literal sense absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

    As this newspaper has constantly maintained, the very media inquiry itself was based on a wholly false pretence that was never justified nor explained. It’s foundation was a vague smear that somehow the atrocious practices in the UK were also taking place in Australia. As has been demonstrated time and again this is not only completely untrue but a cheap and nasty slur on all Australian journalists.

    Now we discover that the man chosen to head this inquiry is so either thoroughly inexpert or thoroughly uninterested in media matters that he was not even aware the Australian Press Council had already implemented core aspects of his recommendations.

    It beggars belief that a man suddenly appointed the nation’s foremost authority on the media should not be aware of such things – the fact he knowingly presented himself to a senate hearing without having even bothered to check on the current status of the Press Council is nothing short of staggering.

    Were that not enough, we have also had to bear witness to the shameless leading questions being spoon-fed by the seemingly unreconstructed socialist Senator Doug Cameron to his comrade witnesses while at the same time suffer the wild accusations and conspiracy theories he spouts to his perceived enemies under parliamentary privilege.

    While there are many examples of Senator Cameron’s undergraduate gullibility – not least his constant confusion between Australian and UK press outlets – just one is enough to render Senator Cameron’s paranoid delusions in the light they deserve to be seen.

    Take the Senator’s charge that former Press Council chair Ken McKinnon had told the Finkelstein inquiry he had been offered a bribe by a newspaper editor to waive complaints. In fact Professor McKinnon has now gone on the record to say the comment was clearly a joke recorded in notes he gave to the inquiry. Indeed, he said, the joke was made to emphasise the regard editors had for the council and how much they disliked adverse findings.

    And to quote Professor McKinnon verbatim: “I am completely sure that I made clear to the inquiry that the comment being touted was in the context of the respect accorded to the council; it was a jovial phrase said over lunch.”

    But perhaps the darkest irony is that, in the coward’s castle of the Senate, Cameron is immune from the consequences arising from his smears and falsehoods. Out here in the real world the press has no such protection.

    And yet he and the one-eyed lynch mob that swallows every cliched accusation without question think we’re the ones whose words need to be controlled. It’s hard to believe that they’re not joking too.