Author: Neville

The end of nuclear power? Careful what you wish for

Flawed and stalled as the plans for toxic waste may be, at least they exist. There is no way to clean up CO2, the greater evil
Share398

inShare.10
Email

George Monbiot

The Guardian, Monday 4 February 2013 20.30 GMT

Jump to comments (902)

‘Abandoning a proven and reliable ­low-carbon ­technology as climate ­breakdown accelerates is a special form of madness.’ Illustration: Daniel Pudles

Is this the end? According to the Green MP Caroline Lucas, new nuclear power in this country has been “completely derailed”. She may not be wrong. She was talking about the decision by Cumbria county council to reject the nuclear waste dump the government had planned.

But she could just as well have been responding to the new report by a parliamentary committee, or to the declaration of surrender by Centrica: the last British company with a stake in the technology in the country. Put the three of them together and they add weight to the claims of those who maintain that atomic energy is finished in the United Kingdom. As I’ve spent much of the past two years defending it, this is a hard admission to make.

I don’t blame the people of Cumbria for rejecting the dump: the plan was an expensive, erudite and technically advanced dog’s breakfast. The location the government had chosen had only one virtue: availability. Or so it thought. The nuclear-friendly county turned out to be no more enthused about mopping up the industry’s excretions than the rest of Britain. No dump in Cumbria means no dump anywhere.

The whole thing was misdirected anyway: it was a waste of waste. The material the government wants to bury could produce – according to an estimate endorsed by the chief scientific adviser to its energy department – enough low-carbon energy to supply all the UK’s electricity needs for 500 years. Integral fast reactors can, in principle, keep recycling nuclear waste until a tiny residue remains, whose components have half-lives of tens rather than millions of years. The government’s failure in Cumbria could become an opportunity: to treat the waste as an asset, rather than a liability. But I’m not holding my breath.

No one has made atomic energy harder to love than the industry that supplies it. Today its long and colourful record of corner-cutting, incompetence and cover-ups was supplemented by the Commons public accounts committee’s report. “Basic project management failings continue to cause delays and increase costs” at Sellafield, where the waste is being stored.

The past is a mess, the future a thicket. Centrica was reported on Sunday to be pulling out because the cost of building new plants has soared. While other sources of low-carbon energy are getting cheaper, nuclear power – at least of the kind being promoted in Britain – is becoming more expensive. Every year the industry raises its demands, insisting on more lavish guarantees before it builds. The higher the cost, the weaker the argument in favour of the technology becomes.

I think the point might now have been reached at which attempts to build the favoured model (the European pressurised reactor) in the UK should be halted until the costs have been reassessed and, preferably, compared with the likely costs of integral fast reactors. There’s no point in assembling clunky third-generation power stations if fourth-generation technologies are cheaper and easier to build.

Many people will be delighted to read this gloomy assessment. Before you join them, please think about the consequences. Ten days ago, the Japanese government announced that it is abandoning its promise to cut the greenhouse gases the country produces by 25% by 2020. The reason it gave was the shutdown of many of its nuclear plants as a result of the Fukushima disaster. Nuclear power saved about a quarter of a billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year in Japan: equivalent to just under half the UK’s emissions. Much of it will now be replaced by coal and liquefied gas.

Germany also decided to shut down its nuclear power plants after the Fukushima crisis, due to the imminent risk of tsunamis in Bavaria. Last year, as a result, its burning of “clean coal” – otherwise known as coal – rose by 5%. That was despite a massive cut in its exports of electricity to other European countries. One estimate suggests that by 2020, Germany will have produced an extra 300 million tonnes of CO2 as a result of its nuclear closure: equivalent to almost all the savings that will be made in the 27 member states as a result of the EU’s energy efficiency directive.

If the UK fails to replace its nuclear plants, which generate 22% of our electricity, the same thing will happen. Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy – which is essential if we’re to have any chance of meeting our climate change targets – is hard enough. Replacing fossil fuels and nuclear power with renewables is harder still. As thermal power plants perversely attract less opposition than wind turbines, the temptation to replace nuclear power with fossil fuels will be overwhelming. Abandoning a proven and reliable low-carbon technology as climate breakdown accelerates is a special form of madness.

Flawed and stalled as the nuclear clean-up plans may be, at least they exist. Neither the government nor the fossil fuel companies have any programme for cleaning up carbon dioxide. This waste is, in aggregate, orders of magnitude more dangerous than the materials produced by atomic energy plants, and even harder to make safe. It’s a choice of two evils, but one is much worse than the other.

I accept that for now, the facts are against me. Enjoy it if you will. But then step back a pace, and consider what it means.

Twitter: @georgemonbiot

A fully referenced version of this article can be found at monbiot.com

MPs silent on links to Obeid

BARCLAY CRAWFORD, STATE POLITICAL REPORTER
The Sunday Telegraph
February 10, 201312:00AM

Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Print
Email
Share

0

Eddie Obeid enters ICAC with his lawyers, former Labor powerbroker Eddie Obeid. Picture: Craig Greenhill Source: The Daily Telegraph

EDDIE Obeid’s grip on the ALP continues in Macquarie St, with MPs refusing to reveal their connections to the former powerbroker.

And despite Opposition Leader John Robertson’s pledge to reform the party and rid it of the factional players linked to Mr Mr Obeid, his offsider and former kingmaker MP Joe Tripodi is back in the corridors of power.

The Sunday Telegraph has spotted Mr Tripodi in state Parliament twice and MPs confirmed he has been meeting with his former factional ally, Noreen Hay.

Mr Tripodi did not return calls seeking comment.

Ms Hay is part of a group of MPs who have been resisting Mr Robertson’s reforms, which includes ending the power of the party’s factions.

While many MPs replied to requests by The Sunday Telegraph’s about their connections to Mr Obeid, key players from the Right refused to answer a series of simple questions about whether they had accepted gifts, free meals or accommodation at Mr Obeid’s expense.

This follows revelations that Mr Robertson and his family enjoyed a weekend at the snow at Mr Obeid’s luxury Perisher ski chalet in 2007.

Those who refused to answer the questions included former treasurer Eric Roozendaal, Ms Hay, and Kogarah MP Cherie Burton, who were all closely aligned with Mr Obeid.

The ICAC has previously heard Mr Roozendaal received $10,000 off a new car, which was paid for by the Obeids. Darcy Byrne, who is the Leichhardt mayor and the party’s rank-and-file selection for the NSW Labor Policy Forum, said it was time to completely erase all remnants of Mr Obeid, Mr Tripodi and their Terrigals faction from the Labor Party.

“The fact is that (Mr) Obeid’s factional partner Joe Tripodi continues to exert malign influence through his cronies, including Noreen Hay,” he said.

“The remnants of (Mr) Obeid’s faction in parliament seem to think they can go about business as usual.

“Their culture of secrecy, patronage and factional control continues to damage NSW Labor each and every day.

“Even after all the ICAC revelations there are many in the NSW Right who refuse to acknowledge the need for Labor to change.

“(Mr) Tripodi should act in the interests of the party and walk away from politics for good.”

Print
Email

Fire service in crisis as disputes simmer

Date February 10, 2013
Read later

Tim Barlass

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

.

Put RFS first … fire hero Bob Fenwick with the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, at Coonabarabran. Photo: Jacky Ghossein

DAYS before the state’s worst bush fire in a decade destroyed 53 houses and razed 46,000 hectares, the Rural Fire Service in Coonabarabran was in turmoil – torn apart by grievances, disputes and talk of legal action.

The problems were so severe a long-serving senior manager was ”moved sideways” at the height of the crisis.

And in a sign of issues within RFS being more widespread, senior officers in the Gloucester area have spoken out against what they say is over-centralisation of decision-making and too much emphasis on training courses with a ”boy scout” mentality.

The officers also dissented with senior RFS managers when they accused the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service of not conducting enough preventive burning, which they say is resulting in fewer but more devastating fires.

Advertisement

Problems in the Coonabarabran area were so pronounced that fire hero Bob Fenwick, asked in front of TV cameras by the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, what she could to help after he lost his house while he was away fighting the inferno, responded that she could bring ”harmony within the RFS”.

He said: ”We have been a bit rough-trod [over] in our RFS in the last year. Get that sorted out. Get our fire control bosses all on the one foot, then it all fits together.”

The Commissioner of the Rural Fire Service, Shane Fitzsimmons, confirmed the in-fighting. ”There has been some local issues occurring in the Coonabarabran and Warrumbungles area,” he said.

”There were a number of grievances and disputes lodged by members involving other members so there were issues between members, between volunteers, between fire fighters and senior volunteers but also staff, and we have been working with the local manager to assist him working through some of those disputes.”

Mr Fitzsimmons also confirmed the disputes had resulted in changes of personnel at the height of the fire.

”Only recently we recruited for a new manager in the area and he took up his appointment on the Monday after that significant fire ran through,” he said.

”There was a substantive manager that had been there for a few years and he was moved sideways into a different role. I am confident that there’s a settling going on, there’s some work to be done. I have still got a volunteer continuing to write complaint letters to me and we will continue to address them.”

Six officers in the Gloucester area, which takes in the Barrington Tops National Park, have also given an account of an RFS hamstrung by bureaucracy.

The captain of Rawdon Vale RFS, David Bignell, said: ”Now, if you want to be a captain, you have got to have done this course and that course. It’s like the boy scouts. You have got to get a badge for this and a badge for that and not everyone wants to do that.”

A Gloucester area permits manager, John Hannaford, who has been issuing permits to burn for years, says fire-fighting costs are spiralling out of control with overuse of helicopters fighting fires instead of helping with preventive burns.

”This fighting fires with helicopters – I hate to think what the expense is, and misuse of funds. When you think who is paying, it all comes out of our pocket,” he said.

Mr Fitzsimmons disputed that too much decision-making was being done in Sydney. He also dismissed claims training was like the Scouts.

”It’s not about badges and patches, it’s about development and competency. If you have already got experience you can be assessed on that. Our volunteers are recognised right across this country,” he said.

The acting NPWS head, , Bob Conroy, said he was pleased at the level of preventive burning achieved in the last five years.

”When I compare what we have done in the national parks compared to private owners or land managers, we are boxing well above our weight,” he said.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/fire-service-in-crisis-as-disputes-simmer-20130209-2e560.html#ixzz2KRUeP8JJ

Carbon tax v cap-and-trade: which is better?

This Q&A is part of the Guardian’s Ultimate climate change FAQ

• See all questions and answers
• Read about the project
Share81

inShare.25
Email

Grantham Research Institute

guardian.co.uk, Thursday 31 January 2013 13.59 GMT

Carbon taxes and cap-and-trade schemes both add to the price of emitting CO2, albeit in slightly different ways. Photograph: Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images

Economists argue that, if the market is left to operate freely, greenhouse gas emissions will be excessive, since there is insufficient incentive for firms and households to reduce emissions. As such, they recommend applying the polluter pays principle and placing a price on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. This can be implemented either through a carbon tax (known as a price instrument) or a cap-and-trade scheme (a so-called quantity instrument).

A carbon tax imposes a tax on each unit of greenhouse gas emissions and gives firms (and households, depending on the scope) an incentive to reduce pollution whenever doing so would cost less than paying the tax. As such, the quantity of pollution reduced depends on the chosen level of the tax. The tax is set by assessing the cost or damage associated with each unit of pollution and the costs associated with controlling that pollution. Getting the tax level right is key: too low and firms and households are likely to opt for paying the tax and continuing to pollute, over and above what is optimal for society. Too high and the costs will rise higher than necessary to reduce emissions, impacting on profits, jobs and end consumers.

By contrast, a cap-and-trade system sets a maximum level of pollution, a cap, and distributes emissions permits among firms that produce emissions. Companies must have a permit to cover each unit of pollution they produce, and they can obtain these permits either through an initial allocation or auction, or through trading with other firms. Since some firms inevitably find it easier or cheaper to reduce pollution than others, trading takes place. Whilst the maximum pollution quantity is set in advance, the trading price of permits fluctuates, becoming more expensive when demand is high relative to supply (for example when the economy is growing) and cheaper when demand is lower (for example in a recession). A price on pollution is therefore created as a result of setting a ceiling on the overall quantity of emissions.

In certain idealized circumstances, carbon taxes and cap-and-trade have exactly the same outcomes, since they are both ways to price carbon. However, in reality they differ in many ways.

One difference is the way the two policies distribute the cost of reducing pollution. With cap-and-trade, it has often been the case that permits are given out for free initially (known as “grandfathering”). This means cheaper compliance for industry in the early stages of the scheme, because they only pay for any extra permits bought from other firms – not for the initial tranche of permits given to them to cover most of their emissions under ‘business as usual’. This approach is obviously popular with industry and explains why grandfathering has been used, since it helps get firms to accept controls on emissions in the first place. By contrast, with a tax there is an immediate cost for businesses to pay on every unit of greenhouse gas produced, so there is a bigger initial hit to the balance sheet. But while grandfathering is better for near-term business profitability, it is not necessarily the best outcome for society. Indeed, it deprives the government of valuable revenues, which it could raise in auctioning the permits initially, and which could be used to reduce other taxes.

The mechanisms also differ in how they perform under uncertainty about the costs and benefits of reducing emissions. Under a tax, the price of emitting a unit of pollution is set, but the total quantity of emissions is not. Therefore a tax ensures everyone knows the price being paid (at least for the immediate future) for each unit of carbon dioxide emitted, but uncertainty remains about the actual quantity of emissions. Conversely, cap-and-trade provides certainty about the quantity of emissions (it cannot exceed the cap), but uncertainty about the cost of achieving these reductions. Which is preferred depends on how sensitive the level of environmental damage is to changes in emissions, compared with how sensitive the cost of reducing pollution is to the same changes. If the level of environmental damage is more sensitive, then it is important to be sure what the quantity of emissions is, which points to cap-and-trade. Conversely if the cost of reducing pollution is more highly sensitive to changes in emissions, it is better to be sure about the cost of cutting emissions, pointing to a tax.

What this means for climate change policy is debated. In the short term, most economists agree that uncertainty alone argues for a tax. Climate change depends on the stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and in each year the increase in that stock due to new emissions is small, so the environment is probably not that sensitive to the uncertainty about the level of emissions brought about by choosing a tax, at least over a year or two. On the other side of the ledger, the cost of reducing pollution is highly sensitive to changes in emissions, since it can be expensive to businesses to change their production methods abruptly. In the long term, however, it is less clear whether a tax is preferable, because big changes in the stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may cause substantial environmental damage.

Some economists recommend a hybrid model that may offer the best of both worlds. This tends to comprise of a cap on emissions (to regulate the quantity of pollution), but with adjustment mechanisms such as a carbon price floor or ceiling, to keep the price of a permit within acceptable bounds. Hybrid schemes have their own problems, however, such as greater complexity and more intervention by the regulator in the permit market.

Whichever of these policies is favoured to place a price on carbon, they represent just one of a number of policies needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

• This article was written by Luca Taschini, Simon Dietz and Naomi Hicks of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at LSE in collaboration with the Guardian

The ultimate climate change FAQ

• This answer last updated: 28.01.2013
• Read about the project and suggest a question
• Report an error in this answer

Related questions
• Why does climate change get described as a ‘stock-flow’ problem?
• What is the ‘polluter pays’ principle?
• What is a carbon price and why do we need one?

This editorial is free to reproduce under Creative Commons

This post by The Guardian is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Based on a work at guardian.co.uk

Massive snowstorm brings north-east US to a halt

Updated 2 hours 40 minutes ago

Photo: A pedestrian does his best to make it through the driving snow with his broken umbrella in Boston, Massachusetts. (AFP/Getty Images: Mario Tama)

Map: United States
The USA’s north-east are preparing for a massive blizzard that has already grounded planes and brought cities to a standstill.

The storm is forecast to bring the heaviest snow so far this winter, threatening power and transport links for tens of millions of people.

All air travel in or out of New York has been halted as airlines ground their planes in response to the storm.

Airlines have also suspended most operations at LaGuardia, Newark Liberty and John F Kennedy International airports.

The heaviest impact of the storm is expected in and around Boston.

Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick has temporarily ordered all normal traffic off the state’s roads, with the threat of up to a year in prison for violators.

“There are a number of exemptions for … emergency workers and the like. Please exercise caution and use common sense,” he said at an emergency centre in Framingham.

In Connecticut, governor Dannel Malloy issued a “ban on motor vehicle travel on limited access highways” to free up emergency services traffic.

Rhode Island, where some of America’s most exclusive summer homes are located, also instituted driving restrictions.

In addition to the road and air snarl-ups, rail service Amtrak said trains from New York north-bound and also to the capital Washington DC were being suspended.

The storm comes a little over three months after Hurricane Sandy devastated swathes of New York and New Jersey, killing 132 people and causing damage worth some $US71.4 billion.

The National Weather Service has warned “in addition to the heavy snowfall, wind gusts of up to hurricane force are possible, especially near the coast”.

“This will result in blizzard conditions with drifting and blowing snow,” it said.

New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, who came under withering criticism for the city’s flat-footed response to a blizzard in 2010, says residents should stock up with vital supplies and prepare for the worst.

“Stay off the city streets, stay out of your cars,” he said at a news conference.

“Staying off the streets will make it easier for city workers to clear the streets of snow.”

New York’s four zoos also announced they were closing for the duration of the storm.

Forecasters say the system should blow through on Saturday (local time), with milder temperatures to follow.

AFP

Topics:snowfall, weather, united-states

First posted 2 hours 53 minutes ago

NSW Labor reform faces internal resistance

By Hagar Cohen for Background Briefing, ABCUpdated February 9, 2013, 3:22 pm

tweet2

Email
Print

New South Wales Labor reform faces fierce opposition from within, despite support from party boss Sam Dastyari and emerging evidence from the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) about the conduct of former senior Labor government figures.

Mr Dastyari has joined the push to change party rules, which would limit the power of factional powerbrokers and give more say to rank-and-file members, but said some of his colleagues did not want to relinquish their power.

“There’s a whole host of reasons why people resist different types of reform,” Mr Dastyari said.

“Some of them are for very genuine reasons of being party traditionalists and having a nostalgic view of how things used to be, and some are because of self-interest.

“Paul Keating used to have that great saying, that self-interest is the only horse that’s trying.

“You have to fight that in a political party.”

Mr Dastyari said he had counselled factional players to look at reform as being in their own interests in the current political climate for NSW Labor.

“My view to the so-called powerbrokers in the Labor Party has always been this: it is much better to be a smaller player in a bigger movement than a giant player in a shrinking organisation, and that requires giving up power.”

However, he dismissed suggestions that if he could not get enough of his colleagues over the line, they would eventually make his position as general secretary untenable.

“No. We are winning the debate internally,” he said.

“Every political movement has a lot of vested interests but the argument that is being won is, reform or die.”

The push for reform has been rushed to prepare the NSW branch for the upcoming federal election.

‘Reform or die’

Labor is suffering major swings in heartland seats in western Sydney. Internal party polling in western and south-western Sydney from last year shows swings of up to 10 per cent against Labor.

Party membership is also declining and the reform project would attempt to encourage new members to campaign on the streets, man polling booths and door knock in marginal seats. Â

However, the ABC’s Background Briefing understands those numbers did not include the seat of Lindsay, which is held by assistant treasurer David Bradbury.

Lindsay is viewed as a certain loss for the party.

“The reality is that half of federal Labor’s marginal seats are in western Sydney,” said Troy Bramston, a former speechwriter for Kevin Rudd and now a columnist with News Limited.

“So the task for Labor is to preserve those seats, which it would find very difficult.”

Labor’s challenge to preserve marginal seats is hampered by its rapidly declining grassroots support.

In the past decade, over 100 Labor branches have closed down.

Labor Mayor of Leichhardt, Darcy Byrne, said members have become disillusioned because the party has not been responsive to their calls for urgent reform.

“We saw for the first time in March 2011 polling booths in Labor held seats that went unmanned because so many of our members and supporters lost faith in the party, and weren’t willing to give their time and energy to helping to re-elect a Labor government,” Mr Byrne said.

“You can’t win elections if you don’t have any members and supporters on the ground.”

Question of control

Mr Byrne said the powerbrokers within the party who resist change should be forced to resign.

“The evidence is that there are a range of people particularly in the NSW right (faction) who will not give power away willingly,” he said.

“The only time that they’re going to act in the best interest of the party is when the party’s members stand up and demand it.”

Among the reform proposals are rank-and-file pre-selections and democratic election of the parliamentary leader.

There is a committee to look into that proposal, of which Mr Byrne is a member.

He said committee members nominated by the right faction, MPs Steve Whan and Noreen Hay, were well known for their opposition to the idea.

“A future parliamentary leader elected by tens of thousands rather than appointed in the back room will be freed from intimidation by powerbrokers,” Mr Byrne said.

“That is why this reform is necessary, [and] it is also why Noreen Hay and others are opposing it behind the scenes.”

Ms Hay told Background Briefing she was unconvinced about the idea and thought MPs were better placed to make those kinds of decisions.

“At this stage my view is that having been elected to Parliament to determine the leader is a way of keeping the actions robust,” Ms Hay said.

Other Labor insiders saw the committee as another stalling tactic to ensure reform did not happen.

Anthony D’Adam, a member of the administrative committee in the party machine, said attempts to reform the party were superficial.

“The core of the reform project is really about the question of control,” Mr D’Adam said.

“Who controls the Labor Party? Do the members control the Labor Party, or is it controlled by a small elite in party office or in the parliamentary party?

“That’s the critical question and I don’t think at this stage that Labor has really addressed that question.

“The reform project has stalled because those who control the Labor Party as it currently stands don’t want to relinquish that control to the rank-and-file.”
Listen to Background Briefing on ABC Radio National, Sunday Feb 10 at 8.05am (AEDT); repeated Tuesday Feb 12 at 2.05pm.