You are currently browsing the archives for the Environment category.

NEW APPROACHES TO ECONOMICS

October 19th, 2011

 

The Editor
The Adelaide Review
GPO Box 651

ADELAIDE SA 5001

editor@adelaidereview.com.au

Dear Sir/Madam
RE: LETTER TO THE EDITOR – NEW APPROACHES TO ECONOMICS

Along with others who want to see our international economic
system adopt more humane and fairer economics, I was  interested to read John Spoehr’s article, Debt and the Global Financial Crisis (The Adelaide
Review October 2011) about Ann Pettifor, a co-founder of Jubilee 2000 and the Green New Deal Group. 

I was particularly pleased you printed John’s article as I had
intended being at her Adelaide meeting, but was unable to do so. John’s article inspired me to do some further reading about Ann’s work and I discovered that she is also
a fellow of nef (The New Economics Foundation) and that she shares ideas about the current international economic crisis on her blog Debtonation.org.
nef is an independent think-and-do tank with the slogan “economics as if people and the planet mattered” and it aims to improve quality of life by promoting innovative solutions that challenge mainstream thinking on economic, environment and social issues. It works in partnership with many sections of the UK society and internationally to create more understanding and strategies for change that increase the well-being of people and the environmental sustainability of the planet. 
It seems that there are now a number of groups of internationally renowned economists who have similar aims and are campaigning for better economic outcomes for “the wretched of the earth”.
Another initiative that I discovered recently is a group promoting what they term as the Robin Hood Tax. This campaign is being promoted by NGOs (Non Government Organisations) and progressive economists and politicians internationally.

One of its major supporters should be well known to Adelaideans. I refer to Professor Geoff Harcourt, Emeritus Professor of Economics at the University of Adelaide and Emeritus Reader in the History of Economic Theory at Cambridge University. He was well known as a leading figure in the Campaign for Peace in Vietnam and the Vietnam Moratorium in SA during the 1960s and 1970s.
Geoff is also known internationally for the major contributions he has made to
the understanding of the ideas of the economists, Maynard Keynes and Joan
Robinson as well as his commitment to international economic justice.
The Robin Hood Tax is a package of financial transaction taxes which supporters say could be implemented globally, regionally or unilaterally by individual nations.  But there is another way. Thousands of Robin Hood Tax
campaigners believe that banks, hedge funds and the rest of the financial sector should pay their fair share to clear up the international economic mess they helped create.
Currently, the main proposals are:
* A Financial Transaction Tax (FTT)
  This type of tax involves a very small tax of about
0.05% on transactions like stocks, bonds, foreign currency
and  derivatives. It is thought this
  could  raise £250 billion a year globally. Its proponents say it has the advantages of being well tested, cheap to implement and hard to avoid.

  It is also thought that Transaction taxes  will reduce the number of the most risky transactions occurring which helped to trigger the recent financial  crises.

A Bank Levy

This is basically a flat-rate levy imposed on large financial institutions. Under huge pressure from their voters and from campaigners, a number of countries, including the UK, France and Germany have already introduced a bank levy, but at rates that have not raised nearly enough to be effective in helping the poor and the planet.

* The Financial Activities Tax (FAT)

  Supporters of this tax claim that it could raise billions through taxing excess profits and remuneration. Broadly, it is equivalent to a GST-type tax, but that it is only levied on the financial sector. It is estimated that it could raise £3.9 billion a year in the UK alone – and up to $93 billion across the OECD countries. The UK government has said it is open to implementing a FAT tax, but only together with a group of other countries, for example at EU level.

I believe that if we want to develop programs that will effectively combat world poverty and protect our environment, these initiatives should be strongly supported. Such taxes would not impose an extra financial burden on the poorest in the world community, but would ensure that super wealthy individuals and corporations, including those who currently pay very
little or no tax because of legal loop-holes, would contribute their fair share into combatting

poverty and improving the world’s environment.  

Yours sincerely

Andrew (Andy) Alcock


LETTER TO THE EDITOR – THE “SAFE” NUCLEAR INDUSTRY

May 5th, 2011

   

 

The Letters Editor
The Advertiser
GPO Box 339
ADELAIDE SA 5001
 
advedit@theadvertiser.com.au
 
Dear Sir/Madam
 
RE:    LETTER TO THE EDITOR - THE “SAFE” NUCLEAR INDUSTRY 
 
I was interested to read Alexander Downer’s article promoting the uranium industry (The Advertiser 21.3.2011). 
 
He does not seem to understand that people who have been promoting safer and environmentally sustainable sources of energy instead of  nuclear power, do so because of their deep concerns for the health and welfare of all human beings and for the responsible care of the planet.
 
It is not mass hysteria, as he claims, to express concerns about the nuclear industry especially as nuclear incidents over the years have caused great death and suffering – not only at the time that these incidents occur, but for many years after. This is because of the very long half-lifes of the deadly radioactive materials involved. The long term health effects of Chernobyl indicate this is so. On the other hand, the long term health effects of Three Mile Island have not been studied.
 
Another important issue is that the nuclear industry has still not found a safe solution to the long term storage required for the radioactive materials used in nuclear power.
And very few proponents of nuclear power talk about the costs for effective security to prevent radioactive materials from getting into the hands of terrorists to manufacture
nuclear weapons.
 
What concerns me too, is that we see the executives of the nuclear industry and their supporters, such as Messrs Downer and Foley, telling us that we must accept nuclear energy  or the world as we know it will come to a halt. However, when catastrophes occur like the current one in Fukushima, these people are the first to leave the scene and leave others to risk their lives to avert a spreading of the danger.
 
It is very interesting to note that the Tepco senior executives who are playing down the dangers from the Fukushima disaster, are nowhere in the vicinity. Meanwhile, it is left to the courageous employees of the nuclear reactors and a small roup of pilots to stay behind to risk their lives in a desperate attempt to avert an even greater disaster.
 
If nuclear energy is so safe, why have these people left the area? 
 
Some people might well ask, if Mr Downer and his fellow promoters of the uranium industry believe that it so safe, would they be prepared to have nuclear reactors built in their backyards? Maybe, the spent  and highly dangerous fuel rods could be kept in their wine cellars!
 
My understanding is that wind farms in the region of the recent tsunami in northern Japan are still providing energy while the stricken nuclear reactors cannot.
 
This should be telling us all something. Why can we not employ the cautionary principle in the production of energy? We have a moral obligation to the care of ourselves, future generations and our planet to do so.
 
 
Yours sincerely
 
 
Andrew (Andy) Alcock

NUCLEAR ENERGY – NO THANK YOU

March 15th, 2011
  
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 3:00 AM
Subject: NUCLEAR ENERGY – NO THANK YOU
 
Dear Friends
  
The earthquake and tsunami in Japan are terrible tragedies that may have take up to 1000 lives.
  
However, this could be compounded if there are meltdowns in nuclear power statiions in the region affected by these events.
 Recently, some politicians in Australia, especially Martin Ferguson, the federal Minister for Resources and Energy, and the nuclear industry have  been talking up Australia having a nuclear industry.
 
Thanks to the BBC, the ABC and friends emailing information, I have come across the articles below that I think we need to consider before we consider  
accepting going down the nuclear path. Uranium is not clean and green as some would have us believe, otherwise why would authorities be advising that all people within a  20km radius of the Fukushima No 1 nuclear power plant should evacuate?
 
Sadly, it seems to me that some people have not learned the lessons of the Three Mile Island and the Chernobyl Disasters.  
 
Nuclear energy can also be costly in terms of human lives and health. Estimates of the number of victims of the Chernobyl disaster vary. By official accounts, there were 50 direct deaths among reactor staff members and emergency workers.

But the World Health Organisation, two decades after the accident, estimated the number of deaths at 14,000 to 17,000. Some non governmental groups believe that the number could be in the hundreds of thousands. 

Environment problems include long-term contamination of water resources and soil due to the wide spread of radioactive materials. Then there is the damage to wildlife that is still unclear.

Nuclear energy is a very dangerous way to convert water to steam and it is extremely expensive. It literally costs billions of dollars to establish a nuclear reactor and hundreds of billions of dollars to fix when things go wrong.
 
These problems associated with nuclear power do not seem to be anywhere as great or as expensive, in dollar, environmental and human terms, as with the greener  approaches to power production ie wind, geothermal and solar.
 
I am hopeful that we learn from the terrible disasters that have occurred and opt for environmentally sustainable forms of energy.
 
It is interesting to see Mikhail Gorbachev’s comments in the Straits Times article below.
 
For a greener future for our children and grandchildren.
 
Andrew (Andy) Alcock
 

  

BBC News
  
12 March 2011 Last updated at 13:29 GMT

 Q&A: Health effects of radiation exposure

By Richard Warry BBC News

Japanese officials have ordered anyone living within 20km (12 miles) of the Fukushima nuclear power plant to evacuate the area.

A large explosion has occurred in one of its buildings and some radiation leakage has been detected. If the Japanese authorities act swiftly, they should be able to minimise the cost to human health.

What are the immediate health effects of exposure to radiation?

Exposure to moderate levels can result in radiation sickness, which produces a range of symptoms.

Nausea and vomiting often begin within hours of exposure, followed by diarrhoea, headaches and fever.

After the first round of symptoms, there may be a brief period with no apparent illness, but this may be followed within weeks by new, more serious symptoms.

At higher levels of radiation, all of these symptoms may be immediately apparent, along with widespread – and potentially fatal – damage to internal organs.

Exposure to a radiation dose of four grays will typically kill about half of all healthy adults.

For comparison, radiation therapy for cancer typically involves several doses of between one and seven grays at a time.

How is radiation sickness treated?

The first thing to do is to try to minimise further contamination by removing clothes and shoes, and gently washing the skin with soap and water.

Drugs are available that increase white blood-cell production to counter any damage that may have occurred to the bone marrow, and to reduce the risk of further infections due to immune-system damage.

There are also specific drugs that can help to reduce the damage to internal organs caused by radioactive particles.

How does radiation have an impact on health?

Radioactive materials that decay spontaneously produce ionising radiation, which has the capacity to cause significant damage to the body’s internal chemistry, breaking the chemical bonds between the atoms and molecules that make up our tissues.

The body responds by trying to repair this damage, but sometimes it is too severe or widespread to make repair possible. There is also a danger of mistakes in the natural repair process.

Regions of the body that are most vulnerable to radiation damage include the cells lining the intestine and stomach, and the blood-cell producing cells in the bone marrow.

The extent of the damage caused is dependent on how long people are exposed to radiation, and at what level.

What are the most likely long-term health effects?

Cancer is the biggest long-term risk. Usually when the body’s cells reach their “sell-by date” they commit suicide. Cancer results when cells lose this ability, and effectively become immortal, continuing to divide and divide in an uncontrolled fashion.

The body has various processes for ensuring that cells do not become cancerous, and for replacing damaged tissue.

But the damage caused by exposure to radiation can completely disrupt these control processes, making it much more likely that cancer will result.

Failure to repair the damage caused by radiation properly can also result in changes – or mutations – to the body’s genetic material, which are not only associated with cancer, but may also be potentially passed down to offspring, leading to deformities in future generations. These can include smaller head or brain size, poorly formed eyes, slow growth and severe learning difficulties.

Are children at greater risk?

Potentially yes. Because they are growing more rapidly, more cells are dividing, and so the potential for things to go wrong is greater.

Following the Chernobyl nuclear reactor accident in the Ukraine in 1986, the World Health Organization recorded a dramatic increase in thyroid cancer among children in the vicinity.

This was because the radioactive materials released during the accident contained high levels of radioactive iodine, a material that accumulates in the thyroid.

How can the Japanese authorities minimise the cost to human health?

Professor Richard Wakeford, an expert in exposure to radiation, said provided the Japanese authorities acted quickly most of the general population should be spared significant health problems.

He said in those circumstances the only people likely to be at risk of serious health effects were nuclear workers at the plant or emergency workers exposed to high levels of radiation.

He said the top priority would be to evacuate people from the area and to make sure they did not eat contaminated food. The biggest risk was that radioactive iodine could get into their system, raising the risk of thyroid cancer.

To counter that risk people could be given tablets containing stable iodine which would prevent the body absorbing the radioactive version.

CounterPunch.  Weekend edition 11-13 March, 2011

First the Quake, Then the Lies 

Don’t Worry, It’s Just a Little Radiation

By KARL GROSSMAN

And with the major malfunction at the Fukushima nuclear power plant comes the lies…

That’s the way it’s always been when it comes to nuclear technology: deception has always been a central element in the push for it.

As desperate efforts were made Friday to keep coolant flowing—to prevent a nuclear meltdown—“radioactive vapor” was being released from the plant, reported the Associated Press. It quoted Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano as saying the amount of radioactivity was “very small.”

And it “would not affect the environment or human health,” added AP.

Really.

The Nuclear Energy Institute, the U.S. nuclear industry trade group, presented a page on its website devoted to the post-earthquake situation involving nuclear plants in Japan which opened with pronouncement: “The Japanese prime minister and the industry’s safety agency say all plants in the country are safe and that there has been no radiation release from any reactors. Utilities there are managing issues with cooling water systems at the Fukushima plant…”

To sweeten its tale further, the NEI page featured a quote from the chief PR man at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Eliot Brenner: “In fact, all nuclear power plants are built to withstand environmental hazards, including earthquakes. Even those plants that are located outside of areas with extensive seismic activity are designed for safety in the event of such a natural disaster.”

Don’t worry.

And CNN Friday posed this question in a dispatch on its website: “Do nuclear plants have failsafe systems?” The answer: “Yes. They are designed with an inter-connected system of fail-safes that ensure there are multiple ways of counteracting a malfunction.”

In fact, like any machinery, nuclear plants can—and regularly do—undergo accidents.

The big difference with atomic energy: the malfunctions can end up killing large numbers of people and impact on other life as well.

If the attempt now going on in Japan to keep the coolant flowing fails, a loss-of-coolant or meltdown accident could occur—a disaster that could have catastrophic impacts on Japan and much of the world.

Radioactive material is used in a nuclear plant as a heat source—to boil water and produce steam that turns a turbine that generates electricity. Huge amounts of radioactive material are made to go through a chain reaction, a process in which atomic particles bombard the nuclei of atoms, causing them to break up and generate heat.

But to keep the nuclear reaction in check—to prevent the material from overheating—vast amounts of coolant are required, up to a million gallons of water a minute in the most common nuclear plants that have been built (“light water” reactors). That is why nuclear plants are sited along rivers and bays, to use the water as coolant.

If the water which cools the reactor “core”—its 200,000 to 300,000 pounds of radioactive fuel load—stops flowing, the “emergency core cooling system” must send water in. If it fails, a loss-of-coolant or meltdown accident can occur.

In such an accident, the core of nuclear fuel, which in less than a minute can reach 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit, burns through the cement bottom of the nuclear plant and bores into the earth. This is what U.S. nuclear scientists have dubbed the “China syndrome”—based on a nuclear plant on their side of the planet undergoing an accident seemingly sending its white-hot core in the direction of China.

In fact, the radioactive core doesn’t—in any location—go to China but it descends to the water table underlying a plant. Then, in a violent reaction, molten core and cold water combine, creating steam explosions and releasing a plume of radioactive poisons.

The problem at Fukushima Diachi nuclear facility is that one of its six reactors lost all its power as a result of the earthquake. Back-up diesel generators didn’t work, so battery power became necessary to keep coolant water flowing. If the battery power is depleted and electric power is not otherwise restored, a loss-of-coolant accident or meltdown would ensue.

“The emergency shutdown has been conducted but the process of cooling down the reaction is currently not going as planned,” explained Chief Cabinet Secretary Edano.Friday.

Thus Japan declared a state of “atomic power emergency” and people living within three kilometers of the Fukushima facility were advised to evacuate.

But if the coolant flow is not maintained and a loss-of-coolant accident with a “breach of containment” occurs, people way beyond three kilometers around Fukushima would be impacted. The radioactive releases in the Chernobyl nuclear plant accident affected the entire northern hemisphere, as a book published last year by the New York Academy of Sciences documents. And Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, authored by Dr. Alexey Yablokov, Dr. Vassily Nesterenko and Dr. Alexey Nesterenko, finds that medical records between 1986, the year of the accident, and 2004 reflect 985,000 deaths as a result of the radioactivity released. Most of the deaths were in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, but others were spread through the many other countries the radiation from Chernobyl struck.

Where the radioactivity spreads after a nuclear plant meltdown is largely a function of where winds take the radioactivity and of the rain that causes it to fall out.

Perhaps the biggest lie ever regarding nuclear power has been the claim by the International Atomic Energy Agency—created to boost and somehow at the same time regulate nuclear power—that perhaps 4,000 people will die as a result of Chernobyl.

Where the radioactivity spreads after a nuclear plant meltdown is largely a function of where winds take the radioactivity and of the rain that causes it to fall out.

The Japanese nuclear crisis comes amid a global drive to “revive” nuclear power. After the Chernobyl disaster, good sense—and the survival instinct—caused people all over the world to say no to new nuclear power plants.

A leader in this is U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, a nuclear scientist. He came to his DOE post after being director of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, part of the U.S. government’s chain of national nuclear laboratories. Some got their start during the Manhattan Project of World War II creating atomic weaponry. All have since pushed commercial nuclear power, too.

In a speech last month to President Obama’s “Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nature Future,” Chu declared: “The Obama administration believes that nuclear energy has an important role to play as America moves to a clean energy future.”  He declared that nuclear power is “carbon free energy”—disregarding the reality that the “nuclear cycle,” from mining and milling to fuel enrichment and so on, contributes to global warming. And he spoke, in his February 12th address, of “upgrades to our existing reactor fleet” and a move to “speed the development of next generation reactors.”

Japan’s jump into nuclear power is especially ironic considering it was on the receiving end of the bombs built by the Manhattan Project. Furthermore, it is situated on a string of volcanic islands vulnerable to earthquakes. Of course, Japan is not alone on this score: in the U.S., the Diablo Canyon nuclear facility in California was built less than three miles from the Hosgri earthquake fault.

Nuclear power plants are, in fact, life-threatening wherever they are—they represent the most dangerous way to boil water ever devised.

Wind, solar and geothermal energy and other forms of safe, clean power would not cause  massive deadly damage because of an earthquake.

But don’t tell that to the atomic Pinocchios pushing nuclear technology.

Karl Grossman, professor of journalism at the State University of New York/College at Old Westbury, has focused on investigative reporting on energy and environmental issues for more than 40 years. He is the host of the nationally-aired TV program Enviro Close-Up (www.envirovideo.com) and the author of numerous books.

Japan scrambles to contain nuclear threat (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/12/3162554.htm?section=justin)

Japanese authorities are struggling to deal with a possible meltdown at a nuclear plant north of Tokyo, after an explosion at the facility blew the roof off an unstable reactor on Saturday.

The explosion came a day after an 8.9-magnitude quake, the strongest ever recorded in Japan, sent a 10-metre tsunami ripping through towns and cities across the north-east coast.

Japanese media estimate that at least 1,300 people have been killed.

The explosion sent plumes of smoke spewing from the ageing Fukushima No 1 nuclear power plant, raising fears of radioactive meltdown a day after the massive quake struck the facility’s cooling system.

It appears the outer structure of the building that houses the reactor blew off in the explosion, but Japan’s chief cabinet secretary, Yukio Edano, says the reactor’s inner container sustained no damage.

“The nuclear reactor is surrounded by a steel reactor container, which is then surrounded by a concrete building,” he said.

“The concrete building collapsed. We found out that the reactor container inside didn’t explode.”

Operator Tokyo Electric is still working desperately to reduce pressures in the core of the reactor after earlier releasing what it said was a tiny amount of radioactive steam to reduce the pressure.

Mr Edano says the reactor will be doused with “sea water in order to reduce risks as quickly as possible”.

“By doing this, we will use boric acid to prevent criticality,” he said, adding it would take about five to 10 hours to fill the reactor core with sea water and around 10 days to complete the process.

Mr Edano says due to the falling level of cooling water, hydrogen was generated and that leaked to the space between the building and the container. He says the explosion happened when the hydrogen mixed with oxygen there.

Japan’s government earlier confirmed radiation leaked from the power plant after Saturday’s explosion, which followed a series of large tremors.

Mr Edano later said radiation levels had fallen.

According to the Fukushima prefectural government, the hourly radiation from the plant reached 1,015 microsievert – an amount equivalent to that allowable for ordinary people in one year.

Mr Edano says the government is stockpiling iodine as part of a contingency plan and urged people to stay calm.

Japan’s prime minister Naoto Kan also urged calm among people near the nuclear power plant and vowed the government would do its best to ensure that “not a single person will suffer health problems”.

Nearby residents are being warned to stay indoors, turn off air-conditioners and not to drink tap water.

If people must go outside, they should avoid exposing their skin and cover their face with masks and wet towels.

More than 45,000 residents within a 10-kilometre radius of the plant had been evacuated, but the evacuation area has now been expanded to 20-km radius from the plant.

Thousands more have been evacuated from near a second plant, Fukushima No 2, which also suffered damage to its cooling system following Friday’s quake.

Hydrogen explosion

A nuclear industry official says he believes the blast was due to hydrogen igniting, and may not pose a further threat.

“It is obviously an hydrogen explosion… due to hydrogen igniting,” Ian Hore-Lacy, communications director at the World Nuclear Association, a London-based industry body, said.

“If the hydrogen has ignited, then it is gone, it doesn’t pose any further threat.”

Mr Hore-Lacy says as far as he knows, there is no danger from radiation leaks.

“There may be, but we don’t know that. There is no reason to suppose that there must be because of that,” he said.

Professor Robin Grimes, an expert in radiation damage in London, says it appears back-up generators at the plant started, but then failed.

“So it means slowly the heat and the pressure built up in this reactor. One of the things that might just have happened is a large release of that pressure. If it’s that then we’re not in such bad circumstances,” he said.

“Despite the damage to the outer structure, as long as that steel inner vessel remains intact, then the vast majority of the radiation will be contained.

“At the moment it does seem that they are still contained and it’s a release of significant steam pressure that’s caused this explosion. The key will be the monitoring of those radiation levels.”

Nuclear physicist Professor Paddy Regan says what is important is where the explosion hit.

“It’s not clear what has exploded. The big problem would be if the pressure vessel has exploded but that does not look as though that’s what’s happened,” he said.

“If the pressure vessel, which is the thing that actually holds all the nuclear fuel… if that was to explode – that’s basically what happened at Chernobyl – you get an enormous release of radioactive material.

“It doesn’t look from the television pictures… as though it’s the vessel itself.”

Professor Regan says media reports suggested that a small fraction of the nuclear fuel might have melted at the core of the reactor which would not be surprising.

But Steve Kerekes, a nuclear expert from the US Nuclear Energy Institute, warns if technicians cannot get the reactor’s cooling systems working there is a possibility of radiation leaks similar to America’s worst nuclear accident.

“If indeed that were to happen at some point you’re going to have sufficient evaporation in the core that, if you will, your fuel is going to heat up,” he said.

“Then you’ll have a meltdown not unlike what happened in the United States Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania back in 1979.”

Four workers – two from operator Tokyo Electric and two others from another firm – were injured in the explosion.

Tokyo Electric says the injuries they have suffered are not life-threatening and that all four are conscious.

The UN nuclear watchdog says it is aware of the explosion at the No 1 plant and is urgently seeking information from the country’s authorities.

Meanwhile Japan’s Meteorological Agency says Fukushima prefecture is at high risk of another major tsunami.

- ABC/wires

Tags: disasters-and-accidents, earthquake, emergency-incidents, tidal-wave, japan

 

The Straits Times

Mar 2, 2011

Chernobyl was lesson in nuclear peril: Gorbachev

PARIS – THE upcoming 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster is a brutal reminder of the dangers of nuclear power, proliferation and terrorism, former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev said on Tuesday.

‘The true scope of the tragedy still remains beyond comprehension and is a shocking reminder of the reality of the nuclear threat,’ Mr Gorbachev said in an essay published by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, a watchdog organisation on nuclear security.

The April 26 1986 explosion at the Soviet power plant in the Ukraine, caused by an unauthorised test that went wrong, unleashed a reactor fire and radioactive fallout that contaminated swathes of the former Soviet Union and Western Europe.

The death toll ranges from a UN 2005 estimate of 4,000 to tens or even hundreds of thousands, proposed by non-governmental groups.

Environment problems include long-term contamination of water resources and soil and damage to wildlife that is still unclear, while the economic cost has been put in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

Mr Gorbachev described Chernobyl as ‘a warning sign’ for countries dependent on nuclear power or keen to turn to it. — AFP

 

 

 

 

 

LETTER TO US PRESIDENT RE NUCLEAR POWER

March 15th, 2011
  
Dear Friends
 
Given the huge problems being caused in Japan by the tsunami that has damaged several nuclear power plants, Friends of the Earth in the US are having a campaign to encourage the current US Administration to cease investing in the nuclear industry.
  
FOE USA claims that Obama has recently decided to invest $36 billion of US tax payers money into the nuclear industry.
  
This is extremely concerning and should make us all ask why the US and other governments, including our own, are not investing more heavily in sustainable and safer energy industries.
 
Because Australian postcodes are only 4 digits, the FOE US email campaign would not take my message. However, I found a website that will accept email messages for the White House.
 
I would urge you to send your own message too.
 
The website is: http://emailthepresident.com/.
 
Then click the prompt Send an Email to the President.
 
Given that Australia has supplied much of the uranium (U235) that has been used in the reactors that are melting down (see Newcastle herald article below), we should be contacting our own political leaders who have been pushing to go down the nuclear road.
 
I think it is a time for us to be active to ensure that there is a safe and healthy planet for future generations.
 
Regards
 
Andrew (Andy) Alcock
 
 
Mr Barack Obama.
President of the USA
White House
Washington DC
USA
 
Dear Mr Obama
 
The news from Japan about the nuclear power plant in Fukushima is a terrible reminder of the fact that nuclear energy is inherently extremely dangerous to human beings and the environment.
 
It costs billions of dollars to install reactors and tens of billions to fix them when they break down
 
Wall Street refuses to invest in nuclear energy because they know the risks. As a citizen of the world who cares about the world’s environment,  I don’t want you to invest in nuclear energy either.
 
I strongly urge you to cut the $36 billion in loan guarantees to the nuclear industry from the proposed budget for next year.
 
It’s time to invest in clean, renewable energy like wind, solar and geothermal energy. These forms of energy are nowhere near as dangerous as nuclear power.
Energy plants from sustainable sources are far cheaper to install and any problems that might arise are nowhere near as catalclysmic or injurious to human health as nuclear resources.
 
Further, the bi-products cannot be used to develop nuckear weapons.
 
For all of these reasons, Mr President, please invest in natural, non polluting and safe froms of energy and cease investing in the very dangerous U235 industry.
 
Yours for a peaceful, safer and healthier planet for all of us and future generations
 

Sincerely,

Andrew (Andy) Alcock
Leah St
Forestville
Adelaide,

South Australia  5035
Australia

 
Our part in nuclear fire is fuel for thought (Newcastle Herald)

15 March 2011

David Noonan is our Nuclear Free campaigner

The nuclear emergency that is compounding the human tragedy of Japan’s earthquake sends a clear warning to Australia to steer clear of the risks of nuclear energy.

The terrible human cost of the earthquake in Japan is being made even worse by radiation escaping from damaged nuclear reactors and the evacuation of hundreds of thousands of people who live around the nuclear reactor sites.

Amid the growing human tragedy in Japan the state of the nation’s nuclear power reactors has been prominent in media interest and public concern. And with good reason, because no other industrial activity poses the risks of the nuclear trade.

Australia has a direct link to this tragedy because the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) that operates the Fukushima reactors, buys and burns Australian uranium.

BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto sell Australian uranium to Japan from the Olympic Dam and Ranger uranium mines respectively.

The radiation now threatening Japanese communities and the environment could be directly derived from the use of our uranium in their nuclear reactors.

We must act to avoid the ultimate nuclear nightmare and stop fuelling trouble overseas through our uranium sales and dancing with danger closer to home through ill-considered plans for domestic nuclear energy reactors.

Nuclear is a high-cost, high-risk electricity option that has no place in a sustainable energy future.

When things go well we are left with the unresolved management of high-level, long-lived radioactive waste; when they go badly people are left with a disaster such as the current situation in Japan.

Australian companies should not be allowed to push this contested and contaminating industry in developing nations when this sort of situation can occur in a country as rich and technically advanced as Japan.

Only this week our Foreign Affairs Minister Kevin Rudd announced proposed Australian uranium sales to the Middle East.

No other energy activity poses the hazards and risks that the nuclear trade imposes: unresolved, long lived nuclear waste; links to nuclear weapons production and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; and the potential for catastrophic accidents and uncontrolled radiation exposure that can threaten regions with contamination and health effects.

The rising threat of nuclear terrorism means that we may also have to face potential deliberate damage to nuclear reactors in future.

Both Australian and Japanese communities deserve better than to have to face any of these nuclear risks.

Here at home, just as we have had to face climate sceptics and fossil fuel interests trying to prevent Australia addressing the science and the urgency of climate change, unfortunately we now face nuclear advocates and renewable energy sceptics trying to mislead the Australian people and push to take up nuclear reactors rather than adopt a clean and renewable energy future.

The spectre of a nuclear debate will delay and potentially damage Australia’s pathway to a clean, renewable energy future.

It will unnecessarily absorb large amounts of political capital, energy and attention.

Such an expenditure of time and resources could be better deployed working towards the common goal of a safer, cleaner and fairer Australia.

Nuclear reactors are a discredited agenda that proved to be an electoral liability in an earlier era.

So why are some in the ALP now promoting nuclear energy and pushing to overturn long-term Labor core values and repeated federal election policy commitments that prohibit nuclear power reactors, uranium processing and other stages of the nuclear fuel chain in Australia? We should learn from this nuclear emergency in Japan, move to get Australia out of uranium mining and the hazardous nuclear trade and help our neighbours across the Pacific to recover from the nuclear risks they face.

Let’s call on our political leaders to give assurances that they will avoid making the same nuclear mistakes and get on with delivering a clean, renewable energy future.

 © 2004 – 2011 ACF | Privacy Policy | populuscms by (i)mobius

 

__._,_.___

THE REAL CLIMATE CHANGE CHALLENGE

December 8th, 2010

THE REAL CLIMATE CHANGE CHALLENGE 

This excellent article by Ian Lowe tells how important it is not to play politics with the issue of climate change as the problem is far too serious for that. We need to get this very important message out to a wider audience if we want our children and grandchildren to have a reasonably healthy environment in which to live.   I have highlighted a couple of sections which counter some of the political do nothing attitude that has has been a hallmark of this public debate – like blaming the Greens for the failure of Kevin Rudd’s proposal which was woefully inadequate.   The ultra greedy and “put our heads in the sand brigade will not be happy about the contents of this message, but they are the ones that need to change.   

Andy      

Ian Lowe

ABC 3.11.2010    

 Greg Combet’s speech to the ANU Crawford School Forum on November 30, 2010 encapsulates everything that is wrong with climate change policy in Australia.

The rhetoric is all there – acceptance of the science, intergenerational equity, the need for decisive action and an early carbon price and so on.

The problem is the total misalignment between policy and the real implications of the science, as government and opposition, and indeed the global climate cognoscenti now assembled in Cancun, continue to avoid the major issue; which is that the climate challenge is far greater, and the required response far more urgent, than they are prepared to admit.

Despite two decades of negotiation, virtually nothing has been done to address escalating global carbon emissions – Australia’s actual emissions continue to rise rapidly. As a result, our options to take a graduated response to emissions reduction have largely disappeared, which is already costing the Australian community dearly.

The scientific framework on which current global and national policy is based is almost a decade old. In the interim, scientific understanding and the empirical evidence have progressed markedly, to the point where it is clear we have completely underestimated the task ahead. The gulf between science and policy continues to widen; in short, we are trying to solve the wrong problem with the wrong policies, and until this is honestly acknowledged, realistic policy and solutions will not be forthcoming.

On the balance of probabilities, if catastrophic outcomes are to be avoided, the world must reduce atmospheric carbon concentrations back toward pre-industrial levels, requiring emission reductions close to 50 per cent by 2020, almost complete de-carbonisation by 2050, and continuing efforts to draw down legacy carbon from the atmosphere. To have a reasonable chance of remaining below the “official” target of a maximum 2 degrees Celsius temperature increase, the world can only emit carbon for another 20 years at current rates, allowing barely a third of existing fossil-fuel reserves to be consumed. If the temperature target has to be less than 2C, which is now likely, the budget is considerably lower. Australia’s budget, on a fair basis as one of the world’s highest per capita emitters, would be totally used up in around five years.

In this context, current political thinking on an emission reduction of 5 per cent by 2020, possibly 25 per cent if the rest of the world behave themselves, is laughable; it is high time we faced up to reality and stopped playing political games.

Quite apart from the risks to which we are exposed, Australia is rapidly falling behind other countries in the race to develop a low-carbon economy. It is no longer a question of losing competitiveness because we are taking action, but rather because we are not.

Having crossed the threshold of publicly acknowledging that climate change is a serious threat, leaders now have additional fiduciary responsibilities: politically to honestly inform the community of the full extent of the challenge, corporately to fully inform shareholders of the risks, and the opportunities. Absent such honesty, the consultative arrangements put in place by the Gillard Government are futile and “policy certainty” for both business and community will be misleading and extremely dangerous.

The same applies to NGO advocacy groups. In the lead-up to Copenhagen most opted to work “in the government tent”, finessing a minimalist reform agenda, rather than insist on meaningful reform, on the basis that it is better to get something started and then modify it, than nothing at all. Notwithstanding the history of major reform in Australia that, once implemented, it takes at least a decade to make significant change – a decade we no longer have. Despite the abject failure of that strategy, they are doing it again. The recent release of the Southern Cross Climate Coalition’s “Stronger, Fairer, Healthier” paper continues to avoid the real issue, in the process letting the politicians off the hook. If the Climate Institute, ACF, ACOSS and the ACTU genuinely do have their members interests at heart, they should stop trying to anticipate what might be politically possible, set out the real challenge and lobby for realistic solutions. Let others worry about the politics – we can no longer afford “lowest common denominator” attitudes.

Political, community and business leaders, along with key advisers such as Ross Garnaut and the Productivity Commission must now urgently undertake a comprehensive re-calibration of both the climate challenge itself based on the latest science, and of our policy response. It should focus far more on the opportunities of moving, at emergency speed, to a low-carbon economy rather than preoccupation with the problems of moving away from a high-carbon “business-as-usual”.   And instead of obsession with a carbon price as a “great big new tax”, recognise that it is, in reality, the removal of a “great big old subsidy”, a subsidy which is rapidly destroying the planet.

The continual emphasis on the economy as the main game, with climate change grudgingly considered as an optional extra, ignores the fact that unless we address climate change fast, the economy will be in tatters err long.

Government ministers should stop bleating about the Greens being the sole reason emissions trading is not already up and running. The CPRS was appalling policy which ignored all sensible advice on policy design and would have imposed an enormous cost on the economy for minimal reduction in emissions. The Greens did us a great favour in killing it. What is now required is a meaningful, increasing, carbon price of at least $35 per ton initially, leading into a clean emissions trading system with no compensation for polluters and the revenue generated being recycled to the community to offset cost increases, and to encourage low-carbon innovation.

Climate change is not just another policy item on the normal agenda, it is a transformative issue which has life-and-death consequences. This is not a time to follow Bismarck’s advice that “politics is the art of the possible”, as Combet suggested. Quite the reverse; we need leaders who can see that what was politically impossible will shortly become politically inevitable.

Ian Dunlop is a Fellow at the Centre for Policy Development and a contributing author to their latest book, More Than Luck: Ideas Australia needs now. Ian is Chairman of Safe Climate Australia and chaired the Australian Greenhouse Office Experts Group on Emissions Trading from 1998-2000.   He is also a senior member of ASPO (Australian Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas) – Sydney.  He is an engineer and was formerly a senior international oil, gas and coal industry executive. He chaired the Australian Coal Association in 1987-88, chaired the Australian Greenhouse Office Experts Group on Emissions Trading from 1998-2000 and was CEO of the Australian Institute of Company Directors from 1997-2001. He has a particular interest in the interaction of corporate governance, corporate responsibility and sustainability.    

The link to article is  – http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/41802.html

THE LESSONS FROM THE BP OIL SPILL 5.10.2010

October 5th, 2010
 
 
The Editor
The Weekend Australian Magazine
GPO Box 4245
SYDNEY NSW 2001
  
 
Dear Sir/Madam
 
RE:    LETTER TO THE EDITOR – THE LESSONS FROM THE BP OIL SPILL
 
Congratulations to Ed Caesar for his insightful article Blood, Oil and Money (TWEAM 2-3.10.10). It is a great expose of how
BP’s and Transocean’s greed for profits led  to disaster after the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of
Mexico earlier this year.
 
The tragic loss of 11 workers’ lives and the resulting oil spill, which caused a massive environmental crisis in the Gulf, were
completely avoidable and only occurred because both corporations refused to implement adequate safety standards. 
 
In identifying the major reasons for the disaster, Ed Caesar refers to governments who “suckled on the oil”. I would add that a
major part of the problem is the fact that governments will not legislate for optimum health and safety standards, effective laws 
and the enforcement of them.
 
Currently, in Australia, the federal government is standardising all the nation’s OHS and welfare laws. This is something that is
long overdue. However, the problem is that the government is also watering down the current standards that are required in each
state and territory.
 
All too often, corporations like BP, are allowed to make huge profits at the expense of health and safety and environmental care.
Many executives consider that death, injury, disease and environmental damage is just collateral damage in the rush to make
excessive profits.
 
Access Economics estimates that over 8000 Australian Australian workers die every year from work-related accidents and
disease. This is likely to increase if the Gillard Government persists in making our OHS&W laws less effective.
 
Will we learn the lessons from this tragedy or will we continue to see an increase in the number of lost lives and environmental
disasters?
 
Yours sincerely
 
Andrew (Andy) Alcock

 

Water Reform Fails South Australia 17 August 2010

August 17th, 2010
A Sustainable Water Future without compromising the health of interdependent ecosystems

Media Notice

 

Water Reform Fails South Australia 

The former Senior Adviser on Water to the United Nations and international critic of water market reforms Maude Barlow said that both “Labor and Coalition parties have so far failed to propose solutions to address the continuing emergency in South Australia’s River Murray.

“The entire Murray-Darling basin, its rivers, tributaries, wetlands, communities, towns, cities and economies that it supports, will not survive the pressures that have been placed on its water resources by decades of mismanagement and the creation of water markets,” said Ms Barlow.

Ms Barlow said she was motivated to comment having witnessed first hand the disastrous state of Lake Albert, Lake Alexandrina, Coorong and Murray Mouth during a visit to South Australia in 2009.

“Sixteen years of water reform has failed to deliver a fair and reasonable share of the waters of the Murray-Darling Basin to South Australia. The water reform policies of both State and Federal Governments has been about privatising water itself rather then conservation.” she said.

Maude Barlow is the International Patron of the Water Action Coalition (WAC). WAC is a diverse and broadly represented group of concerned South Australians that is challenging Commonwealth and State water policies.

WAC recently presented its views to a Senate Inquiry, arguing that nothing short of a full public inquiry, with the powers of a Royal Commission, could unravel decades of bad policy, gross mismanagement and ongoing exploitation of the waters of the Murray-Darling Basin. 

Maude Barlow says she supports the need for a Royal Commission as the actions of politicians have failed to uphold the constitutional obligation of Parliament to retain public ownership of all waters.

The convenor of WAC John Caldecott says that “International investors have been allowed to buy water rights that the founding fathers of the Australian Constitution made clear were the common property of Australia. What is happening, and it has been happening by stealth over a number of decades is outrageous and undemocratic.”

The fundamental right that water in the rivers of Australia be held in public trust, which is enshrined in the Australian Constitution and supported by Common Law is being ignored by the States and the Commonwealth.

“South Australians are being dispossessed of their fundamental right to water under the Australian Constitution. All political parties must respect this right and develop solutions that honour the constitution,” he said.

“We have seen nothing from the two major parties that give us any confidence that the Nation’s water resources will be protected from international and greedy market profiteers or the recognition that water is the connecting element that sustains all life in this country,” he said.

“By not releasing the draft Basin Plan before going to the polls the incoming Government will have no mandate to implement its recommendations,” he said.

In its submission, WAC argues that the crisis in the River Murray should have been fixed by the Commonwealth a long time ago by using its executive powers to establish a State of Emergency. A key objective would be to conserve and prioritise water use to meet Australian needs first and foremost.

“The next Australian Government must act to establish a State of Emergency without delay,” he said.

———————————————————

References:

WAC  Senate Inquiry Speech Notes, Parliament House Canberra, 30th June 2010.

WAC Opinion: Water Reform Fails South Australia, Maude Barlow & John Caldecott, 16th August 2010

Information Contacts:

Media Coordinator: Richard Watson – Mobile: 0402 418 191 richard@thinkstrat.com

WAC Convener: John Caldecott – Mobile: 0427 976 503 jec@ciq.com.au

International Patron: Maude Barlow – mbarlow8965@rogers.com

Water Action Coalition: http://civictrust.net.au/page19.htm

US Supreme Court declines to hear appeal from Marshall Islanders

April 8th, 2010
 
 

US Supreme Court declines to hear appeal from islanders

Posted: 7:26 pm Mon, April 5, 2010
By Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court will not hear an appeal from the indigenous people of the Marshall Islands as to whether they can sue the federal government again for blowing up and irradiating the land by conducting nuclear tests in the 1940s-50s.I think that it is grossly unfair that the US Supreme Court is refusing to hear appeals from the people of the Marshall Islands seeking compensation because of the US atomic tests conducted there in the 19402 and 1950s.

MY COMMENT
 
I would recommend that the US justices refusing to hear these cases, should see the 1985 documentary film “Half Life: A Parable for the Nuclear Age”, which was directed by Dennis O’Rourke, an Australian film maker.
 
The film combines declassified U.S. Defense Department archival footage of the Bravo Nuclear Test along with contemporary interviews of the people of Rongelap and Utirik. At least five hundred times more powerful than earlier tests, Bravo was detonated at Bikini on March 1, 1954. Inexplicably, the islanders living on Rongelap and Utirik Atolls were not evacuated as they had been in previous tests, even though US Navy ships were available nearby. Fallout covered the ground and children played excitedly in this first “snow” they had ever seen.
 
Officials claimed that it was all a mistake, resulting from last-minute shifts in wind patterns. The evidence gathered in Half Life presents a restrained but chilling picture of a cynical radiation experiment on a human population whose welfare had been assigned to the United States at the close of World War II. With terrifying calm, the film examines the facts leading up to the Bravo test, the role of the United States government in Marshall Islands nuclear testing and the long-term consequences of Bravo.
 
I remember seeing this film in Adelaide not long after its
release. It had a dramatic effect on those viewing it. Many were not able to continue to watch it and left the theatre.
Others, including myself, stayed to see it to its end, but wept throughout. What shocked people was the inhumanity of those carrying out the tests who deliberately exposed the islanders to radiation and then observed them while they developed cancers and did not treat them.
 
In the late 1980s, I helped to organise a public meeting where Bernie Keldermans, a teacher from the Marshall Islands spoke. Added to the crimes mentioned above, she explained how US officials used bribery, corruption and murder to coerce the Marshall Islanders to accept remaining as a US protectorate. With protectors like that, who needs enemies?!!
 
Not only should the Marshall Islanders be given full compensation for the disruption to their lives and the deaths and long term illnesses suffered because of the tests, but those responsible should be prosecuted with the full force of the law.
 

Many Nazi doctors who committed similar criminal experiments on their helpless victims in the 1930s and 1940s were forced to appear before the Nuremburg Tribunals. 
 
Will the US, whose leaders claim is the most advanced  democracy and the greatest respecter of human rights in the world, give these people justice?
 
 Andrew (Andy) Alcock
Human Rights & Union/OHS&W Activist

Letter to the Editor – The Adelaide Review – Green Economics & Politics

January 18th, 2010

John Spoehr made some extremely important points in his article “It Ain’t Easy Bein’ Green” (The Adelaide Review January 2010).

I think the most important one was that given the global environmental crisis and the scarcity of water, we need to develop a green approach to economics to ensure that the planet does not become uninhabitable for human beings and many other species that are already endangered.

The past 12 months has indeed demonstrated to us all that political leaders globally considered that the global financial crisis was of greater importance than the global environmental crisis.

The very generous bailing out of the banks and other financial institutions that were mostly responsible for the global financial crisis in the first place could, we have been told by aid organisations, have overcome world poverty and third world debt. It could have also been diverted to  put a lot of finance into green solutions and sustainable industries which we urgently need, but which the wealthy of the world rarely support – preferring to invest in “clean” coal and the “clean” peaceful atom.

I hope that John is correct when he states that communities will change their leaders if they fail to respond to the global environmental crisis.

Cophenagen showed us very clearly that our Federal Government was extremely reluctant to do much about this crisis and that our Opposition thought that it was going too far and wanted to do less, despite Tony Abbott’s claim that it is greener than the Government.

For far too long, political leaders have relied on the market place to provide all human needs. This notion has been based on several assumptions by those who proft most:

  • the idea that the profit motive is the only valid one to advance human progress
  • the right to pollute without taking any responsibility
  • the right to rapaciously exploit the workers who generate the wealth and the global environment in which we live
  • the right to foist industries on the world community whether they be necessary or sustainable

We can no longer afford to tolerate such greedy, short-sighted and irresponsible thinking if we are to ensure that future generations will have a healthy and viable habitat.

A climate con: Analysis of the “Copenhagen Accord” by David Spratt and Damien Lawson

December 26th, 2009

An interesting analysis that we should all consider.

http://climatecodered.blogspot.com/2009/12/climate-con-analysis-of-copenhagen.html

For a green future.