Warning Graphic Images. Australian Liberal Party’s Nuclear Agenda; dirty politics = radioactive environment
The CPRS legislation is before the Senate and the Liberal/National coalition, with the predictability of a summer bushfire, have heaved out their old files supporting nuclear power.
They are in a bind, with 10 coalition MPs steadfastly and publicly opposed to the carbon pollution reduction scheme. So Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop has dusted off the nuclear power issue and brought it forward with the justification that “19 of the G20 countries already relied on nuclear power…”
One can only assume that if 19 of the G20 countries announced they were going to jump off a cliff into the ocean tomorrow Julia Bishop would don a new bikini (no pun intended) and join in.
We’ve got big problems with carbon based power. The science condemning it is beyond question and the need to act is urgent.
But nuclear?
Consider the images above. These are “survivors” of Chernobyl. These are people. The only difference between them and us is we wear hats with corks to keep away the flies, play cricket and Australian Rules or Rugby and prefer beer to vodka.
I could write paragraphs about the half life of various nuclear isotopes. The centuries upon centuries it takes for them to be rendered inert. But why? The images of the “survivors” of Chernobyl speak louder than words…
Warning Graphic Images Click to Zoom In.
Scott Kane
Media Release – Exempt Left-Handed From Climate Change
Today’s announcement by Climate Change minister Penny Wong excluding the agricultural sector from the costs of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme under proposed new compromise legislation is ridiculous and mistaken, say the Australian Democrats, and opens the door wider to further lobbying and rent-seeking by major polluters.
“If minister Wong is willing to destroy the effectiveness and universal consequence of the CPRS with this attempt to buy the support of the conservatives, I would advocate also exempting left-handed people,” the Australian Democrats candidate for the Higgins by-election David Collyer said. “After all, they only produce one twentieth of our pollution, are very nice people and are equally deserving of assistance.
“This proposal is no sillier that minister Wong’s nonsense.
Recent scientific studies suggest farm animals, notably ruminants, are major contributors to climate change through the emission of methane, a potent greenhouse gas with significantly larger impacts than carbon dioxide.
“These studies need to be repeated, refined and enlarged, but without an environmental ‘all clear’, exempting agriculture from the CPRS is a grave error and probably irreversible.
“Many members of the Liberal/National Coalition are Climate Change skeptics, who do not believe in anthropogenic climate change and are unmoved by the now-extensive scientific literature.
“Minister Wong is desperately trying to placate the implacable. The Opposition are laughing behind their hands at her weakness and impotence.
“Australia’s farmers are now well into their second decade of drought. They know change is needed. And while shifting adjustment costs to others is an old political game, accurately targeting the source of emissions for actions to change behavior is in the interest of all.
Exempting any polluter – let alone an entire sector – means the cost of adjustment must fall more heavily on the rest. The Garnaut Report gave this matter great emphasis and sternly warned against permitting ‘business as usual’ anywhere.
“If minister Wong is so willing to riddle this crucial legislation with exemptions and concessions, then by her measure the left-handed are entitled to a free ride too,” Collyer concluded.
Media contact – David Collyer 0413 248 193
“David Collyer is currently contesting the Higgins by election for the Australian Democrats against Clive Hamilton for The Greens and Kelly O’Dwyer for the Liberal Party,”
The Forgotten Nightmare: Nuclear Winter, Global Cooling and Universal Radioactive Fallout. More fingers on more genocide-buttons
While global warming dominates the headlines a more urgent danger threatens life on earth. Global warming could make the planet uninhabitable by the end of the century. Global cooling – the “Nuclear Winter” that would follow nuclear war – could achieve the same result in days or weeks.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union a disturbing complacency has set in. It is as if the threat imposed on us all by the hair-trigger readiness of thousands of intercontinental nuclear-armed missiles no longer exists. Perhaps this is understandable with the political and media discussion of the issue focussed almost entirely on the potential danger posed by non-state terrorism and so-called “rogue” states.
The selective finger pointing, fear mongering and drum beating only serves to distract attention from the chilling reality: the US and Russia still possess 97% of the world’s nuclear weapons and neither has any genuine commitment to nuclear disarmament. It is they and the other 7 established nuclear weapon states that pose the greatest threat to humanity and all other species on the planet.
If even a tiny fraction of the world’s nuclear arsenal were unleashed catastrophic climate change would follow. For example, a “small” nuclear war employing 100 bombs of the size that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki would pour millions of tons of smoke into the stratosphere. The smoke would come from the raging firestorms consuming cities, industries, neighbourhoods and people. As the smoke spread around the globe it would reduce the sunlight and destroy much of the protective ozone layer. Temperatures would drop and food production would plunge due to shortened growing seasons. Hundreds of millions of people, possibly a billion, would starve to death. [1] Think of Hiroshima. Imagine 100 times Hiroshima. (3) And this can quite accurately be described as a “small” conflict because it would be equivalent to less than half of 1% of the explosive power of US and Russian high-alert nuclear weapons. [2] That figure bears repeating: less than half of 1%.
A large conflict involving all of the Russian and US high-alert nuclear weapons would pour 50 million tons of smoke into the stratosphere, blocking the sunlight and dropping global temperatures by 4°C. [1] Think of Hiroshima. Imagine 79,000 times Hiroshima. (4)
Now consider a war involving the entire world operational nuclear arsenal. Think of Hiroshima. Imagine 177,000 times Hiroshima. (5) 150 million tons of smoke would rise into the stratosphere enveloping the planet, absorbing the sunlight, reducing global temperatures by 8°C; creating another Ice Age.
Climate change from global cooling would occur not in decades or years but in weeks or days. Survivors would have no time to adapt. [1] Until they died off from the lethal radioactive fallout they would be left with razed cities, destroyed infrastructure, horrific injuries, birth deformations, cancers, disease epidemics and mass starvation. Perhaps the tens of millions or hundreds of millions instantly vapourised or incinerated would be the lucky ones.
The potential for a catastrophic mistake is enormous, particularly in the case of a suspected submarine launched attack. Russian and US “Launch on Warning” systems” would give their presidents only 2 to 3 minutes to decide whether or not to retaliate. [6] Typical warheads have 20 times the destructive power of the Hiroshima bomb. Typical nuclear missiles carry 8 or more of these independently programmed to destroy multiple targets. Think of Hiroshima. Imagine 160 times Hiroshima – from one missile.
With this spectre hovering over humanity it is difficult to understand how anyone, least of all an environmental luminary like James Lovelock, could advocate nuclear power as a solution to global warming. [7] This solution sidesteps the health, environmental and security dangers associated with building and operating at least a thousand nuclear reactors; the increased environmental and security risks associated with mining, transportation, processing and storage of vastly increased quantities of uranium and deadly radioactive waste; and the fact that high grade, low cost uranium deposits consumed even at the present rate will be exhausted in fifty years. [8]
More importantly, it overlooks the enormous danger posed by more leaders of more nuclear weapons states (that would inevitably emerge) with their fingers on more doomsday buttons. While there are nuclear reactors, there will be nuclear weapons. While “peace-loving” countries like Australia mine and export uranium they are complicit in keeping the world on the brink of nuclear annihilation.
Here in Australia, advocates of uranium mining and export claim that this gives us a more credible voice in the world arena than we would otherwise have. They say our position as the largest source of uranium and the second largest exporter after Canada makes us more effective in preventing nuclear proliferation than we would otherwise be. In other words, by selling the stuff from which nuclear weapons are made, we are helping to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.
This absurd reasoning extends to the so-called “safeguard” agreements – essentially book-keeping entries – that supposedly track every morsel of “Australian Obligated” uranium during its travels around the world, including its reprocessing and on-selling. We can rest assured that Australian uranium won’t be used to make nuclear weapons – or free up other uranium for that purpose – because we say it can’t and the buyer nations say it won’t.
History tells a different story. Of about 60 countries that have nuclear power or research reactors more than 20 have used their “peaceful” facilities for covert nuclear weapons research or production or both. India, Pakistan, Israel, South Africa and North Korea have all developed nuclear weapons under cover of “peaceful” nuclear programs. Other countries have made considerable progress before ending their programs. (South Africa is the only state to eliminate its nuclear weapons.) [8]
Egypt, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Romania, South Korea, Taiwan, and the former Yugoslavia, all signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), have violated their agreements by conducting forbidden weapons-related activities or not meeting their reporting requirements to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). [8]
North Korea has withdrawn from the treaty; India, Pakistan and Israel were never members. The “declared” nuclear weapons states – the US, Russia, the UK, France and China – have all violated their NTP obligations and shown by their actions that they have no intention of abandoning their nuclear superiority. [8]
The belligerence and blatant double standards demonstrated by the “big five,” who also hold the five permanent seats and veto power on the UN Security Council, provides motivation and “justification” for other states – some repeatedly threatened with attack, including nuclear attack (“all options are on the table”) – to develop a nuclear “deterrent” of their own. “Peaceful” nuclear programs are the obvious way for them to develop the necessary expertise and facilities and to acquire the technology and essential raw material: uranium.
Five years ago Australia’s uranium exports had already produced about 80 tonnes of plutonium – enough for 8,000 nuclear bombs. The Beverly Four Mile mine in South Australia recently approved by the current government has the capacity to produce enough plutonium for 4,500 more. [9]
It seems the straight-faced hypocrisy of successive Australian governments is boundless: joining in the vilification of the latest designated nuclear “rogue” states, worrying over nuclear terrorism and mouthing non-proliferation platitudes on the one hand while allowing exports of the raw material for nuclear proliferation on the other. If Australia were sincere it would leave its uranium in the ground.
In December, representatives from about 170 countries will meet in Copenhagen to negotiate an international agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol that expires in 2012. Hopefully, amidst the media circus and political theatre they will commit to the carbon emission reductions necessary to prevent catastrophic global warming.
Hopefully, too, the world will awake from its nuclear slumber in time to prevent the other climate change nightmare: global cooling.
[1] http://www.nucleardarkness.org/index2.php
[2] http://www.nucleardarkness.org/globalnucleararsenal/usrussianhighalert/
(3) Hiroshima yield 15,000 tons x 100 = 1.5 million tons
(4) [2] Yield 960 million tons/15,000 tons
(5) [2] yield 2,225 million tons/15,000 tons
[6] http://www.nucleardarkness.org/highalert/launchonwarning/
[7] http://www.jameslovelock.org/page11.html
[8] Climate Change: Nukes No Solution
http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/nfc/nuclear-climate/
[9] Arena Magazine, August/September 2009
Robin Davis lives in Victoria, Australia. He is a freelance writer and graphic designer. He can be contacted at: robindavis@hotkey.net.au
Hey Hey We’re Racists! Shame Channel 9, Shame Daryl Somers.
Just when our politicians are streaming back from places like India after reassuring their opposite numbers that Australia is not racist and that the violent ingrates who steal phones and iPods are color-blind or at least not choosey, Daryl Somers’ “Hey, Hey” program confirms the Indians’ worst fears.
From London to Washington the international press is giving Australia a beating today. Gee – thanks Daryl!
Guest on the show Harry Connick Jr, rightly pointed out that it would not have gone to air – or would have been pulled – in the United States and managed to extract this apology broadcast at the end of the show:
Well Daryl, it’s a poor, wimpy and disconnected apology – and here’s why.
It’s offensive to our citizens. To indigenous peoples, to ethnic communities, particularly after the scurrilous recent targeting of members of the Sudanese community including severe racially motivated beatings.
This isn’t the 1980’s or 1950’s, Mr Somers. Stick to conversing with hats on broom sticks and pink ostriches – where your major talents appear to lie.
It is disgraceful that you, the producers and channel 9 television are unaware of the devastating consequences of such infantile “entertainment”.
It’s offensive because our Indigenous peoples are still under the thumb of the “Great John Howard Intervention”. Considered doing something “positive” for them instead?
A challenge, Daryl Somers: do a show to highlight the plight of our indigenous people under the intervention. Through comic wit, highlight our pathetic political leaders who introduced and continue to enforce it and the truck loads of “consultants” bleeding it dry without anything being done on the ground for those affected. Restore some of your credibility. Do some good. Strike a blow for humanity, for our indigenous peoples.
I’m not holding my breath for that to happen.
That the amateur “actor” involved in the skit was partially of Indian decent is irrelevant. Commercial television comes with sound and picture – not a genetic indicator with which to divine “ironies”.
There is funny and funny. Maligning people on race, religion, gender, gender alignment or any of the multitude of other damaging “jokes” we’ve heard since the year dot is no longer funny.
The Australian public are better than that.
Shame on you, Daryl and Channel 9!
What message do we want to send to the world in this age of mass global communication? That we are a nation of racist hillbilly hicks?
We can – and must – do better than this.
What’s next?
A revival of the 1947 statement by ALP politician Arthur Augustus Calwell: “Two Wongs don’t make a White?” Because your “humour” is no better, mate.
Don’t think so? There is a reason Pauline Hanson failed to be re-elected. Australians are above xenophobic “jokes”. Channel Nine should be excrutiatingly aware of that irony! Hello 60 Minutes?
Put “Hey, Hey it’s Saturday” back in the archives, seal the door and throw away the key if “nostalgic material” like this is all it can do.
Scott Kane
Australian Democrats Co-Founder Jack Evans Passes Away
“Jack Evans, a pivotal person in the founding and development of the Australian Democrats, has died at the age of 80.”Former Australian Democrats Senator Andrew Bartlett has written a thoughtful piece on Crikey on Jack Evans’ contribution not only to the Australian Democrats but to the politics and people of Australia.
Rather than reprint the article here we invite you to read the original located at Crikey.Com by Clicking Here.
Scott Kane
Granny-Gate – Sex For Cig’s – Brumby Government Goes From Bad to Bloody Unbelievable!
Is This What Victoria Has Reduced Elderly Women To?
Community Services minister Lisa Neville says:
This only comes after the Victorian Public Advocate, Colleen Pearce, tells Victoria:
Epic Fail, Minister!
When a Minister of the Crown who is ultimately responsible for the portfolio in which this is allegedly taking place only offers us spin about beginning “…the process of improving…” we are sorely in need of a ministerial resignation.
Minister We’re Talking About Crimes – Not “Favours”
Colleen Pearce is rightly and justifiably outraged. But for the minister who holds ultimate responsibility of thousands of elderly woman and men to call it “…unacceptable…” is a sick, perverted joke at the expense of our loved ones. A group who, by definition, cannot look after themselves and are generally voiceless, apart from the work of Advocates like Colleen Pearce.
Not “…unacceptable…” Minister – the word to use is intolerable.
Across every area of responsibility, Brumby government is always “gonna fix it” – yet they preside over a mess, one they’ve created through negligence and a complete lack of interest.
This has become the anthem of the Brumby Labor government.
“Gonna!”
Stated Plainly Cigarette Smoking Is An Addiction.
Using a powerful addiction to a substance such as nicotine found in cigarettes – an addiction experts state is harder than heroin to beat – as a tool to rape must not be minimised by calling it a “favour”.
It’s a crime. A crime under state, federal and international law.
It’s disgusting.
What is it with the Brumby government?
- We’ve got the Bushfire Royal Commission tasked with finding no blame.
- The Brimbank Botch Up.
And now..
- Nursing Home Bordellos?
The community is sickened by reports of women being trafficked to work in the sex trade.
There is very little difference here. These people are vunerable – in many cases as vulnerable as children.
This is the era – or should that be error? – of Labor party spin, big government advertising budgets to tell us of their glorious achievements.
Perhaps Labor will make a TV commercial now asking Victorians to:
- “Ration” their abuse of the elderly, in keeping with their water policy,
- Dob in a Granny Grabber
…or some other trendy, disconnected “shiny” campaign to demonstrate their total lack of real concern.
That the press haven’t called this “Granny-Gate” is in itself amazing.
Our Elderly Depend On Us As Much As Our Children For Protection
Elderly people constrained to nursing homes should be receiving care – not abuse – respect – not rape - palliative care – not pain.
Resign Minister!
Scott Kane
Subscription Options:
Darren Churchill ACT- MEDIA RELEASE: Monday, 19 July 2010: Labor/Greens preference deal shows the bias
- Media Release: 15th July 2010 ACT Democrats announce 2010 No. 1 Senate candidate
- MEDIA RELEASE: 7th July, 2010: Statement on asylum seekers
- Media Release: 30th June 2010: Random Drug testing law is costly and flawed, say Democrats
- Media Release: 30th June 2010: Proposed drug testing law raises human rights and effectiveness concerns, say Democrats