The UK coalition of offshore oil and gas workers, climate groups and trade unions are backing a new plan to deliver a fair transition away from fossil fuels, protect jobs, communities and climate.
In the face of political inaction, workers are ready to lead. ‘Our Power: Offshore oil and gas workers’ demand for a just energy
transition’ is an oil industry first, putting workers front and centre in a plan for decarbonisation and public ownership.
The list of 10 demands are:
More details: https://friendsoftheearth.eu/press-release/uk-oil-workers-demand-just-energy-transition/
From the Market Forces report:
The Australian Government continues to support fossil fuel exploration and development in Australia, despite 2021 modelling by the International Energy Agency (IEA), confirmed again in late 2022, which finds that there can be no new coal, oil or gas projects if the world is to achieve zero net emissions by 2050 and limit global warming to 1.5°C.
Six new coal mining projects were approved between the release of the IEA’s report and the ousting of the former Liberal-National government, while the new Labor government has granted 10 new oil and gas exploration licences since. There are also 118 coal, oil and gas projects currently in the investment pipeline nationally according to the Department of Industry, Science and Resources. The Labor government is actively supporting these developments even while its own Climate Change Bill enshrines in law a 43% reduction in Australia’s emissions by 2030.
[…,]
Hefty donations from the fossil fuel industry
In FY2022 [1], fossil fuel companies donated $2 million to the ALP, Liberal and National parties.
Yet given Australia’s reputation for woefully inadequate political disclosure and ‘dark money’ donations, with 35% of all contributions coming from unknown sources, the true figure could be significantly higher.
Leading the pack with $188,000 worth of largesse was Mineral Resources, followed by INPEX with $157,300 and Santos with $153,660. Fossil fuel lobby groups like the Minerals Council of Australia and the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association (APPEA) also donated nearly half a million dollars, with a combined total of $441,482.
Market Forces collates this data from the Australian Electoral Commission.
You will find the full list of fossil fuel donors from the last financial year at https://www.marketforces.org.au/politicaldonations2023/
Brian Toohey has some excellent advice on the matter of submarines…
An objective study would’ve shown the latest conventional ones are superior – they are much harder to detect and are operationally available far more often because they don’t suffer few serious maintenance problems. The program cost of twelve high quality conventional subs is only about $18 billion compared to $368 billion for 11 nuclear ones that repeatedly break down.
…
Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead gave an astonishing interview to the Guardian published on March 8 and 9 this year. Mead wrongly described Australia’s existing Collins class conventional submarines as “the most advanced in the world”. They are certainly not. They lack modern equipment such as fuel cells and advanced batteries that let submarines operate extremely quietly for sustained periods without having to rise to the surface to recharge their batteries every day or two, unlike the Collins class. Modern German, Japanese and South Korean ones are in this category. These submarines have low sustainment costs, unlike the Collins class where this burden has hit almost $700 million a year, not including fuel and crew costs. Taking the Collins out of service would free up billions in funding for new conventional submarines.
Because nuclear subs are significantly bigger than most conventional subs, they are easier to detect as they move through the earth’s magnetic field and the water column. Rapid advances in sensor power and computer processing increase the chances of subs’ detection – and destruction. Mead said he had taken account of the prospect oceans would become more transparent by 2050.His solution is to use underwater drones in places where you don’t want a nuclear submarine to be detected. That would be just about everywhere that the presence of nuclear submarine was supposed to be important. Apparently, the nuclear sub would control a drone at a safe distance. In this case, far cheaper platforms can be used to control the drones.
Mead claimed that nuclear-powered submarines enabled them to remain undetected. On the contrary, nuclear submarines are comparatively noisy because they rely on a reactor to heat the water for steam engines to propel the boat. The process creates noise from cooling pumps, turbines, alternating currents, and steam flowing through the pipes. These subs also expel hot water that can be readily detected, as can the wake they leave when travelling at high speeds.
— see the full article at Pearls and Irritations: “Very bad advice: $368b nuclear submarines and the Federal budget”