FoE

Social + community licence to operate is a real issue for the mining industry in Australia – BHP opposes changes to DGR regulations

Susie November 24, 2017

“We do not support changes that limit public advocacy to 10 percent of funds, or requirements to spend 25 percent of funds on environmental remediation.”

Having already rocked the mining industry’s peak lobby, BHP’s determined pursuit of an independent public affairs course in the name of renewing and enhancing corporate social licence has now triggered angry resentment within some powerful pockets of the federal government.

The fulcrum of this latest bout of BHP-fuelled anxiety is a letter from the company to a small community of charity organisations in the middle of October and that followed a meeting between management and the lobbies in late September.

In its letter, dated October 16 and written by sustainability and public affairs officer, Tony Cudmore, BHP reiterates that it is actively reviewing membership of the Minerals Council of Australia and other industry lobby memberships and then goes on to announce management’s opposition to flagged government reforms to the tax status of charitable organisations in Australia.

Cudmore opened the October communiqué by restating the breadth and intent of the already-flagged internal review of its associations and its determination to advertise points of policy difference between the company and its lobbies.

“In relation to the MCA, as you are aware we have committed to complete our review of industry association memberships by December 31 this year, including the MCA, and we will make outcomes of that review public,” he said. “This will include a list of any material differences on climate and energy policy.”

The letter was sent following a September meeting with the leadership of four community organisations, two of them leading environmental protection lobbies (the World Wildlife Fund and the Australian Conservation Foundation) and two peak councils (the Australian Council for International Development and the Community Council for Australia).

The meeting was held three days after the abrupt resignation of MCA chief executive Brendan Pearson.… Read more >>

Adelaide FoE Notes, FoE, Mining

Nuclear fuel waste: Extended Storage at Lucas Heights or target SA?

roman November 12, 2017

David Noonan has summarised the situation with the proposal to locate the federal nuclear waste dump in SA in a recent briefing document.

**Nuclear fuel waste: Extended Storage at Lucas Heights or target SA?**

Briefer (Nov 2017) by David Noonan, Independent Environment Campaigner

The Federal government has divided Australian community and is compromising safety in proposed import and indefinite above ground storage of ANSTO nuclear wastes in South Australia.

Since April 2016 the Federal government has solely targeted regional communities in SA for a proposed above ground Store to take irradiated Nuclear Fuel Waste (NFW) and long lived Intermediate Level Waste (ILW) from the ANSTO Lucas Heights reactor facility in NSW.

The ARPANSA CEO formally considered this proposed NRWMF Store and stated in May 2015:
“This plan will have the provision for ILW storage above ground for approximately 100 years.”

This nuclear waste storage plan compromises safety by importing long lived reactor waste to SA without any waste disposal capacity or even a program or plan for potential disposal of NFW and ILW. Safety requires these nuclear wastes are isolated from the environment for over 10,000 years.

The proposed 100 year Store in SA for 10,000 year nuclear wastes is a divisive, unsafe and unnecessary plan – given ANSTO’s capacity to retain these nuclear wastes at Lucas Heights.

Articles, FoE, Nuclear, Transport

Why you should come to the Anti-Dump Rally dec 2nd

roman November 10, 2017

On 7th June 2017 Premier Weatherill announced that he now considers the international high level nuclear waste dump is dead.

One down, one to go!

Our state still faces a low and intermediate nuclear waste dump proposal. In the lead up to the SA state election in March, we need to send a strong message to politicians to make it clear that SA will not be the radioactive dump state.

The Federal Government has three sites currently under consideration in South Australia – one at Barndioota in the Flinders Ranges and two in Kimba on the Eyre Peninsula.

Radioactive Nuclear waste dumps for non-SA wastes are illegal in SA. In response to earlier moves to dump waste in SA, Parliament passed a law to say No: the Nuclear Waste Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000. The objects of this Act are “to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of South Australia and to protect the environment in which they live by prohibiting the establishment of certain nuclear waste storage facilities in this state.”

The federal government’s proposal is for permanent disposal of low level waste and for long term interim storage of intermediate level waste, with no plan for its permanent disposal.

The waste can and should remain secured and monitored at ANSTO’s Lucas Heights reactor, where most of it is produced, until a dedicated public review of the full range of options for waste management is carried out. The focus needs to shift from targeting SA to establishing a fair, open and responsible process for the management of Australia’s most hazardous waste.

We need your support. Come along, and bring your friends!

Adelaide FoE Notes, FoE, Nuclear

Meet the U.S. People’s Delegation at COP23

roman November 10, 2017

ECO is the environmental NGO newsletter produced daily at international negotiations. While The US president has found a reason not to attend, there is certainly a US presence. This excerpt from ECO 4 describes the US People’s delegation

ECO welcomes a new delegation at the COP this year.

The delegation represents a country whose people are deeply committed to climate action. A country with universities, businesses, cities, and states that are pushing forward with plans to achieve bold climate targets like 100% renewable energy. A country that believes in science, respect, and the importance of the global community. A country that currently has a President and Administration who believes in none of these things.

Meet the U.S. People’s Delegation, a delegation of climate activists and community leaders from across the United States who have come to COP23 to represent the true spirit of the nation and to push for bold climate action that goes above and beyond the Paris Agreement.

The U.S. People’s Delegation is stepping in to fill the void left by the Trump Administration, which announced its intention to exit the Paris Agreement. This administration is here at the climate talks not on behalf of the American people, it seems, but on behalf of their friends in the fossil fuel industry (the main side event hosted by the “official” U.S. delegation this year is an infomercial for “clean” coal).

Instead of speaking for this fossil fuel driven and dirty past, the U.S. People’s Delegation will be at COP23 to represent the clean energy future. Members of the delegation include youth leaders who have successfully pressured their universities to divest from fossil fuels. It includes Indigenous leaders who have fought against major fossil fuel projects (e.g. Dakota Access Pipeline) and are building their own renewable energy solutions on tribal lands.

Adelaide FoE Notes, FoE

NEG: A rushed job that takes us backwards, not forwards

roman November 10, 2017

South Australia energy minister Tom Koutsantonis has slammed the federal government’s proposed National Energy Guarantee, saying it is nothing more than an attack on renewable energy, and cannot be supported.

“This is of great concern to South Australia,” Koutsantonis said while addressing a conference [South Australian Smart Energy Summit] in Adelaide. “We cannot support the National Energy Guarantee …. And the reason is because at its core, it is an attack on renewable energy.

“The National Energy Guarantee assumes that renewable energy is the problem … it assumes that renewable energy has done harm to the grid and must be stopped somehow.”

“It’s not a National Energy Guarantee at all, it is a guarantee for coal. It is an attempt to subsidise and keep alive coal fired generation in the largest state in country.

“Our fear is that it will do the opposite of lowering prices …. and entrench monopoly behaviour (of fossil fuel generators).”

Koutsantonis’ comments reflect widespread and growing concerns about the nature of the NEG, its failure to address emissions, its modeling that suggests renewables will be stopped in their tracks, its likely impact of raising prices rather than lowering them, and entrenching the power of the incumbent generators and their coal assets.

[…]

“This guarantee …. spells dirty coal. How can any jurisdiction support that?

“It doesn’t meet our needs. It doesn’t meet the Paris agreement … all it is is a nod and a wink to the coal industry. And we can’t support it.”

— excerpts from an article by Giles Parkinson at reneweconomy.com

Adelaide FoE Notes, FoE