Feds name Nuclear Ports
On August 2nd, David Noonan wrote:
On August 2nd, David Noonan wrote:
The ballot of residents in Kimba and Hawker, designed to guagesupport for teh proposed dump, has been delayed. It was to start Monday Aug 20th, but will be deferred until arguments from Traditional Owners are heard in the Supreme Court
The Federal Government has short-listed two sites near Kimba and one near Hawker as possible locations for the waste facility.
Postal votes to help determine whether the two communities would accept the waste dump have been put on hold after legal action was launched in the Supreme Court by the Barngarla indigenous people.
The Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation argues that native title holders who live outside the municipal borders of Kimba should be entitled to vote in the postal ballot. The case is scheduled to be heard by the full court this Thursday.
20 August: A new report into the claimed economic benefits to regional communities of the Federal Government nuclear waste facility has found the government has exaggerated the benefits, and not properly factored in insurance costs and other risks.
“This whole process has been poorly conducted and horribly divisive from day one,” said Craig Wilkins, Chief Executive of Conservation SA.
“Knowing how reluctant many people in Kimba and the Flinders Ranges are to having a nuclear waste dump in their backyard, the Federal Government has greatly over-sold the economic benefits to try and buy community support.
“This report is a reality check for a community sick of the spin from the Federal Government,” he said.
Conservation SA commissioned economic think tank The Australia Institute to examine more closely Federal Government’s claims of an economic windfall for the affected communities.
The Down in the Dumps report compared the current Australian National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) plans with similar facilities overseas, and found a raft of exaggerated jobs and economic return claims. For example, a proposed facility in Canada which is more than one hundred times larger with more functions and features, will cost only half as much to construct and operate.
As the report’s author, Dr Cameron Murray, states: ‘Either the waste facility is orders of magnitude larger than need for Australia’s nuclear waste, or the government has exaggerated the economic returns to the local community of the NRWMF facility’.
Maaike Beenes, co-author, writes —
This report, produced by PAX, a member of the Nobel Peace Prize winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear weapons (ICAN) is the only report detailing the global investments by financial institutions in companies producing nuclear weapons.
329 investors made $525 Billion available to nuclear weapon producing companies between January 2014 and October 2017. They assisted with share and bond issuances, owned or managed shares and bonds or outstanding loans or made credit facilities. This is a decrease in the number of investors, but an $81 billion increase in the total amount invested. Find out who invests.
Most investors are from the US, and US$110 billion came from just 3 US financial institutions: Blackrock, Vanguard and Capital Group, all from the United States.
ICAN executive director Beatrice Fihn: “If you have been wondering who benefits from Donald Trump’s threats of nuclear war, this report has that answer. These are the companies that stand to profit from indiscriminate mass murder of civilians. We grow less safe while they cash in on chaos by banking on Armageddon.”
Author of the report Susi Snyder: “The Nuclear Ban Treaty has sparked momentum towards divestment, shown by 10% fewer investors in nuclear weapon producers, and an increase in financial institutions comprehensively prohibiting any investment. Investments are not neutral, these companies should be congratulated for standing on the side of humanity.”
Mara Bonacci, the CCSA’s Nuclear Waste campaigner writes: