Publications

Where do the parties stand on the top ten environmental issues for South Australia?

33 environmental and community organisations scored parties on 36 key environmental issues.

The full response, with details on questions at  https://www.ourfuturesa.org.au

A summary of the “top ten” issues at star_ratings_for_top_10_issues (Out of 50: Liberal 18.5, Labor 21.5, Greens 50, SABest 38.5)

The ACF

The ACF have been handing out their leaflet comparing the parties on pollution, clean energy and protecting nature

 

They note:

  • The Greens are leading the way in South Australia, with five stars for policies on cutting climate pollution, ramping up clean energy and respecting and protecting nature.
  • SA Best made some good commitments on banning oil exploration in the Bight and fracking in the South East, but only back a 50% Renewable Energy Target by 2025, which SA has almost already reached.
  • We found Labor scored well on policies to make SA a global leader on clean energy (a 75% Renewable Energy Target by 2025!), but has a blind spot on banning oil and gas.
  • The Liberal Party scored lowest with 1.5 stars – they’re weak over radioactive waste dumping in SA and want to scrap the Renewable Energy Target.

 

 

 

Solar Citizens

Solar citizens have provided a detailed report on where the parties stand in renewables, and how they respond to issues raised in the Solar Citizens’ Repowering South Australia report. See https://www.solarcitizens.org.au/south_australian_election_guide

See separate entry on the nuclear waste dump issue.

 

Southpaw Backhander

The return of the Liberal Party government in Tasmania with a bare, reduced majority was not an unalloyed catastrophe for the progressive forces in the island State. Labor was returned with an increased minority on an issue of principle, pokies reform. This confirms the strong leadership of Rebecca White, who is arguably well poised to regain government at the next election, circumstances permitting; the Green vote was alarmingly static, not to say worse. There is the consolation that losing with a sound policy at least leaves a legacy to build on. But it is nonetheless a setback for progressive forces in Tasmania and nationally. It once again shows that excessive tension between Labor and the Greens only benefits the Tories, in keeping with the maxim that disunity is death. It is unhealthy that the Hodgeman dynasty administration has been returned to office, with its plans to log wilderness extensively and restrict the democratic right to protest to appease capital. Despite Hodgeman’s denials that the election was bought, there is no doubt that the massive advertising campaign by the gambling lobby, led by the Federal Group which owns the island’s two casinos, was a powerful factor.

Labor and the Greens can now only govern together. Labor’s primary vote has fallen to historic lows, while Bob Brown’s ambitions to `replace the bastards’ are illusory. Labor and the Greens are as doomed to serve the public together as the Liberals and Nationals are condemned to loot the public purse on behalf of vested interests as Coalition partners in crime. As a Tasmanian expat I have been arguing this case like Cassandra since my teenage years in Tasmania during the rise of the Greens in the 1970s. These basic political principles have national implications. As the 2018 Tasmanian General Election shows, they are ignored at the peril of the interested parties and the public, not to mention the environment.… Read more >>

CSIRO planning US military funded genetic extinction experiments in WA

A raft of emails obtained through a Freedom of Information request (The Gene Drive Files) reveal that CSIRO and University of Adelaide scientists are part of a US military funded global network researching a risky new genetic modification (GM) technique referred to as gene drives. The group have already identified six potential islands in Western Australia where they intend to use the technique to drive local mice populations to extinction.

Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA – the US military’s research arm) is contributing US$6.4M to fund the Genetic Biocontrol of Invasive Rodents Program (GBIRd). This is being spread between the CSIRO, the University of Adelaide, several US research institutes and the NGO Island Conservation.

The release of gene drives could have potentially catastrophic ecological consequences. Even gene drive proponents have now admitted that the gene drives are too risky to be released into the environment. We find it incredible that CSIRO and its GBIRd partners are already considering the environmental release of this technology.”

Gene drives are a new and highly controversial technique that can force altered genetic traits through successive generations. The GBIRd scientists intend to use the technique to develop mice that only produce male offspring in order to drive local populations to extinction.

Mice are notorious for stowing away on boats, which is how they have spread globally. One of the proposed release sites for the gene drive mice is Boullanger Island – a popular tourist destination just 1km from the mainland. There is no way that a release of gene drive mice there could be geographically contained.

Most rodents are considered keystone species in their ecological communities as herbivores, seed eaters and seed dispersers, and prey for many carnivores. Many other species depend on them for survival. The ecological impacts if mice are driven to extinction in their natural habitats in Europe and Asia could be catastrophic.… Read more >>

Senate Enquiry National Rad Waste Facility

Mara Bonacci, the CCSA’s  Nuclear Waste campaigner writes:

On  6 February 2018, the Senate referred an inquiry into the selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia to the Senate Economics Reference Committee for inquiry and report by 14 August 2018.
This is welcome.
Submissions are due by Tuesday 3rd April.
It would be wonderful if you  could write a submission.
The terms of reference can be found here
Some points to consider including are:
  • A single individual or property owner should not be allowed to nominate a site for a nuclear waste dump.
  • The federal government have not made a clear or compelling case that we need a national nuclear waste dump in SA.
  • The consultation process has been deficient and has caused division in our communities.
  • The federal government plan lacks social licence or community consent. Traditional Owners have flagged concerns over cultural heritage issues.
  • The project has not considered the full range of options to best advance responsible radioactive waste management in Australia. Australia’s worst waste should be dealt with better.
In addition, I have set up on online submission system that is pre-filled but can be edited.  I encourage as many people as possible to take a few minutes to complete.
It would be great to get as many submissions to the Senate Standing Committees on Economics as possible so collectively we can end this terrible process and get the federal government to finally take a responsible approach to radioactive waste management.
Please contact me if you have any questions or need any help with this.
thanks and regards,
Mara Bonacci
Nuclear Waste Campaigner
Usual Hours Monday – Wednesday 10am – 3pm
Conservation Council SA
The Joinery / 111 Franklin Street, Adelaide SA 5000
(08) 8223 5155  mobile: 0422 229 970

REGARDING THE NATIONAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY

A summary of the letter from MAPW to Industry Minister Matt Canavan
Medical Association for the Prevention of War (MAPW),                                        23 Feb 18 

 

 REGARDING THE NATIONAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY (NRWMF )

1) The process is very divisive. Repeated, highly damaging processes imposed on previously cohesive communities are causing significant harms.

2) Considerable amounts of persistently misleading information have been and continue to be presented to communities. Incorrect and incomplete information does not result in genuine consent.

3) There is a failure to observe international best practice standards for the highly radioactive long lived intermediate level waste (ILW) management. There is no disposal plan whatsoever for ILW, leaving the problem for many future generations.

REGARDING THE EXPANSION OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE PRODUCTION FOR EXPORT

1) There is a lack of demonstrable “Net benefit”. The proposed 40 year-long expansion of medical isotope production needs genuine cost/benefit analysis to make sure this is not a heavily subsidised product being sold into the global market at the expense of the Australian community both now and in the future. Independent NEA/OECD economic modelling finds only 10-15% cost recovery of isotope manufacture when there is genuine inclusion of all costs.

2) The expansion will create 40 years of significantly increased production of ILW.

3) ANSTO has a narrative of global shortages, yet given falling demand and increasing global supply there is no shortage of Mo99. The NEA/OECD predict a significant oversupply.

4) Again, there is no plan whatsoever for disposal of the additional ILW generated.

Both processes are unacceptably flawed.

Medical Association for the Prevention of War (MAPW)  urges

  • A halt to the current NRWMF process until such time as world’s best practice is followed. There is sufficient capacity at the Lucas Heights facility, once regulatory approvals are met, to store Low Level Waste (LLW) and Intermediate Level Waste  (ILW) well into the next decade.
Read more >>