kim kaos

nuclear creep

November 15th, 2005

With firm control of the Senate, the Howard government is set to bring in many unpopular changes that do not auger well for the future social and environmental sustainability of our country. One of these is the gradual ‘nuclearisation’ of the military and industry, in line with increase trade with the pro-nuclear United States, who currently buys almost half of the uranium mined in Australia. This nuclearisation is making itself felt in many sectors: mining, power provision, military, and even in the irradiation of food, sometimes done with the full approval of the opposition at state and federal levels. Current claims to cure climate change with nuclear power as the sustainable option are fallacious and dangerous for long term sustainability.

What is sustainability?

The much quoted Brundtland Report (1987) defines sustainability as: “Meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.” For my purposes, sustainability needs to meet Brundtland’s criterion through the five fingers of sustainabilitiy: environmental, economic, political, social and technological. The nuclear power industry fails them all.

Can nuclear power be sustainable?

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the world’s nuclear regulator, produce a leaflet Nuclear Power and Sustainable Development where they outline the arguments that are now familiar as those being voiced by the Federal government. That publication continues the now familiar myth that nuclear power can be environmentally beneficial. But can we really trust an organisation dedicated to selling non-weapons uses of nuclear to give an unbiased analysis?

Environmental: While it is true that the actual power-generating part of the process is clean in that it produces no carbon dioxide emissions, the supply and disposal chain for that power is not. Nuclear power is not produced in a vacuum. It requires an extensive infrastructure including the mining industry, uranium enrichment industry, transport industry, security industry and a disposal process for the waste using massive amounts of fossil fuels. Less than one-third of the world’s CO2 emissions are generated by power stations, so dealing only with power station emission will not solve our emissions problems. Add to that the risks inherent in the waste disposal, and all you have done is heap another environmental disaster upon future generations.

The mining of uranium to provision a nuclear power industry is itself fraught with environmental problems. Currently Roxby Downs uranium mine uses 30 million litres of water a day in uranium processing, taking enourmous amounts of water out of a very dry environment, contaminating it, and leaving it radioactive in open tailings ponds.

Economic: Economically nuclear power has never made sense. Even though Australia has the world’s largest deposits of uranium, turning it into power will require huge subsidies. The US nuclear industry would not exist without them. In addition, experts estimate that our high grade uranium deposits will only last 40 years. Low grade ore will inevitably have to be used: which creates more pollution (CO2 and CFCs to process), and cost more. The short term gains we might make in mining and selling our uranium will soon dry out, leaving us with a huge mess of waste disappated across the tailings dams, defunct power plants and waste dumps it leaves behind. A mess that needs to be monitored and guarded for hundreds of years at enormous cost to future generations.

Political: Politically, the nuclear option might looks very feasible to our government. Federal Minister for Science, Brendan Nelson, says Australia will start using nuclear power within the next 50 years. However, governments decisions lead to changes in voting patterns and in recent years the Greens are making considerable ground, possibly because of the current government’s lack of environmental vision.

Social: Pouring money into a venture like nuclear power is bound to require decreased spending in other areas. The social costs of depriving health, education and social services of more funds on top of the decreased funding already experienced under ten years of a Howard government, can only be detrimental to the security of Australian society. That old furphy from the fifties, “Power too cheap to meter” has made a come-back in some pro-nuclear quarters, despite facts to the contrary. In 2004 the UK’s Royal Academy of Engineering and the Institution of Civil Engineers (RAE):

put out a paper on electricity prices suggesting that new nuclear plants could produce power far more cheaply than even coal…But, tellingly, the RAE has also told the government that it must create a market for nuclear by ensuring the “long-term stability of electricity prices”. This is shorthand for the nuclear industry’s real agenda: a new system of subsidies to ensure it is never again exposed to the chill winds of a free market. The industry even has a name for it: the Security of Supply Obligation. (Leake & Box 2005).

Technological: Decommissiong nuclear power plants (NPPs), which have an average life of about 40 years, is an expensive business too. The UK is currently decomissiong plants built in the 60s and 70s – estimated at 56 billion pounds and taking as long as 125 years. To exacerbate this problem, the only ‘in perpetuity’ storage site in the UK is in danger of flood from climate change in the next 500 years (BBC 2005).

If you’re still not convinced that nuclear power is a bad idea, take heed of the words of Mark Lesinski, an engineer given the unenviable job of securing the site of the closed Hinkley A nuclear power station, in Somerset, England. Hinkley A, like hundreds of NPPs due for decommissioning worldwide, is expected to remain a dangerous site for millions of years. Long after you and I, and our children and our children’s children’s children, are dead. He says “I’ll probably have to go and put a message to future generations inside one of the reactor buildings before we seal them up.” He hasn’t thought about what that sign might say to generations yet to come, but one of his colleagues has: “If you’ve got a problem, don’t phone me.” (Meek 2005)

Placement of nuclear facilities will always be an issue. No one in their right minds wants to live near a nuclear power plant, reactor, waste dump or on the transport route of such dangerous materials. You can bet the nuclear transport route won’t be passing Kirribilli House. There are already indications of cancer clusters in areas surrounding nuclear power plants in the UK

When the Howard government points to the ‘few’ nuclear accidents that have occurred in nuclear facilities they are only referring to the big disasters like Chernobyl in 1986 that has killed thousands in Europe (notwithstanding the IAEA’s 2005 report that “fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster,”). Accidents increase the cost of plants, with Chernobyl being estimated to have cost US$358b – greater than the value of all the nuclear power generated in the Soviet Union. The pro-nuclear lobby are ignoring the many small leaks, lost nuclear material, and accidents that occur almost daily in the world’s 440 nuclear power plants and other facilities. All potential killers, some actual killers.

___________________________________________________

FACT BOX: Nuclear Accidents Big and Small

* 1957 core fire, Windscale NPP, (UK) releases radioactiviity into environment
* 1979 Partial core meltdown, Three Mile Island NPP, Pennsylvania, US. (Before this accident, the US federal government performed strontium-90 testing of milk from cows in the areas around nuclear facilities which indicated increased strontium-90, when compared with milk from areas without nuclear facilities. Testing was abruptly stopped after the TMI accident, with no explanation.)
* 1986 Chernobyl NPP explodes killing 45 immediately, killing an estimated 35,000 with fallout and displacing half a million people. Low level radiation has caused increased non-fatal illness including immune system diseases. Almost every child in Belarus suffers this (Greenpeace Ukraine)
* 1997 Tokaimura NPP (Japan) fire exposes 37 workers to radiation
* 1999 90 tonnes of radioactive water leaks at Japanese NPP
* 1999 Tokaimura uranium enrichment plant accident in Japan kills two, irradiates hundreds.
* 2003 Bradwell NPP (UK) closed as economically unviable, amid claims by researchers of increased cancers in area linked to leaks. Cancer research also stopped at that time.
* 2003 Independent research indicates decreased infant deaths after closure of US NPPs (Mangano 2003)
* 2004 discovery that water leaking from pipelines and blowing off open-air ponds of nuclear waste at Hunterston NPP (UK) has been contaminating surrounding soil
* 2004 4 workers die at Mihama NPP (Japan) when cooling pipe explodes
* 2005 April. Leak discovered Sellafield NPP (UK)
* 2005 discovery that Lucas Heights reactor, Syndey, has been ‘leaking for years’
* 2005, 10 August. One year old Khmelnitsky NPP reactor shutdown for seventh time when turbines failed
* 2005, 11 August. Tokai NPP reactor shut down when water leaks
* 2005, 30 September. Mihama NPP (Japan) leaks radioactive coolant
* Almost every one of the 120 NPP in the US has experienced a small accident or leak of some kind.
* For a full list of nuclear mishaps see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_accidents and www.nuclearfiles.org
______________________________________________

All uranium mines in Australia, and potentially any nuclear power plants or dumps, will be sited on indigenous lands. Kevin Buzzacott, distinguished Arabunna elder representing Kokatha land in South Australia was in recent years the subject of a nucelar waste dump proposal says: “Our land was taken by massacre and displacement. No treaties were even signed. We have never ceded out sovereignty. Our sovereignty cannot be extinguished. Under international law we still own the land and will always oppose the radioactive waste dump.” (in Green: 1999)

In recent months a proposal to site a nuclear waste dump near Katherine and now Alice Springs in the NT was roundly rejected by the communities there. The federal government has not yet met with indigenous leaders despite invitations to do so. The federal government have already made up their minds: they will, as they have in the past, override state or territory government decisions on uranium mines and waste dumps.

Technologically, there is not yet, and may never be a failsafe way to store nuclear waste. Even if such a utopia were to exist, safe transport to that disposal site is still an issue. In the UK, there has been insecure storage of waste from power stations in urban communities for over 30 years, with no solution in sight. We hear claims that the technology to secure waste has improved, but where is it being used? Even the biggest nuclear waste facility in Yucca US, (currently not yet taking waste), is prone to accidents including earthquakes.

__________________________________________________

FACT BOX: “Orphaned Sources” are nuclear material that is lost, misplaced, thrown in the rubbish, or stolen from the world’s nuclear facilities. The US has 1,500 orpahned sources since 1996, Europe loses about 70 nuclear sources per year, a European commission estimate about 30,000 nuclear sources are at risk of becomign orphaned in Europe due to insecure storage and bad bookkeeping. These sites include radiotherapy units and irradiation facilities. There are no estimates on orphaned sources for the former USSR.
__________________________________________________

Other nuclear dangers to sustainability: mines, war, waste and food

The extent of our governments commitment to all things nuclear is evident in the other pro-nuclear activities it engages in.

I have already touched on some of the problems with uranium mining for the environment. However, uranium maining is inextricably linked to war. The Federal governments uranium mining policy claims to control sale of Australian uranium only for peaceful purposes. Dr Jim Green, long time anti-nuke activist, spells out the lie of peaceful uses for nuclear technology:

The “peaceful” nuclear power and research sectors have produced enough fissile material to build over 160,000 nuclear weapons. Australian uranium has resulted in the production of more than 60 tonnes of plutonium, sufficient to produce about 8000 nuclear weapons. (figures updated Oct 2005 by Green 2005, by personal correspondence).

Supposedly “peaceful” nuclear facilities can be — and have been — used in various ways for weapons research and production. Of the 60 countries which have built nuclear power or research reactors, about 25 are known to have used their “peaceful” nuclear facilities for covert weapons research and/or production — a strike rate of about 40%.

Israel, India, Pakistan, South Africa and possibly North Korea have succeeded in producing nuclear weapons under cover of a “peaceful” nuclear program.

In any case, we should question our governments commitment to peaceful uses of nuclear material. In June 2005 the Australian Department of Defence engaged in joint minitary training with the US at Shoalwater Bay in Queensland. The US is training Aussie troops in the use of their weapons systems, including nuclear powered vessels that may or may not be carrying nuclear weapons including missiles and weapons that utilise depleted uranium shells. Minster for Defence, Robert Hill, stated that the goal of Talisman Sabre 2005 (TS05) is increased ‘inter-operability’ with U.S. forces: this may include training in using nuclear pwered vehicles and perhaps weapons. State and Federal governments have committed to further joint exercises with the US, the next being Talisman Sabre 2007. Nuclear power vessels carrying nuclear weapons (like DU shells) make regular visits to our shores under agreements like “Sea-Swap” in Lancelin, Western Australia.

Just as Howard seeks to override state policies in other areas, the Northern Territory government was recently told that their decision to ban further uranium mining is no longer their decision. Federal Resources Minister Ian MacFarlane declared: “The Northern Territory is open for business on uranium mining.” The mining industry must have been anticipating this, with several mining companies never ceasing their uranium exploration in the NT during this time. And today both major parties are warming to former PM Bob Hawke’s suggestion that Australia become the nuclear waste dump for the world.

The slow infiltration of nuclear into our lives has extended to food. Two years ago the Federal government permitted the use of nuclear material for the sterilisation of fresh tropical fruits, following the US trend towards an increasing range of foodstuffs being irradated in lieu of good manufacturing hygene practices. Today tropical fruits and herbal teas may be irradiated in Australia, while almost anything goes in the US including meat and school lunches. Irradiation is aproduct of the Atoms for Peace program, continuing the lie that nuclear can ever be peaceful or safe. Irradiated food has less vitamins and contains hitherto unknown radiolytic products, the safety of which have not been tested.

Where to now?

These goings on may be making some of you nervous. You may be asking just how soon will we be expecting to see nuclear power plants and truckloads of waste barrelling down our highways? Sooner than you may think.

Opposition to these various uses of nuclear materials encompasses the gambits of the peace, environment, indigenous, democratic and health interests of various progressive movements throughout Australia. Just as no one action (like changing to nuclear power) is a solve-all for climate change, the nuclear steamroller needs every one of us to act on it. It presents a huge challenge to people oppossed to all things nuclear, but what we can’t do alone we can do together!

Written by
Kim Stewart. BA, BSc (hons A)
Peace Convergence Collective
FoE Brisbane Climate Justice Collective
Food Irradiation Watch

Get involved in your local anti-nuke group:
* Peace Convergence (Brisbane) http://www.geocities.com/peaceconvergence
* Food Irradiation Watch (Brisbane) http://www.foodirradiationinfo.org
* Australian Anti-Bases Campaign Coalition (Sydney) http://www.anti-bases.org/
* Medical Association for Prevention of War (MAPW) http://www.mapw.org
* The Anti-Nuclear Alliance of Western Australia (Perth) http://www.anawa.org.au/
* Friends of the Earth Australia Anti-Nuclear Campaign (Melbourne) http://www.foe.org.au/nc/index.htm#nuke
* No Radioactive Waste Dump Committee (Darwin) http://www.ecnt.org/html/cur_other_toxics_nukedump.html

References

ABC Online. 2005. “Hawke’s nuclear waste idea has merit: Nelson” September 29, 2005. Online at http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1471422.htm

Australian Conservation Foundation 2005. “Nuclear Energy: No solution to climate change” http://www.acfonline.org.au/news.asp?news_id=489

Australian Government. Dept Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2005. Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Arms Control. Nuclear Exports and Safeguards: Australia’s Uranium Exports Policy” http://www.dfat.gov.au/security/aus_uran_exp_policy.html

Australian Government. 2005. “Research Note no. 32 2004–05: Australia’s uranium after Kyoto” by Greg Baker, Statistics Section, 14 February 2005 http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/RN/2004-05/05rn32.htm

BBC News. 2005. “Nuclear Cleanup to Cost £56b” August 11, 2005.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4140636.stm

Caldicott, H. 2005 “Nuclear power is the problem, not a solution” April 13, 2005 The Australian. Online at: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0%2C5744%2C12835747%5E12332%2C00.html

Diesendorf, M 2005. “Can nuclear energy reduce CO2 emissions?” Institute of Environmental Studies, University of New South Wales. Online at http://www.sustainabilitycentre.com.au/CT_nukes_CO2.pdf

Green, J. 1999. “Radioactive Racism” Online at http://www.geocities.com/jimgreen3/racism.html

Green, J. 2005. “Global warming: Nuclear power no solution” in Green Left Weekly, April 13. http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/622/622p9.htm

Green, J. 2005a. “Nuclear Power: No Solution to Climate Change” at Friends of the Earth Australia’s website http://www.melbourne.foe.org.au/documents.htm

Greenpeace, 2005 “IAEA deliberately downplays Chernobyl death toll to pave way for nuclear renaissance” Press Release, Sept 7, 2005. Online at http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/chernobylforumclosingday

International Atomic Energy Agency 2002. Inadequate Control of World’s Radioactive Sources” IAEA Press Release September 2, 2002. Online at http://hps.org/documents/iaeapressrelease.pdf

Leake, J and Box, D. 2005. “When PR goes nuclear” in Australian Financial Review, May 30, 2005. Online at http://afr.com/articles/2005/05/26/1116950813750.html

Mangano, J. 2003. “Decrease in Infant Death Rates After Reactor Closings” at Radiation and Public Health Project. Online at http://www.radiation.org/spotlight/reactorclosings.html

Meek, J. 2005. “Back to the future” in The Guardian, October 4, 2005.
Online at http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,2763,1584356,00.html

Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. 2005. “Timeline of the Nuclear Age: 2005” Online at http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/timeline/2000/2005.htm

Sydney Morning Herald, August 4, 2005. “Government takes over NT’s uranium”
http://smh.com.au/news/national/government-takes-over-nts-uranium/2005/08/04/1123125844186.html?oneclick=true

Sydney Morning Herald, August 10, 2005 “Nuclear Power only natural, says Nelson” http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/nuclear-power-only-natural-says-nelson/2005/08/10/1123353388398.html

World Nuclear Association. 2005. “Australia’s Uranium and Who Buys It”, August. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf48.htm

Categories: environment | Tags: nuclear, uranium | No Comments

texan peace activist deported by howard govt

September 19th, 2005

Categories: direct action, war & peace | No Comments

wtf? a new age of paternalism in australia?

November 10th, 2004

It’s been no secret that John Howard and many of his cabinet would like to keep most women out of the workforce and at home having good consumeristic babies. Howard went about elimnating a lot of women’s services when he first got in in 1996. Check out this article for details: [Anne Summers IWD lecture 2003]

Today, with his new ‘mandate from the masses’ giving him control of the Senate, he’s set his sights on eliminating aboriginal services and unions are next.

Not only has he (with Labour’s help mind you) eliminated ATSIC - the only indigenous elected body in Australia - but he will introduce new rules that set indigenous people aside as basket-cases in need of guidance. The extent of his arrogance is unbelievable!

Under the new plan, indigenous families will have to force their kids to go to school or risk losing welfare payments. In addition, Howard proposes that cleanliness and diet will be assessed. Considering the lack of access to things like clean water and decent health care in many indigenous communities, this add insult to the already considerable injury the government has perpetrated on indigenous people since 1788. In addition, the lives of indigenous people are constantly under scrutiny - the govt hiring security guards to watch people in a new housing development [ABC], and a raid on the National Indgenous Newspaper in Canberra[ABC] are recent examples, although ongoing ‘racial profiling’ by the police is occuring.

Fortunately the Australian Council of Social Services and the UN Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission have both challenged this plan, labelling it racist and paternalistic. ACOSS points out that indigenous Australians are the poorest group in Australia with life expectancy that is 20 years less than the general population; unemployment rates that are 3.8 times higher; and school retention rates to year 12 that are 44% below that of other Australians.

“Indigenous people must have the tools and resources to take the initiative and manage their own services. History has shown that reliance on old-style paternalism or mainstream services can not reduce poverty, poor health and disadvantage.” ACOSS has recently draw attention to the way that representative demcoracy in this country continues to fail indigenous people: - in the electoral system - in the govt’s actions to take away thier self-management - in delivering health care - in the govt’s actions that exacerbate poverty [and here] - in the criminal justice sytemThe impulse to punish for poverty and disadvantage in citizens largely caused by government policy is frightening but typical of atop-down approach to government.

The UNHREOC claims the new welfare requirements breach the Race Discrimination Act.

Murandoo Yanner had stronger words. Yanner says it is a return to the oppressive 1960s. “It is reverting to an already tried and failed method, with no logical basis to it other than ultra-conservatism…Basically, it is about paternalism, having a great white god watching over us and teaching us to wipe our kids’ noses.”

Other indigenous leaders join him, with one saying “It’s denigrated our Aboriginal community - it’s totally created apartheid within Australia, this move by the Howard Government”. [ABC-1] [2] [3]

But where is the outrage in the non-indigenous community? It’s only a matter of time before Howard targets poor white Australians again. We must all have self-determination to live decent lives, not the authoritarianism of a self-styled dictator proclaiming his right to guardianship over us. It’s an important time for non-indigenous Australians to stand together with our indigenous brothers and sisters because many of us are next

originally published on Darwin Indymedia

Categories: indigenous rights, social justice | No Comments

climate justice means ending oil exploitation

November 10th, 2004

Daily, the mainstream news reports on one of the effects of the West’s dependence on oil — war. However, even when outright war has not broken out, life in communities where oil is being extracted is often violent, unhealthy and exploitative.

Nnimmo Bassey works with OilWatch and Environmental Rights Action to uncover the destructive activities of the many oil companies operating in Niger Delta, including Shell, ExxonMobil (Esso) and ChevronTexaco. He works to expose human rights abuses, which are often government sanctioned.

Bassey is trying to raise awareness about how the initial stages of the climate change cycle — the extraction of fossil fuels to meet the excessive demand of energy consumptive states in the North — cause chaos and human rights violations in his homeland.

In Australia, we are highly dependant on coal for our electricity production. Yet we still consume the equivalent of 872,000 barrels of oil per day, and rate ninth in the world for per capita consumption. We are also the biggest greenhouse gas emitters in the world. These facts highlight the extent to which we need to take responsibility for the human rights and environmental effects of our energy consumption.

Bassey describes the Niger Delta landscape as “criss-crossed” with petroleum pipes that leak and spill oil into the streets and on agricultural land and are “never adequately handled”.

There is constant gas flaring and explosions, accompanied by “unbridled repression of the local people by occupation forces”. These forces include Nigeria’s own military, which continues to act at the behest of a corrupt government in league with transnational oil corporations.

The industry has such a pervasive grip on Nigeria that Bassey says “oil-related activities have led to the destruction of whole communities, the killing (including extra-judicial murders) of thousands as well as [the production of] thousands of external and internal refugees” with hardly a murmur from the international community.

The extraction of oil is synonymous with pollution. Indeed, Bassey maintains, “it can be said without fear of any contradiction that no oil spill has been adequately cleaned up in the Niger Delta”. The environment has been severely degraded in many places. Bassey believes the oil industry is intrinsically hostile to the environment and the people who live on it.

Waste products from oil extraction include gas, drilling mud and drilling cuts. The constant gas flaring, where gas is burnt off as an unprofitable byproduct of oil extraction causes “continual noise, acid rain and retarded crop yield, corroded roofs and lung diseases”. Bassey says that gas flaring has resulted in the Niger Delta being described as “the biggest single industrial complex in the world contributing to global warming today”.

Human health has suffered so much so that the Niger Delta is now a place “where life is short and unpredictable; where so much wealth is extracted and where so much wretchedness is evident”.

In addition to the lung diseases related to gas flaring, the pumping of mud waste into marine environments may be responsible for food-borne poisoning and illnesses. Explosives have been used in many places to the extent that aftershocks “have been known to impact on the auditory systems of sea birds and mammals finally affecting their ability to community and procreate. Other side effects are noted in diminished food supplies, increased cases of hypertension and endocrine imbalance. The ultimate impact is on the fish supply on which the economy of the local people hangs.”

Bassey links oil extraction to climate change in the area: “Climate change was once a remote possibility. Today it is a reality and an immediate threat to the very existence of island and coastal communities.”

Attempts to clean up oil spills have been either poorly attempted or non-existent. Legislation has been enacted to absolve transnational oil corporations of responsibility if they allege sabotage. Bassey claims, “[corporations] often set whole forests on fire in a bid to wipe out the evidence of the spills.”

Many human deaths have resulted from explosions or toxic cleaning chemicals in oil spills. Pipelines can also explode, a recent incident caused the deaths of 1000 people at the Jesse petrol pipeline in the Niger Delta. As in other occasions with other corporations, the state-run oil company NNCP attempted to place responsibility on the victims, accusing them of being saboteurs and vandals.

In 1999, the government blamed anti-Shell “rebels” for the deaths of four police officers, and razed an entire town, Odi, in retaliation. According to Human Rights Watch workers who visited the town two weeks after the attack, the stench of decomposing bodies was noticeable a kilometre from the town, and there were only three buildings left standing.

Ultimately, the promises made by government and industry of higher standards of living, new roads, school and hospitals do not materialise or fail to remain once the companies have made their profits. In addition, oil companies make no pretence to public consultation in Nigeria, unlike in Western countries. These double standards amount to environmental racism.

Bassey says: “The oil industry believes that the people have no right to know what is happening in their environment. Dialogue, they believe, ends in social tokens such as classroom blocks and ill-equipped health centres.”

The connections between oil extraction, climate change and human rights could not be more obvious than they are in Nigeria. For the predominantly poor rural Nigerians, the effects of climate change heap injury upon injury: deforestation (which Bassey describes as “a truly vicious circle”, because as climate change increases, so does deforestation through tree death, which further increases climate change), heat waves, tropical diseases, salinisation of crop lands, rising sea level and the dislocation of potentially millions of people.

Bassey’s trip to Australia is one of hope. The solidarity of the Australian people is essential for the reformation of his country, indeed the unjust system that makes the Niger Delta as it is today.

In Bassey’s words: “It is time for all of us to realise that environmental actions have environmental costs. Laws must be enacted to ensure that the environment is protected against both public and private actions that fail to take account of costs and harms inflicted on the eco-system. Our environment, indeed, is our life.”

originally published in Green Left Weekly

Categories: environment, indigenous rights, social justice | Tags: oil | Comments Off

geosequestration: burying our heads in the sand?

August 8th, 2004

Climate change will impact every one of us. For this reason, governments all over the world are making moves to mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions. A new direction in climate research has emerged that has become very popular politically – carbon capture and geosequestration. The current Liberal Federal government is literally throwing money at the technology: in 2002 $22 million went to a new CRC for Greenhouse Gas Technologies, while at the same time the CRC for Renewables lost $11m. The Federal government’s 2004 energy white paper promises the lion’s share of the $500m additional funding towards energy research. Well before the technology has been proven to be economically and technically feasible, the federal government has decided they will prop up the declining coal industry, and geosequestration will make it believable.

Friends of the Earth Australia believe that the money and research being put into this untested technology does not address the source of carbon emissions and diverts funding from developing proven renewable technologies. It is an end-of-pipe solution that does not deal with the causes of carbon pollution; is relying on unproved technology; is not applicable for widespread use because of it’s site specificity; will not be available to current coal-fired power stations only future ones; further commits us to ongoing fossil fuel use, and further props up and the often unjust and environmentally irresponsible oil and coal multinationals. In addition, like the nuclear industry, it creates a long term hazardous waste storage problem that extends as far as 100,000 years into the future.

FoEA also believe that the funding and research diverted to geosequestration technology will have long term and possibly dangerous consequences for all people affected by climate change, and for Australians both alive today and for future generations. An investment in this technology now, to the detriment of renewables will disadvantage the future of all of us.

To understand why we believe that geosequestration is more problematic than a mere technological issue, read on.

What is geosequestration?
Geosequestration is the capture of CO2 emitted by power stations, it’s compression and transport in pipelines to burial site such as underground aquifers, depleted oil and gas mines and underground caves. It is currently used by gas producers and is proposed for use on all future Australian coal-fired power stations.

The method of liquefying and burying CO2 has been used by gas producers for some time, initially because strong environmental laws overseas made it no longer legal for gas producers to continue to emit waste CO2 into the atmosphere.

Power stations have not been using the technology, except in an experimental role in the US. Because geosequestration cannot be applied to existing power plants, even with extensive research and development it will not be a viable technological fix until 2015 at the earliest.

Is it safe or sustainable?
The environmental, social and safety risks that accompany geosequestration are often underplayed or not mentioned. These include, increase global warming, asphyxiation of humans and animals, water acidification and degradation of marine ecosystems (Tarlo 2003). They also include the deprivation of future generation and toher nationa of the development of sustainable renewable technologies.

If geosequestration fails to deliver the high levels of carbon capture (which will still remain below 50% of Australia’s emissions regardless), emissions will be as much as 67% greater from the new power plants than current coal fired plants. This is because so called ‘advanced’ coal projects, Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC), which are expected to produce gas, turn coal into oil and create power such as that proposed for Victoria’s Latrobe Valley and the Gorgon liquefied gas and power generation plant in Barrow Island, actually produce more CO2 in processing. (Gorgon is a joint initiative of Shell, Chevron Texaco and Exxon Mobil and the biggest geosequestration project in the world, located under a nature reserve).

This, combined with the potential for huge trading permit costs, would render failed geosequestration projects an economic disaster. Bearing in mind the untested nature of the technology and the fact that costs for IGCC plants are high, it begs the question as to why the Federal Government would take such an economic risk on a new technology when tested, but as yet undeveloped but relatively proven alternative energy technologies exist.

One of the biggest questions for this new technology is whether the liquefied carbon will remain where it is deposited and for how long. This has never been tested, except insofar as the sites proposed for carbon burial are those same sites where oil and gas have been extracted. However these sites can and do leak. Air need only be contaminated with as little as 25% CO2 to be lethal to humans and animals. Catastrophic leakages of CO2 have a precedent in the 1980 Cameroon disaster when trapped CO2 in Lake Nyos asphixyated 1700 people to death. CO2 leakage into groundwater causes acidification. Leakage into oceans can lead to degradation of marine ecosystems, killing animal and plant life in the same way it does on the land.

Estimates by the GEODISC program scientists conclude that CO2 burial sites will have to be maintained for as long as 100,000 years (Bradshaw etal 2002). This is an unfair burden to place on future generations, in order to achieve a questionable ‘quick fix’ for today’s problems.

Keith Tarlo, of The Institute of Sustainable Futures, in October 2003 presented a risk comparison between coal with geosequestration and sustainable energy. Tarlo found even at the most basic economic level, geosequestration was unacceptably expensive. He cites a study by the International energy Agency that estimates “CO2 capture and storage increases the cost of gas fired electricity generation by about…60%…in a pulverized coal plant by about…90%” (Davidson, Freund and Smith 2001). That study and others estimate that the emission reduction costs, at between US$25-100 per tonne CO2 avoided, is still above the Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council (PMSEIC) who estimate a cost of only A$10 per tonne based on unpublished data by Roam Consulting. Even at that cost, it remains cheaper for emitters to purchase trading permits, than invest in geosequestration technology, according to Tarlo’s comparisons.

In assessing the sustainability of a thing, Friends of the Earth also include social sustainability. Investment in geosequestration technology by the biggest emitting companies will not deliver justice for the rest of the world: it will not be a useful technology for mitigating climate change for some time, if it works. If it does not, it actually makes the GHG problem worse.

Investing much our countries research funds for climate change into geosequestration will divert important funding from renewable technologies that may help energy poor countries jump the ‘technology barrier’ and circumvent going thorough an energy-intensive industrialization process to develop. The benefits this can have for both other nations and our isolate outback communities should not be underestimated.

We also need to bear in mind that much research into geosequestration is being funded by and will be implemented by those same energy multinationals that run thousands of pipelines throughout Nigeria and other oil producing nations. Nigeria alone has an estimated 300 oil leaks per year from badly maintained oil pipelines. Many of those energy corporations have been implicated in thousands of human rights violations and environmental mismanagement. Shell, Chevron Texaco and Exxon Mobil are well known for their involvement in oil spills and human rights abuses in Nigeria and Elsewhere. Rio Tinto, Australia’s biggest coal producer, who has already received as much as $340m in Australian government subsidies in the last few years (Bob Brown, Senate Inquiry, 2003), was implicated in human rights violations in Bouganville and PNG in the 1990’s. It is wrong for our government to fund these wealthy and unscrupulous companies, whose industries are the source of the world’s global warming problem.

Will Geosequestration alleviate climate change?
The Federal government seems to think it will. David Kemp, then Federal environment minister, declared in 2003 that there is “a need, on the best science available, to reduce global emissions by some 60 per cent by the end of the century” (Kemp quoted in Tarlo, 2003:11). The Australian Federal government, in their energy white paper Securing Australia’s Energy Future (June 2003) suggested that could reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by the year 2020.

However, in August 2004, Dr Ben McNeil from the Centre for Environmental Modelling and Prediction at the University of New South Wales, released research that suggests geosequestration would reduce Australia’s emissions by only 7% by 2020. This is because emissions are expected to increase by 40% by 2020, and also that all of Australia’s current coal-fired power plants cannot be modified to capture CO2 – only new plants can do this. The GEODISC research program suggests that geosequestration will only be useful “for between 14 and 26 per cent…of 1998 national emissions” (Tarlo 2003).

Power plants account for about half of Australia’s CO2 emissions, while cars and industry account for the rest. Geosequestration can only be used on large single point emission sources to be economically viable, so it is no solution to diffuse source emissions like cars and industry.

The other ill effects of fossil fuel use generally go unmentioned in the geosequestration-climate change debate. All fossil fuel emissions contain a number of noxious substances that are harmful to human health at many levels. Smog particles contribute to respiratory illnesses, lung cancer and asthma, the consumption of lead enriched fuels contributes to retarded intellectual development of children, and causes cancer and birth defects. Smog causes acid rain which can kill off plant life and consequently causes fauna deaths. Fumes and noise in industrial and traffic-heavy areas can render some areas unpleasant, indeed dangerous, for pedestrians and animals alike. Ultimately, exhaust fumes from cars are contributing in a big way to global warming. Geosequestration deals with only one of the many adverse effects of fossil fuel usage, while leaving the poverty stricken to still live in concrete highways zones and adjacent to industries, breathing in fossil fuel and other emissions. In the wider view, it is obvious that investment in non-emitting industries is always going to be the most humane option.

So if geosequestration is untested, expensive, deals with only less than half of Australia’s emissions, and leaves the source of CO2 emission and the other side-effects of fossil fuel use unmitigated, how did it become Australia’s number one research priority?

How did Gesequestration become Australia’s Number one research priority? Dodgy politics the Liberals Way…

• Geosequestration is strongly supported by the fossil fuel industry both in dollar terms and in political angling. Those same corporations who industries are the source of greenhouse, are now receiving government funding to research geosequestration.
• Australia’s Chief Scientist, Robin Batterham is the public champion of geosequestration. He heads PMSEIC and is also the chief technologist for Australia’s biggest coal producer, Rio Tinto. Batterham’s conflict of interest was proven in a senate inquiry in 2003, yet the goverenmetn sees no conflict and continues to employ him. In 2003 Rio Tinto launched the “Foundation for a Sustainable Minerals Industry” with a $35m Federal Government grant (more than current funding for renewable energy), Batterham was a signatory to the deal.
• PMSEIC disguise reputable cost estimates from agencies such as the International Energy Agency, the International Panel on climate change and the US Department of Energy in it’s energy white paper cost estimates. Instead it quotes unpublished data from Roam Consultancy estimate of $10 per tonne of CO2 sequestered, a figure as little as one fifth of estimates of other reputable research establishments. In actuality, the government is aware that geosequestration, and the maintenance of the coal industry, will only succeed with substantial public subsidies and the direction of funding for CRC’s indicates this. Geosequestration has received more Australian Federal government funding in the last year than renewables research has received in the last ten years.
• What should be done?
• FoE Australia believes that there are many reasons why geosequestration will not solve Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions problems. However, the biggest barrier to solving Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions problems is the current Coalition Federal government. So long as we have a government intent on subsidizing the environmentally destructive fossil fuel industry, the renewable energy sector will not get the research or marketing advantages that it needs to overtake fossil fuels. Neither will we see industry expected to change energy consumption patterns to achieve the 60% reduction our own Federal government says is necessary. Geosequestration is then just a red herring designed to make voters believe they are dong something about greenhouse gas emissions while they actively subsidise the biggest sources of the problem. Sadly, while out government continues to ignore our obligations to the planet and it’s inhabitants, and even it’s responsibility to future Australians, our renewable energy industry is suffering.

Supporting renewables is the morally, socially, environmentally and economically responsible solution to Australia’s energy crisis. It is the only solution that will provide the groundwork for a sustainable future for both Australians and the rest of the world. Research dollars for renewable energy technology can enable Australia to help small poorer nations to convert to sustainable energy technologies before they are caught in the fossil fuel investment cycle. This is particularly pertinent to our near neighbours in the Pacific who will suffer greatly as the sea-level rises. In many remote areas in Australia the access to mains remains an expensive problem. Where power is centralized it is more liable cause widespread problems with breakdown as the recent Queensland electricity blackouts show. Renewable energies do not rely on a centralized grid, but can remain relatively self-sufficient. Independence from the centralized grid, even for industry but particularly for essential services like hospitals and schools and in impoverished nations, can only be an advantage in times of corporate globalisation where transnational corporations are often calling the shots, especially in the energy sector.

FOEA Recommendations:
1.that the Australian federal government cease subsidising funding of geosequestration research. The fossil fuel industry can and should fund it themselves.
2.that the Australian government cease subsidising the fossil fuel industries, in particular coal.
3.full public consultation for geosequestration projects funded by taxpayers money.
4.that funding current earmarked for geosequestration be given to renewables research and development.
5.a commitment by the Australian federal government to a 20% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and 60% by 2050 – geosequestration cannot do this.
6.commitment to increasing efficiency and decreasing consumption at every level – in the marketplace and firstly in the government sector to set the example.
7.that the Australian federal government sign the Kyoto protocol

References:

ABC, 2003, “CO2 underground: the answer to climate change of part of the problem?” broadcast on Earthbeat, February 15, 2003 transcript online at http://www.abc.net.au

ABC 2004, “Sleipner, Gorgon and Geosequestration” broadcast on The Buzz, Jluy 10, 2004 at http://www.abc.net.au

ABC, 2004 “Geosequestration Won’t Rock the World, expert” in News in Science August 4, 2004 at http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1168015.htm

Bradshaw, J. etal, 2002, “The potential for geological sequestration of C02 in Australia: preliminary findings and implications for new gas field development. APPEA Journal, p42. Online at http://www.apcrc.com.au/Programs/GEODISC_APPEApaper2002.pdf

Davidson, P.J., Freund, P and Smith, A 2001, “Putting carbon Back into the Ground”, International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas Research and Development Programme, p23. Online at http://www.ieagreen.org.uk/

Davidson, S. 2003, “Putting CO2 back”, ECOS magazine, No 116, July-September 2003, p22-24, CSIRO Australia.

Diesendorf, M 2003 “Propping up the old smokestack industries” in The Canberra Times April 22, 2003 p11

MacGill, I and Outhred, H 2003 “Beyond Kyoto – innovation and adaptation: A critique of the PMSEIC assessment of emission reduction options in the Australian stationary energy sector” in EcoGeneration Magazine June/July 2003

Reuters, 2004 “Using CO2 to prolong UK North Sea oil too costly” online at Planet Ark World Environment News at http://www.planetark.com/avantgo/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=24659

Hawkins, D.G. 2003 “Passing gas: thinking about leakage from geologic carbon storage sites”, Natural Resource Defense Council, Washington DC: USA

Tarlo, K 2003 “Comparing the risks in reducing greenhouse gas emissions: coal with geosequestration vs. sustainable energy” Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology, Sydney. Presentation to Green Capital Geo-sequestration Debate, Melbourne, 30 October.

Categories: environment | Tags: carbon, climate change, geosequestration | No Comments