(Re)Tweet of the Week

 

Because @AusConservation was suspended for truth telling and I cannot add one of its tweets to today's post lineup, this short video is getting an airing again....

Finally! Peter Dutton answers questions on Political Mastermind .... #Nuclear #Auspol pic.twitter.com/jRqMI3nI0O

— A Rational Fear (@ARationalFear) July 4, 2024

Echoes of Northern New South Wales' past and a timely reminder of its present potential to resist bad government policy

The Echo, on 7 October 2021, reminding the Northern Rivers region from Clarence Valley right up to Tweed on the New South Wales-Queensland border that our combined voices followed up with action are powerful:

Ian Cohen surfing the nose of
a nuclear armed warship
Photo: Robert Pearce

Following the Nuclear Disarmament Party’s close loss with front man Peter Garrett in 1984, nuclear issues were at the forefront of people’s minds. We extended our influence far beyond our Shire. The pending arrival of nuclear armed warships sent the local region into overdrive. Benny Zable from Nimbin rolled out his ‘radioactive’ barrels for street theatre. Dean Jefferys based in Brunswick Heads came with his ultralight, Hoss (Ian Hoskens) of Main Arm with his megaphone voice and me with my surfboard. 

September 1986 heralded the arrival of the largest assembly of international ships in Sydney Harbour’s history. Many were nuclear armed. 

Our north coast contingent was vital to the success of the protest actions. Driven by a reckless, but heartfelt, desire to impact on the nuclear arms race and send a direct message to US President Ronald Reagan and USSR’s Yuri Andropov. 

The mad concept of surfing the nose of a nuclear armed warship was mine, but Sydney Morning Herald photographer, Robert Pearce, from a media barge directly in front of myself and the warship, captured the image of a vulnerable surfer hanging onto the nose of a nuclear armed destroyer that went global.

Dean backed it up with a paint bomb delivered from his ultralight. It missed, (fortunately it was water based paint). He was more accurate several days later delivering a bouquet of flowers from the air into a missile silo as the HMS Illustrious departed. Dean landed himself in jail.

Channon local, Ian Gaillard, worked with the anti-nuclear vessel Pacific Peacemaker and crewed it on the long haul through the Pacific to confront the launch of the world’s largest nuclear submarine in Seattle. They travelled through the Pacific garnering local support along the way.

During the 1980s Jim Mitsos had moved to Byron and bought up most of what is now Suffolk Park. A Communist developer, creating real affordable housing he was also a tireless anti-nuclear campaigner promoting the concept of Nuclear Free Zone signs in Byron that spread to councils throughout NSW. He laid the groundwork of awareness for follow up actions. Perhaps we need those signs again?

Ian Cohen surfing the nose of a nuclear armed
warship. Photos Robert Pearce

In 1995 I was the first Green elected to NSW Parliament. With the efficient support of Byron’s future mayor, Jan Barham, I spent the first break organising an international contingent of politicians to be part of a flotilla of ships to descend on Papeete (Tahiti) and support islanders in their opposition to upcoming nuclear tests at Moruroa. We learnt much about the global phenomenon ‘Ships of Shame’ where seafarers are abused and exploited, the impossibility of chartering a flotilla, and decided to fly 30 Australian politicians over to Papeete.

Meetings under the palms with President Oscar Temaru, inspired, along with marches and forums in Papeete, the contingent of politicians including Richard Jones MLC, another Byron Shire local, who met with the French Ambassador to deliver thousands of petitions.

Greenpeace had other ideas for a small crew. A private boat was organised to transport an international selection of politicians to Moruroa 1,150km away. In my last interview before our departure I was informed that the French had announced a $150,000 fine and 12 months in jail for anyone entering the exclusion zone.

Halfway there an international news broadcast announced the French had detonated the first bomb in the series on Moruroa. The little boat continued on course, without deviation, as we sailed into the eye of the global nuclear storm. That was the last French nuclear test in the Pacific.

Times change, but some things regarding the nuclear industry and international political posturing remain the same.

Our PM, Scott Morrison, struts the world stage, vilifies China (some of it deserved), but in the process is locking in Australia’s subservience to US foreign policy while guaranteeing increased US troop access and US spy stations on Australian territory for the future. Add to this the crippling cost of procurement of nuclear powered subs and the possible return of Donald Trump to ‘guide’ our nation into the future.

This sabre rattling at an external enemy will allow Morrison some catch up in the polls while the ALP is wedged. The huge crime here is to make a decision without debate in the Federal Parliament. An external enemy worked for Thatcher (Falklands War). In Australia we had weapons of mass destruction touted in Iraq while George W Bush labelled Howard a ‘Man of Steel’ for sending our young soldiers to war.

Whilst recognising the repressive political leadership in Bejing, there is a better road to peace through diplomacy, and when necessary, trade sanctions.

In the depth of the Cold War nuclear capable warships, either conventional or nuclear powered, did not cruise the world’s oceans unarmed and race back to San Diego or Hawaii in an emergency to load. In the 1980s their mantra was; ‘We neither confirm or deny these ships have nuclear weapons on board’. Today, nuclear weapons have been removed from surface ships. They are still on nuclear submarines. Just what arsenal will Australia obediently accept when it hires or purchases US submarines?

In 1975 there were 6,191 US nuclear weapons afloat. Arms control agreements have reduced the number of weapons deployed at sea to 1,000 in 2015.

Morrison’s recent ‘All the way with USA’ is cementing increased US control over future Australian Foreign Policy. We do not benefit from this association. In fact, we as a nation are making ourselves a target.

As for their vulnerability in port, we need to look no further than 9/11 in New York, the US heartland.

Morrison and Berejiklian Governments appear to be moving towards removing the moratorium on uranium mining & nuclear power generation in NSW - with the North Coast likely to be in their sights

With the exception of a research nuclear reactor operating in New South Wales, a moratorium on nuclear energy is in place in Australia which prohibits the construction or operation of nuclear power plants.

Federal Parliament created the ban in 1998, and the moratorium has remained in place with bipartisan support ever since.

However, if the federal Minister for Energy and Emissions & Liberal MP for Hume, Angus Taylor, NSW Deputy-Premier & Nationals MLA for Monaro, John Barilaro, and One Nation state MLC, Mark Latham, have their way this may change soon with regard to New South Wales.

Following a referral from the Minister for Energy and Emissions, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy resolved on 6 August 2019 to conduct an Inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia. On 13 December 2019 the Committee presented its report.

The NSW Berejiklian Government is reported to be supporting Mark Latham's private member's bill to lift the state moratorium on nuclear energy production.

The Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019 was introduced and had its first reading in the NSW Legislative Assembly on 6 June 2020.

A subsequent NSW Legislative Council inquiry stacked with pro-uranium members recommended that the state ban on nuclear mining and power be lifted - concluding that nuclear energy is "a viable possibility for the State's future generation needs". The Berejiklian Government response to this recommendation is due on 4 September 2020.

The state electorates of Coffs Harbour, Clarence, Myall Lakes, Port Macquarie and Oxley are among a dozen areas previously identified by nuclear lobby group Nuclear for Climate Australia as prime locations for reactors.

All these North Coast electorates are currently held by NSW Nationals. Temporary Speaker Gurmesh Singh in Coff Harbour, Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Roads and Infrastructure Chris Gulaptis in Clarence, Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Transport Stephen Bromhead in Myall Lakes, Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly Leslie Williams in Port Macquarie and Minister for Water, Property and Housing Melinda Pavey in Oxley.

Recently the shadowy Nuclear for Climate Australia has been telling the federal parliament that the silent majority in regional Australia are in favour or have a positive opinion of nuclear power - even those in regional branches of the Labor Party [House of Representative Standing Committee on Environment and Energy, Inquiry on the Prerequisites for Nuclear Energy in Australia, submission, 13 September 2019].

NSW State Labor parliamentarians Walt Secord and Janelle Saffin have vowed to work together to fight One Nation senator Mark Latham’s legislation to set up a nuclear power industry in NSW.

Mr. Secord is Shadow Minister for the North Coast and Upper House deputy Opposition leader and Ms. Saffin is the MLA for LIsmore in the Northern Rivers region.

Secord and Saffin say that Mark Latham’s bill follows a push last year by Nationals leader and Deputy Premier John Barilaro, to establish a nuclear power industry in NSW. They also say that Mr Barilaro also completed a taxpayer-funded visit to the United States where he was drumming up interest in US investors to build nuclear reactors in NSW. At the time, 18 sites were identified as possible sites for nuclear power plants in NSW– including a 250km stretch of coast from Port Macquarie to north of Grafton.

Communities in the Northern Rivers need to begin considering a response to the threats posed by any lifting of the moratorium.

BACKGROUND

Plan envisages 18 Reactors being constructed in NSW by 2040
https://nuclearforclimate.com.au/nsw-regions/

The Nationals MP for Clarence is predictable - in the first instance he always presumes the electorate is as ignorant as he is and in the second that what his bosses want is inherently right

Well it seems the nuclear lobby has resurrected that hoary chestnut, a nuclear power plant in the Clarence Valley.

This time it is at least a 2.2 gigawatt plant requiring an extensive power grid upgrade and, cooling as a once though from the Clarence River estuary or evaporative towers with off stream storage. One possible siting of the plant is in the Grafton-Koolkhan area.

https://nuclearforclimate.com.au/nsw-regions/

The NSW National Party MP for Page.....

The Daily Examiner, 9 March 2020, p.3:

There was a need for a mature debate before any decision on nuclear energy could be made, member for Clarence Chris Gulaptis has stated. 

But he believes the concept will go nowhere without first obtaining a “social licence” for the technology. 

His comments come in response to NSW Nationals leader and Deputy Premier John Barilaro expressing his, and the Nationals’ support for a bill introduced by One Nation’s Mark Latham to overturn the state’s ban on nuclear energy and uranium mining. 

Mr Gulaptis said there needed to be a clearer picture of the current state of the science as it related to nuclear energy. 

“At the moment the community’s perception of nuclear reactors is based on Fukushima, Chernobyl and Homer Simpson working at the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant,” he said. 

“Quite frankly, that’s all I understand about the technology. “I don’t know where we are with nuclear technology — I’m just like the rest of the community, and I need to know more before I can make more of a call.” 
Mr Gulaptis said scientists needed to lead a mature debate based on evidence and not fearmongering so the community could make an informed decision. 

“Whenever the question about the possibility of using nuclear energy comes up, it is always shut down by a minority, and I believe that minority is fearmongers who are just pushing that Chernobyl model down our throats,” he said. 

“Now if that’s where the technology is still at, then I certainly don’t want it. “But I believe that they have advanced significantly, just like all other technology has — people are walking around with this year’s latest iPhone in their pocket, they’re not carrying the bricks of 20 years ago......

Members of the Clarence Valley Community.....

The Daily Examiner, 10 March 2020, p.5:

The success of the recent fight against coal seam gas has reinforced the message to politicians that large scale developments such as nuclear power required a social license according to the Clarence Valley Conservation Coalition. 

Secretary of the group Leonie Blain said it was wise of Clarence MP Chris Gulaptis to realise there would need to be considerable discussion about any nuclear proposal. 

“It is interesting that Mr Gulaptis claims that the closing down of any debate about nuclear power in the past is the result of fearmongering by a minority,” she said. “I would like to know what evidence he has for this belief.” 

Ms Blain said the fact that Grafton was one of the possible sites for a nuclear power station meant there would be interest in the issue. 

“There would be considerable local interest in any debate on whether a nuclear power station should be built and where it would be located,” she said.....

Murdoch-News Corp doing a little editorial lobbying on behalf of the nuclear industry.....

The Daily Examiner, 10 March 2020, p. 11: 

It's true, we need to be able to talk openly and rationally about nuclear energy in Australia. 

Nationally, it must be considered as a low carbon emissions energy source, and a viable replacement for the phase out of coal reliance. 

In NSW, where nuclear energy and uranium mining is currently banned, it must be considered as an alternative industry for regional areas vulnerable to a future of agriculture yields being marginalised by increased desertification. 

Locally, our future depends on thinking differently and accepting new industries to boost our economy, job prospects and population growth. 

Nuclear for Climate Science [*] earmarked Grafton as one of 12 possible sites for a nuclear power station in the future. 

The Nationals’ endorsement of a call from One Nation’s Mark Latham to overturn the NSW ban has put nuclear squarely back on the agenda.....

NOTE:

[*] The correct name for this 'group' is Nuclear for Climate Australia. It has a post office box postal address in Berrima, but does not appear to be incorporated under its trademarked name or have an ABN number. It principally functions as a website.
The individual who seems to organise its social media presence is its founder Rob Parker, who coincidentally is also Vice President of the Australian Nuclear Association. It has one known associate Barrie Hill, who appears to be Managing Director of SMR Nuclear Technology Pty Ltd. 
Nuclear for Climate Australia lobbys to overturn the Australian nuclear power ban and for the adoption of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs), which are alleged to have the same unresolved cost and safety concerns associated with larger plants and there is no consenus in the industry concerning SMRs.
Nuclear for Climate Australia has been riding the 2019-20 bushfire crisis on Twitter as a vehicle to push for nuclear power in this country.

Another perspective.....

The Climate Council, 23 January 2019:

What is a nuclear power station? 

Nuclear power stations run on uranium. When the nucleus of a uranium molecule is split inside a reactor, heat is produced. This process is called nuclear fission. The heat produced from this process is used to create steam from water. The steam drives a turbine that powers a generator. The generator creates electricity. 

Unlike coal and gas, no greenhouse gas pollution is created in the operation of the nuclear reactor. However, all other steps involved in producing nuclear power (from mining, to construction, decommissioning and waste management) result in greenhouse gas pollution. 

But nuclear energy is not “renewable”. Uranium is a finite resource just like coal or gas.... 

Nuclear power stations also present significant community, health, environmental, and cost risks associated with potential impacts from extreme weather events and natural disasters, such as occurred in Fukushima, Japan in 2011. Nuclear power stations leave a long-term and prohibitively expensive legacy of site remediation, fuel reprocessing and radioactive waste storage. 

Australia is one of the sunniest and windiest countries in the world, with enough renewable energy resources to power our country 500 times over. When compared with low risk, clean, reliable and affordable renewable energy and storage technology in Australia, nuclear power makes no sense.

Nuclear power stations are extremely expensive to build. For example, the Hinkley nuclear power station under construction in the UK will cost 20 billion pounds (AU$36 billion). Nuclear cannot compete on a cost basis with wind and solar, which are the cheapest forms of new generation. The cost of energy from the Hinkley Power station is significantly higher than large-scale solar, wind and offshore wind energy in the UK....

When is the National Party going to stop attempting to turn the NSW North Coast into a barren rubbish dump?

Almost every crackpot idea - from turning coastal rivers inland, building pulp mills, establishing wall to wall gasfields, clearing forest remaining on private land through to monetising national parks and turning over biodiverse crown land to property developers - has initially been supported by some or many members of the NSW National Party. 

So I would bet my last dollar that NSW Nationals MP for Clarence, Chris Gulaptis, thinks sending the North Coast nuclear is a great idea.

Both he and fellow National, the Minister for Regional NSW and NSW Deputy Premier John Barilaro, would be easy prey for persistent foreign and domestic lobbyists from the nuclear energy industry. 

The story so far......

The Northern Star, 31 March 2018:

THE debate on a nuclear power industry in NSW has once again reared its head.

NSW Labor Opposition has called on the Premier to intervene and put an end to the investigation by her Deputy, National Party Leader John Barilaro, into the potential establishment of a nuclear power industry in NSW.

In his speech to the Small Modular Reactor Summit in Atalanta this week Mr Barilaro said: "We need to have the discussion (about nuclear energy) and we need to have it now."

He added the discussion will take place over a "5-10 year period", before any nuclear energy options could even be introduced in Australia. 

A spokesperson for Mr Barilaro said he met with some companies in the US including NuScale and U-Battery, who are developing Gen IV reactors which will possibly be available mid 2020's, as well as the US Department of Energy to get an insight in relation to the Governments approach to new nuclear technology. 

They said "the meetings were an opportunity to learn and gain knowledge about the sector". 

The Nuclear for Climate Australia website identifies 18 possible sites for nuclear power plants in NSW - including a 250km stretch of coast from Port Macquarie to north of Grafton.

The plan envisages the 18 reactors being constructed in NSW by 2040.

Last year NSW Labor leader Luke Foley accepted Mr Barilaro's invitation to debate nuclear power and suggested Lismore host the forum.

In a letter addressed to the Premier dated June 1 2017, Mr Foley described nuclear power as "both risky and irresponsible" and said: "I accept your call for a debate and propose that we hold a public debate in Lismore to discuss the issues at stake.

"Lismore would be an appropriate location for such a debate as it is one of the most environmentally conscious communities in NSW."

But when asked if Mr Barilaro was considering the offer his spokesperson said Mr Foley was "playing politics with the issue and is completely ignorant to the issues and clueless about the technology".

"Mr Barilaro has always welcomed and encouraged discussion on the opportunity for NSW to consider the prospects, the technological advancements and associated benefits of nuclear energy.

"But any discussion should be done experts in the field...Mr Foley thinks of nuclear reactors as those seen in a Simpsons episode. 

"New Gen IV technology is promising reactors that no longer are water cooled, nor need to be located anywhere near the coast," they said.

More recently, Shadow Minister for Industry, Resources and Energy, Adam Searle MLC and Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Mick Veitch MLC, made a two day visit to the North Coast to meet with primary producers and explore potential solutions to the energy crisis.

Mr Searle said nuclear reactors would tarnish NSW's clean and green image, and threaten the reputation and emerging markets of many north coast primary industries.

"Mr Barilaro's nuclear thought bubbles were a distraction from real long term energy solutions that provide the cheapest and most sustainable forms of electricity for the community and business - which is renewable energy," he said.

"The Premier has let this debate run for too long and now needs to rule out herself any proposal to build nuclear power plants here in NSW."

He also called for the Deputy Premier to "come up to the North Coast and explain why the National Party believes nuclear reactors are the best option".

Mr Veitch said: "North Coast primary producers pride themselves on the quality of their goods and their clean and green reputation."…. [my yellow highlighting]

From Port Macquarie to north of Grafton in the coastal zone?

According to Nuclear For Climate Australia when siting a nuclear reactor:

 Some of the issues that will influence the selection of a region of interest would be:

* being near to the coast or inland bodies of water for cooling,

* having reasonable access to the grid,

* having low local population densities.

* presenting the potential to replace exiting coal or gas burning generators

* containing good regional geology for foundations.

* reasonable access to road, rail or ports for transport.

Let me see…..

Much of the NSW coastal land close to water sources between Port Macquarie and north of Grafton is between 1m and 17m above sea level. Further inland in the 100km coastal zone elevations are higher but the terrain is often unsuitable or has no road-rail infrastructure nearby.

Then there’s the Hastings River, Nambucca River, Bellinger River, Kalang River, Macleay River, Orara River, Nymboida River, Mann River, Clarence River, Wilsons River, Richmond River to name but a few in that area which regularly flood.

There are also at least four significant flood plains within the coastal range indicated by Nuclear For Climate Australia - one of which contains Grafton and northern lands beyond and another which is the largest coastal flood plain in NSW covering est.1,000 sq kms.

Mapping by Australian Bureau of Meteorology

Where on earth do these NSW National Party ideologues think they can site a nuclear reactor on the mid-North Coast, or in the aptly named Many Rivers (Northern Rivers) region, where this will not happen?

ABC News

 ABC News

ABC News

ABC News

The Australian

Port News

The Northern Star

Balliina Shire Council

Richmond River County Council

Images range in no particular order from the Hastings River in the Port Macquarie district up to the Clarence River system and the Richmond & Wilsons Rivers in the Lismore and Ballina regions, NSW.

In 1947 the Atomic Clock was set at 7 minutes to midnight & by 2016 the clock stood at 3 minutes to midnight - Donald Trump's presidency has moved its hands to 2 minutes 30 seconds

Six days after Donald John Trump was sworn in as the 45^th President of the United States of America the Atomic Doomsday Clock moved closer to Armageddon.

Image found at Business Insider Australia

It is two and a half minutes to midnight

2017 Doomsday Clock Statement

Science and Security Board

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Editor, John Mecklin

This year marks the 70th anniversary of the Doomsday Clock, a graphic that appeared on the first cover of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists as it transitioned from a six-page, black-and-white newsletter to a full-fledged magazine. For its first cover, the editors sought an image that represented a seriousness of purpose and an urgent call for action. The Clock, and the countdown to midnight that it implied, fit the bill perfectly. The Doomsday Clock, as it came to be called, has served as a globally recognized arbiter of the planet’s health and safety ever since.

Each year, the setting of the Doomsday Clock galvanizes a global debate about whether the planet is safer or more dangerous today than it was last year, and at key moments in recent history. Our founders would not be surprised to learn that the threats to the planet that the Science and Security Board now considers have expanded since 1947. In fact, the Bulletin’s first editor, Eugene Rabinowitch, noted that one of the purposes of the Bulletin was to respond and offer solutions to the “Pandora’s box of modern science,” recognizing the speed at which technological advancement was occurring, and the demanding questions it would present.

In 1947 there was one technology with the potential to destroy the planet, and that was nuclear power. Today, rising temperatures, resulting from the industrial-scale burning of fossil fuels, will change life on Earth as we know it, potentially destroying or displacing it from significant portions of the world, unless action is taken today, and in the immediate future. Future technological innovation in biology, artificial intelligence, and the cyber realm may pose similar global challenges. The knotty problems that innovations in these fields may present are not yet fully realized, but the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board tends to them with a watchful eye.

This year’s Clock deliberations felt more urgent than usual. On the big topics that concern the board, world leaders made too little progress in the face of continuing turbulence. In addition to the existential threats posed by nuclear weapons and climate change, new global realities emerged, as trusted sources of information came under attack, fake news was on the rise, and words were used in cavalier and often reckless ways. As if to prove that words matter and fake news is dangerous, Pakistan’s foreign minister issued a blustery statement, a tweet actually, flexing Pakistan’s nuclear muscle—in response to a fabricated “news” story about Israel. Today’s complex global environment is in need of deliberate and considered policy responses. It is ever more important that senior leaders across the globe calm rather than stoke tensions that could lead to war, either by accident or miscalculation.

I once again commend the board for approaching its task with the seriousness it deserves. Bulletin Editor-in-Chief John Mecklin did a remarkable job pulling together this document and reflecting the in-depth views and opinions of the board. Considerable thanks goes to our supporters including the Carnegie Corporation of New York, MacArthur Foundation, Ploughshares Fund, David Weinberg and Jerry Newton, as well as valued supporters across the year.

I hope the debate engendered by the 2017 setting of the Clock raises the level of conversation, promotes calls to action, and helps citizens around the world hold their leaders responsible for delivering a safer and healthier planet.

Rachel Bronson, PhD

Executive Director and Publisher

26 January, 2017

Chicago, IL

It is two and a half minutes to midnight

Editor’s note: Founded in 1945 by University of Chicago scientists who had helped develop the first atomic weapons in the Manhattan Project, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists created the Doomsday Clock two years later, using the imagery of apocalypse (midnight) and the contemporary idiom of nuclear explosion (countdown to zero) to convey threats to humanity and the planet. The decision to move (or to leave in place) the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock is made every year by the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board in consultation with its Board of Sponsors, which includes 15 Nobel laureates. The Clock has become a universally recognized indicator of the world’s vulnerability to catastrophe from nuclear weapons, climate change, and new technologies emerging in other domains. A printable PDF of this statement, complete with the executive director’s statement and Science and Security Board biographies, is available here.

To: Leaders and citizens of the world

Re: It is 30 seconds closer to midnight

Date: January 26, 2017

Over the course of 2016, the global security landscape darkened as the international community failed to come effectively to grips with humanity’s most pressing existential threats, nuclear weapons and climate change.

The United States and Russia—which together possess more than 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons—remained at odds in a variety of theaters, from Syria to Ukraine to the borders of NATO; both countries continued wide-ranging modernizations of their nuclear forces, and serious arms control negotiations were nowhere to be seen. North Korea conducted its fourth and fifth underground nuclear tests and gave every indication it would continue to develop nuclear weapons delivery capabilities. Threats of nuclear warfare hung in the background as Pakistan and India faced each other warily across the Line of Control in Kashmir after militants attacked two Indian army bases.

The climate change outlook was somewhat less dismal—but only somewhat. In the wake of the landmark Paris climate accord, the nations of the world have taken some actions to combat climate change, and global carbon dioxide emissions were essentially flat in 2016, compared to the previous year. Still, they have not yet started to decrease; the world continues to warm. Keeping future temperatures at less-than-catastrophic levels requires reductions in greenhouse gas emissions far beyond those agreed to in Paris—yet little appetite for additional cuts was in evidence at the November climate conference in Marrakech.

This already-threatening world situation was the backdrop for a rise in strident nationalism worldwide in 2016, including in a US presidential campaign during which the eventual victor, Donald Trump, made disturbing comments about the use and proliferation of nuclear weapons and expressed disbelief in the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Science and Security Board takes a broad and international view of existential threats to humanity, focusing on long-term trends. Because of that perspective, the statements of a single person—particularly one not yet in office—have not historically influenced the board’s decision on the setting of the Doomsday Clock.

But wavering public confidence in the democratic institutions required to deal with major world threats do affect the board’s decisions. And this year, events surrounding the US presidential campaign—including cyber offensives and deception campaigns apparently directed by the Russian government and aimed at disrupting the US election—have brought American democracy and Russian intentions into question and thereby made the world more dangerous than was the case a year ago.

For these reasons, the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has decided to move the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock 30 seconds closer to catastrophe. It is now two minutes and 30 seconds to midnight.

The board’s decision to move the clock less than a full minute—something it has never before done—reflects a simple reality: As this statement is issued, Donald Trump has been the US president only a matter of days. Many of his cabinet nominations are not yet confirmed by the Senate or installed in government, and he has had little time to take official action.

Just the same, words matter, and President Trump has had plenty to say over the last year. Both his statements and his actions as president-elect have broken with historical precedent in unsettling ways. He has made ill-considered comments about expanding the US nuclear arsenal. He has shown a troubling propensity to discount or outright reject expert advice related to international security, including the conclusions of intelligence experts. And his nominees to head the Energy Department and the Environmental Protection Agency dispute the basics of climate science.

In short, even though he has just now taken office, the president’s intemperate statements, lack of openness to expert advice, and questionable cabinet nominations have already made a bad international security situation worse.

Last year, and the year before, we warned that world leaders were failing to act with the speed and on the scale required to protect citizens from the extreme danger posed by climate change and nuclear war. During the past year, the need for leadership only intensified—yet inaction and brinksmanship have continued, endangering every person, everywhere on Earth.

Who will lead humanity away from global disaster?

The full transcript can be found at http://thebulletin.org/sites/default/files/Final%202017%20Clock%20Statement.pdf.

Abbott won't rule out putting a nuclear power station on a headland near you

Now that headline's a bit rich I know {slaps own hand}.
It may have been the meaning of the words the Federal Leader of the Opposition strung together in a radio interview aired on ABC News Radio early last Friday morning, but it was obviously not what Tony Abbott wanted to convey to the Australian electorate as he began his pursuit of the 'green vote'.
The fact that I posted the headline is a good indication of the level of faith I place in Abbott's sudden discovery that he is a "practical environmentalist" committed to a green country and economy.
His vision for Australia is a frightening mixture of naivity and old, limited solutions based on an idea that the environmental problems can be somehow kept seperate from the issue of climate change and an historical failure to assign a direct economic cost to pollution by industry.
It was hard to keep a straight face when I realised that his Murray-Darling solution would require the country to mark time for the entire first term he was in office and already vested interest have signalled opposition to his plan - as happened when the Coalition last mooted a similar plan.
As for his saying that he wouldn't vigorously pursue nuclear energy production if he became prime minister - I won't even pretend that I don't consider this a whopping political lie by a deliberately deceitful pollie.
The man changes his public policy positions more times than he changes his shirt, but I suspect that his private goals haven't altered much over the years because his support for nuclear options surfaces fairly regularly in media releases.
There are only moral barbarians found on that racetrack to The Lodge these days.
Possum has a handle on the size of the Coalition's credibility problem.



















One of Possum's graphs over at his post "Abbott's Green Army" which tell the story.