Landmark climate change ruling puts heat on industry

Anne Davies State Political Editor
November 28, 2006

From Sydney Morning Herald

THE climate-change impacts of new industries, including burning coal extracted from NSW mines, will have to be considered by the State Government following a landmark judgement yesterday.

The court victory for a 26-year-old environmental activist, Peter Gray, has put another hurdle in the way of Centennial Coal's giant Anvil Hill coalmine, planned for the Upper Hunter. While the decision, delivered in the Land and Environment court, does not block the mine's development entirely, Justice Nicola Pain ruled that a crucial step - the director-general of planning's acceptance of the environmental assessment - was flawed and invalid.

The Government will now have to take account of the greenhouse gas emissions from burning the mine's output - even though 80 per cent will be exported.

And the case is likely to have ramifications far beyond Anvil Hill. All greenhouse gas producing developments will now be required to include an assessment of their contribution to global warming. This could include coal mines, steel mills, electricity plants, and even new tollways.

The environmental impact statement for the mine may have to be re-exhibited, although government sources said last night they believed this could be avoided. Alternatively, the Government could appeal, although the Premier declared this week that he intended to make climate change a big issue in the coming election campaign.

"I consider there is a sufficiently proximate link between the mining of a very substantial reserve of thermal coal in NSW, the only purpose of which is for use as fuel in power stations, and the emissions of GHG [greenhouse gas] which contribute to climate change/global warming."

It was clear that climate change was affecting the Australian and NSW environments and this meant the burning of coal had to be considered in the environmental assessment process. The judge pointed to legislation requiring the Planning Department to encourage ecologically sustainable development.

According to the Government's own secret assessment, which came to light during the case, the 10.5 million tonnes of coal from Anvil Hill, when burnt, would produce 12.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year - equivalent to doubling the number of cars on NSW roads to 8 million.

Mr Gray, the activist from Newcastle, said after the ruling: "I'm over the moon. It's a huge win for the people of NSW and the people of the globe. We've seen the NSW Government try, quite literally, to defend their right to ignore climate change, but the court has ruled that this is not an acceptable approach."

There was an extra sting for the Minister for Planning, Frank Sartor. Justice Pain rejected the argument that the fast-track approvals process for major projects, introduced two years ago, meant that environmental impact statements were either optional or could be less thorough. Mr Sartor said the Government would carefully consider the implications.

"It could have significant implications, not just for the mining industry but for a range of other industries in this state."

---

Planning may face climate test

Matthew Warren
November 28, 2006

From The Australian

ALL planning approvals in NSW may have to include an assessment of a development proposal's future greenhouse emissions, following a landmark court ruling yesterday.

As a result of action brought against Centennial Coal by activists opposed to its proposed Anvil Hill coalmine in the Hunter Valley, the NSW Land and Environment Court found that the Director-General of Planning needed to consider the future greenhouse implications of development proposals as part of the planning approval process, under environmental impact.

A spokesperson for Centennial Coal last night said the decision would not directly affect the progress of the Anvil Hill application because future emissions had been voluntarily included in the approval process.

NSW Planning Minister Frank Sartor said he would review the decision, which appears to be based on a broad interpretation of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

"It could have significant implications, not just for the mining industry, but for a range of other industries in this state," Mr Sartor said.

The ruling, by judge Nicola Pain, fell short of rejecting outright the Anvil Hill project's environmental assessment, as sought in the application by Newcastle student Peter Gray, who challenged the proposed mine on the grounds that there was no consideration of its climate-change effects.

According to a major group of institutional investors, all Australian listed companies will be required to publicly report their climate-change risk strategies within the next five years.

Read More......

Iemma's NSW Government changes planning legislation

The Iemma Government has passed fundamental amendments to the state's planning legislation, that will allow major developments to be approved, regardless of the adequacy of their Environment Assessment. The amendments will allow greenhouse intensive developments such as coal mines to be approved without any assessment of their impacts through climate change.

The changes to NSW planning legislation, passed by the Lower House last week and the Upper House last night, will:

• allow the Planning Minister to approve Major Projects, even if the Environmental Assessment for a project does not meet Environmental Assessment Requirements.
  
• apply retrospectively to developments currently being assessed. The legislation will therefore nullify the outcome of the current case in the Land and Environment Court which seeks to force assessment of the climate change impacts of the proposed Anvil Hill coal mine in the Hunter Valley.
  

Previously, compliance with the Environmental Assessment Requirements was a prerequisite for a project being approved. Under the new law this will no longer be the case. The amendments merely require the Director General of the Planning Department to prepare a "statement relating to compliance with environmental assessment requirements" before a proposed development is approved. The amendments do not state that the requirements have to be met.

Rising Tide Newcastle issued the following quotes for the media: "The Iemma Government is losing all credibility on climate change. The NSW coal industry is a major global source of climate change, and is expanding rapidly. The amendments passed last night will allow new coal developments to be approved, without any assessment of the climate change impacts of the greenhouse pollution that results. These amendments are a disaster for public accountability. They are a disaster for the environment of NSW, let alone the rest of the world.

"Morris Iemma postures on climate change, but the actions of this government tell a very different story . The world's biggest coal port at Newcastle is gearing up to get twice as big, and the Iemma Government is changing the law to allow that to happen without even assessing the impacts of it. This is disgraceful."

For more info please go to www.risingtide.org.au.

Read More......

Water consumption of various Energy sources

From Anne Goddard from Climate Change Action

with thanks to Adam Dempsey for the document(s) below

Nukes: 2.3 L/ per kWh

vs Wind: 0.004 L/ per kWh,

Solar (PV): 0.11 L/ per kWh

How Much Water Do Wind Turbines Use Compared with Conventional Power Plants?

How much water do wind turbines use compared with conventional power plants? Water use can be a significant issue in energy production, particularly in areas where water is scarce, as conventional power plants use large amounts of water for the condensing portion of the thermodynamic cycle. For coal plants, water is also used to clean and process fuel. According to the California Energy Commission (cited in Paul Gipe's WIND ENERGY COMES OF AGE, John Wiley & Sons, 1995), conventional power plants consume the following amounts of water (through evaporative loss, not including water that is recaptured and treated for further use):

WATER CONSUMPTION- -CONVENTIONAL POWER PLANTS

Technology	gallons/kWh	litres/kWh
Nuclear	0.62	2.30
Coal	0.49	1.90
Oil	0.43	1.60
Combined Cycle	0.25	0.95

Small amounts of water are used to clean wind turbine rotor blades in arid climates (where rainfall does not keep the blades clean). The purpose of blade cleaning is to eliminate dust and insect buildup, which otherwise deforms the shape of the airfoil and degrades performance.

Similarly, small amounts of water are used to clean photovoltaics panels.

Water use numbers for these two technologies are as follows:

WATER CONSUMPTION- -WIND AND SOLAR

Technology	gallons/kWh	liters/kWh
Wind [1]	0.001	0.004
PV [2]	0.030	0.110

Wind therefore uses less than 1/600 as much water per unit of electricity produced as does nuclear, and approximately 1/500 as much as coal.

NOTES

[1] American Wind Energy Association estimate, based on data obtained in personal communication with Brian Roach, Fluidyne Corp., December 13, 1996. Assumes 250-kW turbine operating at .25 capacity factor, with blades washed four times annually.

[2] Meridian Corp., "Energy System Emissions and Materials Requirements, " U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. 1989, p. 23.



-----------------------------

QLD Premier Peter Beattie, 28/10/06

"At a time when our farming communities are hurting badly, it is a folly for (Prime Minister John) Howard to be entertaining the thought of nuclear power stations in Queensland or anywhere else," he said.



"Many towns and shires in our state are struggling to get enough drinking water, let alone enough to satisfy the amount a nuclear station would need to guzzle."



Mr Beattie said an independent study commissioned by the Queensland government showed a nuclear power station would use 25 per cent more water than a coal-fired power station.



Mr Beattie said a coal-fired power station produced up to 1,400 megawatts of electricity a year and used around 19,500 megalitres of water to condense and recycle steam.



He said a nuclear power station producing the same output would need about 25,000 megalitres.



"That is the equivalent of at least an additional 5,000 Olympic-size swimming pools a year," Mr Beattie said.



"It is water that we simply cannot afford when drought and climate change are drying up water supplies."



He said nuclear power stations needed a guaranteed water supply and a strong connection to an electricity grid, implying a nuclear power plant would need to be close to the eastern seaboard.



"Where is Mr Howard planning to put it? Is it Townsville or Mackay or perhaps further down along the coastline on the Sunshine Coast or Gold Coast?



"Even then a guaranteed water supply to meet minimum safety concerns would be a tall order.



A guarantee like that is tough at the best of times, let alone in the middle of the worst drought on record."

Read More......

So is our work all done?

Posted by: Philip Sutton Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:29 am (PST)

Dear Greenleapers,

The Australian Federal Government has started its climate U-turn to get in (just) ahead of the UK releasing its Stern Review economic analysis (see other Greenleap postings). The UK government is moving to lock in a big investment program to move the economy towards a zero carbon structure.

My guess is that with the UK ramping up its profile and real action on climate, and with Australia tagging along behind (the UK now, instead of the US!) it only a matter of time before the US makes a similar policy shift. Whether the Republicans make the shift or whether it is done under Democrat leadership is not yet clear. But they will shift.

So is our work all done? After the champaign has been drunk can we take a long holiday (or for some of us who have been working on this for quite a few decades move into graceful retirement!)?

It's definitely worth celebrating the major milestone that we are reaching. But the job is still only about 1/3 done.

Most climate activists (in government, industry and also in the environment movement) think that the goal to be achieved is either a 60% reduction by 2050 (a goal that is based on 5 year old science and is well past its use by date) or the newer 90% goal by 2030 being advocated by George Monbiot and UK Friends of the Earth (both goals are compared to the 1990 level).

Unfortunately, the freshly minted 90% goal by 2030 goal is already out of date or more accurately it is based on a misreading of the latest science.

What we greenies need to do, now that the climate action tipping point has been reached, is that we need to go back to basics and get the goal right at last.

The reality is that we have too much CO2 in the air right now - and the consequences will be dire just from what we have got now (a further 0.5 ºC rise is built in even if not a single extra excess CO2 molecule goes into the air). So there is no room in the air for more emissions from anyone - whether in developed or underdeveloped countries.

The target has to be zero greenhouse gas emissions, plus taking CO2 out of the air.

There is a small chance that we could trigger a 2ºC warming over the pre-industrial levels with the CO2 that is in the air even now. Within 10 years we will have 400 parts per million of CO2 in the air (unless we take dramatic action now) and there is perhaps a 20-30% chance that this level of CO2 will cause a 2ºC warming.

Many climate scientists think that truly catastrophic climate change will be triggered by a 2ºC warming - for example by the end of the century half of the land globally could be subject to severe drought and about 1/3 not capable of supporting agriculture at all, virtually all the Amazon rain forests are lost to fire and non-forest ecosystems, the complete melting of the Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheets made irreversible, serious sea level rise locked in and underway, etc.

So, if every country needs to go for zero emissions (plus taking excess CO2 out of the air as well), how fast do we need to act?

If we could wave a magic wand and get to zero emissions right this moment that's what we should do. But given that that's not possible what should we do that is realistic?

Basically we should get to zero as fast as is humanly possible. We can maximise the achievements that are humanly possible by realising that we are in a real state of emergency. Based on the speeds of industrial change that have been demonstrated to be possible in other compelling crises (eg. WW2) we know that we could change the output of the present economy in as short as 12 months (from the start of the emergency program) and this changed output could include the new equipment and infrastructure we need to retool industry and households so that they can achieve zero greenhouse gas emissions within a decade. If in the process of gearing up to act on the sustainability emergency we discovered that is was possible to act faster then we should do that.

Greenies have been pushing for decades for the mainstream to take climate change seriously. We have now achieved the first stage of this. We need to make sure that we don't stick with the old compromised goals that looked brave and unachievable 12 months ago but that are no longer the best expression of what needs to be done.

The environment movement needs to conduct a serious review of its greenhouse gas reduction goals before committing to revised and toughened goals that will still not prevent serious damage from climate warming.

Things are likely to move very fast on climate change until Governments lock in for a decade or so with their preferred response investments. We do not have time to work through yet another drawn out round of inadequate responses. So green groups need to leapfrog over the next few months to the goals and solutions that will actually solve the problem and we need to push for these very hard.

If we push for the declaration of a formal emergency then what's possible can change dramatically for the better.

Later this year the Greenleap Strategic Institute will publish a major report that critiques the current CO2/greenhouse gas reduction targets. We hope this report will assist organisations to set new practical targets that would be able to solve the climate problem if they were achieved.

Cheers, Philip

Philip Sutton
Director, Strategy
Green Innovations

http://www.green-innovations.asn.au/

Read More......

Thoughts about nuclear and alternate energy

From John Hill - Climate Change Action Yahoo Group.


A few things I thought I might list here which the nuclear industry often conveniently ignore:

1. We need to be cutting consumption - not predicating constant increases in use of electricity. There are many ways to do this with present technology and resources and there will, undoubtedly, be more in the future. One very simple step is to get rid of incandescent globes altogether and replace them with the new fluorescent ones which use only about 25% as much electricity. One report I saw in New Scientist magazine said that if all the incandescent globes in the U.S. were changed to fluorescents they wouldn't need a new power station until 2025. That's a pretty good start!
   
   Among many other ways to save electricity may be included these new "laser" colour screens you mention which are said to only need about 25% of the power needed to run a LCD screen and will cost about half the price (and less energy) to manufacture.
   
   
2. Nuclear power plants indirectly produce quite a lot of greenhouse gas emissions - in the processing, transport of fuel, construction, etc. Not as much as oil or coal fired plants, admittedly, but far more than solar, geothermal, biomass, wave and tidal-powered plants.
   
   
3. Nuclear plants destroy forever (in human terms) the land they are placed on. This land is usually prime land beside rivers as they need the water for cooling (and we have very few river banks left in Australia that are suitable and available). Moreover, almost all nuclear plants (and mines) experience some toxic and/or radioactive leaks which end up in our very precious and rapidly diminishing water tables. Additionally the plants heat the water in the rivers which supply them which has led to great biological disturbances downstream in many places.
   
   After the plants have to be decommissioned (usually within 30 years of building them) the land they were sited on is too radioactive to use for much else without prohibitively expensive cleanup regimes - often running into billions of dollars (a cost that is not usually included in the cost of producing the electricity by the nuclear industry)
   
   
4. One of the subjects that is rarely discussed is that nuclear power is hugely expensive and is only made viable by large government subsidies which can take several forms aside from the usual direct financial support, land grants, and tax breaks - e.g.. not including the clean-up costs after decommissioning, allowing companies to put the disposal of wastes on hold indefinitely ("more research needs to be done") - often in very dicey "temporary" containers such as 44 gallon drums, guaranteeing sales of so much electricity per year, and - very commonly - because "peaceful" nuclear reactors give governments the ability to develop nuclear weapons in a hurry if they want to at a future date ("leaving the options open") and thus they are keen to have "peaceful" nuclear facilities.
   
   
5. Peak power demand is usually during weekdays during summer, with a big drop-off at night and on weekends. Nuclear power plants are not good at being able to cope with these rapid spikes and lows in demand (see article below) and so, to be on the safe side, are usually kept up and running at more than needed capacity. This tends to eliminate other forms of electricity generation as there is no point having other forms if one needs to produce more than the full amount needed in nuclear plants. Therefore, once begun, the nuclear energy industry has a stranglehold on power generation and this limits new advances and experiments. Hydroelectric, geothermal and gas-fired plants are much more responsive to variabilities of demand than nuclear.
   
   
6. Because peak demand is usually in the day time and in the summer it makes a very good case for at least a significant mix of solar-generated power.
   
   
7. See the article below, which shows that wind is likely to produce far more electricity in the medium term than projections for nuclear production and has no problems with radioactive pollution, making deadly terrorist targets, there is little need for mining (except to produce the original equipment), the danger of damage from natural disasters (such as earthquakes, volcanoes, tidal waves, etc. - there are plans to put more and more nuclear reactors in places like Japan and Indonesia and along the San Andreas fault in North America - some of the geologically most active areas in the world.
   
   Also, we can see in the cases of countries like North Korea, Israel, Pakistan and Iran (just to name the most obvious) - having nuclear power leads to obtaining nuclear weapons and this is very dangerous if you have unstable governments (and which countries can we be sure will have stable, sensible governments in 10 or 20 years?) It seems to me it is just a matter of time before one of these factors will cause a really massive disaster.
   
   
8. I should mention that selling uranium for "peaceful purposes" is really an unbelievable goal that is impossible to police. India proved this long ago when they used a Canadian-supplied nuclear power plant and Canadian uranium to make their first atomic bombs and were able to use this knowledge to go on to build bigger and more sophisticated ones themselves. (I remember the Canadian govt. announcing at the time something like: "this is a wonderful foreign aid project to fellow democratic Commonwealth nation that has given binding guarantees to only use it for peaceful purposes").
   
   
9. New and much more efficient ways of storing both electricity and/or heat (that can be used for producing electrify later) are being developed at the moment which will reduce the need for "demand-time" generation of electricity. I am sure if a small fraction of what is being spent on nuclear power were to be spent on finding better alternatives to the primitive 19th century design lead-acid batteries I have to put up with in my home at the moment, solar energy would not only become much cheaper but more viable in many ways - both on the macro and the micro levels.
   
   Furthermore, the new solar cells recently developed at ANU look certain to be able to reduce the cost of production (and the use of energy in producing them) by about 50%. They are past the developmental stage and are just waiting for someone to fund full-scale production facilities.
   
   
10. Finally, when solar or geothermal or biomass or wind or even gas plants finally come to the end of their life there is very little cleanup needed and the land they once covered can be used for productive purposes. (This can even happen between windmills while they are working).
    

Just a few thoughts - perhaps some other listmembers would like to add to the list?

Best wishes,

John Hill

Read More......

Walk Against Warming 06 Videos and photos

Photos

* Tintuna's photos

London 2006

Bishop of London, George Monbiot

London 2005

Climate Demo Setup

George Monbiot clip 1

George Monbiot clip 2

George Monbiot clip 3

George Monbiot clip 4a

George Monbiot clip 5

Michael Meacher clip 1

Michael Meacher clip 2

Read More......

Stern report: the key points

From http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1935211,00.html

Hilary Osborne
Monday October 30, 2006
Guardian Unlimited

The dangers

• All countries will be affected by climate change, but the poorest countries will suffer earliest and most.
  
• Average temperatures could rise by 5C from pre-industrial levels if climate change goes unchecked.
  
• Warming of 3 or 4C will result in many millions more people being flooded. By the middle of the century 200 million may be permanently displaced due to rising sea levels, heavier floods and drought.
  
• Warming of 4C or more is likely to seriously affect global food production.
  
• Warming of 2C could leave 15-40% species facing extinction.
  
• Before the industrial revolution level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere was 280 parts per million (ppm) CO2 equivalent (CO2e); the current level is 430ppm CO2e. The level should be limited to 450-550ppm CO2.
  
• Anything higher would substantially increase risks of very harmful impacts. Anything lower would impose very high adjustment costs in the near term and might not even be feasible.
  
• Deforestation is responsible for more emissions than the transport sector.
  
• Climate change is the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen.
  

Recommended actions

• Three elements of policy are required for an effective response: carbon pricing, technology policy and energy efficiency.
  
• Carbon pricing, through taxation, emissions trading or regulation, will show people the full social costs of their actions. The aim should be a global carbon price across countries and sectors.
  
• Emissions trading schemes, like that operating across the EU, should be expanded and linked.
  
• Technology policy should drive the large-scale development and use of a range of low-carbon and high-efficiency products.
  
• Globally, support for energy research and development should at least double; support for the deployment of low-carbon technologies should be increased my up to five times.
  
• International product standards could be introduced.
  
• Large-scale international pilot programmes to explore the best ways to curb deforestation should be started very quickly.
  
• Climate change should be fully integrated into development policy, and rich countries should honour pledges to increase support through overseas development assistance.
  
• International funding should support improved regional information on climate change impacts.
  
• International funding should go into researching new crop varieties that will be more resilient to drought and flood.
  

Economic impacts

• The benefits of strong, early action considerably outweigh the costs.
  
• Unabated climate change could cost the world at least 5% of GDP each year; if more dramatic predictions come to pass, the cost could be more than 20% of GDP.
  
• The cost of reducing emissions could be limited to around 1% of global GDP; people could be charged more for carbon-intensive goods.
  
• Each tonne of CO2 we emit causes damages worth at least $85, but emissions can be cut at a cost of less than $25 a tonne.
  
• Shifting the world onto a low-carbon path could eventually benefit the economy by $2.5 trillion a year.
  
• By 2050, markets for low-carbon technologies could be worth at least $500bn.
  
• What we do now can have only a limited effect on the climate over the next 40 or 50 years, but what we do in the next 10-20 years can have a profound effect on the climate in the second half of this century.
  

Read the Stern review here.

Read More......

Not Going to Rain On Our Parade

More than 1,500 people marched, sang, danced and sploshed yesterday in the 2006 Brisbane Walk Against Warming, despite each one being entirely soaked by torrential rain. And it was torrential - there was more rain yesterday than the entire month of October, with the city of Brisbane recieving 43mm in 24 hours. It was a day for the true believers, and the spirit of the marchers were lifted by the rains that coincided with the city's move to Level 4 Water Restrictions earlier in the week.

Not to be daunted by the weather, the dedicated marchers decorated their umbrellas, weather-proofed their banners, and adapted their chants: among them, "We are here for the atmosphere" and "We don't mind if we get wet, we'll stop global warming yet!"

As Senator Andrew Bartlett reflected, " I was astonished at the turnout in such miserable weather and feel it was more positive than getting 5000 people on a dry day."

The message of the march was rendered more potent by the willingness of the participants to raise banners and voices in the conditions. As announced by Queensland Conservation Council Co-ordinator Toby Hutcheon, the march was intended to send a message from the community to politicians about the level of concern on climate change. This message is all the more reinforced by the commitment of the marchers. "Politicians are looking at things that are 25 years away from offering solutions to reducing greenhouse emissions," said Hutcheon. "We want something more immediate – energy efficiencies and a focus on renewable energy sources."

Anti-nuclear campaigner Kim Stewart told the crowd, that we already have the solutions to climate change. "Wind, solar, geothermal, biofuels - these technologies are available today, we need just to invest in them, not invest in end-of-pipe dreams."

"We need to embrace a new localised, community based economy where people help each other, not just themselves. Climate change is a matter of survival for many of our poorer neighbours: our inaction increases their jeopardy. As the biggest per capita GHG emitters, it's our duty to take action at both government and individual level."

The crowd cheered Queensland Greens campaigner Drew Hutton's plan that included no new coal-fired power stations, a ban on nuclear energy plants, and a target for all energy to come from renewable sources by 2020.

Brisbane's Catholic Archbishop John Bathersby told the crowd of the moral dimensions of climate change, and their spiritual implications. "I don't think we can be Christian unless we are ecologically converted," he said.

Marchers across Australia called on the Howard Government to:

• Urgently introduce legislation to put a price on greenhouse gas emissions
• Introduce a renewable energy target of 25% by 2020
• Ratify the Kyoto Protocol
• End the Australian dependance on coal and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by at least 30% by 2020.

Read More......

Photos Highlight Numbers, Confirm Torrent

These photos have been nabbed from other websites of WaW supporters. They come from the Woolly Days Blog and from the Queensland Conservation Council webpage and from Flickrgaz's Gallery.

Other photo galleries are available from Kommando and Koda.

Read More......

Thousands March Against Global Warming

From The Australian
4th November, 2006

TENS of thousands of people have taken part in protest marches across Australia calling for action against climate change, but one of the rallies had to be called off after heavy rain.

More than 30,000 people were reported to have marched through the streets of central Sydney, including Greens leader Senator Bob Brown and Labor Environment spokesman Anthony Albanese.

They were joined by actress Cate Blanchett and director husband Andrew Upton, as well as celebrity chef Kylie Kwong and most of the presenters of Channel Seven morning show Sunrise.
In Melbourne, more than 30,000 were said to have turned out for the march from Melbourne Town Hall to Birrarung Marr.

Similar events took place in 48 countries and more than 20 locations across Australia, including all capital cities, as part of an international day of action on climate change.

Campaigners at all of the rallies called for the government to adopt more solar and renewable energy sources to reduce green-house gas emissions....

At the Brisbane event, heavy rain forced the cancellation (Blog editor's note: Huh?) of the march. Thousands of people were expected to attend, but torrential rain kept the crowd to an estimated 1500.

Queensland Democrats senator Andrew Bartlett and Archbishop John Bathesby addressed the crowd, but the speeches were inaudible in the downpour.

The rain was so heavy that it also made it difficult to see who was actually delivering the talks. It also caused the cancellation of an after-party, which was to have included performances from four bands.

Climate Action Brisbane spokeswoman Emma Brindle said the wash-out was disappointing.

"We need the rain so I can't complain but after months of planning, you don't want an event like this to be washed out," Ms Bridle said.

"But we still think the event has been a great success nationally and we're pleased that about 1500 in Brisbane ignored the rain and came along."

See the full story here...

Read More......

Splosh Against Warming

A Report of the Brisbane Walk Against Warming

by Senator Andrew Bartlett
from the The Bartlett Diaries

Brisbane got some much-needed heavy rain today, which was a positive thing. It happened at the time of a well-planned major rally and march calling for action to address the dangers of climate change, which was a negative thing. However, at least 1500 people still turned out in driving rain and marched from Queen’s Park in the city across the Victoria Bridge to Musgrave Park at South Brisbane. I was astonished at the turnout in such miserable weather and feel it was more positive than getting 5000 people on a dry day. The conditions were so miserable I fully expected I would turn up to find the rally and march had been cancelled. Indeed according to this report on The Australian website, the march was cancelled – in which case I’m not sure who that long crowd of people who I walked over to Musgrave Park with in the pouring ran were, or why the police were so kind to stop the traffic for us for the half an hour it took us all to splosh our way there.

Read Andrew's Speech Here...

Read More......

Walk Against Warming

Saturday 4th November, 2006

2pm @ Queen's Park
Cnr George and Elizabeth Sts
Behind the Casino

Brisbane's Second Walk Against Warming

Join us on this second international day of action on climate change to show your support for a sustainable, climate-friendly future!

We as the community need to take action to demand appropriate policies in order to rein in our greenhouse emissions. While the task of converting to fossil-fuel free society may seem huge, it is not insurmountable!

Nuclear power and “clean” coal are not solutions to climate change. There are viable alternatives- wind, solar, geothermal and biomass which CAN help us reach these targets.

March from Queens Park, corner of George and Elizabeth Streets, Brisbane (starting 2pm) to the Musgrave Parklands, corner of Cordelia and Besant Streets, West End.

Bring family, friends, kids, bikes, umbrellas and windmills!!

There will be entertainment, speakers, food & stalls.

Organised by Climate Action Brisbane

For those who want to use public transport to get into the city, you can take a train to central Brisbane, then a 10 minute walk to Queens Park. For the return journey, public transport is available only 2 streets away from Musgrave Park at the Southbank Railway Station &
Busway.

Schedule

Queens Park

MC - Robin Taubenfeld (Friends of the Earth)

1. 2:00-2:05 - Robin Taubenfeld
2. 2:05-2:10 - Welcome to country
3. 2:10-2:15 - Sam Watson
4. 2.15-2.20 - Most Rev, John Bathesby, Catholic Archbishop of Brisbane
5. 2.20-2.25 - Senator Claire Moore (ALP)
6. 2.25-2.30 - Drew Hutton (Qld Greens)
7. 2.30-2.35 - Andrew Bartlett (Dems)

Musgrave Park

MC - Peter Thomas (PlanetFM)

1. 3:15-3:45 - (Band) Dynamic Thrills
2. 3:45-3:50 - Welcome and introductions by Peter Thomas
3. 3:50-3:55 - (Speaker) Kim Stewart
4. 3:55-4:20 - (Band) Brindal
5. 4:20-4:25 - (Speaker) Tia Gaffney
6. 4:25-4:30 - (Speaker) Eve (Save the Mary)
7. 4:35-4:50 - (Dancers)Cook Islanders
8. 4:55-5:15 - (Band) Adrian
9. 5:15-5:20 - (Speaker) Ric Nattrass / (Speaker) Andy Travis - off to the side
10. 5:20-5:25 - (Speaker) Sarah Bishop
11. 5:25-5:30 - extra time for setup
12. 5:30-5:55 - (Band) Dr Octopus

For more info contact QCC at
info@qccqld.org.au or call 07 3221 0188

Download our flyer here

Read More......

Letter(s) and email addresses on water and nuclear industry expansion in Qld

Peter Beattie,
ThePremier@premiers.qld.gov.au

News Mail Letters:
editorial@news-mail.com.au

The Age Letters:
letters@theage.com.au

The Australian Letters:
letters@theaustralian.com.au

The SMH Letters:
letters@smh.com.au

Courier Mail Letters:
online form @ http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/editorial/letter/

Sunday Mail online form @
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/editorial/letter/

Sample letter

Dear Premier Beattie and Media,

Climate Change is upon us, and the need for true leadership and immediate action to mitigate the dire consequences we all face is urgent.

I note the report issued on 26/10/06 by Roam Consulting, "Nuclear Power Station" from your website which states "a nuclear station of nominal 1400MW, 10,000GWh/a sent out production would be expected to use about 1.26 times the water usage of the equivalent coal fired power station, or about 25Gl/a. The water source would need to be assured in at least a one in one hundred year drought."


This demonstrates that wind, solar, biomass, geothermal and natural gas powered plants where almost no water is used are a more viable alternative to nuclear OR coal.

With the majority of our majour populations hugging the coast, the viability of tidal and wave power generation must be thoroughly investigated immediately.

"Renewables" will consume some 25,000 megalitres of water less per year for 1,400 megawatts of energy produced by a nuclear plant, and about 19,500 megalitres less than a coal-fired plant of similar size!

The projected water savings of renewables and natural gas must be costed in.

Nuclear plants' waste water damages the downstream environment and destroys prime waterfront land while continually exposing the surrounding environment to the danger of radioactive pollution and there remains no safe method of storage for nuclear waste.

Ample reasons to steer away from both nuclear (and coal) in Queensland.

Yours sincerely

Anne Goddard (Climate Change Action)

Read More......

Nuclear power 'a threat to water supply'

From SMH

October 29, 2006 - 12:29PM

Australia's crippling drought will worsen if the Howard government succeeds in its push for nuclear power, Queensland Premier Peter Beattie says.

Addressing the New Zealand Labour Party conference in Rotorua, Mr Beattie said an independent study commissioned by the Queensland government showed a nuclear power station would use 25 per cent more water than a coal-fired power station.

"At a time when our farming communities are hurting badly, it is a folly for (Prime Minister John) Howard to be entertaining the thought of nuclear power stations in Queensland or anywhere else," he said.

"Many towns and shires in our state are struggling to get enough drinking water, let alone enough to satisfy the amount a nuclear station would need to guzzle."

Mr Howard established a review, headed by former Telstra boss Ziggy Switkowski, in June as part of his push for nuclear power to be considered in the nation's future energy mix.

Mr Beattie said a coal-fired power station produced up to 1,400 megawatts of electricity a year and used around 19,500 megalitres of water to condense and recycle steam.

He said a nuclear power station producing the same output would need about 25,000 megalitres.

"That is the equivalent of at least an additional 5,000 Olympic-size swimming pools a year," Mr Beattie said.

"It is water that we simply cannot afford when drought and climate change are drying up water supplies."

He said nuclear power stations needed a guaranteed water supply and a strong connection to an electricity grid, implying a nuclear power plant would need to be close to the eastern seaboard.

"Where is Mr Howard planning to put it? Is it Townsville or Mackay or perhaps further down along the coastline on the Sunshine Coast or Gold Coast?

"Even then a guaranteed water supply to meet minimum safety concerns would be a tall order.

"A guarantee like that is tough at the best of times, let alone in the middle of the worst drought on record."

Mr Beattie is on a three-day trip to New Zealand to boost trade and economic ties.

© 2006 AAP

Read More......