Beware of "missing words" when perusing political party’s policies and deciding where you will be casting your PRECIOUS 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th votes....
If, like me, you wish to see an end to the nuclear industry (firstly) on moral grounds, followed closely by environmental grounds, and clearly not needed on financial grounds, then expanding the mining of Uranium in Australia is NOT wanted, needed or necessary.
Of course if you are a Rio Tinto shareholder, you may think otherwise.
Recently, whilst participating in the Cycle against the nuclear cycle, I visited the Gladstone Office of our local standing MP, Paul Neville (National/Liberal Coalition) and spoke with his Secretary. She couldn't tell me if their party would be considering a nuclear power plant in this electorate or not. Her advice to me and my friend was that this issue needed further investigation. "Informed" decisions would not be forthcoming until after the election.
To me, that says... "when our party is voted back into power we will do whatever we want, it's not your business now. You are not a scientist!"
or... "don't you worry about that".
I am a registered voter. Where I put my mark IS my business. Where my taxes are spent IS my business. I need answers before these two parties are given further opportunities at destroying MY future.
The Labor Party won't commit to nuclear power stations (yet), they will however commit to an expansion of Uranium mining to supply the growing nuclear industry - and they already have.
The Greens, Socialist Alliance and Australian Democrats are clear where they stand. They stand in favour of sustainable development, social justice and equality. Clearly, nuclear does not fit the bill. These parties have made it clear in their policies that they will not support an expansion of the nuclear industry or nuclear energy - (as an "alternative" energy).
The new party "Climate Change Coalition" (CCC) stands in favour of sustainable housing developments, improved transportation systems and better education (as do the three parties listed above).
The CCC are in favour of many good things which will mitigate the worst effects of climate change in the long term but so are the Greens, the Socialist Alliance and the Australian Democrats.
However, the CCC intend to leave ALL OTHER polices to the "conscience vote" of any candidate who is elected. This tends to really worry me. How will their ideas and policies be implemented? Where is their financial plan for our taxes? What say the CCC on our health care taxes? Where do they stand on Industrial Relations and Workplace Agreements?
What also worries me is that they leave the door open for the nuclear industry when they state:
..."Does nuclear power have a role to play in a climate change reduction strategy? James Lovelock, the founder of Gaia Hypothesis, thinks that it can be a useful element in a greenhouse reduction strategy for some countries. Others, such as Australian scientist and climate change campaigner, Emeritus Professor Ian Lowe sees nuclear power as a cure as bad as the disease.
This debate is unavoidable and essential. The CCC encourages our best and brightest minds to state their cases - realising that any debate on Nuclear Power immediately involves alternative power."
In other words... when it comes to the nuclear industry and nuclear power... they sit on the fence. Let others worry about that in an informed and "open" debate? History clearly shows the "openness" of the nuclear industry and the honesty of their "debate".
There is no need for further debate. Expanding the nuclear industry IS avoidable and NOT essential.
The nuclear industry is not safe, and it never was, and it never will be.
In any doubt? please visit:
Startling fact and figures:
http://www.43things.com/entries/view/1888283
Or "Maralinga - Learn from our experience" by my (then) 15yo daughter, Natalie:
http://www.43things.com/entries/view/1881061
and explore the highly educational links in the Appendix
or Nuclear Industry - human effects - facts you should know http://www.43things.com/entries/view/1875511
Finally, today's latest:
Nuclear Power and water scarcity: By Dr Jim Green
http://globalclimatechangeaction.org/node/122
(fliers available shortly)
It appears that the CCC's nuclear policies are hand in hand with those of our currently elected leaders... they "may" support nuclear industry power generation and an expansion of this industry and the associated waste.
Their "vote catching policies" are attached in a PDF document.
Unless the CCC can inform me clearly that they will not support nuclear power or an expansion of the nuclear industry in Australia, I will be putting my vote for the CCC below the ALP, to be sure that their preference flow does not re-elect a National/Liberal Coalition.
I hope other voters are aware of the insidious nature of the nuclear industry and all of their "dirty tricks" to retain their control over our precious taxes.
Anne Goddard
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| RAIASubmission_SustCities_Dec2003.pdf | 162.7 KB |
Comments
I look forward to the next
I look forward to the next round .
Queensland candidates
Re: The only question remaining (apart from where you will alot your preferences - and i hope we will be the first to know) is... will you be standing a candidate in the seat of Flynn, Qld?
Response: All CCC candidates have "self selected". In Queensland, currently, we have two Senate candidates. Obviously I am one, the other will be announced tomorrow. I will not foreshadow who this will be out of respect for the individual. If there is an inadequate coverage from the print media of the announcement I will definitely post the announcement here.
To everyone out there - If the values and vision of the Climate Change Coalition (CCC) have struck a chord with you and are considering standing as a candidate please do not hesitate to contact us at adm...@climatechangecoalition.com.au
Regards
Phil Johnson
Climate Change Coalition (CCC)
Lead Senate candidate - Queensland
Reponse
My comments provided were intended to be indicative and not comprehensive. However, since there have been several questions raised:
Re: "You did not mention the water requirements for nuclear power generation which is also a very real issue, please see: Nuclear Power and water scarcity"
Response: The CCC agrees that the minimisation of water use in energy generation (whether nuclear, coal, or other) is a key goal. There will be more will come from the CCC on water over the next few weeks. Water - the finite of all finites - is the life issue that will shape how Australia changes. We need to become "stewards" of our water resources.
Re: "Uranium mining."
Response: In my comment I mentioned the cost of mining (fossil fuels and by implication the emissions) but I did not go into detail. Uranium mining serves only two purposes - weapons and nuclear energy. I do not support uranium mining for these two reasons.
Re: "Biofuel cells"
Response: I differentiate "biofuel" from "biofuel cells". My interest and support is for "biofuel cells" where household waste is used for methane generation or for feeding organisms that produce electricity. Biofuels (ethanol etc) will compete for food production and water consumption - and therefore I believe is not a long term solution.
Re: Geothermal
Response: The sooner the better.
Re: Agriculture
Response: The CCC emissions and carbon targets are clear - we want agriculture fully engaged and involved in the carbon solution. The CCC website ( http://climatechangecoalition.com.au/home/sustainability/carbon-trading.... ) provides and insight into the vision of the CCC.
Re: Preferences
Response: Given that the CCC is clear about our vision, our approach and our targets, and given that we will not know the full scope of who will be running in the election (close of nominations is 1 Nov 2007) we are in no position to announce our preferences at this time. There are too many unknowns and the discussions that will decide the preferences are yet to be held. Many of the parties and individuals who will be standing have no clear climate change targets - and have even less vision of how to get there. The assessment of the different climate change policies and information, just as you are seeking to do through this forum, is a long way from completion.
I look forward to the next round.
Regards to all
Phil Johnson
Climate Change Coalition - CCC
Lead Senate candidate - Queensland
Thanks! great stuff :-)
Your response is very positive!
The only question remaining (apart from where you will alot your preferences - and i hope we will be the first to know) is... will you be standing a candidate in the seat of Flynn, Qld?
Regards
Anne
Thanks Phil
Further to your reply in the comments section:
http://globalclimatechangeaction.org/node/120#comment-1555
It is good to see where you stand on the issue of nuclear power generation when you say: "I am commited to pursuing clean energy technology and therefore I do not support a nuclear powered energy solution because nuclear technology does not offer any benefit for energy supply and the problems with mining and waste management only compounds this lack of benefit."
You did not mention the water requirements for nuclear power generation which is also a very real issue, please see: Nuclear Power and water scarcity: http://globalclimatechangeaction.org/node/122
By Dr Jim Green.
You did not address the issue of nuclear mining.
Will you support an expansion of the nuclear industry or do you wish to see uranium remain in the ground?
You also mention biofuel cell as power generation but omit geothermal. I had hoped that a political party running on a climate change mitigation ticket would be placing goethermal power very high on their list of clean energy supply systems, particularly for industry.
You did however mention "Biofuel".
Biofuels are costly to our agricultural land and also to our native forests. Land used for food production is needed to produce food for humanity and our livestock.
Land under native forestation is currently sequestering CO2 (as it always has). Removal of established native forests for biofuel production will obviously not reduce CO2 from our atmosphere. Considering the production process for bio-fuel, eg. removal of existing vegetation, ploughing, planting, watering, feeding, havesting crop, transportation of crop to the final stage of burning/processing into fuel ... all stages of production adding CO2 to our atmosphere.
Does the CCC really want to be a proponent of Bio-fuels?
You also omitted to answer Greg Hopwood's question: "CCC Preferences" at http://globalclimatechangeaction.org/node/120#comment-1554
I would also be interested to know who you will give your preferences to in the Qld Senate.
Regards
Anne Goddard
CCC 'preferences'
Dear CCC candidates
Considering how importent preferences are in Australian elections, particularly the senate. As a member of the Greens, I (and numerous others) are curious as to exactly which parties and /or candidates Climate Change Coalition intends giving their preferences to.
Greg Hopwood
Requesting Reply
Perhaps the Climate Change Coalition may now like to respond?
Will your party support Nuclear Power for Australia?
We await your reply.
Your party's silence will confirm my suspicions.
(email sent to p_i_...@hotmail.com.au)
Nuclear - solution or other.
Phil Johnson on Nuclear - a few notes to give you my "picture".
We have had 60 years of the "nuclear industry" and yet no currently viable waste management technology or strategy is available to us. And nuclear is not a clean technology. The fossil fuel needed to mine and refine the ore is significant - and as the ore bodies mined become lower grade the quantum of energy needed to mine and refine will increase (and along with it the cost).
I am commited to pursuing clean energy technology and therefore I do not support a nuclear powered energy solution because nuclear technology does not offer any benefit for energy supply and the problems with mining and waste management only compounds this lack of benefit.
Small clean energy units, and thousands of them, would create what CCC refers to as "villages within cities" where smaller regional energy networks, each with hundreds or thousands of "clean feeder units" (solar, wind, biofuel cell, other) at the domestic and small business or industry level, will tend to insulate a region (suburbs or towns if you wish) from a black out or brown out.
This vision offers far greater energy security for all consumers - and an incentive to create and sustain clean energy sources for all concerned. This vision also brings some local "base load capacity" to a region, potentially lowering energy costs (over time) for all consumers.
This vision would also provide a degree of insulation for the local consumers (now as small scale energy creators and suppliers to the grid) from fluctuations in the cost of energy, and from predator pricing or market manipulation by "large energy" suppliers or transmission infrastructure owners.
With our need for greater energy security for our growing cities, and with the range of clean energy technologies coming on line today, I do not see that nuclear energy generation can be justified. We have technologies today that can take up new demand as well as steadily replace the current fossil fuel fired power generation systems.
We need the investment incentive to make this a reality.
The vision of the CCC - as pointed to herein - is for a powered effective transition from a fossil fuel fired economy (energy based) to a truly clean economy (energy based).
Phil Johnson
CCC - Senate candidate - Queensland
Post new comment