Global Climate Change Action

by Dr. Alison Broinowski
(Published with permission from the Author for not-for-profit public awareness purposes)

"In late June and early July, just as the Howard Government was dispatching the army to Aboriginal communities to deal with sexual abuse, the U.S. military was involved for two weeks in northern Australia in the biggest ever joint exercise, Talisman Sabre.

Most Australians saw no connection.

Military training areas, uranium mines, sites for future nuclear waste dumps and now Aboriginal land seized by the Commonwealth are dots across the Australian map.

Several of them are connected by the Adelaide-Darwin railway. Having been many times promised, the $1.3 billion link from Alice Springs to Darwin was surprisingly found viable in 1999. By January, 2004, the train was running. The only tenderer, according to research at University of Technology Sydney, was the FreightLink consortium led by Halliburton (then headed by US vice-president Dick Cheney), with state, territory and federal contributions.

FreightLink owns the railway and can operate it for 50 years. It has contracted UK firm Serco, to staff and service the train.

Serco, which manages British nuclear power plants, gained a reputation in 2000 for sacking workers without AWAs at Australian naval bases in Jervis Bay.

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

Please distribute to Union Members for their consideration

via:
http://leftclickblog.blogspot.com/

full story:
http://leftclickblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/all-unions-should-back-greens....

Snip>:
All unions should back the Greens
by Socialist Worker

Enough is enough. That is the message coming from thousands of working people across the country about WorkChoices. There is no doubt that Howard is spooked by the overwhelmingly mood against him. Tragically Labor is so concerned to keep big business onside that it has promised to keep important parts of the legislation.

These include the ban on the right to strike and the right of unions to enter workplaces.
This is ridiculous-how can unions survive, let alone prosper, if they cannot enter workplaces to talk to members?

more: http://leftclickblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/all-unions-should-back-greens....

Further comments via Green Left Discussion Group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GreenLeft_discussion/message/47418
and
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GreenLeft_discussion/message/47420

My comments:
ALL UNION MEMBERS should be encouraged to volunteer to scrutineer for their local candidate. This is the best way to ensure (in an open an honest voting system) that ALL votes are counted and EVERY vote sees the light of day.
For further information on what scrutineering entails, visit:
http://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/Candidate/Handbook/scr...

cc Unions