Post by culpam on Jun 14, 2006 8:00:59 GMT -5
Labor’s resources spokesperson Martin Ferguson is
leading the charge for the ALP to drop its opposition to new uranium
mines. This is despite the fact that a recent Newspoll found that 78%
of ALP voters, and 53% of Coalition voters, oppose more uranium mines.
A number of Ferguson’s arguments in favour of new uranium mines
are circular. He argues that with or without a change of ALP policy,
Australia is likely to become the world’s largest uranium supplier with
the planned expansion of the Roxby Downs mine in South Australia.
That is true, but it’s hardly an argument for supporting new
uranium mines. Ferguson ignores the options of phasing out, or
immediately stopping, the uranium mining and export industry. He argues
instead that Labor’s no-new-mines policy is “half pregnant” and
illogical. But it is logical as a phase-out policy which avoids
potential legal challenges and compensation claims that would arise if
a future Labor government immediately stopped uranium mining.
Ferguson claims that the existing policy discriminates in
favour of existing uranium mining companies and against other potential
uranium miners. He ignores the option of levelling the playing field by
putting an end to uranium mining altogether.
In a March 20 briefing paper, which Ferguson is circulating
within the ALP and to trade unions, he states: “State and Territory
Labor governments which have knowingly allowed uranium exploration,
will come under pressure to allow the development of discoveries within
the next few years: if they reject mining applications, it will raise
questions about sovereign risk for mining investors in Australia.”
But uranium exploration companies are well aware of Labor’s
policy of opposition to new uranium mines. Labor state governments or a
future Labor federal government face no legal risk. Further, state
Labor governments could put an end to the current situation whereby
they allow, and sometimes subsidise, uranium exploration.
Clean energy options
In the January 13 Australian, Ferguson stated that,
“Abandoning traditional base load power in favour of renewables would
result in an indefinite global economic depression condemning hundreds
of millions of the world’s poorest people to starvation”.
Rubbish. Even the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
concedes that small-scale renewable energy sources are the most
appropriate options for the billions of people living in rural areas of
Third World countries. A phased transition from dirty and dangerous
energy sources — fossil fuel and nuclear power — to renewable energy
sources can be achieved at modest cost. While the costs will accrue
over the decades, renewables are in some cases cheaper than the dirty
and dangerous energy sources (especially if externalities are accounted
for), and the expense of renewables can be off set by savings made
through energy efficiency and conservation measures.
A vast body of research gives the lie to Ferguson’s claims on the economics of clean energy.
For example:
A 2003 report from AEA Technology to the UK
Department of Trade and Industry calculates that annual abatement costs
of about 0.5% GDP will suffice to achieve greenhouse emissions
reductions of 60-70%, and that over a 50-year period annual growth of
GDP will only be reduced by about 0.01% p.a.
The Australian Ministerial Council on Energy has
identified that energy consumption in the manufacturing, commercial and
residential sectors could be reduced by 20-30% with the adoption of
commercially available technologies with an average payback of four
years.
Energy efficiency measures are shown in a US study to
deliver almost seven times the greenhouse gas emissions reductions as
nuclear power per dollar invested.
A May study by AGL, Frontier
Economics and the World Wide Fund-Australia shows that Australians
could pay as little as $250 each — or 43 cents per week per person over
24 years — to achieve a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from
the electricity industry by 2030.
Ferguson frequently cites growing energy demand in China and the
Chinese regime’s plan to expand nuclear power. In fact, it is planning
to increase nuclear’s share of electricity generation from 2% to 4% and
to increase the share of renewables to 15%. Wouldn’t it make sense to
encourage China to abandon its nuclear expansion plan and to increase
its renewables target to 17% instead?
Social and environmental impacts
Ferguson has been largely silent on the negative impacts of uranium
mining on Aboriginal communities. At a public debate in Melbourne on
June 5, he was repeatedly asked to explain what he intends to do to
redress the indefensible situation whereby the Roxby Downs mine is
exempt from the Aboriginal Heritage Protection Act. He avoided the
question.
In his March 20 paper, Ferguson states that, “Not all uranium
suppliers enforce the same world class safety and environmental
standards as Australian State and Territory Governments”.
But the safety and environmental standards at Australia’s
uranium mines are inadequate. The Roxby Indenture Act, which exempts
Roxby Downs from the Aboriginal Heritage Protection Act, also exempts
the mine from the South Australian Environmental Protection Act and the
Water Resources Act.
A 2003 report by the Senate References and Legislation
Committee, endorsed by the ALP committee members, found “a pattern of
under-performance and non-compliance” in the uranium mining industry.
It also identified “many gaps in knowledge and found an absence of
reliable data on which to measure the extent of contamination or its
impact on the environment”, and it concluded that changes were
necessary “to protect the environment and its inhabitants from serious
or irreversible damage”.
It’s difficult to understand Ferguson’s promotion of the
nuclear industry given that he is well aware of the intractable waste
management problems. In a speech to a uranium conference on October 11,
2005, he said: “We do not even have a solution for the safe disposal of
low and intermediate level nuclear waste generated in our own country,
let alone a clear view of the solution for high level nuclear waste
generated around the globe from nuclear power operations.”
In his March 20 paper, Ferguson states Australia “has the
opportunity to lead the world as a responsible supplier of uranium for
peaceful purposes” by, among other things, “stewarding uranium from
cradle to grave”. It’s hard to know what he means other than Australia
accepting high-level nuclear waste produced in nuclear power reactors
around the world, in particular from countries using Australian
uranium.
Export revenue and jobs
Ferguson also states that, “States and Territories, particularly
South Australia and the Northern Territory, are dependent on new mines,
including uranium, for future jobs, economic growth, exports and
revenue”.
No they aren’t. Uranium exports account for less than one half
of 1% of Australia’s export revenue. Even with the proposed tripling of
uranium production at Roxby Downs (which will double Australia’s
overall exports from the current level of 10-12,000 tonnes annually),
it is highly unlikely that uranium would account for more than 1% of
export revenue.
Ferguson argues that permitting new uranium mines will allow
unions like the Australian Workers Union to pursue coverage and ensure
mines are world class, open up more mining jobs for members, and ensure
the safety of workers.
Uranium mining makes even less of a contribution to employment
than it does to export revenue. Uranium mining companies are
notoriously anti-union. There is limited union coverage of uranium
industry workers, and none at all at Roxby Downs.
There will be more jobs — and safer and unionised jobs — by pursuing a clean energy future. As Neale Towart wrote in Workers Online
in February: “For workers, the scope for decent and rewarding work in
the renewables sector far outstrips the potential employment in the
current energy industry regime. Job creation in Europe through various
renewable energy scenarios developed in 2002 show the vast potential.
Greener energy sources in general employ far more people than more
polluting sources. Nuclear power sustains around one sixth of the jobs
sustained by wind energy, per unit of power produced. Wind energy is
four times better than coal at sustaining jobs.”
Nuclear weapons’ proliferation
At the June 5 debate, Ferguson conceded that there are many serious
problems with the IAEA’s safeguards inspection system, which attempts
to prevent the military use of ostensibly peaceful nuclear facilities
and materials.
There are several sets of problems with the IAEA’s safeguards system:
A range of technical and practical problems, such as
the routine accounting discrepancies arising from factors such as the
unavoidable imprecision in estimating the rate of production of
plutonium in nuclear power reactors.
The safeguards system is chronically under resourced.
IAEA director-general Dr Mohamed ElBaradei recently complained that the
safeguards system operates on a “shoestring budget ... comparable to a
local police department”.
According to ElBaradei, the IAEA’s basic safeguards
inspection rights are “fairly limited” and the system “clearly needs
reinforcement”, and he has complained about “half-hearted” efforts to
strengthen the safeguards system.
The NPT enshrines an “inalienable right” of member
states to all “civil” nuclear technologies, including dual-use
technologies with both peaceful and military applications. In other
words, the NPT enshrines the “right” to develop a nuclear weapons
“threshold” or “breakout” capability.
Ferguson did not challenge these arguments, so it’s difficult to see how he can support Australia’s uranium export industry.
Ferguson said last August 23 that “Australia is one of the most
responsible exporters of uranium in the world”. But Australia’s uranium
is as likely to be diverted to the production of weapons of mass
destruction as any other country’s uranium. All uranium exporting
countries are entirely reliant on the inadequate and under-resourced
safeguards inspection system of the IAEA.
leading the charge for the ALP to drop its opposition to new uranium
mines. This is despite the fact that a recent Newspoll found that 78%
of ALP voters, and 53% of Coalition voters, oppose more uranium mines.
A number of Ferguson’s arguments in favour of new uranium mines
are circular. He argues that with or without a change of ALP policy,
Australia is likely to become the world’s largest uranium supplier with
the planned expansion of the Roxby Downs mine in South Australia.
That is true, but it’s hardly an argument for supporting new
uranium mines. Ferguson ignores the options of phasing out, or
immediately stopping, the uranium mining and export industry. He argues
instead that Labor’s no-new-mines policy is “half pregnant” and
illogical. But it is logical as a phase-out policy which avoids
potential legal challenges and compensation claims that would arise if
a future Labor government immediately stopped uranium mining.
Ferguson claims that the existing policy discriminates in
favour of existing uranium mining companies and against other potential
uranium miners. He ignores the option of levelling the playing field by
putting an end to uranium mining altogether.
In a March 20 briefing paper, which Ferguson is circulating
within the ALP and to trade unions, he states: “State and Territory
Labor governments which have knowingly allowed uranium exploration,
will come under pressure to allow the development of discoveries within
the next few years: if they reject mining applications, it will raise
questions about sovereign risk for mining investors in Australia.”
But uranium exploration companies are well aware of Labor’s
policy of opposition to new uranium mines. Labor state governments or a
future Labor federal government face no legal risk. Further, state
Labor governments could put an end to the current situation whereby
they allow, and sometimes subsidise, uranium exploration.
Clean energy options
In the January 13 Australian, Ferguson stated that,
“Abandoning traditional base load power in favour of renewables would
result in an indefinite global economic depression condemning hundreds
of millions of the world’s poorest people to starvation”.
Rubbish. Even the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
concedes that small-scale renewable energy sources are the most
appropriate options for the billions of people living in rural areas of
Third World countries. A phased transition from dirty and dangerous
energy sources — fossil fuel and nuclear power — to renewable energy
sources can be achieved at modest cost. While the costs will accrue
over the decades, renewables are in some cases cheaper than the dirty
and dangerous energy sources (especially if externalities are accounted
for), and the expense of renewables can be off set by savings made
through energy efficiency and conservation measures.
A vast body of research gives the lie to Ferguson’s claims on the economics of clean energy.
For example:
A 2003 report from AEA Technology to the UK
Department of Trade and Industry calculates that annual abatement costs
of about 0.5% GDP will suffice to achieve greenhouse emissions
reductions of 60-70%, and that over a 50-year period annual growth of
GDP will only be reduced by about 0.01% p.a.
The Australian Ministerial Council on Energy has
identified that energy consumption in the manufacturing, commercial and
residential sectors could be reduced by 20-30% with the adoption of
commercially available technologies with an average payback of four
years.
Energy efficiency measures are shown in a US study to
deliver almost seven times the greenhouse gas emissions reductions as
nuclear power per dollar invested.
A May study by AGL, Frontier
Economics and the World Wide Fund-Australia shows that Australians
could pay as little as $250 each — or 43 cents per week per person over
24 years — to achieve a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from
the electricity industry by 2030.
Ferguson frequently cites growing energy demand in China and the
Chinese regime’s plan to expand nuclear power. In fact, it is planning
to increase nuclear’s share of electricity generation from 2% to 4% and
to increase the share of renewables to 15%. Wouldn’t it make sense to
encourage China to abandon its nuclear expansion plan and to increase
its renewables target to 17% instead?
Social and environmental impacts
Ferguson has been largely silent on the negative impacts of uranium
mining on Aboriginal communities. At a public debate in Melbourne on
June 5, he was repeatedly asked to explain what he intends to do to
redress the indefensible situation whereby the Roxby Downs mine is
exempt from the Aboriginal Heritage Protection Act. He avoided the
question.
In his March 20 paper, Ferguson states that, “Not all uranium
suppliers enforce the same world class safety and environmental
standards as Australian State and Territory Governments”.
But the safety and environmental standards at Australia’s
uranium mines are inadequate. The Roxby Indenture Act, which exempts
Roxby Downs from the Aboriginal Heritage Protection Act, also exempts
the mine from the South Australian Environmental Protection Act and the
Water Resources Act.
A 2003 report by the Senate References and Legislation
Committee, endorsed by the ALP committee members, found “a pattern of
under-performance and non-compliance” in the uranium mining industry.
It also identified “many gaps in knowledge and found an absence of
reliable data on which to measure the extent of contamination or its
impact on the environment”, and it concluded that changes were
necessary “to protect the environment and its inhabitants from serious
or irreversible damage”.
It’s difficult to understand Ferguson’s promotion of the
nuclear industry given that he is well aware of the intractable waste
management problems. In a speech to a uranium conference on October 11,
2005, he said: “We do not even have a solution for the safe disposal of
low and intermediate level nuclear waste generated in our own country,
let alone a clear view of the solution for high level nuclear waste
generated around the globe from nuclear power operations.”
In his March 20 paper, Ferguson states Australia “has the
opportunity to lead the world as a responsible supplier of uranium for
peaceful purposes” by, among other things, “stewarding uranium from
cradle to grave”. It’s hard to know what he means other than Australia
accepting high-level nuclear waste produced in nuclear power reactors
around the world, in particular from countries using Australian
uranium.
Export revenue and jobs
Ferguson also states that, “States and Territories, particularly
South Australia and the Northern Territory, are dependent on new mines,
including uranium, for future jobs, economic growth, exports and
revenue”.
No they aren’t. Uranium exports account for less than one half
of 1% of Australia’s export revenue. Even with the proposed tripling of
uranium production at Roxby Downs (which will double Australia’s
overall exports from the current level of 10-12,000 tonnes annually),
it is highly unlikely that uranium would account for more than 1% of
export revenue.
Ferguson argues that permitting new uranium mines will allow
unions like the Australian Workers Union to pursue coverage and ensure
mines are world class, open up more mining jobs for members, and ensure
the safety of workers.
Uranium mining makes even less of a contribution to employment
than it does to export revenue. Uranium mining companies are
notoriously anti-union. There is limited union coverage of uranium
industry workers, and none at all at Roxby Downs.
There will be more jobs — and safer and unionised jobs — by pursuing a clean energy future. As Neale Towart wrote in Workers Online
in February: “For workers, the scope for decent and rewarding work in
the renewables sector far outstrips the potential employment in the
current energy industry regime. Job creation in Europe through various
renewable energy scenarios developed in 2002 show the vast potential.
Greener energy sources in general employ far more people than more
polluting sources. Nuclear power sustains around one sixth of the jobs
sustained by wind energy, per unit of power produced. Wind energy is
four times better than coal at sustaining jobs.”
Nuclear weapons’ proliferation
At the June 5 debate, Ferguson conceded that there are many serious
problems with the IAEA’s safeguards inspection system, which attempts
to prevent the military use of ostensibly peaceful nuclear facilities
and materials.
There are several sets of problems with the IAEA’s safeguards system:
A range of technical and practical problems, such as
the routine accounting discrepancies arising from factors such as the
unavoidable imprecision in estimating the rate of production of
plutonium in nuclear power reactors.
The safeguards system is chronically under resourced.
IAEA director-general Dr Mohamed ElBaradei recently complained that the
safeguards system operates on a “shoestring budget ... comparable to a
local police department”.
According to ElBaradei, the IAEA’s basic safeguards
inspection rights are “fairly limited” and the system “clearly needs
reinforcement”, and he has complained about “half-hearted” efforts to
strengthen the safeguards system.
The NPT enshrines an “inalienable right” of member
states to all “civil” nuclear technologies, including dual-use
technologies with both peaceful and military applications. In other
words, the NPT enshrines the “right” to develop a nuclear weapons
“threshold” or “breakout” capability.
Ferguson did not challenge these arguments, so it’s difficult to see how he can support Australia’s uranium export industry.
Ferguson said last August 23 that “Australia is one of the most
responsible exporters of uranium in the world”. But Australia’s uranium
is as likely to be diverted to the production of weapons of mass
destruction as any other country’s uranium. All uranium exporting
countries are entirely reliant on the inadequate and under-resourced
safeguards inspection system of the IAEA.