Study: Earth at hottest in 2000 years – humans responsible – from Perth Indymedia

JUNE 22, 2006: The National Academy of Sciences Study: Earth is hottest now in 2,000 years – and humans are responsible for much of the warming.

A group of leading climate scientists have told US congress that the Earth is heating up – and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming."

Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about 1 degree during the 20th century…

There is sufficient evidence from tree rings, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" to say with confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years, according to a new National Research Council report. It has been 2,000 years and possibly much longer since the Earth has run such a fever.

The National Academy of Sciences report that the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia." This is shown in boreholes, retreating glaciers and other natural evidence found in nature, said Gerald North, a geosciences professor who chaired the academy's panel. The report was commissioned by Congress to address climate change critics – who question whether global warming is a major threat.

Other new research has show that global warming produced about half of the extra hurricane-fueled warmth in the North Atlantic in 2005 according to the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Climate scientists have also concluded the Northern Hemisphere was the warmest it has been in 2,000 years.

Their research was known as the "hockey-stick" graphic because it compared the sharp curve of the hockey blade to the recent uptick in temperatures and the stick's long shaft to centuries of previous climate stability. The panel also looked at how other scientists reconstructed the Earth's temperatures going back thousands of years, before there was data from modern scientific instruments.

Except for the last 150 years, the academy scientists relied on "proxy" evidence from tree rings, corals, glaciers and ice cores, cave deposits, ocean and lake sediments, boreholes and other sources. They also examined indirect records such as paintings of glaciers in the Alps. Combining the data, the academy concluded that: "a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years."

Overall, the panel agreed that the warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last 1,000 years… The Bush administration maintains that the threat of rapid onset, human-induced, climate change is not severe enough to warrant new pollution controls.

Key conclusions reached after reviewing the evidence:
- The instrumentally measured warming of about 0.6°C during the 20th century is also reflected in borehole temperature measurements, the retreat of glaciers, and other observational evidence, and can be simulated with climate models.

-Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm Period”) and a relatively cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700.

- It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.

- Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties increase substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified.

- Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900.

Source:
Media rlease: High Confidence That Planet Is Warmest in 400 Years

June 20, 2006 – Perth Indymedia: Opponents of John Howard’s recent push to make Australia “out-of-bounds for Boat-people,” say the Prime Minister should use World Refugee Day to kill the migration bill…

The Howard government is pushing for all asylum seekers who arrive by boat, whether or not they reach the Australian mainland, to be sent to remote, off-shore immigration detention centres in places like Nauru or Manus Island in Papua New Guinea.

Opponents say changes to the Migration Act to expand Howard’s much condemned Pacific Solution, dishonours Australia’s commitment to human rights and represent a backward step in Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers.

They say the Prime Minister should scrap the laws on World Refugee Day…

CRACKS IN THE HOWARD WALL
There is increasing tension within the Coalition party over the issue of detaining asylum-seekers in remote detention centres.

A group of Liberal/National backbenchers are concerned by Howard’s plan to send all refugees who arrive by boat to remote offshore detention facilities for processing. The rebel group of around a dozen, includes senators Judith Troeth, Marise Payne and Russell Trood and MPs Judi Moylan, Petro Georgiou, Russell Broadbent and Bruce Baird.

John Howard is “unfazed” by dissent to his new beefed-up migration bill. He will meet with the Indonesian President next week for the first time since a bitter row erupted between the two countries over 42 Papuan asylum seekers who arrived in Australia by boat in January this year.

The Immigration Minister, Senator Amanda Vanstone, says she is still negotiating with the dissident Coalition backbenchers.

GITMO OZSTYLE
The Law Council of Australia says if the federal government goes ahead with tougher laws it could create Australia’s own Guantanamo Bay. The LCA say the detainees would be guilty of nothing more than arriving as asylum seekers without a valid visa.

The Law Council’s, John North, says “Offshore detention would remove basic legal protection provided under Australia’s legal system – including access to legal advice, independent review and appeals to courts. These are the hallmarks of Guantanamo Bay.”

“The proposed measures are incompatible with the rule of law and due process, and allow Australia to opt out of its legal obligations to asylum seekers,” Mr North said. “Island countries cooperating with Australian authorities should be very wary that they don’t become international pariahs,” he said.

There are also concerns that Australia cannot guarantee standards for detainees sent offshore. Instead of being an extra-territorial processing centre, Nauru, for example, would assume full responsibility for the detainees who would be under the authority of Nauruan law.

Howard’s recalcitrant backbenchers too are concerned that Nauru’s laws cannot guarantee access to Australian agencies such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman or the Refugee Review Tribunal.

Yet, despite his “strong desire” for the bill to be forced through before Parliament’s winter break, John Howard has shied from his previously expressed hope for the issue to be resolved urgently, stating he was a “patient man.”

OPPOSITION
The ALP has said it would scrap overseas processing of asylum seekers if it wins the next election – because Australian laws did not apply. “There would be no overseas processing,” Opposition immigration spokesman Tony Burke said.

“We don’t support the principle that when someone arrives in your country you go and dump them in another country.” Mr Burke said refugees should be processed in a timely manner. He said the Government did a reasonable job of processing temporary protection visas for 42 Papuan asylum seekers fairly quickly. “They made an independent decision, not made by the executive but made by the appropriate officers.” Mr Burke said the Government should not try to appease Indonesia by changing our immigration laws.

HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST!
Critics say the government’s policies should not infringe people’s human rights. Amnesty International refugee coordinator Dr Graham Thom says on World Refugee Day, fundamental human rights must come first: “You cannot put international relations and diplomatic relations ahead of the rights of individuals, particularly those who are fleeing persecution,” he said.

John von Doussa QC, President of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) and Human Rights Commissioner Graeme Innes AM say the new laws “undermine Australia’s commitment to human rights and represent a backward step in Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers.”

HREOC say the changes will “reverse important recent reforms to Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers, including the removal of children from immigration detention.”

The proposed changes breach Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. HREOC say that children will be detained in conditions which “endanger their well-being and mental health. Being held in an offshore processing centre is, without doubt, a form of detention.”

These concerns are not new. HREOC’s 2004 report – “National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention, A last resort?” – warned that Howard’s “Pacific Solution” breached several of Australia’s human rights obligations.

The proposed changes do not address the possibility of excessive or indefinite detention. This raises serious concerns about arbitrary detention. HREOC say it may also result in Australia being in “breach of its obligations under Article 31 of the Refugee Convention which requires that asylum seekers are not penalised for arriving illegally.”

The “disastrous consequences of long-term detention on the mental health of asylum seekers are now beyond dispute,” say HREOC. “The proposed changes do not provide proper measures to address mental health concerns.” HREOC say the tragic cases of Vivian Solon and Cornelia Rau show that mistakes do happen at a departmental level.

The Commission says “it is crucial that offshore processing centres are subject to the same level of independent scrutiny as immigration detention centres in Australia.”

MORE OPPOSITION
Last week, Greens Leader Bob Brown will tabled a petition, coordinated by GetUp, of more than 32,000 signatures calling on the government to drop its legislation to ship asylum-seekers offshore. “More than 75% of Australians disagree with the new immigration laws, more than 32,000 people have lent their name to this petition.

A Senate committee has recommended the government scraps the laws and it is time the Prime Minister stopped ignoring Australians,” Senator Brown said. “These new laws contravene Australia’s obligation to asylum seekers under the UN refugee convention and they will ensure women and children are locked up with no access to legal recourse in Australia. They are a national disgrace.”

CRUEL AND UNECESSARY
Anglicare’s Peter Kell has expressed “grave concern” and says that the system of off-shore mandatory detention is “cruel and unnecessary.” He says, “placing asylum seekers in off-shore detention centres is an unnecessarily punitive way to treat these people and tantamount to punishing them for no crime”.

Mr Kell says that given Anglicare knows first hand just how vulnerable people and particularly women and children who have fled persecution and oppression are. “Many of the people who come to Australia as asylum seekers have a genuine fear of persecution in their homelands, with many having suffered physical, mental and emotional trauma as a result of their experiences,” said Mr Kell.

“Australia has both a moral and a legal obligation to offer safe haven to those fleeing persecution and seeking asylum. Claims for asylum must be assessed, but we must not further diminish Australia’s long reputation as a compassionate nation and a good global citizen”.

SOURCES:
SBS
News.com
ABC
The Australian
Sunday Times
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
Greens Media
Anglicare

"Inhumane, disgusting and horrendous" whale slaughter to continue in Australian waters – perth.indymedia.org

MONDAY 19 JUNE, 2006: Japanese whalers will continue to 'scientificlly' slaughter nearly 1000 whales per season for 'research'.

"…it's a hunt, it's not a scientific program whatsoever and we need to stop them from killing these whales…" 

"it is absolutely abysmal, it is wrong and it has to stop…"
PRO-WHALING nations say their winning vote at the International Whaling Commission is a turning point in the struggle to change the organisation's agenda in their favour.

"Japan may have won a symbolic victory with today's IWC vote, but so far it has lost all four votes that counted," said Greens Senator Rachel Siewert. "It is abundantly clear that Australia's next step must be to challenge Japan's unlawful so-called 'scientific' whaling in the international courts."

The declaration raised by Japan calls on the commission to consider "whaling issues over conservation." The non-binding declaration was passed by 33 votes to 32 with one abstention. It is the first vote the pro-whaling lobby has won at the commission in 20 years. Senator Siewert said: "Australian diplomacy has succeeded in maintaining the status quo. Japan clearly cannot yet command the 53 votes it needs for a three-quarters majority to overturn the moratorium on commercial whaling. Unfortunately maintaining the status quo will mean Japan can continue its plan to 'scientifically' slaughter nearly 1000 whales – now including rare Fin and Humpback species."

Joji Morishita from the Japanese delegation says it is a historic victory for pro-whaling nations. "Anti-whaling countries might see this as an ending," he said. "This is the beginning of a new time for the IWC."

Senator Siewert says: "The symbolic vote proclaiming the moratorium is no longer valid and non-government organisations (like Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd) are a 'threat' is likely to prompt a major propaganda campaign by the well-funded pro-whaling lobby."

Federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell says he accepts the vote, and like Senator Siewert, says it is a symbolic victory only. "It doesn't move us any closer to a resumption of whaling and that's the vital, that's the crucial policy goal for the Australian Government," he said.

New Zealand's Conservation Minister Chris Carter is also among those condemning the declaration. "Well, they're still safe but they're less safe than they used to be because Japan has been steadily and remorselessly chipping away at the conservation majority here at the IWC," he said. "They have managed to recruit a number of poor and developing nations to assist them. I'm really disappointed, I'll be redoubling my efforts to go out and save those whales."

Joth Singh from the International Fund for Animal Welfare says anti-whaling nations need to work harder. "I would say it is a wake up call. It is a wake up call for countries, who claim that they care for whales and they want to protect whales, to take action," he said. "It is clear that the intent is for the IWC to revert back to a whaler's club which is what it was until the 1970s."

INHUMANE
On Sunday Senator Campbell branded Japan's whale hunts as "inhumane" and "disgusting" as he unveiled a new report on whale slaughter.

Mr Campbell presented an International Fund for Animal Welfare report to an IWC committee and claimed it showed Japan's argument that it conducts whale hunts humanely is "absolutely false". "This is what's done in the name of science,"

Senator Campbell said, referring to Japan's scientific whale hunts, which are permitted by the IWC. "This is how Japan in the name of science collects whale meat, takes it back to Japan, sticks it in warehouses, tries to get schoolchildren to eat it, gets old people to eat it now, and we also know from some evidence that they feed it to dogs. It is a horrendous thing… it is absolutely abysmal, it is wrong and it has to stop." Campbell says the report showed the way whales were killed was "absolutely inhumane and quite disgusting".

Greenpeace is also calling for the Australian Government to do more to protect whales and stop Japan's whaling program. "We do want the Australian Government to look at other options, including new legal avenues outside the International Whaling Commission to take them to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, which could stop the scientific whaling program, this abuse of the whole idea of the science clause of the International Whaling Commission."

Japan immediately denied its whale killing methods were inhumane. Japan's whale killing was "the most humane way, it is proved by science," Japan's IWC commissioner Joji Morishita said. "I just wonder if the minister knows how long it will take for kangaroos to die in his country?" He appeared to be referring to attempts to control kangaroos in parts of Australia.

The IFAW report claims more than 80 per cent of whales are not killed instantly once harpooned. It found whales are often alive as they are winched aboard the whaling ship, with harpoons embedded in their flesh.

The IFAW report also claimed other whales did not die instantly from a harpoon hit but suffocated to death as their blow holes were forced underwater as they were pulled onto the ship. Greenpeace say they will return to the Southern Ocean later this year as part of its ongoing campaign to stop Japan's whaling activities. "Because it's a hunt, it's not a scientific program whatsoever and we need to stop them from killing these whales."

Japan is believed to be preparing a resolution that could call for Greenpeace to be stripped of its observer status at the IWC.

In January, Greenpeace's ship Arctic Sunrise was involved in a collision with a Japanese whaling vessel in Antarctic whale feeding grounds. "Greenpeace will continue to defend the whales in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary by disrupting and delaying the so-called 'scientific' research sanctioned by the Japanese Government, which is nothing more than whale slaughter," US Greenpeace campaigner Buffy Baumann said.

Sources: ABC News
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1666145.htm http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1665832.htm http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1665561.htm http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1665539.htm

Patrick Moore: "Corporate Whore"

From the newswire – Eco traitor: Some Background on Patrick Moore – evictee from Greenpeace:

Nuclear Energy proponent Patrick Moore, is financed by "one-eyed, pro-big-business, technocratic zealots" here in Australia – anything to have their economic/material growth religion reinforced. The former Greenpeace International director, now a business consultant, says Australia should be making better use of its uranium by putting it through the enrichment process here. (Read More)

[ Perth Indymedia: "Wanted: Action on Patrick Moore, Environmental Impersonator" by Fremantle Anti-Nuclear Group ]

Of nuclear reactors, Moore – king of specious reasoning says: "If you look at automobiles, 1.2 million people die in automobile accidents every year. Who's banning the automobile? I mean, if you really wanted to ban a technology that was causing death and destruction and injury, it would be the car." (ABC)

Thirty years ago, Patrick Moore helped found Greenpeace. But today he promotes nuclear energy, clear-cut logging and genetically modified foods – and swears he's "still fighting to save the planet." Moore has been labelled a sellout, traitor, parasite, and prostitute. He turned his back on the environmental movement when he quit Greenpeace. But Moore didn't retire – now he barracks for the "other side." (Moore's Website)

These days, Moore is little more than a corporate mouthpiece for some of the very interests Greenpeace was founded to counter, in particular the timber and plastics industries. He argues that the ever-dwindling Amazon rain forest is doing just fine; that the massive Three Gorges Dam is the smartest thing China could do for its energy supply; and that any opposition to genetically modified foods is akin to "mass murder."

Moore admonishes today's green activists as "philosophically unmoored and blindly technophobic." He celebrates and encourages humankind's ever-increasing ability to alter and disrupt our planet. Upon bailing from Greenpeace, his newfound economic interest in "sustainable development" led him to be increasingly ostracised from the rest of the environmental movement. In 1991 he joined the board of the Forest Alliance of British Columbia, a group created by the timber industry to address the accusations of environmentalists.

Mr Moore's enemies have a simpler explanation for his corporate-minded conversion: REVENGE. After all, he left Greenpeace amid complaints about his autocratic leadership style and highly abrasive personality. "When it became obvious that he lacked enough votes to keep his seat on the board of directors, he went off to farm fish. When that didn't work out, he joined the loggers."

Moore's business relationships with polluters and clear-cutters invokes widely-held rebuke and disgust from his estranged eco-comrades. "He'll whore himself to anything to make a buck," says Paul George, founder of the Western Canada Wildlife Committee.

Seashepherd Captain Paul Watson, also a former Greenpeace director, has challenged Moore to a public debate on numerous occasions. But Moore has always refused. Paul Watson charges:

"You're a corporate whore, Pat, an eco-Judas, a lowlife bottom-sucking parasite who has grown rich from sacrificing environmentalist principles for plain old money…"

Moore, who promotes himself as a "scientist" does not have a single peer-reviewed publication to his credit. Yet he challenges the credibility of real scientists like Dr. David Suzuki and Dr. E.O. Wilson. He makes outlandish statements like, "There is more bio-diversity in a clear cut than in a parking lot in Vancouver but I don’t see anyone protesting against parking lots."

READ MORE/Comment…

From Wikinews

June 7, 2006 

The West Australian (WA) Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) have advised against the massive Greater Gorgon liquefied natural gas project off the WA's Pilbara coast. Proponents of the projects say Gorgon is one of Australia's biggest export ventures, scheduled to provide up to 6,000 jobs and exports of up to $1.2 billion.

EPA chairman Dr Wally Cox said the Gorgon project operators (Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Shell), had made an effort on flora and fauna issues but in its present state, the Gorgon proposal was "unacceptable." Gorgon LNG general manager Colin Beckett said that Gorgon was a world-class gas field and that the joint venture partners were confident of appealing the decision.

Environment Minister Mark McGowan said there was a definite process to be followed. The Minister says he will make a final decision on the Gorgon proposal after considering the EPA report – and any subsequent report from the Appeals Convenor. The EPA recommendations on the Gorgon proposal are subject to a two-week appeals period.

The EPA's Dr Cox said that joint venture had "not been able to demonstrate that impacts from dredging, the introduction of non-indigenous species and the potential loss of fauna could be reduced to acceptable levels."

In September 2003 the WA government provided "in-principle agreement" to the Gorgon joint venturers subject to a number of conditions. Dr Cox said that the Environmental Review and Management Programme had further highlighted the terrestrial and marine conservation values of Barrow Island and the adjacent waters.

"Flatback turtles in particular would be put at risk from the proposal with two of the most important nesting beaches located adjacent to the proposed LNG processing plant site and the materials off-loading facility," Dr Cox said. "There is very little science available on the life-cycle, behaviour and feeding habits of Flatback turtles and as a consequence it is not possible at this time to identify management measures that would ensure ongoing survival of this Pilbara Flatback turtle population."

Dr Cox also said that the Proponent had not been able to demonstrate that risk could be reduced to satisfactory levels in the areas of:

- Impacts on the marine ecosystem from dredging; – The introduction of non-indigenous species; – Potential loss of subterranean and short range endemic invertebrate fauna species.

"As a result, the proposal in its present form cannot meet the EPA's environmental objectives and is considered environmentally unacceptable," Dr Cox said.

Support

Despite the EPA's decision to block the proposal, the Australian newspaper reports that WA Premier Alan Carpenter was prepared to overrule the EPA's advice: "While he stopped short of providing a guarantee the project would go ahead, Mr Carpenter said it involved "massive economic and social benefit" for the state."

The Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA), has welcomed the bi-partisan support by the Premier, and the Leader of the Opposition, Paul Omodei, to the Gorgon project. APPEA's Chief Executive, Belinda Robinson, said. "It also involves the world's first commercial carbon sequestration project. It's hard to imagine what more could be done," Ms Robinson said.

"The Gorgon project is a world class gas resource of more than 40 trillion cubic feet, and its development has the potential to deliver 6,000 jobs, $2.5 billion in annual export income, and more than $17 billion in government taxes and royalties over its 60 year life," Ms Robinson said.

The Gorgon project proposal involves a two-train, 10 million metric-ton-per-year liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant and a domestic gas plant on Barrow Island, located off Australia's northwest coast. Home to Australia's largest operating onshore oil field for the past 40 years, the island is also a Class A nature reserve.

Sources

• "Carpenter hints at gas project approval". Australian Broadcasting Corporation, June 6, 2006

• "EPA blocks Pilbara gas development". The Australian, June 06, 2006

• "EPA Bulletin 1221 – Gorgon Proposal on Barrow Island Nature Reserve". Environmental Protection Authority, June 6, 2006

• "Chevron Statement on Gorgon Venture EIS/ERMP". Chevron, June 6, 2006

• James Moses "EPA blocks Gorgon's $11b Pilbara LNG project". WA Business News, June 6, 2006

• "LNG go-ahead despite turtles". The Australian, June 7, 2006

From Wikinews

June 5, 2006 

US President George W. Bush is pushing for a national ban on gay marriage, as the US Senate opened a debate on a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex weddings. "Changing the definition of marriage would undermine the structure of the family," said Bush, who raised the issue at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.

"The Defense of Marriage Act declares that no state is required to accept another state's definition of marriage. If that act is overturned by the courts, then marriage recognized in one city or state may have to be recognized as marriages everywhere else," said the President.

Bush criticized judges who overturned state laws. State legislatures "are being thwarted by activist judges who are overturning the expressed will of their people… Marriage is the most fundamental institution of civilization, and it should not be redefined by activist judges," he said. The "cornerstone of a healthy society" is traditional marriage, Bush declared, and the issue should be returned – "back where it belongs: in the hands of the American people."

At the White House, Bush told supporters of the amendment that he's "proud to stand" with them. His comments come as the U.S. Senate starts three days of debate on the measure. All Senate Democrats, except Ben Nelson of Nebraska, oppose the ban.

Whilst many in the Senate do support Bush's amendments, in the final throes of an election cycle, few are prepared to support the bill. "A vote for this amendment is a vote for bigotry pure and simple," said Democratic Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, where the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriages in 2003.

"Marriage between one man and one woman does a better job protecting children better than any other institution humankind has devised," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. "As such, marriage as an institution should be protected, not redefined."

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who says he believes marriage is the union of a man and a woman, said he nonetheless will vote against the amendment on a test vote Wednesday.

"The reason for this debate is to divide our society, to pit one against another," Reid said in remarks prepared for delivery on the Senate floor. "This is another one of the president's efforts to frighten, to distort, to distract, and to confuse America. It is this administration's way of avoiding the tough, real problems that American citizens are confronted with each and every day."

Sources

• "Bush Pushes Gay Marriage Ban". CBS, June 5, 2006

• LAURIE KELLMAN "Bush Rallies Gay Marriage Opponents". ABC NEWS, June 5, 2006

• "President Discusses Marriage Protection Amendment". Office of the Press Secretary,

• "Bush calls for constitutional ban on gay marriage". Canada.com, June 5, 2006

perth.indymedia.org

by EK Holden – for Perth Indymedia 2006-06-06 2:03 AM +0800

Despite around 75 percent of Gorgon’s initial LNG output being assigned, the Greater Gorgon Project – a major Australian oil and gas export processing site and carbon sequestration facility – forecast to provide up to 6000 jobs and boost GDP by $2 billion, has been blocked by the WA Environmental Protection Agency EPA…

Barrow Island is a class A Nature Reserve off the Pilbara coast of WA. The waters around Barrow Island have recently been proposed for reservation as part of a Barrow-Montebello Islands Marine Conservation Reserve.

Barrow is also large operating oilfield that uniquely is also a Class A Nature Reserve. It is situated about 70 km off the Pilbara coast of Western Australia. It has a high environmental value.

According to The Australian newspaper, the WA EPA will oppose the development of the $11-billion Gorgon liquefied natural gas (LNG) project, off the Pilbara coast, because of fears it could damage Barrow Island's fragile ecology.

There are 24 terrestrial species on Barrow Island that occur nowhere else in the world and another 5 that are restricted in their distribution. As an island, it is naturally quarantined from invasive species. The formal EPA decision follows a three-year environmental impact assessment, has shocked the project's partners, ExxonMobil, Chevron and Shell, the newspaper said.

Gorgon LNG is one of seven big gas projects – worth an estimated total of $50 billion – being considered for development in WA. Gorgon is Australia's biggest undeveloped gas project, with total resources of more than 40 trillion cubic feet of gas.

The proposal
The Gorgon field development plan is based on offshore rigs, the installation of a sub-sea gathering system and a 70-kilometre sub-sea pipeline to Barrow Island. A gas processing facility located on the central-east coast of Barrow Island would process the gas. Reservoir carbon dioxide would be removed and re-injected into deep saline reservoirs beneath the island to reduce CO2 emissions. The liquid hydrocarbon product would then be transported by ship to international markets. Compressed domestic gas would be delivered via a sub-sea pipeline to the Western Australian mainland for use in the industrial and domestic gas markets.]

Project
"Our project on Barrow Island involves taking natural gas from below the sea floor and converting it into liquefied natural gas which we can then transport in ships to the Asian market and that liquefaction process, where we take the gas stream, we chill it down to a very low temperature where the gas becomes a liquid, involves the use of gas turbines and compressors, and the exhaust emissions from those gas turbines, really the technology and the cost involved in capturing CO2 from that source is really not practical at the moment. So we are unable to really deal with those parts of the emissions." (John Torkington – Chevron Texaco)

The Greater Gorgon Development is based on:
* Installation of a sub-sea gathering system

* Sub-sea pipelines from the Gorgon Gas field and Jansz Gas Field to Barrow Island

* A gas processing facility consisting of two five million tonne per annum trains located on central-east coast of Barrow Island

* CO2 removal and injection process

* Liquid hydrocarbon shipping facilities to transport the product to international markets

* Assessment of a domestic gas plant and pipeline to deliver gas to the mainland

LNG sale secures Chevron’s share of Gorgon gas – December, 2005

"We welcome Osaka Gas, a leading LNG consumer in the world's biggest LNG market and look forward to them playing a distinctive role in the foundation of the Gorgon Project"

The balance of Chevron’s entitlement to LNG from the first two trains of the Gorgon Project will be available to supply markets such as North America, where Chevron is pursuing a portfolio of options for importing natural gas. The Gorgon Project, in which Chevron Australia holds a 50 percent operating interest, is to include an initial two train (10 MTPA) LNG facility and a planned domestic gas plant located on Barrow Island.
"From a project perspective, about 75 percent of Gorgon’s initial LNG output has now been assigned."

The Project participants include the Australian subsidiaries of Shell (25 percent) and ExxonMobil (25 percent).

=========

Sources:
The Australian: EPA blocks Pilbara gas development June 06, 2006

Gorgon Final Environmental Impact Statement etc

WA EPA

Subsea Offshore Infrastructure

Impact of climate change

From Wikinews

 

June 5, 2006

 

A new report, entitled "Global Deserts Outlook," has been released on World Environment Day by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The report suggests that the world’s deserts face dramatic changes as a result of global climate change, high water demands, tourism and salt contamination of irrigated soils. The UNEP say desert margins and mountainous areas within deserts that have been important for people, wildlife and water supplies for millennia, are under particular threat.2006 is the United Nations' International Year of Deserts and Desertification. Some experts believe deserts could become the "carbon-free power houses of the 21st century." They argue that an area 800 by 800 km of a desert such as the Sahara could capture enough solar energy to generate all the world’s electricity needs and more.

The report, prepared by experts from across the globe, flags options that may help governments and relevant bodies deliver a more sustainable future for the Earth's desert regions.

Shafqat Kakakhel, UNEP’s Officer in Charge and Deputy Executive Director, said: "There are many popular and sometimes misplaced views of deserts which this report either confirms or overturns. Far from being barren wastelands, they emerge as biologically, economically and culturally dynamic while being increasingly subject to the impacts and pressures of the modern world".

"If the huge, solar-power potential of deserts can be economically harnessed the world has a future free from fossil fuels. And tourism based around desert nature can, if sensitively managed, deliver new prospects and perspectives for people in some of the poorest parts of the world," said Mr Kakakhel.

Almost one-quarter of the earth’s land surface – some 33.7 million square kilometres – has been defined as "desert" in some sense. These deserts are inhabited by over 500 million people, significantly more than previously thought. The desert cores remain pristine in many parts of the world, representing some of the planet’s "last remaining areas of total wilderness," stated the UNEP in a news release.

The Global Deserts Outlook reports that desert species are on the brink of extinction – including various species of Gazelle, Oryx, Addax, Arabian Tahr and the Barbary sheep as well as one of the falconers favourite prey, the Houbara. "At greatest risk are the few patches of dry woodlands associated with desert mountain habitats which may decline by up to 3.5 per cent per year,"

Desert wetlands, fed by the large rivers crossing deserts, are probably the most threatened ecosystem, as a result of their valuable water supplies being diverted to domestic or agricultural use. Probable impacts include those created by roads, settlement expansion and other infrastructure developments around desert montane areas. The report estimates that desert wilderness – those areas where there are no nearby roads, will decline from just under 60 per cent of the current total desert area to just over 30 per cent by 2050.

The report also suggests that the pharmaceutical potential of desert plants has yet to be tapped. Scientists across the globe are analysing many desert plants for potential medicinal compounds – including anti-cancer and anti-malarial substances, antioxidants, as well as appetite suppressants.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), who advise governments and the United Nations, have reported that temperatures in deserts could rise by an average of as much as five to seven degrees by 2100. UNEP say the problem will almost certainly be compounded by the melting of glaciers – whose waters sustain many deserts.

UNEP report that the impacts of climate change include the transformation of semi-arid rangelands into deserts. They say water supplies are under threat from salinization and pollution by pesticides and herbicides, and that rising water-tables beneath irrigated soils has led to more salinization of soils.

The report shows that in some coastal areas ground-water supplies have been contaminated as seawater invades subsurface waters. Large rivers running through deserts have supported desert people for millennia, but many have been dammed, with water losses downstream leading to serious impacts on floodplain and river ecology.

Sources

• "Global Deserts Outlook Launched on World Environment Day". UNEP News Release, June 5, 2006

• "Deserts 'need better management'". BBC NEWS, June 5, 2006

Climate change

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!

June 5, 2006

 

 

Wikinews Australia has in-depth coverage of this issue: Australian nuclear debate

Australian media reports that Prime Minister John Howard is expected to push a nuclear energy inquiry through federal cabinet this week. Meanwhile, a list of possible sites for nuclear reactors has been leaked by the Opposition to media. The locations, listed in 1997, include Adelaide, Darwin, Perth, Lucas Heights, Goulburn, Holsworthy, and Broken Hill in New South Wales and other sites.

West Australian (WA) premier Alan Carpenter says the list of fourteen potential sites were a "facade to soften up Western Australians into accepting a nuclear waste dump." The WA Premier said people would not only be surprised but "stunned to learn that the federal cabinet considered possible sites… without disclosing them to any state government."

Mr Carpenter said in a media release that the document mentions a site near Perth airport. "People should wake up to what's happening around Australia, particularly in WA," said Mr. Carpenter. "Only a few weeks ago, we had three prominent WA Liberal MPs supporting a nuclear waste dump in WA," he said. "This is all a facade in the Howard Government's push to soften up West Australians for a nuclear waste dump."

Premier Carpenter, whose Labor government stridently opposes uranium mining in WA, stated his opposition to a nuclear waste dump: "I vehemently oppose the prospect of our State becoming the dumping ground for the world's nuclear waste and that is what will happen if we allow uranium mining in WA. The evidence is mounting and indisputable."

The South Australian Government has ruled out any possible nuclear power plant in SA. "A nuclear power plant would bankrupt our state," SA Premier Mike Rann said. "It would not be commercially viable and would not, in my view, be acceptable to the public. Nuclear power plants need giant populations to sustain them, there is no-one coming to me from the commercial sector or the mining industry or anywhere else, suggesting a nuclear power plant."

Earlier, Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer said South Australia should build a nuclear power station to run a desalination plant. Premier Rann dismissed the idea as ridiculous and said comments by Mr Downer highlight divisions within Federal Cabinet. He said Mr Downer is at odds with the Federal Finance Minister Nick Minchin, who says the high costs of nuclear power would rule it out.

Mr Rann says South Australia will not allow nuclear power. "For once I'm agreeing with Nick Minchin," he said. "I think Nick Minchin is right that a nuclear power plant isn't necessary and won't happen and I think that Alexander Downer is having a bit of a lend of him."

Victoria's Energy Minister Theo Theophanous said nuclear energy in Australia did not make sense when the cost and problems of waste disposal were considered. Mr Theophanous has rejected a report that found nuclear power could be competitive with conventional energy generation if it was subsided with help from a taxpayer subsidy.

A recent report, found nuclear power could compete with gas or coal-fired electricity if taxpayers helped to pay for it or shouldered the risk of its production. The ANSTO report found nuclear plants could be built in the next 10 to 15 years and an Australian version would cost about $2.5 billion to establish. To make it viable, taxpayers would pay hundreds of million towards start-up costs, said the report.

But Mr Theophanous said Victoria had already had concluded the nuclear proposal did not add up. "I had my department look at this and provide a report to me more than a year ago in relation to the prospect of nuclear power," he said. "The problem is a commercial one as much as anything else. It costs roughly double the price to produce power out of nuclear energy. If you're going to pay double the price, why not put in wind farms? Why not use renewable energy, which is even cheaper than nuclear energy?" said Mr Theophanous .

The Victoria Government urges householders to reduce greenhouse emissions by reducing daily energy consumption. A new campaign identifies simple measures residents can adopt to cut power bills and greenhouse emissions, including turning the heating thermostat to no more than 20C, washing clothes in cold water and turning appliances off at the switch when they are not being used.

New South Wales Premier Morris Iemma has also declared his opposition to nuclear power. He said no nuclear power stations would be built in NSW as long as he is premier. Mr Iemma urged state opposition leader Peter Debnam to join him in opposing the construction of nuclear power plants in NSW. "While ever I'm premier of NSW there won't be any nuclear power plants in NSW," he told reporters.

Queensland Premier Peter Beattie says he "would not jeopardize the state's coal industry by supporting a nuclear power plant." Mr. Beattie has ruled out uranium mining in Queensland to protect the state's huge coal industry. He said he would not support a nuclear power plant. "The State Government would not support it," Mr. Beattie said.

"We have the power to block them and we would block them, we would not support nuclear power. Why would we have a nuclear reactor in competition with the coal industry?" Mr. Beattie told media.

The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) chairman Don Henry says a nuclear debate must consider climate change. "If the inquiry is just about nuclear power it will be a waste of taxpayers money because nuclear power is too dangerous, too dirty, and too slow to tackle climate change," he said. "If the inquiry is going to be fairdinkum, it needs to look at that issue: what can we do right now to tackle climate change in Australia?"

Australian Greens climate change and energy spokesperson Senator Christine Milne said in a media release: "Instead of turning to nuclear power, Australia should ratify the Kyoto Protocol, invest in renewable energy, adopt a national energy efficiency target and improve public transport. "Several studies examining options to achieve deep cuts in Australian greenhouse emissions all show this goal can be achieved, cost effectively, without resorting to nuclear power."

Greens Senator Rachel Siewert says: "The nuclear industry is engaged in a concerted effort to be given one last chance for redemption… yet every step of the nuclear fuel chain, from mining, milling, enrichment and operating reactors to waste storage, is subject to the same human error, material breakdowns, complexity and incompetence as any other area of human endeavour." said Senator Siewert. "The current inventory of nuclear waste will already present our descendents with a monstrous intergenerational headache. Allowing so much as a kilogram more of this material to be produced is simply immoral."

The ACF say "nuclear energy is not a solution to climate change." ACF President Professor Ian Lowe says "Nuclear is too slow to provide any legitimate answer to climate change or to energy security for the developing world." The ACF report that, as an energy source globally, uranium provides less power than renewables do. "Uranium is inextricably linked to very serious environmental and health problems via nuclear weapons and radioactive waste. There is nothing ideological about opposing its use…"

Nuclear inquiry

 

 

The Australian Newspaper reports that Prime Minister Howard is preparing to appoint chief scientist Jim Peacock, a supporter of nuclear power, and other high-level nuclear industry experts to the team. The public inquiry, to be undertaken by three or four selected experts is expected to "examine the economics of nuclear energy, health, safety, environmental and proliferation issues as well as waste and storage." The taskforce will take submissions and is expected to prepare a report to Government within four or five months, with the Government's response early in 2007.

The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), Ian Smith, says "at least three" power plants would be required. Mr Howard said the ANSTO report challenged the view that the cost of nuclear power was prohibitive. Dr Smith told a Senate estimates hearing that Australia would require "multiple power stations to make the industry viable".

Federal Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane said the nuclear energy inquiry would also include consideration of nuclear enrichment plants in Australia. Mr Macfarlane said he would consider a nuclear power plant in his own Toowoomba electorate.

Prime Minister John Howard insisted he would not be deterred by the unpopularity of nuclear power.

Sources

• "Rann rules out nuclear power plant". Australian Broadcasting Corporation, May 30, 2006

• "Downer's SA nuclear power idea ridiculous, says Labor". Australian Broadcasting Corporation, June 3, 2006

• "PM reveals plans for 'full-blooded' nuclear debate". Australian Broadcasting Corporation, June 5, 2006

• Samantha Maiden "Three nuke plants needed". The Australian, June 05, 2006

• Katharine Murphy, Canberra "Cabinet to order nuclear inquiry". The Age, June 5, 2006

• "WA rejects nuclear power plant". The Daily Telegraph, June 04, 2006

• Mark Kenny "DOWNER PUSHES FOR SA NUCLEAR PLANT". The Advertiser, June 3, 2006

• "CF position on uranium mining and nuclear power". Australian Conservation Foundation, May 4, 2006

• "Nuclear option not on: Minister". The Australian, June 05, 2006

• "No nuclear plant while I'm in charge". The Sydney Morning Herald, June 5, 2006

• "Nuclear Power – The Campaign Continues". The Australian Greens, June 5, 2006

Sources

From Wikinews June 5, 2006

Australia's biggest charity organisations are refusing to cooperate with the Howard government's welfare reform rules. The federal government expects about 18,000 people a year will lose their payments for eight weeks when the new welfare-to-work regime comes into force on July 1.

Only 23 organisations have signed up to a government registry to "financially case manage" the most vulnerable unemployed, who will be left without income under tougher rules. The Brotherhood of St Laurence has told Fairfax newspapers it will not participate because it believes the welfare shake-up is unjust.

Under the rules, about 18,000 people a year, according to the Government, are expected to lose their benefit for infringements of job search rules. Those with dependants, and those deemed "exceptionally vulnerable," will be eligible for case management by a charity on the government register.

But the Brotherhood of St Laurence and the St Vincent de Paul Society, have refused to register. The Salvation Army and others are contemplating the moral dilemma of whether to become an agent for a policy they believe is "unjust."

The Government say they will pay charities $650 to manage each eligible unemployed person it assigns them. The Government wants charities to assess the person's "essential" expenses and notify Centrelink, which would then decide whether to pay the bills or not.

Director of UnitingCare Australia, Lin Hatfield Dodds, said she did not expect many of the 400 agencies in her network to sign up to be case managers. Mission Australia has also not registered. Sue Leppert, executive director of Anglicare Australia, said many of her member agencies would definitely not register and others were grappling with the issue.

Most Australian charities strongly oppose the policy of stripping all income from unemployed people for infringements. There is much concern that sole parents and many disabled people will be diverted from specific pensions to the Newstart Allowance. They will then be subject to stringent job search rules, potential infringements and harsh penalties.

Charities are also alarmed that under the new policy, people can immediately lose their payment for eight weeks if they refuse a job offer, are dismissed for misconduct, or are voluntarily unemployed.

The executive director of the Brotherhood of St Laurence, Tony Nicholson, said the policy was unjust. "First they suffer an eight-week suspension of payment, and to add insult to injury they have to justify to some case manager their expenditure on their meagre income."

Under the Welfare to Work plan, sole parents whose youngest child has turned six and disabled people who are assessed as capable of working 15 hours per week will no longer be granted a pension.

At the launch of a nation-wide advertising campaign for the governments reform, Minister for Human Services, Joe Hockey said: "the advertising campaign is part of an education process designed to encourage more people on income support to move into work," said Minister Hockey. "The Howard Government is investing $3.7 billion to deliver greater employment services and other assistance, including rehabilitation, to those people required to look for work."

A spokesman for the Minister said the Government was trying to ensure "rents will be paid and kids won't get tossed out of home" if parents failed to meet their job search obligations.

• Adele Horin "Tougher dole rules alarm charities". Sydney Morning Herald, June 5, 2006

• "Charities unhappy with federal govt plan". The Age, June 5, 2006

• Ministers Kevin Andrews, Joe Hockey "Helping More Australians Move into Work – Joint Media Release". Minister for Human Services, June 1, 2006