Here - Friends of the Earth Australia

chainreacti nIssue #117 | April 2013RRP $5.50The National Magazine of Friends of the Earth Australiawww.foe.org.au• Gillard’s ‘green tape’ propaganda• Deep Sea Mining − The Pacific Experiment• River Red Gums face new threat• The dirty business of coal in NSW• Nuclear lobby spinning Fukushima• Baillieu’s resignation opens doorfor wind policy shift• Campaign for an Iraq War Inquiry1 Chain Reaction #117 April 2013

To purchase hard copies of the AustralianNuclear Map, email jim.green@foe.org.au

ContentsEdition #117 − April 2013Publisher - Friends of the Earth, AustraliaChain Reaction ABN 81600610421FoE Australia ABN 18110769501www.foe.org.auyoutube.com/user/FriendsOfTheEarthAUStwitter.com/FoEAustraliafacebook.com/pages/Friends-of-the-Earth-Australia/16744315982flickr.com/photos/foeaustraliaChain Reaction websitewww.foe.org.au/chain-reactionChain Reaction contact detailsPO Box 222,Fitzroy, Victoria, 3065.email: chainreaction@foe.org.auphone: (03) 9419 8700Chain Reaction teamJim Green, Kim Stewart, Georgia Miller,Rebecca Pearse, Richard Smith, Elena McMaster,Tessa Sellar, Joel Catchlove, Ben Courtice,Kristy Walters, Franklin BruinstroopLayout & DesignTessa SellarPrintingArena Printing and Publishing, MelbournePrinted on recycled paperSubscriptionsSix issues (two years) A$33Twelve issues (four years) A$60See subscription ad in this issue of Chain Reaction(or see website and contact details above).Chain Reaction is published three times a yearISSN: 0312 − 1372Copyright:Written material in Chain Reaction is free of copyrightunless otherwise indicated or where material has beenreprinted from another source. Please acknowledgeChain Reaction when reprinting.The opinions expressed in Chain Reaction are notnecessarily those of the publishers or any Friendsof the Earth group.Chain Reaction Advisory BoardKaren Alexanderbiodiversity campaigner − VicGreg Buckmanauthor/researcher − CanberraDamian GrenfellGlobalism Centre RMIT − MelbourneGeoff Evanssustainability researcher − NewcastleJo ImmigNational Toxics Network − Bangalow, NSWBinnie O’DwyerFoE representative − LismoreJames WhelanChange Agency − BrisbaneRegular itemsFoE Australia News 5FoE International News 8Earth News 10FoE Campaigns And AffiliatesJoin Friends of the Earth 4FoE Australia Contactsinside back coverMarket Forces 12River Red Gums face new threat 13Baillieu’s resignation opens door for wind policy shift 14Organic Food Improving Health Services in Uganda 15NanotechnologySave the silver for where it’s needed 16Testing reveals potentially dangerous free radicalproducing ingredients in sunscreen and cosmetics 17Sunscreens exposed: stripping away the gloss 18Nano-news 19‘Green Tape’ PropagandaGillard’s ‘green tape’ propaganda - Lauren Caulfield 20WA uranium debate undermines ‘green tape’ propaganda - Jim Green 23Climate & EnergyCampaigning to stop the fourth coal terminal in Newcastle- Jane Oakley, Annika Dean and James Whelan 24Australia’s electricity market: making the polluters profitable - Ben Courtice 26The dirty business of coal in NSW - Beck Pearse 28Poowong says no to coal and gas - Chloe Aldenhoven 30Campbell Newman’s uranium backflip in Queensland - Adam Stone 31Nuclear power: looking back, looking forward - Jim Green 32Spinning Fukushima - Jim Green 34Other ArticlesDeep Sea Mining − The Pacific Experiment - Helen Rosenbaum and Natalie Lowrey 36Campaign for an Iraq War Inquiry - Sue Wareham 39Indigenous communities, conservation and the resource boom- Nick McClean and Dawn Wells 40ReviewsNguly Gu Yadoo Mai (Our Good Food) - Eve Vincent and Breony Carbines 42Aboriginal Disempowerment in the Northern Territory 43People on Country − Vital Landscapes − Indigenous Futures 43Food Shock 44The global food crisis and what we can do to avoid it 44Our Dying Planet: An Ecologist’s View 45Green Australia: A Snapshot 45The Lace Makers of Narsapur 46Voices from the Global Fight for Women’s Rights 46Big Picture Parenting for a Changing World 46Beyond Resource, Land and Food Wars 47Bio-Dynamics in the Backyard 47Climate Politics and the Climate Movement in Australia 482052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years 50Front cover:From her Observer Tree perch 60 metres up inthe canopy of Tasmania’s beleaguered old growthforests, where she spent 15 months during atime of intense negotiations and ongoing forestdestruction, Tasmanian activist Miranda Gibson hasa personal message for Julia Gillard: ‘Don’t abandonenvironmental protection’.3 Chain Reaction #117 April 2013 Chain Reaction #117 April 2013 3www.foe.org.au

Friends of the Earth (FoE) Australia is afederation of independent local groups.You can join FoE by contacting your localgroup − see the inside back cover of ChainReaction for contact details or visit foe.org.au/local-groupsThere is a monthly FoE Australia emailnewsletter − subscribe via the website:www.foe.org.auTo financially support our work, pleasevisit foe.org.au/donateFriends of the Earth Onlinewww.foe.org.auyoutube.com/user/FriendsOfTheEarthAUStwitter.com/FoEAustraliafacebook.com/pages/Friends-of-the-Earth-Australia/16744315982flickr.com/photos/foeaustraliaQuit Coal activists occupy coal stationChloe Aldenhoven and Dom O'Dwyer,activists from FoE Melbourne's QuitCoal campaign, scaled a large coolingtower at the coal-fired YallournPower Station in the Latrobe Valleyin December. It was the longestoccupation of a power station inAustralia's history.After battling repeated attempts toremove them, then terrible weather,Chloe and Dom passed the nightattached to the cooling tower, survivingconstant dripping through the gaps inthe tarp, the tragic loss of a sleepingbag through clumsiness, and late nightinterviews from eager journalists.Plans to unfurl a 21-metre longbanner of a boiling thermometer,that read: "Government FundedGlobal Warming", had to be abandonedbecause of more bad weather in themorning, but the climbers reachedthe top of the 120-metre tower andunfurled a small banner reading:"Invest in Renewable Energy Jobs,Not Handouts for Polluters".By 5pm, after occupying the towerfor a record 30 hours, Chloe andDom descended voluntarily andwere carted off by police andcharged under draconian laws.Yallourn is one of the most emissionsintensivecoal fired power stationsin the world. Given the decrease ingrid power consumption and theincrease in electricity produced fromrenewable sources, it also providesunnecessary extra capacity thatcould be decommissioned withoutendangering supply.The site has been plagued by a seriesof other problems, with the mineflooding earlier in 2012, causing theentire power station to shut down fora week. The massive amounts of waterremaining in the mine, contaminatedwith mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmiumand other toxic substances found incoal, were still being pumped intothe local river system later in theyear, threatening fishing, tourism andfarming in the region and posing a riskto the health of people downstream."Yallourn is a dangerous relic thatcontinually poses a threat to localcommunities and vital ecosystemsin the region, whilst making a hugecontribution to dangerous changesin our climate," said Quit Coalspokesperson and climber ChloeAldenhoven. "All of this has notstopped the federal government fromgiving China Light and Power, theowner of Yallourn, $257 million inhandouts this financial year dressed upas 'compensation' for the carbon tax."Quit Coal argues that the moneyshould go towards investing in arenewable energy manufacturingsector, focussing on creating jobs inareas that are currently dependenton coal. Quit Coal proudly supportsthe Earthworker Cooperative, anorganisation that is actively buildingthis alternative.5 www.foe.org.auChain Reaction #117 April 2013Chain Reaction #117 April 2013 5

Olivia Aripa, Papua New Guinea; MaureenMopio Jane, Radio 4EB; Lolia Kaumauti, Kiribati.Climate FrontlinesOn Thursday February 14, the FoEBrisbane Climate Frontlines collectivehosted a public information eveningwith three Pacific Island women inAustralia for a program focusing onmicro-finance for climate-changerelatedsustainability projects,organised by Sisters 4 Sustainability.After participating in the Canberraconference of the International Societyfor Human Ecology and Sustainability,they completed the rest of the initialstage of the program in Brisbane. Theinformation evening in Brisbane wasan opportunity for them to share witha wider audience both the challengestheir communities are facing and thecreative responses they are developing.Olivia Aripa, a great grandmother,nurse, midwife and a respectedelder from the Popondetta area inPapua New Guinea, described howextreme rainfall events have destroyedmany crops, as well as plants used forproducing handcrafts for daily useand income generation, making it verydifficult for the women to provide fortheir children. The impact on localinfrastructure has meant that somebasic services, such as access toschool for small children,are no longer available.Olivia has initiated a number ofprograms to help local womenand children adapt to these changingcircumstances and is seeking helpto expand a small flower marketingbusiness to support theprograms financially."It's war", said Senolita Vakata,describing the struggle against theimpacts of climate change on Ha'apai,a low-lying group of islands in theKingdom of Tonga. Traditionally,people have settled in coastal areas,for ease of access to the sea. However,their houses are now flooded withsea water on a regular basis andtheir coconut palms dying with theirexposed roots – due to coastal erosion– being burnt by the sun. Senolitahas been able to access resourcesto help the people build new housesaway from the coast, but this willdepend on the allocation of landunder the government-controlled landholding system. In any case if theydo move inland, they can only hopeto eventually meet the encroachingsea on the other side of the island.Lolia Kaumati, a former civil servant,and now Secretary of the nationalwomen's organisation, describedthe situation in Kiribati. Their islandsare ravaged by floods and risingsea levels, leaving roads impassable,bridges and causeways destroyed,houses flooded and crops ruined.The atolls are long and narrow andthe original soil is being replaced byan infertile substance. Because of theincreasing salination and degradationof the underground water supply, thechildren are contracting diseases andthe dwindling food supply of localfish and crops make people moredependent on outside help.It is now clear that migration optionswill be needed. The question is whereto. And how ensure the preservationof the Kiribati culture. Furthermore,how can people without financialresources move without assistance?The New Zealand governmentdemands $25 even to lodge anapplication to move there. One ofthe biggest challenges in the nearfuture will be to develop a clearmigration and resettlement plan,and Lolia hopes to be involved.The Climate Frontlines were pleasedto be able to include these women intheir network of Pacific contacts, andto facilitate an interview by MaureenMopio Jane, part of the Women'sProfile team at Brisbane Radio 4EB.6 Chain Reaction #117 April 2013

Time to protectVictoria's farmlandIn 2012, community concern aboutthe threat of new coal and gasoperations, especially coal seamgas (CSG), pushed the Victoriangovernment to ban the use ofdangerous BTEX chemicals and place amoratorium on the process of frackingfor gas (see Chain Reaction #116).The moratorium will finish shortlyand the government has made it clearit wants to see renewed expansion ofthe fossil fuel industry.Early in 2013, mining magnate GinaRinehart bought into the emergingVictorian coal and gas sector. Hercompany has bought into localcompany Lakes Oil, and placedclimate sceptic Ian Plimer and formerpolitician Alexander Downer on theLakes Oil board.FoE has been tracking Lake's activityfor a year now, and highlightedpoor management of some previousoperations. They are currently drillingfor shale oil in Gippsland, waiting forthe moratorium on fracking to endso they can continue their Tight Gasoperations, and hold three explorationlicenses for brown coal.Community concerns remains strong,yet the government maintains thatfarming and gas production can coexist.In response to the government'srefusal to implement an inquiry intothe likely impacts of new coal and gasoperations on the land, water, peopleand economy of Victoria, FoE haslaunched a new campaign to encourageland owners to protect farmland.Under section 7 of the existing MineralResources (Sustainable Development)Act, the government can create NoGo zones for coal and coal seam gas.FoE is encouraging local communitiesand land owners to demand thegovernment provide this protection.More information: melbourne.foe.org.au/?q=node/1215Our petition is posted at:communityrun.org/petitions/protectgippsland-farms-from-coal-and-gasProtect Arnhem Land NTProtect Arnhem Land NT is a newcampaign group that has affiliatedwith Friends of the Earth.Over 40 potential petroleumexploration sites exist off the coast ofArnhem Land. Little information hasbeen made public about the potentialimpacts. In response to this alarmingand disrespectful process so far, agroup of Northern Territorians haveformed Protect Arnhem Land (PAL),a group consisting of local residentsof Maningrida Community includingTraditional Land Owners. PAL willcampaign for a just process for thepeople of Arnhem Land in relation tothe new offshore mining permits andany future oil or gas proposals.In its short history PAL has heldmeetings with the Northern LandCouncil and community members;held a public awareness day withover 250 people attending; obtainedsubmissions from 42 traditional landowners in response to the explorationnotifications; contacted communitiesacross Arnhem Land; contacted localand federal MPs; and registered 20new sacred sites offshore, across theArnhem Land coast.Email: protectarnhemland@gmail.comfacebook.com/protectarnhemlandNTA website will soon be launched:www.protectarnhemland.orgCounterActCounterAct is a new affiliate memberof Friends of the Earth and has beenlaunched to support communities intaking effective, creative, strategicnonviolent direct action on issues ofenvironmental and social justice. Wewill be providing training indirect action skills, campaigningand community organising acrossAustralia. If you would like tocollaborate, suggest or request aworkshop, or would like to shareresources, get in touch.Also, we are undertaking a needsanalysis and 10-minute survey forwhat current training and capacitybuilding needs are for communitycampaigns in Australia. We'd loveto hear from you. You will also gointo the draw to win a great book'Re-Imagining Change' by smartMeme courtesy of our friendsat Plan to Win. Check the surveyand get in touch atwww.counteract.org.au or emailpeacefulcommunityaction@gmail.comTax-deductible donations can be madeat givenow.com.au/foecounteractand 100% of your donation will gotowards supporting training andcapacity building.7 Chain Reaction #117 April 2013 Chain Reaction #117 April 2013 7www.foe.org.au

Lock the Gate Alliance −a Call to CountryThe Lock the Gate Alliance (LTGA) haslaunched a Call to Country to demandreal action to restrict inappropriatecoal and gas mining. LTGA mappingshows that 437 million hectares ofAustralia is covered by coal and gaslicences or applications − more thanhalf of Australia. The LTGA is askingAustralians to visit federal MPs in thelead-up to the September election.The Alliance is calling on the federalgovernment to:1. Put in place an urgent moratoriumon coal seam gas and otherunconventional gas mining.2. Create no-go zones to protectproductive agricultural land,national tourism icons and allresidential dwellings from coaland gas mining.3. Strengthen federal environmentlaws to exclude coal and gas miningfrom important water sources,cultural heritage sites and sensitiveenvironment areas.4. Put in place national standardson coal and gas pollution andenforce compliance.5. Stop using taxpayers' money toprovide handouts to big coal and gascorporations and make the minerspay their fair share in taxes.6. Reject current developmentproposals for coal ports, megamines,dams and unconventional gaswells in significant areas.7. Conduct research into greenhousegas emissions from mining and makesure they are properly accountedand fully paid for.8. Hold a Royal Commission toinvestigate the management ofcoal and gas resources by allAustralian governments.www.lockthegate.org.au/calltocountryFalling renewableenergy costsRenewable energy has enteredinto a new virtuous cycle of fallingcosts, increasing deployment, andaccelerated technological progress, areport by the International RenewableEnergy Agency (IRENA) has found.The cost of solar energy, for example,has dropped below the cost of dieselgeneration worldwide for communitiesliving away from the electricity grid.'Renewable Power Generation Costsin 2012: An Overview', launchedduring the IRENA annual assembly andat the World Future Energy Summitin Abu Dhabi, is the most current,comprehensive analysis of the costsand performance of renewable powergeneration today. It can be found onwww.irena.org.Its analysis of 8000 medium- to largescalerenewable power generationprojects reveals that renewables arefast becoming the most competitiveoption for new electricity grid supplyand swift grid extension, and arealready the default economic solutionfor off-grid power supply.Formally established in 2011, IRENAis mandated by 159 countries andthe European Union to promotethe sustainable use of all forms ofrenewable energy, and to serve asthe global hub for renewable energycooperation and information exchange.Occupy Melbournepolicing reportThe Occupy Melbourne Legal SupportTeam has written a report titled‘Occupy Policing: A Report into theEffects and Legality of the Eviction ofOccupy Melbourne from City Squareon 21 October 2011’.The report documents protesters’experiences of policing andcomplements eye-witness accountswith an account of the relevant laws.Key findings including:The policing of protesters had harmfuland lasting psychological, physicaland political effects on individualprotestors as well as the right topolitical expression;The various justifications reliedupon by Melbourne City Counciland Victoria Police to authorisetheir actions raise serious and as yetunresolved questions of law. Thereappears to be a lack of legal basis forthe actions to forcibly remove OccupyMelbourne protesters from City Squareon the 21 October 2011;There was extensive use of forceby police in arresting and policingprotestors, including the use of chokeholdsand ‘snatch squads’; andThe police arguably acted outside oftheir legitimate powers and internalguidelines in detaining approximately100 people pursuant to ‘breach of thepeace’ powers. The place, conditionsand length of detention varied, andprotester statements attest to theirdisorientating and distressing effects.The report’s recommendationsreiterate previous calls for anindependent inquiry into the forcibleremoval of Occupy Melbourne. TamarHopkins, Convenor of the NationalPolice Accountability Network andPrincipal Solicitor at the Flemingtonand Kensington Community LegalCentre, said: “The continuing failureof Victoria’s systems of accountabilityto prevent, investigate, and punishpolice officers who abuse their powersas well as hold their commandingofficers to account leaves all Victoriansvulnerable to human rights abuses.”The report is posted atwww.occupypolicing.org10 Chain Reaction #117 April 2013

Market ForcesMarket Forces is a new campaign affiliated to Friendsof the Earth. The campaign’s premise is that banks,superannuation funds and governments that have custodyof our money should use it to protect − not damage − ourenvironment. The campaign, established by Julien Vincent,is working with grassroots groups, organisations andindividuals to turn the ship around.Each year, Australian governments spend billions of dollarsof public money on programs that encourage more coal,gas and oil to be extracted and burned. Market Forcesestimates that the tax-based fossil fuel subsidies amountto over $11 billion per year federally and are set to increaseto over $13 billion in the coming years.A survey commissioned by Market Forces in January 2013showed overwhelming opposition to fossil fuel subsidies.Three times as many people believe that fossil fuelsubsidies in Australia are too high than those who thoughthey were too low, and 64% of Australians disapproveof the mining industry receiving a discount on their fuelssuch as petrol and diesel − a measure that costs thetaxpayers $2 billion per year.The carbon price is expected to bring in just over $4 billionin 2012-13. Yet expenditure on fossil fuel subsidies is almosttriple this figure, so for every dollar spent to penalisecarbon pollution, another three is being spent encouragingit. This is an enormous policy conflict and amounts tobillions of dollars wasted on policies that cancel outeach others objectives.In 2009, Australia joined an agreement at the G20 inPittsburgh to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies inthe medium term. Since then, Australia has tried to playdown the commitment, avoiding the issue by claimingwe have no subsidies that fall within the scope of the G20commitment. Treasury disagrees, identifying 17 measuresworth $8 billion that would need to be cut for Australiato meet the G20 agreement. In his 2011 climate changereview update, Professor Ross Garnaut also listed theelimination of fossil fuel subsidies as a key measure forreducing carbon pollution.Market Forces − along with other groups − is workingto expose ANZ’s role in financing fossil fuel pollution.Bloomberg data shows that since the middle of 2010ANZ has been party to loans worth nearly $20 billionto companies actively driving the coal expansion in NewSouth Wales and Queensland. ANZ is also advising GVK onproject finance and are playing a lead role in arranging debtfor the Indian conglomerate’s massive 30 million tonne peryear Alpha coal mine in the Galilee Basin. Combined, thesecompanies are proposing 46 new coal mining projects— either new mines or extensions to existing mines —that would have an annual output of about 340 milliontonnes of coal per year, more than Australia as a wholecurrently produces.Not all of these loans will have been for the expresspurpose of enabling specific coal projects, but some clearlyare, such as the Whitehaven deal and the $1 billion loanto Peabody to assist with their Macarthur Coal takeover.Nonetheless, all of these loans enable the continuingoperation of companies that are gleefully taking part in acoal expansion that will render a safe climate unattainableand ravage parts of the local environment along the way.Banks that purport to believe in sustainability and a healthyenvironment should on principle be running a mile fromcompanies involved in such wanton destruction.In February, Market Forces examined the performanceof 17 coal prospecting and mining companies tradingin Australia and found a huge drop in their value in thepast year. In the 20 months to February 2013, over onequarter of their total value disappeared. Much of thecurrent coal prospecting in Australia is predicated onthere being a hungry Asian market for coal beyond 2015.But with China now setting a coal consumption cap anduncertainty in India over their plans to increase domesticinfrastructure and revise down plans for new coal growth,investing in Australian coal prospectors and small miners islooking far from a safe bet.At the Market Forces website, you can sign up to receiveupdates, get involved or donate.More information:web: www.marketforces.org.autwitter: @market_forcesfacebook.com/MarketForcesemail: contact@marketforces.org.au12 Chain Reaction #117 April 2013

River Red Gumsface new threatWill MooneyThe ancient river red gum forests that line Australia’s iconicMurray River have faced more than their fair share ofpressures in 200 years of white occupation. Now Friendsof the Earth is taking action to counteract a new threatwith an unlikely label: ‘ecological thinning’.The Barmah-Millewa forest − situated near Echuca, on bothsides of the NSW/Victorian border − is the largest red gumforest on earth. It is a unique wetland forest ecosystem thatshelters many threatened species and sustains importantIndigenous cultural values. It is also an internationallysignificant Ramsar-listed wetland. Since Europeanoccupation of the Murray region, this forest has beenfragmented and degraded. Logging and cattle grazing havealtered the ecological character of the forest, introducedweeds and damaged soils. Drought and over-allocation ofwater has changed the natural flood regimes that nourishedits plants and animals. Climate change has added furtherurgency to the problem.Environmentalists, Traditional Owners, scientists andconcerned locals fought hard to protect the pricelessremaining tracts of red gum forest in NSW and Victoria.In 2009, new National Parks were created. In Victoria,160,000 hectares were protected in conservation reservesalong Victoria’s Murray, Goulburn and Ovens Riverscorridor. Declaring that “we have to take action to protectthis precious heritage”, then Victorian Premier JohnBrumby ruled out further commercial timber harvestingin the new parks.Today, in a frightening flashback, the Victorian and NSWgovernments have decided to send commercial loggingmachinery back into the National Parks, to conduct a kindof scientific experiment called ‘ecological thinning’. Theplan is to ‘thin’ around 400 hectares of forest in 22 ninehectareplots. Mechanical harvesting machines will churninto the forest, felling trees below 40 cm in diameter. Justlike a commercial logging operation, this ‘thinning’ hasthe potential to impact on threatened species, contaminatewaterways, compact soils and spread pests and diseases.The proponents of the trial aim to test the hypothesis thatthinning will ‘improve’ the forests by reducing competitionbetween stressed red gums and fostering habitat trees.However, Andrew Robinson, an independent scientistcommissioned to review the plan, has admitted that theoverall effect of the treatment is unknown.What these forests really need is a return to natural floodconditions, which limit the growth of young saplingsand allow the bigger trees to thrive. The trial involvessubjecting a site of known national environmentalsignificance to a disruptive experiment with noguaranteed ecological benefits.Not only will the ‘ecological thinning’ program threatenthose forests; it represents a foot in the door for commerciallogging and exploitation of Australia’s National Parks.www.foe.org.auCoalition State governments in Victoria, NSW andQueensland have all recently announced plans to open Parksto grazing, logging, hunting and commercial development.These plans are part of an ideologically driven attack toappease the National’s pro-development support base.The Barmah-Millewa Collective of Friends of the Earth isresponding to this new threat facing our precious red gumforests. While the Victorian and NSW State governmentspush ahead, Friends of the Earth has targeted FederalEnvironment Minister Tony Burke. We are running anonline petition on change.org asking Minister Burke tokeep the loggers out of Red Gum National Parks. Followinglobbying and submissions from a range of NGOs, theproject was recently declared a ‘controlled action’ underthe Federal Environmental Protection and BiodiversityConservation (EPBC) Act. It must now be assessed bypublic environmental report, ensuring a more rigorousevaluation of potential impacts on threatened andmigratory species and the Ramsar listed wetland. This is asmall but significant victory, yet there is more work to do.River Red Gum forests have been through hard times, butthese tenacious ecosystems have held up and flourisheddespite a litany of threats. Please help us to ensure theyflourish on into the future. You can sign and share our onlinepetition by visiting www.ourdarlingmurray.org and viewingthe latest blog post. Sign onto our mailing list to receivecampaign updates or consider donating to the campaign.Will Mooney is Community Campaignerwith the Barmah-Millewa Collective,Friends of the Earth Melbourne.Chain Reaction #117 April 2013 13

Baillieu’s resignationopens door for wind policy shiftLeigh EwbankThe resignation of Victorian Premier Ted Baillieu maypave the way for the repeal of anti-wind farm laws.The Baillieu government introduced amendments toplanning laws in August 2011. The measures comprisedfour changes that effectively ban wind farms in largeswathes of the state. First, the policy establishes arbitrary‘no-go zones’ for wind energy projects without undertakingany economic modeling or community consultation.Second, they establish ‘no go’ zones for projects within5 kms of designated regional centres. Third, the currentframework allows just one objector to stop any windturbine within 2 kms − for any reason. And lastly, thepolicy designates local councils as the principle decisionmaker (or responsible authority) on wind farm proposals.The combined impact of these changes makes Victoria theworld’s biggest wind energy NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard).The state’s once lucrative pipeline of wind farm projectshas been blocked and capital is fleeing interstate. Over thepast 18 months, just one development application has beenlodged with the department of planning, and that project islanguishing in a drawn-out hearing.Friends of the Earth research estimates Baillieu’s anti-windfarm planning laws have cost $887 million in lost or stalledinvestment; 650 direct jobs lost or stalled in construction;54 ongoing jobs in management of wind farms; and 1,408indirectly associated (flow-on) jobs. The flood of investmentthat has flowed to the South Australian wind energy sectorconfirms the adverse economic consequences of the policy.In terms of climate change action, the laws have stalledat least 408 megawatts of clean renewable energy supplycoming online and prevented carbon emissions savings ofup to 1.6 million tonnes each year (equivalent to takingaround 465,000 passenger cars off the road per year).Traditionally, the Liberal Party was seen as the party ofbusiness and an ally of science and progress. Ted Baillieu’sleadership allowed it to become captive to a Tea Party-styleculture of anti-wind energy and anti-climatescience extremism.So what are the chances of new Premier Dennis Napthineadopting a more reasonable approach to wind farm policy?Politically, the priority for any new leader is to shore upsupport. The new Premier is tasked with turning thegovernment’s faltering electoral fortunes around.Adopting a pro-renewables stance will allow the new leaderto appeal to Victorian’s who support renewable energy.Polls show that wind energy remains highly popular,despite anti-wind hysteria. Polls commissioned bythe Climate Institute and the Clean Energy Council registersupport for wind energy at 75% and greater. In theClean Energy Council study, 60% of those polled viewedrestrictions on wind farms as a missed opportunity tosupport the manufacturing sector – a finding that revealsvoters see a clear link between the wind energy sector andmanufacturing jobs.Public awareness of climate change and demand for swiftaction will grow as more Australian weather records arebroken in 2013. Australia has already seen the hottestsummer on record and the need for ambitious climatechange and renewable energy policies is growing.Former Premier Ted Baillieu was ideologically committedto opposing wind energy. The Age reported the Baillieuhad family connections to anti-wind farm lobbying. DennisNapthine does not have the same ideological baggage thatled to the introduction of such backward energyand planning policy.Napthine has more pragmatic things to consider −economic benefits and jobs in his own electorate. Asthe local member for the South-West Coast, Napthinerepresents an electorate that has benefited greatly fromthe wind energy sector. A study by Sinclair Knight Merzestimates the Macarthur and Oaklands wind farms havepumped $67 million into the local economy, employedaround 900 people during construction, and created 52ongoing jobs. Around two-thirds of Victoria’s installedwind energy capacity is in Napthine’s electorate.Whether Premier Napthine will take a leadership positionand abolish the current suite of anti-wind farm lawsremains to be seen, but Victoria clearly has a better chanceof sensible planning and energy laws with Ted Baillieu outof the picture.Please sign the petition calling on Premier Napthineto dump Ted Baillieu’s anti-wind farm laws athttp://ow.ly/iy5m3Leigh Ewbank is the Yes 2 Renewables campaigner withFriends of the Earth, Melbourne.14 Chain Reaction #117 April 2013

Testing reveals potentially dangerousfree radical producing ingredientsin sunscreen and cosmeticsLouise SalesNew testing from the National Measurement Institute (NMI)has revealed that many Australian sunscreen and cosmeticproducts still contain anatase titanium dioxide 1 , despiteyears of warnings of its extreme potential to generate freeradicals which could damage DNA and protein.The Friends of the Earth-commissioned testing foundthe chemical in six of the eight products examined. Thesunscreen and cosmetic products affected include Nivea'Kids', Coco Island 'White Zinc', Key Sun 'White Zinke',L'Oreal infallible 'Advanced Never Fail Makeup', Covergirlnatureluxe 'liquid silk foundation' and Australis 'PowderCream' Make-up 1 .Scientists have warned that anatase titanium dioxide is“capable of destroying virtually any organic matter” (2)and questioned its use in sunscreens. The product weare most concerned about is Nivea Sun ‘Kids Swim andPlay’ sunscreen, since independent analysis of the resultsby Uniquest found that more than 90% of the particlesextracted from the product were nanoparticles. Due totheir large relative surface area, nanoparticles of anatasetitanium dioxide are much more reactive than largerparticles of the chemical.Five of the other products tested were found to containanatase titanium dioxide, but it was not possible todetermine whether this was in nanoparticle form, since theproducts contained a mixture of different metal oxides.In 2008, it was revealed that nanoparticles of anatasetitanium dioxide in sunscreen were reacting with sunlightto produce free radicals which were breaking downthe coating of Colorbond roofs in a matter of weeks 3 .Researchers found that the nanoparticles increased therate of sun damage by 100 times. This discovery raisedserious concerns about the potential impact on our skin −and some Australian sunscreen brands have reformulatedto avoid using anatase titanium dioxide 4 . Despite theseconcerns, the Federal Government has taken no action toremove these ingredients from sunscreen.www.foe.org.auBased on a literature review it conducted in 2009,Australia's sunscreen regulator − the Therapeutic GoodsAdministration (TGA) – has repeatedly insisted that there isno evidence that nanoparticles can penetrate the skin so noregulation is needed 5 .We are concerned that the TGA has not kept up to datewith science. An increasing number of studies suggestthat nanoparticles can penetrate the skin 6 and Friendsof the Earth believes this evidence warrants aprecautionary approach.Friends of the Earth is calling for an immediate ban onthe use of anatase titanium dioxide in sunscreen and forthe safety testing and labelling of other nano-ingredientsin sunscreen. Europe will require the safety testing andlabelling of all nano-ingredients in sunscreens from Julythis year 7 . Surely Australians deserve the same protectionas Europeans?References:1. NMI Nanometrology (23/10/12) – report #Q122439: XRD Phaseanalysis of TiO2 sunscreens.2. Tiano L., et al., 2010. 'Modified TiO2 particles differentially affecthuman skin fibroblasts exposed to UVA light', Free Radical Biology &Medicine, 49 (2010) 408–4153. Barker P. and Branch A. (2008). 'The interaction of modern sunscreenformulations with surface coatings', Prog Org Coatings, 62: 313–320.4. Hamilton Laboratories Position Paper. (2009). Hamilton Sunscreensand Nanoparticles. http://www.hamiltonlabs.com.au/webdata/resources/files/Hamilton_Sunscreens_and_Nanoparticles_09.pdf5. Therapeutic Goods Administration, 2009, 'A review of the scientificliterature on the safety of nanoparticulate titanium dioxide orzinc oxide in sunscreens', www.tga.gov.au/pdf/sunscreensnanoparticles-2009.pdf6. Friends of the Earth Australia, 2012, 'Nano-Ingredients in Sunscreen– The need for regulation', http://nano.foe.org.au/sites/default/files/Nano-ingredients%20in%20sunscreen%202012.pdf7. European Commission − Public health guidance (05-07-2012). NanoGuidance for cosmetic products now available. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/dyna/enews/enews.cfm?al_id=1276Chain Reaction #117 April 2013 17

Sunscreens exposed:stripping away the glossGregory CrocettiWith the help of the students from Trinity College,Colac, Friends of the Earth has completed a CitizenScience Experiment investigating the effect that a numberof popular Australian sunscreens have on the coating ofColorbond steel and on varnished timber. The results fromthe Colorbond steel were inconclusive. However, severalpopular sunscreens containing nanoparticles − includingNivea Kids Swim and Play − were found to cause seriousdamage to the wood varnish. These results are consistentwith Barker and Branch's 2008 study and raise seriousconcerns about the continued use of nanoparticles ofanatase titanium dioxide in sunscreen.In 2008, industrial chemists Phil Barker and AmosBranch from Blue Scope Steel confirmed what manyhad suspected – that the new use of nanoparticles insunscreens posed novel and uncertain risks. Of particularconcern to these researchers was the use of sunscreenscontaining nanoparticles of anatase titanium dioxideby roofing installers, which came into contact with andcaused damage to Colorbond panels as they were beinginstalled. The scientists observed that the nanoparticlesin the sunscreen were reacting with the sun to create freeradicals, which were causing the roof coatings to breakdown up to 100 times faster than normal.The project with Trinity College repeated key aspectsof the Blue Scope Steel research – particularly theexterior exposure testing. This measured the extent ofgloss reduction in pre-painted steel products that wereexposed to different sunscreen formulations over a 12-week period. The experiment also investigated the extentof gloss reduction in wood panels coated with a popularweatherproof timber varnish.Two matching sets of 17 steel and timber panels wereprepared – one for each of the different sunscreenstested and one control. Sixteen different sunscreenswere tested containing either chemical or mineral-basedactive ingredients. These were applied to the bottom halfof each panel.Visual appearance of gloss reduction in lower halfof centre timber panel after exposure to Nivea Kids Sunscreen.The two matching sets of panels were secured onto theroof of Colac Trinity College and a residential house inMelbourne and exposed from mid-November 2012 to mid-February 2013.Following the 12-week exposure, sunscreen was removedby rubbing the panel surface with soft paper towels soakedwith a warm detergent solution for approximately oneminute, and then rinsed with water and air dried. Initialgloss measurements were made by students at Colac TrinityCollege, followed by measurements using a 60˚ gloss meter(Byk-Gardner) by Dr. Gregory Crocetti. Five gloss meterreadings were taken from each half of each panel and usedto calculate means and standard errors.Visual observations by students largely agreed with thegloss meter readings. Results from the Colorbond exposureexperiment did not offer any conclusive findings. However,clear trends emerged from both replicates of the timberpanel exposure experiments. It was found that almost allsunscreens were able to remove some of the gloss fromthe polyurethane timber varnish, with an average glossreduction of 41.5 % across the 16 tested sunscreens.Nivea Kids Swim and Play sunscreen caused the largestamount of gloss reduction across all timber panels withan average gloss reduction measurement of 82.9 % ± 5.7averaged from both Melbourne and Colac panels. In starkcontrast, the average gloss reduction from both controlpanels was recorded at 0.3% ± 7.8, confirming that the glossvarnish did not naturally degrade during the 12 weeks ofexterior exposure.The results of this study are consistent with the 2008Barker and Branch study, which found that sunscreenscontaining nanoparticles of anatase titanium dioxide hadthe greatest potential to create dangerous free radicals.Take action:turn up the heat on the governmentPlease contact the Parliamentary Secretary forHealth, Catherine King and demand an immediateban on the use of anatase TiO2 in sunscreens andthe proper safety testing and labelling of allnano-ingredients in sunscreen:The Hon Catherine King MPPO Box 6022House of RepresentativesParliament HouseCanberra ACT 2600Tel: (02) 6277 4230Email: Catherine.King.MP@aph.gov.auOr contact her via our website: nano.foe.org.au18 Chain Reaction #117 April 2013

Antaria finally admits its sunscreeningredient is a nanomaterialNearly six months after Friends of the Earth lodged anACCC complaint against Antaria for misleadingly marketingthe product as 'non-nano', the company has finally admittedthat its ZinClear IM sunscreen ingredient is a nanomaterial.The ACCC is due to make public its findings regarding thecomplaint shortly.Antaria made public the fact its sunscreen ingredientwas a nanomaterial in an ASX announcement just beforeChristmas. Previously Antaria had strenuously denied thatits product was a nanomaterial both to the media, theASX and in its written correspondence with Friends ofthe Earth. A number of sunscreen brands used Antaria'sZinClear IM product in some of their products and hadrepeated its non-nano claims. Affected brands includeInvisible Zinc, Cancer Council, Natural Instinct,ChemMart, Terry White Chemists, Pharmacy Choice,WotNot, Graham's Sunclear, and Woolworths Select.In February last year, Antaria confirmed in writing thepatent that was the basis of their ZinClear IM product.Friends of the Earth commissioned a report from theNational Measurement Institute, looking at this patent,which concluded Zinclear IM is a nanomaterial accordingto key definitions which have existed since 2010. Despitethis, Antaria has been marketing the product as 'non-nano'.Antaria's behaviour is completely unacceptable and we arehoping for a strong ruling from the ACCC to send a clearmessage to industry that companies can't get away withmisleading conduct like this.This scandal clearly demonstrates the need fornano-ingredients in sunscreen to be labelled. If theGovernment had made the testing and labelling ofnano-ingredients compulsory for companies we wouldnever be in this mess. From this year, European regulatorsare requiring sunscreen companies to produce safetydata and label nano-ingredients in sunscreens. Australiansdeserve the same protection as Europeans.More information: nano.foe.org.auGeorgia Millerand Gregory CrocettiUnion raises nanotech concernsUnion leader Paul Howes has likenednanotechnology to asbestos and called formore research to ease fears that the growinguse of nanoparticles could endangermanufacturing workers.''I don't want to make the mistake that mypredecessors made by not worrying aboutasbestos,'' said the Australian Workers Unionnational secretary in a recent interview withthe Sydney Morning Herald.Mr Howes said he was worried thatnanotechnology could be used to carrycarcinogenic particles and he believed itneeded more regulation and research.www.foe.org.auBig thanks to nano-campaignersIt's been a sad start to the year for FoE's nanotechcampaign with both Georgia Miller and GregoryCrocetti moving on to pursue exciting new projects.Georgia founded the FoE Australia NanotechnologyProject six years ago and established FoE Australia asan important international voice on nanotechnologyissues. She has worked tirelessly to build and support thecampaign and she will be sorely missed. Georgia recentlycommenced a PhD and has decided to step down fromher role in the collective to focus on her studies.Gregory has been a valued member of the nano teamsince 2011 and is leaving to write an art-science bookon microbial symbiosis for kids which we are all lookingforward to reading! Fortunately Gregory isn't leaving theNano collective altogether so we'll still be able to ableto draw on his incredible knowledge and creative ideas.Chain Reaction #117 April 2013 19

Gillard’s ‘green tape’ propagandaLauren CaulfiedResponding to the threat of important federalenvironmental assessment and approval powers beinghanded over to state governments, the environmentmovement last year mounted a swift campaign to bring thisto public attention and to derail Prime Minister Gillard'sattempt to sneak the change through as part of closed-doorCOAG discussions in December.The wave of scrutiny and community pressure saw Gillardsuddenly remove the proposal from the COAG agenda. Onthe morning that the Business Advisory Forum openedin Canberra, it was reported in the Sydney MorningHerald that Gillard had removed the proposed transfer ofEnvironment Protection and Biodiversity Act (EPBC) powersfrom the COAG meeting agenda. The decision was describedas a "major blow to business ... and a victory for green groupsthat have complained about a watering down of standards".The Herald reported that business leaders would be briefeddirectly by the Prime Minister about the decision at thepre-COAG Business Advisory Forum, but outside the privateand exclusive briefing given to the Business Council, thePrime Minister gave no details on the change to the public,and made no comment in media coverage. It remainsuncertain whether the proposal will come off the table forgood or whether it will be revived when the political heatdies down.The decision to defer plans to transfer EPBC Act powersmarks an important interim campaign win, and a vitaltemporary reprieve from the terrifying prospect of stategovernments being placed in charge of issuing approvalsfor environmentally damaging projects – a prospect notunlike placing Dracula in charge of the blood bank.Warburton, Victoria.The spate of campaign pressure to date, including Friendsof the Earth's 'Nature: Not Negotiable' campaign, sawrapid community action around the country against theproposed weakening of federal environment laws and indefence of Australia's iconic wild places and wildlife. Itsaw open letters from prominent environmental lawyersand legal academics around the nation calling on Gillardnot to eviscerate the cornerstone legislation designedto protect our environment, a flood of thousands ofemails and letters in to the Prime Minister's office, directlobbying of the companies pushing for the weakening offederal environment laws via the Business Council, publicmeetings around the country where people heard fromactivists and lawyers, and a convergence of community andenvironment groups in Canberra for the opening of COAGand the meeting of the Business Advisory Forum.Powerful opposition to the moves came from loggingaffectedcommunities around Australia. No stranger tothe impacts of bilateral arrangements that place stategovernments in charge of managing nationally significantecosystems, these communities have witnessed first-handthe ongoing loss of forests to a rapacious logging industry,and the widespread decline in threatened species andbiodiversity that accompanied the 20-year Regional ForestAgreements between the federal and state governments −Agreements that put the states in charge of managing forestsand exempted logging operations from the EPBC Act.What this experience demonstrated is that the states, withtheir short-sighted approach to environmental management,cannot be trusted with our irreplaceable wild places.To understand the impetus behind these moves to weakenfederal environment protection, one need look no further20 Chain Reaction #117 April 2013

than their inception. The brainchild of the BusinessCouncil of Australia (BCA) – a forum of Australia's top100 corporations – this proposal to attack our federalenvironment laws was hatched to cut so-called 'greentape', and enable big business to obtain swift approvals forenvironmentally damaging developments, without getting'bogged down' by state and Commonwealth approvalsprocesses. The BCA meets just prior to COAG, and is theonly group to have a direct line of communication withCOAG via the Business Advisory Forum.It is unsurprising that, given the choice, big business withan eye to environmentally damaging enterprise wouldprefer to deal with the states – witness WA Premier ColinBarnett's approval for a gas hub at Broome's Walmadan/ James Price Point, Qld Premier Campbell Newman'ssweeping support for the expansion of the coal industryin Queensland and the reopening of native forest logging,and the Victorian State Government's bid to let cattle backinto Alpine National Parks. Without federal interventionthe Franklin River would be dammed and the Great BarrierReef would host a number of oil rigs. Federal oversight ofenvironmental planning may not be fail-safe, but puttingthe states in charge would be an unmitigated disaster.The State of the Environment Report 2011 paints a grimpicture of the predicament facing Australia's environmentand wildlife. More and more endangered species aremoving closer to extinction, and we are losing our preciousplaces. If approved, the devolution of EPBC Act powers tostate governments would see our environment and wildlifeunder unprecedented threat from big business seekingaccess to many of our precious wild places.If the 'one stop shop' environmental assessment andapprovals process that both the BCA and Gillard claim theyare aiming for is to be developed, it is only fitting that this bestreamlined via the Commonwealth government, given itsessential role in overseeing matters of national significance.To achieve this, federal and EPBC Act powers must bestrengthened, not weakened for the convenience of bigbusiness or farmed out to the states via bilateral agreements,in order to enable adequate environmental protection andprovide a rigorous and consistent system for environmentalassessment that avoids the pitfalls of state mismanagement.Roses Tier, north-east Tasmaniawww.foe.org.auChain Reaction #117 April 2013 21

East Gippsland, VictoriaWhat happens now?The next COAG meeting will be held this April.While the agenda is likely to be dominated by education,the overhanging matter of environmental approvalsremains up in the air, and the campaign to keep our wildplaces out of state government hands builds again.Having Gillard take the transfer of environmental powersoff the table when COAG met last year is a fantastic interimwin, and testament to a swift and clear campaign. Nowthe Prime Minister must take this proposal off the table forgood, and publicly explain what is planned for the futureof Australia's federal environment laws.To stay in touch with the campaign, and receive updatesabout what's happening with our federal environmentlaws please visitfoe.org.au/nature-not-negotiablefind us at Nature: Not Negotiable on Facebookfollow us on Twitter @NatureNotNegBetween now and the COAG meeting, please call or writeto Prime Minister Gillard and let her know that you haven'tforgotten about the plans to dramatically weaken federalenvironment protection powers, and that you'd like toknow her plans for Commonwealth environment laws.Online contact: www.pm.gov.au/contact-your-pmParliament Office:PO Box 6022House of RepresentativesParliament House, Canberra ACT 2600Telephone: (02) 6277 7700Fax: (02) 6273 4100Lauren Caulfield is Friends of the Earth's 'Nature: NotNegotiable' campaign spokesperson.22 Chain Reaction #117 April 2013

WA uranium debate undermines‘green tape’ propagandaJim GreenThe tumultuous and complex relationship between WAand the rest of Australia has flared up over the FederalGovernment's involvement in environmental assessmentthrough the Environmental Protection and BiodiversityConservation (EPBC) Act. Some industry groups claim theassessment process involves duplication and is inefficientand that the Federal Government's powers under the EPBCAct should be curtailed.The EPBC Act is a creature of the Howard Government.Howard could be accused of many things, but wrapping upindustry in 'green tape' isn't one of them.One of the environmental assessments at the centre of thisquarrel is Toro Energy's proposal for WA's first uraniummine, at Wiluna in the Goldfields. The Wiluna proposalgained State environmental approval in October 2012.Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke has requestedmore information before he makes his decision. Thisincludes information on water supply and mine closurerehabilitation plans.Toro Energy was permitted by the State Government tosubmit a 'Swiss Cheese' application − full of holes. Thecompany has not completed a credible environmentalstudy into the water consumption for the life of the mine.It has no credible modelling for the long-term, safe storageof radioactive mine waste. It has not completed studiesof a new and possibly endemic plant species despite arecommendation to complete those studies by the WADepartment of Environment and Conservation.And to list just one of a number of other data gaps, ToroEnergy has failed to carry out studies on the interactionbetween the groundwater and surface water of the lakesystem where it intends to dump radioactive mine waste.Any further approval of this proposal without moreinformation would be dangerously deficient.The vital issue of safeguards and WMD proliferationrisks associated with uranium exports doesn't get a lookin at state or federal levels of assessment. That issue issupposedly handled by the Australian Safeguards and NonproliferationOffice (ASNO), a federal government agencywith a track record of unprofessional, deceitful behaviour.For example, in 2008 ASNO told parliament's treatiescommittee that "strict" safeguards would "ensure" peacefuluse of Australian uranium in Russia and failed to informthe committee that not a single safeguards inspection hadtaken place in Russia since 2001.If we want an example of why its important to get thedetail right, we need look no further than Wiluna itself.Uranium exploration in the region in the 1980s left a legacyof pollution and contamination. Radiation levels more thanwww.foe.org.au100 times normal background readings have been recordeddespite the area being 'cleaned' a decade ago. A radiationwarning sign was found lying on the ground, face down,along with rusting barrels.Nationally, the uranium industry has been plaguedwith leaks, spills, illegal dumping of waste, secrecy andaccidents. A 2003 report into uranium mining by theFederal Senate References and Legislation Committee found"a pattern of under-performance and non-compliance" andconcluded "that short-term considerations have been givengreater weight than the potential for permanent damage tothe environment".Drums left to rust afteruranium exploration atWiluna in the 1980s.In WA, a similar set of words around non-compliancewere used to describe WA mining regulations in the 2011Auditor General’s report into 'Ensuring Compliance withConditions on Mining'. The report states that there are"serious weaknesses in the monitoring of compliance withenvironmental conditions." The Auditor General concluded:"We cannot give assurance that agencies are adequatelyaware of non-compliance or if environmental conditionsare delivering the desired outcomes."That from the Auditor-General and still the WAGovernment not only accepts but approves a Swiss Cheeseapplication from Toro Energy. Rather than attacking thefederal government for seeking further information whichis conspicuously absent in Toro Energy's 'Swiss Cheese'mine application, the WA Government should investigateand address problems with and limitations of the state'senvironmental assessment process.Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner withFriends of the Earth, Australia.Chain Reaction #117 April 2013 23

Campaigning to stop the fourthcoal terminal in NewcastleJane Oakley, Annika Dean and James WhelanHealth concerns over the proposal for a fourth coalterminal (T4) have united residents in Newcastle andthe Hunter Valley. The community is fed up with thecontinued expansion of the coal industry and the lackof real investment in renewable energy. A coalition of 18community groups is lobbying against the project.Newcastle, already the world's largest coal port, currentlyexports around 115 million tonnes of coal each year, with acapacity for 210 million tonnes. T4 would allow Hunter coalexports to expand to 330 million tonnes each year. It wouldmean three times as many coal trains, three times as manycoal mines and three times as much coal dust blowing intoour suburbs. If T4 were built, coal exports from Newcastlewould generate more greenhouse pollution than all ofAustralia's onshore emissions combined.With an initial construction cost of $1.2 billion, andestimates of the total project cost running to $5 billion,investors will want the facility operating to capacity wellinto the future to make their investment profitable. Thus,T4 would reinforce the reliance of the State coffers on coaland reduce opportunities for a clean and healthy regionwith a diversified port.T4 would also necessitate the construction of 15 moremega-mines in the Hunter Valley and Liverpool Plainswith all the associated impacts these entail. Open-cut coalmining completely eliminates existing vegetation, destroysthe genetic soil profile, displaces wildlife and habitat,degrades air quality, and alters existing land uses likefarming. It permanently changes the topography of an areaand leaves behind a scarred landscape with no scenic valueand depleted soil. Mine tailings dumps produce highlyacidic water, which can seep into waterways and aquifers.Collapsing tunnels cause subsidence of land surfaces andcan have a devastating impact on landscapes, propertyvalues and rivers.A recent survey of 580 households found that fewer than10% of Newcastle residents support T4 and most areconcerned about the health impacts of increased coal dust(http://tiny.cc/plwetw). Newcastle residents routinely wipecoal dust from surfaces inside and outside their homes.Dust levels already routinely exceed the national standard.More than 25,000 children attend schools within 500metres of the train line and 32,000 people live in this coalcorridor. For children and residents living nearby, T4 wouldmean 104 extra uncovered coal train movements every day,resulting in even higher levels of particle pollution, leadingto increases in respiratory illnesses.The health impacts of coal mining and transport in theHunter and the dangers from cumulative exposure to coaldust are well documented. Improved workplace health andsafety regulations have minimised workers' exposure todeadly coal dust. But those regulations provide no safetyto communities surrounded by mines where coal dustcontinues to rain down. Add in those towns and familiesliving near the transport corridors and the number ofaffected people grows exponentially.Health problemsPeople living in coal-affected communities are more likelyto suffer heart, lung and kidney cancer, respiratory andcardiovascular disease and birth defects. There is a directlink between long-term exposure to particle pollution andhospital admissions, emergency department attendance,asthma, respiratory and cardiovascular disease, congestiveheart failure and premature death. The University of Sydneyhas released a study (posted at tiny.cc/viwetw) showingthere are serious health impacts for communities livingnear coalmines and coal combustion power stations. Acancer cluster has recently been identified at the proposedsite for the T4. Workers at Kooragang Island are nearlytwice as likely to be diagnosed with cancer than theaverage person. Proceeding with the terminal will exposeeven more workers to a higher health risk.The fine particles associated with coal mining, coaltransport and the diesel emissions from coal trains aremonitored throughout the Hunter Valley. During the pastyear, monitoring stations recorded 115 exceedances of thenational standard for PM10 (particles of up to ten micronsin diameter). To learn more, the Coal Terminal ActionGroup recently raised funds to conduct its own study oflevels of particle pollution around the coal train line. Theyhired air pollution monitoring equipment and monitoredair pollution at 12 households within 500m of the coalcorridor during December. The data has been analysed byUniversity of Newcastle scientists and will be available onthe website of the Hunter Community Environment Centreafter March 8.Given the inherent dangers associated with the miningand burning of coal, it is disappointing to see continuedinvestment in this archaic, polluting energy source with itsrisks to workers, local communities and the health of theplanet. The Australian Renewable Energy Agency, set upas part of the Government's Clean Energy Future, receives$3.2 billion per year – significantly less than the investment24 Chain Reaction #117 April 2013

in just this one coal based project. When you considerthe funds that will be required to enable T4 to run at fullcapacity, suddenly $3.2 billion looks like small change.A $5 billion investment in renewable energy would bethe moral course of action, one preferred by thousands ofpeople concerned not only with climate change but withthe true cost of the coal industry.The Coal Terminal Action Group – a coalition of 18community groups − has mounted a strong campaignagainst the terminal, which has already delayed theproject considerably. In April 2012, nearly 500 submissionswere lodged with the Department of Planning, over 95%of which were objecting to the proposal. In mid-2012,community members conducted a survey of 580 randomlyselected households throughout coal-affected suburbs ofNewcastle. Less than 10% of survey respondents stated thatthey wanted another coal terminal in Newcastle, includingsome survey respondents who work in the industry.In June 2012, Port Waratah Coal Services announced a twoyeardelay in the planned construction time of the terminal.In December, PWCS halved the capacity of the initialphase of the project from 120 to 70 million tonnes p.a. Thecommunity campaign against T4 has now managed to bothdelay the project and shrink its initial size. However, whilstPort Waratah Coal Services have set back the anticipatedstart time for the project, they are still seeking immediateapproval from the NSW and federal governments.Photo from Hunter Community Environment Centre.The campaign against T4 will be ramping up over thecoming months. We invite you all to join our mailinglist to stay updated on developments and to contributeto the campaign in whatever way you are able. Visitwww.stopt4.org.au and let Barry O'Farrell know whatyou think about the construction of another coal terminalin Newcastle. Also, please check out our facebook pageto stay updated on campaign developments:facebook.com/CoalTerminalActionGroup25 Chain Reaction #117 April 2013 Chain Reaction #117 April 2013 25www.foe.org.au

Australia’s electricity market:making the polluters profitableBen CourticeMarkets are neither free nor efficient, and they are bad forthe environment. Market choice is not cheap. While thatmay sound like a timeless left-wing credo, it's also a simpleassessment of Australia's 20 years of privatisation andmarket-oriented restructure of electricity provision.Outside small left-wing dissident circles (from Keynesiansto Marxists), operating the power industry accordingto market principles has become an unquestioned andunspoken assumption. Reducing this industry's greenhouseemissions has also been seen as fundamentally a matterof market mechanisms, as we head into an EmissionsTrading Scheme. But the history of the past two decadesindicates that electricity industry privatisation andimposed market mechanisms have already been a keybarrier to reducing emissions and restructuring theindustry in a progressive manner.A recent study commissioned by Environment Victoriashows that under the package of measures accompanyingthe carbon price, Australia's dirtiest power stations will begifted with a windfall of between $2.3 and $5.4 billion.This outcome appears perverse and corrupt. Yet theindustry's representative body claims it is fair and just.As The Age reported in February 2013, "Chief executiveof the Energy Supply Association of Australia, MatthewWarren, said carbon compensation was chiefly put in placeto compensate for a reduction in the asset value of powerstations as a result of the Emissions Trading Scheme."If this precedent is followed, what will happen whenclimate action mandates the ending of coal mining? Coalcompanies, like mining companies worldwide, are countingthe value of as yet unmined resources on their bottomline. Will the public purse be required to compensate coalbarons for every dragline-bucket of coal that they do notmine and export?The private owners of the power stations knew a carbonprice scheme may be coming: it was in their contractswhen they bought them. They have been warned andthey have profited nicely in the meantime. They shouldnot be compensated for a risk they were warned of. It is asperverse as it would be to compensate James Hardie for theloss of their asbestos business.National Electricity MarketWhile Victoria and South Australia have the most privatisedelectricity industries, resisting complete privatisation inother states has not saved them from the logic of a privatemarket. Following Victoria's lead, in the 1990s the easternstates and SA set up the National Electricity Market,modeled on now-failed electricity market systems in theUK and California.The reasons given by governments for privatisation wereto make power cheaper, in particular to attract and retainenergy-intensive industries. But this is not what happened.In the one-sided 'power pool' system, energy generatorsmake bids for how much energy they can provide and atwhat price. The cheapest bids have to be accepted first, butthe price they receive is not what they bid, but is set by thehighest bid that is accepted.This system can push up the price paid to all generators ina given period to enormous sums. It caused excessive pricerises and blackouts in the UK and California, where it wasabandoned. In Australia, where it did not result in suchimmediate and obvious disasters, it has been retained.One of the main environmental outcomes of the NationalElectricity Market power pool was that the cheapest powertook a larger market share – its low bids are acceptedfirst. The cheapest is also the dirtiest power − Victoria'senormous brown coal generators. These generators tendedto displace baseload capacity from the slightly less pollutingblack coal generators in NSW and Queensland, with browncoal's share of generation growing from 23% to 31% in the10 years from 1992.As the brown coal dinosaurs became more profitable,their expected retirement date kept being pushed back.Victoria's notorious Hazelwood power plant, the mostpolluting of all, was scheduled for decommissioning in2006, but was granted a 30-year extension by the stateLabor government.Following on from this, the Gillard government's CleanEnergy Future carbon price package promised to paythe dirtiest coal generators to close down under their"contracts for closure" scheme – but the governmentabandoned it at the last minute. Instead, we now see thesemost polluting power stations being compensated whilestaying open.Contracts to close Victoria's brown coal operators wouldhave made NSW's underused black coal generators moreprofitable, and they are only marginally less polluting.It would not necessarily have caused renewable energyreplacements to be built. Either way, the coal industryis a winner.Renewable energyWhile the market has favoured the dirtiest coal generators,renewable energy sources have required assistance fromoutside the electricity market to make any headway. TheRenewable Energy Target has been organised by way ofa market in Renewable Energy Certificates. It sets a cleartarget of renewable energy, requiring that set amounts26 Chain Reaction #117 April 2013

of RECs are bought by energy retailers (from renewablegenerators) to ensure that the target is met.Yet the market was skewed by an influx of cheap, tokenRECs awarded to rooftop solar hot water systems during theRudd government. The oversupply of these 'phantom RECs'crashed the REC price, and energy retailers bought up cheapRECs – largely stalling the wind farm construction industrythat had been doing so well until then.The stalling of the wind industry also means that manybig energy companies are now finding themselves withoutsignificant renewable capacity. Origin and Energy Australiahave argued for a reduction in the Renewable EnergyTarget, instead of building new wind farms. The Coalitionparties appear to be bowing to this pressure and it remainsto be seen whether Labor will follow suit.The electricity market has seen declining demand since2008. In a market that was expected to keep growingfor the foreseeable future, this is bad news for thecorporate players.Industry going offshore may account for some of the dropin demand – and accordingly, China's energy use andemissions have been rising sharply since 2000. On theother hand, domestic energy efficiency measures and theproliferation of solar panels (PV) on homes is probablya large part of the picture. As PV prices have dropped,Australians have installed more than two gigawatts of solarPV generating capacity on their roofs – enough, at peakoutput, to replace one large coal generator.Such demand reduction lowers wholesale prices. In peakenergy use periods, reduced demand means the mostexpensive bids don't get used in the power pool, keepingthe overall price down. SA's regulator has even called forlower retail prices as a result of this effect.State governments have slashed support for PV by attackingfeed-in tariff schemes that rewarded PV owners, butthe falling cost of PV technology, and the rising cost ofelectricity, means PV will remain popular. This is goodnews – as far as it goes.To compensate for their declining market share, and partlyto pay for recent investment in "poles and wires", electricitycompanies are raising prices. For this reason, energy utilityAGL has pressured the SA government to cancel the drop inretail prices that the regulator mandated. The investmentby homeowners installing solar is not being allowed tobenefit all consumers as it ought to.As these and other examples illustrate, privatisation hasgiven us an ongoing legacy of increased and extended useof our dirtiest power stations – and ensured they remainimmensely profitable to their owners. It has kept priceshigh and deterred investment in new clean energy sources.Free marketeers could point to ways the current electricitymarket may be improved to function more fairly. They mayalso point to the old state electricity bodies as inefficientbureaucracies. However, we don't have to defend theold bureaucracy to look beyond the existing electricitymarket system. There is scope for much more communityownership: in Germany, over half of wind farms (forexample) are owned by citizens such as farmers andco-operatives, not by large utilities.The power pool system is unsuited to renewable energy– wind and solar in particular. Falling electricity demandcombined with growth in renewable electricity are causingthe existing system to strain. Instead of persisting withour inflexible, inequitable, and polluter-rewarding market,we should start thinking of newer, more accountablemechanisms to replace the failing system.Ben Courtice was the Renewable Energy campaignerat Friends of the Earth Melbourne in 2011−2012, andremains a volunteer activist at FoE.www.foe.org.auChain Reaction #117 April 2013 27

The dirty business of coal in NSWBeck PearseCoal is dirty business in New South Wales. Coal campaignersand locals residents whose homes are perched near or abovethe states' coal reserves know first-hand how difficult it isto resist the spread of coal and coal seam gas developmentsacross rural and urban centres. They know how triflingcommunity consultation processes can be, how difficult itis to resist compulsory access to or acquisition of propertyin the boundaries of mining developments. More generally,they understand the state government policy for theresource sector routinely privileges market expansion oversocial and environmental protection.However even the most cynical participant in state energyand mining politics would be shocked at revelations fromwithin the NSW state government. The IndependentCommission Against Corruption (ICAC) is currentlyconducting an inquiry into the alleged conflicts of interestbehind former minister Ian Macdonald's decision to openup the Bylong Valley for coal exploration in 2008, the samesite where former minister Eddie Obeid and associatesinvested. The investigations have brought out incredibletales of the misuse of state power by a small group of sittingMPs and their associates. At the centre of this tale is a subfactionof the ALP right wing led by Eddie Obeid.Eddie Obeid and the TerrigalsFormer Labor MP and right-wing power broker Eddie Obeidserved in the NSW Upper House from 1991 to 2011 andserved as Minister for Fisheries and Minister for MineralResources from 1999–2003. He lives in a $10 millionHunters Hill mansion and drives a $400,000 Mercedes.Through a network of trusts and family companies, Obeidand his relatives own a large number of properties inSydney, the Bylong Valley, Terrigal, Port Woolwich,Hunters Hill, and Lebanon.Obeid never gave a speech in Parliament, but enjoyedenormous influence as factional boss in the 'Terrigal Group',a powerful right-wing sub-faction which exerted near totalcontrol over the Right and the NSW ALP. Their name comesfrom the beachfront house owned by Obeid where thegroup of MPs and union officials would routinely meet.Nathan Rees when he resigned from his position as Premierof NSW famously said: ''Should I not be Premier by theend of this day, let there be no doubt in the community'smind, no doubt, that any challenger will be a puppet ofEddie Obeid and Joe Tripodi.'' Rees had crossed the factionwhen he was granted consent from the NSW ALP NationalConference to choose his own Cabinet. Rees had demotedJo Tripodi and Ian Macdonald in late 2009. They organiseda vote of no confidence against Rees in a caucus meeting,Kristina Kenneally was installed as Premier in Decemberthat year. This drama was a repeat of former premierMorris Iemma's disposal the year before.Put simply, the power and influence of the Terrigal Grouphas been a defining feature of the NSW ALP for 10 years.Eddie, 'He Who Must be Obeid' and his faction have hadan incredible amount of influence over the parliamentaryparty, including what positions are held by whom.Coal connectionsObeid, his family and their associates stood to profit by upto $100 million through investments made in the BylongValley, 100 kms west of Muswellbrook in the NSW HunterValley. In late 2007, Obeid's family company Locaway PtyLtd, trustee for the Moona Plain Family Trust, bought thelavish Cherry Dale property for $3.65 million in the BylongValley ($1.02 million cash, $2.63 million as a vendor loan).Most of the property was within the boundaries of whatwould become a new exploration lease called Mount Penny.The planned open cut mine at this site will produce 101million tonnes of coal at a rate of five million tonnes peryear over 21 years.28 Chain Reaction #117 April 2013

The Obeid family and their mates allegedly invested in thevalley on the basis of inside knowledge provided by IanMacdonald, then NSW minister for Primary Industry andResources. The Cherry Brook property trebled invalue after exploration tender opened. In September2008 Ian Macdonald announced that the Bylong Valleywould be opened up for coal exploration. An ICACinquiry called "Operation Jasper" was set up to investigatethe circumstances surrounding Macdonald's decision andwhether confidential information was leaked to Obeidor his family members involved in the acquisition ofmillions of dollars in property and share options (theinquiry has widened to a series of other mining leasesannounced by Macdonald).The ICAC hearing revealed that Obeid secured $17 millionfor an option for the Cherry Brook property – a profit of$13.35 million for the Obeid family from an outlay of $1.02million. Two additional properties nearby also boughtby Obeid family interests were optioned for profits of$900,000 and $3.5 million. Further, the benefits from thecoal tender it seems extend beyond these property sales.A new company called Cascade Coal won the tenderprocess and was awarded the exploration licence for MountPenny in July 2009 for $1 million. A group of wealthybusinessmen self-titled the "Magnificent Seven'' reinventedan events company in order to form Cascade Coal at thetime the Obeid family and friends were buying propertyin the Bylong Valley. Cascade Coal is a private company setup by Brian Flannery and Travers Duncan, John McGuigan,John Atkinson, Richard Poole and John ''Kingy'' Kinghorn.A seventh investor was Macdonald's close friend andV8Supercar promoter Greg Jones. Jones kept his investmentin Cascade secret. So did the Obeids. An ICAC hearingrevealed that the Obeid family had a secret 25% stake inCascade Coal, part of which they later sold for $60 million.In another twist, the strategy was to then sell Cascade Coalto publicly-listed firm White Energy for $500 million. Thiswould have produced huge profits for the men involved.However the plan went awry when a Mitch Geddes, aWhite Energy investor and an independent director of thecompany Graham Cubbin asked the ASX to investigatethe transaction. It turns out there is considerable overlapbetween the boards of White Energy and Cascade Coal.Coincidences?Counsel assisting Geoffrey Watson claims there are 39'coincidences' that suggest Ian Macdonald assisted theObeids and friends in securing profits from the coaldevelopment. For instance, confidential government mapsof coal deposits in the Bylong area were found in officesof the Obeid family in Birkenhead during an ICAC raid in2011. The Obeids claim no knowledge of how they gotthere. However, when Moses Obeid took the stand at theICAC hearing in January this year it was revealed he wasin contact with Macdonald about the status of the coalexploration licenses three months before the tender wasannounced in 2008.In February a handwritten note by Greg Jones waspresented at ICAC stating that $35,000 was transferred toMacdonald in cash and gifts, as well as a loan for $195,000that was never repaid. He was also to receive $4 millionfrom the sale of Cascade Coal.Obeid and Macdonald deny the allegations against them.Commissioner David Ipp will deliver his findings in July2013 for the Bylong case and a second related inquiry intolicences issued by Macdonald for Doyles Creek (also inthe Hunter). Ipp's report will contain recommendations,potentially including charges. If so, court proceedingscould go on for years.Beck Pearse is a member of Friends of the Earth, Sydney.www.foe.org.auChain Reaction #117 April 2013 29

Poowong says no to coal and gasChloe AldenhovenIts 11am, quiet and searing hot at the Poowong footy oval.But soon the cars start rolling in, and it feels like a stopmotionanimation as the empty footy ground is suddenlyfilled with cars and their occupants rush to the shade of theclubhouses. A great racket rises over the hill, it sounds likethe plane is early, but in fact it's a group of Harley-Davidsonriders heading down to take part in the 50-metre humansign that is about to officially declare a Poowong Coal Mineand Gasfield Free Community.Soon the call is made that the plane will be here, and the450-strong crowd brace themselves for the heat and headover to the marked-out letters using their yellow trianglesigns − the unmistakable calling-card of the 'Lock the Gate'movement − as sunshades. A cheer erupts as the littleCesnar warplane flies over the crowd taking photos andvideo of the community spelling out 'WE R CSG FREE'.It has only taken Poowong four months to get this far. Afterfinding out about the coal and Coal Seam Gas (CSG) licensesthat covered much of Poowong, a small group of communitymembers approached their local landcare group. Withtheir help, they then decided to hold an information nightat the town hall to draw the community's attention to theencroaching exploration licenses, and the grave risk theywere posing to the local community, rivers, ground waterand the local dairy industry.The CSG information evening attracted over a hundredpeople, farmers, business-owners, tree-changers andenvironmentalists, many of whom had heard of CSGand 'fracking' but had no idea of the immediate threat toPoowong and the rest of Gippsland.Calling themselves 'CSG-Free Poowong', the newly formedgroup proceeded to survey every landholder in thePoowong area with the simple question: 'Do you wantto declare Poowong Coal and Coal Seam Gas Free?Yes, no, or unsure?'.After three months of surveying, and after reaching over550 of the 600 landholders at Poowong, the results werecollated. An overwhelming 95% of Poowong agreed −they want to declare Poowong coalmine and gasfield free.The Poowong declaration is a very special momentin the increasingly inspirational story of resistance tounconventional gas in Australia. Drilling hasn't begun yet inVictoria, putting it in the privileged position of being ableto stop the industry before it gets off the ground.By being the first community in Victoria to make thedeclaration, the residents of Poowong have used atechnique that has been spreading like wildfire acrossNew South Wales, and is now set to do the same overGippsland. The survey technique is much more than apetition. By declaring themselves 'Coal and Coal Seam GasFree', communities are declaring that they intend to defendthemselves against an industry that threatens to poisontheir water, air, land, animals and people.This declaration has already been put in to effect all overthe country, particularly now as communities in northernNew South Wales have set up months-long blockades,refusing to allow mining company trucks, machinery andgas drills on to properties.As well as fighting for the health of rural land andcommunities, Quit Coal also see the fight againstunconventional gas in Gippsland as an essential part of thefight for a safe climate. Industry would like us to believe thatgas is somehow cleaner and less greenhouse gas-intensivethan coal. However, when you take in to account the vastamounts of methane that often seeps out of unconventionalgas wells and the emissions created by the transport intensemining process, the greenhouse gas footprint could be thesame, if not worse, than coal-fired power.Quit Coal is now working to support communities inMirboo North, Toora, Foster, Korumburra, Yarragon andthe Sale region to march down the same path to declaretheir towns coal and CSG free. The Victorian arm of theincreasingly effective and inspirational Australian anti-CSGmovement has begun.Chloe Aldenhoven is a Coal and Gas Campaigner withQuit Coal. email to:chloe.aldenhoven@foe.org.au30 Chain Reaction #117 April 2013

Campbell Newman’suranium backflip in QueenslandAdam Stone"I am happy to be quoted at the next election.If you do not support uranium mining, votefor the Greens. A vote for the Labor Party isa vote for a confused party that has no policyon this any more." Queensland Premier Campbell Newman,31 October 2012.I find myself in the unfamiliar position of being inagreement with Campbell Newman. Of the larger politicalparties, only the Greens still oppose the nuclear industry.We don't support uranium mining, nuclear power, ornuclear weapons.The Labor Party opposed uranium mining in Queensland,but not so strongly that it was prepared to legislate a banor put an end to the aspirations of prospective uraniumminers by denying them exploration permits. The federalLabor Party abandoned its policy of banning new uraniummines at its 2007 national conference, then voted to exporturanium to a non-party to the Nuclear Non-ProliferationTreaty (India) at its 2011 national conference, and by2012 was actively lobbying Campbell Newman to permituranium mining in Queensland.However, Newman is being a bit cute when he paintshimself as a proud uranium mining advocate, ready tosubmit to the will of the people. He had an opportunityto do that a year ago, but preferred the safety of the closet(claiming he had no plans to permit uranium mining) and asure path to the Premier's office.The claim that people who oppose uranium mining are'against jobs' is equally suspect − who on earth is 'againstjobs'?! Newman acknowledged on ABC radio in November2012 that he has no modelling to substantiate his claimsof "thousands of jobs and tens of billions of dollars ofinvestment". Yet estimates of uranium industry employmentacross Australia range from 650 to 1760 jobs (dependingon how many jobs at the multi-mineral Olympic Dam mineare attributed to uranium mining; and whether uraniumexploration jobs are included).Global demand for uranium is so soft that the AustralianUranium Association forecasts that no mines will be builtin Queensland for another five to seven years. Mines willonly be built after that time on the assumption that demandincreases and the international uranium price escalates.Then there's a separate question about whether moremining jobs would increase overall employment anyway.One area of the Queensland economy that is doing verywell is mining. Indeed, we keep hearing cries of anguishabout skill shortages and the need to import labour. Underthese circumstances, new mining projects often simplyshuffle jobs around from one project to another or out ofless profitable industries such as manufacturing.While the Premier's pro-uranium mining case rests onhis fanciful jobs and investment claims, I would arguewww.foe.org.auAdam Stone.that Queensland's participation in this industry is globallyirresponsible for at least two reasons (and more, but theseare the real clinchers for me).Firstly, it is impossible to break the link between civiliannuclear power and nuclear weapons. Even when operatinginside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, any countrycan follow North Korea's example, ditch their internationalcommitments, and redirect the technology and materialsthey have acquired ostensibly for peaceful purposes into aweapons program. As former International Atomic EnergyAgency Director-General Mohamed El Baradei said in 2005:"If a country with a full nuclear fuel cycle decides to breakaway from its non-proliferation commitments, a nuclearweapon could be only months away."Secondly, there is still no long-term storage solution forhigh-level nuclear waste after some 60 years of the nuclearindustry. We keep hearing that deep geological storageis the answer, but there is not one such facility operatinganywhere in the world.We might be willing to accept those risks if we wereconvinced that the world could not counter climate changewithout nuclear power, but that is simply not the case.Currently available renewable technologies are sufficient tomeet our needs and many of them can do it more cheaplythan nuclear power.Adam Stone is the lead Senate candidate for theQueensland Greens.Chain Reaction #117 April 2013 31

Nuclear power:looking back, looking forwardChernobyl in the aftermath ofthe April 1986 disaster.Jim GreenLast year marked the 20th anniversary of the first edition ofthe World Nuclear Industry Status Report. For two decadesthe reports, produced by independent analysts in Europe,have punctured the lies of the nuclear industry.The predictions made in the 1992 Status Report stackup well. After a 20-year period of significant growth, thereport correctly predicted that nuclear expansion would"slow to a trickle". From 1992 to 2012, worldwide nuclearpower capacity increased from 326 gigawatts (GW) to 374GW − a 15% increase in 20 years.The nuclear industry is finally catching up with theStatus Reports. The International Atomic Energy Agency's(IAEA) 'low' estimates have become a more reliable guideover the years, and the Agency's current 'low' estimate of456 GW capacity in 2030 suggests very slow annualgrowth of around 1.5%. In other words, there won'tbe a nuclear 'renaissance'.Nuclear power's proportional contribution to worldelectricity production will certainly decline. Nuclear'scontribution peaked at 17% in 1993, fell to 12.3% in 2011,and the IAEA estimates just 4.7−6.2% in 2030.By 2030, a majority of the world's reactors will be nearingthe end of their operating lives and the nuclear industrywill need to run just to stand still. The ageing of the reactorfleet also has important safety consequences. Reactors aremost accident-prone in their early years (break-in phase,e.g. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island) and in their old age(wear-out phase, e.g. Fukushima Daiichi). This is known asthe 'bathtub effect' as the risk curve declines after the earlyyears of operation then increases as old age sets in.The 1992 Status Report notes the nuclear retreat in manycountries in the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster. Littledid the authors know that the 2012 report would documentnuclear retreat in the aftermath of the only other Level 7nuclear disaster, at Fukushima.The 1992 Status Report is sadly prescient about safetystandards in Japan. It states: "Japan's nuclear industrydoes not have an accident-free logbook, nor has it beenfrank with the public about its mishaps. Extensive damageto a key pumping system and to the reactor core at theFukushima plant in January 1989 was hidden from thepublic for a month, leading to a storm of criticism."The 1992 Status Report noted a major accident at Mihama-2when a steam generator tube ruptured, leading to the firstuse in Japan of a reactor's emergency cooling system. In2004, five workers were killed and six injured after a piperupture and steam leak at Mihama-3; it was later revealedthat the failed pipe had not once been checked since theplant went into operation in 1976.The 1992 Status Report mentions industry propaganda aboutthe next generation of "passively safe" reactors. "None hasadvanced beyond the level of early engineering studies," thereport states, and "several designs are competing, whichmeans that no individual design is receiving sufficientsupport for the engineering to progress rapidly." Fast forwardto 2009 and World Nuclear News noted that "progress is seenas slow, and several potential designs have been undergoingevaluation on paper for many years".The 1992 Status Report notes that the French governmentwas considering closing the Superphenix fast breederreactor. The accident-prone reactor failed spectacularly tomeet its promised performance levels and was permanentlyshut down in 1998. It reminds us that when nuclear boosterstalk about a new generation of safe reactors, they're often32 Chain Reaction #117 April 2013

talking about an old generation of unsafe reactors.The 1992 Status Report notes that opinion polls in mostcountries found majorities opposed to the constructionof new reactors. No change there. A 2011 survey ofnearly 19,000 people in 24 countries found that 31% ofrespondents supported construction of new reactorscompared to 69% opposed. Only in Poland was theremajority support (52:48).A 2005 IAEA-commissioned survey of 18 countries foundthat only in South Korea was there majority support fornew reactors. No more. South Korea's nuclear industry hasbeen hit by a series of accidents and scandals includingbribery, corruption and cover-ups, and the 2011 surveyfound that 68% of South Koreans oppose the constructionof new reactors.The 1992 Status Report quoted Forbes describing the nuclearindustry as "the largest managerial disaster in US businesshistory". Twenty years later, just-retired Exelon CEO JohnRowe said new reactors "won't become economically viablefor the foreseeable future" in the US while General Electric'sCEO Jeffrey Immelt said it is "hard to justify nuclear, reallyhard." Siemens, once a giant in the nuclear constructionbusiness, is pulling out of the industry altogether.The 1992 Status Report noted that the British government"lied to itself as well as the British public about theeconomics of the nuclear industry. Costs turned out to beabout double what the government had claimed." Echoesof broken promises in recent years not to subsidise newreactors in the UK. The Guardian reported on February18 that the UK government is now proposing to guaranteesubsidies to nuclear utilities for up to 40 years.The 1992 Status Report noted that efforts to revive Iran'snuclear power program were thwarted by repeatedbombings of the Bushehr reactor site by Iraqi aircraft.Echoes of ongoing concerns about Iran's nuclear programand the possibility of Israeli military strikes.The 1992 Status Report noted that "not a single countryhas near-term plans to dispose of high-level waste." Thesame can be said today. The report said that plans fora high-level waste burial site in the U.S. by 1985 weremoved back to 1989, then 1998, then 2003, then 2010.It accurately predicted that the 2010 timeframe for anoperational repository at Yucca Mountain was unrealisticgiven the technical questions and vehement opposition.The Yucca Mountain plan was abandoned by the Obamaadministration in 2009, and plans for an interim store inUtah have also been abandoned. World Nuclear Newsreported in January that the U.S. is "at an historic low in itsplans to manage used reactor fuel."Anything at all in the 1992 Status Report that hasn't stoodthe test of time? Just one thing − the report crunches somenumbers based on the assumption that the average lifespanfor power reactors would be 25−30 years. That assumptionwas replaced by a 40-year assumption in later versions ofthe report. Even the 40-year assumption was looking a littleshaky prior to Fukushima; less so now.World Nuclear Industry Status Reports are posted atwww.worldnuclearreport.orgJim Green is the national nuclear campaigner withFriends of the Earth, Australia. jim.green@foe.org.auwww.foe.org.auChain Reaction #117 April 2013 33

Long-term studies are unlikely to demonstrate statisticallysignificantincreases in cancer incidence from Fukushimafallout, because of the high incidence of cancers in thegeneral population. Nevertheless, some preliminaryscientific estimates of the long-term cancer death toll areavailable, based on information about radiation releasesand exposures. These range from a cancer death toll of 130(a Stanford University study) to 3,000 (radiation biologistIan Fairlie − ianfairlie.org).Indirect deaths must also be considered, especially thoseresulting from the failure of TEPCO and governmentauthorities to develop and implement adequate emergencyresponse procedures. A September 2012 Editorial in JapanTimes notes that 1,632 deaths occurred during or afterevacuation from the triple-disaster; and 160,000 of the343,000 evacuees were dislocated specifically because ofthe nuclear disaster. A January 2013 article in The Lancetnotes that "the fact that 47% of disaster-related deaths wererecognised in Fukushima prefecture alone indicates thatthe earthquake-triggered nuclear crisis at the Fukushimapower plant caused extreme hardship for local residents."Low-level radiation exposure is safe?Spin: "If the most highly exposed person receives a trivialdose, then everyone's dose will be trivial and we can'texpect anyone to get cancer." − US Health Physics SocietyThe Health Physics Society redefines the problem of lowlevelradiation exposure as a non-problem involving "trivial"doses which are, by definition, harmless. It would be tookind to describe that as circular logic − it is asinine.The overwhelming weight of scientific opinion holds thatthere is no threshold below which ionising radiation iswithout risk. For example:The 2006 report of the Committee on the BiologicalEffects of Ionising Radiation of the US National Academyof Sciences states: "The Committee judges that the balanceof evidence from epidemiologic, animal and mechanisticstudies tend to favor a simple proportionate relationship atlow doses between radiation dose and cancer risk." It statesthat claims that low-level radiation exposure is beneficialare "unwarranted at this time".A 2011 report by the United Nations Scientific Committeeon the Effects of Atomic Radiation states that "the currentbalance of available evidence tends to favour a nonthresholdresponse for the mutational component ofradiation-associated cancer induction at low doses and lowdose rates."And to give one other example (there are many), a 2003study published in the Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences states: "Given that it is supportedby experimentally grounded, quantifiable, biophysicalarguments, a linear extrapolation of cancer risks fromintermediate to very low doses currently appears to be themost appropriate methodology."Radiophobia?Spin: 'Radiophobia' spread by nuclear critics isresponsible for most of the suffering resulting fromthe nuclear accident.The spin is disingenuous but we should acknowledge a thinthread of truth − claims that the Fukushima disaster willwww.foe.org.aulead to hundreds of thousands of deaths have no credibilityand must be causing some distress in Japan.However, vastly more suffering can be attributed to Japan'scorrupt nuclear industry and its many accomplices. As theNAIIC report notes, the Fukushima disaster was the resultof "collusion between the government, the regulators andTEPCO" and evacuees "continue to face grave concerns,including the health effects of radiation exposure,displacement, the dissolution of families, disruption of theirlives and lifestyles and the contamination of vast areas ofthe environment."Lessons learned?Spin: Lessons will be learned from the Fukushimaaccident and improvements made. Nuclear power −already safe − will be safer still.If the nuclear industry learned lessons from past mistakes,the Fukushima disaster wouldn't have happened in the firstplace. Too often, lessons are learned but then forgotten,or learned by some but not by those who really need toknow, or learned too late, or learned but not acted upon.The Chernobyl accident certainly led to improvements butcomplacency set in as memories of the disaster faded, andthe same can be expected in the aftermath of Fukushima.A report by the IAEA and the OECD's Nuclear EnergyAgency covering events from 2002-2005 states that"corrective measures, which are generally well-known,may not reach all end-users, or are not always rigorously ortimely applied" and "operating experience feedback needsto be much improved in the international arena."There is no clearer example of the industry's failure tolearn than Japan's nuclear industry. Countless subsequentaccidents, incidents and scandals would have been avertedhad the lessons of the fatal 1999 Tokaimura accidentbeen properly learned and acted upon (and Tokaimurawouldn't have happened if earlier lessons about the needfor adequate operator training had been acted upon). In2002 and again in 2007, details of several hundreds safetybreaches and data falsification incidents were revealed,stretching back to the 1980s. But nothing changed.It has become increasingly obvious over the past decadethat greater protection against seismic risks was necessary− especially in the aftermath of the July 2007 earthquakethat caused radioactive water spills, burst pipes and fires atTEPCO's Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant. But the nuclear utilitiesdidn't want to spend money on upgrades and they weren'tforced to act.Nuclear apologists have learned the wrong lessonsaltogether. Dr William Sacks argues that an importantlesson from Fukushima is the need to convince peoplethat low-level radiation exposure is harmless. Rod Adamsstates: "The lesson that the world needs to take away fromFukushima is that it is okay to build hundreds or thousandsof new nuclear power stations and to place them quiteclose to the backyards of millions of people."Tell that to the family and friends of the Fukushimafarmer whose suicide note read: "I wish there wasn'ta nuclear plant."Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner withFriends of the Earth, Australia. jim.green@foe.org.auChain Reaction #117 April 2013 35

Deep Sea MiningThe Pacific Experiment‘Black Smoker’− active hydrothermal vents emitting sulphide.Helen Rosenbaum and Natalie LowreyCanadian mining company Nautilus Minerals Inc. hasstaked its reputation on bringing off the world's first deepsea mining (DSM) operation. The Bismarck Sea in PapuaNew Guinea has been marked out as the testing groundfor this unprecedented technology. All eyes are on PNG:many other companies are waiting to see if Nautilus cansuccessfully bring metals from sea floor to smelter beforetaking the plunge themselves.The DSM campaign has been working with activists inPNG and the Pacific to develop an active, broad-basedand informed civil society response in the Pacific region.The aims of the campaign are to achieve Free, Prior andInformed consent from affected communities and theapplication of the precautionary principle.On the deep sea floor, along chains of volcanic mountainslie thousands of hydrothermal vent formations. These arelike underwater hot springs, spouting black clouds of metalsulphides. The foci of DSM are the deposits laid down overthousands of years around the hydrothermal vents. Themetal sulphide particles settling around the vents developinto huge mounds. These are known as Sea-floor MassiveSulphides. They can grow to millions of tonnes in mass.They are rich in zinc, copper, silver, gold, rare earths andother minerals.Nautilus Minerals plans to extract gold and copper fromthe bottom of the Bismarck Sea in PNG's ExclusiveEconomic Zone. The Solwara 1 mine site is about 50 kmsfrom Rabaul in East New Britain and 30 kms from the coastof New Ireland Province. Nautilus has secured or is in theprocess of applying for exploration rights to 534,000 sqkms of the sea floor in PNG, Tonga, the Solomon Islands,Fiji and New Zealand.Many other companies − from Japan, China, Korea, the UK,Canada, USA, Germany and the Russian Federation − arewaiting to see how Nautilus fares before taking the plungethemselves. They have already taken out explorationlicences covering over one million square kilometres ofthe Pacific sea floor.ImpactsVery little is understood about the possible impacts of eachindividual deep sea mine let alone the cumulative impacts.Conditions around the hydrothermal vents are unlikeanywhere else on the planet and this has resulted in uniqueecosystems. At these depths the barometric pressure is veryhigh, the mineral chemistry results in high acidity, and veryhot water from the vents mixes with very cold sea waterfrom the sea bottom. We are barely starting to understanddeep sea ecosystems which occupy more than 90% ofocean space. 1Some scientists believe that hydrothermal vents are wherelife first started on earth. If so, these environments andthese ecosystems could provide insights into the evolutionof life. But this also means if deep sea mining goes ahead inthe Pacific, many species could become extinct before theyhave even been identified.DSM will result in direct and indirect impacts. Each miningoperation would directly destroy thousands of amazing36 Chain Reaction #117 April 2013

hydrothermal vent formations and their unique ecosystems.The destruction of vents alone would provide sufficientreason to not approve DSM projects. But there are manyother risks such as the potential toxicity of metals that willbe released into the ocean water.“Our coastal and offshore island people dependon our marine resources for survival. It is our‘supermarket’. Any negative impact caused tothe marine environment will have detrimentalnegative impact on our lives and the lives of ourdescendants. Destroy it and you destroyed us.”− Wences Magun, national coordinator for Mas Kagin Tapani in PNGand Deep Sea Mining campaign steering committee member.DSM risks the possibility of upwelling and currentscarrying mine-derived metals towards the coastline.The nature of the ocean is continuous, you cannot hopeto touch one part and not effect the parts around it.Environmental impacts will not be isolated to the areabeing mined. They could spread far and wide with risksto match. For example, stocks of tuna and other migratoryspecies are likely to be contaminated by heavy metalsand the health of communities and ecosystems across thePacific could be affected.Studies and modelling are required to determine whatmetals will be released, what chemical forms they will bepresent in, the extent to which they will find their way intothe food chain, how contaminated the seafood eaten by localcommunities will be, and what effects these metals will haveon fisheries of local, national and regional importance.This begs an important question: why isn't Nautilus triallingthis new technology in its home country, Canada, or inanother developed country that has strong environmentalsafeguards and an emergency response capacity? PNG andPacific Island nations have none of these things.The precautionary principle states that if a developmenthas a risk of causing harm to the public or to theenvironment, the burden of proof that it is not harmfulfalls on the developers (i.e. mining companies andgovernments). In some legal systems, as in the EuropeanUnion, the application of the precautionary principle is astatutory requirement. Yet the South Pacific Commission isfast-tracking the development of regulatory frameworks toenable DSM – before the risks have been properly studiedand before communities throughout the Pacific haveprovided informed consent.www.foe.org.auLocal communities in PNG are concerned that their tuna andfisheries industry will come under threat if Nautilus’ Solwara 1deep sea mining project goes ahead.The Solwara 1 Environmental Impact StatementThe Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was the keydocument considered by the PNG national government ingranting the permits and operating licence to Nautilus. TheEIS for the Solwara 1 Project was submitted to the PNGDepartment of Environment and Conservation in 2008. In2009 the Department issued the final environmental permitfor the development of the Solwara 1 project, followed bythe granting of a 20-year mining lease in January 2011.“The priority issues of intellectual Property Rights,the health of communities and the environmentof communities in the Bismarck Seas and PNG’sExclusive Economic Zone are poorly dealt with.Hence the need for transparency about thedecision making process behind the issuing of the20 year license for Solwara 1 is imperative.”− Prof. Chalapan Kaluwin, Environmental Science & GeographyDepartment, University of Papua New Guinea.The purpose of an EIS is to provide clear and rigorousassessment of potential hazards and impacts. TheSolwara 1 EIS should have provided the groundwork forcomprehensive risk analysis and the development of riskmanagement strategies. Both an independent review byProfessor Richard Steiner 2 and the DSM campaign's firstreport, published in November 2011 3 , raised significantconcerns about gaps in the Solwara 1 EIS.Chain Reaction #117 April 2013 37

Pacific women protesting against deep sea mining in the streetsat the International Rio+20 Conference in Brazil.In November 2012, the DSM campaign released a review 4of the sections of the EIS that describe the currents and thevertical water movements (upwelling) at the Solwara 1 site.The review focused on these oceanographic properties asthey are vital for determining the level of risk that coastalcommunities and marine ecosystems will be exposed to.The review found that the oceanographic aspects of theEIS suffer from a lack of rigour. There are many errorsand omissions in the modeling, presentation and analysisof data. Instead of providing a solid basis for informeddecision-making, the EIS attempts to blind its readerswith junk science. It downplays the risks facing localcommunities and the marine environment. Only 30 kmsaway, New Ireland is especially at risk, with the possibilityof upwelling and currents carrying mine-derived metalstowards its coastline.Community voices against deep sea miningThe call to stop experimental sea bed mining in the Pacificis growing. Local communities in Papua New Guineaand the Pacific are speaking out against this new frontierindustry being imposed on their lives and livelihoods.5This has included the presentation of a petition with over24,000 signatures to the PNG government calling for Pacificgovernments to stop experimental seabed mining. 6Pacific women promoted the 'stop experimental seabedmining' message at the international Rio+20 conferencein Brazil. 7 While in New Zealand communities have cometogether to campaign against the mining of their blacksands and their deep seas. 8In March 2013, the Pacific Conference of Churches 10thGeneral Assembly held in Honiara, Solomon Islands, passeda resolution to stop deep sea mining in the Pacific. 9Dr Helen Rosenbaum is the coordinator of the Deep SeaMining campaign (hrose@vic.chariot.net.au) and NatalieLowrey is the campaign's communications coordinator(natalie.lowrey@gmail.com).Stay informed:Join the Deep Sea Mining campaign e-list bysending an email to: natalie.lowrey@gmail.comMore information:www.deepseaminingoutofourdepth.orgactnowpng.orgfacebook.com/deepseaminingpacifictwitter.com/NoDeepSeaMiningyoutube.com/StopDeepSeaMiningReferences:1. savethesea.org/STS%20ocean_facts.htm2. Professor Richard Steiner, 'Independent Review of theEnvironmental Impact Statement for the proposed Nautilus MineralsSolwara 1 Seabed Mining Project, Papua New Guinea',Bismarck-Solomon Seas Indigenous Peoples Councildeepseaminingoutofourdepth.org/resources3. Dr. Helen Rosenbaum, 'Out of Our Depth: Mining the OceanFloor in Papua New Guinea', Deep Sea Mining Campaign,deepseaminingoutofourdepth.org/report4. Dr. John Luick, 'Physical Oceanographic Assessment of theNautilus Environmental Impact Statement for the Solwara 1Project – An Independent Review', Deep Sea Mining Campaign,deepseaminingoutofourdepth.org/report5. deepseaminingourofourdepth.org/community-testimonies6. deepseaminingoutofourdepth.org/tag/petition/7. Pacific NGOs step up Oceans Campaign at Rio+20, Island Business,June 15 2012, deepseaminingoutofourdepth.org/pacific-ngos-step-upoceans-campaign-at-rio208. "http://kasm.org/"kasm.org; deepseaminingoutofourdepth.org/tag/new-zealand9. 'Call for impact research', Dawn Gibson, 11 March 2013, Fiji TimesOnline, fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=22748238 Chain Reaction #117 April 2013

Campaign for an Iraq War InquirySue WarehamThe largest anti-war demonstrations in Australian historytook place 10 years ago. Millions of people protestedworldwide, in about 800 cities − including in Australia,Britain, Italy, Spain, Germany, Switzerland, Ireland, theUnited States, Canada, South Africa, Syria, India, Russia,South Korea, Japan, and even McMurdo Station in Antarctica.In Melbourne more than 100,000 people protested.They clogged Swanston Street for more than three hours,stretching all the way from the State Library down toFederation Square, demanding Australia not follow USpresident George Bush into war, and that we must allowUN weapons inspectors to do their work.Even though globally millions marched, their collectivewill was ignored, and a tragedy of monstrous proportionsunfolded in Iraq.As predicted by many people at the time, the invasion of Iraqwas a humanitarian, legal, political and strategic disaster. Itleft a trail of death and destruction and millions of refugees.It undermined the role of international law and strengthenedterrorism. Australia's role in the war raised serious questionsof government honesty and accountability. If we do notlearn lessons from this episode, we are at risk of engaging inequally ill-founded wars in the future.And now, 10 years later, we need to ask ourselves howthe Australian government was able to ignore the publicexpression of outrage about its intentions. The key lessonwe must learn is to ensure that Australian governments cannever again commit our forces on the decision of a leader inthe face of opposition from millions of Australian citizens,without even our Parliament being consulted. Democracyshouldn't work like that.The 10th anniversary of the largest outpouring of anti-warprotest this country has ever seen is a fitting occasion foran inquiry into the Iraq war.The former secretary of the Department of Defence, PaulBarratt, along with former PM Malcolm Fraser, former chiefof the Australian Defence Force General Peter Gration andmany other distinguished Australians have recently formeda Campaign for an Iraq War Inquiry to facilitate a nationalconversation about the big questions of how and whythe Howard government committed Australian militarypersonnel to invade Iraq in 2003. Their efforts are supportedby Senior Australian of the Year, Professor Ian Maddocks.Britain and the Netherlands have both conducted suchinquiries, revealing much that was hidden in thosecountries' Iraq war decision-making. Of course, thegovernment and opposition will resist, counting on theresignation many felt for the past decade to shield themfrom public pressure. But the demand for an inquiryinto what happened 10 years ago can sow the seeds for ademocratic capacity to ensure it never happens again.Instead of simply looking back in horror at how Australiabecame embroiled in such an ill-conceived and catastrophicconflict, the inquiry would seek to identify the steps thatled to Australia participating in the invasion of Iraq, inorder to understand the lessons to be learnt and how toensure we follow better procedures in the future.The inclusion of our Parliament in any decision that putsour troops, and millions of civilians, in harm's way wouldbe a good start. Going to war is one of the biggest stepsany country can take, and yet John Howard has never beenproperly called to account for his decision in 2003. Thosewho, with him, thought it was the right decision at thetime, should welcome and support an inquiry. As the warhas been severely criticised, its proponents should have theopportunity to defend their actions and views.In these days of political disengagement, an inquiry intoAustralia's involvement in Iraq would provide a powerfulroute to begin overcoming the sense of powerlessness somany people felt in the face of the travesty of democraticdecision-making a decade ago. It is an episode from whichwe must learn, lest we repeat the mistakes.Dr Sue Wareham is secretary of the Campaign for anIraq War Inquiry.More information and to sign the appeal calling for aninquiry: www.iraqwarinquiry.org.auwww.foe.org.auChain Reaction #117 April 2013 39

Indigenous communities,conservation and the resource boomNick McClean and Dawn WellsIn the recent Boyer Lectures, Prof. Marcia Langton arguedthat mining is providing Indigenous communities withan opportunity to move out of the economic margins andgrow into a new middle class of wealth and opportunity.But is mining the only way forward for Indigenouscommunities seeking to develop economically sustainablefutures? And are supporters of conservation committing anact of racism, as she suggests?We can begin by looking to Prof. Langton's own publications.In an article published in the Journal of Political Ecologyin 2005, Prof. Langton and her colleagues brought togetherresearch from across Australia, the Middle-East, Indonesiaand the United Nation's chief conservation agency, theInternational Union for the Conservation of Nature.Assessing the benefits and pitfalls of developing communitybasedconservation programs in partnership with Indigenouspeoples, the conclusions were clear − Australia is currentlyone of the few countries where Indigenous led conservationprograms are proving successful.To quote: "Australia has in relation to certain key nationalparks, taken a lead role in the development of jointmanagement agreements with Indigenous groups" (p.35)and "we also argue, in contrast to many critiques ofcommunity-based conservation elsewhere, that communityorientedprotected areas are delivering significant benefitsto Indigenous peoples in Australia" (p.24).Based on a number of detailed examples, Prof. Langtonand her colleagues argued that Australia's IndigenousProtected Area (IPA) program in particular providessignificant potential for Indigenous communities todevelop livelihoods that are economically sustainableand culturally relevant. It's hard to argue with her either,when we consider that IPAs now make up 25% of theNational Reserve System, and include the country'slargest single conservation reserve, the massive SouthernTanami Indigenous Protected Area. This alone indicatesthat conservation is no longer solely the domain of citybasedenvironmentalists, but is an increasingly importantcomponent of the Indigenous estate, and of Indigenouseconomic life.Moreover, the IPA program is only one example ofconservation done in partnership with Indigenouscommunities, with all states and territories exceptTasmania and the ACT instituting legislation for thejoint management of national parks. It is through thesearrangements that Aboriginal ranger groups are being setup across the country, providing meaningful, ongoingemployment for young Aboriginal men and women, anda forum within which elders can guide the managementof their country according to cultural knowledge andcommunity priorities.While these schemes are in many cases still developing,Prof. Langton's argument in favour of IPAs revolvesaround the fact that Indigenous land owners can maintainownership and full control over their country and theprograms developed to manage it. The secure tenure thatunderpins the IPA program is one of its biggest strengths,with communities nominating land they own outright asconservation reserves. Her point about the environmentmovement historically disregarding Indigenous interestsis undeniable, but according to Prof. Langton's research,emerging forms of conservation are neither racist noreconomically useless.It can be argued that these programs exist in no smallpart due Indigenous advocates such as Prof. Langton andNoel Pearson mounting a public critique of the wildernessconcept and mainstream environmentalism almost 20 yearsago, a critique she foregrounds in the Boyer Lectures. Jointmanagement schemes and the IPA program, as well as themany Indigenous engagement programs run by influentialenvironmental NGOs today, exist not because of epiphaniesamong politicians and activists, but because of the wellmade arguments of Aboriginal people, acting as major rurallandholders who in many cases seek out conservation as aviable option for managing their futures.What is surprising about the Boyer Lectures is the lack ofacknowledgement that these developments also representa significant, if incomplete, process of cultural changeamong Australian conservationists, in direct responseto Indigenous criticism and innovation. After all theseprograms, like Indigenous mining ventures, requirecollaboration and mutual endeavor to succeed.What about mining itself? Is it the golden egg Prof. Langtonwould have us believe? A 2011 survey by the AustraliaInstitute suggests a wide divergence between the miningindustry's perceived and real economic benefits. Thosesurveyed thought the mining industry employed ninetimes more workers than it does; accounted for threetimes as much economic activity than it does; and was30% more Australian-owned than it is. These findingsrepresent an emerging field of research which is bringingthe mining industry's self-styled image as the backbone ofthe Australian economy and sole provider of Aboriginaleconomic development under increasing scrutiny.In regards to mining on Aboriginal land, there are twoprimary concerns. Firstly, are the economic benefits as goodas they sound? And secondly, what power do Aboriginalcommunities have in the agreement-making process?Prof. Langton's 2010 Griffith Review article 'The ResourceCurse' raises many of these issues. She asks, "are thereany policies to counter the growing disparities in incomeand living conditions and opportunities in the miningprovinces?". She goes on to argue, "until this is resolved andother inequities addressed, there is a ticking time bomb inthe remote economic heart of the nation"40 Chain Reaction #117 April 2013

Referring to the localised inflation which occurs inmining towns, Prof. Langton highlights where it hitsremote Aboriginal communities hard – housing, goods andservices. She refers to rental increases in which caravanparking births cost up to $1000 per week. This highinflation has a flow-on effect on the services sector, asbusinesses are not able to provide housing for staff, and thecommunity is deprived of basic services. Meanwhile, stateand federal governments pull back on spending in thesecommunities, and have a bad track record of providingsufficient public housing. The hardest hit are the peoplewho are not directly employed by the mining industry.Not earning the higher wages provided by this industry,they are paying the same inflated rents, food and servicescosts. This is especially significant when we consider thatthe mining industry is one of the least labour intensiveindustries in the country. Finally, Prof. Langton drawsattention to the fact that these towns become wholly reliantupon foreign-owned multinational corporations, which candecide at any moment to close mining operations if theyare not profitable.While Prof. Langton has convincingly argued for manyyears that Aboriginal communities are not receiving theirfair share of mining revenues, in the Boyer Lectures herproposed solutions to this economic vulnerability are largelyto maintain the power of the mining industry. While shediscusses Indigenous disadvantage across the lectures,she doesn't discuss in detail the limited power Aboriginalcommunities frequently have in forming agreements withmining companies. It is common knowledge that NativeTitle, for example, provides for an uneven negotiatingground between resource companies and traditional owners,as it does not confer outright land ownership to traditionalowners. Moreover many Aboriginal communities simply donot have any rights to land at all. This situation is the sameas Prof. Langton herself found when looking at Aboriginalinvolvement in conservation. Those communities with moresecure forms of tenure are able to negotiate good economicoutcomes more often, while those without it are dependenton the ethics of those they do business with in order tosafeguard their economic security.Prof. Langton argues for Aboriginal communities' right topursue mining projects, yet questions remain regardingtheir economic, social and environmental sustainability.In many cases mining companies remain as capable ofdisregarding Indigenous interests as conservationists, yetcommunities will no doubt continue to choose mining as abasis for their economic future. Nevertheless in many casesthere appears to be no guarantee that it will provide aneven or fair distribution of wealth, and in choosing miningmany communities may well choose against conservationoptions with the potential to provide economic securityover the long term. This is some of what we can glean fromMarcia Langton's research.Nick McClean works as a heritage consultant withAboriginal ranger groups in NSW and is completing aPhD at the Australian National University. mcclean.nick@gmail.com. Dawn Wells is commencing a PhD atRutgers University, New Jersey. dv_wells@hotmail.comwww.foe.org.auDella Rae Morrison and Mia Pepper at anAustralian Nuclear Free Aliance meeting.Other responses to the Boyer LecturesThanks to Nick McClean and Dawn Wells for theirinsightful article. Prof. Langton's Boyer Lecturesare posted at abc.net.au/radionational/programs/boyerlecturesA range of other responses to the Boyer Lecturesare posted at foe.org.au/langton. These include aresponse from the co-chairs of the Australian NuclearFree Alliance, Peter Watts, Mitch and Kado Muir, whoconclude: "It is important that Aboriginal people have theopportunity to participate in economic development ontheir country but this must never be at the expense ofcustodial responsibilities or community wishes. Miningis inherently short term but the problems it brings tocountry last well beyond the life of any mine."An article by Leah Talbot and Dave Sweeney rejectsthe claim that the environment movement is standingin the way of indigenous empowerment; notes thegrowing number of collaborations between indigenousAustralians and conservationists; and states that"Langton's lack of rigour in assessing the heavy footprintof the mining sector is compounded by scant mention ofthe legal limitations of the native title regime, the oftencontroversial and secretive nature of mining ''agreements''and the fact that the cards are heavily stacked againstAboriginal people who are concerned about or wouldprefer to see no mining ontheir country."Other responses posted at foe.org.au/langton includerevelations of non-disclosure of mining companyincome, and a Friends of the Earth letter noting that Prof.Langton's comments about "dissident Aboriginal groups atJabiluka" are incorrect.− Chain Reactions eds.Chain Reaction #117 April 2013 41

The Coming FamineThe Coming FamineThe Global Food Crisis and What We Can Do toAvoid ItJulian CribbISBN: 9780643100404$29.95CSIRO Publishingpublish.csiro.au/pid/6447.htmOver the coming half-century the world's farmers will beasked to double global food production − using less water,less land, less energy, less fertiliser and less technologythan they have today. In The Coming Famine, Julian Cribbdescribes how a dangerous confluence of scarcities − ofwater, good land, energy, nutrients, technology, fish andstable climates – are coming into play as the world'spopulation grows and its demand for nutritious foodgrows even faster.Cribb explains how the food system interacts with armedconflict, poverty, society, climate and the environment.He explains how regional shortages send shockwaves intothe global community,with potential impacts on every nation and person onthe planet as we approach the mid-century.Cribb says: "This book is a wake-up call, intended foranyone who eats or plans to in future. The abundanceof food in the past generation has created a false sense ofsecurity and we have taken our eye off what is possibly themost critical issue to the human future of all – certainlythe most pressing: how we feed our vast populationsustainably. While global food demand is set to double,just about everything needed to satisfy it is becoming muchmore scarce and costly. And while well-off consumers enjoythe cheapest food in history – they are throwing half of itaway and paying farmers for it at rates that destroy largeparts of global agriculture and its resource base."Food ShockFood ShockThe truth about what we put on our plates ...and what we can do to change it.Dianne Loughnan2012RRP $29.99ISBN 978-1-921966-09-5exislepublishing.com.au/Food_Shock.htmlThe vast majority of food in Australia is mass-produced inan industrialised system and the results are not as palatableas the everyday shopper might imagine. Our fruit andvegetables are sprayed with pesticides and herbicides,many of which have been banned overseas for years. Ourbeef is more often than not produced in feedlots, wherethousands of cattle stand in their own faeces, regularlydosed with antibiotics to prevent the diseases that are aninevitable result of these conditions. Our chickens are 'spinchilled' in a dilute chlorine solution to help preserve them,and also to whiten the meat. The list goes on.And if you combine all this with the as-yet-unknown effectsof genetically modified crops, the growing water crisis, thecontinued sale of valuable farming land to foreign interests,and the constant struggle Australian farmers face to survivein a 'free-market' economy where 'big business' makes theprofit and their overseas competitors are subsidised yetthey are not, it soon becomes evident that food productionin Australia faces a very uncertain future.Food Shock investigates these issues and encourages us toask some important questions: what are the alternatives toour current system? How do we get there? And what canwe, the consumer, do to change things?The book has chapters on pesticide and herbicide use;food processing and preservation; the use of hormones andantibiotics in meat production; factory farming; geneticmodification; farmers' returns and supermarkets' profits;Australia's farming future; globalisation and food production;environmental impacts of food production; Australia's placein food-insecure world; and food sovereignty.44 Chain Reaction #117 April 2013

Our Dying Planet:An Ecologist's ViewOur Dying PlanetAn Ecologist's View of the Crisis We FacePeter Sale2012RRP A$49.95University of California PressDistributed in Australia by Inbooks inbooks.com.auwww.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520274600http://www.petersalebooks.comCoral reefs are on track to become the first ecosystemactually eliminated from the planet. So says leadingecologist Peter F. Sale in this crash course on the state ofthe planet. Sale draws from his own extensive work oncoral reefs, and from recent research by other ecologists,to explore the many ways we are changing the earth andto explain why it matters. Weaving into the narrative hisown first-hand field experiences around the world (halfhis career has been spent in Australia), Sale brings ecologyalive while giving a solid understanding of the science atwork behind today's pressing environmental issues.He delves into topics including overfishing, deforestation,biodiversity loss, use of fossil fuels, population growth,and climate change while discussing the real consequencesof our growing ecological footprint. Most important,Sales emphasises that a gloom-and-doom scenario is notinevitable, and he explores alternative paths. Some of hisprescriptions − such as a one-child-per-family policy −are controversial.Sales is also author of The Ecology of Fishes on CoralReefs, Coral Reef Fishes, and Marine Metapopulations.Green Australia: A SnapshotGreen Australia: A SnapshotSteve Lancaster2012Wakefield Press336 pagesISBN 9781743050132$34.95Extract: wakefieldpress.com.au/product.php?productid=917Green Australia: A Snapshot examines the ways in whichAustralians are attempting to reduce their ecologicalfootprint at home and at work.In 2009, the CO2 Energy Emissions Index found thatAustralia had overtaken the USA to become the largestper capita emitter of greenhouse gases in the world − alegacy of dependence on coal-fired power stations, thewidespread adoption of conventional farming techniques,heavy reliance on vehicles powered by fossil fuel, 'dirty'industrial practices and a growing mountain of waste. Yet,in recent years, there has been a growing awareness thatclimate change is beginning to bite, the recent drought anddevastating floods suggesting that more extreme weatherpatterns are likely unless significant steps are taken tocombat global warming.Using case studies and up-to-date research, this bookdemonstrates that, although much more needs to be doneif Australia is to secure a carbon-neutral future, some greenshoots are beginning to emerge.The book has chapters on energy production andconsumption; green building techniques; green transport;food production and consumption; waste and recycling;clothing and furnishing; chemicals in the home;water conservation; the green workplace; andenvironmental activism.Other books by Steve Lancaster, an Adelaide resident since2006, include British Politics in Focus; Britain and theWorld; The Modern World; The Era of the SecondWorld War; and The Roman Empire.45 Chain Reaction #117 April 2013 Chain Reaction #117 April 2013 45www.foe.org.au

The Lace Makersof NarsapurThe Lace Makers ofNarsapurMaria Mies1982 / 2012$32.95ISBN: 9781742198149Spinifex Pressspinifexpress.com.au/Bookstore/book/id=231Maria Mies speaks about the book:informyourself.com.au/Maria%20Mies.mp3Spinifex Press has re-released Maria Mies' 1982 book, TheLace Makers of Narsapur, as part of its Feminist Classicsseries. The Lace Makers is a sensitive and groundbreakingstudy of women at the beginning of the process ofglobalisation. Mies looks at the way in which women aredispossessed by producing luxury goods for the Westernmarket and simultaneously not counted as workers orproducers in their fragmented workplaces. Instead theyare defined as 'non-working housewives' and their workas 'leisure-time activity'. The rates of pay are far belowacceptable levels resulting in accelerating pauperisationand a rapid deterioration in their position in Indian society.Before the latest 'economic boom' in India were a numberof processes of dispossession − the dispossession offarmers through the 'green revolution' and alongside it, thedispossession of women, the lace makers of Narsapur in thestate of Andhra Pradesh.Honeycomb Kids:Voices from theGlobal Fight forWomen's RightsThe Unfinished Revolution:Voices from the GlobalFight for Women's RightsMinky Worden (ed.)2012$36.95ISBN: 9781742198224www.spinifexpress.com.auThe Unfinished Revolution tells the story of the globalstruggle to secure basic rights for women and girls,including in the Middle East where the Arab Springraised high hopes, but the political revolutions are so farinsufficient to guarantee progress. In many countries,women are second-class citizens by law. In others, religionand traditions block freedoms such as the right to work,study or access health care.More than 30 writers − Nobel Prize laureates, leadingactivists, top policy makers, and former victims − havecontributed to this anthology. Drawing from their richpersonal experiences, they tackle some of the toughestquestions and offer bold new approaches to problemsaffecting hundreds of millions of women.As Media Director of Human Rights Watch, editorMinky Worden monitors crises, wars, human rightsabuses, and political developments in more than seventycountries worldwide.Honeycomb Kids:Big Picture Parenting for a Changing WorldAnna M Campbell2012Cape Able Publishers$27.95ISBN: 9780980747508http://honeycombkidsparentingbook.comHoneycomb Kids is a book about making the most of theday-to-day while preparing children for likely impacts ontheir world including global population growth, peak oil,competition for resources, increasing costs of living (food,electricity), health issues and plenty more. It's aboutraising contributors not just consumers.The book explores the various big picture scenarios today'schildren may face as adults, and offers more than 300proactive suggestions as to how you can help childrenmeet, rise above and contribute positively to the challengescoming their way."It's about empowering our kids, rather than just drivingthem around," writes author Anna Campbell.46 Chain Reaction #117 April 2013

Making Peace with the EarthMaking Peace with the Earth:Beyond Resource, Land and Food WarsVandana Shiva2012Spinifex Pressspinifexpress.com.au/Bookstore/book/id=237/$36.95ISBN: 9781742198385In her latest book, Sydney Peace Prize recipient VandanaShiva finds that a series of wars have been declared againstthe Earth: wars about land, water, climate, forests andbiodiversity. She examines the root causes of these warsagainst the backdrop of the current crisis in food supply.A radical scientist and ecofeminist, Shiva is not afraid totackle corporate giants that are polluting, degrading andultimately destroying the natural world. She imagines aworld that could be sustainable; a world in which foodsecurity, justice and peace are all aligned.The book has chapters on Eco-aparthied as War; The GreatLand Grab; Water Wars and Water Peace; Climate Wars andClimate Peace; Forest Wars and Forest Peace; SyntheticBiology and Biodiversity Wars; Hunger by Design; FoodWars as Wars Against the Earth; Hunger via Corporate-Controlled Trade; Re-Designing the Food System forSustainability, Food Justice and Food Peace; and BeyondGrowth: Making Peace with the Earth.Shiva begins Making Peace with the Earth withthese words:"When we think of wars in our times, our mindsautomatically turn to Iraq and Afghanistan, but thebigger war is the on-going war against the earth. In fact,the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya can be seen aswars for the earth's resources, especially oil. The waragainst the earth has its roots in an economy whichfails to respect ecological and ethical limits – limitsto inequality, to injustice, to greed and to economicconcentration. Even though both economy and ecologyhave their roots in oikos, our home, the planet, theeconomy has separated itself from ecology in our minds,even as the intensity of exploitation and dependence onnature has increased.""The global corporate economy based on the ideaof limitless growth has become a permanent wareconomy against the planet and people. The meansare instruments of war; coercive free trade treatiesused to organise economies on the basis of trade wars;and technologies of production based on violenceand control, such as toxins, genetic engineering, geoengineeringand nano-technologies."Bio-Dynamics in the BackyardBio-Dynamics in the Backyard and Beyond: APractical Guide for Gardeners and OthersUte Mueller, 2012Resource PublicationsThe book is available for $15 from Ute Mueller,email utemueller@skymesh.com.au,ph (03) 6445 4286.Review by Louise SalesUte is a passionate gardener and has managed a small biodynamicbeef and lamb property in Northern Tasmaniafor the last 30 years. This book draws extensively from herexperiences and will probably be most useful for peoplegrowing vegetables in cooler climes. The book provides agood introduction to bio-dynamic principles and contains anumber of handy tips about mulching, companion plantingand crop rotation. It also includes a helpful list of resourcesfor people wanting to find out more.The Introduction states: "This little book is aimd at a varietyof individuals: those that want to grow the healthiestand most nutritious food for their families, those thathave a passion for gardening and those that want to givesomething lasting to their soils and the environment... Eventhough the book is addressing gardeners, the bio-dynamicprinciples as laid out in an easy to understand way in PartOne (Chapters one to four) are universal and can be appliedto any situation from a few square metres to broad-acrefarming. Part two of the book gives sound advice on thedaily work in the garden, from crop rotation and greenmanure, mulch, companion planting, seed choices, seedsaving and seed viability to well established veggievarieties and useful garden tools."47 Chain Reaction #117 April 2013 Chain Reaction #117 April 2013 47www.foe.org.au

The climate movementin AustraliaClimate Politics and theClimate Movement in AustraliaVerity Burgmann and Hans Baer2012Melbourne University Press$49.99ISBN: 9780522861334Also available an e-book (downloadablePDF files) or a d-book (print-on-demand).www.mup.com.au/page/168Review by Cam WalkerAnyone who watches, or is involved in, the debate aroundclimate change will know it is often a murky and messylandscape. There are lobbyists, companies both good andbad, green groups big and small, think tanks, sceptics,commentators and governments all in the mix.Even though I live and breathe climate change politics,I am often daunted by the sheer numbers of groups andpeople who are involved, and the complexities of how weall interact and where the points of leverage are. Actionon climate change is one of those conflict points in the‘culture wars’ within Australian society (with the scepticsand ‘believers’ lining up roughly along conservative andprogressive lines), with the additional confusion that comesfrom having so many well resourced vested interests whorepresent industry influencing media and public debate.So, when a book like Climate Politics comes along, anyonewith an interest in climate politics should dive in, to get agood sense of how it all works.Of course, any book will be, to a degree, a reflection of theauthors politics and world view, and this is certainly thecase with Verity Burgmann and Hans Baer, two left-wingacademics from Melbourne University. It is Melbourneheavyand tilted towards progressive views, but it providesa deeply impressive perspective on the movement and theissues at play.Verity and Hans start with a quick run down of climatechange and what science tells us is coming, and the factthat global and domestic political responses have beenboth too slow and of insufficient scale to dealwith Nicholas Stern’s ‘wicked problem’.They quickly dismiss the possibilityof a greener ‘business as usual’ delivering a solution, andfocus in on the possibilities presented by the rising climatejustice movement (CJM).The CJM was certainly an obscure and marginal branchof the climate movement for a long time. I know this fromthe bitter experience of a decade’s work trying to interestgovernments, aid groups and environmental NGOs aboutthe plight of climate refugees – people who are displacedby global warming.But with the failure of the international climatenegotiations at Copenhagen in 2009, the movements fromthe global South (especially Africa, Latin America and thesmall island nations) burst onto the political stage, callingfor stronger action than the voluntary accords which wereon offer. More radical groups from the ‘North’ – and eventhose who were moderate but starting to give up hopefor international action – found common cause with thegrassroots activists from the South, and climate politicsentered a new phase. ‘Climate Justice’ became a force to bereckoned with.Here in Australia, there had been a brief moment of hopewhen the Howard government was dislodged from power,with new PM Kevin Rudd promising action. As this fadedin the endless negotiations over what type of an emissionstrading scheme (ETS) we would get, yet another wave ofactivism emerged, driven by the sheer desperation of theimpending climate crisis that was bearing down on us.Climate Code Red, co-authored by Philip Sutton and DavidSpratt and initially published in 2008, helped launch thisnew sensibility. The need for action at emergency speeddrove the creation of hundreds of new groups and the48 Chain Reaction #117 April 2013

creation of the climate emergency movement. The rise ofthe climate action groups, national climate summits, anddirect action camps followed.Bookending this emerging movement was a new wave ofcorporate lobbyists, the fact that the Greens got balance ofpower in the Senate and were able to drive the ALP furtheron climate action than would have otherwise happened,and new ‘opinion formers’ like the think tank ClimateInstitute Australia.Hans and Verity do an admirable job of sketching out thevarious players in this landscape and, significantly, placeseach of them in the jigsaw of the larger picture. With anice bit of historical context and blow-by-blow assessmentof the glacial pace of action under the Rudd and Gillardgovernments, key actors are introduced: the Greens, the bigenvironmental NGOs, academics, trade unions, and thenthe grassroots movement. They give voice to many in thegrassroots who are often missing from history books while,as they admit, other voices are absent, largely through thelimitations of space.The newest emerging issues in climate politics areboth throw backs to earlier decades and new modelsof organising. The struggle against the massive gas hubplanned for north western WA brings together indigenous,biodiversity and climate concerns and bears strongsimilarities to the anti uranium struggles of the 1970sand ‘80s. The Lock the Gate (LtG) movement, whichgalvanises (in the words of LtG president Drew Hutton)‘Cockies, blockies and greenies’ – graziers, rural poor andenvironmentalists – is arguably something new, buildingon a narrative of care for country, of values, of land, waterand connection to place, and the right of communities tocreate their destiny instead of corporations. LtG is fillingsome of the political space taken by right-wing populistslike Pauline Hanson, and is a fascinating developmentin community politics in Australia. Sadly both thesemovements get the barest look in Climate Politics.Another strength of the book is its serious coverage of theabsolute grassroots – including the sustained direct actionsagainst the coal and CSG industries.Apart from being a good bit of ‘people’s history’, the finalsection of the book looks at approaches to change. Theauthors make it clear they are not fans of market-basedmechanisms such as carbon trading and offsetting (andhighlight the ‘secondary injustices’ that often flow fromsuch schemes as we outsource our responsibility forclimate action).They sketch out some of the approaches to change thathave been widely adopted. I sometimes find myselfdespondent when activists tell me that we don’t have‘time for justice’ when framing our response to climatechange because of the urgency of the threat. There iscertainly a politics of despair that underpins some sectionsof the movement, and the charge that many of us aretoo ‘sunny’ in our messaging is something that must beconsidered carefully. But when key figures, such as writerGeorge Monbiot, embrace nuclear power as a solution todecarbonising our energy systems, or corporates can seebig profits in attempts to geo-engineer the atmosphere, ouralarm bells must start ringing.It is my firm belief that unless we place justice at the coreof our response, the world we create through respondingto climate change will not be worth living in. Yet currentdebate often doesn’t really consider the deeper questions:can we have growth based economic systems and stillrespond to global warming at sufficient scale? Willpragmatic and incremental responses such as the carbontax be able to be ramped up, or should they be abandonedin favour of more systemic and radical approaches?At present, the greener ‘business as usual’ and theecological modernisation approaches are dominantassumptions that act as the basis for much of the day-to-dayactivity within the climate movement. Critiques of growthmodels and conversations about the risk of over-reliance ontechnological adaptation rather than cultural and politicaltransformation bubble away largely at the fringes of debate.The authors argue that ‘globalising capitalism’ as a solutionwill simply increase inequality and ‘fry’ the planet. I haveto agree with them when they argue that we should notlet the necessary technological transformation become thetail that wags the dog. They say that with climate chaoslooming, political transformation is no longer optional −survival depends on renouncing the global status quo andcreating an ecologically balanced way of life. They brieflyposit the idea of democratic eco-socialism as a world viewwe should strive for.Climate Politics is an insightful and thorough coverageof Australia’s climate movement; more strength to its arm.To read chapter synopses and to download chapter onefor free, see mup.com.au/page/168. The chapters areas follows: The Politics of Survival, Climate Change inAustralia; The Public and the Politicians; the PoliticalEffects of the Greenhouse Effect 1980-2007; CarbonPollution Reduction and Carbon Pricing: the Rudd andGillard Governments; Corporations and the State; TheAustralian Greens; ENGOs and Think-Tanks; Academics;The Union Movement; Constructing the Climate Movement;The Hard Work of Climate Movement Organisation;Demos and Direct Action; and Towards a Safe Climateand Climate JusticeCam Walker is campaigns co-ordinator withFriends of the Earth in Melbourne.This review was originally published inDissent magazine, Summer 2012/13.dissentmagazine.org49 Chain Reaction #117 April 2013 Chain Reaction #117 April 2013 49www.foe.org.au

A Global Forecastfor the Next Forty Years2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty YearsJorgen Randers2012396pp, paperbackChelsea Green Publishing, VermontISBN: 9781603584210Review by David TeatherJorgen Randers seeks to answer a crucial question:Forty years hence, what will our world be like? He doesn’tengage in wishful thinking. Instead he presents a readable,well-informed, comprehensive yet focused study of howthe next four decades will unfold.Randers identifies the main drivers of change, and thoseinfluences likely to impede a better outcome. His bookempowers the reader not only to anticipate changes butalso to act to alter the bigger picture. Randers appealsto his readers: “Please help to make my forecast wrong.Together we could create a much better world.”As a researcher at the Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology, Randers co-authored the 1972 study,The Limits to Growth. This concluded that, withoutbig changes, humanity was poised to grow dangerouslybeyond the limits of our planet. He later became Presidentof the BI Norwegian Business School, and Deputy DirectorInternational of the World Wildlife Fund.Randers’ forecast is based on actual and trend data onworld population, workforce and production (GDP), andthe proportions of production devoted to consumption andinvestment. Resource and climate problems are treated asa function of production, affecting the level of investment;labour productivity as a function of social tension, relating togrowth in consumption and how consumption is distributed.Randers expected to uncover a bleak, even catastrophicfuture, ending in environmental collapse before 2050.Instead his forecast reveals a much more diverse world by2052, “some regions (particularly China) doing quite well,and others having failed miserably and fallen into anarchy,and all of them toiling in increasingly erratic weather ...”Overall, increasing urbanisation will be accompanied bya dramatic decline in fertility, with the global populationpeaking at 8.1 billion in 2040. Global GDP will doubleby 2050. Productivity growth and consumption growthwill slow, and an ever-greater proportion of GDP willbe allocated to investment to solve problems caused byresource depletion, pollution, climate change, biodiversityloss and social/economic inequity. Because of increasedinvestment, resource and climate problems will notbecome catastrophic before 2052, but there will be muchunnecessary suffering from unabated climate damage.People will seek opportunity, safety and strengthin huge cities, so urban communitieswill dominate. The culture of artificial, urban living willweaken efforts to protect nature. Biodiversity will suffer.Randers believes that solving the major problems ofpoverty and climate change are well within humancapability. Indeed, in a joint article in the Journal ofSocial Responsibility (June 2010), he and Paul Gildingdemonstrated how the climate war can be won.But in 2052 some three billion people will still live inpoverty. And global temperature will have risen by about 2degrees celsius, with the spectre of self-reinforcing climatechange in prospect for the latter half of the century.Why will it come to this? You need to read Randers’analysis in full, but briefly it will be because we havebecome conditioned to accept the cheapest solutions onoffer. These are rarely the surest or best ways to solveserious, long-term problems.Mainstream economists still take for granted the lifesupportingservices provided by our natural environment,and omit them from their models. They also prioritisethe present by heavily discounting the future. In light ofRanders’ forecast, the assumption that life in the future willbe better than today, and that it is therefore reasonable topostpone to the future those problems that appear difficultto solve now, is simply not tenable.Both capitalism and democracy focus on the short term.Randers observes that the only high-profile leaders whohave recently been able to force wise, long-term policy ontotheir peoples have been the European Union (in climatematters) and the Communist Party of China (in economicmatters). “Both are further removed from democraticcontrol than are most politicians.”In this review I have focused mainly on the material,quantitative aspects of Randers forecast, but he includesperceptive chapters on non-material aspects and “TheZeitgeist in 2052”. He draws comparisons with other globalforecasts, and provides five regional forecasts. Thirty shortcontributions by other specialists, on topics such as urbanslums, cultural evolution, and solar energy, enlarge anddiversify the text.The book ends with 25 pages about personal decisionmaking, on questions such as where best to live, what workto do, how to invest with peace of mind. There’s thoughtfuladvice on focusing on satisfaction rather than income, andon developing interests that will stand the test of time.50 Chain Reaction #117 April 2013

National Liaison OfficersNational Liaison Officephone: (03) 9419 8700.address: PO Box 222, Fitzroy, Vic, 3065.Cam Walker (Melbourne)email: cam.walker@foe.org.auphone: 0419 338047Kim Stewart (Brisbane)email: kim.Stewart@foe.org.auphone: 0413 397839Beck Pearse (Sydney)email: beck.pearse@foe.org.auNational campaigns,active issues,projects and spokespeopleAnti-Nuclear and Clean Energy (ACE):Jim Green (Melbourne)email: jim.green@foe.org.auphone: 0417 318368Robin Taubenfeld (Brisbane)email: robintaubenfeld@hotmail.comphone: 0411 118737Tully McIntyre (Melbourne)email: tully.mcintyre@foe.org.auphone: 0410 388187Climate Justice:Cam Walker (Melbourne)email: cam.walker@foe.org.auphone: 0419 338047Coal & Coal Seam Gas:Cam Walker (Melbourne)email: cam.walker@foe.org.auphone: 0419 338047Drew Hutton (Brisbane)email: drew.hutton@foe.org.auphone: 0428 487110Shaun Murray (Queensland)email: shaun.murray@foe.org.auphone: 0402 337 077Carbon tradingEllen Robertsemail: ellen.roberts@foe.org.auBeck Pearseemail: beck.pearse@foe.org.auphone: 0405 105 101Indigenous Communities in Latin AmericaCampaign (mining, hydro and forestry):Marisol Salinas (Melbourne)email: marisol.salinas@foe.org.auphone: 0431 368606Australian Indigenous Issues:Will Mooneyemail: will.mooney@foe.org.auphone: 0404 163 700Murray-Darling Basin Plan:Cam Walkeremail: cam.walker@foe.org.auphone: 0419 338047Food:Louise Salesemail: louise.sales@foe.org.auphone: 0435 589579Pacific Solidarity:Wendy Flanneryemail: wendy.flannery@foe.org.auphone: 0439 771692Pesticides:Anthony Amis (Melbourne)email: anthonyamis@hotmail.comNanotechnology:Louise Salesemail: louise.sales@foe.org.auphone: 0435 589579South Melbourne Commons:address: 217–239 Montague St,South Melbourne (cnr Bank St).email: smc.operations@foe.org.auphone: 03 9682 5282,website: www.commons.org.auLynas Rare Earth Plant:Tully McIntyre (Melbourne)email: tully.mcintyre@foe.org.auphone: 0410 388187International Liaison OfficersTully McIntyre (Melbourne)email: tully.mcintyre@foe.org.auphone: 0410 388187Ellen Robertsemail: ellen.roberts@foe.org.auphone: 0405 105 101 LOCAL GROUPSFriends of the Earth Australia contactsFoE Adelaideaddress:email:website:c/- Conservation SA,Level 1, 157 Franklin Street,Adelaide, SA 5000adelaide.office@foe.org.auwww.adelaide.foe.org.auFoE Brisbaneaddress: 20 Burke St, Woolloongabba (aboveReverse Garbage).postal: PO Box 8227,Woolloongabba, Qld, 4102.phone: (07) 3171 2255email: office.brisbane@foe.org.auwebsite: www.brisbane.foe.org.auClimate Frontlines & Friends of Tulele Peisaemail: wendy.flannery@foe.org.auphone: 0439 771 692FoE Southwest WAaddress: PO Box 6177,South Bunbury, WA, 6230.phone: Joan Jenkins (08) 9791 6621,0428 389087.email: foeswa@gmail.comBridgetown Greenbushes Friendsof the Forestaddress: PO Box 461,email:website:Bridgetown, WA, 6255president@bgff.org.auwww.bgff.org.auFoE Melbourneaddress: 312 Smith St, Collingwood.postal: PO Box 222, Fitzroy, 3065.phone: (03) 9419 8700,1300 852081 (freecall)fax: (03) 9416 2081email: foe@foe.org.auwebsite: www.melbourne.foe.org.auBarmah-Millewa CollectiveSam Cossar-Gilbert, Collective Coordinatoremail: sam.cossargilbert@foe.org.auWill Mooney, Community Campaigneremail: will.mooney@foe.org.auphone: 0404 165 735Anti-nuclear & Clean Energy (ACE ) Collectiveemail: ace@foe.org.auphone: 0421 955 066 (Gem Romuld)Food co-opphone: (03) 9417 4382Yes 2 Renewablesemail: leigh.ewbank@foe.org.auphone: 0406 316 176 (Leigh Ewbank (Melb))email: cam.walker@foe.org.auphone: 0419 338047 (Cam Walker (Melb))Quit CoalChloe Aldenhoven, Coal and Gas Campaigneremail: chloe.aldenhoven@foe.org.auphone: 0432 328 107FoE Kurandaaddress: PO Box 795, Kuranda, Qld, 4881email: info@foekuranda.orgphone: (07) 4093 8509 (Pat Daly)website: www.foekuranda.orgFoE Sydneypostal: 19 Eve St, Erskineville, NSW, 2043contact: Beck Pearseemail: sydney@foe.org.auphone: 0405 105 101website: www.sydney.foe.org.auMembership issues/financial contributionsMelissa Slatteryemail: melissa.slattery@foe.org.auphone: Freecall 1300 852 081(03) 9418 8700 (Tues−Thurs)AFFILIATE MEMBERSFood Irradiation Watchpostal: PO Box 5829,West End, Qld, 4101email: foodirradiationwatch@yahoo.com.auwebsite: www.foodirradiationinfo.org.Tulele Peisa (PNG)‘sailing the waves on our own’website: www.tulelepeisa.orgSix Degrees Coal and Climate CampaignA campaign initiative of FoE Brisbane Co-op Ltd.email: sixde6rees@gmail.comwebsite: www.sixdegrees.org.auphone, fax, street and postal addressesshared with FoE Brisbane (see above).Mukwano AustraliaSupporting health care in organic farming communitiesin Uganda.web: www.mukwano-australia.orgSam Le Gassickemail: sam_neal13@hotmail.comKristen Lyonsemail: kristen.lyons@uq.edu.auKatoomba-Leura Climate Action NowGeorge Winstonemail: gwinston@aapt.com.auSustainable Energy Now (WA)address: Perth. PO Box 341,West Perth WA 6872phone: Steve Gates 0400 870 887email: contact@sen.asn.auwebsite: www.sen.asn.auReverse Garbage Co-op (Brisbane)address: 20 Burke St, Woolloongabba.postal: PO Box 8087,Woolloongabba, Qld 4102.phone: (07) 3891 9744email: info@reversegarbage.com.au,website: www.reversegarbage.com.auOffice days: Tues to Friday.In Our NatureIn Our Nature is a not-for-profit organisation whichis working on the Kitobo Colobus Project, located insouthern Kenya.Julian Brownemail: julian.brown20@yahoo.comWest Mallee Protection (SA)email: westmallee@gmail.comphone: 0423 910492 (Breony Carbines)Nature: Not NegotiableStop the Commonwealth handing over environmentalapprovals powers to neanderthal state governments.Web: foe.org.au/nature-not-negotiableFacebook: search Nature: Not NegotiableTwitter: @NatureNotNegMarket Forcesweb: www.marketforces.org.auemail: Julien Vincent contact@marketforces.org.autwitter: @market_forcesfacebook: facebook.com/MarketForcesCounterActEffective, creative, strategic nonviolent action on issuesof environmental and social justice.Email: peacefulcommunityaction@gmail.comWebsite: www.counteract.org.auwww.foe.org.au