During his 11 years as Prime Minister John Howard oversaw the introduction of 20 major pieces of environmental legislation by four different environment ministers. This resulted in the end of broad scale tree clearing in western Queensland, the declared of large areas of the Great Barrier Reef out of bounds to fishermen, and through the $10 billion National Plan for Water Security the potential return of very large volumes of water to the Murray River. Other initiatives included the phasing out of incandescent light bulbs and support for “solar cities”. But John Howard may only be remembered as the Australian Prime Minister who refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
He was Prime Minister during a period when climate change became the global issue and the grand gesture important for people looking for symbolism as much as real action on this and other environmental issues. But Howard has never been particularly good at conspicuous compassion. Rather he listened to environmental activists with impressive titles such as ‘professor’, and he distributed hundreds of millions of dollars to groups like the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Indeed under the Howard government there was record spending on the environment including $4.3 billion in his government’s last budget compared with less than $500 million in Labor’s last year of office (1995-96).
But after 11 years, lots of legislation and billions of dollars, John Howard is still seen as a pseudo-environmentalist – is this a fair assessment? And in particular, why didn’t Howard ratify Kyoto, given that as a consequence of the legislation banning broad scale tree clearing his government was on track to meet its targets uner the Kyoto Protocol?
So, Ender, are you saying that radiation from uranium is not dangerous?
Are you saying that all of the protests about shipping uranium through urban areas was rubbish?
What are you saying about radioactive materials?
PP
More sophistry from Ender and minimal substance. He said;
"These radionucleides are the dangerous ones when leached out into ground water. As they are analogs for elements such as calcium and iodine they are taken into the body and expose delicate tissues to ionising radiation".
What he should have said was "IF leached out into the ground water". He is arguing as if they already have been leached, or wil certainly be leached.
The whole point of nuclear waste site selection, storage and monitoring is to ensure that;
a. it does not leach, and
b. if, in the very unlikely event that it does, it is detected early and prevented from getting anywhere near ground water, and
c. if, in the even more unlikely event that it might reach groundwater, it is detected and remedied before it comes in contact with living organisms.
Note that some groundwater has remained in situ for millions of years.
Funny how Ender can treat an extreme improbability as if it were a contemporary fact or high certainty. But whats new?
Pirate Pete - "Ender will know that radioactivity is a natural phenomenon, the air that we breathe contains radioactive dust. Is he going to mount an awareness campaign and demand that every person in Australia wear a face filter to screen out radioactive dust? I think not.
Hypocrite.
PP"
BTW if the air that you are breathing contained plutonium you would be dead. If the water or milk you drink contained any of these fission products you would have a hugely greater chance of thyroid disease and/or thyroid cancer or leukemia.
Before you call people hypocrites perhaps you should visit a nuclear reactor and see if they will let you have a good whiff of the spent nuclear fuel. If they do and you survive this 'natural' radiation then I will stand as a hypocrite however I am sure I will attend your funeral.
Pirate Pete - "If Ender was to take a walk around the Northern Territory with a geiger counter, he would find very large areas which are radioactive at ground level. This means that radioactive material is being continuously leached into groundwater as a natural phenomenon."
So plutonium, a totally man made element, is present in the NT??? I don't think so.
The radiation that is detected is from uranium not from fission products like:
"The radioactivity in the fission product mixture is mostly short lived isotopes such as I-131 and 140Ba, after about four months 141Ce, 95Zr/95Nb and 89Sr take the largest share, while after about two or three years the largest share is taken by 144Ce/144Pr, 106Ru/106Rh and 147Pm. Later 90Sr and 137Cs are the main radioisotopes, being succeeded by 99Tc. Note that in the case a release of radioactivity from a power reactor or used fuel that only some elements are released, as a result the isotopic signature of the radioactivity is very different to an open air nuclear detonation where all the fission products are dispersed."
This is typical of nuclear power proponents that try to cover the problem by confusing natural radiation with man made elements and isotopes. These radionucleides are the dangerous ones when leached out into ground water. As they are analogs for elements such as calcium and iodine they are taken into the body and expose delicate tissues to ionising radiation.
That is the problem - not walking around with a geiger counter.
Yes, Pirate Pete, I saw that piece on the MSN page but was surprised that it was cut very early in the day. The only surprise might be if Turnbull gets the Liberal leadership and lets it pass through the Senate. He is stupid enough to do it but the full impact assessment will still be needed.
One thing for certain is that a merger between the Liberals and Nationals will be right off the radar if republican Turnbull is leader of the opposition.
Of course, the big question now is whether Kevin Rudd will actually steer the Australian parliament to ratifying the Kyoto accord.
The reality is that the process of ratification of international treaties is a slow and complicated process.
There must be a full impact assessment on the Australian people and economy. This has not been started yet.
There will need to be legislation passed in all applicable parliaments, both federal and state.
This will take years. And of course he faces a hostile senate.
The present term of the Kyoto agreement, due to expire in 2012 may expire before Australia can actually ratify the agreement.
And Rudd knows this.
PP