As COAL should be phased out as an energy source due to its GLOBAL WARMING CO2 production, the New South Wales government is inviting parties to DEVELOP A NEW COAL MINE near Ulan, NSW. The advert above appears in the SMH, same day as the toon at top...

Ulan is a small village in eastern New South Wales, Australia. Ulan Post Office opened on 1 September 1893.There is a coal mine at Ulan. The Sandy Hollow — Ulan Railway was built to serve this coal mine. In exchange for additional coal leases, the coal company extended the railway for 20 km to connect with other railway lines at Gulgong thus forming an improved alternate route crossing the Great Dividing Range at a lower altitude with improved gradients.

Ulan is situated on the edges of the Sydney basin. Hopefully this advert is a waste of space...

Report: ‘No Evidence That Fracking Can Operate Without Threatening Public Health’

More than 1,500 scientific studies on the health and climate impacts of fracking prove its dangerous effect on communities, wildlife and nature.

Pollution & Toxins

August 5, 2019 - by Tara Lohan

In 2010 when I first started writing about hydraulic fracturing — the process of blasting a cocktail of water and chemicals into shale to release trapped hydrocarbons — there were more questions than answers about environmental and public-health threats. That same year Josh Fox’s documentary Gasland, which featured tap water bursting into flames, grabbed the public’s attention. Suddenly the term fracking — little known outside the oil and gas industry — became common parlance.

In the following years I visited with people in frontline communities — those living in the gas patches and oilfields, along pipeline paths and beside compressor stations. Many were already woozy from the fumes or worried their drinking water was making them sick. When people asked me if they should leave their homes, it was hard to know what to say; there weren’t many peer-reviewed studies to understand how fracking was affecting public health.

Those days are over.

In June the nonprofits Physicians for Social Responsibility and Concerned Health Professionals of New York released the sixth edition of a compendium that summarizes more than 1,700 scientific reports, peer-reviewed studies and investigative journalism reports about the threats to the climate and public health from fracking.

The research has been piling up for years, and the verdict is clear, the authors conclude: Fracking isn’t safe, and heaps of regulations won’t help (not that they’re coming, anyway).

“Across a wide range of parameters, from air and water pollution to radioactivity to social disruption to greenhouse gas emissions, the data continue to reveal a plethora of recurring problems and harms that cannot be sufficiently averted through regulatory frameworks,” write the eight public health professionals, mostly doctors and scientists, who compiled the compendium. “There is no evidence that fracking can operate without threatening public health directly and without imperiling climate stability upon which public health depends.”

The research collected and summarized is wide-ranging and includes the harms not just from drilling and fracking, but the long tail of the process, including compressor stations and pipelines, silica sand mining, natural-gas storage, natural-gas power plants, and the manufacturing and transport of liquefied natural gas.

Dr. Sandra Steingraber, a biologist, author and distinguished scholar in residence at Ithaca College, is one of the compendium’s co-authors. She helped lead an independent investigation into the scientific research on the health risks from fracking that was a precursor to the current compendium. Those efforts drove public engagement on the issue and eventually led to a ban on fracking in her home state of New York in 2014.

She says this latest collection of research reveals some significant and noteworthy trends.

“There’s really definitive evidence now that methane leaks at every stage of the fracking process” from drilling to storage, she says. And that’s contributing to a surge in methane, a potent greenhouse gas, in the atmosphere.

But methane isn’t just a climate danger. It’s also a contributor to smog, otherwise known as ground-level ozone, which is linked to strokes, heart attacks, asthma and preterm births.

“Methane is a source of air pollution that’s deadly — and that’s become clearer and clearer,” says Steingraber.

Gas being flared at a drilling site in Powder River Basin, Wyo. (Photo by Tara Lohan)

Another area where the science is settled is the earthquakes caused by the injection of fracking wastewater underground, she says.

“We know without a doubt that fracking is linked to earthquakes that occur over longer periods of time and wider geographic area than previously thought,” she says. “That’s because these slippery chemicals that they’ve added to fracking fluid decrease friction while fracking, and they don’t lose that property when re-injected down into the earth with wastewater.”

The compendium also includes a section on two new topics not covered in previous editions — environmental justice and wildlife.

First, studies have shown that fracking infrastructure is disproportionately sited in nonwhite, indigenous or low-income communities. “Whether it’s practiced in urban areas like Los Angeles where fracking infrastructure clearly targets poor nonwhite communities or in rural areas of Ohio and Pennsylvania where it’s targeted at poor whites — those patterns hold up over and over again,” she says.

There’s also mounting evidence about harms to wildlife from various elements of the process, including toxic water, habitat destruction, light and noise pollution. For example, infrastructure like compressor stations caused populations of grassland songbirds in Canada to decline. Water fleas, a key part of the aquatic food web, are imperiled by small amounts of fracking fluid in waterways.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg: At more than 350 pages with 1,400 footnotes linking to pertinent research, there’s a lot to uncover in the compendium. Here are a few of the findings:

• Oil and gas operations in the arid Permian Basin used eight times more water for fracking in 2018 as they did in 2011, threatening groundwater supplies;
• A 2018 analysis of methane leaks from the U.S. oil and gas supply chain as a whole found leakage rates were 60 percent higher than reported by the EPA, and a 2019 study in southwestern Pennsylvania found shale gas emissions that were underreported by a factor of five when compared to EPA estimates;
• Researchers working in Texas found 19 different fracking-related contaminants — including cancer-causing benzene — in hundreds of drinking water samples collected from the aquifer overlying the heavily drilled Barnett Shale, thereby documenting widespread water contamination;
• More than 200 airborne chemical contaminants have been detected near drilling and fracking sites. Of these 61 are classified as hazardous air pollutants, including carcinogens, and 26 are endocrine-disrupting compounds that have been linked to reproductive, developmental and neurological damage;
• Studies of mothers living near oil and gas extraction operations consistently find impairments to infant health, including elevated risks for low birth weight and preterm birth;
• In 2017, the most recent year for which data are available, 81 oil and gas extraction workers died on the job, accounting for 72 percent of the fatal work injuries in the mining sector, which overall has a fatality rate nearly four times the national average;
• Significant pipeline accidents happen roughly 300 times each year in the United States and, between 1998 and 2017, killed 299 people and injured 1,190 others, according to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).

Over the years the compendium has become a critical resource in the fight against fracking and helped to shed some light on an industry that, thanks to regulatory loopholes, has been allowed to operate in secrecy.

Steingraber says there are more than enough scientific findings to conclude that fracking isn’t safe — indeed, that’s what officials in New York determined five years ago. But the industry has significant political clout that science alone can’t counter.

Residents of Dimock, Penn. in the Marcellus Shale took a stand against fracking. (Photo by Tara Lohan)

“It seems to be required now that science be carried by a powerful social movement,” she says. But she’s seen firsthand how strong those movements can be. When fracking came to her doorstep in New York, she and other health professionals translated the science into plain English and brought it to frontline communities so people would know what they were facing.

“When people are informed by science, and then empowered to have an opinion, they’re moved to take part in the public process,” she says. A surge of tens of thousands of public comments helped move New York to ban fracking, and requests for information about health impacts from fracking from all over the world has led Steingraber and her colleagues to keep updating the compendium year after year.

“This is a completely unfunded project — we’re just doing this in the middle of the night and on weekends,” she says. “But I believe there is value in having a group of independent scientists doing this work.”

Read more:

https://therevelator.org/fracking-health-studies/

The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) has launched legal proceedings against four wind farm operators over South Australia's 2016 statewide blackout.

• AGL is among four companies facing legal action over SA's September 2016 blackout
• The Australian Energy Regulator said the companies breached national energy rules
• The regulator is seeking to impose penalties through Federal Court action

The AER said the Federal Court proceedings were against subsidiaries of AGL, Neoen, Pacific Hydro and Tilt Renewables.

It alleged the companies failed to comply with performance requirements to ride through major disruptions and disturbances, and breached the National Electricity Rules.

"The AER has brought these proceedings to send a strong signal to all energy businesses about the importance of compliance with performance standards to promote system security and reliability," AER chair Paula Conboy said in a statement.

"These alleged failures contributed to the black system event, and meant that AEMO [Australian Energy Market Operator] was not fully informed when responding to system-wide failures in South Australia in September 2016."

The blackout occurred on September 28, 2016, when extreme weather — described at the time as "twin tornadoes" — caused major damage to electricity infrastructure, knocking down huge transmission lines.

The AER said a subsequent loss of wind generation then triggered the blackout, which left 850,000 people without power.

The regulator said it was seeking to impose penalties against the four companies.

Read more:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-07/regulator-legal-action-against-en...

HOW STUPID IS THIS?.... How can you supply electricity when the lines are down? The same caper happened in France in 2000 (?) when 70 per cent of the grid had been brought down by a massive storm. Did the French sue the nuclear power stations for all the freezers starting to smell like sewage full of dead camemberts? Idiots... Waste of time, though the lawyers will have full wallets by the time these proceedings are completed with windmill farms going broke — to help the coal industry appear better on loo paper... Idiots...

Built between 1975 to 1986 and situated on the river Rhine, the plant’s 80-metre (262-foot) high cooling tower, which had been a local landmark for decades, disappeared into dust in a matter of seconds.

...

The plant was shut down in September 1988, after only three-years in operation, but the full decommissioning and demolition process proved rather lengthy in the end.

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/news/466158-mulheim-karlich-nuclear-plant-demolition/

Read from top.

Another best cartoon in the world by Cathy... at the SMH... How does she do it?

Read from top.

Today’s decision from the Australia Energy Regulator (AER) further affirms that the main cause of the blackout in South Australia in 2016 was a one-in-50 year storm.

“The AER should of course ensure that all energy operators are compliant with its regulations. But the reality of a changing climate is that increasingly our electricity infrastructure will be under pressure from worsening extreme weather, like storms and heatwaves,” said Climate Councillor and energy expert Andrew Stock. 

“Almost three years on and the facts remain the same – the downing of 23 transmission towers was the principal cause of the blackout. Power simply couldn’t get down the power lines,” he said.

“The South Australia blackout just pushes home the importance of preparing Australia’s electricity grid and continuing the transition to clean, reliable renewable energy,” said Stock. 

“Learning from the events of the past is useful but focusing too much on the past isn’t particularly helpful for meeting the challenges of the future,” he said.

The AER’s December 2018 report The Black System Event Compliance Report found that “The AER considers the breaches found did not contribute to the state going black, and that all core obligations were met.”

“Supercharged storms, like the one SA experienced back in 2016, are only going to become more severe and more frequent as climate change intensifies, driven by the burning of coal, oil and gas,” said Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie. 

“We’re talking about a storm that involved “supercell” thunderstorms, tornadoes and wind speeds of 270 kilometres per hour, faster than those recorded during Cyclone Tracy,” said McKenzie. 

“Almost three years on and South Australia now gets over half of its electricity from clean, reliable wind, solar and battery storage. The diversification of the electricity grid is increasing its resilience for the more extreme climate of the  21st century,” she said. 

–

For interviews please contact Senior Communications Advisor, Lisa Upton on 0438 972 260 or Communications Officer, Brianna Hudson on 0455 238 875. 

The Climate Council is Australia’s leading climate change communications organisation. We provide authoritative, expert and evidence-based advice on climate change to journalists, policymakers, and the wider Australian community.

For further information, go to: climatecouncil.org.au

Or follow us on social media: facebook.com/climatecouncil and twitter.com/climatecouncil

Read from top.

Oh, and tell that loony, Chris Uhlmann who talks shit.... that when the lines are down, power is cut... NOTHING TO DO WITH RENEWABLES !

See also:

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/32586

Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has declared people need to cut Scott Morrison some slack, as his successor tries to navigate both international policy and a Coalition that remains largely split on climate change policy.

• The former prime minister says emissions reduction is a very difficult issue for the Coalition
• Australia has stymied efforts by small island states to get Pacific-wide consensus for action on climate change
• Mr Turnbull says the Pacific Step Up program has not been undermined

Australia has stymied efforts by small island states to get Pacific-wide consensus on their declaration for stronger action on climate change, which led to criticism that Mr Morrison was putting politics ahead of Australia's island neighbours. 

Mr Turnbull was toppled as leader of the Liberal party last year, with some blaming his approach to the National Energy Guarantee.

Conservative backbench MPs publicly spoke out against the policy, and Mr Turnbull ultimately ditched the commitment to legislate for an emissions reduction target in a bid to save his leadership.

On ABC Radio on Friday, Mr Turnbull defended Mr Morrison's approach to climate change, saying he "had to operate in the real world".

"Emissions reduction is a very difficult issue for the Coalition, and you've got to cut Morrison some slack on this, or give him some understanding.

"He's not a dictator or a president, he's a prime minister, like I was," Mr Turnbull said.

The former prime minister said Mr Morrison was "alert to the political realities".

"There is a very strong minority within the Coalition and the media and community that is ferociously opposed to taking action to reducing greenhouse gas emissions," he said.

Read more:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-16/malcolm-turnbull-defends-scott-mo...

We cannot accept Turnbull's position. Pandering to the stupid ideas of the "COALition" is not the way the "real world" will survive in a warming world. We need immediate action, not "political games" (see: of advertising and propaganda...). Turnbull has profited in the destruction of forests in his past. Who's to know if his Cayman Islands investments are not in COAL and oil?...:

Back then: by Tom Bramble — 27 February 2015

Malcolm Turnbull may present as the “progressive” face of the Liberal Party, but, just as much as Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey, his agenda is one of screwing the working class and rewarding the party’s big business backers. The basis of his support in the Liberal Party is that he will be able to do this more effectively than Abbott and Hockey, thereby saving the political careers of his caucus colleagues.

Turnbull at least makes no bones about this. When asked by shock jock Alan Jones last June whether he supported Hockey’s budget, he said: “I support unreservedly and wholeheartedly every element in the Budget, every single one.”

You would expect nothing less from parliament’s wealthiest individual. With a fortune just shy of $200 million, Turnbull will never need to rely on the services that the Liberals are so keen to destroy.

Turnbull made his money as a prize fighter for the super-rich before he joined their ranks. In 1980, shortly after marrying Lucy Hughes, daughter of former Liberal attorney general Tom Hughes, Turnbull returned to Australia after a stint as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, and started work as a barrister in Sydney. With his Liberal Party connections, Turnbull quickly picked up lucrative briefs.

In 1983, he started working as general counsel for Australia’s richest man, Kerry Packer, who was facing allegations of corruption at the NSW Costigan Commission. Turnbull’s skills ensured that Packer never faced any charges. As a gesture of gratitude, Packer pitched $25 million into a new investment bank set up in 1987 by Turnbull in association with Neville Wran and Nick Whitlam.

Investment banking provided Turnbull with fantastic riches, as did his role as chairman in what was then Australia’s biggest internet service provider, OzEmail. His original $1 million stake was worth $60 million when he quit in 1999. In the early 1990s, Turnbull also served as chairman of Axiom Forest Resources, which clear-felled forests in the Solomon Islands, turning a profit of $25 million in less than two years from environmental devastation.

In 1997, Turnbull was appointed managing director and shortly afterwards, partner, of the Australian division of investment bank Goldman Sachs, where he was able to capitalise on the extensive privatisation programs then being carried out by of state and federal Liberal governments.

By now Turnbull had become seriously rich and, with extensive political and business connections, was well positioned to become chief fundraiser for the Liberal Party in 2002. Two years later, he won preselection for Wentworth, buying the safe Sydney eastern suburbs seat with $600,000 of his own money. Turnbull’s bid was backed by a Who’s Who of Sydney money, including Macquarie Bank boss Alan Moss, Aussie Home Loans chief John Symond, Phil Green, chief of investment bank Babcock and Brown, Harry Triguboff of Meriton Property and Kerry Packer’s wife, Ros.

Appointed minister of the environment in John Howard’s last term in government, this so-called moderate approved the application by Gunns Limited to build a $1.7 billion pulp mill in Tasmania.

As communications minister in the Abbott government, Turnbull has displayed his fervent support for measures to further enrich big business. In March last year, he commissioned the Boston Consulting Group to report on the future of Australia Post with a view to selling off the profitable parcels business. Public broadcasting also is a target. In November, Turnbull announced cuts of more than $300 million to the ABC and SBS, likely to cost 600 jobs over the next five years, reducing the threat posed by the two corporations to the profits of the commercial operators.

Far from being a small-l liberal, Turnbull has supported all of the government’s repressive and authoritarian “security” laws, including its data retention bill. And Turnbull is as gung-ho as Abbott in his support for US imperialist meddling in the Middle East and Central Asia. He describes the US as “a vitally important stabilising, reassuring factor in the peaceful development of our region”.

Turnbull may have a softer and more sophisticated style than Abbott, but, when it comes down to it, he is actually more ideologically right wing on economic policy. As the Financial Review commented on 7 February, Turnbull would be “the most business-wired Liberal Party Leader in history”.

On 31 January Turnbull told a high-powered audience in San Francisco that, in relation to social welfare, “Many of the policies and premises of the past are already unsustainable” and “unpopular decisions” would be needed in the face of “unrealistically high expectations among voters and politicians alike as to the sustainability of the status quo”.

When Turnbull told his audience in California that leaders must “unravel complex issues in clear language that explains why things have to change”, his aim was to win support for the type of budget measures that Abbott has been unable to sell.

Turnbull’s liberalism on questions like equal marriage rights, abortion and stem cell research should not fool us into thinking that he is anything other than an enemy of the working class and students. His former business and legal colleagues may have their own reasons for disliking him, which are not shared by socialists. But we would not disagree with Nicholas Whitlam’s description of him as “a prick”, or former Labor Senator Jim McClelland’s comment that Turnbull is “a turd, easy to loathe and a shit”.

Read more:

https://redflag.org.au/article/malcolm-turnbull-smooth-salesman-rich

Read from top.