I have written environmental stories for the North West Star in Mount Isa since mid 2007'ish. It began when I started to become vocal as an environmentalist and formed a discussion group which later become CLEAN (Climate Landcare Environment Action Network).
The North West Star approached me to write a monthly article and I wasn't about to say no.
So here they are as I sent them to print. The newspaper normally re-tiles them but leaves the article word for word.
Index
Yet to be submitted and/or require editing
I know when people start to talk of our concerns about the environment we can sound like we preach gloom and doom. Truth is most of us are optimists, we are telling you the horror stories we hear from scientists but we have taken time to go on and study in the hope that we can make people see the there is light at the end of the tunnel. We want to show you that it wont take a change in lifestyle or a loss of jobs, just a change in technology and some shifting of jobs. Being environmentally minded doesn’t mean anti establishment, what it means is trying to inform as many people as we can and show there can be a bright future for us all. It is unfortunate that in telling people the facts on environment issues, environmentalists are often regarded as cranks and doom sayers. It is well recognised by mental health professionals that humans stop listening to bad news as a defence mechanism, and this can make it hard to get important messages through. I have been asked to write a story about environment periodically for the North West Star and I am going to try keeping to the optimistic news.
Well, onto business and the biggest issue facing us today. Environment in the form of global warming is now a world-wide recognised problem. Even the United Nations has a branch dedicated to it. In Europe this is not new and movements for better air quality go back to acid rain and dying forests. Europe has long been at the front line of political, social and industrial change.
Positive and dramatic steps towards countering global warming are being taken all over the world. Spain made it law this year, that all new and renovated houses had to have solar panels in order to provide 30-70% of household hot water. In addition industrial buildings are now required to put up photovoltaic panels (solar panels) to provide a portion of their power requirements. On the other side of Europe, the city of Vaxjo in Sweden has become “fossil fuel free”, with home heating being provided from land fill and most of the power and vehicle fuels coming from alternate sources. Vaxjo is well on its way to it goal of a 50% reduction in CO2 (carbon dioxide) by 2010 and may even pass this goal. In America a group of California home owners grouped together to buy and install solar panels and received a 24-30% discount on the bulk purchase. Ontario Canada has told electricity companies they will pay for electricity produced by alternate means; this has caused a rush of investment by home owners and small groups of private investors buying wind and solar equipment and it is thought it may save Ontario replacing its aging coal fired power plants.
These countries and communities are great examples of how change in business, government and community thinking can make change. They are also examples of the fact that economies and jobs are not ruined or lost through change. Some people continually tell us that jobs will be lost if we change and businesses will be ruined. The truth is this will not happen. If as Bob Brown of the Greens proposed, we shut down all of the coal exports to China, sure some 24,000 jobs may be lost in the coal industry but given carbon neutrality relies on electricity so much, there will continue to be and even an increased demand for copper, lead and zinc. Sure jobs may be lost in coal but new technology means new jobs, production of bio-fuels and increased demand for other mined elements could easily absorb 24,000 jobs. In future articles I will describe powerful steps Australia can take to utilise clean alternate energy in a significant way.
As a parent I have to be an optimist. Even if the scientists are wrong about global warming, won’t it be nice to do something for our kids, something that we will be proud to leave them and will make life better for generations to come.
Peter Florance
Concerned Parent
Green at heart
It seems I have to go back to this issue as people have forgotten the lessons we learned in the 80’s with Chernobyl and Three Mile Island “incidents”. We used to protest against nuclear energy and weapons in the 80’s, now we sell uranium to India.
If you seek information please note that the AUA (Australian Uranium Association) is a radical pro-nuclear body. They also avoid getting involved in debate about alternate energy. On the anti-nuclear side is the ANAWA (Anti-Nuclear Alliance of Western Australia) who put forward a lot of good arguments and information which I have always been able to confirm through industry sources. My favourite site for information is the U.S.NCR (US Nuclear Regulatory Commission) for confirming information, industry knowledge, technical information and leads for my research.
The following information is from the ANAWA web site and worth knowing if you are planning to mine uranium. It outlines the process needed to produce one year of electricity in one 1000MW nuclear reactor (for comparison Mica Creek is a small 325MW power plant).
146,000 tonnes of raw ore has to be mined (average grade 0.11% uranium). This produces around 150 tonnes of Yellowcake (U3O8) and 145,850 tonnes of tailings (finely milled radioactive sand). The Yellowcake is processed to produce 33 tonnes enriched UF6 (uranium hexafluoride) and 117 tonnes Depleted Uranium (DU is used to harden US bomb casings and bullets). The UF6 is converted into 33 tonnes UO2 fuel which will power a 1000MW nuclear reactor for one year.
At the end of the year you have 33 tonnes of spent fuel which requires storage away from humans, animals and groundwater for thousands of years. The spent nuclear fuel contains 300 kilograms plutonium which is enough for 60 NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
Reprocessing removes the weapons grade plutonium from the reactor waste and this plutonium is blended into uranium to make more reactor fuel. This process does not recover most of the reactor waste, only a percentage of the high grade plutonium, leaving 32.7 tonnes of waste. Other processes for recycling waste have proven to be expensive and are still only experimental.
At this time there are around 160,000 tonnes of nuclear waste scattered around the world and at this time no solid plan for its disposal, reuse or storage. Pangea Resources, who put forward plans for a waste dump in Western Australia, estimate that by 2015 there will be roughly 250,000 tonnes of reactor waste. This only accounts for reactor waste, Australia does not record how much material exists in radioactive mine tailings.
160,000 tonnes of reactor waste equals around 700,000,000 tonnes of waste when you include tailings.
Facts About Reactors: Starting price, 6 billion US dollars. When a coal power station has a problem with its core it takes one person an afternoon to fix, when the same happens in a nuclear plant it takes 6 months and lots of people.
Each person working on a nuclear reactor is only allowed near it for 3 hours during which they receive their full year’s radiation dose. They are then not allowed near a nuclear plant for twelve months. On top of that the materials taken from the plant are all radioactive and must be treated as nuclear waste.
We are constantly told nuclear energy is safe. As a measure of the safety record of nuclear power here are some “incidents” that have occurred since 2000.
Hungary 2003: Partially spent fuel rods ruptured and spilled fuel pellets.
UK 2005: 20 metric tons of uranium and 160 kilograms of plutonium leaked over several months into a stainless steel sump chamber.
USA 2005: Tritium contamination of groundwater was discovered.
USA 2006: 35 liters of a highly enriched uranium solution leaked during transfer into a lab. The incident caused a seven-month shutdown and a public hearing on the plant licensing.
Japan 2007: 3.4 tonnes of radioactively contaminated water leaked from a reactor which has now been shut down for maintenance.
Nuclear power is NOT safe. There is no safe dose of radiation. Gamma rays through one cell can cause cancer. This fact is not well-liked by the nuclear industry, which depends for its operation on being able to expose workers and the public to “safe” doses of radiation. A “safe dose” or “safe level” of radiation is legally allowed to be leaked into the environment worldwide because it can’t ALL be contained.
For those of you in favour of waste dumps; IT IS NOT URANIUM WE ARE GETTING BACK. What we get back is depleted uranium, plutonium, polonium, strontium and a number of other dangerous items. Refined, that means they purified it and made it more dangerous and then they radiated it and created even more deadly toxins. Burying toxic waste in a dry country which relies on underground water may yet be the most stupid idea anyone ever thought up. Radiation leaches through everything eventually.
Please think about these things, it is still not too late to ban uranium mining.
Peter “Flora” Florance
Environmentalist, Parent, Futurist.
Willing to talk the ear off anyone.
I doubt many people think about our economic system or the fact that it began in 1944 when the Bretton Woods Conference established the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and valued all currencies relevant to gold. Out of all the economic models on offer, this was the one chosen.
The world ended up under the care of two organisations consisting of mega wealthy men out to make even more money for themselves. This may sound prejudiced by my own opinions, and I agree that the language I use is, but, in actual fact, that is what they are paid to do.
These organisations reward economies which get richer and push along those who don’t. Until recently when some of the debt was written off to some countries, they were also about putting poor countries in debt to the few rich countries.
Our economic system is a growth system. This means that our “worth” is based on the growth of the economy. The easiest method of growing an economy endlessly is to promote population growth – more people = more consumption.
Each year the worth of each country is calculated by the World Bank and their currencies are regulated by the IMF. The value given to each country is based on its infrastructure and economic performance (or growth).
The flaws with the system are starting to show their ugly heads. The world is only so big, there is a limit to its natural resources, only so many humans can be supported by its fragile ecosystem.
When you look even deeper into history, stripping your resources can kill off entire races. Easter Island is a prime example. They cut all the trees down, then had no wood, no houses, no tools, no boats, no escape, and a race of people died out.
Several solutions have been put forward but most are impractical, unachievable and mostly involve leaving Earth. Using space travel to reach another habitable planet or to live in space is not going to happen soon. Current technology is small scale, too expensive and reliant on Earth’s resources.
‘Terraforming’ is a great concept thought to have been coined by science fiction writer Jack Williamson in 1942, it means “changing a planet so that humans can live on it”. Besides that fact that we don’t have the technology to transport large numbers of people to other planets, if terraforming was not science fiction we would use it to fix the Earth.
Unfortunately the big problem is that we live in a world which is run by politicians. The only honest politician is a Tyrant; at least you know what their goal is and who they are looking out for. Most politicians in the world are there for the same reasons but they hide it behind the mask of Democracy.
We all know that a politician will promise the world at election time then, once they are in, do what suits them best. They do this because they are looking after the same person as a Tyrant does; themselves. With elections, wages, cushy jobs and pensions on the line politicians will never make the decisions needed to stop our present wealth hoarding and environmentally-damaging system of economics.
Hypothetically, the Loved Prime Minister Blogs steps up and tells the country “in order to save the planet, and future generations, we have to reduce the world population to less than 3 billion - euthanasia, suicide and natural death will be legalised and encouraged.” Would anyone vote for him?
No! Even if it was the right thing to do, most people don’t want to suffer for the planet. They want things to stay the way they are. Even China’s one child policy would end a democratically elected politician’s career.
That is why politicians will never make the necessary hard decisions to change our world or its growth system of economics. Because a radically unpopular step like that would end their days in office right there and then.
So what are the options? One of my favourite authors Robert Heinlein wrote a book called “For Us the Living” based on a system he fully believed in. A democracy where the people making the money, power and decisions are directly responsible for the decisions they make. Hopefully the world of the future will involve social and economic change for better management of people and the planet.
One final word comes from a great man (Peter Parker’s uncle in the Spiderman Movie) who famously said “with great power, comes great responsibility”. I would like to add with great wealth, comes great power and so should great responsibility.
I’m sorry to bring you all down like this. I really would like for us to find an answer and make this a better world for the generations to come. Make your vote count at this election as best you can.
Thank you
Peter Florance
Concerned parent, futurist and environmentalist
The World’s Most Selfish Industry Top
I know I’m alone in my opinion that the nature of large corporate business is selfish. There is one industry which is the epitome of greed - the nuclear industry with its short-term profit and extremely long-term negative outcomes.
Geologists believe there is only 10 years of “rich” uranium left in the world. This means that in ten years time it is expected to cost three times as much to make the material usable for electricity production. The cost of this electricity would then be higher than the cleaner alternatives.
Uranium mines are not known for having a high safety record and there is information about mine spills in Australia easily obtainable on the internet. High clusters of leukaemia are also now being reported around both mines and reactors.
Then we come to the waste. I was told recently that a well known Isan, who now works for the industry, stated that he would be happy to gain from the nuclear industry and let his grandchildren deal with the waste problem. A very selfish point of view that allows the planet to be plundered without once stopping to think of future generations. The fact is nuclear reactor waste has a half life of 250,000 years.
Wait; let me clear this up to save argument. 1% of reactor waste has a half life of 250,000 years. This figure can be easily found on the US Nuclear Regulatory Agency website. They go on to note however that the other 99% cannot be separated from the 1% - you still have to store 100%.
There is not one single long term storage facility in the world today. All reactor waste is stored on-site in cooling ponds or special containment units which the English have now said are breaking down. The US Government has started construction of a waste storage facility but are presently taking funding away from the project and putting that money into “unilateral” agreements. In international terms a unilateral agreement is when you talk another country into taking responsibility for something.
It isn’t just chance then that our own government has done studies into nuclear power and given it the go-ahead. By becoming a nuclear energy user ourselves we open-up the possibility of waste dumps on our soil as we ourselves will need them. Australia is one of the most stable landmasses on earth so we would make a great waste dump.
Who is going to pay for the storage? Well, we will in time. For now we make money mining and everyone else uses the energy. They however don’t want to store the waste and have for years pushed for us to take it back. So when one of the planned waste sites comes about we may well contract to take the waste and make short term gain. Do you think however the American, French or English to mention a few countries seeking long term storage options, will pay us for the next 45,000 years let alone 250,000 years to store the material they benefited from?
I have a word limit so I provide one final fact about nuclear energy which I think should be the reason we end all mining operations.
In Iraq, the Americans have used reactor waste to harden bomb casings. The radioactive fall-out and shrapnel has polluted the water table, the Iraqi population and allied soldiers. Returned American soldiers are starting to show signs of radiation sickness and suffering from toxic semen. Semen toxicity causes chemical burns on skin and increasing the cases of ovarian cancers in the returned soldier’s wives. This was all done using ‘conventional; weapons which the Americas label ‘dirty bombs’ when they are talking about terrorists using them.
If we are ever given a choice please vote “NO” to anything nuclear. The world isn’t ours; it belongs to all generations.
Peter Florance
Futurist, environmentalist, concerned parent.
There is a lot of money and talk being spent on the subject of sustainability, but is any community today sustainable? Local economies are based more and more on the world economy because we live in a world based on transportation and cheap energy. This is a world of specialisation and centralisation unlike any in the history of man.
This has not been a problem for many years and has made some few people very rich while providing the rest of us with a constant flow of consumer products and resources. We move about freely and if we want something it is easy to travel long distances to go out and buy anything, or to order and have it delivered from anywhere in the world.
This is the lifestyle most aspire to and if that was all there was to it the question of sustainability would not be an issue. However, outside influences affect our community and the more global our community is the greater the risk that something outside our control will affect our communities.
The most immediate issue is Peak Oil. The last time oil prices went up in the US the cost didn’t change in Australia yet still our fuel prices went up and our market took a dive along with theirs.
Peak Oil is when oil no longer flows from the ground, but must be pumped, making it more expensive to obtain. Around 50% of the world supply is used and we have gotten to this point in around 50 years. If we continue to use oil at the same rate we have in the past we will have 50 years remaining. But we don’t. Every year our oil consumption increases and reserves decrease.
So what happens when the oil runs out? Look about you, everything you see was touched by oil through transport, production and directly as an oil product.
All of the poly products, polyester, polyurethane and so many more, are oil. Most plastics are oil, medicines are oil, the stuff you put in your car is oil, the world you live in has been wiped over and cleansed with oil. The cost of all of these things will increase and eventually we will need to find replacements or learn to live without them.
Then we have the fact that 10% of the oil in our life is in the production, storage and transportation of food. What happens when the tractors, refrigeration and transportation all cost more?
It will take time for farms using chemical fertilisers to restore soil health and start growing food organically. This scenario is not science fiction. It happened in one place so suddenly that only a communist government and guaranteed rations bought the populace through some very hard years. This is good for it provides a model for a sustainable future and also demonstrates the extent of the impact on all aspects of a society.
In the 1980’s Cuba stopped getting oil resources from the former USSR (United Soviet States of Russia). At the same time the US tightened the blockade in place since the 1950’s to try and topple the country’s government. Any one who cares to know more should see the movie “The Power of Community – How Cuba Survived Peak Oil”.
Trust me; we don’t want to have to do it the way Cuba did. Do you think our government will guarantee rations and force change on business and farming structures?
So what can we do?
I can’t tell you what to do, or how to go about solving your own personal dependence on the world economy. Fruit and vegetables were once grown in Mount Isa; this community was a little more sustainable prior to supermarkets. Solar and wind power would mean less dependence on gas from elsewhere. There are plenty of options we just need to consider them.
It is highly likely that at the first sign of local economic collapse most of you will make a run for the coast, but with the denser population they will have it as bad, maybe worse than us. The only thing I can recommend is that each of us individually look at the world we live in, consider how we rely on outside influences, how we use oil in our lives and don’t let it come as a shock.
I’ve done my bit by trying to inform you of a problem that will impact on your lives, now it is up to you to act on that information. I am already working on my own projects to make our community a little more sustainable, but most of all; nothing will come as a shock to me if and when it happens because I walk through life with my eyes open.
Peter “Flora” Florance
Environmentalist, Parent, Futurist.
I own a copy of the movie mentioned and will loan it.
Happy New Year everyone, this is a year of enlightenment with the Kyoto signatories communicating in ways not seen since the agreement to ban CFC’s the save the Ozone Layer.
It has become an unavoidable fact and the UN and governments world wide are taking action to confront Global Warming.
Global Warming is not new, the reasons it has not been acted on until now are numerous but mostly come down to money and greed.
Changing the way industry works and the way we use energy will cost money for a short while. It is well understood though that the cost will be higher if we wait until we “have” to do something. So waiting is better for the corporate bottom line.
Global Warming is a simple enough thing to understand. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as one of the many gasses making up our Biosphere (surface and atmosphere of the Earth) and helps regulate our global temperature.
Solar Radiation warms the Earth directly and indirectly. Direct Solar Radiation in when you go out on a sunny day and get burned. Indirect is when you go out on an overcast day and get burned. The radiation heats the Earth. This is the Greenhouse Effect, discovered Joseph Fourier in 1824.
Carbon Dioxide is one gas making up our Atmosphere (air and stuff) and helps retain the heat caused by the radiation. Increasing CO2 increases retained heat. Simple huh?
Unfortunately there are other aspects of Global Warming which are not so easy to explain and are often used to try and discredit scientific findings on Climate Change.
Global Dimming is one such finding only recently noticed, Global dimming is partials in the atmosphere stopping solar radiation from reaching the Earth. This has been found to have happened with large volcanic eruptions and now with our own activities.
Many of you may not remember the German Black Forest dying the 1980’s; this was the result of Acid Rain. Acid rain is an aspect of Global Dimming. Industrial Waste pouring from stacks similar to the one here in Isa, released heavy particles into the atmosphere and it rained down on everything everywhere.
Finally this problem was recognised and across the World Clean Air Bills or Acts were implemented. There was a problem with this, the waste was now clean so it wasn’t as easy to see and it stopped killing forests. Without grey clouds and dead forest we thought it was all fixed, it wasn’t.
It turns out that the heavy particles created a cloud around the Earth which reflected Solar Radiation. Evidence now at hand shows that because we got rid of this pollution we have increased the speed of Global Warming.
Oh bummer the Greenies caused Global Warming. Well no; the problem existed with or without Particle Pollution, the rise in temperature was just put back a little.
Another study reported an increase in Solar Radiation. There appears to be evidence that this has happened in the past and caused warming. Argument is a rife that this study was commissioned by people who wanted a counter argument to Global Warming.
Evidence used to disprove this study shows that at no time in Earths History has it temperature risen as fast as it has since the Industrial Revolution. The current rate of temperature increase means animals, plants and even 6 billion humans may not be able to adjust to it before…
Global Warming or something we can’t change like the sun? Personally I’m on the side of the Global Warming scientists for one simple reason; I prefer to think this is a problem we can resolve not some natural cycle which will kill us anyway.
Maybe we should cause more pollution and go back to the good old days so the sun can’t heat us up but we can’t breath and nothing grows.
Or on the other hand we have technology which can be used to cut our CO2 emissions so shouldn’t we try. Just using energy efficient devices would do most of what is required.
I know, I am a low income earner and I understand energy saving devices cost money. Maybe its time to pressure governments to legislate for low energy devices which will reduce production costs, after all even the US has now set an emission reduction target.
So join a group, sign petitions, ride a bike, hang your clothes, hand wash your dishes or buy energy efficient devices. Do something today to make a difference; there are ways we can all help.
Peter “Flora” Florance
Parent, Futurist, Concerned Citizen
Well the state government has seen to it that the people of Queensland don’t have fair representation in council. Four (six for us) councillors and a mayor will just about kill all debate in council.
In Mount Isa for instance we have a council consisting of only two independents and the other six members of council including our Mayor are members of the Progressive Party, already we see limited representation because control is in the hands of party interests.
If party politics is allowed to be played in councils there must be room for more councillors to provide space for dissenting voices. The aim of so called democracy is to provide the people with a voice and let everyone be represented.
In our political system Council is the democratic governing body most of us will have dealings with and the one most likely to impact on our day to day lives. By reducing the number of councillors the State Government in effect reduces our democratic right of representation.
I have to say I am not a big fan of councils; they are mostly over egotistical, power hungry tyrants seeking to line someone’s pockets without regard for the community. I do however believe in the people’s right to representation in government.
I do not believe that by reducing the number of councils we get better representation at any level, certainly not in our State Parliament and I do not for a second believe Queensland will go broke under the weight of paying councillors.
When our next elections come about I will be strongly campaigning for any and all independents in council and against any party affiliation.
I would like to say I will do the same when the State and Federal elections are due, but I fear the party system is far to embedded in that level of government and we will never get fair representation whoever is in power.
As an independent Federal seat we can already so how little our elected representative is able to influence policy with the two party preferred system holding sway.
I wish you all a safe, prosperous and fairly represented future and hope you vote for an independent whenever you can.
Peter Florance
Mayoral Candidate
Mount Isa