After the Peak

"The air you breathe can harm your health"

2011-09-20T23:34:00.000-07:00

Medical Observer on 5th Sep 2011 Dr George Crisp.

AIR pollution has been recognised as a major contributor to ill health for centuries.

While some of the acute effects of smogs, wood and coal burning have been obvious even prior to modern medicine, it is only recently we have started to realise the far greater and more insidious consequences of chronic exposure.

Worldwide, more than 800,000 deaths are now attributed to outdoor air pollution, with annual mortality in the US and the UK 100,000 and 30,000, respectively.

When the consequences of morbidity, lost productivity and lost years of life are considered, the global cost runs into trillions of dollars.

It is a largely silent but truly massive economic and public health issue.

Large epidemiological studies, supported by toxicological and clinical data, have confirmed a wide range of diseases are related to air quality.

There is strong evidence for a causal relationship between air pollutants and respiratory conditions such as COPD, asthma and lung cancer, and cardiovascular diseases, acute myocardial infarctions (AMI) and arrhythmias.

This is occurring even with exposure to low concentrations well below current guideline levels.

Air pollution refers to the introduced chemical, biological or particulate matter in the atmosphere that harms human health and other organisms, or damages the natural or built environment, with SO2, NO2, CO, volatile organic compounds and particulate matter (PM) the major primary pollutants.

Regulation and technological advances have reduced air pollutants, most notably SO2 and lead, but increasing traffic congestion and energy consumption result in a rise in pollutant emissions, and greater urban density and growth lead to greater human exposure.

Living near a busy road is a serious health hazard, with more than twice the number of Australians killed by traffic fumes than motor vehicle accidents. Research shows 15% of all asthma cases are linked to residential proximity to major roads1.

A recent meta-analysis found traffic related pollution was the largest single population attributable factor for AMI. Exposure for just a few hours a week can trigger cardiovascular events, but longer term exposure can reduce life expectancy by years2.

Particulates are liquid/solid droplets composed of nitrates, sulphates, organic compounds and heavy metals, and cause up to 80% of adverse health effects.

It is the very size of these particles that predominantly determines their damaging effects. Large particles are mostly filtered out in the airway, while the very smallest particles deposit deep within the lungs. Diesel-powered engines are the largest source of very fine particles, and produce up to 100 times the emissions of petrol engines.

A recent study in the European Heart Journal3 found the adverse vascular effects of diesel exhaust inhalation are mediated through combustion derived nano-particulates. A single urban diesel four-wheel drive car may result in $3000 per annum in community health costs, it said.

There are compelling health and cost benefits to be gained by reducing pollution. Studies have repeatedly documented that even small reductions in fine particulate pollution can improve health outcomes.

The US Environmental Protection Agency calculates the 1990 Clean Air Act is currently saving 160,000 early deaths, 130,000 heart attacks, 1.7 million asthma attacks and 13 million working days. By 2020, the Act will be saving the US economy over $2 trillion every year, it says. Similarly, significant health co-benefits occur from reducing air pollution. This includes increased physical activity, reduced water use and pollution – and, of course, reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

One solution to all of these interlinked problems would be to include health in all policy decisions particularly in energy, transport and urban planning.

References

(1) A breath of fresh air please. The Lancet (Editorial)

(2) Public health importance of triggers of myocardial infarction: a comparative risk assessment. ( Nawrot et al )

(3) Combustion-derived nanoparticlate induces the adverse vascular effects of diesel exhaust inhalation ( Mills et al )

The mining and burning of coal: effects on health and the environment

2011-09-20T21:29:00.000-07:00

MJA Sept 19th 2011
William M Castleden, David Shearman, George Crisp and Philip Finch

"To persist in mining and burning coal will condemn future generations to catastrophic climate change, which is clearly the biggest health problem of the future. "

Letter to the editor

2011-07-03T17:24:00.000-07:00

The "handful" of 3,000 people who attended the "Say Yes to climate
actions" event in Perth on a long weekend, mirrored the 45,000 who
rallied across Australia on June 5th.

Of course, whilst not a mandate, it is a powerful reflection of the
broad and deep community call for action.

Claims ( in your paper ) that there is no "scientific documentation" that a tax
will work, is an absurd argument, because taxes are economic
measures, not scientific constructs.

Science tells us what will happen if we do nothing, and what the likely
consequences will be. Science does not tell us what action to take.

From an economic perspective, global warming can be viewed as a "market
failure", the result of not capturing the externalized costs of
greenhouse gas emissions ( and other pollution ).

Rather than accept the evidence presented by the world's scientists,
those who seem fundamentally committed to free market ideology, have
instead chosen to put their faith in markets and the paradigm of
indefinite growth, refusing the logical and inescapable conclusion that
we must account for the negative costs of our actions.

As a carbon price rises, it will initially favor gas, then renewable
energy, over coal.

Last weeks letter to the editor raises another popular contradiction of the
economically conservative; the favoring of nuclear energy. Even though it
cannot possibly compete without large taxpayers subsidies, government
regulation, insurance and decommissioning.

This would seem anathema to free market thinking. Or does it say more
about more about privatizing benefits and socializing costs?

Our emissions trajectory means we will now likely pass the relatively
safe threshold of a 2 degree global temperature rise. Heralding a
future, where our health and well being, and the state of our
environment on which we are entirely reliant, will be seriously if not
immeasurably compromised.

The questions really should be; what makes your recent commentator and his ilk so
blithely certain they are right and the scientists with expertise in
these area are wrong? So certain it seems, that they believe we should
willfully ignore the science and the risks and do precisely nothing. How
in fact, is it even possible to entertain such a diabolical dereliction
of responsibility.

Extreme weather link 'can no longer be ignored'

2011-07-01T03:32:00.000-07:00

Scientists to end 20-year reluctance with study into global warming and exceptional weather events

Peak health - Medical Observer 2 June 2011

2011-06-02T06:18:00.000-07:00

Are we in danger of passing peak health?
Medical Observer magazine 30th May 2011 Dr George Crisp MBBS, MRCGP

http://dea.org.au/news/article/are_we_in_danger_of_passing_peak_health

ACCORDING to conventional wisdom, we will keep living longer and enjoying ever healthier lives. After all, public health advances and technological progress over the past 150 years have delivered these improvements. So why shouldn’t this continue indefinitely?

Our perspective has been largely restricted to diagnosed illness and number of years lived, ignoring more meaningful measures of health and wellbeing.

Our time-poor, overstressed lives and iniquitous, fragmented communities have not made us any happier or healthier.

Modern living, with its material focus, over-consumption, poor dietary choice and inactivity, has become a major contributor to chronic disease while eroding traditional, spiritual and cultural values necessary for our non-material well being.

Rates of diabetes and obesity are escalating, worsening health outcomes, diminishing quality of life, and stretching health and welfare services and budgets.

Alcohol and drug use are compromising physical and mental health, damaging our social fabric. But rather than address the causes of societal ill health, we are instead focusing on increasingly expensive, technology-based, hospital-oriented and, inevitably, unsustainable solutions. Antibiotic resistance is a prime example of why this type of exploitative thinking is so short-sighted.

It is, however, our collective impacts that create the most challenging health risks.

In just 150 years, humanity’s environmental footprint has grown 150-fold. This has come at the expense of the other inhabitants of this planet. Through loss of habitat, over-harvesting, pollution and waste, we are driving a new mass extinction event.

Food, shelter, medicines, clean air and fresh water are all natural services we take for granted. At every level our health, and civilisation, is underpinned by the myriad, interdependent, mostly unidentified species that collectively constitute natural ecosystems.

The complex relationships between potential infectious organisms, vectors and hosts are also shifting, making unpredictable the patterns of known diseases – even producing entirely novel ones, such as SARS.

Agriculture is dependent on intact healthy ecosystems and soils. Additionally, the increased yields now required to provide adequate nutrition for billions of people have resulted in unsustainable use of resources, particularly fresh water, oil and phosphate, all of which are now diminishing.

We are approaching ‘peak oil’, with its volatile, rising prices which compromise food production and availability, disproportionately affecting the poorest and most vulnerable.

Our economy and health infrastructure are also highly energy-intensive. We cannot afford to keep repeating the 20th-century mistake of chasing ever more polluting and diminishing resources. We need instead to strive for clean, renewable energy, with the health and social benefits that it brings.

Overuse of fossil fuels and land clearance has produced atmosphere-altering quantities of greenhouse gasses. The ensuing climatic disruption and ocean acidification will have profound health effects, prompting the (Nov 2009) Lancet series “Climate change is the greatest threat to human health in the 21st century”.

Impacts may include heatwaves, heavy precipitation and droughts, more favourable conditions for many microbes, pests and vectors, rising sea levels, fresh water depletion and food insecurity, plus, ultimately, large-scale population displacement and mass migration of refugees.

The timing and magnitude of these interrelated impacts may be uncertain, but the risks to human health at local, regional and global levels are at a scale not seen in human history.

All the more surprising, then, that they have been largely absent from our health expectations and planning. We are in danger of passing ‘peak health’, a time in human history where the best health outcomes recede into the past.

We cannot escape the finite planetary boundaries that define the optimal and safe conditions for humanity, but we can choose a fairer and a healthier future by living within our ecological means.

But only when we have recognised where we are going.

For more information, please contact Doctors for the Environment Australia at: www.dea.org.au

Climate changed is a health issue and the medical colleges must pay more attention

2011-05-20T00:16:00.000-07:00

"Why Doctors should give climate change the right treatment"

by David Shearman, George Crisp and David King

Leading public health organisations and the peer-reviewed health literature have increasingly recognised the serious impacts for our health and quality of life should we fail to tackle climate change.

This has been reflected in the increasing number and urgency of advisories from peak health authorities and prestigious medical journals over the past decade.

The prestigious journal, The Lancet, has published a series under the overarching statement “climate change is the greatest threat to human health in the 21st century”. The World Health Organisation has attributed more than 140,000 excess deaths annually from climate change since 2004 and noted that many of the major killers — such as diarrhoeal diseases, malnutrition, malaria and Dengue fever — are highly climate-sensitive, therefore expected to worsen with further climate change.

Australia is not immune and has already experienced increased morbidity and mortality from additional heat-related deaths, increased health problems from extreme weather events and increased mental health burden in rural areas from financial stress from failed crop harvests.

In effect, a challenge has been thrown down to all doctors to educate themselves, their patients and governments about the many serious health impacts that will befall humanity if we do not aggressively tackle climate change.

It is the role of our professional medical colleges to first and foremost examine and evaluate the relevant evidence as it applies to their area of health, and then use their expertise to advise accordingly.

Like governments, the colleges have recognised that climate change is a current and growing health problem, but have failed to recognise its urgency and magnitude, and the scale of the response required. The chair of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians’ (RACP) climate committee resigned, presumably over the College’s performance.

A recent press release from RACP, while acknowledging climate change and its impacts, was contentious to many doctors — as Crikey reported on Wednesday. Its main focus appeared to warn of the adverse health impacts of a carbon tax in disadvantaged groups.

Since the government had already promised a compensation package for disadvantaged groups, some doctors saw this as an unnecessary distraction from the main issue of getting a mechanism for reduced emissions to benefit the health of the entire population.

In contrast to our colleges, our peers overseas have been far more decisive and forthright. The Royal College of Physicians in London established the Climate and Health Council, with international committee members including one of this article’s authors.

The American Medical Association has hosted three state-based professional medical education courses on climate change with more to follow, and has been emphasising the public health benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The emergence of Doctors for the Environment Australia (DEA), with its main agenda being health and climate change, can be seen as a reflection of inadequate advocacy elsewhere in Australian medical organisations. Recently DEA used the words: “A price on carbon is a public health measure.”

This is not a (party) political statement; rather, it is based on the fact that, in a market economy, pricing carbon is one key component in driving decarbonisation, and that climate change is an established public health problem.

It is now vital to recognise that global environmental changes such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and degradation of ecosystems on land and in the oceans are the major determinants of sustainability and of future population health and survival. In medical terms these are the life support systems for humanity and are therefore an integral part of medical teaching and action.

However, climate change is not a simple problem, such as smoking causing lung cancer. It is more complex and goes to the core of our modern high-consumption and energy intensive lifestyles; it demands fundamental re-evaluation of our values and our way of life, which we all, doctors included, find confronting.

Many political statements from elected representatives indicate a profound lack of understanding of the global and medical impacts of climate change.

The RACP has the knowledge, wisdom and financial resources to offer scientific and medical acumen to all governments in carrying forward the necessary national reforms.

To those doctors who have read the climate change literature, the health risks appear greater than arise from most of the conditions for which we currently treat our patients. Thus it is imperative that our medical colleges convey this health risk to governments.

The present public difficulty in climate change policy does not seem to arise from the integrity of the science; rather, it indicates divergent views on advocacy. As a goal, several Royal Colleges working together and producing clear advice to governments could be a powerful force in protecting the health of future generations.

The face of public health in Australia should include the illness and mortality caused by the coal industries and the potential health impacts from coal seam gas developments. These are some of the climate-related issues that the medical profession is neglecting in its advocacy.

Nevertheless these topics are at the fore in the advocacy of Doctors for the Environment Australia, with programs to visit members of parliament, develop environment and health policies, contribute submissions to Parliaments regarding potential health impacts of major developments and develop educational material for the public.

*David Shearman is FRACP Emeritus Professor of Medicine and honorary secretary of DEA. George Crisp is MRCGP general practitioner and WA representative on the management committee of DEA. David King is FRACGP, general practitioner, senior lecturer in discipline of general practice and school of population health, University of Queensland, and Queensland representative on the management committee of DEA. This article published in Crikey and Climate Spectator.

Unhealthy Claims Blowing in the Wind

2011-05-18T00:06:00.000-07:00

Climate Spectator

George Crisp
Published 7:48 AM, 13 May 2011
Updated 7:51 AM, 13 May 2011

Health concerns have been raised in some rural Australian communities that are situated near wind farms. These claims of adverse health effects – as well as economic and social – from wind turbine installations generated a level of speculative discussion that eventually led to a Senate Inquiry, a move initiated by Family First Senator Steve Fielding, to investigate the issue. Recently, health concerns have been raised in some rural Australian communities that are situated near wind farms. These claims of adverse health effects – as well as economic and social – from wind turbine installations generated a level of speculative discussion that eventually led to a Senate Inquiry, a move initiated by Family First Senator Steve Fielding, to investigate the issue.

This seems anachronistic, considering the enormous burden of ill health and premature deaths borne by those communities who live near coal mines and power stations, which has been serially ignored by successive governments.

The impact of air pollution from burning fossil fuels on climate change, and the ensuing health effects, are both long term and cumulative. A recent study from Harvard Medical School has found that the costs to US residents of burning coal amounts to between $US300-$US500 billion dollars annually. Or around $US1000 for every citizen. Previous studies, such as ExterneE (2005) in Europe, have arrived at similar conclusions. The figures in Australia are likely to be broadly similar.

There are many contributing factors, but the single largest is that of illness and mortality arising from air pollution. Health effects, mediated primarily by airborne small particulates (PM2.5), SO2, NOx, volatile organic compounds and Ozone, include asthma, bronchitis and emphysema, heart attacks, arrhythmias and disproportionally affect children and those with pre-existing illness. The US study's “best estimate” for damages due to air quality adds 9.3 c/kWh.

Nevertheless, if there are health concerns related to wind power they should indeed be thoroughly examined. Doctors for the Environment Australia (DEA) has assessed all the evidence and literature surrounding these claims in its submission to the Senate Inquiry and, as the three previous comprehensive recent reviews* concluded, did not find any evidence of adverse health effects.

Proponents of “wind turbine syndrome” list a collection of non-specific symptoms that include; dizziness, headaches, ear and eye pain, nausea, sleep disturbance, palpitations nocturnal urination, anxiety and panic. They have postulated that infrasound or vibration causes disturbance of inner ear function producing illness.

This hypothesis is currently unsupported, as there is no demonstrated physical mechanism by which these effects are mediated. Although it is theoretically possible that low frequencies could be detected in the inner ear, or elsewhere, without an awareness of sound, it is not clear how they might invoke the clinical effects described. Moreover, why would the infrasound from wind turbines cause symptoms when other environmental sources, some of which occur at greater intensities, do not?

Secondly, many of the symptoms are not typical of inner ear disease. They are in fact more suggestive of a psychological origin. Anxiety and panic disorder, for example, fit this picture.

In addition, many areas of Northern Europe, where residents tend to be very socially and health conscious, have far greater densities of wind turbines, but there has been little evidence of related ill health. This absence of evidence is probably more significant than the recent anecdotal reports from the US and Australia.

Much of the recent concern of adverse health effects has been supported by the work of American paediatrician Dr Nina Pierpont. And so it is worth scrutinising her study, conducted by recruiting 38 individuals from 10 families, collecting information by telephone interview without examination or reference to medical notes.

This type of “case-series study” is intrinsically limited and even in good quality studies can be confounded by selection bias. Using this research method, it is not possible to make the claims of causality or increased frequency, or prevalence, made by Pierpont, particularly when the study design is flawed.

The further claims that this is a “crossover study” and is “peer reviewed” are similarly misplaced. A crossover design determines in advance the balanced exposure of subjects, whereas this study has been conceived retrospectively, with no determined exposure; “people came and went and figured it out for themselves”. It appears some subjects had pre-existing complaints, further confounding any results.

It is important that Dr Pierpont allows public scrutiny of her work through appropriate peer review process. Selected testimonies do not count. As it stands, this work is anecdotal, and anecdotes do not constitute evidence.

The current case for the existence of health effects from wind turbines is flimsy. One way of resolving this, and allaying any fears of local residents, would be to conduct an appropriate, well-designed study. This would very likely highlight the disparity and health benefits of wind turbine energy when compared with coal and gas energy sources.

For now, the wind industry and its investors should not be concerned or distracted by the noise made by vocal opponents of wind farms. On the contrary, the reassuring and common themes in the submissions and testimonies from a range of medical and scientific bodies to the senate inquiry highlight the current endorsement of the safety of wind energy generation.

Meanwhile, governments should focus their attention and resources back on the problem of the unhealthy, fossil-fuelled pollution and emissions that are still blowing in the wind.

Dr George Crisp, medical practitioner, is the WA representative of Doctors for the Environment Australia and presented evidence to the Senate Committee on behalf of DEA

*NHMRC Wind Turbines and Health, July 2010, The Health Impact of Wind Turbines: A Review of the Current White, Grey, and Published Literature Chatham-Kent Public Health Unit, June 2008 , Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects. An Expert Panel Review, 2009. rest

Letter: Living within our means...

2011-04-29T00:10:00.000-07:00

In her article " Will your kids live as long as you ?", Dr Sadler highlights the fact that our increasingly sedentary, car dependent lifestyles come at a great cost to society.

Here as elsewhere, the prevalence of diabetes and obesity continues to rise. An illness confined of the elderly until 4 decades ago, diabetes is now sweeping through every demographic of society, affecting even the youngest. The gains made in cardiovascular health are starting to be undone.

But, the over-consumption and inactivity that drives these conditions is symptomatic of a far wider problem.

Air pollution, from our fossil fuelled cars, coal burning power stations and other polluting industries, kills thousands of us annually in every large city and causes widespread ill health.

We are depleting oil reserves at 1 million times the rate of their formation. This concentrated form of energy is the basis for our current economy and food security, yet we have no plan for its succession.

In the process, we are returning carbon, locked up for hundreds of millions of years, to our atmosphere where it will reside for centuries.

The resulting climate change has been recognised by the medical profession as the biggest health threat of the 21st century. Through direct affects such as heat, local weather extremes, to far greater problems arising from altered disease propagation and transmission, food and water security, air quality and mass movement of populations.

Overuse and misuse of antibiotics is rendering once life saving drugs impotent against the ravages of infectious diseases.

Our short sighted and excessive actions really are compromising the health and well being of our children.

But we don’t have to be bad ancestors. We can design healthy cities and healthy lifestyles and live within our ecological means, and in the process we can protect the future health of our children.

"Bush destruction ruining health" Post News ( Jan 29 2011 )

2011-02-08T19:50:00.000-08:00

Each week, a story or letter in the Post marks the further erosion of our natural assets. Bushland is cleared here, trees felled there, all displaced by an advancing concrete tide. Week after week.

Development, it seems, always trumps conservation.

But follow this trend to its destination and we arrive at an aesthetically depleted place, devoid of green space, of shade and wildlife. Unhealthy and degraded, exposed to the congestion, noise and fumes of traffic, limited recreational opportunity and nowhere for children to explore and interact with nature.

The combined and cumulative health costs arising from loss of nature are very significant, especially at Perth's latitude.

Cities affect their local microclimate, resulting in "urban heat islands". Whereas plants have a cooling effect through transpiration and providing shade, the inert non-reflective concrete surfaces, absorb and retain heat. Failing to cool at night, progressively hotter by day. Clearly a counterproductive and maladaptive response to a warming planet.

Natural habitats buffer us from heavy precipitation. Events that are likely to become more frequent and intense in the future. Paving over these last gaps in our city magnifies run-off and will exacerbate flooding.

Airborne pollution from fossil fuel combustion, causes thousands of deaths from cardiac and respiratory diseases every year in each of our major cities. Higher air temperatures accelerate the formation of toxic air pollutants leading to more ill health.

Health benefits also occur at an individual level; for example, exercising in green spaces reduces blood pressure. Just having a view of nature improves recovery times and reduces hospital stays.

The truth is we are not accounting for the real value of our natural environment. Not from a health, a social perspective, nor a long term economic perspective.

It may be costing individually, communally and as tax payers right now, but the consequence of liquidating our natural assets and the resources they provide will become ever more expensive in a warmer world.

There is much we cannot change, but we could start investing in our future by conserving our natural heritage.

Population vs Health.

2011-02-08T19:35:00.000-08:00

With a higher growth rate than many developing nations, the debate on Australia's future population is well overdue.

In the driest inhabited continent, with the poorest of soils, determining a sustainable population must be a priority.

With a higher growth rate than many developing nations, the debate on Australia's future population is well overdue.

In the driest inhabited continent, with the poorest of soils, determining a sustainable population must be a priority. Yet we are led to believe that population growth is not only inevitable, but that our future prosperity depends on it.

But growth is neither a solution to our demographic imbalance, which it merely serves to propel and magnify it into the future, nor is it a requirement for economic development.

Our growing cities, with greater congestion and longer commuting times, result in less leisure opportunities and worsening air pollution, contributing to diabetes and obesity epidemics and cardiovascular and respiratory disease.Increasing density squeezes health-promoting green space out of urban centres and suburban sprawl is overtaking arable land and driving car dependence.

Poorly planned growth is making our cities less healthy and less resilient.

Even in recent prosperous times, infrastructure, including healthcare, has not kept pace. Hospitals are overcrowded, with shortages of doctors, staff and equipment.
Our health service is hardly coping now. How will we treat more patients and access
commensurately more services in “big Australia” ?

More people consume more electricity and this is being used as an excuse to build more coal fired power stations, escalating carbon emissions, air pollution, and water use. All with health impacts.

A century of declining rainfall in WA, the tribulations of the Murray Darling basin and the recent stark reminder that Australia's rainfall is highly unpredictable will, make for very tough water management decisions. Decisions that will be complicated by the greater variability and extreme precipitation events arising from further climate change.

Although currently a net exporter, we cannot take food security for granted. There are biological and physical constraints to food supply. Not only water, but oil, phosphate, soil and ecosystem integrity.

Peak oil poses a particular problem, as modern agricultural productivity and distribution are entirely dependant on plentiful oil and it's products. As growing oil demand outstrips decreasing supply, prices will rise and availability fall. As an importer of oil our trade balance will deteriorate and our economy stall.

Then there are the effects of climate change and ocean acidification, the scale and consequence of which are difficult to quantify, but likely to significantly impact on population carrying capacity at a regional and global level. Displacement, through sea level rise, freshwater depletion and famine, may result in the need to accept large numbers of climate refugees.

The assumption that our population can continue to grow is clearly challenged by a convergence of natural boundaries. The environment's carrying capacity is finite, determined by nature and the services it provides. Services which are being further compromised by our activities.

It is essential that we examine the limitations and landscape of these factors, as we cannot afford to continue blindly stumbling into the inescapable problems of our own making.

Whether by smaller footprints or fewer feet, we will have to live within our ecological means on our finite planet.

There is a good reason why in nature things just stop growing

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 24th August 2010

2010-08-24T06:12:00.000-07:00

It was Australia’s second climate change election. Climate change deposed the former leaders of both main parties: Kevin Rudd (Labor) because his position was too weak, Malcolm Turnbull (Liberals) because his position was too strong. When Julia Gillard, the new Labor leader, also flunked the issue, many of her supporters defected to the Greens.

Letter wars

2010-08-17T04:22:00.000-07:00

The Hon JB. finally sent a letter the local newspaper. Ironic perhaps that after declaring the greens "irrelevent" 2 weeks ago, the content was exclusively about the greens.

She probably figured that it would be the last edition prior to the election, but the paper does come out on Friday afternoon, so few of the elctorate might get to see it.

With that in mind, I contacted the editor who agreed to print my reply. The catch, however, was that JB would also receive a copy and would have a right of reply.

Am I right back where I started ?

Anyway here's the letter:

Dear Editor,

We welcome greater scrutiny as called for by the Hon. Julie Bishop. We would also welcome greater opportunity to discuss and inform your readers about our policies.

We are mindful of economic costs, but it is not just these we should be concerned with. The social, environmental and health consequences of policies and decisions should also be equally important. In this area both major parties have performed notoriously badly and certainly deserve closer scrutiny.

It is ironic that Ms Bishop calls for our policies to be costed when the Coalition - with far greater resources at its disposal - has failed to submit their own to Treasury.

We have proposed a dental care plan costed at $4.3 billion, to improve our health and well being over the long term. But our plan is for all Australians, not just the defence forces.

Good quality health is not cheap - and if you think education is expensive; consider the price of ignorance. Lack of investment in key areas inflicts far greater costs on society in the long term.

Currently 75% of resource profits leak overseas. The inflated salaries paid in this industry put upward pressure on living costs and results in a distorted two-tiered economy affecting all those on pensions or working in unrelated industries and professions.

We support a sovereign fund, such as that in Norway, to ensure the wealth from these one-off projects can be shared by all Australians, present and future.

Our policies would reduce electricity prices through investment in energy efficiency, ending the $10 billion fossil fuel subsidies and placing a price on carbon which will use market forces to put downward pressure on emissions and will also end the paralysing uncertainty that stymies current investment.

While we are burning more coal, building more coal-fired power stations, the rest of the world is leaving us behind. Renewable energy technologies are being fast-tracked in China, Germany and many other countries.

The "level" of the price on carbon, or effective ETS, must deliver a 40% reduction in emissions, as recommended by our scientists. As a leading polluter, with plentiful renewable resources and enjoying better times than our peers, we have a moral imperative to act.

Our stance on asylum seekers is and has always been clear. It is not illegal to arrive in Australia seeking asylum, 60% of those that do are women and children and 95% are found to be genuine refugees. Asylum seekers make up on average 1% of migrants and these people can be processed right here.

Our borders are secure – people attempting to enter are intercepted - yet the Coalition wants to spend enormous amounts bolstering our border protection, on offshore processing and overly expensive, wasteful defence projects.

In effect, this approach amounts to spending big to erode our standing in the world and deflate our moral currency whilst vilifying and punishing the persecuted and traumatised.

We have the good fortune and opportunity now to be able to plan for the daunting challenges facing us; Challenges that will require all of our commitment and ingenuity.

Simply excusing ourselves because it is difficult or expensive in the short term is irresponsible and certainly does not show leadership.

Letter: Post newspaper 13th Aug.

2010-08-13T22:51:00.001-07:00

Rosalie Park is the latest to join a growing list of precious social and environmental assets threatened by state sponsored urban vandalism.

Is there nothing too valuable to escape the bulldozer?

We seem to have a crisis of leadership, with state and federal members following the short-term development dollar, excluding all other considerations; particularly our future health and well-being.

Federal member Julie Bishop has not even acknowledged my calls for debate or discussion, preferring stunts with cane toads and "stare offs", rather than addressing serious long term issues that face our society locally and nationally.

Health is not just about hospital beds. It is about our urban design, about water and food quality and security, the integrity of our communities and our environment, how we treat our neighbours and our work-life balance.

If we keep voting for people who are just part of a party machine then we will have no one else to blame when our green spaces are car parks, our biodiversity is in a museum, when our mineral wealth is squandered and we have nothing to show for it and when our marine and land environments are so degraded they can no longer sustain us.

If we want our children to enjoy a clean and healthy environment, and an equitable society, then we are running out of time. We need to change course now. And that starts at the ballot box.

Paving paradise.

2010-08-09T07:27:00.000-07:00

So who authorised the decision to embark on a Hospital expansion, in this case QE2, without providing the appropriate infrastructure ? Who thought it was OK to build without considering the social and environmental consequences ?

The local member and State government proposing to tarmac over Rosalie park, a very well used and locally important recreational green space to providing parking for the extra staff that development now employs.

They wouldn't by any chance be the very same people, would they?

Not the same people who made the laughable and galling suggestion that the land would revert to recreational use in 2 years time !

Do you think it might be time to say "stop". "We've had enough". Because if it isn't how much more of this short-sighted and reckless development will we accept.

The responsibility lies with those who made the flawed decisions to develop. T

The cost should not be borne by the community at large, not by those who have used this park for decades, or those that enjoy the view from there flats. they did not sell those rights or those privileges.

Tomorrow the council will here questions, there is not defined period for consultation. Is that normal process ? Is that what our communities deserve. or somewhere along the line did we all decides that the needs and rights of the car driver outweigh the needs of the local residents.

I don't remember signing over those rights and I don't expect to roll over and stay quiet either.

Crunch time for Underwood.

2010-08-03T08:37:00.000-07:00

What's left now for Underwood bushland ? "Federal referral" with the slim chance of a reprieve? Lets face it, not great odds in the context of recent environmental reviews. Then there's direct action. But we are going to need a grass roots campaign and activism that would put the French farmers to shame.

What does it take to get people out on the streets, protesting instead of watching, particularly here in WA.

Yet the recent incongruous gathering of wealthy miners and their paid entourage shamelessly flaunting their pearls and their self interest were out for all to see, while the really disenfranchised and disadvantaged barely raise a finger or rate a mention.

It seems to be all about entitlement, the feeling of being owed a due. Where is our society, when the rich can jump up and down and get sympathy and the lowest paid are summarily dismissed as threatening our precious economy when even a small wage increase is proposed ?

Well, to quote Tony Abbott, "it's crap".

Openly campaigning at the "Diggers and Dealers" minefest this week, the minemeisters are openly spruiking the Liberal party and they are not pulling any punches. Surely this will raise more than an historians eyebrow or two in years to come, as they ponder the derailment of social justice in the land of the fair go.

Meanwhile the plight of our local native species, an iconic island of biodiversity, an integral link in the chain of remnant vegetation that reminds us of the heritage that was the Swan coastal plain, is waiting for the bulldozer and the chainsaw. ( Courtesy of our finest academic institution )

Where are those entitled millionaires when you need them?

My Answers to the "Notion Factory" online questionaire

2010-08-01T18:18:00.000-07:00

Questions and answers are no on the website Notion Factory and posted below.

How long have you lived in your electorate? 15 years

What would be the single most pressing issue in your electorate/state?

Improving the long term physical and mental health and well being of individuals and our communities.

What would you hope to achieve for your electorate in the coming term?

Redirect our short term, exploitative thinking in favour of a more inclusive, caring and resilient society.

What would you hope to contribute to Australia as a parliamentarian?

To speak for the rights of the vulnerable and dis-empowered, to be a voice for democracy over vested interest, and advocate for the inclusion of social, health and environmental consequences in all policy and decision making. To raise and seek solutions for local issues affecting my electorate. ( that will do for starters )

Do you believe in anthropogenic climate change and should we act on it?

Science is not about belief, it is about explaining the real world with reproducible and verifiable information.Our scientists are unambiguous about the reality of climate change. "Unequivocal" is the word used in the 2007 IPCC 4th assessment report.

Multiple lines of evidence support and confirm that human activity is the predominant cause of recent climate change.

Of more concern, there are likely to be tipping points, which once passed will result in positive feedbacks and taking matters out of our hands.

As with all science, it will never be entirely settled. We will never know everything.

But, as with medicine, we act and treat according to our current level of knowledge.

Climate change has been described as the greatest health threat of the 21st century - by the prestigious Lancet journal and peak health authorities.

The least responsible for climate change are likely to be the those most vulnerable to it's effects.

As such inaction on climate change, particularly by wealthy nations, is inexcusable.

What is your position on asylum seekers?

The policies and rhetoric of the major parties flies in the face of our ethic of fairness and our presumption of innocence.

It is not illegal to seek asylum. We are a signatory to the UN charter for refugees and we have a legal and moral duty to assess and process asylum seekers and look after those found to be genuine refugees.

For a society that prides itself on "punching above its weight", we are doing quite the opposite when it comes to refugees and the world's most vulnerable.

We do not need offshore processing, we should have enough space and compassion here.

Do you think filtering the Internet is a viable way of protecting the vulnerable online?

Whilst I do not disagree with the basic premise of censoring some sites, the practicalities and potential for misuse of centrally controlled censoring are equally concerning. We should be looking to protect children particularly, by looking at appropriate policing and prosecution and educating our communities about internet use.

What is your view on cabinet confidentiality?

I believe in open and accountable government. So that confidentiality should only apply to matters of national security and where there may be legal implications.

Do you support gay marriage?

Yes.

What do you feel has been your greatest achievement in life (family not included)?

Becoming and being a GP and earning the trust of my patients.

George Crisp - Greens, Candidate for Curtin

Insight on Greens

2010-08-01T04:20:00.000-07:00

The Greens on Insight on SBS – Tuesday at 7.30 SBS’s Rather disappointed with this one. For a program advertised as examining "what the Greens stand for", it spent a disporportionate amount of time focusing on Lindsay Tanner and Erica Abetz. In the first ten minutes, I don't think the greens were even mentioned. Perhaps it should be called "lack of insight".

Insight program looks at us.The program is advertised thus: As the election nears, the Greens' polling is the highest in the party's history. So high, that pollsters and election analysts are predicting that they could end up with the balance of power in the Senate. The Greens could even be poised to win their very first Lower House seat, after the retirement of Labor's Lindsay Tanner in the electorate of Melbourne. But who votes for the Greens and why? Apart from their views on the environment and asylum seekers, what else do they stand for? And how do their policies stand up to close scrutiny? Greens leader Bob Brown will join Insight as we ask what all of this means for the next Government. And our panel of swinging voters will also deliver their verdict on Australia's "third party".

GreenPractice in the Medical Observer magazine

2010-07-28T18:17:00.000-07:00

It has been a long road developing GreenPractice. And getting publicity has been hard with no funds. So an article in Medical Observer magazine certainly helps.

Go to the GreenPractice website to find out more

To the caller on 720 am this morning.... the 1% myth,

2010-07-26T19:01:00.000-07:00

..... Your caller bemoaned the fact that we only produce "1% " of pollution. ( in fact 1.5% ). But the UK and France and other much more populous nations produce similar amounts. And those nations are way ahead of us in rising to the challenge.
We are the worst per capita contributor, we have the bes...t renewable resources and we stand to lose the most ( in one of the most vulnerable continents in the world ).
Inaction is essentially capitulation to the ambitions and greed of the fossil fuel industry and our reverence for a material dependency.

Reply to last weeks xenophobic letter.

2010-07-25T07:53:00.000-07:00

There are no shortage of letters in the local papers, pointing the finger at asylum seekers, using terms such as "illegals" and "queue jumpers". It is worth remembering not only is it perfectly legal to seek asylum, and that we are a signatory to the UN refugee charter, but that more than 60% of those that arrive by boat are women and children, and that the 3441 arrivals in 2009 made up just 1% of migrants to Australia.

Of 43.3 million displaced by persecution and conflict, 15.2 million were classified as refugees ( UNHCR 2009 ). Less than 0.5% of applications for asylum were lodged in Austrlaia.

But our political leaders do not reflect this in their rhetoric, on the contrary, we are continually told there is a flood or an invasion, that there is a security threat and that those seeking asylum are causing some of the social problems that now affect our society.

A deliberate and insidious campaign to secure electoral votes at the expense of inciting fear and xenophobia. Howard's unsavoury policies so despised earlier this decade have become bipartisan.

We are not as Ms Gillard keeps asserting "going forward". No, we are morally sliding, and fast.

( reply to letter in western Suburbs weekly 11 july 2010 )

Dear Editor

Mr Prestage's litany of errors and prejudices regarding asylum seekers is chilling.

The fallacies that there are "queues" which refugees might join, or that "utopia" awaits in the form of detention centres and uncertainty in arriving at all, or the idea that there is an avalanche, are all quite testable statements, and are easily dispelled.

I also find particularly troubling, Mr Prestage's assertion that Australian and other allied forces died fighting for our "standard of living". They fought for our freedom, from radical regimes in Europe and Asia.

Our standard of living has been achieved to date by immigration and the fortune of our natural resources.

We have a moral, and legal, duty to treat those in need humanely. And Mr Senghera is quite right, both major parties are shrinking from this responsibility.
( Not published )

Hustings

2010-07-23T02:41:00.000-07:00

Saturday morning will be in Subiaco, starting at the Farmers market, from 10 am, talking to anyone about greens and other political issues. Time to the electorate how relevant the greens really are.

What I wanted to say...

2010-07-21T15:53:00.000-07:00

Uranium mining characterises the flawed mindset of a market driven society prioritizing short term privatised profit over socialised long term costs to our health and our environment.

- Outisde the Esplanade Hotel fremantle - July 21st 2010 -

I have heard it described as one of the worst results for the world. Not Uranium mining per se, but the 2008 election of the WA state Liberal party.

Does that sound far fetched ? Well consider the state of the Uranium industry until then. With a limit if 3 mines nationally and one third of estimated resources out of bounds, there was a constraint over uranium supply globally. Not any more.

The people inside the Esplanade hotel are hell bent on developing a resource that for their own quick profit, leaves a legacy of waste of multi-millennial proportions. Permanently, so far as we are concerned, polluting the landscape and aquifers with radioactive waste.

And it is that special characteristic of uranium that sets it apart from other mining.

Radioactive decay of the Uranium nucleus results in the release of ionising radiation. That is, radiation with high levels of energy. Not necessarily high in quantity but in its energy content.

An analogy would be to temperature, it doesn't matter how much warm water you touch it won't burn you, but for ultraviolet light might represent hot water, and Xrays perhaps, boiling water. Now for gamma rays think high pressure steam.

Ionising means having enough energy to be able to alter the structure of atoms or molecules.

Like gamma rays, Alpha and beta particles released are also ionising, but there is a catch. Because of the nature of these particles, they do not penetrate skin.

Does that mean they are safe to us ?

Well yes, if you leave uranium ore bodies safely in the ground. However, if you dig up the ore and pulverize it or extract and separate it using in situ leaching, you liberate the radioactive material from it's natural and stable home.

Once freed into the environment, uranium and its radioactive progeny ( or elements formed by it's radioactive decay ) can enter the food chain via deposition or the ground water. They can also be directly inhaled.

Ionising radiation in the form of gamma rays, alpha and beta particles have enough energy to damage our DNA, causing mutations in our genes and degrading the cellular regulation and other essential functions.

Simply speaking it causes cancer in our cells. Not controversial. Not in dispute.

But there is another twist to this story, increasing the danger further. As it decays, one of the products of uranium, is Radon. Radon is a short lived gas, with a half life in days. It is very radioactive and when it decays, it becomes a solid once more.

This is not a problem in an ore body as it continues its inevitable journey to become lead. But, exposed to the atmosphere the gas can escape and can be inhaled. Decaying and depositing in the lung tissue, it remains permanently in our lung tissue emitting ionising radiation, damaging DNA in our cells.

Radon is the second largest cause of lung cancer after tobacco smoking.

Anyone working in the industry, whether mining, milling, processing, will be exposed to radon as well as dust containing other radioactive species. That is reflected in the health and occupational statistics overseas. But as was pointed out at the rally, Australia has assiduously avoided a register or mechanism for capturing the occupation health risks.

Neither does it stop with the workers. The communities that live nearby, along transportation routes and the exposed more distantly as a result of deposition and bio-concentration ( like other heavy metals ) in the food chain, means it will come back to haunt us, or rather our grand children.

Now I hope those nice folk in the Esplanade don't choke on their morning tea.

Global "highlights" from NOAA ( perhaps that should be lowlights )

2010-07-20T05:02:00.000-07:00

This June was the warmest June on record. It is 25 years since we experienced a month clearly below the global long term average. Although Feb 1994 was too close to call. But even if we used Feb 94 as the starting point, the likelihood of 194 months warmer being consecutively warmer than the longterm average by chance is 1 in 10 ( with 58 "zeros" behind it ).

NOAA released their monthly news ( July 2010 ):

The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for June 2010 was the warmest on record at 16.2°C (61.1°F), which is 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20^th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F). The previous record for June was set in 2005.
June 2010 was the fourth consecutive warmest month on record (March, April, and May 2010 were also the warmest on record). This was the 304^th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20^th century average. The last month with below-average temperature was February 1985.
The June worldwide averaged land surface temperature was 1.07°C (1.93°F) above the 20^th century average of 13.3°C (55.9°F)—the warmest on record.
It was the warmest April–June (three-month period) on record for the global land and ocean temperature and the land-only temperature. The three-month period was the second warmest for the world's oceans, behind 1998.
It was the warmest June and April–June on record for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole and all land areas of the Northern Hemisphere.
It was the warmest January–June on record for the global land and ocean temperature. The worldwide land on average had its second warmest January–June, behind 2007. The worldwide averaged ocean temperature was the second warmest January–June, behind 1998.
Sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean continued to decrease during June 2010. According to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, La Niña conditions are likely to develop during the Northern Hemisphere summer 2010.

Western Suburbs Weekly - GM correspondence

2010-07-14T02:38:00.000-07:00

Mr Linke ( Letter "Merchants of doom have been silenced" ) is way off course with his pro-industry advocacy.

GM foods, describe those edible organisms where foreign genetic material has been randomly inserted into its DNA.

Through intense political lobbying by large multi-nationals, and overriding warnings given by US Food and Drug Administration experts, GM crops were exempted from being subject to independent or rigorous assessment.

We cannot know if GM crops are safe, as they have never been tested in humans, and very short term, mostly industry run studies in animals. GM companies do not make their products available for independent use.

Mr Linke claims GM increases yields. Also false. A review by Union of Concerned Scientists in USA, confirmed the opposite.

These crops perpetuate the myth that monoculture of any kind can be sustainable. They will not solve problems in the underdeveloped world where seed costs are prohibitive. And we stand to lose overseas markets that discriminate against unpopular GM products.

As with so many current issues, our corporate driven haste to reap short term financial rewards, risks far greater long term health, social and environmental costs.

What does EPA stand for ?

2010-07-12T00:18:00.000-07:00

From the state anti-environment minister: the really bad news that some of us have been expecting.

Decades of air pollution, millions of tons of annual greenhouse gas emissions annually, overuse and contamination of the local aquifers. All locked in.

What exactly does the "P" in EPA stand for ? Pollution ?

All that gas.

2010-07-10T21:32:00.000-07:00

There is some rather lazy thinking going on in both state and federal parliaments when it comes to our energy future ( not that there isn't in other areas as well ).

We are being led to believe that we have no option but to explore and drill for oil and gas in the most pristine and fragile areas off our coastline.

Our energy security is paramount and is threatened by depletion. Consequently, securing new hydrocarbon reserves is deemed to be more than worth the very real risk of large scale damage to our environment as dramatically highlighted in the Mexican gulf.

If we accept that this is really the case, then why would we want to export as much of our fossil fuel reserves, in the form of gas and coal, as fast and as cheaply, as we possibly can.

But this is exactly what our state and federal Governments are falling over themselves to achieve. Unapologetically.

These two directives or policies are clearly contradictory.

Australia has passed peak oil and we are on the downslope. New discoveries may change the rate of decline temporarily at best. It will not change the outcome. The age of easy oil is over. We face a future of increasingly scarce and therefore expensive energy as a result.

The lasting biological and economic legacy of oil spills however, is very evident in places that have experienced this misfortune. The damage from the Exxon Valdez spill 21 years ago is still very evident today. That was 250,000 barrels, the same amount released from the Horizon well each week.

So why would we risk longterm compromise and degradation of ecosystems, like Margaret River and the Kimberley coast, and the livelihoods of those in tourism and fisheries, for what amounts to a relatively short term economic benefit?

We have some of the best politicians that money can buy, perhaps they know the answer to this conundrum.

It is quite clear that we will have to make a transition to a renewable energy powered future at some point. The longer we have to make that transition and the more gradual and planned it can be, the less socially and economically disruptive it will be.

The rapid exploitation and exportation of our remaining reserves would therefore seem to be a short sighted and wholly avoidable folly. A folly that is only magnified by gambling our environmental heritage as well.

World Environment News - EPA Proposes Tougher Air Rules On Power Plants - Planet Ark

2010-07-10T18:54:00.000-07:00

World Environment News - EPA Proposes Tougher Air Rules On Power Plants

Why is our State government so determined to buck the trend ? Why does Premier Barnett, refuse to acknowledge the EPA's advice about our spiraling emissions ?
Right now, on Donna Farrgher's, environment ministers desk, are the submissions for 3 new coal fired power stations. These, along with other proposals will according to the EPA, will result in WA emissions increasing by 75% in the next few years.

Most people I talk to are completely unaware of this.

This state government, elected by us, is committing us to reckless greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution and unsustainable water use.

Good for industry, bad for your health, bad for our environment.

Was increasing our pollution and carbon emissions an election promise ? If it was I certainly don't remember it.

No. The truth of the matter is that this government is all about business as usual and prioritising short term economic gain even if that means screwing the environment, and pretty much anything else that might get in the way.

One thing is crystal clear, they do not intend to address climate change or make any concessions toward preservation and investment in our natural heritage for future generations.

It is the triumph of neo-liberalism over conservatism.

JB putting the environment first ? sounds a bit fishy, if you ask me.

2010-07-07T04:21:00.000-07:00

Open letter to Hon Ms Julie Bishop from Australian Greens Candidate
for Curtin, Dr George Crisp.

Martin Ferguson's recent decision to allow oil exploration in a proposed marine park off Margaret River is all the more astounding in the wake of BP's Horizon disaster and, in our own waters, the Montara spill

I am pleased to see that you have been pictured holding a "Save Our Marine Life" bumper sticker, which would suggest you are supportive of the conservation of our marine biodiversity.

If the Liberal Party were to be elected, would you make a commitment to protect these areas and ban deep water drilling in the Naturaliste Plateau and Mentelle up-welling areas?

If so, can you also confirm that you will not take the same path as Premier Barnett, who supported the preservation of the Underwood bushland while in Opposition, only to allow its use for development once in power?

the Coal king

2010-07-01T08:10:00.000-07:00

Wednesday morning: Colin Barnett on his regular slot with Geoff Hutchinson. Finally got through and asked ..." Your government has been advised by the EPA that WA emissions will rise by 75% in the next few years, as a result of projects being developed including 3 new Cola fired power plants; why has your government not acknowledged this when the rest of the world is looking at 2% targets" ?
Premier Coal replied ... well the some of the world are .. blah blah, we are using more gas ... the coal companies don't like it ( !!! ) ...60% of WA electricity is from gas.. blah
Unfortunately I was cut off before being able to reply. I wonder if the premier knows that gas is only preferable to coal if you use it instead of coal rather than as well as coal.

2010-06-27T02:37:00.000-07:00

The local letters continue...

Mr Linke demonstrates again the folly of applying yesterdays thinking to tomorrows problems.

I previously stated that we need to reverse our trajectory in greenhouse emissions within the next 5 years, Mr Linke finds this "nonsensical". But it has and continues to be the position of Australia's and the Worlds climate scientists.

Why should we act ? Partly, as the worlds biggest per capita polluter, partly because we cannot expect poorer countries with lower emissions to lead. But more importantly, with our coastal development, fragile soils and arid climate we are especially vulnerable to the impacts.

The exact same argument applies to UK, France and Italy, who produce similar total emissions.

We face difficult decisions solving both our future energy and water provisions. In a drier, hotter climate, more of us, consuming more is very problematic.

The current state government's plans include 3 new coal fired power plants, increasing our states CO2 emissions by 75% and resulting in unsustainable water use in the food producing South West. Truly irresponsible.

Failing to include currently externalised costs results in distorted markets. Coal fired power is not cheap once externalities are included ( ExternE study). Just as Public transport is more economic than driving once you add in the health costs from pollution, obesity and trauma.

Energy efficiency, co-generation and renewable energy technologies can be built quickly, use minimal water and once built, have a free and safe fuel source, are clearly the solution.

A report this week from Prof Mike Sandiford, at University of Melbourne's Energy Institute, finds it possible and affordable for Australia to be fully wind and solar powered within 10 years. No coal, no nuclear. The obstacles it seems are political, not technical.

Solar power works, that is why the World Bank is investing $5.5 billion in the North Africa project.

Mr Linke raises fears of unemployment, but last years report from the National Institution of Economics and Industry, finds the opposite, with 770,00 new clean energy jobs by 2030.

But Mr Linke tows the outdated Nuclear industry line despite the fact that Nuclear Power continues to be late, unsafe and uncertain.

Claiming that new reactors can be built within 5 years is patently at odds with the evidence. French nuclear power company Areva's flagship reactor in Olkiluoto, is massively overbudget, years behind schedule and now plagued by construction and safety problems. A familiar story.

Nuclear medicine is not dependent on the nuclear industry. Radio-isotopes are produced by facilities like Lucas Heights, not from standard reactors and can also be produced in Cyclotrons.

The "baseload" argument is distorted by vested interests, whose power stations are inflexible and must run at full capacity to maximise efficiency and profit, the resulting night-time surplus results in discounted off-peak electricity. Ideally, we would only produce what we need, when we need it , this “load following” production is more compatible with new renewables than old coal and nuclear.

I am no extremist Mr Linke, I support reasoned, scientific solutions to our problems. What I have suggested is that we consider all the consequences of our decisions, including health and social not just economic when deciding our future.

We need a prescription for a healthy planet, a sustainable environment and economy, strong on democracy and socially justice. And those are Greens core values.

Coal mining climate denial.

2010-06-19T01:03:00.000-07:00

It is not just refusing to accept, or taking a contrary view to climate change that constitutes denial. Acknowledgement of the science but refusal to change behavior amounts to the very same thing. It is therefore a sign of denial that our Government continues to subsidize fossil fuel industries and sanctions the construction of new coal fired power stations. It is irrelevant what is stated publicly. It is actions that are meaningful and those actions have been quite clear.

CCS ( Carbon Capture and Storage ) is not merely a distraction, it is being used as an excuse to allow further coal development. New coal fired power stations are allowed by the EPA, on the condition that they fit CCS technology if and when it is available and financially viable.

We are a bit too big for imaginary solutions from our governments, we need real bold mature leadership.

..ongoing battle in the local press..

2010-06-19T00:39:00.001-07:00

Post newspaper readers may have seen the recent dialogue between Nuclear proponents and myself. The sales manger of a local Uranium mining company has joined in as well, though he didn't disclose his interest. At least I have got someones attention. Anyway, here is my reply of 12/6/10 -

Editor:

If Mr Linke finds what I say hard to accept, he might like to listen to ( or read the transcript of ) ABC Radio's, "Ockham's razor" 29th May, by Adam Lucas, a science lecturer at Wollongong Uni. which confirms many of the points I made.

What it really boils down to, is "time and money". Reducing our emissions within 5 -10 years is crucial. Some reactors currently being built have been in construction for 20 years. They take a further 8 -10 years to offset their emissions footprints. Most of the emissions occur before any generation. It just doesn't add up.

Waste disposal is not solved. Water use is colossal, one reactor can use more water than greater Sydney. Nuclear power is heavily subsidised and uninsurable. The UK estimates it will cost 75 billion pounds to decommission it's reactors.

Australia uses about 40 GW of electricity, equivalent to 25 and 40 nuclear power stations. which would cost over $ 250 billion dollars. Solar thermal power stations and wind farms can be built in 2 -3 years. Energy efficiency, or "negawatts"( the energy we don't have to produce ) is by far the cheapest and quickest way to reduce emissions. And it actually saves us money.

Nuclear is not 100% reliable, not even close. Each Reactor shut-downs on average every 2 years. More concerning is that during the 2003 heatwave, many French reactors had to shut down because of a lack of cooling water, just when they were needed most.

Nuclear is not "emissions free", at 65 g/KWh it is less than fossil fuels, but uranium is finite, this rises rapidly as increasingly lower grade ores are mined.

The health consequences of uranium mining are well documented. Ionising radiation causes cancer. This is not disputed. Radioactive Radon gas is released from mining and milling Uranium ore. Navajo Indians and European miners are two groups who paid a very high price to prove this fact. Worldwide, Radon is the second largest cause of lung cancer after cigarette smoking.

Follow up studies of the workers at Radium Hill in South Australia showed increased rates of lung cancer, but the studies stopped and equally surprising, no register of Uranium miners has been kept in Australia. Avoidance of this occupational problem seems more than careless.

As Mr Linke insists on examples of "base-load power": the Andasol solar thermal power station with storage, opened in March 09, and can produce full power for 7.5 hours after dark. The Geysers 750MW geothermal power station in California. Brazil provides 18% of it's electricity from biomass. Hydro and biogas also provide base-load as well as being versatile.

Nuclear reactors are complex, expensive, sometimes dangerous devices to boil water, to drive steam turbines. The question is; why bother, when there are quicker, cheaper and more effective ways to generate power ?

Prof Mark Jacobson of Stanford University, makes the case for renewables.

2010-06-16T04:53:00.000-07:00

Interestingly, he does not see much of a future for Nuclear power. Shifting the world to 100 percent clean, renewable energy as early as 2030 -- here are the numbers

Mark Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering, has coauthored an article that is the cover story in the November issue of Scientific American. The article presents new research mapping...

Most of the technology needed to shift the world from fossil fuel to clean, renewable energy already exists. Implementing that technology requires overcoming obstacles in planning and politics, but doing so could result in a 30 percent decrease in global power demand, say Stanford civil and environmental engineering Professor Mark Z. Jacobson and University of California-Davis researcher Mark Delucchi.

To make clear the extent of those hurdles – and how they could be overcome – they have written an article that is the cover story in the November issue of Scientific American. In it, they present new research mapping out and evaluating a quantitative plan for powering the entire world on wind, water and solar energy, including an assessment of the materials needed and costs. And it will ultimately be cheaper than sticking with fossil fuel or going nuclear, they say.

The key is turning to wind, water and solar energy to generate electrical power – making a massive commitment to them – and eliminating combustion as a way to generate power for vehicles as well as for normal electricity use.

The problem lies in the use of fossil fuels and biomass combustion, which are notoriously inefficient at producing usable energy. For example, when gasoline is used to power a vehicle, at least 80 percent of the energy produced is wasted as heat.

With vehicles that run on electricity, it's the opposite. Roughly 80 percent of the energy supplied to the vehicle is converted into motion, with only 20 percent lost as heat. Other combustion devices can similarly be replaced with electricity or with hydrogen produced by electricity.

Jacobson and Delucchi used data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration to project that if the world's current mix of energy sources is maintained, global energy demand at any given moment in 2030 would be 16.9 terawatts, or 16.9 million megawatts.

They then calculated that if no combustion of fossil fuel or biomass were used to generate energy, and virtually everything was powered by electricity – either for direct use or hydrogen production – the demand would be only 11.5 terawatts. That's only two-thirds of the energy that would be needed if fossil fuels were still in the mix.

In order to convert to wind, water and solar, the world would have to build wind turbines; solar photovoltaic and concentrated solar arrays; and geothermal, tidal, wave and hydroelectric power sources to generate the electricity, as well as transmission lines to carry it to the users, but the long-run net savings would more than equal the costs, according to Jacobson and Delucchi's analysis.

"If you make this transition to renewables and electricity, then you eliminate the need for 13,000 new or existing coal plants," Jacobson said. "Just by changing our infrastructure we have less power demand."

Jacobson and Delucchi chose to use wind, water and solar energy options based on a quantitative evaluation Jacobson did last year of about a dozen of the different alternative energy options that were getting the most attention in public and political discussions and in the media. He compared their potential for producing energy, how secure an energy source each was, and their impacts on human health and the environment.

He determined that the best overall energy sources were wind, water and solar options. His results were published in Energy and Environmental Science.

The Scientific American article provides a quantification of global solar and wind resources based on new research by Jacobson and Delucchi.

Analyzing only on-land locations with a high potential for producing power, they found that even if wind were the only method used to generate power, the potential for wind energy production is 5 to 15 times greater than what is needed to power the entire world. For solar energy, the comparable calculation found that solar could produce about 30 times the amount needed.

If the world built just enough wind and solar installations to meet the projected demand for the scenario outlined in the article, an area smaller than the borough of Manhattan would be sufficient for the wind turbines themselves. Allowing for the required amount of space between the turbines boosts the needed acreage up to 1 percent of Earth's land area, but the spaces between could be used for crops or grazing. The various non-rooftop solar power installations would need about a third of 1 percent of the world's land, so altogether about 1.3 percent of the land surface would suffice.

The study further provides examples of how a combination of renewable energy sources could be used to meet hour-by-hour power demand, addressing the commonly asked question, given the inherent variability of wind speed and sunshine, can these sources consistently produce enough power? The answer is yes.

Expanding the transmission grid would be critical for the shift to the sustainable energy sources that Jacobson and Delucchi propose. New transmission lines would have to be laid to carry power from new wind farms and solar power plants to users, and more transmission lines will be needed to handle the overall increase in the quantity of electric power being generated.

The researchers also determined that the availability of certain materials that are needed for some of the current technologies, such as lithium for lithium-ion batteries, or platinum for fuel cells, are not currently barriers to building a large-scale renewable infrastructure. But efforts will be needed to ensure that such materials are recycled and potential alternative materials are explored.

Finally, they conclude that perhaps the most significant barrier to the implementation of their plan is the competing energy industries that currently dominate political lobbying for available financial resources. But the technologies being promoted by the dominant energy industries are not renewable and even the cleanest of them emit significantly more carbon and air pollution than wind, water and sun resources, say Jacobson and Delucchi.

If the world allows carbon- and air pollution-emitting energy sources to play a substantial role in the future energy mix, Jacobson said, global temperatures and health problems will only continue to increase.