tell nsw labor to ACT NOW on climate change!

[rioters bloc]

Tell NSW Labor to ACT NOW on climate change!

~~~ Come one, come all! We urgently need to get our message across to the government they need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions *immediately*. We need clean, renewable energy, and nuclear is NOT part of the solution to climate change! ~~~

it's gonna be very spectacularly excellent!

what: NSW ALP state conference this Saturday June 10,
when: 11am, Sydney Town Hall, meet at 10:30 for costumes and dancin' practice ;-)
dress: black suits (corporate drag), we also have radiation suits, cranky coal and sun costumes, and a whole bunch of things weird 'n' wonderful!
style: SABOTAGE!! a la beastieboys! ALP - don't sabotage our future with nuclear industry... robot dancing then malfunctioning, general 80s kinda trash dancing...

to say:
renewables - no coal, no uranium mining!
we want a new clean future, not a nuclear end!
- A legislated renewable energy target of 15% by 2012 in NSW
- A stop to the Anvil Hill coal mine
- Investment in public transport in NSW
- Renewable energy technology is ready and available, but severly lacks investment - especially compared with government subsidies for fossil fuels. Nuclear power is NOT greenhouse-neutral, and is toxic and dangerous to boot. "Clean coal" is a myth. The only solution is renewables.

Working bee tomorrow at 348 Abercrombie St (Dave, Bek, Rani & Adam's place) to do screen printing, dancin', and banner makin'.

Come 'n' send a clear (beastie boyz inspired) message to the government that the only solution to climate change is renewable energy! Bring family and friends, banners, placards, props and costumes to stand up for a clean energy future! Maybe think of it as a studybreak and come 'n' trash dance at the ALP state conference (this is definitely in the running for *random aktion of the year* ;-)

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by rioters bloc+--> (rioters bloc)....and nuclear is NOT part of the solution to climate change![/b]

Why can't it be "part of the solution to climate change"???

Probably because the "yoga gestapo" don't much like the look of Nuclear Power Stations.

Originally posted by rioters bloc+--> (rioters bloc)- A stop to the Anvil Hill coal mine[/b]

And how many Miners would be made redundant if this mine closed? If you want to see the consequences of gutting a Mining community, then take a look at some of the places in the Welsh Valleys....I can assure you, it's not pretty.

rioters bloc

@
- Renewable energy technology is ready and available, but severly lacks investment....

It's certainly possible that it "severly lacks investment", but "ready and available"? Not really. Complex and affective renewable methods, like geothermal heating, are very labour intensive and also require pretty specialised labour....which makes the labour costs alone, phenomenal.

rioters bloc

The only solution is renewables.

Environmentalists have been preaching this for years, but when hydro-electric dams are constructed or wind power is implemented, they still piss and moan about "environmental costs". They won't be happy till we're all riding fricking bikes and living by candlelight....no thanks.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
Why can't it be "part of the solution to climate change"???

Probably because the "yoga gestapo" don't much like the look of Nuclear Power Stations.

Firstly, uranium mining in Australia is incredibly destructive, and is done in a way that violates Indigenous sovreignty, as it is done without consent, while destroying Indigenous peoples' land. link

And here are more reasons from the Public Health Association of Australia

At this stage, Australia has not resolved the issue of storage of spent uranium, and the international community has yet to resolve whether spent uranium is the problem of the country using the resource or the country of origin. There is no safe method of long term storage of radioactive waste, including mining tailings, spent fuel rods or plutonium. Some components of waste remain radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years.

The PHAA understands that nuclear power is being proposed as one of the alternatives for limiting greenhouse gas emissions from coal generated electricity production during this century. However, there are significant reasons why nuclear power does not give humanity a real solution. They include:

· Nuclear power can only produce electricity and heat. While electricity is about 41% (in 1996) of world energy use, one third of (and growing) green house emissions is from transport. Nuclear power does not address this sector's contribution to greenhouse.

· Nuclear power is a costly option. Nuclear power has only been viable where there is substantial government support. Nuclear power is not cost effective, in comparison to gas (a cleaner option) and even coal without government subsidies. Renewable energy systems are becoming cost comparative and will become cheaper. Energy use reduction is an even the most cost effective and immediate strategy.

· There are large opportunity costs for expanding the nuclear power industry at this stage by diverting much needed resources (financial and research) away from energy reduction and from renewable energy system development and deployment. Every dollar invested in energy efficiency displaces seven times as much CO2 emissions as the same dollar invested in nuclear power.

· The nuclear industry has a poor history with its safety record. The whole nuclear fuel process is not safe; there are direct health and environmental consequences from radioactive leak and contamination from all stages of the nuclear energy process form mining to storage of waste, and massive release from reactors during accidents.

· Nuclear waste is not yet a solved problem and the industry is struggling to cope with the waste it has without adding to it by expanding the industry.

· Nuclear weapons proliferation is a significant risk. The serious and poorly controlled link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons makes a massive expansion of nuclear power a significant risk for weapons proliferation at a time when international tension is likely to increase.

· Nuclear power is not really greenhouse gas free. While the actual production of electricity from reactors is greenhouse gas free, uranium mining, processing and transport, and reactor building and decommissioning phases of the nuclear fuel process are producers of greenhouse gas emissions.

· Centralised (as opposed to distributed) power sources carry hidden costs and waste. Centralised power facilities lose 10 to 15% of energy in distribution and distribution infrastructure itself costs. Nuclear is a very centralised system.

Yeah, you're right, it's just the hippies and their baseless accusations again...