Energy Probe

A few Rubber Duckies of my own

Posted on June 27, 2010 by energyprbe

Dan Gardner
The Ottawa Citizen
June 27, 2010

Over at the National Post, last week was “Junk Science Week,” during which Post writers like Peter Foster and Lawrence Solomon identify and denounce widely publicized “science” that is, in reality, shoddy nonsense. The editors also give a sardonic award — the “Rubber Ducky” — “to recognize the scientists, NGOs, activists, politicians, journalists, media outlets, cranks and quacks who each year advance the principles of junk science.”

It’s a great idea. There is plenty of snake oil around and those who peddle it should be called to account. And mocked mercilessly. In that spirit, I’d like to award my own Rubber Ducky. Ahem.

Ladies and gentlemen, for twisting the statements of scientists and scientific institutions and misleading the public on an urgent scientific matter, the Rubber Ducky goes to … Peter Foster and Lawrence Solomon.

Junk scientists everywhere find inspiration in Foster’s and Solomon’s opposition to the theory of anthropogenic climate. It’s not merely that they think the theory is wrong. Debate is the lifeblood of real science. It’s that they are dead certain the theory is wrong.

Certainty poisons real science, but it’s vital nourishment for the junk variety because it determines how the junk scientist handles new evidence. If there were some possibility of being wrong, after all, evidence would have to be judged carefully and weighed against countervailing evidence. That’s how real scientists do it. But the junk scientist can dispense with all that because there is no possibility he’s wrong. And so, logically, new evidence always supports his conclusion, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding. This is how the nuttiest fruitcakes are baked.

Speaking of which, here’s Peter Foster writing last week about “unprecedented set-backs” to the theory of anthropogenic climate change: “Britain’s Royal Society recently released a statement that ‘Any public perception that the science is somehow fully settled is wholly incorrect,’ thus contradicting its own former president, and true believer, Lord May. And if the science isn’t settled, there can hardly ever have been ‘consensus’ on the issue.”

Another blow to the junk science of climate change! Peter Foster was right all along!

Or so Foster seems to think. But here is what the Royal Society actually wrote: “There is a wide variety of views across the Fellowship on any active area of science, not just climate science, and this diversity is an essential component of the testing that scientific knowledge must always undergo. Any public perception that science is somehow fully settled is wholly incorrect — there is always room for new observations, theories, measurements, etc. However, the existence of some uncertainty does not mean that scientific results have no significance or consequences, or should not be acted upon. The enormous beneficial impact of science over the last 350 years is testament to the success of this balancing of uncertainty with action in the application of science.”

Clearly, the Royal Society was referring to science in general, not climate science specifically. Its point was a truism in scientific circles: Science does not deliver absolute certainty, only degrees of certainty, and so science is never truly “settled” in the sense of being chiselled in stone and treated as unquestionable truth. As geophysicist Henry Pollack wrote, “the normal state of affairs in science is unsettled and uncertain.”

If it weren’t possible for scientists to form a consensus on a scientific question until the science on that question is “settled,” as Foster seems to think, there would never be a scientific consensus about anything. Which demonstrates how fundamentally Foster misunderstands the nature of science.

I should also point out that in quoting the Royal Society Foster added a “the” that isn’t in the original, which seems like a tiny detail until you realize that the addition of a “the” was necessary to make the sentence read as if it referred to climate science and not science in general. Foster often accuses others of acting in bad faith, but I’ll assume this was an honest mistake and chalk it up, instead, to a mind so determined to confirm what it believes that it unconsciously misread the statement.

Which brings me to the relentless Lawrence Solomon.

Solomon recently announced some shocking news on the National Post website: A prominent climate scientist who worked with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has published an academic paper in which he admitted the IPCC “misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming…. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was ‘only a few dozen experts,’ he states.”

Solomon’s post went viral on the Internet. Another blow to the junk science of climate change! Lawrence Solomon was right all along!

But then the author of the paper in question noticed and took exception. “I did not say the ‘IPCC misleads’ anyone,” Mike Hulme wrote in a statement he posted to his website.

He’s right. He didn’t. Hulme is a widely respected observer whose nuanced and thoughtful writing couldn’t be more different than the extremism and zealotry — from both sides — that dominates the public debate about climate change. In the paper in question, Hulme made some modest, cautious, and precisely defined comments about IPCC process. Solomon misread them and crudely spun them into another climate-change-is-falling-apart story.

So now comes the test: Lawrence Solomon says Mike Hulme’s paper is a smoking gun; Hulme says Solomon is completely wrong. Being rebuked by the author of a paper you are citing for having misread the paper would give most writers pause. Will Solomon acknowledge that, just maybe, he was off by a smidge?

If you said “yes,” you really need to open a psychology textbook and bone up on cognitive dissonance theory.

Solomon dug in. Mike Hulme is wrong about what Mike Hulme wrote, he insisted. Don’t listen to him! Lawrence Solomon was right all along!

Bravura performances, gentlemen. A Rubber Ducky to you both.

Posted in The Deniers | Leave a comment

Avertible catastrophe

Posted on June 26, 2010 by energyprbe

How U.S. labour and environmental rules blocked Dutch spill-cleanup technology.

(Jun. 26, 2010) Some are attuned to the possibility of looming catastrophe and know how to head it off. Others are unprepared for risk and even unable to get their priorities straight when risk turns to reality.

The Dutch fall into the first group. Three days after the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico began on April 20, the Netherlands offered the U.S. government ships equipped to handle a major spill, one much larger than the BP spill that then appeared to be underway. “Our system can handle 400 cubic metres per hour,” Weird Koops, the chairman of Spill Response Group Holland, told Radio Netherlands Worldwide, giving each Dutch ship more cleanup capacity than all the ships that the U.S. was then employing in the Gulf to combat the spill.

To protect against the possibility that its equipment wouldn’t capture all the oil gushing from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, the Dutch also offered to prepare for the U.S. a contingency plan to protect Louisiana’s marshlands with sand barriers. One Dutch research institute specializing in deltas, coastal areas and rivers, in fact, developed a strategy to begin building 60-mile-long sand dikes within three weeks.

The Dutch know how to handle maritime emergencies. In the event of an oil spill, The Netherlands government, which owns its own ships and high-tech skimmers, gives an oil company 12 hours to demonstrate it has the spill in hand. If the company shows signs of unpreparedness, the government dispatches its own ships at the oil company’s expense. “If there’s a country that’s experienced with building dikes and managing water, it’s the Netherlands,” says Geert Visser, the Dutch consul general in Houston.

In sharp contrast to Dutch preparedness before the fact and the Dutch instinct to dive into action once an emergency becomes apparent, witness the American reaction to the Dutch offer of help. The U.S. government responded with “Thanks but no thanks,” remarked Visser, despite BP’s desire to bring in the Dutch equipment and despite the no-lose nature of the Dutch offer — the Dutch government offered the use of its equipment at no charge. Even after the U.S. refused, the Dutch kept their vessels on standby, hoping the Americans would come round. By May 5, the U.S. had not come round. To the contrary, the U.S. had also turned down offers of help from 12 other governments, most of them with superior expertise and equipment — unlike the U.S., Europe has robust fleets of Oil Spill Response Vessels that sail circles around their make-shift U.S. counterparts.

Why does neither the U.S. government nor U.S. energy companies have on hand the cleanup technology available in Europe? Ironically, the superior European technology runs afoul of U.S. environmental rules. The voracious Dutch vessels, for example, continuously suck up vast quantities of oily water, extract most of the oil and then spit overboard vast quantities of nearly oil-free water. Nearly oil-free isn’t good enough for the U.S. regulators, who have a standard of 15 parts per million — if water isn’t at least 99.9985% pure, it may not be returned to the Gulf of Mexico.

When ships in U.S. waters take in oil-contaminated water, they are forced to store it. As U.S. Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, the official in charge of the clean-up operation, explained in a press briefing on June 11, “We have skimmed, to date, about 18 million gallons of oily water—the oil has to be decanted from that [and] our yield is usually somewhere around 10% or 15% on that.” In other words, U.S. ships have mostly been removing water from the Gulf, requiring them to make up to 10 times as many trips to storage facilities where they offload their oil-water mixture, an approach Koops calls “crazy.”

The Americans, overwhelmed by the catastrophic consequences of the BP spill, finally relented and took the Dutch up on their offer — but only partly. Because the U.S. didn’t want Dutch ships working the Gulf, the U.S. airlifted the Dutch equipment to the Gulf and then retrofitted it to U.S. vessels. And rather than have experienced Dutch crews immediately operate the oil-skimming equipment, to appease labour unions the U.S. postponed the clean-up operation to allow U.S. crews to be trained.

A catastrophe that could have been averted is now playing out. With oil increasingly reaching the Gulf coast, the emergency construction of sand berns to minimize the damage is imperative. Again, the U.S. government priority is on U.S. jobs, with the Dutch asked to train American workers rather than to build the berns. According to Floris Van Hovell, a spokesman for the Dutch embassy in Washington, Dutch dredging ships could complete the berms in Louisiana twice as fast as the U.S. companies awarded the work. “Given the fact that there is so much oil on a daily basis coming in, you do not have that much time to protect the marshlands,” he says, perplexed that the U.S. government could be so focussed on side issues with the entire Gulf Coast hanging in the balance.

Then again, perhaps he should not be all that perplexed at the American tolerance for turning an accident into a catastrophe. When the Exxon Valdez oil tanker accident occurred off the coast of Alaska in 1989, a Dutch team with clean-up equipment flew in to Anchorage airport to offer their help. To their amazement, they were rebuffed and told to go home with their equipment. The Exxon Valdez became the biggest oil spill disaster in U.S. history — until the BP Gulf spill.

Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post, Jun. 26, 2010

Posted in Oil | Leave a comment

Lepreau 2 revived

Posted on June 25, 2010 by energyprbe

Chris Morris
Telegraph-Journal
June 25, 2010

FREDERICTON – The New Brunswick government is in discussions with French-owned nuclear giant Areva about construction of a second reactor at Point Lepreau, the Telegraph-Journal has learned.

Energy Minister Jack Keir is travelling to Florida on Sunday for several days of talks with officials of the state-controlled Areva group that could lead to a letter of intent for a second reactor and major spinoff benefits for the province.

Keir said in an interview on Thursday the possibility of a second reactor with AECL and Team Candu – a consortium of private-sector companies – is now virtually dead. But he said Areva has arrived on the scene with an attractive package that deserves serious consideration.

“They’re excited about our province for a couple of strong reasons,” Keir said of the French firm. “One is our geographical location, which presents great opportunities as we all know.

“The second thing that excites Areva is we are a bilingual province and we have a French university that could provide them not only with research but also with human resource opportunities in both languages. They see a real opportunity with New Brunswick not only for the Canadian market, but for their North American market as well.”

Keir said the province has been talking with Areva for several months. He said negotiations with the firm were proceeding even as the province was trying to finalize a deal for the sale of NB Power assets to Hydro-Québec.

“I’ve probably talked to them on at least three or four occasions,” he said.

“They are in constant communication with our staff in the Department of Energy. I would categorize the talks as more than preliminary, but I’ll have a much better feel after my discussions in Florida with them. I don’t want to raise expectations, but I can tell you I’m excited about the opportunity.”

Areva is a French-owned conglomerate known mainly for its nuclear developments. Its main shareholder is the French public-sector company, the CEA.

“They’re a first-class company,” Keir said.

“They are the largest nuclear technology company in the world.”

Keir said Areva first came to the table three years ago when the province invited companies to consider a second reactor at Lepreau. The Lepreau facility was constructed with room for three more reactors at the site.

Keir said that at the time, Areva did not offer the kind of spinoff benefits the province wanted in association with a second reactor.

“We were looking for private-sector investment in a merchant plant where the government wasn’t putting money into it, if we didn’t want to, but we wanted more than just a reactor – we wanted a centre for excellence in nuclear, we wanted to build the industry around nuclear with two power plants beside each other,” he said.

“AECL and Team Candu – with Hitachi, SNC Lavalin and Babcock and Wilcox – came forward with a pretty good proposal at the time in terms of more add-ons than just building the reactor. At the time, Areva just wanted to build and sell us their technology and we weren’t interested. So we moved down the road with Team Candu.”

Keir said that until last year, there was hope the Team Candu project would come together. But he said the project unravelled as AECL became increasingly distracted by the problematic refurbishment at the current Point Lepreau reactor.

“We talked to AECL and Team Candu and we all acknowledged it’s not going to move forward at this time,” Keir said.

“So, as the premier always says, when one door closes another one opens. If this one is opening I want to take advantage of it.”

Under the so-called “merchant model,” the first such model for a nuclear project in Canada, the private sector would finance the construction and publicly-owned NB Power would contract to operate the plant.

“Areva now has come forward with a plan to build the merchant plant to look to the New England area to sell that electricity and they’ve come forward with discussion about setting up a centre of excellence in nuclear.”

He said if a letter of intent is signed in the near future, transmission capabilities would be an issue that would have to be addressed.

Keir said the second reactor would breathe new life into New Brunswick’s ambitions as an energy hub. He complained that Opposition Leader David Alward has been saying the energy hub is dead, raising the possibility that the issue will be hotly debated in the weeks leading up to the Sept. 27 election.

“The energy hub is alive and well in New Brunswick,” Keir said.

Toronto-based energy consultant Tom Adams questioned the fundamental need for a second reactor in New Brunswick with the prospect of new gas supplies and low prices on the horizon.

“However, if nuclear expansion is going to ignore consumer need, Areva is worth considering,” he said.

“Areva is far ahead of AECL in technology development, with several units under construction applying advanced safety features like aircraft crash barriers and extra protection in the event of a meltdown … Areva’s reactors have also proven to be much cheaper to operate than Candu and benefit from a much larger pool of reactors in the world fleet.” Adams said Areva is having difficulties with some of its latest construction projects.

“The Olkiluoto project in Finland, which was to be Areva’s flagship, is about as well managed as the Point Lepreau refurbishment,” he said. “And Areva recently lost a major competitive bid in the United Arab Emirates to a Korean company.”

Norm Rubin of the Toronto-based energy watchdog group Energy Probe said Thursday he doesn’t think the project will ever proceed.

“I think it’s somewhere between a long shot and an impossibility unless New Brunswick’s government becomes generous and agrees either to subsidize this venture or to accept a bunch of the downside risks,” Rubin said.

New Brunswick talks with French firm about building 2nd nuclear reactor (NB-Nuclear)

Posted on June 24, 2010 by energyprbe

(Jun. 24, 2010) FREDERICTON _ The New Brunswick government has renewed efforts to see a second nuclear reactor built in the province, but at least one industry observer doesn´t believe it will ever happen.

Energy Minister Jack Keir is heading to Florida for three days of discussions with French nuclear engineering group Areva, starting Sunday.

“I would categorize it as more than preliminary,” Keir said Thursday of the discussions. “I don´t want to raise expectations until I come back, but I´m excited about the opportunity.”

Keir said he has talked with company officials a number of times since they contacted him before Christmas last year.

“They´ve come forward with plans to build the merchant plant to look to the New England area to sell that electricity, and have come forward with discussions about setting up a centre of excellence in nuclear,” Keir said.

He said Areva, which is controlled by the government of France, likes New Brunswick´s geographic location and the fact the province is bilingual. He said universities in the province could conduct research and produce employees who speak both English and French.

A group called Team Candu _ which included Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., Hitachi Canada, SNC-Lavalin Nuclear Inc., Babcock and Wilcox Canada and GE-Hitatchi Nuclear Energy Canada Ltd. _ looked into the same possibility a couple of years ago.

However, Keir said they´ve had no talks in more than a year and he wants AECL to concentrate on the refurbishment of the first reactor at Point Lepreau. That project is at least 18 months behind schedule and an estimated $400 million over budget.

Keir said Areva was also interested a couple of years ago, but only recently was willing to consider providing the extras that New Brunswick wants.

He said the next step in talks with Areva would be to sign a letter of intent that would lay out the challenges and opportunities for the province and the company, and provide “off-ramps” if either side doesn´t see a business case in their favour.

Norm Rubin of the Toronto-based energy watchdog group Energy Probe said Thursday he doesn´t think the project will ever proceed.

“I think it´s somewhere between a long shot and an impossibility unless New Brunswick´s government becomes generous and agrees either to subsidize this venture or to accept a bunch of the downside risks,” Rubin said.

“Areva is under cost pressure because their taxpayers are tired of bailing them out just like Canadian taxpayers are tired of bailing out Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.”

Areva is currently facing major cost overruns on a plant it is building in Finland.

“As long as minister Keir leaves his chequebook at home, and as long as he´s not seduced by a type of time-share sales effort in Florida … then it´s going to be between Areva and the French taxpayers to see if they want to take a flyer on creating another Point Lepreau and paying for it,” Rubin said.

Still, Keir said he´s confident that New Brunswick will stand out as a good place to invest as the global recession ends.

“From an international perspective, investors are there and have lots of money to invest in the energy sector, and the energy hub is alive and well in New Brunswick,” Keir said.

The Canadian Press, Oilweek Magazine, Jun. 24, 2010

Posted in New Brunswick Power | Leave a comment

Aldyen Donnelly: BC’s plans for cap and trade

Posted on June 24, 2010 by energyprbe

(June 24, 2010) Last week I had some rather enlightening conversations with a few very senior BC government officials. We talked about BC’s evolving GHG offset system (I raised concerns about offset protocols that doubt and triple count reductions) and the developing BC cap and trade regime.

Two disturbing comments were repeated by most of the senior officials I talked to—even though the conversations were independent of each other and I did not prompt the comments:

With respect to BC’s GHG offset system: [the experts on whom we rely] assure us the entire offset market will be dead within 3 years.” So the officials I talked to appear to have decided not to dedicate any energy to ensuring that BC’s emerging GHG offset system is inventory-based or sustainable.

With all of the officials, I raised the issue of the apparent conflict between the BC budget and revenue forecast—which assumes continuing and increasing revenues from carbon taxes—and the apparent plan to implement “cap and trade”. The BC government has assured industry that there will be no “double taxation” of carbon and that once a facility is covered by the cap and trade regulation it will become exempt from BC’s carbon tax. The problem—as I see it—is that the current BC budget forecasts carbon tax revenues in 2012/13 that will only be realized if all BC industrial and energy facility operators continue to pay carbon taxes, and INCREASE aggregate GHGs at least 5% over the next 3 years. Exempting only the largest stationary GHG emitters from BC’s carbon tax blows a $500 to $600 hole in BC’s annual tax revenue forecast, a hole that this government cannot afford. I asked BC officials how they thought the government would address this issue. First, all of the officials reminded me that the government has many regulatory and taxation options at their disposal and that “No final decision has been made to go ahead with cap and trade.” But then all of the officials suggested that if/when the BC government does go ahead with cap and trade, “the Province could sell all BC GHG allowances to maintain government revenues.”

What Does This Potentially Mean for BC Manufacturers?

For now, let’s assume the Province is considering including every facility with 10,000 TCO2e/year in GHG discharges with the cap and trade regime. Assuming this population of facilities discharged, say, 18 MM TCO2e in 2007, the Province will:(1) prohibit GHG discharges from those facilities without authorization, and (2) stipulate that government authorization will take the form of a government-issued quota unit/GHG allowance.

Then, government will create and auction—with a minimum auction price—a supply of bankable, tradable GHG quota units/allowances.

Based on the discussions I had last week, I think we can anticipate that BC will propose to oversupply the market with GHG allowances in the early years of the 2012 – 2020 control period (just like the RGGI states did and most WCI states are likely to do), to dampen industrial resistance to the concept of being covered by a quota-based carbon supply management regime. But BC has legislated a legally binding physical cap for 2020, which is 33% below 2007 actual emission levels.

If/when BC GHG quota is perpetually bankable(as currently proposed), any surplus quota supply the BC government creates and sells in the early years has to be offset by an equivalent reduction in GHG quota supply in the later years of the 2012 – 2020 period to ensure physical compliance with the binding 2020 cap.

With these things in mind, the table below shows you what the BC government-set minimum prices for BC manufacturers’ GHG quota will have to be to maintain the provincial government carbon revenue forecast, assuming that the Province initially creates a 22% quota supply surplus for the first year BC’s cap and trade regime is in full effect, and that year is 2012.

It appears that the government of BC is hoping to finalize its cap and trade law as soon as possible after the summer of 2010.

The current plan, as I understand it, is to auction 2012 vintage quota early in 2011 to improve provincial government cash-flow sooner rather than later. If the Province executes this plan as currently proposed, in 2011 BC manufacturing facilities covered by the BC cap and trade rule will still be subject to the carbon tax for fiscal 2011/12 and will also have to dedicate capital to their acquisition of 2012/13 vintage GHG quota in the same year. So the Province’s plan to use the cap and trade regime to accelerate cash flowing to the Province will directly come in the form of reduced cash-flow for BC manufacturers.

Please note that if the direct result of this minimum BC GHG quota price forecast is capital flight and unanticipated reductions in the BC industrial GHG emissions that will be covered by the cap and trade regime, the Province will have to accelerate the rate of increase in the minimum BC GHG quota price to maintain provincial government revenue forecasts.

This means that BC industry will not be in a position to realistically forecast operating cost savings in association with GHG reductions. Also note that carbon taxes and GHG quota acquisition costs are pre-tax operating expenses, so both the carbon tax and BC manufacturers’ GHG quota acquisition costs will be partially offset by reduced resource royalty and income tax payments to the province and the federal government.

This whole BC carbon market thing is likely to play out exactly the same way BC’s old pollution discharge fee system worked. Once government establishes a continuing revenue requirement for the system, industry can no longer realize operating cost savings from reduced pollution fees when they realize emission reductions. Emission rates are just pollution tax mill rates. Government revenue requirements increase annually, and the price the government charges per tonne has to increase to meet government’s revenue requirements regardless how fast facility operators cut their emissions.

Linking This To BC Forests

What does any of this have to do with woodlands or the BC offset system?

If you look at the sample minimum BC GHG quota price trend in the table below, it should be apparent to BC mill operators that it is essential to ensure that: (1) the carbon accounting for BC woodlands offsets is credible, does not include double counting of carbon stocks and generates the highest price for offset credits (as opposed to a system that generates an exaggerated volume of credits and artificially low offset prices) and (2) the BC offset system survives—does not die within 3 years as forecast—and provincial GHG inventory-linked forest management/woodlands GHG offset credits form a continuing and integral part of BC mill managers’ GHG cost containment strategy.

I should note that the same issues that are beginning to appear in the BC GHG tax/quota system design—especially the dominance of the offset market by protocols that generate offset credits when no reduction can be reported in the national GHG inventory and forecast—may also emerge as issues in the federal GHG offset system.

Fixing our emerging offset system may be an important opportunity for BC to lead the country as a whole.

Gillard replaces Kevin Rudd, a fellow Labour party member and sitting prime minister who was unceremoniously bounced by his party, in part for his global warming position. The ruling Labour Party is staring at defeat against the opposition Liberal Party under Tony Abbott, who last year led a revolt against his own pro-global warming leader. As has the Australian public, the Liberal Party has turned against the conventional wisdom on global warming.

While affirming her support for renewable energy and other emerging technologies, and her belief that man contributes to climate change, Gillard shelved any notion that Australia would be seeing carbon taxes any time soon. Instead, she implied that Australia wouldn’t even argue for carbon taxes until the global economy recovered and until Australia’s economy could afford them. At that point, she implied, her advocacy of carbon taxes would be global in scope, implying that Australia wouldn’t go it alone by adopting its own carbon scheme:

“If elected as Prime Minister, I will re-prosecute the case for a carbon price at home and abroad. I will do that as global economic conditions improve and as our economy continues to strengthen,” she explained.

How long is she prepared to wait before implementing carbon taxes? Maybe forever.

“First, we will need to establish a community consensus for action,” Gillard told reporters after her election as Labor leader. Then, she explained, she would take “as long as I need to” to win over the community.

Aldyen Donnelly, June 24, 2010

Posted in Aldyen Donnelly | Leave a comment

Lawrence Solomon: Australia may wait forever on climate change

Posted on June 24, 2010 by energyprbe

In her first speech as Australia’s new prime minister, Julia Gillard assured her nation that she will not be rushing in any climate change policies, and certainly not carbon taxes, because there is no consensus on the need for carbon taxes. Gillard is known for her strong support of unions and tepid support of action on climate change.

How long is she prepared to wait before implementing carbon taxes? Maybe forever.

Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post, June 24, 2010

Posted in Climate Change, The Deniers | Leave a comment

Transcript of press conference by Julia Gillard, Australia's new Prime Minister

Posted on June 24, 2010 by energyprbe

Julia Gillard

June 24, 2010

Transcript of press conference by Julia Gillard, Australia’s new Prime Minister

Transcript of press conference

Thank you for joining me in this jam packed room.

And can I say, Australians one and all, it’s with the greatest humility, resolve and enthusiasm that I sought the endorsement of my colleagues to be the Labor Leader and to become Prime Minister of this country. I have accepted that endorsement.

And I am truly honoured to lead this country which I love.

I am utterly committed to the service of our people.

I grew up in the great state of South Australia. I grew up in a home of hardworking parents. They taught me the value of hard work. They taught me the value of respect. They taught me the value of doing your bit for the community.

And it is these values that will guide me as Australia’s Prime Minister.

I believe in a Government that rewards those who work the hardest, not those who complain the loudest.

I believe in a Government that rewards those who, day in and day out, work in our factories and on our farms, in our mines and in our mills, in our classrooms and in our hospitals, that rewards that hard work, decency and effort.

The people who play by the rules, set their alarms early, get their kids off to school, stand by their neighbours and love their country.

And I also believe that ‘leadership’ is about the authority that grows from mutual respect shared by colleagues, from team work and from hard work, team work and spirit.

It’s these beliefs that have been my compass during the three and half years of the most loyal service I could offer to my colleague, Kevin Rudd.

I asked my colleagues to make a leadership change.

A change because I believed that a good Government was losing its way.

And because I believe fundamentally that the basic education and health services that Australians rely on and their decent treatment at work is at risk at the next election.

I love this country and I was not going to sit idly by and watch an incoming Opposition cut education, cut health and smash rights at work.

My values and my beliefs have driven me to step forward to take this position as Prime Minister.

Today I want to make some commitments to the Australian people.

I want to make firstly a commitment that I will lead a strong and responsible Government that will take control of our future.

A strong and responsible Government improving and protecting the essential public services and basic rights our people depend on, including so importantly, their rights at work.

I wish to make two acknowledgments.

I take my fair share of responsibility for the Rudd Government’s record, for our important achievements and for errors made.

I know the Rudd Government did not do all it said it would do.

And at times, it went off track.

I also certainly acknowledge I have not been elected Prime Minister by the Australian people.

And in coming months I will ask the Governor-General to call for a general election so that the Australian people can exercise their birthright to choose their Prime Minister.

Between now and this election, I seek their consideration and their support.

And I seek that consideration and support as we emerge from the biggest financial crisis the world has faced since the Great Depression, with the lowest debt, amongst the lowest unemployment rates and the highest growth of the world’s economies.

This is an achievement we should be proud of – the working people, employers, employees, the trade unions, the small and big businesses, the employer associations who all made this possible.

I give credit to every hardworking Australian for hat has been achieved during these difficult economic days.

I give credit to the Labor giants, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, as the architects of the prosperity of modern Australia.

I give credit to John Howard and Peter Costello for continuing these reforms.

And I particularly give credit to Kevin Rudd for leading the nation in such difficult times and keeping people in work.

And today I can assure every Australian that their Budget will be back in surplus in 2013.

So, having seen the global financial crisis and how or nation has responded, it has reinforced in me my belief that when this nation pulls together, we can do great things.

It is my intention to lead a Government that uses that spirit and that will to do even more to harness the talents of all of our people.

To do even more to make sure that every child gets a fair go in life and a great education.

It is my intention to lead a Government that does more to harness the wind and the sun and the new emerging technologies.

I will do this because I believe in climate change. I believe human beings contribute to climate change.

And it is as disappointing to me as it is to millions of Australians that we do not have a price on carbon.

And in the future we will need one. But first we will need to establish a community consensus for action.

If elected as Prime Minister I will re-prosecute the case for a carbon price at home and abroad. I will do that as global economic conditions improve and as our economy continues to strengthen.

There is another question on which I will seek consensus and that is the proposed Resources Super Profits Tax.

Australians are entitled to a fairer share of our inheritance, the mineral wealth that lies in our grounds. They are entitled to that fairer share.

But to reach a consensus, we need do more than consult. We need to negotiate.

And we must end this uncertainty which is not good for this nation.

That is why today I am throwing open the Government’s door to the mining industry and I ask that in return, the mining industry throws open its mind.

And today, I will ensure that the mining advertisements paid for by the Government are cancelled.

And in return for this, I ask the mining industry to cease their advertising campaign as a show of good faith and mutual respect.

Negotiations will occur with the mining industry. They will be led by the Treasurer and new Deputy Prime Minister and Minister Martin Ferguson.

Can I say as well as dealing with these issues that as incoming Prime Minister I want to say to our troops, men and women at home and abroad.

We are a grateful country and we acknowledge your sacrifice.

Our country relies on you to keep us safe.

To keep the peace and to honour the U.S. and the other alliances that are so important for our nation.

The most recent loss of life of brave Australian soldiers in Afghanistan and the injuries that have befallen our troops remind us all of the depth of the sacrifice that our serving men and women can be called on to make.

Our thoughts are certainly with the grieving families.

Ultimately, Kevin and I disagreed about the direction of the Government. I believed we needed to do better.

But Kevin Rudd is a man of remarkable achievement.

He made wonderful history for this nation by saying ‘Sorry’ to Indigenous Australians.

He was the Leader who withdrew our troops from Iraq and had the foresight to reinforce our commitment in Afghanistan.

The Leader who saw us through the global financial crisis.

The Leader who turned his intelligence and determination to health reform, combating homelessness and closing the gap for Indigenous Australians.

And he came within a breath of brokering an international agreement on climate change.

Truly remarkable.

Of course I will be talking to Kevin Rudd about his future in the Parliamentary Labor Party.

I am also delighted to be standing here with the new Deputy Prime Minister, Wayne Swan.

Wayne guided us through the very difficult waters of the global financial crisis. Now he’s guiding us back into surplus, getting the Budget back in the black.

Wayne is an outstanding Treasurer of this country and I know he will make an outstanding Deputy Prime Minister.

Of course, there will need to be some consequential changes in our Cabinet and ministerial arrangements and I will announce them at an appropriate time.

In conclusion can I say to my colleagues assembled, to the men and women off the press, I will dedicate my abilities to what I believe in.

A nation where hard work is rewarded and where the dignity of work is respected.

A nation that prides itself on the excellence of its education system.

Where Government can be relied upon to provide high quality services for all Australians.

An Australia that can achieve even greater things in the future. We should not be afraid of the future.

A strong Australia respected as a global force for progress, for peace and for tolerance.

A bright democracy for the world to admire.

And a sanctuary for all of our people.

Can I say to the Australian people there will be some days I delight you; there may be some days I disappoint you.

On every day, I will be working my absolute hardest for you.

Posted in Climate Change | Leave a comment

New Brunswick talks with French firm about building 2nd nuclear reactor (NB-Nuclear)

Posted on June 24, 2010 by energyprbe

The Canadian Press
Oilweek Magazine
June 24, 2010

FREDERICTON _ The New Brunswick government has renewed efforts to see a second nuclear reactor built in the province, but at least one industry observer doesn´t believe it will ever happen.