This figment of our imagination is with compliments of HiSmelt.
Just how do they make CLEAN and GREEN out of this lot?
Friday, June 13, 2008
WHAT POLLUTION?
This figment of our imagination is with compliments of HiSmelt.
Just how do they make CLEAN and GREEN out of this lot?
At Who's Cost
Former PICL site and BP contaminated land
It was noted with interest an article "Back to drawing board on P.I.C.L site" it referred to the Court government and how they purchased a 76 ha block of land from a Petrochemical Industries' Company LTD for $4.9 million in 1994 with tax payers money.
P.I.C.L was at the centre of the notorious WA Inc era in the 1980's which involved purchasing the ill fated block in an attempt to bail out the late Laurie Connell and Dallas Dempster it was estimated to cost tax payers $413 million, so in total $418 so the money train goes on .
BP and Rio Tinto who were joint partners in a 500 megawatt power station and were in negotiations with Land Corp to take a long term lease, well surprise surprise it all fell in a heap. It was found Carbon Dioxide cannot be buried successfully beneath the seabed between Fremantle and Rottenest,it appears now tax payers are to be slugged to the tune of approximately $1 million per year.
This particular site is contaminated, from BP using it as a dumping ground for various hazardous wastes, so who is responsible for the remediation? Seeing BP has used this site as a dumping ground for years, surely BP should be held responsible for the clean up not the tax payers.
This site is still not listed on the contaminated sites register, so the Government is breaking it's own rules.
It was noted with interest an article "Back to drawing board on P.I.C.L site" it referred to the Court government and how they purchased a 76 ha block of land from a Petrochemical Industries' Company LTD for $4.9 million in 1994 with tax payers money.
P.I.C.L was at the centre of the notorious WA Inc era in the 1980's which involved purchasing the ill fated block in an attempt to bail out the late Laurie Connell and Dallas Dempster it was estimated to cost tax payers $413 million, so in total $418 so the money train goes on .
BP and Rio Tinto who were joint partners in a 500 megawatt power station and were in negotiations with Land Corp to take a long term lease, well surprise surprise it all fell in a heap. It was found Carbon Dioxide cannot be buried successfully beneath the seabed between Fremantle and Rottenest,it appears now tax payers are to be slugged to the tune of approximately $1 million per year.
This particular site is contaminated, from BP using it as a dumping ground for various hazardous wastes, so who is responsible for the remediation? Seeing BP has used this site as a dumping ground for years, surely BP should be held responsible for the clean up not the tax payers.
This site is still not listed on the contaminated sites register, so the Government is breaking it's own rules.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Water
Water is another commodity that if we believe all we're told, there is a shortage. Another desalination plant is on the drawing board, so will the information from the experts be heeded or once again ignored?Water Corp are going through the process of attempting to have strict monitoring conditions in Cockburn Sound relaxed or removed.When will they realise these conditions are placed in the license for a very good reason.
So why are the public being asked to reduce their water usage, there seems to be plenty for the new water guzzling industries being constructed in the south. For that matter have government taken into consideration the increased population, according to the figures were looking at an extra 30,000 for the year. Is this why Water Corp want the new desal at Binningup, so why are the tax payers expected to foot the bill who is the real beneficiary?
The Corporation itself confirmed as recently as 2002 that catchment thinning would have doubled the run-off in high rain fall areas, IF it had been done. The main reason for low levels is reduced catchment inflow efficiency is because the corporation ceased catchment thinning and maintenance in the mid -1970's. By the Water Corp's own figures the rainfall on average had not decreased from 1910 to 2007, the average rainfall is the same.
Conservative indications are that a return to the previous 6 per cent efficiency would provide Perth with an additinal 120 GL's a year. Based on the government's cost forecast for Binningup RO plant, this would save tax payers nearly $3 billion in capital costs and $140 million a year in the cost of the water. (the costs are an approximation,they could be a lot higher by now)
The irony and hypocrisy is that the same government is blaming our "water crisis" on climate change and global warming & is demanding that industry and the public substantially reduce their carbon footprint, while they are hell-bent on installing these power guzzling,CO2-polluting and expensive (monuments) desalination plants .
So why are the public being asked to reduce their water usage, there seems to be plenty for the new water guzzling industries being constructed in the south. For that matter have government taken into consideration the increased population, according to the figures were looking at an extra 30,000 for the year. Is this why Water Corp want the new desal at Binningup, so why are the tax payers expected to foot the bill who is the real beneficiary?
The Corporation itself confirmed as recently as 2002 that catchment thinning would have doubled the run-off in high rain fall areas, IF it had been done. The main reason for low levels is reduced catchment inflow efficiency is because the corporation ceased catchment thinning and maintenance in the mid -1970's. By the Water Corp's own figures the rainfall on average had not decreased from 1910 to 2007, the average rainfall is the same.
Conservative indications are that a return to the previous 6 per cent efficiency would provide Perth with an additinal 120 GL's a year. Based on the government's cost forecast for Binningup RO plant, this would save tax payers nearly $3 billion in capital costs and $140 million a year in the cost of the water. (the costs are an approximation,they could be a lot higher by now)
The irony and hypocrisy is that the same government is blaming our "water crisis" on climate change and global warming & is demanding that industry and the public substantially reduce their carbon footprint, while they are hell-bent on installing these power guzzling,CO2-polluting and expensive (monuments) desalination plants .
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
The Sound
Since the beginning of industrialisation in the Kwinana area, successive governments have allowed the destruction of Cockburn Sound by industry.
It now appears nothing has changed,with the Water Corporation wanting to disregard key ministerial environmental conditions of their license.They want to cease certain monitoring and pass the onus onto the Cockburn Sound Management Council - with a $10,000 donation which will no where near cover their costs.
The Kwinana Industries Council has agreed to this farce and offered another $30,000. This is not the way to gain community support,we expect thorough monitoring to be carried out for the life of the Sound or Industry & them abiding to best practices & their duty of care.
The KIC's director said in a local paper "community perception of the KIC is not great."
Do they honestly believe that donating a little money will make the problems go away,the monitoring that needs to be done would cost Cockurn Sound Management the same amount as Water Corp.
It's a shame to see the hard work of what once was a great organisation ( Community Industry Forum) going down hill. At one time industry and community worked together,now when new industries start up they don't have the courtesy to inform the people they will be effecting with their noise or pollution.
Many industries in the Rockingham/Kwinana areas are doing great things but these are being over shadowed by spin from those that are doing little to nothing in an attempt to make all industry look good.
The people would love to see the "GEM" we once had returned sparkling waters, pristine beaches and an abundance of fish . We were told not so long ago to forget what we once had, as we will never get it back.
It now appears nothing has changed,with the Water Corporation wanting to disregard key ministerial environmental conditions of their license.They want to cease certain monitoring and pass the onus onto the Cockburn Sound Management Council - with a $10,000 donation which will no where near cover their costs.
The Kwinana Industries Council has agreed to this farce and offered another $30,000. This is not the way to gain community support,we expect thorough monitoring to be carried out for the life of the Sound or Industry & them abiding to best practices & their duty of care.
The KIC's director said in a local paper "community perception of the KIC is not great."
Do they honestly believe that donating a little money will make the problems go away,the monitoring that needs to be done would cost Cockurn Sound Management the same amount as Water Corp.
It's a shame to see the hard work of what once was a great organisation ( Community Industry Forum) going down hill. At one time industry and community worked together,now when new industries start up they don't have the courtesy to inform the people they will be effecting with their noise or pollution.
Many industries in the Rockingham/Kwinana areas are doing great things but these are being over shadowed by spin from those that are doing little to nothing in an attempt to make all industry look good.
The people would love to see the "GEM" we once had returned sparkling waters, pristine beaches and an abundance of fish . We were told not so long ago to forget what we once had, as we will never get it back.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
To Qusetion Why
The latest report out by KIC leaves us to question, how can they continue making the same claim of decreased noise levels. It's true Noise would be one of the most difficult issues they have to deal with, so why not be upfront in regard to the findings or lack there of.
Results they appear to use are updates from 2005 when the Noise reference Group first started,noise was not compliant then nor is it now. The report by SVT in 2001 was monitoring supposedly carried out in Hillman. Oh Gee...! there is a slight problem, the monitor was set up in Careeba.
In 2005 modelling was done by Herring Storer, then in 2007 The Barn Owl was carried out at Chalk Hill. The problem that eventuated, due to weather conditions the monitoring was never completed, so instead of 12 hours there was only 2 hours of data, which was insufficient.The report was never signed off on, as no consensus could be reached. Yet KIC's continual claim is,
" there has been a net reduction in noise by industry despite higher production levels".
Come on people we aren't idiots !
There were only TWO people on the NRG that lived in the noise effected areas, so how did any of the others reach their conclusion? They would be unaware of, or to what extent the noise was effecting different areas through out the community.
The NRG consisted of people from local government,Department of Environment and Conservation and Community. It was chaired by Department of Industry & Resources who were supposedly independent, that is one we have not been able to work out we thought they were a government department.
Noise is complicated but in regard to those setting the noise limits (pollution) just how do they go about reaching different sound power levels for the different areas.Through the NRG different companies presented and by their own admission they were NOT noise compliant, so hopefully you can understand my dilemma.
If and when limits are changed we expect it to go through the proper channels, it can't be changed because it suits or without community consultation. Noise is pollution and an offense,we are entitled to a quality of life it's not all about making a million or two hang the neighbours.
Results they appear to use are updates from 2005 when the Noise reference Group first started,noise was not compliant then nor is it now. The report by SVT in 2001 was monitoring supposedly carried out in Hillman. Oh Gee...! there is a slight problem, the monitor was set up in Careeba.
In 2005 modelling was done by Herring Storer, then in 2007 The Barn Owl was carried out at Chalk Hill. The problem that eventuated, due to weather conditions the monitoring was never completed, so instead of 12 hours there was only 2 hours of data, which was insufficient.The report was never signed off on, as no consensus could be reached. Yet KIC's continual claim is,
" there has been a net reduction in noise by industry despite higher production levels".
Come on people we aren't idiots !
There were only TWO people on the NRG that lived in the noise effected areas, so how did any of the others reach their conclusion? They would be unaware of, or to what extent the noise was effecting different areas through out the community.
The NRG consisted of people from local government,Department of Environment and Conservation and Community. It was chaired by Department of Industry & Resources who were supposedly independent, that is one we have not been able to work out we thought they were a government department.
Noise is complicated but in regard to those setting the noise limits (pollution) just how do they go about reaching different sound power levels for the different areas.Through the NRG different companies presented and by their own admission they were NOT noise compliant, so hopefully you can understand my dilemma.
If and when limits are changed we expect it to go through the proper channels, it can't be changed because it suits or without community consultation. Noise is pollution and an offense,we are entitled to a quality of life it's not all about making a million or two hang the neighbours.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
The price to Pollute
In a trade between two of Australia's oldest companies,carbon emissions have been given an initial price of $19 a tonne before the Federal Governments emissions trading scheme
which begins in 2010.
When it begins, power users could be liable for nearly $12 billion in extra electricity costs a year.
I suppose this is where that 'boom' bit comes in, to bad their slow learners and haven't woken up to the fact the only one's benefiting from the BOOM are government & industry.
An analyst said 'she expected the government to recycle some of the money from auctioning carbon emission permits to compensate people for higher prices.In a recent deal AGL Energy sold Westpac 10,000 tonnes of emissions trading units in a transaction which will settle on February 1, 2012.
The emissions trading scheme is obviously going to have a significant impact on the pricing of electricity.In Europe where carbon is traded regularly emissions are sold in batches of 10,000 tonnes,Westpac traded 1 million tonnes in that market last year.Mr Fraser commented that "Ultimately this will be a several billion dollar-a year market,it's a whole new energy economy that's been created here".
The Federal Government unveils its green paper on an emissions trading scheme in July, and will draft legislation in December.
Our point in regard to Carbon Trading is, at the end of the day it's still going to end up in the atmosphere except governments have found another way to make more money.Government have said they will plant more trees, so why are they continuing to log the old growth Forests & allowing industry to clear fell more land for mining.
Where are all the trees they've planted,where is the renewable energy solar,wind farms or wave power?
If the government of the day had the intelligence they would realise it's time to slow the boom down and look at the long term benefit,but that takes vision which they seem to be lacking.By slowing the economy ie gas & iron-ore why not use the OPEC Countries system ( supply and demand) have a long term benefit for ALL Australians instead of selling our country off at bargain basement prices. Stop importing labour just to make a quick buck for the now.
which begins in 2010.
When it begins, power users could be liable for nearly $12 billion in extra electricity costs a year.
I suppose this is where that 'boom' bit comes in, to bad their slow learners and haven't woken up to the fact the only one's benefiting from the BOOM are government & industry.
An analyst said 'she expected the government to recycle some of the money from auctioning carbon emission permits to compensate people for higher prices.In a recent deal AGL Energy sold Westpac 10,000 tonnes of emissions trading units in a transaction which will settle on February 1, 2012.
The emissions trading scheme is obviously going to have a significant impact on the pricing of electricity.In Europe where carbon is traded regularly emissions are sold in batches of 10,000 tonnes,Westpac traded 1 million tonnes in that market last year.Mr Fraser commented that "Ultimately this will be a several billion dollar-a year market,it's a whole new energy economy that's been created here".
The Federal Government unveils its green paper on an emissions trading scheme in July, and will draft legislation in December.
Our point in regard to Carbon Trading is, at the end of the day it's still going to end up in the atmosphere except governments have found another way to make more money.Government have said they will plant more trees, so why are they continuing to log the old growth Forests & allowing industry to clear fell more land for mining.
Where are all the trees they've planted,where is the renewable energy solar,wind farms or wave power?
If the government of the day had the intelligence they would realise it's time to slow the boom down and look at the long term benefit,but that takes vision which they seem to be lacking.By slowing the economy ie gas & iron-ore why not use the OPEC Countries system ( supply and demand) have a long term benefit for ALL Australians instead of selling our country off at bargain basement prices. Stop importing labour just to make a quick buck for the now.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Study Links Air Pollution
Another AIR Quality study was carried out by a country that at least gives a damn when it comes to communities and their well being.The latest findings, " Though the evidence is mixed at this point, an association was found between cardiovascular admissions and course particulate matter.So it's believed at this point it's important to update this study & others like it using continual monitoring data" collected by government pollution sensors across the USA.
There have been others that have previously identified the dangers to hearts and lungs posed by fine airborne particles,which are smaller than 2.5 microns across or 100 times tinier than the width of a human hair.Small particles released from vehicle exhaust emissions and other sources can penetrate deeper into the lungs,if they become trapped it raises the risk of illness that include emphysema,lung cancer and heart disease.
Course particles that range between 2.5 microns and 10 in diameter tend to lodge in the upper respiratory tract when inhaled.Researchers examined 7 years worth of air pollution data from 108 counties across the US and compared it with 3.7 million hospitalised for cardiovascular disease & 1.4 million for respiratory illnesses.They correlated emergency visits to days when monitoring stations detected heavy levels of large particle pollution,which over a one year period equated to 1,800 with cardio disease in study areas.
Seeing as the Australian government were prepared to place industry so close to built up areas, with prevailing winds along with odours or inversion layers, just what is in the AIR we breath what are we being exposed to on a daily basis? Why isn't the necessary independent monitoring being done, how much longer are we to be treated like mushrooms ?The government receive $10-12 billion from the Kwinana strip alone, yet the same excuse is regularly used,there isn't the funds or qualified people.
To think a multi national company came out warning government if the Carbon price were set too high, regional areas could face big job losses in curtailing the nations greenhouse emissions.
The technology is there so it should be a condition of their license , if their not prepared to update emissions technology as it eventuate, no license to operate .
There have been others that have previously identified the dangers to hearts and lungs posed by fine airborne particles,which are smaller than 2.5 microns across or 100 times tinier than the width of a human hair.Small particles released from vehicle exhaust emissions and other sources can penetrate deeper into the lungs,if they become trapped it raises the risk of illness that include emphysema,lung cancer and heart disease.
Course particles that range between 2.5 microns and 10 in diameter tend to lodge in the upper respiratory tract when inhaled.Researchers examined 7 years worth of air pollution data from 108 counties across the US and compared it with 3.7 million hospitalised for cardiovascular disease & 1.4 million for respiratory illnesses.They correlated emergency visits to days when monitoring stations detected heavy levels of large particle pollution,which over a one year period equated to 1,800 with cardio disease in study areas.
Seeing as the Australian government were prepared to place industry so close to built up areas, with prevailing winds along with odours or inversion layers, just what is in the AIR we breath what are we being exposed to on a daily basis? Why isn't the necessary independent monitoring being done, how much longer are we to be treated like mushrooms ?The government receive $10-12 billion from the Kwinana strip alone, yet the same excuse is regularly used,there isn't the funds or qualified people.
To think a multi national company came out warning government if the Carbon price were set too high, regional areas could face big job losses in curtailing the nations greenhouse emissions.
The technology is there so it should be a condition of their license , if their not prepared to update emissions technology as it eventuate, no license to operate .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
