The Shire Green Web

Connecting people & places . .

Pages

Local articles . . .

Local articles . . .

Intro - Local people and local organisations are welcome to submit articles and photos for inclusion here  

Former Liberal voter in Pine Rivers Shire (Qld), Captain Cameron Leckie, tells his local council to take off their blinkers - World oil supplies are on the slippery slope . . .    Back to the top

On the 23rd January 2007, Captain Cameron Leckie gave his local council (Pine Rivers), a detailed presentation on the imminent decline of global oil reserves, including a large amount of written material for them to consider later.  They must all be prodigious speed readers, for less than 24 hours later (at a committee meeting), they'd decided to  draft a reply to Cameron worthy of "Yes Minister."  Maybe they think that by ignoring a predicted 32% decline in World oil supplies by 2020, it will just go away? Or maybe they think it's too trivial for their serious consideration?  So here's their reply (brush off?), to Cameron:-

A local Sydney Council (Marrickville), first in Australia to adopt the "Oil Depletion Protocol" . . Back to the top

From the Greens-Media:-
 
Marrickville the first Australian council to adopt Oil Depletion Protocol  -  12 February 2007
 
(Left, Marrickville Councillor Fiona Byrne)

Marrickville Council voted for The Greens proposal to adopt the 'Oil Depletion Protocol' at this weeks council meeting in recognition of the problem of peak oil and will reduce its oil usage by 3% per year.
 
The oil depletion protocol commits countries or organisations to reduce oil consumption by the world oil depletion rate. This equates to below 3% per year. By reducing oil consumption it is hoped to soften the blow of reaching peak oil and the higher and increasingly volatile world oil prices.
 
"By committing to the oil depletion protocol, Marrickville Council will reduce its dependence on oil and will prepare for a world where oil is far scarcer and more expensive," said Greens Councillor and candidate for Marrickville Fiona Byrne.
 
"I believe Marrickville is the first council to commit to the protocol in Australia and joins a few leading cities in the world such as San Francisco and Portland in the United States.
 
"Council will now reduce its oil usage by 3% per year by using more fuel efficient vehicles and reducing vehicle use. Eventually hybrid and electric vehicles may also be considered.
 
"Hybrid garbage trucks are already in use overseas. Each hybrid truck can save around 5000 litres of fuel and reduce CO2 emissions by 13 tonnes annually. Residents will also find that hybrid trucks are also quieter.
 
"The geological experts predict that we will hit peak oil this year or in the next few years. Oil will become scarce as demand continues to increase. Price rises and volatility will increase.
 
"By committing to the protocol Marrickville will be well prepared for oil price rises and volatility as well as address climate change. This is an investment for the future.
 
"I hope that the lead taken by Marrickville Council will encourage residents and businesses to also look at their oil usage and reduce oil dependence," said Councillor Byrne
 
Greens Senator for NSW, Kerry Nettle congratulated the council for adopting the protocol and challenged other councils and state and federal government's to also adopt the protocol.
 
"Just like climate change the government has its head in the sand about peak oil. The Greens have been campaigning for the issue to be taken seriously and for Australia to adopt the protocol and start reducing our oil consumption," said Senator Nettle.
 

Contact: Fiona Byrne 0401 719 120         Senator Nettle (Jon Edwards) 0428 213 146      Back to the top

Queensland's local press rises to the challenge of oil depletion . . .      Back to the top

This article appeared in The Queensland Times, (page 4), on Monday February 5th 2007.  And here's some info about the circulation and geography of this local paper.  Click on the article to go to the larger, readable version.

Back to the top of this page

It would be a huge leap forward if insurers and banks would offer reduced rates to businesses and individuals who consciously reduce their carbon footprint (and do so in a co-ordinated & well marketed way) - so Beaudesert Shire mum & part time nurse Kim Bax goes straight to the top by putting this question to the CEO of the World's biggest re-insurer, Swiss Re (Mr. Peter Forstmoser) . . . So here's the:- Email to Mr. Forstmoser,  Reply from Mr. Peter Forstmoser's office (10 Jan 2007) and the Further response from Kim Bax (10 Jan 2007)  and some more follow-up from Kim Bax (16 Jan 2007)    Back to the top of this page

Mr. Peter Forstmoser, CEO of Swiss Re

Kim Bax, Beaudesert Shire mum & part time nurse

Email to Mr. Forstmoser (from Kim Bax):-    Back to the top of this page        Back of the top of this article

Goodmorning,

I'm just a mother and part time nurse, not a formal member of  any organisation.  However, as I know you realise, Global Warming is a  catastrophic emergency.  Please give a minute to my simple idea, not that this is the "Solution" (there are NO single, simple solutions), but maybe just an initiative that could prove to be quite powerful.

I pay a bit  extra, and get "Green Power" from my electricity provider - plus I do other things to reduce my energy use (and that of my family).  Why don't  insurers reward people who do these things with discounted insurance rates  (for various purposes)?  It would be great for the environment, great for marketing insurance products - and great for marketing energy saving and renewable power.  The same scheme could also apply to businesses.  Also, mortgage providers could provide a slight discount to customers on their  home loans (and maybe business loans), for the same reasons. Seems to me that these actions would be win/win.

Anyway, here's me:-

http://www.theshiregreenweb.org/about.htm

And here's a key Australian event on renewable energy and climate change  I'm going to quite soon:-

http://www.ethosfoundation.org/_upload/077c275d971b4ac2b4e7bd3bc8caf897.pdf

I would be very interested to hear back from you, and I hope I do hear from you.

Very best wishes, Kim         Back to the top of this page        Back of the top of this article

Reply from Mr. Peter Forstmoser's office:-        Back to the top of this page        Back of the top of this article

Dear Kim,

Thanks for your message to Peter Forstmoser.  I work in the Sustainability Team of Swiss Re and would like to respond to your suggestions.

There are indeed several insurance companies that offer discounted auto-insurance to consumers with climate-friendly cars (Sompo, Tokio Marine, Farmers Insurance, Traveller's Insurance, etc.).  I also know of  banks that provide lower interest rates for those mortgages that are connected to houses that are build with special environmental/engergy-saving considerations in mind.

As you may know, Swiss Re is a reinsurer and therefore does not typically cater to the end consumer.  Yet, in our underwriting decision making Swiss Re does take sustainability (environmental, social) criteria into consideration. If you would like to learn more about our committment to sustainability, please have a look at our sustainability report 2005.

A brand new program, that was just launched last week is our COYou2 programme, by which the company subsidizes employees' private investments in CO2-reducing measures.  You can find a press release about this at www.swissre.com

Thanks again for your comments.

Best regards, Britta

Britta Rendlen |Sustainability Advisor – Sustainability and Emerging Risk Management
Swiss Reinsurance Company | Mythenquai 50/60, CH-8022 Zurich
Direct: +41 43 285 4987 Fax: +41 43 282 4987                                             Back to the top of this page        Back of the top of this article

Further response from Kim Bax:-              Back to the top of this page        Back of the top of this article

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly Britta, much appreciated.

However, it would be good if you could please pass this correspondence directly on to Mr. Peter Forstmoster. Can you please do this?

I realise that your company doesn't cater directly to the consumer - I also understand (as you say), that there have been several related initiatives from banks and insurance (of the type you mention).

However, what is needed is a co-ordinated and comprehensive effort to extend those tentative beginnings across many more companies - and to include benefits to consumers who choose to pay extra for (and purchase), "Green power."

Obviously, as "Just a mother" with no organisational links, I don't have the contacts or resources to start such a sweeping initiative - which is why I have written to Mr Peter Forstmoser.

As I'm sure both you and Mr Peter Forstmoser realise, out situation is gravely urgent - and there is an urgent need for a co-ordinated business response to encourage consumers to conserve energy, plus purchase energy from renewable resources.  Swiss Re is in a key position to do this.

Ad hoc and piece meal are no longer adequate, and no longer serve us.

I look forward to hearing from you again soon,

Very best wishes, Kim                     Back to the top of this page        Back of the top of this article

Some more follow-up from Kim Bax:-                  Back to the top of this page        Back of the top of this article

Goodmorning again Britta,

And again, thankyou for your interest in this issue (it's appreciated).  Just a short note to let you know that I've had some fantastic feedback re this tentative initiative.

As you know, I'm circulating the link to this correspondence (with a supporting email), to all the banks, insurance companies and credit unions in Australia - plus politicians at all levels, and various community and environmental groups.

This morning, I had a phone call from ANZ Bank, saying they've had many enquiries from customers re reduced rates for cutting down green house gases - and that my email was being passed on to the highest levels straight away.  I've also had many quick (and personally supportive), email responses from financial institutions, telling me that my correspondence would be passed on to CEO immediately.

Also, I was watching Sky News yesterday, about the ongoing lack of snow in many key resorts - and they also had a counter at the bottom of the screen showing tons of carbon dioxide released every second.  So maybe this is right time for bold initiatives that can pull all this bubbling concern and good will together in a coherent and organised way.  And Swiss Re (with its outstanding environmental record and global reach), is probably in a key position to this.

Very best wishes, Kim             Back to the top of this page        Back of the top of this article

Launch of a new Australian environment magazine, and some long standing questions to Sir Richard Branson (a high profile & advertised member of their editorial advisory board), about making carbon credits easily and conveniently available to his passengers - via their editor Sara Phillips  (with a PS too)  - and here's the 11 Jan 2007 reply of Sara Phillips (refusing to question Richard Branson), with a further reply from Kim Bax   - plus the further response from Sara Phillips - and a further reply from Kim Bax  Back to the top

Quote - "G is a glossy and stylish guide to green living in the 21st century: an environment-friendly consumer guide for people who want to reduce their impact on the planet but don't want to compromise on quality of life. Every bi-monthly issue features great ideas for greener living, and practical, evidence-based solutions to living a more environmentally friendly lifestyle. The first issue was the January/February 2007 edition, which went on sale in newsagencies and Coles supermarkets across Australia on Wednesday 22 November 2006. Cont. HERE

Quote - "Editor, Sara Phillips has been an environment journalist for more than six years. With a bachelor of arts in English and bachelor of science in zoology from the University of Melbourne, as well as a graduate diploma in science communication from the Australian National University. The Deputy Editor of COSMOS since February 2005, she wrote a cover story on Australia's water crisis which won her a 2006 Reuters/World Conservation Union Award for Excellence in Environmental Reporting. Instrumental in the editorial development of G Magazine, she was appointed Editor in November 2006."

Quote - "Sir Richard Branson is an English entrepreneur best known for his Virgin brand, which is associated with some 200 companies in 30 countries encompassing air and rail travel, mobile phones, finance, music, hotels and sub-orbital spaceflight. Knighted in 1999, he is the patron of the International Rescue Corps, a British search and rescue charity, and recently committed to invest billions of dollars over the next decade to fight global warming."

From Kim Bax  (Cedar Vale, Beaudesert Shire), To Sara Phillips - "Hi Sara, great to see your new magazine.  Congratulations.  I bought the first issue from the Ipwsich Hospital shop (Queensland), in the course of a nursing shift on new years eve.  It's interesting to see you have Sir Richard Branson on your editorial board.  Maybe this is an opportunity to get answers from him that I've been trying (unsuccessfully), to get since April 2006 - despite emailing Australian CEO Brett Godfrey many times.

In a nutshell, though I flew very recently with Virgin Airlines, there wasn't a shred of in-flight information on global warming, or on how passengers could offset their carbon emissions via carbon credits.  Neither is there a shred of information on this on the Virgin Airlines website (at least, last time I looked).  Surely, if Sir Richard Branson is serious about his global warming initiatives, one of the simplest and easiest things to would be to make carbon credits easily and readily available to Virgin Airline passengers?  It's this that I've banging on about for over 8 months, with zero success.  I've lost count of the number of emails I've sent.  Once, a Virgin Airline employee rang me at home (about 3 months ago), but there's been complete silence since.  He told me this simple idea "Wasn't as easy as it seemed" (or words to that effect), though the "Complexity" of it escapes me.  Anyway, he promised to get back to me - but never did.

So Sara, could you do me a favour? Please ask Sir Richard Branson what's going on.  Surely to goodness, this is a simple, cheap and obvious initiative.  I look forward to hearing from you (and Richard).  Very best wishes, Kim"

ps - Sara, since sending you the above questions (and circulating them on various environmental email lists), I've been sent some further information re George Monbiot's searing critique of Richard Branson.  I note that Richard has avoided responding to Monbiot directly, which hardly seems like cricket, given Richard's well known penchant for publicity - and George Monbiot's well known standing as an environmental commentator and journalist.  Therefore, could you please pass on another question to Richard Branson for me?  Could you ask him if he'd be willing to publicly (and personally), debate the issues with George on TV or radio?  Look forward to hearing from you (and Richard).  cc George Monbiot   

Back to the top of this question     Back to the top of this page

Reply from Editor Sara Phillips:-           Back to the top of this question     Back to the top of this page

Hello Kim,
Thanks for your email.
I'm afraid it would not be appropriate for our magazine to be making business suggestions to Virgin Airlines. Nor would be it be appropriate for us to tell anyone how to run their lives or businesses. Our magazine is about giving people ideas and inspiration, rather than lecturing. So I'm afraid I won't be raising your concerns with Richard Branson.

I like your ideas, however, so best of luck pursuing them.
Regards,  Sara


Sara Phillips, Editor, G Magazine, PO Box 302, Strawberry Hills, NSW 2012
Web: www.gmagazine.com.au

Bell Awards¹ Best Small Publisher 2006               Back to the top of this question     Back to the top of this page

Further reply from Kim Bax:-             Back to the top of this question     Back to the top of this page

Dear Sara,

It seems your magazine is prepared to proudly (and prominently), boast about having Richard Branson on your editorial board - plus publish an uncritical and glowing account of his environmental credentials, but you refuse point blank to contact him (or question him), about a simple environmental request from a reader.  In fact, a request from someone who has taken the time and interest to purchase your magazine.

Not only that, your use of the "Lecture" is perjorative, demeaning and insulting.  I am not engaged in "Lecturing," I am asking simple, straight forward questions - which Richard Branson has completely ignored for many months.

By implication, you also accuse me of not being in the business of giving people "Ideas" and "Inspiration" - but rather, cast me as some dreary person who (unlike yourself), is in the business of sermonising.

I very much resent your implied insults - plus I'm amazed that you're comfortable with responding to a honest request from a first time reader in such a fashion.

How dare you refer to my inspirational and creative questions so offensively.  What's the problem?  Are you happy to bask in Richard Branson's reflected limelight, but completely avoidant when it comes to asking him the hard questions (or any questions for that matter).

If you don't want to question Richard Branson, that's fair enough - but if you want the glory of his fame and reputation (which you obviously do), then step up to the plate and take some of the responsibility that comes with that.

Regards Kim

PS - I'll be publishing this correspondence very soon on my site, with a specific link - then circulating that link to my many environmental-issue email lists within Australia.

Back to the top of this question     Back to the top of this page

Further reply from Editor Sara Phillips:-             Back to the top of this question     Back to the top of this page

Hello Kim,
I'm sorry you've taken offence. None was intended.
Regards, Sara

Back to the top of this question     Back to the top of this page

Further Reply from Kim Bax:-                Back to the top of this question     Back to the top of this page

Thanks for that Sara.  But I gather from this too that you're still refusing point blank to put my questions to Richard Branson, who you prominently advertise as being on your editorial board?

Regards Kim

Back to the top of this question     Back to the top of this page

Nuclear debate, an email exchange with Queensland Federal MP Peter Lindsay (Herbert)       

Back to the top of this page

1. Email from Kim Bax    2. Reply from Peter Lindsay MP   3. Response from Kim Bax   4. Further response from Peter Lindsay MP    5. Further reply from Kim Bax    6. Further invitation from Kim Bax  7. Reply to invitation from Peter Lindsay MP   8. Further response from Kim Bax  9. Email from Kim Bax (8 Jan 2007), circulated to all Federal politicians (Qld)    10. Reply to that email from Peter Lindsay MP (8 Jan 2007)  11. Further reply from Kim Bax to Peter Lindsay  & PS from Kim Bax

1. Here's the email Beaudesert Shire mum & part time nurse Kim Bax circulated to all of Queensland's Federal politicians on Saturday 30th December 2006:-       Back to top of this email exchange          Back to the top of this page

"I've just sent the missive below to approx 111 local newspapers Queensland-wide, and approx 300 local papers Australia-wide:-

Letter to the Editor - Nuclear Power, 38 words:-

'No nuclear plant in the World has survived without massive tax payer subsidies.  It's not an energy solution, it's corporate welfare.  John Howard's more interested in pork barrelling his wealthy mates than providing Australians with safe, renewable power.'

From Mrs. Kim Bax, 77 Orion Road, Cedar Vale, Qld 4285  Phone 5543 1796 or 041 270 8451"

2. And here's the response she had from Peter Lindsay MP on Sunday 31st December 2006:-     Back to top of this email exchange

Back to the top of this page

"No it's not corporate welfare...it's the elimination of greenhouse gas. When the real cost of coal fired stations on our environment is taken into account, nuclear energy is both cheaper and safer.
 
By the way John Howard will be long gone before any nuclear plant is built in Australia.
 
Peter"

3. And here's how Kim replied (same day):-      Back to top of this email exchange      Back to the top of this page

"Peter, I am just a mum and part time nurse - not a politician who is paid a relatively large sum (compared to other workers), to represent the public interest.  Neither do I have research staff and similar resources at my finger tips.  Why is it then, that I - and not you - can do the simple research necessary to face reality?

Is it that, as in the lead up to the disastrous invasion of Iraq, reality is inconvenient to the party line?  Is there any point Peter, at which your kids and grand kids will be more important than the party line?

All stages of the nuclear fuel cycle, from mining, transportation, crushing, refining and decomissioning/storage (relating to nuclear waste), expend large quantities of CO2 - as does the construction of the massive concrete nuclear power stations.  And any significant increase in the uptake of nuclear power will quickly deplete the higher grade ores, necessitating the crushing/refining of lower grade ores (much more fossil fuel intensive). And when you get to the point of mining much lower grade ores, it turns out that you expend more energy in the process than the ultimately recoverable uranium can produce anyway.  In other words, the "Energy Return on Energy Invested" goes negative.

Nuclear physicists Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith explain the dilemma here:-

http://www.stormsmith.nl/

And in much more detail (in relation to CO2), here:-

http://www.stormsmith.nl/report20050803/Chap_1.pdf

And in relation to the above papers, here's the comments of Australian engineer Dave Kimble:-

<<In the paper "Nuclear Power : the energy balance" by J.W. Storm and P. Smith (2005, the authors calculate that with high quality ores, the CO2 produced by the full nuclear life cycle is about one half to one third of an equivalent sized gas-fired power station.

For low quality ores (less than 0.02% of U3O8 per tonne of ore), the CO2 produced by the full nuclear life cycle is EQUAL TO  that produced by the equivalent gas-fired power station.>>

Link here:-

http://www.peakoil.org.au/nuclear.co2.htm

And then of course, when the proverbial finally hits the fan (e.g. only "Energy negative" very low grade ores are available around the planet), our kids and grandkids are left with useless concrete monstrosities (when the money and energy used to build them could have been put into renewables), plus huge piles of toxic sludge that will glow in the dark for centuries. 

It's insanity to squander our current energy resources on ANOTHER non-renewable resource.

Want to fight global warming Peter?  How about signing up to Kyoto like almost every other country on earth, plus invest in solar, wind and other non-toxic stuff.  What's the problem?  Not enough sun in Australia?

And as for our tax payer dollars, here's a challenge for you Peter.  Provide me with the details of any private nuclear power company on the planet that has survived without massive government subsidies.  And then provide me with the details of any private nuclear power company that pays for its own disaster/liability insurance.  But then that's what corporate welfare's all about isn't it? Corporate profit at public risk - and public clean up.  Just take the money the money and run . . .

As I said, John Howard's more interested in fattening his wealthy mates than in the real welfare of his kids, grand kids and great grand kids."

4. And here's the further response from Peter Lindsay MP (1st January 2007):-      Back to top of this email exchange

Back to the top of this page

Kim

Don't think of the past, think of the future. After all that's your mission in life to care for your kids.

So your quest to get an answer on past construction and operation of nuclear plants is not relevant to the future. My statement makes it clear that as coal burning is forced to become cleaner, costs will rise and nuclear will not need a subsidy.

Comparative levelised costs per megawatt hour at 2006 prices are:

Nuclear
$40 - $65

Coal
$28 - $38

Coal supercritical pulverised coal with carbon capture and storage
$60 - $100

Coal integrated gassification combined cycle with carbon capture and storage
$50 - $100

Gas
$31 - $48

Gas integrated gasification combined cycle with carbon capture and storage
$50 - $95

Wind high quality wind sites
$52

Solar Thermal
$85

Solar Photovoltaic
$120

So you can see now why your question is not relevant in the future. Nuclear compares very favorably to clean coal and renewavble sources of energy.

So if you want your kids to have the best future, don't rule out nuclear yet.

Please pass this to your email lists.

Peter

Back to top of this email exchange         Back to the top of this page

5. Further reply from Kim Bax (1st January 2007):-     Back to top of this email exchange         Back to the top of this page

OK then Peter, I'm not supposed to think of the past - only the future.  So here's my questions about the future (though I admit it, I've slipped number one in about the past):-

1.  Do you admit then that (a) no nuclear power company on the planet has ever operated without large public subsidies, and that (b) no nuclear power company on the planet pays its own disaster/liability insurance - and that (c) no nuclear power company on the planet is committed to paying the full clean up/storage costs of nuclear waste?

2.  Do you admit that (a) that nuclear power does NOT have "Zero emissions" (relating to CO2), and (b) creates far more CO2 than wind or solar?

3.  Do you absolutely guarantee that nuclear power companies will not receive public subsidies?

4.  Do you absolutely guarantee that nuclear power companies will be forced to pay for their own liability/disaster insurance?

5.  Do you absolutely guarantee that nuclear power companies will be forced to pay full price for the long term storage of nuclear waste?

6. Do you absolutely guarantee that there will be no nuclear accidents or spillages?  Let's face it, when's the last time wind or solar created an environmental time bomb? And then, what's the cost of a life?  What's the cost of a child's life?  The risks might be "Acceptable" to corporate bean counters in their ivory towers - but tell me Peter, what level of risk will YOU accept for your children and grand children, considering wind and solar carry NO risk?  Do the cold figures above factor in the cost of a child's life?

7.  Please provide me with the academic references (and links), for your figures/prices.  Without that, they're meaningless.

8.  As you appear to be a strong advocate of nuclear power, would you be willing to have a public debate on the health and environmental issues with Australian, and world renowned nuclear expert (and paeditrician), Dr. Leonie Caldicott?  Let me know, and I'll pass your offer on to her.  I'm sure a mutually acceptable venue could be arranged.

All the best, Kim

PS - I'll send a reminder in a month if I haven't heard in the interim, and I'd appreciate it if (in answering the above), you'd tabulate them 1 through to 8, like I have.  It's just that many ordinary working people out there suspect that politicians habitually try to slide past direct questions.  We wouldn't want to fuel those beliefs, would we?

Back to the top of this page             Back to top of this email exchange

6. Further invitation from Kim Bax (3rd January 2007):-               Back to the top of this page             Back to top of this email exchange

To: Peter Lindsay MP (Liberal, Herbert, Qld) Re: Nuclear debate

Hi there Peter,

Just to let you know I had a phone call from Dr. Helen Caldicott this morning, she's in Australia at the moment - and very keen to publically debate the issues with you, as I've asked you (if you feel you're up to it, are you?)  She's asked me to keep her updated on developments, which I will do.

Here's the related link on my site again:-

http://www.theshiregreenweb.org/index.htm#2jan2007

. . . and for the record, Dr. Caldicott has enormous standing re the issues of nuclear power and nuclear weapons, as this ABC 7.30 Report interview with Kerry O'Brien shows (3 July 2006):-

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1677668.htm

. . . so I'll also get in touch with Kerry O'Brien again (to-day if possible), re these latest developments.  Let's face it Peter, here's what you personally emailed me on the 1st January 2007:-

"Kim Don't think of the past, think of the future. After all that's your mission in life to care for your kids."

http://www.theshiregreenweb.org/articles.htm#peter2

. . . so that's exactly what I'm doing, thinking of my kids by contacting a qualified medical doctor and paeditrician.  I'm not afraid to talk to her, and I hope you're not either . . .

All the best, Kim                    Back to the top of this page             Back to top of this email exchange

7. Reply to invitation from Peter Lindsay MP (3rd January 2006):-   Back to the top of this page   Back to top of this email exchange

Kim
 
Community minded people who are interested in a genuine debate don't send the invitation with "as I've asked you (if you feel you're up to it, are you?) "
 
I'm not interested in invitations that include 'smart' comments.
 
Peter                                                                                 

Back to the top of this page             Back to top of this email exchange

8. Further response from Kim Bax (3rd January 2006):-             Back to the top of this page             Back to top of this email exchange

Peter, I sincerely apologise if you thought my comments were "Smart," but surely to goodness, the issue of children's health and lives is FAR more important than your injured sensibilities? Or do you disagree with that?

Don't you care about excess kids and babies dying from cancer?  Don't you want to hear about it from someone who can tell you?  Don't you want to publicly face up to some hard facts?  And if you think Dr. Helen Caldicott is wrong in her research and conclusions, well then, you'll have a golden opportunity to put her right publicly.

So, can you put her right publicly Peter? Can you represent your Government and your beliefs in that regard?  Isn't that the choice you made when you asked people to vote for you?

This isn't about you, and it isn't about me.  It's about born and unborn generations

And for goodness sake Peter, you are a public person taking a public stand on an issue of overwhelming importance.  Are you REALLY trying to tell me (and the whole World I may add), that you're incapable of taking the normal rough and tumble of politics?  And that when it comes to real hard-hitting debate with a World acknowledged expert, you just turn tail and run - using your "Injured feelings" as an excuse?

Maybe politics isn't the right career choice for you . . .

So OK, if that's what it takes to get an adult, considered and responsible reply from you, here's my very un-smart and polite invitation.  Let's face it, with the lives of my kids and grandkids on the line, I'll do whatever's needed:-

Dear Peter,

Australian medical doctor and paediatrician Dr. Helen Caldicott is a World renowned expert into the medical effects of nuclear power and weapons.  As you have taken a public stand on the issue of nuclear power, she would be willing to talk to you publicly on the issues.

As you can imagine, the dialogue between yourself and Dr. Caldicott would be of major interest to an overwhelming majority of Australians - therefore I humbly ask you to overcome whatever injured feelings you may have and participate in this for the greater public good.

I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Very best wishes, Kim

Back to the top of this page             Back to top of this email exchange

9. Email from Kim Bax (8 Jan 2007), circulated to all Federal politicians (Qld):- 

Back to the top of this page             Back to top of this email exchange

Qld nuclear MP in Sunday Mail . . .

. . . 7th January 2007.  Here's what Queenslander Peter Lindsay MP (Herbert), said:-

"Ten years ago, you wouldn't have talked nuclear at all, but people are realising there are 443 nuclear stations in the World, all operating perfectly safely."

. . . so it may be useful for Mr. Peter Lindsay (and the whole community), to read the overseas press:-

http://www.theshiregreenweb.org/#7jan2007

Back to the top of this page             Back to top of this email exchange

10. Reply to that email from Peter Lindsay MP (8 Jan 2007):-   Back to the top of this page             Back to top of this email exchange

Kim
 
Did you watch SBS last night at 8.35pm. They had a feature science program that utterly demolished the emotion swirling around the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

Peter  - Father of two children and happily married to their mother for 34 years.

Back to the top of this page             Back to top of this email exchange

11. Further reply from Kim Bax to Peter Lindsay:-             Back to the top of this page             Back to top of this email exchange

No I didn't Peter.  I didn't finish my nursing shift at the Hospital until 10.15pm last night.  But after a web search, I note the programme you refer to was called "Nuclear Nightmares," and was broadcast by SBS at 8.35pm last night.  It was produced in the UK.

However, no academic or scientific peered-reviewed sources are quoted on the SBS website for the programme.  There may be some of course, but none are stated.  Any scientific assertion or study is worthless unless it has been "Peere