We live and work from home in a quiet leafy area on the edge of The Gully on the edge of Katoomba.
Yet on a semi-regular basis different neighbours, unannounced, choose at times to suddenly start up loud machinery to break that peace and quiet.
Due common courtesy would be for a neighbour to inform nearby neighbours of pending machinery racket, but instead they couldn’t give a rats about imposing their noise pollution on neighbours.
Here are a few example snippets:
Monday · 24 Feb 2025 · 08:20…
Thursday · 20 Mar 2025 · 13:22…
Tuesday · 22 Apr 2025 · 08:36…
And, all this unwelcome noise culture is not just from selfish discourteous neighbours and their contractors.
Also, we cop similar machinery noise outside our window from:
Blue Mountains Council – roadworks, footpath works
NBN Internet concrete sawing for trenching optical fibre
Sydney Water
Electricians and other trades
Endeavour Energy’s – vegetation contractor Asplundh or Active Tree Services
Even RAAF low-flying its Hercules and Globemaster transport aircraft from Richmond Airbase at a close 500 feet directly over our home
And other private aircraft thinking they can flout the 1000 foot minimum altitude over built-up areas like ours (we know the low altitudes since we hold a commercial helicopter license)
All unannounced.
Perhaps Richmond Air Traffic Control Tower wouldn’t mind if one was to buzz the tower unannounced?
This is yet another example of neglected stormwater runoff maintenance by Blue Mountains {city} Council. Its in-creek water pollution trap (vane style) device is situated just above Katoomba Falls (left of photo).
Our editor standing in front of large piles of sand pollution re-directed out of Katoomba Falls Creek by an in-creek pollution control device (left). [Photo by The Habitat Advocate, taken Thursday 30th May-2024.]
This pollution detritus trap has, from our very local experience over two decades, been typically full of destroyed native vegetation debris caused by (a) torrential rain events, and (b) bushland clearing (deforestation). It has also been observed typically full of siltation from (a) upstream creek bank erosion through Maple Grove, (b) from housing construction sand and graded topsoil, and (c) from unfiltered urban stormwater waste ignored by Council since it was established first as the Municipality of Katoomba in 1889.
We have lived in The Gully Water Catchment since 2001. The Gully Water Catchment includes all land with watercourses and natural drainage flowing to Katoomba Falls, and we have taken a keen interest in this natural place.
Katoomba Falls Creek Catchment as it was then called in 1993. [SOURCE: The Bell Report]
From our observed experience as local environmental activists, Council’s ongoing management culture is such that it focuses on the capital works projects, obtains external grant funding (usually from the NSW Government) but then fails to budget and resource the ongoing maintenance of such capital works projects. This Baramy Trap is another case in point.
We repeatedly observe this pollution trap full and overflowing for months at a time, so the trap overflows and the continuing detritus flows downstream into the downstream Kedumba River to supply Greater Sydney’s drinking water to Sydney’s artificial Lake Burragorang for Sydney and a Greater Sydney so scarily morphing beyond. Currently this pollution trap has been full of sand sediment for many months.
The above photo shows the concrete ramp down to the pollution trap for access by a small front-end mechanical loader designed to remove the sand and debris pollution into a waiting tip-truck.
A Bobcat more suited to a construction site or at a beach as in this example photo. But at Blue Mountains {city} Council it’s Missing-In-Action.
Council is supposed to maintain it and clean it out on an ‘as-needed‘ basis periodically, but it doesn’t. The following is an extract of Baramy’s terms and conditions for this pollution device once installed.
We obtained a copy of these terms and conditions back in 2004 when The Friends of Katoomba Falls Creek Valley Inc. (the Friends) sought a quote for a similar but smaller pollution device (4 m long x 2.1 m wide) previously to be constructed in the same creek further upstream. Baramy’s quote came in at $26,000 and we referred this initiative for action/grant funding to Council – it being the custodian of this community land and the creek water catchment. But Council ignored it.
In this case Council is the “customer” having paid to have this much larger device constructed by Baramy Engineering in this different location much further downstream. It would have cost Council double, constructed probably around 2005 from one’s memory.
Council’s culture
Council has form of having its other non-environmental priorities, such as its latest newfangled ‘Planetary Health Initiative’ to showcase its environmental stewardship, when it is just more greenwashing.
Previously, all such debris, sediment and stormwater pollution into the creek used to just flow over Katoomba Cascades and further downstream over Katoomba Falls into the Kedumba River below and southward through the Jamison Valley.
Katoomba Cascades during full flood, situated about 100 metres downstream of the pollution trap. [SOURCE: Photo by Brigitte Grant, in article ‘Flood photos: Three-day drenching’ 22nd March 2021, Blue Mountains Gazette newspaper]
Katoomba Falls in full flood after days of heavy rain. The falls are situated about 300 metres downstream of the pollution trap. [SOURCE: Photographer unknown, in article ‘Police to co-ordinate evacuation of visitors trapped in Megalong Valley following landslip’ 4th April 2024, by Damien Madigan in Blue Mountains Gazette newspaper]
By the way, Upper Mountains sewage design (Katoomba, Leura, Wentworth Falls) back between 1907 and the 1990’s also flowed by iron piping down into the Jamison Valley to the former Leura Sewage Treatment Plant (historic image below) situated just by Leura Falls Creek between Echo Point and Sublime Point. The iron piping still can be seen along hiking tracks down the escarpment – the reason for the hiking tracks actually being first constructed.
We estimate that the current sand quantity filling this particular Creek Pollution Trap would be twenty cubic metres at least. We reported the problem to Council the day we took the first photo above – receiving Council’s Customer Service Request reference #533082.
We’re not the only locals having noticed this particular in-creek pollution trap full. Here’s another documented event of the very same pollution trap in February 2020. It was during the start of Australia’s East Coast Low events associated with the La Niña oscillating weather pattern:
Local Blue Mountains Aboriginal Gundungurra Elder, Mr David King, posting his video on Google YouTube protesting this exact same problem back in 2020. He even likened it Bondi Beach! [SOURCE]
This pollution trap’s exact location is situated beside Cliff Drive in Katoomba on the southern (downstream) side of the road at the road culvert over Katoomba Falls Creek. See the aerial photographic map below showing the yellow star.
An aerial photo of the 100 ha extent of The Gully Water Catchment juxtaposed upstream of this pollution trap. (NB. The “Katoomba Falls” photo label is incorrectly shown on this image, being rather just a Google nominal reference on the roadside. [SOURCE: Google Maps aerial photo, 2024]
This in-creek pollution trap was constructed by Baramy Engineering Pty Ltd of Katoomba for Council.
The Baramy Vane Trap showing the two rows of vertical galvanised steel vanes in the creek line that divert debris to the concrete trap device on the right.
The construction timing was a few years or so following The Greater Blue Mountains Area (1 million km2) being inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage list on 29th November 2000. Katoomba Falls flows into the Jamison Valley within this World Heritage area. The Jamison Valley, below these falls (and others) is also part of the drinking water catchment leading to Warragamba Dam supplying an ever-expanding Greater Sydney (current population approaching 5.5 million) adjoining the Blue Mountains region.
It is the researched opinion of The Habitat Advocate that this World Heritage listing was more about the human utility of protecting the value of Sydney’s drinking water in perpetuity, than it was about protecting the Eucalyptus forests of the Blue Mountains.
Katoomba Falls in the centre of this photo. The Gully Water Catchment upstream feeds natural and stormwater to these falls. The area covers an estimated 100 hectares a passes through a small valley up on the Blue Mountains plateau. This valley includes bushland and increasingly more and more housing development.
Notably, the sand type in this pollution trap appears to be not the naturally river sand, but consistently all the same light colour of Concrete Sand type used commercially in construction.
Concrete Sand
Concrete Sand is a coarser sand variety, pivotal in construction use to create strong and durable concrete structures. It’s typically made from crushed quartz, which gives it a rougher texture, enhancing the binding properties in concrete mixtures. This sand type is indispensable for laying robust foundations, constructing driveways, and forming sidewalks. This is exactly what is going on in The Gully Catchment upstream of this creek pollution trap.
Whereas the natural creek-bed of Katoomba Falls Creek is comprised of small pebbles. This editor knows this from being local to Katoomba Falls Creek Valley and having voluntarily performed Streamwatch quality monitoring of Katoomba Falls Creek for five years (2004-2008) on behalf of the Friends of Katoomba Falls Creek Valley, Inc. reporting to the Sydney Catchment Authority (SCA) within the New South Wales Governments Sydney Water department.
An example of the characteristics of creek-bed pebbles typically found naturally on the creek bed of Katoomba Falls Creek and other nearby watercourses – yet sadly beneath the years of construction sand sedimentation pollution from various identified housing construction sites throughout this plateaued catchment.
Council doesn’t analyse the sand to determine its source. Council doesn’t fine the polluters and issue a stop work court order. Council doesn’t employ a hydrologist or geotechnical engineer on its books. Yet where is all the housing constrution taking place in the Blue Mountains? Upstream of the World Heritage area.
In our view, Council is unfit in delegated stewardship as custodian of the geographic plateau of the Blue Mountains Local Government Area (LGA) atop the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area from its atrocious record of failings. So long as this pollution control device is full and overflowing, sand and debris is flowing downstream over Katoomba Cascades and Katoomba Falls into the Kedumba River. Parks Service (‘NPWS’) doesn’t monitor pollution levels or water quality in Kedumba River down in the Jamison Valley.
Council doesn’t enforce sediment controls are housing development sites upstream in The Gully Water Catchment (Katoomba Falls Creek Valley).
There are current two large housing subdivision sites contribution to sedimentation of the creek.
Some 13 odd hectares of fragile native bush surrounding an upland brook between Stuarts & Wellington Roads is to be bulldozed into a 53 cluster housing subdivision.
Bulldozing all the top soil throughout this side creek valley to Katoomba Falls Creek (Kedumba River). [Photo by Editor, Sunday 26th May 2024]
[5] ‘Pollution Control Device‘ quote prepared for ‘Frank Walford Park Bushcare’ (Friends of Katoomba Falls Creek Valley Inc), 2004-09-27, by Baramy Engineering Pty Ltd, 7 pages.
Smoking Ceremony or Smoke and Mirrors?Staged for the delegates by National Parks and Wildlife Service of New South Wales (NPWS), somewhere outside Sydney, Australia
[Source: ‘Global First Nations environmentalists share stories at the World Parks Congress in Sydney.5:30’, ^https://twitter.com/nitvnews, 20141113]
.
Every ten years a World Parks Congress is a forum staged by the International Union for Conservation of Nature to discuss the effectiveness of World Heritage Listed Protected Areas. For 2014, Parks Australia put up Sydney’s hand to host and fund it.
<<“We (Parks Australia) are delighted to be co-hosting the IUCN World Parks Congress with our colleagues in the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service – and look forward to welcoming inspiring leaders from around the world.”>>
IUCN’s vision is a “just world that values and conserves nature.” The theme for the 2014 conference is “Parks, people, planet: inspiring solutions”.
The last congress was in Durban, South Africa eleven years ago in 2003 and significant messages from that congress were that:
Considerable progress has been made in the establishment of protected areas although significant gaps remain
Protected areas face many challenges, and management effectiveness must be strengthened
Protected areas play a vital role in biodiversity conservation and sustainable development
A new deal is needed for protected areas, local communities and indigenous peoples
There is a need to apply new and innovative approaches for protected areas, linked to broader agendas
Protected areas require a significant boost in financial investment
Protected areas management must involve young people
.
Congress Cost Benefits ?
.
The obvious first question for the 2014 Sydney Congress is what are the outcomes from these seven messages of 2003?
The second question is what is to be the conservation return on investment of staging the 2014 congress in Sydney? That starts with Parks Australia and NPWS disclosing the full costs of the congress. How much will it have cost by the time this week is over? Five million? Ten million? Twenty million? More? That also involves disclosure of the onground conservation outcomes, if any. The congress hosts more than 5000 delegates for a week-long event in Sydney.
If the answers are not forthcoming and/or the performances less than satisfactory, then perhaps the money could have been better spent (invested) by Parks Australia and NPWS on specific onground conservation of current and worthy Protected Areas in Australia. So the third question is what is the opportunity cost of the 2014 IUCN World Parks Congress which could have delivered the IUCN vision of a “just world that values and conserves nature”?
.
Congress Opportunity Costs
.
According to IUCN director general, Julia Marton-Lefevre, assessments during the past decade have found that half of the world’s protected areas at best — and possibly as few as 20 per cent — are managed effectively. “Some are what we refer to as ‘paper parks’ ” – parks just on paper.
The Australian Government’s $180 million allocation to expand the park reserve system expired last year.
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is a case in point. It is the iconic Protected Area in Australia. Its World Heritage listing along with various national zoning, management plans, permits, education and incentives are supposed to protect and conserve the marine ecosystems and migratory species from human threats. But farm and urban runoff continues to contaminate the rivers that flow into the Reef.
In 2009 and 2011, mining company Queensland Nickel discharged nitrogen-laden water and 516 tonnes of toxic waste water into the Great Barrier Reef.
On 21 July 2013, on the second day of the biennial joint training exercise Talisman Saber, two American AV-8B Harrier fighter jets launched from aircraft carrier USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6) dropped four bombs, weighing a total 1.8 metric tons (4,000 pounds), into more than 50 metres (164 ft) of water. On 3rd April 2010, The Shen Neng 1, a Chinese ship carrying 950 tonnes of oil, ran aground, causing the 2010 Great Barrier Reef oil spill.
In December 2013, Greg Hunt, the Australian environment minister, approved a plan for dredging to create three shipping terminals as part of the expansion of an existing coal port. According to corresponding approval documents, the process will create around 3 million cubic metres of dredged seabed that will be dumped within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
On 31 January 2014, a permit was issued to allow three million cubic metres of sea bed from Abbot Point, north of Bowen, to be transported and unloaded in the waters of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, just outside of Abbot Bay. The dredge spoil will cloud the water and block sunlight, thereby starving sea grass and coral up to distances of 80 km away from the point of origin due to the actions of wind and currents. The dredge spoil will smother reef or sea grass to death, while storms can repeatedly resuspend these particles so that the harm caused is ongoing; secondly, disturbed sea floor can release toxic substances into the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
Dredging the Great Barrier Reef for bulk export shipping
.
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park has become just a blue line on a map. The trickle of funds for Australia’s national parks betrays a lack of appreciation of their economic contribution. Annual funding for the authority that runs Australia’s most famous reserve, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, is about 1 per cent of the $5.2bn it earns the country in tourism revenue.
Yet if the IUCN World Parks Congress cost a conservative $20 million to stage then a key opportunity cost would be the June 2014 Federal budget cuts to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.
The budget axed 17 staff including five of its’ directors positions. These positions included the director of heritage conservation, the director of policy and governance and the director of coastal ecosystems and water quality as part of an internal restructure. It’s being described as the greatest loss of expertise from Australia’s most important natural wonder and it comes at the very time the Great Barrier Reef is facing the greatest threat to its survival.
The Greater Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has been reduced by the Australian Government to being in name only and ineffective at protecting the reef.
Until recently, one of those five directors, Adam Smith, was charged with dealing with the contentious Abbot Point coal terminal development and the proposal to dump three million cubic metres of dredge spoil into the marine park. Despite Dr Smith’s concerns, the sea dumping was approved by the Marine Park Authority.
Dr Smith has since accepted voluntary redundancy and moved on after disagreeing with the Authority’s new economic leadership and values. Heritage conservation director Jon Day has left after 21 years, disillusioned too with the direction the Authority has taken to compromise the reef.
Next year UNESCO will decide whether to put the reef on its world heritage in danger list. Native Dugongs are already endangered. The deliberate extermination of the dugong and turtles which habituated the Gladstone area is a national tragedy. Dugongs are species listed under the Federal Environment Protection Biodiversity & Conservation Act, which requires the Federal government to legally protect these animals.
Prior to the massive dredging operation of 52 million cubic metres of seabed for the development of the world’s largest LNG Terminal, ( which is 62% completed) a study commissioned by the Gladstone Ports Corporation found that a take, or a quota, of more than zero dugongs would be unsustainable.
In the face of massive mortality of dugongs, turtles and inshore dolphins during the ongoing massive dredging, both the Federal and Queensland governments ignored the slaughter.
Look at the stranding data from the Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management. Monthly cumulative Dugong strandings by year for Queensland, up to 31 January 2012.
There are 22,000 vessel movements a month in Gladstone Harbour. No ship strikes of Dugongs or of Green Turtles need to be reported. No audit of environmental conditions has been undertaken by the Queensland or Federal Governments. The wholesale slaughter of our marine wildlife is the price Australians are paying for the transformation of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area into the world’s largest unregulated quarry.
Mass tourism operators good for the economy Getting up close to protected Humpback Whales within their 100 metre Protected Area
.
Australian protected areas have seen rule changes in the eastern states have allowed cattle to graze, recreational shooters to hunt and hotel developers to build in national parks. Shore-based recreational fishing has been allowed in areas of NSW marine parks previously zoned as no-take sanctuaries. National parks on land and in the ocean are dying a death of a thousand cuts, in the form of bullets, hooks, hotels, logging concessions and grazing licences.
Yet as host of the 2014 World Parks Congress, Australia is showcasing “our own inspiring places, inspiring people and inspiring solutions.” The Global Eco Forum within the Congress programme focuses on tourism exploitation of Protected Areas because like the new Greater Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the new values are not about conservation by the billions in revenue opportunity to Australia’s economy.
The October 2006 issue of National Geographic published an article “The Future of Parks: Hallowed Ground – Nothing is Ever Safe”.
It stated:
“Landscape and memory combine to tell us certain places are special, sanctified by their extraordinary natural merits and by social consensus.
We call those places parks, and we take them for granted.”
.
Sydney’s 2014 World Parks Congress appears to be expensive window dressing, showcasing fraudulent conservation of Protected Areas in Australia.
It’s termed Greenwashing. The opportunity cost of the 2014 Congress could have instead funded the retention of the previously effective Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and so done more for Protected Areas than all the pomp, promising, luncheons, showcasing, and talk-festing of the congress combined.
White Lemuroid Possum(Wet Tropics of Queensland World Heritage Area in Danger)Has the white lemuroid possum become the first mammal to go extinct due to global warming?
The species, normally found above 1000m, has not been sighted during any nighttime spotlighting expedition since 2005. Experts fear a temperature rise of 0.8 degrees Celsius may be to blame for the animal’s disappearance. [Source: ^http://www.wherelightmeetsdark.com/index.php?module=newswatch&NW_user_op=view&NW_id=453]
The following article was initially published on ^CanDoBetter.net 20091218 by Tigerquoll.
.
.
Copenhagen was a deadline without a plan.
Like Vikings, they rushed in. Too many issues, too many causes, too many delegates, too much reading, too many options and yet forced to deliver a global consensus solution in just 2 weeks!
Copenhagen’s approach ought to have been pragmatic. It needed to come down from the stratosphere in idealistic thinking to have focused on what could be the fastest means to offer the greatest reduction in greenhouse gases commencing in 2010.
Money is the obvious facilitator. The G11 response to the Global Financial Crisis ‘Mark I’ demonstrated the sheer scale of quick cash available from developed nations. Since developing nations need the cash, therein lies an obvious negotiating connector.
Try this scenario… rank countries on the basis of their aggregate carbon emissions and also carbon emissions per capita. The size of reduction responses and the amount of funding for carbon reduction programmes should be proportional on both bases. That is, the worst emitting developed nations pay more, and the worst emitting/deforesting developing nations get compensated more not to log.
Pay compensation to countries to stop deforestation is simply a matter of money and there is certainly enough of that around it seems. This should start by Christmas – calculate the forest area, calculate the compensation value, sign the agreement, developing countries contribute to a trust account, transfer the funds electronically to the host country of the forests, send in UN monitors to enforce the agreement to make sure no trees fall. If Copenhagen just did that, it would have achieve a significant inroad – 20% reduction in one year or something in that order.
News of the pledge by US based Climate Progress of US$1 billion over three years towards decreasing deforestation is an excellent outcome. The funding will go to developing countries that develop REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) programs.
But horse trading in emissions is pure problem avoidance. Perhaps a less patriarchal culture may have helped too. Perhaps less Viking patriarchal culture and perhaps a more matriarchal approach to negotiation would have achieved better. The alpha male approach has clearly failed.
‘COP15’ was also a silly name. It just meant the 15th United Nations Climate Change Conference. Rather than the meaningless ‘COP15’ (‘Conference of Parties’ #15) , such a vital global forum series deserves a more accessible and meaningful name in order to better engage with ordinary folk.
Perhaps instead a better name should be ‘Greenhouse 2009’, then work towards ‘Greenhouse 2010’, ‘Greenhouse 2011’ – for each year, setting and achieving a distinct global reduction outcome by legal treaty. Such numbering and annual frequency would better convey the sense of urgency.
.This is MalaysiaDon’t holiday in Malaysia. Don’t fly Malaysian Airlines.
Toxic liquid chemicals being trucked through the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area
.
The New South Wales Government decision in the late 1990s to permit 19-metre B-doubles to operate along the Great Western Highway was recognised by many informed Blue Mountains residents as the thin end of the wedge to encourage bigger and faster trucks and to extend Sydney sprawl.
Its planning minister in 2008, Frank Sartor, famously heralded:
.
“Few understand how much transport influences land use patterns. Transport leads land use. Once an expressway or railway is built, it is easy to change the zoning and development laws to increase the population along the corridor.”
.
~ Frank Sartor, NSW Planning Minister, Sydney Morning Herald, 20080929, p11.
.
The Greater Blue Mountains is a vast forested wilderness covering over one million hectares, characterised by ancient sandstone tablelands and escarpments, ancient temperate eucalypt forest types, rainforests, heathlands and swamps containing rare and endemic flora and ecological communities. It was formally inscribed on the World Heritage List on 29 November 2000 and constitutes one of the largest and most intact tracts of protected bushland in Australia.
Along the headwaters of the Jamison Valley above Wentworth Falls, the Jamison Creek flows as a stormwater drain underneath the Great Western Highway.
On or about 7th July 2012, a large quantity of toxic pyrethrin, used as a fumigation pesticide, was dumped into the creek resulting in extermination of all aquatic wildlife downstream and into the World Heritage below. [Source: ‘Health risk posed by Wentworth Falls creek, 20120711, Blue Mountains Gazette newspaper, ^http://www.bluemountainsgazette.com.au/story/273589/health-risk-posed-by-wentworth-falls-creek/]
A year on and still no prosecution has been made against the culprit known by both the local council and the EPA. The contamination could easily have come from the overturning of one of the many trucks that ply the highway now carting toxic chemicals, nudging 90kph.
The Great Western Highway winds its way over the central plateau ridgeline of the Blue Mountains east to west from Sydney. In every respect, the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area is juxtaposed downstream of this highway.
Increasingly, the Great Western Highway is becoming dominated by larger trucks and an increasing frequency of B-Double Trucks carting sand and soil, containers, palletised freight, heavy machinery and bulk liquids. Transport companies are not delivering to the Blue Mountains; they are transiting through the Blue Mountains for destinations far beyond including Perth and Darwin.
However, local Blue Mountains supporters of this website have informed us that recently the trend is worse, with chemical tank containers now being sighted. The company transporting these bulk chemicals is Chemtrans, a subsidiary of corporate trucker, Scott Corporation, based in Sydney’s west industrial suburb of Padstow.
The tanks display hazardous warnings on the sides.
What chemicals are being trucked over the Blue Mountains anyway?
.
Sulphuric Acid?
Phosphoric Acid?
Anhydrous Ammonia?
Vinyl Chloride Monimor?
.
Kills Nature
How can this be? What if there is a crash and a spill?
.
With substandard toxic containment infrastructure, World Heritage dies.
.
The Great Western Highway is not designed to contain large flash runoff from storms, let alone contain chemical spills toxic to ecology from entering the downstream headwaters and water courses that flow from the ridgeline down into the surrounding Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.
So when did the NSW Government give permission for bulk toxic chemicals to be transported through the Blue Mountains? What community consultation did the government not engage in? What legislative safety and governance restrictions were not enacted?
.
.
She’ll Be Right, eh Barry O’Farrell?
.
..Just like when in May this year, a FULLY-LADEN DOUBLE FUEL TANKERoverturned in a short, straight, three-laned section of the highway between Katoomba and Medlow Bath in the early hours of Sunday, May 12. The giant rig owned by Orange-based Ron Finemores Transport was being driven west when it veered onto the road shoulder and overturned down an embankment, coming to rest with the twin tankers upside down.
She’ll Be Right, eh Barry O’Farrell?
.
The scene at Sunday morning’s truck crash near Medlow Bath. Driver fatigue is suspected as a possible cause of the smash.
[Source: Photo: Len Ashworth, Lithgow Mercury, in article ‘Lucky escape for truck driver, 20130515, by Len Ashworth, Blue Mountains Gazette newspaper, ^http://www.bluemountainsgazette.com.au/story/1500162/lucky-escape-for-truck-driver/]
.
The tanker overturned in bushland just upstream from the Cascade Water Catchment that stores drinking water for the region and in which fines for tresspass are $44,000.
But Ron Finemores Transport was not fined the $44,000. Why not?
.
.
Sydney Water ‘Special Areas’ prohibit public entry in order to protect water quality.
This benefits the community by:
Protecting water quality
Protecting large areas of bushland and plant and animal habitats
Protecting threatened plants and animal species
Preserving evidence of Aboriginal occupation dating back many thousands of years, and
Preserving evidence of non-Aboriginal exploration, early settlement and phases of development such as forestry, mining and dam building.
What Next? Trucking nuclear waste through the Blue Mountains?
.
Don’t put it past them. There are plans afoot to truck radioactive waste and parts of Australia’s old 1960s nuclear reactor out of Sydney under plans to clean up the Lucas Heights nuclear facility and develop a national hazardous-waste dump in the outback.
The trucks will necessarily pass by residential homes carrying a radioactive high-flux reactor’ and spent fuel rods.
The Sources of Radioactive Waste
.
The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, which manages the Lucas Heights Nuclear Reactor, has been given $28.7 million to prepare for the move. The four-year funding package will pay for ‘pre-disposal conditioning of existing radioactive waste in preparation for long-term underground storage, including radioactive contaminated buildings and infrastructure at Lucas Heights.
Also planned to be trucked is nuclear contaminated soil waste from the former uranium smelter site at Hunters Hill.
Also planned to be trucked is spent fuel rods after they were reprocessed at a nuclear facility in France.
.
The target waste disposal site is on remote Aboriginal land near Muckaty, 800 km south of Darwin (specifically 100 km north of Tennant Creek) in the Northern Territory. The most direct trucking route, some 2,387 km from Lucas Heights, is via the Great Western Highway through the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.
The only other feasible trucking route is via the Pacific Highway to Newcastle and then north-west along the Golden Highway, which is unlikely because it would pass through more densely populated communities.
The Australian Government approved its Radioactive Waste Dump at Muckaty in the Northern Territory under the National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010, passed through the Senate on 13 March, 2012.
This was in blatant contradiction to years of resistance and opposition from from the remote and marginalised Muckaty indigenous community and supportive environmental groups. Traditonal Owners maintain that both the Northern Land Council and the Commonwealth failed to accurately identify, consult with and receive their consent and are seeking to reverse the decision.
What’s new?
Responsible radioactive waste management needs an approach based on:
Non-imposition
Community consent
Scientific and procedural rigour.
.
None of the approaches was observed during the opaque transition of this proposal into law.
The Australian Government’s preferred site for Nuclear Waste is Muckaty Station, near Tennant Creek,trucked from Lucas Heights, Botany and Hunters Hill through the Blue Mountains.
.
In 1997, a train carrying 180 tonnes of high-level nuclear waste derailed in France. In 2004, a truck spilled strontium-90 onto Highway 95 in Roane County, Tennessee.
.
She’ll be Right!
.
America 2011:
.
<< With the passage of Senate Bill 1504 in the Texas Senate (Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact) , radioactive waste could soon be barreling down Texas highways and through our neighborhoods by way of Interstate 10 through Houston, San Antonio and El Paso; Interstate-20 and Interstate-30 though Dallas and Forth Worth, Midland and Odessa ; and Interstate-27 though Lubbock and Amarillo.
The greatest risk we face is having an accident with vehicles containing waste. Cleanup estimates range from $100 to a billion dollars or more according to the U.S. Department of Energy, but the state of Texas has set aside only $500,000. Taxpayers would pay the rest.
And what if an accident happens next to a school, playground or hospital? Don’t we want to make sure that our local emergency responders have the training and equipment needed to handle an accident where a truck is leaking radioactive waste?
Thanks to Senator Seliger’s leadership, there have been some important protections added in, but a number of loopholes remain that dramatically increases the risk and liability assumed by Texas taxpayers. There is still a chance to close these loopholes. This bill goes to the Texas House floor next week and Texans should ask their legislators to make sure that there is an immediate thorough analysis of transportation risks, costs of cleaning up contamination from accidents or leaks, and waste capacity at the site.
As the Japanese nuclear disaster has taught us, cleaning up after radioactive waste can be a costly and dangerous process. We urge the house to make sure we have protective measures in place before an accident. >>
.
[Ed: The Texas Senate Bill 1504 was made effective 9th January 2011]
‘Taxing Air : Facts & Fallacies about Climate Change’
A new book by leading environmental scientist Professor Bob Carter
and political cartoonist John Spooner, with Bill Kininmonth, Martin Feil, Stewart Franks, Bryan Leyland.
.
Book released in June 2013:
<< In this accessible and beautifully produced full colour book, The Age (newspaper’s) brilliant political cartoonist John Spooner and leading environmental scientist Professor Bob Carter combine with colleagues to answer a series of critical and highly controversial questions about the politics and science of climate change.
Are human industrial carbon dioxide emissions causing dangerous global warming?
If it is so then climate change surely is one of the great moral challenges of our time.
But is it possible that the so-called consensus science around global warming produced by lavishly funded research institutes and with its own international political lobby organization – the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – is wrong?
Could it be that the emperor has no clothes?
Climate Change AlarmismContinues to invoke taxpayer billions to be wasted without stopping the culprit, Pollution – notably worst from coal power, road traffic, petro/chemical industry, landfill into oceans…
.
<< Accessible, clearly written and illustrated with simple scientific illustrations, and accompanied by Spooner’s brilliantly wry and telling cartoons, Taxing Air answers – without the spin, evasions or propaganda that pollutes most official writing on climate change – every question you have about global warming but have been too intimidated by the oppressive ‘consensus’ to ask. >>
.
..Did You Know?
.
• Just 8,000 years ago, there was virtually no summer sea-ice in the Arctic Ocean.
• Sea-level rise is natural, and declining in rate.
• Australian rainfall has not decreased over the last 100 years.
• A previous Australian drought lasted 69 years.
• By catchment management, the Murray-Darling Basin now contains almost 3 times as much water as it held naturally.
• Global air temperature has not increased for the last 16 years, despite an 8% increase in CO2.
• Global ocean temperature is also steady or cooling slightly.
• Australian territory absorbs up to 20 times the amount of CO2 that we emit.
• The CO2 tax will cost about $1,000/person/year; and rising.
• The result of reducing Australian CO2 emissions by 5% by 2020 will be a theoretical (and unmeasurable) cooling of between 0.0007 O and 0.00007 O C by 2100.
• No scientist can tell you whether the world will be warmer or cooler than today in 2020.
.
Just a selection of the fascinating facts provided in answer to more than 100 basic questions about global warming and climate change that are covered in the book. >>
James Cook University caves in to Climate Change Evangelism and Bullying
.
So much for “higher” education.
James Cook University (in Townsville, Far North Queensland, Australia) has blackballed Professor Bob Carter, not because of any flaw in his scientific reasoning, but because he speaks outside the permitted doctrine. His views on climate science do not fit with the dominant meme (or the grant applications). And then there were pesky complaints and emails from disgruntled fans of the prophets-of-doom. (Quite a drain on the office.)
They took his office a while back, then they took the title. Carter was still supervising a student, and another professor hired him for an hour a week with his own budget. It meant Carter could continue supervising and keep his library access. But that wouldn’t do. Professor Jeffrey Loughran blocked that as well. The library pass and the email was shut off on June 21. It takes an active kind of malice to be this petty.
.
Professor Bob Carter
.
In years to come when everyone admits that the Great Global Warming Scare was hyped, James Cook University (JCU) could have been seen as one of the rare beacons of academic honour and principle. Instead, apparently, it’s as spineless as any other bureucratic collective. The irony for James Cook University, is that Bob Carter has been working there for 31 years, and they only had to put up with him for a little bit longer in order to claim their glory (albeit post hoc) and then pretend that really they had supported him all along.
The dominant meme is collapsing, thousands of respected scientists are speaking out and skeptic blogs are storming the awards. The evidence has turned, the carbon market has sunk to junk status, and assertive daring articles are appearing in mainstream media in places they would never have been seen a few years ago, like the New York Times, and the Economist. The climate scientists themselves are admitting they don’t know why the world isn’t warming. But the man who was right about that all along is persona non-gratis.
Professor Bob Carter has been a key figure in the Global Warming debate, doing exactly what good professors ought to do, challenging paradigms, speaking internationally, writing books, newspaper articles, and being invited to give special briefings with Ministers in Parliament.
He’d started work at James Cook University in 1981 and served as Head of the Geology Department until 1998. [UPDATE: to clarify, sometime after that he retired]. Since then he’s been an honorary Adjunct Professor.
All James Cook University had to do was to approve an extension of this arrangement, giving him library and email access, at little cost to them, and he could have continued to help students and staff, provide a foil, a counterpoint, and keep alive the spirit of true scientific enquiry. (Not to mention his continued speaking, books, and influence on the National debate).
Instead every person in the chain of command tacitly, or in at least one case, actively endorsed the blackballing. Each one failed to stand for free speech and rigorous debate. In the end, James Cook University didn’t even make any effort to disguise the motive. The only reasons given were that the staff of the School of Earth and Environmental Studies had discussed the issue (without any consultation with Carter) and decided that his views on climate change did not fit well within the School’s own teaching and research activities.
Apparently it took up too much time to defend Carter against outside complaints about his public writings and lectures on climate change. (Busy executives don’t have time to say “Why don’t you ask Carter yourself?” or “We value vigorous debate here.” Presumably they are too busy practising their lines and learning the litany? )
Each of these eminent professors, no doubt, is certain that they are independent minded, tolerant of other views, and have exacting ethical standards. I gather any one of them could have risen above the lap-dog obedience to the dogma of the day.
1. Australia is the world’s #1 Developed Nation polluter
Consulting the US Energy Information Administration database (see: http://www.eia.doe.gov/ ) we obtain the following information on “annual per capita fossil fuel-derived carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution” in “tonnes (t) per person per year” for Australia and other major polluters (2004 data): 19.2 (for Australia; 40 if you include Australia’s coal exports), 19.7 (the US), 18.4 (Canada), 9.9 (Japan), 4.2 (the World), 3.6 (China), 1.0 ( India) and 0.25 (for Bangladesh).
.
2. Germanwatch index places Australia #54 in the list of the worst polluters (#56 being worst)
Of course “annual per capita fossil fuel-derived CO2 pollution” is but one – albeit a very important – indicator of climate impact. The Germanwatch Climate Change Index 2008, a comparison of the 56 top CO2 emitting nations (see: http://www.germanwatch.org/ccpi.htm ), takes other parameters into account in ranking. In this ranking of 56 top CO2 emitting nations, Sweden and Germany are #1 and #2 for greenhouse responsibility, while shale-oil-rich Canada (a US ally), coal-rich Australia (a US ally), the USA and oil-rich Saudi Arabia (US-linked) rank #53, #54, #55 and #56, respectively (see: http://www.germanwatch.org/ccpi.htm ).
.
3. In 2004 Australia (0.3% world population) gave 3% total fossil fuel
Consulting the US Energy Information Administration database (see: http://www.eia.doe.gov/ ), in 2004 Australia (0.3% world’s population) yielded 1.4% of world’s fossil fuel-derived CO2 (3% including coal exports). The World’s 27,043 Mt fossil fuel-derived CO2 (2004) comprised 10,850 Mt (petroleum), 5602 Mt (gas), and 10,592 Mt (coal) with the Australia breakdown being 810 Mt (total), 117 Mt (petroleum), 52 Mt (gas), 217 Mt (coal, domestic), 424 Mt (coal exports).
.
4. Australia world’s largest coal exporter (30% total world coal exports)
From Australian Coal Association (see: http://www.australiancoal.com.au/exports.htm ) Australia maintained its position as the world’s largest coal exporter with exports of 233 Mt in 2005-06 ($A24.5 billion) or 30% of the world total (777 Mt) (M, G, T = million, billion, trillion).
.
5. Australia produces about 6% of world hard coal (black coal)
From World Coal Institute (see:
http://www.worldcoal.org/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=188 ) total World: hard coal consumption 5339 Mt (2006); coal production 5370 Mt (2006); World brown coal 914 Mt ; Australia 309 Mt hard coal (5.8% of World production; used for thermal electricity and as coking coal for steel production).
Australian brown coal production for 2005/06 was 67.7 Mt (valued at $849 million) – all was from Victoria and used to generate electricity. Australia has about 24% of World recoverable brown coal and is ranked first. However, Australia produces about 8% of the World’s brown coal and is ranked fifth largest producer after Germany (22%), Russia (10%), USA (9%) and Greece (8%).
.
7. Australian coal reserves
Australia has about 77 billion tonnes of coal resources
Carbon (C, atomic weight 12) to carbon dioxide (CO2, molecular weight 44 ) conversion involves a stoichiometry of 12 g C -> 44 g CO2 i.e. 1 g C to 3.7 g CO2. 1 g coal yields about 1.9 g CO2 (depends on coal type). Thus the US Energy Information Agency estimates World total CO2 from energy-related coal burning at 12,898 Mt in 2008 (see: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/environment_faqs.asp#source_by_fuel ) and the World Coal Institute estimates 2008 coal production at 5,845 Mt hard coal and 951 Mt brown coal/lignite (see: http://www.worldcoal.org/resources/coal-statistics/ ), this yielding 12,898 Mt CO2/6,796 Mt coal = 1.9 Mt CO2/Mt coal, the specific values for different kinds of coal being 2.85 Mt CO2/Mt coal (anthracite), 2.47 Mt CO2/Mt coal (bituminous), 1.86 Mt CO2/Mt coal (sub-bituminous) and 1.40 Mt CO2/Mt coal (lignite, brown coal) (see: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html ). In a coal-fired power station 0.327 kg coal yields 1 kWh (kilowatt hour) of energy.
Greenlivingpedia (see: http://www.greenlivingpedia.org/Australian_coal_exports ) estimates that in 2008 Australia exported 288 Mt CO2/120 Mt thermal coal (2.4 Mt/Mt thermal coal) and 238 Mt CO2/140 Mt coking coal ( 1.7 Mt CO2/Mt coking coal) for an average value of 526 Mt CO2/260 Mt coal (and an average value of 2.0 Mt CO2/Mt coalexported from Australia).
.
A further estimate comes from 12,064 Mr CO2 from coal in 2006 (see US EIA: http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/carbon.html ) and World production of 6779 million short tons of coal (6779 x 0.9072 = 6,150 Mt of coal) in 2006 (see US EIA: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1114.html ) – 12,064 Mt CO2 /6,150 Mt coal = 1.96 or about 2.0 Mt CO2 per Mt coal (this includes brown coal and low quality sub-bituminous coal in the denominator and would thus would underestimate the CO2 from the burning of exported Australian coal).
.
9. Australia gets 77% of its electricity from coal, 92% from fossil fuels
According ot the Australian Uranium Association (see: http://www.uic.com.au/nip37.htm ) electricity generation in Australia involves about 51 billion W (51 GW) capacity; the price varies during the day etc at about 4 c /kWh; in 2006 Australia’s power stations produced 255 billion kilowatt hours (trillion Wh = TWh) of electricity; the energy source breakdown was 92.2% Carbon-based (black coal 54.8% , brown coal 21.9%, oil 1.3%, gas 14.2%, hydro 6.8%. and renewables 1%; 77% is coal-based electricity.
.
10. The true cost of coal energy is 4 times the market cost (Ontario Government study) – 4,860 Australians killed by coal annually @ $1.6 million each?
In Ontario (see: http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836) the cost/kWh jumped from $0.04 to $0.164 with environmental and human impacts added; pollution from coal plants producing 27 TWh/year (20% of supply) kill 668 people per year in Ontario (population 12.2 million) suggesting coal plants producing 77% of Australia’s annual 255 TWh of electricity (see: http://www.uic.com.au/nip37.htm) i.e. 0.77 x 255 = 196.4 TWh/year might kill about 196.4 TWh x 668/27 TWh = 4,859 people annually in Australia (population 21 million); in Australia 255 bn kWh x $0.04/kWh = $10.2 bn; 0.77 (coal-based) x $10.2 bn = $7.85 billion; $7.85 bn /4,859 deaths i.e. Australian electricity consumers pay for electricity @$1.6 million per fellow Australian killed by coal. >>
<< Over the past 10 years black coal exports have increased by more than 50%.
Japan takes 39.3% of Australia’s black coal exports – the largest share, with a total of 115.3 million tonnes exported last financial year.
China is our second largest market with 42.4 million tonnes in 2009-2010, almost double the previous year.
The Republic of Korea accounts for 40.7 million tonnes, India for 31.92 million tonnes and Taiwan for 26.53 million tonnes, rounding out the top five destinations for coal from Australia.
Together these five countries accounted for 88% of all black coal exports with a further 28 countries taking the remaining 12%.
Demand for coal in China and India is expected to increase dramatically over the next decade in line with these countries’ projected need for coal for energy and manufacturing.
Australia was the only one of the world’s 33 advanced economies to grow in 2009 during the worst global recession since the Great Depression.
The principal reason for this was our continued coal exports. The importance of coal in the economy is also evident in its growing share of Gross Domestic Product.
This share has more than doubled, from 1.7 % in 2006-07 to 3.5 % in 2008-09, making it the largest contributor to the mining sector.
In 2011, Australia’s thermal coal exports grew by four %, relative to 2010, to total 148 million tonnes. Projections for 2012 see an increase of 10% in 2012 to 162 million tonnes, then growing at an average annual rate of 11 % between 2013 and 2017, to total 271 million tonnes by the end of the period.
Australia’s exports of metallurgical coal are forecast to increase at an average annual rate of eight %, reaching 218 million tonnes in 2017, with total earnings forecast at $40 billion in current Australian dollars..
Looking to purchase coal?
Please contact our members for further information. >>
The Dee River at Dululu, 55km downstream from the Mount Morgan mine, North Queensland.The aqua colour is due to heavy metal compounds polluting the river.
[Source: (Photo by Ian Townsend), ‘Toxic mine water’, ABC Radio National programme, 20130217,
^http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/2013-02-17/4513916]
.
Mining companies are perhaps the worst form of entity that perpetuates in modern industrial society to inflict ongoing narcisistic destruction upon the Natural landscape.
Mining companies employ consultants to window dress their activities with the effect of putting lipstick on a pig. They rape pillage and plunder the landscape with impunity because of corrupt governments sharing financial vested interests in the booty. Mining companies before, during and after their nefarious operations have no concern for the irreversible damage to ecology and landscape, but only for the profit promise. They are a relic of the 19th Century with the same immorality as the corporate slave traders.
As Mount Lyell in Tasmania remains the moonscape legacy of 19th Century mining, then in Mount Morgan is its sister mining moonscape.
‘Iron Blow Mine’Mount Lyell’s copper mining legacy of West Coast Tasmania
(Photo by Gary Sauer-Thompson)
.
Both have irrevocably destroyed all ecology for miles and contaminated river systems with heavy metals and lethal toxins. Both made their mining companies, mining magnates and complicit investors millions. Both were abandonned when the ore ran out and the taxpayer has been left to pay for the clean up if ever that could be possible.
And mining companies complain when there is suggestion of a mining tax. Beyond a mining tax, mining companies in the 21st Century need to be held accountable for their impacts before they dig the first sod. There needs to be a compulsory bond required from mining companies up front to sufficiently cover the complete remediation of the site according to scale and risk. Instead of the artificial obscene profit skimming by management and investors that currently ignores the real cost of mining on the landscape, it would bring the profits from mining more in line with corporate social responsibility.
The Dee River is a river in Central Queensland, Australia. The Dee is a tributary of the Dawson River, itself a tributary of the Fitzroy River. The mining town of Mount Morgan is located on the river. It is crossed by the Burnett Highway a number of times. The Dee River rises in the Razorback Range south of Bouldercombe Gorge Resources Reserve near Bouldercombe. Tributaries include Limestone Creek, Horse Creek, Hamilton Creek and Nine Mile Creek on the left while Boulder Creek, Oaky Creek and Pruce Creek enter from the right. The Dee River joins the Don River near Rannes.
But Queensland’s Dee River is being killed by toxic water from the old gold mine of Mount Morgan – and is one of thousands of abandoned and unregulated mine sites, many of which are leaking contaminated ‘legacy water’ into river catchments.
In this picture you can see the acid mine water gushing out the side of the mine pit.
(Photo by Ian Townsend, February 2013)
.
The largest dam on the Dee River is in mining accounting lingo, ‘Number 7 Dam‘, built for the Mount Morgan Mine.
Number 7 Dam Mount Morgan Mine in 2011Lies right next to the Mount Morgan township
.
Mount Morgan Mine has been a copper, gold and silver mine in northern Queensland, Australia since 1882 up until 1981. Over its lifespan, the mine yielded approximately 262 tonnes of gold, 37 tonnes of silver and 387,000 tonnes of copper and was once the largest gold mine in the world.
Mount Morgan Limited progressively scaled back its workforce and operations until it reached the end of its ore body in 1981. Since 2007, the mine and mining leases have been owned by Norton Gold Fields and an estimated 327,000 ounces of gold still apparently exists at the site.
Concerns regarding the discolouration of the river’s water and fears of contamination causing irreversible damage to the river were raised back in mid 2011.
In January 2013, the mine pit overflowed… and 700 mm of rain fell after ex-tropical Cyclone Oswald resulted in the 2013 Eastern Australia floods.
Towards the end of February the dam was still spilling acid and heavy metals into the river, and probably continues at the time of writing.
.
The Dee River at Mount Morgan is highly acidic. Here the river is badly contaminated with heavy metals, staining the rocks and producing a sludge in the river.
(Photo by Ian Townsend, February 2013)
.
Contamination fears for Dee River
.
<<Calls have been made for a full investigation into pollution in the Dee River, with fears of contamination from nearby closed mines.
The Queensland member for Mirani, Ted Malone, said he is worried that the Dee River’s very blue-green colour is unnatural and that something is very wrong with the waterway, according to The Morning Bulletin.
Malone called for a comprehensive inquiry into contaminated water leaking into the river from the Mount Morgan mine, and to identify it as an environmental hazard.
“With controlled releases of highly contaminated mine water this year, as well as seepage offsite, the Dee is in a contemptible state. It is void of life and lined with a precipitate containing heavy metals and it will soon be past the rehabilitation stage if the government does not step in and fully rehabilitate the mine site,” chairman of the Wowan/Dululu Landcare Group, Neal Johnson, said.
These calls come after the QLD Government announced a boost in funding for the rehabilitation of the Mount Morgan and Mount Oxide mines. It announced $24.2 million in funding to ensure the safe management and rehabilitation of historic mine sites.
Mining minister Stirling Hinchliffe stated that historic mines such as Mt Morgan and Mt Oxide are a legacy of old mining practices and need safe management.
“This is Government is committed to managing problems caused by past mining practices,” Hinchliffe said. “Problems with old and outdated mining practices were created over many years and will take many years to address but we won’t shy away from that. That’s why we’re investing a further $24.2 million over four years for mine management and rehabilitation, $6 million of this operational and capital funding will be invested during 2011-12.”
However, Queensland senator Barnaby Joyce stated that the government has failed to address the issue of contaminated water in Mt Morgan’s pit lake. He said the pit lake is almost full and could leak into the Dee River, exacerbating residents concerns of contamination.
Joyce did state, following the funding, “thankfully now they are doing something”.
QLD mines minister Stirling Hichliffe stated that the government had also just completed a $1.8 million upgrade of the Mt Morgan mine water treatment plant to increase capacity to one billion litres each year, to allay fears of uncontrolled releases.>>
A heavily polluted river in the town of Zhugao in China’s southwest Sichuan province in 2010.
Source: Peter Parks/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
.
As economists drive growth, which is the only god they know, and lure China to becoming more westerised, China’s economy is under pressure to economically perform and keep up with the economic Jones’s. China now proudly has gained status as the world’s second-biggest economy.
.
But China’s economically global adage ‘Made in China‘ has come at a terrible cost to China’s environment, ecology and its people.
<<One of China’s most critical environmental problems is water pollution.
.
Nearly 1/4 of Chinese lack access to clean drinking water, over 70 percent of lakes and rivers are polluted, and pollution accidents happen on a near daily basis.
.
Water pollution not only strains freshwater ecological health, but also severely impacts human health. Today, China has a growing cancer rate, with hundreds of “cancer villages” along the banks of polluted water sources. The World Health Organization recently estimated that nearly 100,000 people die annually from water pollution-related illnesses in China, and 75 percent of disease is linked to poor water quality.
China’s water pollution crisis made international headlines following a 2005 petro-chemical plant explosion which released 100 tons of benzene into the Songhua River. Such spills are not rare in China, yet the accident and ensuing cover-up opened new space for pressuring the Chinese government to change its approach to water pollution problems. Local, regional and national environmental groups now have more opportunity to establish themselves as watchdogs of government regulators and private industry.
Working with partners across China, Pacific Environment is reaching out to local communities concerned about water pollution and helping these communities conduct legal, public relations and advocacy campaigns to reduce the impacts of water pollution on public health and the local environment. Through these actions, our partners are playing a pivotal role to ensure clean water for China’s future.>>
Liujiaxia Hydro Dam on the toxic Yellow River China’s Gansu Province
.
<<In recent weeks (Feb 2013), Chinese and western media have been all atwitter over the shocking levels of air pollution in Beijing and a number of other Chinese cities. But it really shouldn’t be all that shocking. After all, in 2007, the World Bank and China’s own State Environmental Protection Administration (now the Ministry of Environmental Protection) found that that as many as 750,000 people die prematurely in China annually from respiratory disease related to air pollution.
And more recently, Greenpeace Beijing reported that in 2011 in four major cities, more than 8,000 people died prematurely as a result of just one pollutant, PM 2.5 [Particulate matter 2.5 – refers to tiny particles or droplets in the air that are two and one half microns or less in width]. Anyone who spends any time in Beijing knows that the city has not yet found a way to tackle the myriad sources of air pollution from construction to cars to coal.
.
According to one report, “up to 40 percent of China’s rivers were seriously polluted” and “20 percent were so polluted their water quality was rated too toxic even to come into contact with.”
.
As frightening as the country’s smog-filled skies might be, the country’s water pollution is easily as alarming. According to one 2012 report, “up to 40 percent of China’s rivers were seriously polluted” and “20 percent were so polluted their water quality was rated too toxic even to come into contact with.” Part of the explanation may rest in the “estimated 10,000 petrochemical plants along the Yangtze River and 4000 along the Yellow River.” (And the Yellow and Yangtze are not even the most polluted of China’s seven major rivers.) On top of whatever polluted wastewater might be leaching or simply dumped into China’s rivers from these factories, the Ministry of Supervision reports that there are almost 1,700 water pollution accidents annually. The total cost in terms of human life: 60,000 premature deaths annually.
While the macro picture is concerning, even more worrying is that individual Chinese don’t know whether their water is safe to drink or not. A Chinese newspaper, the Southern Weekly, recently featured an interview with a married couple, both of whom are water experts in Beijing (available in English here). They stated that they hadn’t drunk from the tap in twenty years, and have watched the water quality deteriorate significantly over just the past few years, even while state officials claim that more than 80 percent of water leaving treatment facilities met government standards in 2011.
It is difficult to get the straight story. According to one report by Century Weekly, there are a number of reasons for differing assessments of the country’s water quality:
.
The frequency of testing at treatment plants is too low, and only 40 percent of the treatment plants in China’s thirty-five major cities have the capacity to test for all 106 indicators in any case
There are only a few independent water-quality monitoring bureaus, and most water testing is done in-house by the same water-treatment plant being evaluated
There is weak transparency from local governments as to the results of the tests,and,
No water testing accounts for the contamination that occurs from the aging and degraded pipes through which the water is transmitted to Chinese households.
.
China’s environmental challenges are long in the making, not simply a function of the past thirty years of reform. As one reporter has noted, Beijing in the 1950s transformed from a city that “did not produce even pencils” to one that boasted “700 factories and 2000 blast furnaces belching soot in the air.”
In his 1991 book ‘Environmental Management in China‘, QuGeping, China’s first director of the country’s National Environmental Protection Agency, further commented about that time: “The environmental situation quickly deteriorated. A lot of places were polluted by either smog, sewage waters or rubbish. Biological resources, forests in particular, were seriously damaged, causing several losses to the ecosystem. There was extensive destruction of the natural environment of our country.”
In the 1950s, China, like other countries, neither understood well nor had the capacity to deal effectively with the environmental and health challenges its rapid development was creating. Today, however, China has both the knowledge and the capability. In the midst of the recent air pollution crisis, Premier-elect Li Keqiang said it would take time to address the air pollution problem: “There has been a long-term buildup to this problem, and the resolution will require a long-term process. But we must act.” In the meantime, the Chinese people can only wear their masks, buy their bottled water, and hope they are not in this year’s batch of pollution-related casualties.>>
.
[Source: ‘China’s Water Pollution Crisis’, 20130122, by Elizabeth C. Economy, The Diplomat, ^http://thediplomat.com/2013/01/22/forget-air-pollution-chinas-has-a-water-problem/ . Elizabeth C. Economy is C.V. Starr Senior Fellow and Director for Asia Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. She is an expert on Chinese domestic and foreign policy and U.S.-China relations and author of the award-winning book, ‘The River Runs Black: The Environmental Challenge to China’s Future‘ She blogs at Asia Unbound, where this piece originally appeared.]
.
Trash clogs up a polluted canal at the edge of Beijing on March 16, 2012.
[Source: ‘Chinese Environmental Official Offered Reward To Swim In Polluted Ruian River’, 20120220,
by Sara Gates, The Huffington Post, Photo by Mark Ralston, AFP/Getty Images]
.
<<China’s government on Tuesday (20100209) unveiled its most detailed survey ever of the pollution plaguing the country, revealing that water pollution in 2007 was more than twice as severe as was shown in official figures that had long omitted agricultural waste.
The first national pollution census, environmentalists said, represented a small step forward for China in terms of transparency. But the results also raised serious questions about the shortcomings of China’s previous pollution data and suggested that even with limited progress in some areas, the country still had a long way to go to clean its waterways and air.
The pollution census, scheduled to be repeated in 2020, took more than two years to complete. It involved 570,000 people, and included 1.1 billion pieces of data from nearly 6 million sources of pollution, including factories, farms, homes and pollution-treatment facilities, the government announced at a news conference.
But the comprehensiveness of the survey also resulted in stark discrepancies between some of the calculations and annual figures that the government has published in the past.
By far the biggest of these involved China’s total discharge as measured by chemical oxygen demand — the main gauge of water pollution, which measures chemical compounds in the water by checking how much oxygen they use. These discharges totalled 30.3 million tons in 2007, the census showed.
In recent years the Ministry of Environmental Protection has done a much narrower calculation of these discharges, excluding agricultural effluents like fertilizers and pesticides as well as fluids leaking from landfills. By that narrower measure, discharges came to only 13.8 million tons in 2007, which officials described at the time as a decline of more than 3 percent from 2006 and a “turning point.”
Zhang Lijun, the vice minister of environmental protection, sought to play down the differences with previous data. He noted that the census had counted 13.2 million tons of agricultural effluents for the first time, and 324,600 tons of discharges from landfills.
The census keepers had also used updated methodologies and reached many more parts of the countryside and industrial sites than had official statistics, which helped account for the much larger figure in the census, Mr. Zhang said. Were it not for the vastly expanded scope of the survey, the chemical oxygen demand level in 2007 would stand at only 5.3 percent higher than previously calculated, he said.
Ma Jun, director of the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs, a nonprofit research group in Beijing, said that government planners had estimated that the country’s rivers and lakes could handle only 7.4 million tons a year of chemical oxygen demand. The scale and significance of agricultural effluent was seldom recognized in previous government planning, which focused on bringing down mainly industrial emissions to around 7 million tons a year from 13.8 million tons, said Mr. Ma, a leading expert on water pollution in China.
The new total of more than 30 million tons suggests a much bigger problem. “We believed we needed to cut our emissions in half, but today’s data means a lot more work needs to be done,” Mr. Ma said.
The extent of agricultural waste could prove a more intractable problem than that of the many factories dumping effluent into China’s rivers and lakes.
“When it’s millions of farmers, it’s more difficult to bring it under control,” Mr. Ma said.
Steven Ma, of the Beijing office of Greenpeace, said that the government’s decision to calculate and release figures for agriculture would have an effect on the policy debate over water pollution in China. “Everybody knew there was a problem with agricultural pollution in China, but now there are numbers,” he said.>>
.
[Source: ‘China Report Shows More Pollution in Waterways’, 20100209, by Jonathan Ansfield and Keith Bradsher (New York Times), Zhang Jing contributed research, Photo by Peter Parks (Agence France-Presse), ^http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/world/asia/10pollute.html?_r=0]
.
.
Poisoned River – Gold Mining Along the Biliu River’
.
Biliu River Sludge (Liaoning Province, south-eastern China)
.
<<The Biliu River in Liaoning Province, whose source is near Yingkou City, empties into Bohai Sea at Dalian City. The upper stretch of the Biliu River is abundant in gold.
Villagers in this region for several years have been voicing their concerns regarding the impacts of gold mining on communities and the environment.
In response, in the summer of 2011, Blue Dalian conducted investigative trips to the upper Biliu River. Blue Dalian’s investigations revealed the region is impacted by six gold mines and seven gold separation plants. A total of three local companies are actively producing gold, while four companies that previously mined in the area have closed their operations. The report also includes data from publications produced by the Dalian Water Quality Supervision authority.
.
Gold: A Dirty Business
.
Gold mines in the upper Biliu River are subsurface hard rock mines, meaning rock which contains gold is dug from beneath the surface using tunnels. Once rocks are removed, two methods are used to extract gold: cyanide heap-leach and froth flotation. The cyanide heap-leach method involves leaching finely crushed rocks in cyanide liquid; cyanide binds to the gold which can then be separated out from the other materials in the rock. Froth flotation is also another chemical process used to separate gold from rock, and is generally used when gold is found in rocks that contain sulfides. Cyanide and other chemicals used in these processes are extremely toxic and can seriously threaten environmental and human health.
The primary negative environmental risks associated with these forms of gold processing include:
.
1. Human impacts: poisonous gases, dusts, and waste accumulation at and near the mining sites are harmful to the physical health of the local people and mine workers; water quality is impacted by the mines and there is risk of serious poisoning in the event of a mining waste pond failure.
2. Vegetation loss: development of mines and processing plants damages the ecology of the local landscape, including through removal of vegetation.
3. Geological and soil impacts: mines poison the soil, and soil loss is accelerated through erosion; landslides can be caused by digging or by accumulation of mining wastes, particularly if protective measures are not put in place.
4. Water impacts: water is diverted for use in the mines and is then no longer available to support ecological functions. Surface water pollution and underground water pollution is common, particularly through waste water leaks, which are likely in the event of heavy rains.
5. Wildlife impacts: waste water contains cyanide and other chemicals which are extremely poisonous and which may kill fish or other aquatic life.
.
.
Biliu River Gold Mining Companies: a History of Negligence
.
There are three mining companies actively mining in the upper Biliu River watershed at present: Xinlong Mining Corporation, Futian Mining Corporation, and Futian Mining Corporation Flotation Factory.
Xinlong Mining Corporation, a local state-owned corporation, was visited by Blue Dalian during summer, 2011. According to the local Environmental Protection Bureau, the Xinlong Mining Corporation has accumulated more than 1,000 tons of waste residues at the site, far beyond the waste residue carrying capacity permitted. The investigation team observed piles of waste ore and accumulated waste residues held back by a low dam which were susceptible to being washed into the Biliu River in the event of a heavy rain.
The investigation team also learned that several years ago, waste residues directly leaked into Biliu River by the Xinlong Mining Corporation killed local livestock. Villagers living beside Xinlong Mining Corporation operations also told Blue Dalian that they have had difficulty selling their grain crops, due to concerns that the grain may be contaminated with heavy metals through contact with mine waste. Local people have tended to keep silent about these pollution issues because many of them work at the mine.
People living near Futian Mining Corporation operations told investigators about a suspected cyanide toxin accident. A massive fish kill occurred, and many residents developed thyroid problems, had difficulty breathing, and developed impaired eyesight. Local villagers insisted the government release data on water quality of the local river and information on the contents of the company’s waste water ponds, but the government never responded. The factory initially agreed to give monetary compensation to villagers whose health was impacted by the accident, but later broke that promise. Investigators learned from villagers who had connections inside the mine that no protective measures to prevent sewage containing cyanide from polluting the Biliu River were in place, though the company covers toxic residues with dirt so that they are out of sight of inspectors. The villagers now drink water from neighboring villages instead of the local groundwater they have relied upon for generations.
Primary Environmental and Human Health Concerns of Mining on the Biliu River
Threats to the health of local villagers: the Xinlong Mining Corporation uses cyanide heap leach method to extract gold, which produces waste water and residues that contain cyanide. Cyanide is extremely toxic and it is suspected villagers have already been poisoned.
Water environmental safety: gold mines along the upper Biliu River are located near tributaries to the river, and mine tailings ponds were found be located close to these tributaries. Tailings ponds were observed to be poorly located and managed, and their size and number was beyond the carrying capacity for the area. Further, dams used to contain the tailings are made from compressed earth and consequently are not water tight. According to Chinese safety standards for tailing pond construction, all the ponds observed along the Biliu River do not meet normal safety standards.
Government data shows that the water quality of the Biliu River is much lower than other sections of the river, especially for sulfate radicals, cyanide, and some heavy metals. Waste water samples collected from the Xinlong mine area were tested and found to contain more mercury and cyanide than is permitted for surface water. This is not surprising given mining waste water in this area flows directly into the Biliu River.
Heavy metal pollution in the soil: gold mining has led to the accumulation and compounding of many heavy metals – including arsenic, lead, cadmium, and zinc – in the soil environment in this area. Soil becomes polluted with heavy metals through leaks in the mine tailings ponds.
Drinking water safety in Dalian City: the Biliu River reservoir supplies Dalian City with a million tons of drinking water per day, which accounts for the overwhelming majority of the water supply in Dalian. During rain events, mine tailing in the upper watershed may directly leak into the Biliu River. The cyanide and heavy metals accumulated in these tailings may pollute the river, leading not only to local water quality impacts but a potential water crisis for Dalian City. There are already some cases in China where hundreds of people have been poisoned by water containing high amounts of cyanide which entered drinking water supplies after heavy rain storms.
.
Suggestions for Protection of the Upper Biliu River
.
1. Regular supervision of cyanide pollution and other heavy metal pollution along the upper Biliu River. The local environmental supervision department should regularly test cyanide content and other heavy metal content in the soil, surface water, and groundwater at and near the mining sites. At same time, the department should evaluate the risk of accidents and take protective measures.
2. Heavy metal cleanup and ecological recovery. Clean up and ecological recovery is needed to remove heavy metals and decrease the toxicity of the soil in and near the mines. This is important to the recovery of normal functions of soil ecosystem and reducing heavy metals being transmitted to the food chain and groundwater.
3. Establish an emergency water pollution accident mechanism in Dalian City. First, Dalian should store water in case of a water pollution emergency. A water reserve could reduce the dependence on the Biliu River and assure water supplies if an emergency happens. Second, an early warning system should be established. Related departments should punctually notify citizens to suspend water use and mobilize other water sources.
4. Strengthen integrated watershed management of the Biliu River. Dalian City should coordinate Biliu River management and development with upstream Yinkou City, which is heavily invested in mining in the upper watershed. Working together can help ensure that the river can be sustainably used and managed into the future, and that less resource intensive industries can be developed in the region.
5. Strengthening environmental supervision of mining companies. Regulators need to ensure companies improve production techniques in order to increase efficiency and reduce pollution, and that companies safely handle wastes and where possible, recycle some of the resources contained in the mining waste products.
The Sad Story of an Environmentalist in northeast China
.
<<Forty-five-year-old Lv Qingrong lives in a village 10 kilometers away from the Biliu River in southeast China. The family has lived in the village for 14 generations. In his childhood, Lv Qingrong and his friends played by the riverside catching fish and shrimp. By the river, there was a thick forest, visuals of which are deeply engraved in Lv Qingrong’s mind.
“There were lots of trees in the mountain and there lived all kinds of animals. In the river, you could find fish, turtles, shrimp and crabs. These memories are still so vivid and dear to me now.”
In 1984, when Lv Qingrong was 21, he retired from the army and returned to his hometown in the countryside of Yingkou city in Liaoning Province.
“At the time, there were very few trees left in the mountain and water levels in Biliu River dropped dramatically. There were garbage and sometimes dead animals along the river banks. I was so sad seeing all this.”
Lv Qingrong started his garbage collection efforts in 1984. One day in spring when Lv Qingrong and a relative passed the river bank on the way to work, he came across a pile of firecrackers abandoned near the river. “Let’s deal with this first,” he said to his relative.
He started collecting clearing out the pile of firecrackers. Later, it developed into a massive project to clean the river banks.
Since then, Lv Qingrong took several bags and went to pick garbage by the river. Even in the following years when everyone had a chance to make money thanks to the government’s reform and opening up policy, Lv Qingrong didn’t stop picking garbage. Many people, especially his family members, did not understand him and sometimes got irritated with him concentrating on something they thought was useless.
In July 28th, 1981, the village was hit by a mudslide in which 300 people were killed.
“Why did the mudslide happen? When forests are destroyed by practices such as burning vegetation for land reclamation, over grazing and cutting trees for firewood, soil is easily washed away without the cover of vegetation, and mudslides occur. It is human beings who destroy their own environment and life.”
When he realized that picking garbage was not a permanent solution, Lv Qingrong decided to plant trees on the mountain. In 2000, even though his family was against it, he contracted 23 hectare of deserted land in the mountain after taking a debt of 110,000 yuan. His wife started to quarrel with him after the family became dirt poor and the couple ended up getting a divorce in 2003. His youngest son had to leave home and work in a big city to fund his own education.
After the divorce, Lv Qingrong continued to work towards preserving the environment around the mountain area.
.
A man collects water samples from the polluted Longjiang River in Liuzhou, Guangxi Zhuang autonomous region. The authorities dumped hundreds of tons of aluminium chloride into the Longjiang River in an effort to dissolve tonnes of dumped cadmium.
[Source: ’20 tons of cadmium poisoning vital Chinese river’, 20120201, by David Eimer UK Telegraph (in Beijing),
^http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/9053671/20-tons-of-cadmium-poisoning-vital-Chinese-river.html]
.
“What made me sad were misunderstandings from other people, especially my family members. I sometimes doubted myself and wondered if I could keep going. But every time I came to the river, I became clear and focused again. I was sure that what I was doing was right, so I became determined to continue.”
In addition to bearing the brunt of people’s misunderstandings, Lv Qingrong was struggling in other ways at that time. Without any home appliances or decent furniture, Lv Qingrong couldn’t even afford a proper New Year’s dinner to celebrate China’s most important holiday; the Spring Festival.
“I was poor and alone on New Year’s eve. I couldn’t even afford a meal of dumplings because I had given all my money to the bank to pay the debt. I wrote a couplet to celebrate the festival. It said ‘I don’t eat dumplings because I don’t have money. There’s nothing I can do, but setting off a string of firecrackers to celebrate the New Year.'”
Lv Qingrong is a big fan of traditional Chinese poems and when he feels lonely or sad he also writes them. He has had more than 100 poems published in popular Chinese magazines and newspapers. His favorite writer is the ancient Chinese poet Po Chu-yi (白居易) who lived some 160 years ago and was best known for his ballads and satirical works. Lv Qingrong recites his favorite Po Chu-yi poem.
“Don’t say all the living beings are petty and low. They have the same flesh and blood. Please don’t kill the bird on the tree, Her fledglings are expecting their mother in the nest.”
Eight years have past since Lv Qingrong started to reforest the mountains and his efforts haven’t been in vain. The once deserted area is now covered with young trees and animals have returned. In the river people can see salamanders again, after they had almost become extinct.Contented with the results, Lv Qingrong still lives a poor life alone. Some people suggest he could make money by selling wood or breeding sheep.
However Lv Qingrong is reluctant to use anything from the mountain. So he is known as a poor millionaire who owns a goldmine but has not a penny to spend.Despite other people’s doubts, the environmentalist’ efforts continue. In 2006, he initiated the “Biliu River Water Resources Protection Association”. There are already 200 members, ranging from municipal officials to primary school students. They come from his hometown and from the neighboring cities of Yingkou and Dalian.
“The officials are more persuasive then I am when we go to spread environmental protection messages to students. Environment education should start with children. We teach them about garbage disposal and proper ways to deal with used batteries. The children have also learned to protect animals. The overall awareness of environmental protection will improve if we start to educate them.”
In order to increase awareness about river protection, Lv Qingrong has erected a monument at the source of the Biliu River and engraved water protection slogans along with an introduction to the history of the river. With more government attention nationwide on environmental protectionand with increasing interest from people in his hometown, everything seems have taken a turn for the better. Lv Qingrong’s eldest son, who’s in his early 20s, has been emulating his father when it comes to river protection.
“The protection of the environment has become a hot topic in our village. People often come to me and inquire about environmental issues. I’m happy more and more people have become involved.”
Forty-five-year-old Lv Qingrong is resolute in his dedication and focus.
“I will stay and keep watching the river for the rest of my life.”>>
.
[Source: ‘The Sad Story of An Environmentalist in Northeast China’, 20080921, by Wu Jia, CRIENGLISH.com, ^http://english.cri.cn/4026/2008/09/21/1241s407576.htm]
