ANSTO (the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation)
must think all their Christmases have come at once with the current
concern about water shortages and global warming. In the latest New Scientist
(10 June) they are advertising for a head for their Institute for
Environmental Research. The blurb describing the Institution states
that it “applies nuclear tools, techniques and expertise to address
Australia’s environmental challenges particularly in water resource
management and climate change”. What are the chances of the research
recommending something other than a nuclear approach being the best for
the environment?

The Senate’s Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee
is inquiring into Australia’s national parks, conservation reserves and
marine protected areas. It seems that not one of the State Government’s
national parks management agencies has made a submission (see the
Senate website for submissions to the
inquiry) or has made a presentation to the Senate Committee. Does this
mean that politics is more important than public land management? Does
this mean that the State public land management agencies have something
to hide or don’t want the scrutiny?

Peter Fray

Save 50% on a year of Crikey and The Atlantic.

The US election is in a little over a month. It seems that there’s a ridiculous twist in the story, almost every day.

Luckily for new Crikey subscribers, we’ve teamed up with one of America’s best publications, The Atlantic for the election race. Subscribe now to make sense of it all, and you’ll get a year of Crikey (usually $199) and a year’s digital subscription to The Atlantic (usually $70AUD), BOTH for just $129.

Peter Fray
Editor-in-chief of Crikey

JOIN NOW