Rstuart,
I am currently trying to get Shadow minister to think a little broader on the issue.
I am yet to be convinced that Mass Nuclear Power Generation is a viable stand alone business investment certainly in Australia. There would need to be too much commercial mining of the public purse to make it so....e.g. Cost of remediation of both the the site and inevitable whoops' and indefinite storage of the waste.
The human effect will apply regardless of the technology. As its the impact of corporate imperatives.
I guess I would amplify Pericles' point by noting that a true cost benefit analysis which focuses on Australia and not just a limited economic (corporate) justification has never been done.

Cheryl
As for the argument against biodiversity please don't advertise your ignorance. Of course there is an extensive bio- diversity there just because you can't identify it or understand it's place doesn't mean what is there isn't important.
Nor does that mean I would stop development .

Remember the damage the 186 humble bunnies started or what cane toads are doing.
I suggest you get past the ultra green phobia and look at reality and consider all aspects.

Wind erosion/desertification etc. come to mind. Expose the sub-strata to that environment and what will be the consequences? ….wind blown contaminants, increased dust storms there are a myriad wider spread problem come to mind.
In the 80s chemical signatures of our Mallee top soil was found on wind blown dust from NZ coastal trawlers.

Australia is paying the price now and into the future for originally ignoring factors as irrelevant.

As for the whale sized red herring that this article implies a denial of technology or if adopted would signal an imminent reduction in life quality of life is as improbable as the existence of a whale sized herring red or otherwise.

What would be the impact on all this on the already perverted climate is anyone's guess and will remain so unless we heed history and consider very carefully. In accordance with the above Australia's real long term interests.

What amuses me is that the socialist who want big business via Governments to pay for everything then complain when Governments have no choice but to expand mining to recoup their socialist spending. I wonder how much it cost Mr Rudd, Ms Wong and the dozens of hangers on to go to Bali to fix 'climate change' problem. One day the tree huggers will realise it costs money to fund their extravagant lifestyles and even their sit in protests. Imagine how many Government funded Green groups would be out of business if it was not for mining. Al Gore and Richard Branson's private jet trips in their crusades to 'save the planet' would have to be curtailed. Now that might really affect climate change.

EVERY land use has an environmental impact. Townships, farms, forestry, airports, roads, ports, power stations, etc etc.

We need is to educate the population about these issues. All land is zoned, one way or another. All land has some environmental utility. Some is more beautiful (NSW coast), some is more rare/unique.

EVERY development application should require the proponent to undertake a cost benefit analysis. He/she should detail the environmental impact (area disrupted, how intensely, for how long, nature of disruption etc) and also detail the benefit to the nation (infrastructure, taxes, royalties, jobs).

This process could be administered simply by using standard forms, and a random audit process to check.

Projects which have minor environmental impact, and which deliver massive benefits to the nation should go ahead unimpeded. Projects which destroy high utility land for little gain should not

Having read extensively on commentary about the Olympic Dam expansion Environmental Impact Statement, I was interested and pleased to find Sandra Kanck's very informative summary. She covered so many aspects of the plan, giving factual detail, and appropriate criticism of the shortcomings of the EIS.
I was less happy to read the comments.
I've been away from OnLine opinion for some time. I did think that it was 'liberal' in style - but in the best sense of 'liberal'.
What's happened? Out of 9 comments - only one was supportive of the author. OK - this medium's open for comments and critics.

But the critics! No attempt to answer the facts and logic of the article. just rather mindless Liberal (and Labor) comments: e.g. BHPB's bilby sanctuary. (for goodness' sake - BHPB is everywhere - arts, opera, anything that enhances their reputation as The Big Australian, even though they're only partially Australian-owned)And then the suggestions that we add to the great uranium hole by getting nuclear power plants, too.
It looks to me as if the 'left' has given up on Online opinion, and so has the intelligent 'right' (if such a species exists).
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclear.net

One of the truisms about forums like these, ChristinaMac, is that an article is more likely to attract comments from dissenters, than from the cheersquad.

>>Out of 9 comments - only one was supportive of the author.<<

I can only suggest that your opinion - that it was a "very informative summary" was not shared by too many people. I personally found it rich in polemic, but short on balance. Hence my own question along the lines of 'how big is too big'.

If the objective is to oppose development of any kind, for any reason, whatever its size and scope, then it would be reasonable to state as much. We could then argue whether the lifestyles such policies would lead us towards, are acceptable.

But this is halfway-houseism.

Yes, the Olympic Dam project is big. Yes, the environment will suffer. But to complain that a "...tree that is decades or even centuries old will not be easily replaced" seems just a little out of proportion.

As the polar opposite of a piece that claims "all mining is beautiful", the article does a reasonable job. Quite possibly, the lack of explicit OLO support for the piece indicates a level of discomfort with such unleavaned extremism.