One of the largely overlooked issues in the nuclear industry’s public relations overdrive about nuclear energy, is the impact of uranium mining on Aboriginal lands. Australia is home to 40% of the world’s uranium reserves. It is also home to a strong anti-nuclear movement, to a large extent led by Aboriginal traditional owners in regional and remote areas.
Djok traditional owner Jeffrey Lee is one of the many traditional owners in Australia fighting uranium mining companies to preserve his land and culture. Lee, senior custodian of the Kongarra uranium deposit, has decided never to allow his land, which borders the world-heritage listed Kakadu National Park, to be mined.
However, French mining giant Areva, the world’s biggest nuclear power company, wants to extract 14,000 tonnes of uranium worth more than $5 billion.
The site is close to a special place for the Australian environment and Aboriginal land rights rights movements, the site of the proposed Jabiluka uranium mine which was defeated by a huge campaign in 2003. The campaign, which included a long-running blockade, was led by the Mirrar traditional owners.
In Australia, uranium mining companies have a history of trying to split Indigenous communities over the issue of mining, offering large amounts of money in exchange for mining rights.
Read more about Jeffrey Lee’s campaign to protect his land from mining: Here
Read more about uranium mining in Australia by downloading the report’ Yellowcake Country: Australia’s uranium mining industry‘
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
I look forward to reading more about Jeffrey Lee, and his principled stand in defence of his land.
On Sat 14th July I attended the abooriginal rights rally in Melbourne. Despite the rain – the rall y and march were well attended. I couldn’t estimate numbers, but I would say – probably between one and two thousand – many aborigines and their many non-aboriginal supporters.
Similar rallies were held on other capital cities. Nevertheless, the mainstream media has not so far reported this – apart from a second or two on the ABC TV. Of course, the arrival of David Beckham in Los Angeles, to play for the US soccer team Galaxy – this item received intense coverage on all the media. So relevant to Australia. doncha think?
Anyway, I’m so pleased to find your site, – Oh Climate Change Youth – and more power to you, for publicising Jeffrey Lee’s campaign. I shall proceed to your Lee referred site forthwith.
Sincerely
Christina Macpherson http://www.antinucleataustralia.com
Hey Anna,
thanks for posting on this. The mining of uranium on indigenous land is also a problem in America. I’d like more thought to be put into the environmental justice issues surrounding nuclear power, and whether we can really justify a power source that is harming already impacted communities. One more great reason that we shouldn’t pursue nuclear energy as the solution to climate change.
With the recent rise in uranium prices, most likely there will be exploration in non-indigenous areas [it would be easier to get uranium from areas not so politically sensitive]. In addition, India has long been examining thorium fuel (US operated a thorium core from 1977-1982).
Also, solar and wind need mining too. Solar needs silicon and arsenic for photvoltaics (and the new solar cells are organics requiring petrochemicals or equivalent). Wind requires iron for the steel turbine blades and the structures. There is no free lunch or completely clean energy.
R Margolis,
I just want to say one thing, for my experience working on nuclear issues and indigenous communities. I agree completely that there is no such thing as a free lunch, however silicon, iron, and even organic compounds are plentiful and available from all over. Uranium mining is a destructive process that uses enormous quantities of ore to gather significant uranium. Before any rebuts with coal, I totally agree that coal mining is worse. But it doesn’t have to be an either ore! (I know it’s a terrible pun) Higher prices for Uranium means more pressure on indigenous communities to submit their land to uranium mining and the threshold price for gathering uranium from sea water is far too high to reduce that pressure – let alone the time taken to develop it.
Instead of just choosing which massive, hierarchical demand side power ’solution’ we will support in the lesser of evils tradition, lets use the assets we have. We have tremendously smart people, a staggeringly wide array of policies, networks, and information/energy technologies. We can build smarter cites, smarter grids, and set rules that incentivize conservation over exploitation. We can use nimble, scalable energy solutions like Combined Heat and Power biomass, peak-shaving solar electric/thermal hybrids, plug-in hybrids, cross climactic-zone wind connected by new efficient long distance power lines. Green Building, carbon-taxing, congestion easing municipalities exist. Let us move into the 21st century for once and for all!
Richard –
Silicon purification, arsenic mining (arsenic is used in solar cells) and cadmium processing (another ingredient for solar cells) all involve some serious toxins. Yes they are at controllable levels, but the same can be said of uranium (e.g., the ExternE study of external costs, http://www.externe.info/).
I certainly agree with you if the tremendously smart people develop something like a VERY cheap superconductor, then solar, wind, and the smaller sources can do the job. Without such a cheap storage method, these technologies have had the economic issue of replacing a 24/7 device with a partially used energy source combined with a partially used storage device.
Of course, smart people are working on improvements to conventional low-carbon sources as well. My crystal ball is a little blurred, so I am not sure which technological improvements will lead the way…
Robert