Joel Fitzgibbon and Arthur Sinodinos
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
26 minutes ago
- ABC News
Offshore wind company pulls out of $10 billion Hunter project
The future of the offshore wind industry in New South Wales has been dealt a blow after a European energy giant confirmed it was pulling out of the most advanced project in the state. The federal government had offered a feasibility licence to a consortium involving Norwegian energy company Equinor and Australian partner Oceanex to build the Novocastrian Offshore Wind Farm off Newcastle and Port Stephen. Equinor said it would not be accepting the licence, and would withdraw its support for the project. The $10 billion farm was expected to generate 2,000 megawatts of capacity and be located 20 kilometres off the coastline. Oceanex announced the plan for the project in 2020, with the federal government granting the feasibility license in February. The project included the use of floating foundation technology in a 500 kilometre square licence area, and was expected to create more than 3,000 jobs during construction. Energy Minister Chris Bowen told ABC Radio Newcastle the two partners could not agree to move forward with the project. He said Oceanex was too small to lead the project alone. "They need a partner, and frankly an international partner," he said. In a statement, Oceanex said it is disappointed with Equinor's decision. "We will continue to work with all to investigate how we can make offshore wind in the Hunter progress and create huge jobs and investment for the region," the statement read. The decision came months after the collapse of the only company pursuing a project in the other NSW offshore wind zone, in the Illawarra region. In a joint statement, the Novocastrian Offshore Wind project said the decision reflected global challenges. "While we are not progressing with this feasibility license, we believe Australia continues to have a significant role to play in the global energy transition," the statement read. Equinor's move came after a decision by the company to pull out of a planned wind farm in Bass Strait earlier this year. Meanwhile, the federal government has continued supporting renewable technology development by releasing new guidance for research licenses in declared offshore zones. MP for Paterson, Meryl Swanson, said while she was disappointed Equinor declined the license, more research would be a step in a positive direction. "We're not shutting the door on more jobs and energy, we're pursuing it," Ms Swanson said. Port Stephens Offshore Game Fishing Club president Troy Radford led a fight against the proposed wind farm. "It's great news for tourists, whale watchers and fishermen," Mr Radford said. "The impact to recreational game fishing would be devastating, the area he chose is a marlin hotspot in Australia. Mr Radford said the federal government should deregister the zone altogether. "The zone that Mr Bowen picked out off Port Stephens is the worst possible spot," he said.
ABC News
26 minutes ago
- ABC News
Sunscreen brand Ultra Violette pulls popular product off shelf after SPF testing
Sunscreen brand, Ultra Violette, is withdrawing one of its popular and well known products from the market over concerns about its sun protection factor. The company announced today it is voluntarily withdrawing the product after testing revealed it couldn't guarantee the SPF 50+ on the label. Testing by consumer group Choice earlier this year found 16 out of 20 popular sunscreen products failed to meet the SPF on their labels. The worst performer was Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF Mattifying Zinc Sunscreen, which came back with an SPF of just 4. In a statement the company said: Given this pattern of inconsistency in testing, we have decided to withdraw Lean/Velvet Screen from the market, effective immediately. Purchases of this product will be eligible for a refund and a product voucher, regardless of where it was purchased.
ABC News
26 minutes ago
- ABC News
Without the US military, Ukraine security guarantees may do little to deter Russia
As Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy came out of talks in Washington this week, photos captured him smiling alongside US and European leaders with headlines announcing "security guarantees". As the allies met to discuss how to end the three-and-a-half-year war in Ukraine, the main topic was how they might stop Russia from attacking again. The Western leaders promised security guarantees — that is, military help — to protect any peace agreement. US President Donald Trump even said "Article 5-like" protections were possible, referring to NATO's binding promise that an attack on one is an attack on all. But he has since ruled out putting US troops on the ground, instead offering the possibility of "air support" and saying the EU would provide "the first line of defence". Now questions are being raised about what protections can actually be guaranteed, and if it will be enough to deter Russia. One of Mr Zelenskyy's terms for signing a peace deal with Russia is Western help for Ukraine's military, including weapons, training, and troops to help shore up its defences. "We need strong security guarantees to ensure a truly secure and lasting peace," Mr Zelenskyy wrote on Telegram. European allies are looking to set up a force that could backstop any peace agreement, and a coalition of 30 countries, including European nations, Japan and Australia, have signed up to support the initiative. French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer have both supported troop deployments as part of a "reassurance force", with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz also signalling openness to his country's participation. Canada and Australia have also raised the prospect of sending peacekeeping troops to Ukraine. But the Kremlin has repeatedly said it would not accept the deployment of any troops from NATO countries, while Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said this week that making security arrangements for Ukraine without Moscow's involvement was pointless. Stephan Fruehling from the Australian National University's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre said it was unclear what security guarantees would mean. He said commitments would need to be backed up by Western forces in Ukraine, but there would be limits to what Europe could realistically do — especially without a strong US presence. "NATO generally doesn't actually have that many land forces to spare," Professor Fruehling told the ABC. The head of Germany's soldiers' union said that European NATO leaders must face the reality that tens of thousands of troops would need to be deployed in a Ukraine peace force for the long term. Professor Fruehling said the forces would likely be used for training in rural parts of Ukraine, and it was uncertain if they would stick around at the onset of hostilities. To deter Russia from attacking, there would need to be a "reasonable likelihood that Western countries would enter the conflict," he said. The US has made it clear that Europe would provide "the lion's share" of security support for Ukraine. Security guarantees would be "provided" by Europe, "with coordination with the United States", Mr Trump said. The US president has publicly ruled out deploying American troops in Ukraine but appeared to leave the door open to other US military involvement. In an interview with Fox News' Fox & Friends program, he suggested Washington could provide air support to Ukraine. "When it comes to security, they're (Europe) willing to put people on the ground," he said. "We're willing to help them with things, especially, probably, if you talk about by air, because nobody has the kind of stuff we have." He did not provide further details. If the US agreed to enforce control of the Ukrainian skies, it would be an "incredible green light for greater ambition" by Europeans on security, Kristine Berzina, a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund, told AFP news agency. US air support could involve a variety of options, including providing more air defence systems to Ukraine, enforcing a no-fly zone with US fighter jets, or assisting with air policing. A no-fly zone would ban all unauthorised aircraft from flying over Ukraine, but to be effective, it would require a threat of military action if violated. NATO has denied requests to enact no-fly zones in the past, wary of dragging the alliance into the conflict. Air policing is a peacetime mission that involves continuous presence "24 hours a day, 365 days a year of fighter aircraft and crews, which are ready to react quickly to possible airspace violations," according to NATO. Professor Fruehling said air policing would again be "largely symbolic", and what Ukraine really needed was a commitment to a defence mission. "If the US was really committed to an air campaign against Russia, the Russians really would have a big problem," he said. Matthew Savill, director of military services at the British think tank the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), said if Western allies were not willing to "take risks", their security guarantees would do little to deter Russia. "The Russians are unlikely to fear US airpower if they do not think it will be used against them," he wrote in an analysis. "Trump has consistently been clear he does not see it as worth the US risk to confront Russia." As EU and US defence officials met to hash out a plan, Russia launched one of its largest aerial attacks on Ukraine this year. Russia has fired nearly 1,000 long-range drones and missiles at Ukraine since Monday's White House talks, according to Ukrainian tallies. After major strikes on western Ukraine overnight — some hitting American targets — Mr Zelenskyy said that there was "still no signal from Moscow that they truly intend to engage in substantive negotiations and end this war". Mr Trump said earlier this week there was an agreement for a bilateral meeting between the Ukrainian and Russian leaders. Russia's foreign minister said Mr Putin was ready to meet with Mr Zelenskyy to discuss peace terms, but only after key issues had been worked out by senior officials. Mr Zelenskyy said he would only meet with his Russian counterpart once his allies agreed to security guarantees, calling for an understanding of the "architecture within seven to 10 days". Professor Fruehling was concerned that any agreements would in the end hinge on Russia. "The term security guarantees is widely used, but who's actually guaranteeing what here?" he said. "Nobody can guarantee Ukraine's security because ultimately only the Russians can do that." ABC/Wires
