CNEA DISSOLUTION!
An earthquake shakes Japan’s Fukushima region
An earthquake of 7.1 degrees on the Ritcher scale shook eastern Japan that Saturday (02/13/2021) and was strongly felt in Tokyo, without the Japanese authorities activating the tsunami warning for the moment.
Expansion continues https://www.dw.com/es/un-terremoto-sacude-la-regi%C3%B3n-japonesa-de-fukushima/a-56559724?fbclid=IwAR2oJOXjuX6eB_OvmRWjaQjzzx6e4UtOTMIAf_1DPeOpNDt3-tQnZ5MaL_8
************************************
In its rush for Kimba nuclear dump, Australian government tries to remove rights to legal recourse
Central Coast Council will maintain the Nuclear Free Policy
![]() Central Coast Council will maintain the Nuclear Free Policy put into place by the former Gosford Council. Coast Community News, Administrator Dick Persson rejected a Central Coast Council staff report which wanted to revoke the policy, amid applause from the public gallery, at the Council meeting on February 8. Only about a dozen members of the public attended the meeting but at least two of them carried home-made anti-nuclear signs. Another two people spoke at the public forum in favour of keeping the policy in place. The Greens member and former Wyong councillor Sue Wynn spoke as did Australian Conservation Foundation Central Coast president Mark Ellis. To the surprise of the gallery, when the speakers concluded, Persson said he agreed with everything they had said and the gallery burst into applause. Persson suggested someone had been working through a list of policies that needed removing and that at the last meeting he had dealt with some. This week the only policy on the list was the anti-nuclear policy and it stood out “like the proverbial”, he said…….. https://coastcommunitynews.com.au/central-coast/news/2021/02/councils-nuclear-free-policy-lives-on/ |
|
Retain Gosford’s nuclear free zone status.
![]() FEBRUARY 12, 2021 I am passionately in favour of retaining Gosford’s nuclear free zone status. No one who I have engaged with, in person or on social media, is in favour of this being rescinded. Opening up Central Coast Council like this would allow the use, storage of or transportation through the LGA of nuclear weapons, waste or material for the first time since 1984. I am strongly opposed to this action being facilitated. It also paves the way for small-scale nuclear facilities on the Central Coast. In addition, it is on the public record that Taylor Martin MLC is in favour of small-scale nuclear reactors to generate electricity. The rationale for this proposal is that “the handling and mining of radioactive materials is now highly regulated at a State and Federal level” and “any public concern regarding nuclear-related activities is best dealt at the State and Federal level”. However, this is not completely correct, and legislation is slowly changing. In 2019, a NSW Upper House inquiry into the Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019 recommended repealing the original bill in its entirety. Uranium exploration is also already permitted under current legislation; its mining just currently is not. There is no certainty that “there are no known uranium deposits on the Central Coast” (Item 4.1, Attachment 3, Council agenda, Feb 8). As you are aware, the former Wyong Shire Council had a similar nuclear free zone policy, which was revoked in April, 2014, and “policies from the former Gosford City and Wyong Shire Councils still apply in their respective former Local Government Areas, until a new policy is adopted for the Central Coast Council region” (https://www.centralcoast.nsw.gov.au/council/forms-and-publications/policies). My first preference would be for the nuclear free zone to be extended back into the previous Wyong LGA. If our Council’s “financial crisis” is your main order of business in your role as Administrator, Mr Dick Persson, I urge you to focus on this being the main issue at hand. I also thought that you said that it was not your role to go back over previous decisions. Please resist allowing your professional integrity to be compromised by the Council’s Environment and Planning department, which will pave the way for future nuclear power generation, uranium mining, and/or the storage of nuclear waste on the beautiful Central Coast. |
|
|
‘Ecocide’ proposal aiming to make environmental destruction an international crime
‘Ecocide’ proposal aiming to make environmental destruction an international crime
By Anthony Funnell for Future Tense– 13 Feb 21, A group of leading international law experts has defined a new super-crime.They’re calling it “ecocide”. They plan to submit a draft of their new law to the governing body of the International Criminal Court, in the hope that the ICC will adopt it for future prosecutions. If successful, ecocide will become the court’s fifth jurisdictional responsibility, alongside genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression. The group behind the proposal, Stop Ecocide, argues that climate change knows no borders and the destruction of local ecosystems can have huge global consequences. “In this day and age, it’s no longer possible to say that one is destroying large swathes of nature without realising what one is doing,” Stop Ecocide’s Jojo Mehta says. She, and the expert panel she’s assembled, want governments, companies and individuals to be brought to account for the environmental destruction they knowingly allow. And that sense of knowing is important, she says, because most destruction occurs not by accident, but in support of commercial gains. A growing momentumProminent environmental activist Greta Thunberg is onboard, as is the French President, Emmanuel Macron, who’s raised the possibility of incorporating the concept of ecocide into domestic French law. Though not an official member of the Stop Ecocide movement, he’s also leant his weight to the idea of charging the ICC with oversight of international prosecutions. President Macron’s involvement began in 2019, when large swathes of the Amazon caught fire under suspicious circumstances. Macron personally accused the Brazilian government of not doing enough to protect the forests from destruction. Brazil’s populist leader, Jair Bolsonaro — a self-proclaimed climate change denier — initially ridiculed the idea of an ecological emergency and refused to accept international assistance. “This is an issue that concerns the entire world,” President Macron responded.
Pope Francis has also spoken of what he calls the “sins of ecology”, explicitly describing his understanding of ecocide as: “The massive contamination of air, land and water resources, the large-scale destruction of flora and fauna, and any action capable of producing an ecological disaster or destroying an ecosystem.” The pros and consQueens University Law lecturer, Rachel Killean, says the concept of ecocide dates back to the Vietnam War and debates over the American military’s use of the Agent Orange defoliant. It also briefly gained attention during early discussions on the role and function of the International Criminal Court. So, Dr Killean says, it makes historical sense to adapt the ICC’s brief, rather than establish a new environmental court. She says International Law experts such as University College London’s Philippe Sands, former ICC judges and climate change experts are talking about it as “something that is possible and tangible.” Ms Mehta says the ICC is the only global mechanism that directly accesses the criminal justice systems in all of its member states. “So, effectively if you make something a crime there, any member state that ratifies that crime must then include it in their own domestic legislation within a year.” This means it’s likely the most efficient way to make a rule that stays similar across international borders. “That’s very important with ecosystem destruction because the biggest perpetrators are big transnational companies which operate in many jurisdictions,” Ms Mehta says. But, Dr Killean warns, despite renewed interest in the ecocide concept there are big hurdles to overcome, the first being sufficient political will………….. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-13/will-ecocide-become-an-international-crime/13136912 |
|
|
Systemic corruption in the American nuclear industry

The “largest bribery, money-laundering scheme ever perpetrated against the people and the state of Ohio” came to light during an unexpected press conference in July 2020 in Columbus. Speaking haltingly and carefully, US Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio David DeVillers announced “the arrest of Larry Householder, Speaker of the House of the state of Ohio and four other defendants for racketeering. The conspiracy was to pass and maintain a $1.5 billion bailout in return for $61 million in dark money.”
Unravelling an intricate web of alleged illegal activities used to launder money, DeVillers broke down the complicated modus operandi of “Company A.” With a gentle smile on his face, he said, “everyone in this room knows who Company A is, but I will not be mentioning the name of Company A because of our regulations and rules. They have not, and no one from that company has as of yet, been charged”.
Company A is FirstEnergy Solutions, a fact most Ohians had been aware of long before the July 2020 press conference. FirstEnergy, now called Energy Harbour, is one of Ohio’s largest utility corporations. For years, the firm lobbied to get a subsidy to continue operating its unprofitable nuclear plants and maintain its revenue flow. When lobbying efforts failed to produce subsidies, it resorted to bribery to gain legislative support for House Bill 6, 2019 legislation that forces state consumers to pay into something called “the Ohio Clean Air Fund.” The green language is a smoke screen for the real purpose: to siphon nearly $150 million annually to FirstEnergy to keep its Perry and Davis-Besse nuclear power plants and two coal-fired power plants operating, while simultaneously gutting Ohio’s renewable energy standards. Also gone were the state’s energy efficiency programs, which had saved consumers and corporations millions of dollars. When citizens tried to organize a referendum to repeal the bill, FirstEnergy indulged in various dirty tactics to thwart this democratic opposition.
Ohio is not alone in its nuclear energy corruption. Also in July 2020, Commonwealth Edison (ComEd), a subsidiary of Exelon, was charged with bribery to “Public Official A” in Illinois. Though not named, the filing makes it clear that “Public Official A” is Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, who has denied wrongdoing. ComEd has agreed to pay a $200 million fine to resolve this case. Exelon also finds itself at the centre of another ongoing investigation by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The focus of the investigation is reportedly Anne Pramaggiore, a former Exelon CEO who stepped down from the company and from his post chair of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. As in Ohio, the corruption charges relate to lobbying for state subsidies and special treatment of nuclear power plants.
Three other states—New Jersey, Connecticut, and New York—have implemented similar subsidies (although, to date, no allegations of wrongdoing related to them have been made public). Changes in the economics of electricity markets are threatening the profitability of nuclear power plants, a shifting reality driving a demand for these financial bailouts. As the New Jersey-based energy company Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG) explained in October 2020, across the nation “nuclear plants continue to struggle economically to survive. Since 2018, three nuclear plants have closed in the eastern US, all for economic reasons, and the impact has had a ripple effect.”
Changing economics of electricity generation. These “economic reasons” have to do with an ongoing massive transformation of the energy sector. Over the last decade, the cost of renewables like solar and wind have dropped substantially; these renewables can generate electricity at much lower costs than fossil fuels and, especially, nuclear power. In the United States, unsubsidized wind power costs fell by 71 percent between 2009 and 2020, whereas unsubsidized utility scale solar energy costs declined by 90 percent during the same period. Nuclear energy costs increased by 33 percent between 2009 and 2020. The International Energy Agency has dubbed solar energy “the new king of electricity” and foresees it dominating future deployment in the electricity sector for decades.
The major beneficiaries of the subsidies for nuclear plants are large corporations: PSEG in New Jersey and Dominion in Connecticut, besides Exelon and FirstEnergy. These, and other electrical utility companies in the United States, have historically invested primarily in nuclear reactors and fossil fuel plants. Thanks to the changing economics of electricity, these companies are finding it harder to maintain their profits while operating the older power plants that are now more expensive as sources of electricity.
These companies and various associated organizations have engaged in extensive lobbying and large-scale propaganda campaigns to get governments pass legislation that makes consumers pay more for the electricity they use. In that sense, what has resulted would be better described as corporate welfare than as subsidies. The subsidies have improved these companies’ financial situation, which in turn contributes to their clout in state and national policy making and their ability to fund advocacy efforts—and even to pay politicians tidy sums of money. The larger significance of the political power these large utilities have amassed is their ability to block transition to a fully renewable and more environmentally sustainable energy system.
Financial subsidies. Subsidies take different forms in different states. In New York and Illinois, utility companies are required to purchase a specific amount of zero-emission credits from authorized nuclear generating stations, all of which are owned and operated by Exelon Corporation. Purchasing contracts in both states will be in effect for 10 to 12 years, and utility companies are mandated to tack on the cost to consumer bills. Over in New Jersey, “each electric public utility” is required to purchase “Nuclear Diversity Certificates” from nuclear power plants, with consumers paying for these programs through higher utility bills.
The deal that Dominion Energy struck in Connecticut was different, taking the form of a contract that requires the state’s two electric distribution utilities to purchase about 50 percent of the electricity output of Dominion’s Millstone nuclear generating plant for 10 years. Millstone houses two operational nuclear reactors. In all of these cases, the annual financial benefits to these large corporations run in to the hundreds of millions of dollars.
The modus operandi was developed by multiple stakeholders and publicly released in 2016 in the form of a toolkit by the American Nuclear Society (ANS). Produced by a special committee consisting of senior nuclear officials, the toolkit outlined “a variety of policy pathways to support the current nuclear fleet and prevent early retirement.” The states mentioned above have implemented polices that incorporate one or more of the strategies outlined in the ANS toolkit, including amalgamations of low-carbon portfolio standards and mandated purchase of nuclear energy. The toolkit even went so far as to suggest that state government entities could acquire nuclear power plants or suspend collecting taxes, but these suggestions have not been implemented so far.
Building political support. While the American Nuclear Society led the policy-development charge, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)—the nuclear industry’s lobbying arm—reinforced the advocacy message on the ground. The NEI’s 2017 report outlined specific plans and efforts instituted around the same time as many of these nuclear bailouts were pushed through state legislatures. Substantial resources were funnelled toward lobbying efforts aimed at key political and public actors. NEI’s deliberate intention, as outlined in the 2017 report, was to build political support to “avoid placing additional financial burden on US nuclear plants.”
Large-scale media dissemination, educational campaigns, relationship-building with regulatory bodies, think tanks, and policy institutions, and direct political lobbying are some of the tactics outlined in the report. Not all of the tactics aimed at subsidies; some were aimed at lowering expenses for nuclear companies by finding ways to lessen their environmental obligations. For example, the NEI managed to terminate annual fees charged to nuclear generating plants for hazardous material cleanup, which made taxpayers liable for these costs. The NEI took full credit for this shift: “After targeting the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, NEI successfully prevented reimplementation of a $200 million annual fee placed on the industry.”
The NEI also tried to influence the appointment of officials to oversight bodies, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), declaring that it “shared names of potential candidates with the Trump administration and worked with member companies to urge Congress to communicate with the White House the need to nominate and confirm commissioners.” The NRC is the agency tasked with overseeing safety, and in 2017, the NEI proudly announced that it had “worked with the House Appropriations Committee to again reduce the NRC’s budget.”
The institute took credit for engaging “across the Ohio state government to support enactment of zero-emission nuclear credit legislation,” for convening “meetings with the governor’s staff on the value of nuclear energy,” and for testifying “at legislative hearings on the issue.” Not surprisingly, NEI’s efforts were supported by large cash payments allegedly provided by FirstEnergy.
The power game. Many energy companies are actively involved in local or state-level lobbying. In recent years, Illinois has been a site of intense lobbying by Exelon and its subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison (ComEd), primarily to get more and more subsidies from the state. “At least two dozen former Illinois state lawmakers have lobbied on behalf of ComEd or Exelon since 2000,” according to Illinois Policy, an independent public policy organization. Exelon’s hold on Illinois decision-making has been characterized by David Kraft of the Nuclear Energy Information Service as “nuclear blackmail,” a result of politics that “forced environmentalists wanting to see new legislation pass that would expand renewables, into a reluctant and grudging alliance with Exelon, but on Exelon’s terms.”
The process works as follows. Every so often, Exelon or ComEd would declare that one or more of their nuclear plants are no longer profitable and threaten to shut the plants down within a year. The threats have tended to be successful; lobbyists can argue, with some truth on their side, that a shutdown will lead to job losses and a cut in tax revenue, also leaving Illinois with an energy shortage that may increase reliance on carbon-based sources.
The same strategy was used successfully in New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey, where state officials described the process in colorful terms like “highway robbery” and “ransom.” The nuclear sector has extensively resorted to this kind of power politics, even using it in regard to nuclear plants that eventually shut down, such as the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station.
Money begets money. The effects of enacting laws that favor nuclear energy firms are clear from the financial status of these corporations. Exelon share prices increased from $34.63 on April 1, 2017 to a high of $50.95 exactly two years later, while Dominion’s stock price grew from $64.19 on May 1, 2018 to $83.70, as of November 6, 2020. Similar increases have been recorded by FirstEnergy and PSEG.
Apart from stock owners, the other major beneficiaries from the utility business are, of course, executives in these companies. CEOs like Dominion’s Thomas Farrell and Exelon’s Christopher Crane are among the highest paid executives in the electrical generation and utility industry………..
Dealing with corruption, legal and illegal. The crimes that people like Larry Householder and Michael Madigan are accused of committing are shameful; they are, however, just examples of the apparent systemic corruption that seems to permeate the nuclear industry.
While the actions taken against these individuals have captured headlines, the picture painted in the media still misses the mark on less egregious, everyday forms of political action. Lobbying by deep-pocketed industries and other efforts to capture regulators are pernicious but often go unremarked, in part because under the rules that govern politics in the United States, such actions are often legal. Addressing these problems with the urgency they require will necessarily involve confronting the economic and political system that privileges profits and capital over people and the environment.https://thebulletin.org/2021/02/big-money-nuclear-subsidies-and-systemic-corruption/
U.S. rioters did get close to Mike Pence and his ‘nuclear football’
How Close Did the Capitol Rioters Get to the Nuclear “Football”?
The video of Mike Pence shown during the impeachment revealed something startling about the nuclear chain of command. Slate, BY FRED KAPLAN, FEB 11, 2021 Among the many startling videos shown at Wednesday’s impeachment trial documenting the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol, there was one clip that was so brief, subtle, and beside the immediate point that the House managers didn’t highlight it—but it was nevertheless hugely enlightening.
It revealed that, like the president, the vice president is routinely escorted by a military aide who carries a satchel containing the codes that allow him to launch a nuclear attack.The pertinent clip shows Vice President Mike Pence and his family being rushed out of the Capitol to escape the rioters, who, it turns out, were determined to kill him for certifying the Electoral College votes and thus betraying Donald Trump. Following Pence was an Air Force officer carrying two bags, one of which looked a lot like the nuclear satchel, also known as the Football or the Black Bag…………..
During some administrations, a military aide with a Football accompanied the vice president only on out-of-town trips. But a former White House official told me that a military aide with a satchel was always close to Joe Biden when he was Barack Obama’s vice president. Presumably (though nobody has told me this), a military aide carries a satchel close to Kamala Harris too……………
As for the prospect of a rogue veep, there’s probably nothing to worry about. It’s worth noting what’s in the satchel. Contrary to popular culture, there is no “button” to push, nor is there an indented surface that matches the president’s (or vice president’s) palm. What’s actually in the satchel—which is said to weigh 45 pounds—is a card (sometimes called the “biscuit”) citing phone numbers to call and a passcode that authenticates the identity of the caller, some encrypted communication gear to make the call, and a book describing all of the preapproved nuclear attack options and how the president would go about ordering each one. This book used to be a rather heavy tome called the SIOP Execution Handbook (the SIOP, standing for Single Integrated Operational Plan, is the nuclear war plan) or, at various times, the Gold Book or the Black Book. When Carter first leafed through the book, he told the officers who supplied it, “I’m pretty smart, and I don’t understand any of this.” So the operations division of the Pentagon’s Joint Staff condensed the complicated book into a stack of laminated cards (“like a menu at Wendy’s,” as one officer described them) inscribed in very clear language.
To launch a nuclear attack, the president (or the vice president) would transmit the coded message to a one-star general and his staff in the National Military Command Center, located on the Pentagon’s ground floor, who would in turn pass the order on to the missile and bomber crews, who would launch the attack. That’s it. There is no red button, but there are also no other officials involved in the chain of command. (Other officials are supposed to consult and confer, but they don’t have the ultimate say.)
If the vice president ordered an attack (something that the officer carrying the Football would have to allow), the officers in the Pentagon would know whether the authentication code belonged to the president or the vice president. They would also know whether the president was still alive and in command. If he was, they would know that the vice president’s order was not legitimate.
What about the mob? What could they do, had they grabbed the Football? First, it’s very unlikely that they could have grabbed it. The Secret Service agents around Pence would almost certainly meet any such attempt with deadly force. There would have been a dozen or more dead rioters scattered on the bloodied floor near the staircase where Pence, his family, and his entourage had gathered. If the mob’s survivors kept mauling and overpowering Pence and the others, they might not have thought to grab the Football, which is locked in a metal case tucked inside an ordinary-looking satchel. Even if they had grabbed the satchel, bashed the lock, and opened the case, they wouldn’t have known what to do with the stuff inside. Had they figured it out, the officers in the Pentagon would have known the signals were coming from an unauthorized source.
Could the mob have taken the Football and sold it to the Russians or some other adversary? It would be worth millions of dollars. Despite the militias’ self-image as “patriots,” it’s not out of would be worth millions of dollars. Despite the militias’ self-image as “patriots,” it’s not out of the question. According to a U.S. District Court affidavit, Riley June Williams, the Pennsylvania woman accused of breaching the Capitol and stealing Pelosi’s laptop on Jan. 6, intended to give the computer “to a friend in Russia, who then planned to sell the device to SVR, Russia’s foreign intelligence service.”……….
The nuclear bomb may be out of mind for many people in the post–Cold War era, but it is never out of sight—and its loaded trigger is constantly a mere few steps away from the one person with sole authority to destroy the planet. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/02/nuclear-football-vice-president-pence.html
How the WA Libs shook off climate denialism to trump Labor on clean energy — RenewEconomy

Modelling shows the WA Liberals ambitious plans for 100 per cent renewables by 2030 will deliver bigger savings than Labor’s cautious transition plans. The post How the WA Libs shook off climate denialism to trump Labor on clean energy appeared first on RenewEconomy.
How the WA Libs shook off climate denialism to trump Labor on clean energy — RenewEconomy
How home solar and battery storage kept the lights on in South Australia — RenewEconomy

AEMO credits home solar and battery storage VPP with keeping the lights on through a period of record minimum demand in South Australia. The post How home solar and battery storage kept the lights on in South Australia appeared first on RenewEconomy.
How home solar and battery storage kept the lights on in South Australia — RenewEconomy
“Go hard, go early:” Clean energy groups say W.A. target should be 700 pct renewables — RenewEconomy

WA leaders urged to go hard on the clean energy transition – beyond even the surprisingly ambitious targets unveiled by the WA Liberals. The post “Go hard, go early:” Clean energy groups say W.A. target should be 700 pct renewables appeared first on RenewEconomy.
“Go hard, go early:” Clean energy groups say W.A. target should be 700 pct renewables — RenewEconomy
MIT report ranks Australia in the global middle of green futures — RenewEconomy

Australia isn’t the absolute worst on creating a green future, but it has a long way to go before it leads, says a new MIT report. The post MIT report ranks Australia in the global middle of green futures appeared first on RenewEconomy.
MIT report ranks Australia in the global middle of green futures — RenewEconomy
February 12 Energy News — geoharvey

Opinion: ¶ “Are Renewables The Cheapest New Source Of Power?” • After a politician said he thought renewable energy is the cheapest source for new power generation, AAP FactCheck took a look. It found that renewables are the cheapest form of new power generation, even when accounting for the cost of firming, based on available […]
February 12 Energy News — geoharvey