Environmental approvals lapse for three out of four grandfathered uranium projects in WA

Environmental approvals lapse for three out of four grandfathered uranium projects in WA

The WA Labor government brought in a ban on uranium mining when it came to power in 2017 except for four existing projects. Environmental approvals have now lapsed for three as a low commodity price stifles development.

January 24, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

When it rains, it soars: Wetland birds come back from the brink

When it rains, it soars: Wetland birds come back from the brink

A number of endangered wetland species will see a rebound in numbers following months of rainfall, according to wildlife experts.

January 24, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Dozens of questions on climate and energy policies go unanswered by Morrison government — RenewEconomy

Senate estimates questions, relating to the Morrison government’s climate and energy policies, remain unanswered and are weeks overdue. The post Dozens of questions on climate and energy policies go unanswered by Morrison government appeared first on RenewEconomy.

Dozens of questions on climate and energy policies go unanswered by Morrison government — RenewEconomy

January 24, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Common Security Approaches to Resolve the Ukraine and European Crises

Common Security Approaches to Resolve the Ukraine and European Crises23.01.22 – United States – Abolition 2000   Pressenza, By Joseph Gerson* 23 Jan 22,

We have been bombarded by news reports and announcements from President Biden and Secretary of State Blinken that a Russian invasion of Ukraine is imminent. On January 18, as he prepared to leave for Kyiv, Berlin and Geneva, Secretary of State Blinken, said “We’re now at a stage where Russia could at any point launch an attack in Ukraine.” A day later President Biden announced that he expected Russian President Putin to order an invasion. And both backed their fear inducing warnings with the less than fully accurate claim of NATO unity and the threat that a Russian invasion of Ukraine will be met with “severe, and united response.”

Remarkably, across Europe, there has been a relative absence of fears of an imminent Russian invasion. The belief there is that the 100,000 troops Russia has deployed along its borders with Ukraine are a negotiation ploy. And when Secretary Blinken and Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov met in Geneva they committed to future diplomacy.

This has been a totally unnecessary crisis, fueled in large measure by U.S. insistence on maintaining NATO’s “open door” policy, when the reality is that there is no way that France or Germany will agree to Ukraine becoming a NATO member state. Resolution of the crisis could be hastened were President Biden or Secretary Blinken to state the obvious: “We understand there are deep insecurities on all sides. Given that our allies are in no hurry to welcome Ukraine into NATO, we propose a moratorium on new NATO memberships. Beyond that, we look forward to a range of constructive negotiations to establish an enduring Eurasian security framework for the 21st century.”

Such a statement would bring all the contending forces back from the brink. Instead, U.S. insistence on maintaining the possibility of Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO is exacerbating the multifaceted crisis.

The crisis has been years in the making. In 1990, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s Paris Charter, signed by 34 heads of state, “ushered in a new era as states made an unprecedented commitment to domestic individual freedoms, democratic governance, human rights, and transnational cooperation.”

[i] Seven years later, it was followed by the NATO-Russia Founding Act, which enshrined commitments to equal security and to not seek security at the expense of the other’s security. And in 1999 the OSCE’s European Security Charter its member states committed “not to strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States.”

More than Ukraine’s uncertain fate, it is the violation of these commitments to create a post-Cold War European security order that lies at the heart of the current dangerous crisis. Malcolm X would have said, the chickens have come home to roost.

Rather than acknowledge and compensate for errors made along the way, U.S. and NATO leaders’ arrogant inability to acknowledge legitimate Russian security concerns have precipitated what is termed the Ukraine crisis. It is actually a trans-European crisis. Contrary to all sides’ harsh public rhetoric, a near-term Russian invasion of Ukraine appears to be unlikely. But it could be triggered by an unintended incident, accident, or miscalculation.

There are realpolitik and Common Security diplomatic options that could resolve the crisis and build on the Paris Charter and the NATO-Russia Founding Agreement. They have been advocated by Former U.S. ambassador to Russia James Matlock and in off the record Track II discussions among other U.S., Russian, and European former officials and security analysts.

Three interrelated crises – not one

Developing mutually beneficial diplomatic solutions requires disaggregating what is commonly presented as a single crisis. We are, unfortunately, confronted by at least three entwined crises, not one: (1) The struggle between Galician (western) and Russian-oriented (eastern) Ukrainians over Ukraine’s identity and its future; (2) the crisis in Russian-Ukrainian relations, which has deep historic roots; (3) competing ambitions of two empires that are in decline (U.S. and Russia) to reinforce their power and influence across Europe, compounded by the inability of European nations to create an enduring post-Cold War security system.

Ukraine’s Identity Crisis: Given stark divisions in the United States, which date to 1619, our civil war, and across the 20th century, we should appreciate the histories that reverberate across Ukrainian culture and politics. For those wanting detail, Richard Sakwa’s Frontline Ukraine is an excellent resource. In short, Kievan Rus’ and its 988 conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy lie at the foundation of the Russian nation. In the 1400s, Ukraine became part of the Lithuanian and later Polish empires. As a consequence, those in the Galician west are predominantly Catholic, Western oriented, and Ukrainian speakers, while those in the east are primarily Russian Orthodox, Russian oriented, and Russian speakers. In pursuit of creating a warm water port for a Black Sea fleet, Russia’s Catherine the Great annexed Crimea in 1783. and during three Russo-Turkic wars and divisions of Poland during her rule, Ukraine fell fully under Russian control.

In the 20th century, millions of Ukrainians died of starvation in the 1920s as a consequences of Stalin’s brutal agricultural collectivization. With no love for the Soviets or Russia, anti-Soviet forces in eastern Ukraine allied with Hitler and joined his devasting march to the east. The first major Holocaust massacre of Jews was inflicted at Babi Yar, a ravine near Kyiv. At war’s end, Ukraine was re-unified with the Soviet Union, with Khrushchev transferring Crimea to Ukraine in 1954. With the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine became an independent state, surrendering the arsenal of Soviet nuclear weapons that had been left behind in exchange for solemn Russian, U.S., and European commitments to honor Ukraine’s territorial integrity…………………………

Russia & Ukraine: The Russian-Ukrainian dimension of the crisis speaks for itself. Kiev was central to the creation of the Russian nation a millennium ago. Eastern Ukraine remained an integral element of the Russian and Soviet empires for centuries……….

………Most Russians believe the Crimea and eastern Ukraine are inherently Russian, and more than a few extend Russian claims to Kyiv.

Most Ukrainians and much of the world don’t share this perspective. There is a long history of Ukrainian resistance to Russian dominance and rule.

…………..  Gorbachev’s refusal to intervene to preserve Soviet East European clients and the breaching of the Berlin wall marked the end of Yalta’s division of Europe. Russia’s buffer against the West disappeared, ushering in a period of hope and uncertainty. For a brief period, building on the Common Security paradigm (the understanding that security cannot be achieved against a rival nation, but only with the rival) that laid the foundation for the end of the Cold War and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty), and reinforced by the 1990 and 1997 accords, a vision of a common house of Europe prevailed.

This vision and the commitments were shattered when President’s Clinton and George W Bush took advantage of Russia’s immediate post-Soviet chaos and weakness by extending NATO to the East. The German Reunification Treaty had earlier been negotiated on the condition that no NATO forces would be based in eastern Germany. Pledges made by President Bush and Secretary of State Baker in the course of the negotiations to the effect that NATO would not move a centimeter closer to Russia led the Russian elite to believe these U.S. commitments. That Gorbachev failed to get these commitments in writing is rued by Russians in the know to this day.

Notably, the author of the United States’ Cold War containment doctrine, George Kennan, warned at the time that expanding NATO to Russia’s border would trigger a new Cold War. ……..

……   In the decades that followed, the NATO alliance reached Russia. U.S. and German troops are now based and conduct exercises along Russia’s borders.

………. There is a pro-Western government in Kyiv. And NATO signaled possible future Ukrainian and Georgian membership, while NATO forces conduct exercises along Russia’s border, and U.S. naval and air forces are pressing against Russia across the Baltic and Black Seas. It should thus be no surprise that Putin has responded in the tradition of the best defense being a good offense.

………. Putin has now challenged the U.S., NATO and certainly Ukraine by surrounding the country from three sides with 100,000 troops and which are arguably in a position to conquer all or part of that nation.

……………………  while President Biden and NATO have for the moment ruled out a military counterattack should Russia invade Ukraine, nothing is certain in war. Just as unanticipated gunshots triggered an unwanted World War in 1914, today an incident, accident or miscalculation, compounded by powerful nationalist forces, could lead to wider, great power, and potentially nuclear war.

Fortunately, Russian diplomats have repeated that Russia does not intend to invade Ukraine, and diplomacy remains the order of the day.

Common security alternatives

We may be horrified by Putin’s authoritarian rule and by Russia’s past military aggression and today’s implied threats. That doesn’t make them go away. The reality is that the U.S., Russia, and many of their allies have been practicing international relations in the tradition of Mafia dons. President Biden’s and Secretary of State Blinken’s arrogant, stiff necked, anti-historical, and ultimately self-defeating insistence on holding to the fantasy of possible future Ukrainian NATO membership only deepens the compounded crisis. When elephants fight, they threaten not only one another, but the ants and grass beneath them. Someone is bound to be hurt.

The Biden Administration would do well to begin by stating that in the face of the West’s violations of the Paris Charter, the NATO-Russia Founding Act, and the understandings that NATO would not move another centimeter eastward, the U.S. acknowledges that Russians have more than a little reason on their side.

Despite the bellicose tone of the public rhetoric and propaganda that preceded and has followed recent diplomatic encounters, some progress has been made. For the first time in two years there have been something approaching open and “business like”—if not warm—exchanges. All sides’ red lines have been clearly identified. Behind closed doors, there is increasing recognition that resolution of the crisis will require reciprocity in future negotiations on the range of outstanding issues. And commitments for future negotiations have been made.

Winston Churchill, racist, colonialist, and alcoholic though he was, had it right when he said that “jaw-jaw is better that war-war.” Difficult and complex though the challenges of this moment may be, with rationale and Common Security diplomacy, this crisis can be transformed into an opportunity………..

As former U.S. ambassador to Russia James Matlock and others have advised, there is an obvious solution to the Ukraine crisis: Building from the Minsk II agreement that made the 2014 ceasefire possible, U.S., Russian, Ukrainian, and European negotiations should lead to the creation of a neutral and federated Ukrainian state………………….

As former U.S. ambassador to Russia James Matlock and others have advised, there is an obvious solution to the Ukraine crisis: Building from the Minsk II agreement that made the 2014 ceasefire possible, U.S., Russian, Ukrainian, and European negotiations should lead to the creation of a neutral and federated Ukrainian state………..

In the above mentioned Track II discussions, a host of other possible options, compromises and processes to address broader Eurasian insecurities have been identified. We can hope that they are embraced by those in power and serve as the basis for future negotiations. 

They include:

• With Russia insisting on permanently banning Ukrainian NATO membership, and both France and Germany opposed to Ukraine joining the alliance, the Biden Administration could save face by agreeing to a moratorium on new NATO memberships for the next 15 years. This commitment could be extended by mutual agreement after that. A model for such an agreement would be the European Union’s functional moratorium on consideration of Turkey’s application for E.U. membership.
• Moldova, and Georgia, as well as Ukraine could become neutral states.
• While reaffirming Russia’s sovereign right to deploy its military forces wherever it deems appropriate WITHIN Russia, there could be an agreement by both sides to limit military exercises and border patrols.
• Renewed arms control negotiations, beginning with renewal of the INF and Open Skies treaties,
• no deployment of NATO conventional or nuclear strike forces in countries bordering Russia and moving to major reductions of their omnicidal nuclear arsenals.

A former senior U.S. military officer, now a scholar at a leading U.S. university notes that there would be advantages for the U.S. and NATO to use the NATO-Russian Foundation agreement as a mutually beneficial foundation for future agreements. They place limits on Russia’s actions, as well as those of the U.S. and NATO………………..

Europeans involved in these discussions have suggested negotiating agreements on non-deployment of strike forces by either side, negotiating an updated version of the INF Treaty which Trump and then the Russians abandoned, and banning potentially-first strike-related “missile defenses”.

Another world, at least another, more peaceful and just Europe, is possible. We must press for continued commitments to negotiations and do what we can to ensure that rational common security solutions prevail.

*Dr. Joseph Gerson is a member of the Abolition 2000 Global Council and President of the Campaign for Peace, Disarmament and Common Security.       The original article can be found here      https://www.pressenza.com/2022/01/common-security-approaches-to-resolve-the-ukraine-and-european-crises/

January 24, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

UKRAINE CRISIS: US ‘Toolboxes’ Are Empty

January 22, 2022   The toolbox is empty. Russia knows this. Biden knows this. Blinken knows this. CNN knows this. The only ones who aren’t aware of this are the American people, says Scott Ritter.   By Scott Ritter, Special to Consortium News   U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken met with his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, in a hastily scheduled, 90-minute summit in Geneva yesterday, after which both sides lauded the meeting as worthwhile because it kept the door open for a diplomatic resolution to the ongoing crisis in Ukraine. What “keeping the door open” entails, however, represents two completely different realities.

For Blinken, the important thing appears to be process, continuing a dialogue which, by its very essence, creates the impression of progress, with progress being measured in increments of time, as opposed to results.

A results-oriented outcome was not in the books for Blinken and his entourage; the U.S. was supposed to submit a written response to Russia’s demands for security guarantees as spelled out in a pair of draft treaties presented to the U.S. and NATO in December. Instead, Blinken told Lavrov the written submission would be provided next week.

In the meantime, Blinken primed the pump of expected outcomes by highlighting the possibility of future negotiations that addressed Russian concerns (on a reciprocal basis) regarding intermediate-range missiles and NATO military exercises.

But under no circumstances, Blinken said, would the U.S. be responding to Russian demands against NATO expanding to Ukraine and Georgia, and for the redeployment of NATO forces inside the territory of NATO as it existed in 1997.

……………….Blinken’s restatement of a position he has pontificated on incessantly for more than a month now was not done for the benefit of Lavrov and the Russian government, but rather for an American and European audience which had been left scratching their collective heads over comments made the day before by President Joe Biden which suggested that the U.S. had a range of options it would consider depending on the size of a Russian incursion.

……………………………………   the lack of an agreed-upon strategy on how to deal with a Russian incursion/invasion of Ukraine was an open secret for everyone except the U.S. and European publics, who being fed a line of horse manure to assuage domestic political concerns over being seen as surrendering to Russian demands.

………………………….   Blinken has indicated that the U.S. has a toolbox filled with options that will deliver “massive consequences” to Russia should Russia invade Ukraine. These “tools” include military options, such as the reinforcement of NATO’s eastern flank with additional U.S. troops, and economic options, such as shutting down the NordStream 2 pipeline and cutting Russia off from the SWIFT banking system. All these options, Blinken notes, have the undivided support of U.S. European allies and partners.

…………   There’s only one problem—the toolbox, it turns out, is empty.

While the Pentagon is reportedly working on a series of military options to reinforce the existing U.S. military presence in eastern Europe, the actual implementation of these options would neither be timely nor even possible. One option is to move forces already in Europe; the U.S. Army maintains one heavy armored brigade in Europe on a rotational basis and has a light armored vehicle brigade and an artillery brigade stationed in Germany. Along with some helicopter and logistics support, that’s it.

Flooding these units into Poland would be for display purposes only—they represent an unsustainable combat force that would be destroyed within hours, if not days, in any large-scale ground combat against a Russian threat.

……………………….   In short, there is no viable military option, and Biden knows this.

…………………………………………. Propaganda About ‘Propaganda’

One of the great ironies of the current crisis is that, on the eve of the Blinken-Lavrov meeting in Geneva, the U.S. State Department published a report on Russian propaganda, decrying the role played by state-funded outlets such as RT and Sputnik in shaping public opinion in the United States and the West (in the interest of full disclosure, RT is one of the outlets that I write for.)

The fact that the State Department would publish such a report on the eve of a meeting which is all about propagating the big lie—that the U.S. has a plan for deterring “irresponsible Russian aggression”—while ignoring the hard truth: this is a crisis derived solely from the irresponsible policies of the U.S. and NATO over the past 30 years.

While a compliant mainstream American media unthinkingly repeated every warning and threat issued by Biden and Blinken to Russia over the course of the past few days, the Russian position has been largely ignored. Here’s a reminder of where Russia stands on its demands for security guarantees: “We are talking about the withdrawal of foreign forces, equipment, and weapons, as well as taking other steps to return to the set-up we had in 1997 in non-NATO countries,” the Russian Foreign Ministry declared in a bulletin published after the Lavrov-Blinken meeting. “This includes Bulgaria and Romania.”

The toolbox is empty. Russia knows this. Biden knows this. Blinken knows this. CNN knows this. The only ones who aren’t aware of this are the American people.

The consequences of a U.S. rejection of Russia’s demands will more than likely be war.

If you think the American people are ready to bear the burden of a war with Russia, think again.

Scott Ritter is a former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD.  https://consortiumnews.com/2022/01/22/ukraine-crisis-us-toolboxes-are-empty/

January 24, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The production, servicing and berthing of nuclear-powered submarines in or near population centres present unacceptable health risks.

Following revelations in freedom of information requests to Declassified UK records show 97,430 stable iodine tablets were pre-issued to people in Plymouth, Portland and Barrow-in-Furness from 2016-21 to protect them from radiation.

Kate Hudson, general secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), said: “The production, servicing and berthing of nuclear-powered submarines in or near population centres present unacceptable health risks.

“Safeguarding our communities cannot be achieved through limited distribution of pills,” she said, adding that the vessels, some of which carry nuclear warheads, “need to be disarmed and decommissioned.” As Tim Deere-Jones has pointed out “I’m amazed at the way Governments and Regulators allow the “nuclear authorities” to mainstream on publicly highlighting the dangers of one or two radionuclides such as Iodine and Caesium and discuss them endlessly while avoiding the additional issues of the other 50/60 + nuclides that would be released by a meltdown or a LOCA or any other significant event.”

 Radiation Free Lakeland 22nd Jan 2022

January 24, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Ending nuclear weapons before they end us: current challenges and paths to avoiding a public health catastrophe

Tilman A. Ruff, Journal of Public Health Policy, 6 Dec 21, Abstract The United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)—an important planetary health good—entered into legal force in January 2021. Evidence of the consequences of nuclear war, particularly the global climatic and nutritional effects of the abrupt ice age conditions from even a relatively small regional nuclear war, indicates that these are more severe than previously thought.

None of the nine nuclear-armed states is disarming; instead, all invest enormously in new and more hazardous nuclear weapons. Nor has any of the 32 states claiming reliance on another state’s nuclear weapons yet ended such reliance. These factors, abrogation of existing nuclear arms control agreements, policies of first nuclear use and war fighting, growing armed conflicts worldwide, and increasing use of information and cyberwarfare, exacerbate dangers of nuclear war. Evidence-based advocacy by health professionals on the planetary health imperative to eliminate nuclear weapons has never been more urgent…………………………………. https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1057/s41271-021-00331-9?sharing_token=8Cd__t3vTJaWbsgGcnEWo1xOt48VBPO10Uv7D6sAgHt0QkiR2wvxImdHaGvdDJeiiseTJaeDf88o34BlerbNyH85_HHPT7FfMM7QY83sLRryF42OO9Nn-Tv556BjJan1sIHbDadb-rLehWR97YePw-P3HwE7AyTZIli7nRVyKEs%3D

January 24, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

How France greenwashes nuclear weapons

President Macron has announced investment of one billion euros in research and construction of small modular reactors (SMRs). SMRs are small nuclear reactors that are to be used primarily for submarine propulsion and thus for military purposes in distant theatres of war

Behind the planned modernisation of French nuclear power, allegedly to ensure cheaper electricity, nestles the agenda of its nuclear weapons programme. For years now, the state has imposed the exorbitant costs of its civilian-military nuclear industry on the French public.

France plans to modernise its nuclear power – allegedly to insure cheaper and greener electricity. Yet behind it nestles a nuclear weapons agenda   https://www.ips-journal.eu/topics/foreign-and-security-policy/how-france-greenwashes-nuclear-weapons-5668/ 23 Jan 22,

At the turn of the year, France assumed the presidency of the Council of the European Union. And last week, the EU defence ministers met informally to talk about the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). Among other issues, they discussed nuclear security and nuclear deterrence strategies.

In recent years, the French president has been a strong advocate of nuclear power. Historically, France’s independent development of nuclear technology for atomic weapons has been an important source of national pride. Since the 1990s, however, nuclear power has been declining as a consequence of the Chernobyl disaster. Annual reports by Mycle Schneider, an international consultant on energy and nuclear policy, show that this is a part of a global trend. Nevertheless, France continues to be a tireless advocate of this technology.

Nuclear answers for green energy and weapons

On 1 January 2022, a draft regulation of the European Commission classified the investment in nuclear energy and natural gas as sustainable. This concerns billions of euros in financial support in the so-called EU Taxonomy. Emmanuel Macron was keen to acquire a ‘Green Label’ for nuclear energy. France’s real interests concerning nuclear energy emerged clearly in a speech Macron delivered on a visit to Framatome’s Le Creusot facility in 2020: ‘Without civilian nuclear energy there is no military use of this technology – and without military use there is no civilian nuclear energy’. In a nutshell, this means that without a cutting-edge nuclear industry France cannot continue to expand and modernise its nuclear weapons arsenal. This remains true for all nuclear weapons states.

At present, these states are upgrading their arsenals. Russia and the United States are procuring new delivery systems – such as hypersonic missiles – that will be able to deliver their nuclear bombs much more quickly and accurately, leaving the enemy with no time to defend themselves. Thus, a new nuclear arms race has begun.

The US think tank Atlantic Council is quite open about how crucial it regards civilian use of nuclear power to be for national security policy: the civilian US nuclear industry is a U.S. strategic asset of vital importance for US national security. Similar formulations can be found in the speeches of other presidents of nuclear weapons states. Its civilian nuclear complex costs the United States at least USD 42.4bn a year. The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) claims that all nuclear weapons states together invest over USD 100bn a year in their nuclear weapons arsenals.

France, too, wants to join in the ongoing technological development in other nuclear weapons states for quite some time. President Macron has announced investment of one billion euros in research and construction of small modular reactors (SMRs). SMRs are small nuclear reactors that are to be used primarily for submarine propulsion and thus for military purposes in distant theatres of war. The new Hunter class submarines underline France’s great-power ambitions. This needs to be understood against the background of the collapsed submarine deal with Australia. Last year Australia announced that it was cancelling its contract to buy French diesel submarines in favour of US and UK nuclear technology.

Flexible submarine-based nuclear weapons systems have major strategic importance for all nuclear weapons states. They have the capability of going for up to three months without surfacing. They can cover great distances at high speeds undetected and surface almost wherever they want around the globe. They are capable of launching up to 20 missiles, each with a dozen individual guided warheads. All this plays a key role in the nuclear weapons doctrine of the five ‘official’ nuclear weapons states, the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, and China. At the same time, the possession of this technology underpins these countries’ great-power status. France, like the other nuclear weapons states, is keen to consolidate its status.

Exposing the French agenda

The first meeting of EU defence ministers under the French Council Presidency was held on 12–13 January 2022 in Brest. This is where France’s sea-based nuclear weapons are stationed, making this a clear demonstration of its military power. As early as his 2020 speech in Le Creusot, the French President confirmed his country’s military ambitions: ‘the nuclear industry will remain the cornerstone of our strategic autonomy. It affects every aspect of deterrence, powering our nuclear submarines, submarines for launching ballistic missiles, and powering our nuclear aircraft carriers.’

Nuclear power and nuclear sharing are controversial in the European Union. Austria and Luxembourg have sharply criticised the EU Taxonomy. At the same time, there has been a multilateral UN treaty banning weapons of mass destruction since the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons of 22 January 2021.

Behind the planned modernisation of French nuclear power, allegedly to ensure cheaper electricity, nestles the agenda of its nuclear weapons programme. For years now, the state has imposed the exorbitant costs of its civilian-military nuclear industry on the French public. The costs of building the pressurised water reactor in Flamanville, for example, ran to €19.4bn. Ultimately, electricity customers and investors subsidise military applications with ‘climate-saving nuclear power’.

In any case, as France takes over the EU Council Presidency it is now perfectly placed to promote the civilian-military use of nuclear energy and a European security and defence strategy based on the doctrine of nuclear deterrence.

January 24, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Europe’s nuclear waste remains an unsolved and highly dangerous problem – EU Assessment Report

Nuclear waste from nuclear power plants remains an unsolved and highly dangerous problem, as spent fuel must remain isolated from the environment for a million years. In an attempt to solve the nuclear waste problem, an EU-wide regulation was introduced in 2011, the “Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom establishing a Community framework for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste”.

This Directive tried to force EU member states to address the issue seriously, after this had been neglected for decades – thus immediately proving that nuclear waste has never been effectively dealt with.

The national waste management policies of the EU member states are still inadequate in many respects. The European Commission concluded in its latest report in 2019 that more needs to be done; this is also reflected in the high number of infringement proceedings.

In the Assessment Report, we not only address shortcomings in transparency and participation, but also problems in the inventory data, unsolved issues in the multinational repository search, incomprehensible
cost estimates and lack of financing. The Onkalo repository under construction in Finland is often presented as a game changer by the nuclear lobby, although the safety of the technology used is questionable due to new findings.

 Don’t Nuke the Taxonomy 21st Jan 2022

January 24, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment