TODAY. Digital confusion
Yes, it’s a confusing and scary picture isn’t it ? (from What is the Digital Prison?)
Well, today I’m finding quite a few articles about money – how cash will become obsolete, and every financial transaction will be done digitally. And I took a 6 year-old child to the zoo, where you can’t even give a child some money to buy an orange drink, or anything – every purchase must be made digitally, by card.
I thought that this transfer away from cash would take ages, and perhaps not happen at all. But now I’m not so sure.
We love to hate China. China keeps surveillance on every individual, on every aspect of their lives. But the West is now going the same way.
The cashless thing is just one part of it. G20 Announces Plan To Impose Digital Currencies And IDs Worldwide. Elon Musk’s X venture – leading us into a digital prison?
It is indeed a scary thing.
But what complicates it for me, and adds to the confusion, – is considering the sources of my information.
I mean, I had comfortable consistent ideas about whom to take seriously, and whom not. That meant, for example, – Democrats good, Republicans bad. Twitter good, Elon Musk’s X bad. Left wing better than Right wing. In Australia Labor better than Liberal.
But it’s not like that any more. Social media of all kinds is suspect – with many biases, and no fact-checking. And the motive of every platform seems to be the encouragement of profit-making. Of course Artificial Intelligence is adding to the murk.
Oh well, we can’t give up . Just have to keep on reading stuff, with a critical eye – does it make sense to me? do those facts sound reliable? is the language too inflammatory? Is this source likely to be reliable, or not?
Eating the three-eyed fish: where is Australia on nuclear wastewater in the Pacific?
As is usual in this framing, the peoples of the Pacific – the people impacted most by the decisions of rich, developed nations sitting on the edge of the vast ocean home of the Pacific Islands – have been ignored.
Our “Pacific family” is no doubt, once again, deeply disappointed by Australian inaction and acquiescence. A government “committed” to the Pacific is apparently not entirely on board with supporting the aspirations of its peoples – at least not when it comes to their aspirations to not live in a radioactive ocean.
by Emma Shortis https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/eating-the-three-eyed-fish-where-is-australia-on-nuclear-wastewater-in-the-pacific/00
The Australian government’s muted response to Japan’s release of Fukushima wastewater into the Pacific raises serious questions about its commitment to the region and Australia’s history of standing against nuclear testing.
In August, Japan began what will be a decades-long process of releasing more than one million tons of treated wastewater from the Fukushima nuclear meltdown into the Pacific Ocean.
Though deemed in compliance with international safety standards by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the release of water containing tritium – a form of radioactive hydrogen – has been met with significant opposition.
Most of that opposition has come, unsurprisingly, from China. In June, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson said that the “ocean is humanity’s common good, not Japan’s private sewer.”
Opposition from Japan’s other neighbours and allies, meanwhile, has been muted. After expressing significant concerns, the governments of nearby nations like Korea have apparently been assuaged by promises of regulatory compliance – notwithstanding the continued opposition of local environmental and industry groups.
What appears to have happened is that the release of irradiated water into the world’s biggest ocean has been drawn all too quickly into either side of the now well-worn battle lines of “strategic competition” in the Indo-Pacific. Opposition and acquiescence fell easily, and predictably, into the binary framing of US President Biden’s world of democracies versus autocracies. So the focus of dissent has been on China.
As is usual in this framing, the peoples of the Pacific – the people impacted most by the decisions of rich, developed nations sitting on the edge of the vast ocean home of the Pacific Islands – have been ignored.
Pacific Islander peoples have been expressing their significant, historically grounded concerns about the Fukushima release since the plan was announced. In June, a member of the Pacific Islands Forum independent panel of experts, appointed to support the Pacific Islands in consultations with Japan over the release, questioned the IAEA sign-off, arguing that “the critical, foundational data upon which a sound decision could be made was either absent or, when we started getting more data…extremely concerning.”
The “unanimous conclusion” of the expert panel was that “this is a bad idea that is not defended properly at this point, and that there are alternatives that Japan should really be looking at.”
So where is Australia, an apparently critical player in the stability and prosperity of the Indo-Pacific, in all this?
This country, we have long been told, is “committed to our Pacific family, and to working together to realise our shared vision for a stable, secure and prosperous region, and to support the aspirations of Pacific island countries.”
But in a short statement released by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade just before the wastewater release began, the Australian government expressed “confidence in the process that has led to the decision by Japan to release the treated water.” In February, Foreign Minister Penny Wong acknowledged the concerns of Pacific Islanders, but was assured that “transparency and trust” were in place. In a move redolent of an iconic Simpsons episode, diplomatic staff at the Australian Embassy in Tokyo even went so far as to enjoy a meal of “Fukushima fish and chips”.
Our “Pacific family” is no doubt, once again, deeply disappointed by Australian inaction and acquiescence. A government “committed” to the Pacific is apparently not entirely on board with supporting the aspirations of its peoples – at least not when it comes to their aspirations to not live in a radioactive ocean.
This muted reaction is doubly disappointing from a country, and a party, that has a long and proud history of both contesting nuclear activity in the Pacific and standing up to Japanese efforts to trample environmental consensus.
For decades, and particularly in the 1990s, Australian labor governments stood alongside Pacific Island nations in furiously contesting French nuclear testing. Stretching into the 2000s, Australian governments remained staunch in their opposition to Japanese “scientific” whaling. In both cases, Australia successfully expressed significant opposition to the damaging actions of an important strategic ally. In both cases, that opposition was mostly contained to the specific issue at hand, and did not impinge on broader security relationships – which, even if they became tense, never broke down completely and have now fully recovered.
In the same Department that joyously expressed its “confidence” in Japan and effectively ignored its “family” in the Pacific, there is – or at least there should be – deep institutional knowledge of how to manage strong disagreements and successfully cordon them off from deeper security ties. Our history should make us confident that we can – and should – share and support the legitimate, evidence-based anger of our Pacific family.
So why isn’t the Australian government condemning, loudly, the release of nuclear wastewater into the world’s largest ocean?
As is becoming increasingly clear, the Labor Party’s decision to support the Morrison government’s pursuit of nuclear-powered submarines has far-reaching consequences. That decision, made within a matter of hours, has unthinkingly shattered many labor traditions – the most relevant of which here is that long, proud history of labor governments unapologetically standing against rich and powerful nuclear powers treating the Pacific as a dumping ground.
The insistence that Australia “needs” AUKUS has apparently created a reluctance to engage in that discussion in good faith, most likely to avoid the topic of nuclear waste as much as possible – now, because of Labor’s doubling down on AUKUS, a sensitive topic domestically.
AUKUS also points to another factor – this government’s extreme insecurity over issues of foreign and security policy. As was made clear at Labor’s recent national conference, party leadership is determined not to be wedged on issues of national security. Despite all the talk of being able to have “adult conversations”, the government is not willing to allow even the slightest appearance of concession to China, around which every aspect of foreign and security policy now revolves. While on paper, wastewater dumping looks like it should fall into Wong’s category of “cooperate where we can”, in reality, we cannot be opposed to something China opposes, because we are not, and can never be, on the same side about anything – even if that thing is the dumping of radioactive wastewater into the Pacific.
This framing of a world divided into enemies and allies now extends into all of Australia’s relationships. The Australian government’s reaction to the Fukushima release, and its broader relationship with Japan, make that abundantly clear. As a member of the Quad, alongside India and the United States, Japan is regarded as critical to “stability” in the Indo-Pacific and to countering or containing China. That now means, apparently, that Japan can effectively dictate Australian policy – it can be assured of our “confidence” that dumping radioactive water in the Pacific Ocean is fine, actually, and that also, we’d better not even consider phasing out the export of fossil gas to a critical ally, lest we undermine our own security and the stability of our region.
Taken together, all of this – bad faith engagement with the Pacific, AUKUS, and the ongoing insistence that our own use and export of fossil fuels is necessary to regional stability – reveal a deeply uncomfortable truth about this labor government.
Despite all assurances to the contrary, it does not take climate change seriously. Nor does it take nuclear hygiene seriously. And questions have to be asked about its long-term commitment to nuclear disarmament.
Like its predecessors, this government is hiding behind security in order to avoid doing the hard work on climate. That weakness, which extends across all areas of domestic and international policy, is why the Australian government is not “committed” to “our Pacific family”, not really.
In failing to support Pacific Islanders’ aspirations for a nuclear-free Pacific, and in failing to rapidly decarbonise, the Australian government shows “our family” who we are, every day. And they see it.
This, in the words of the Prime Minister, is how Australia deals with “the world as it is.” Our Pacific family could be forgiven for thinking that our vision of a “bright future” for the world is one in which nuclear-powered submarines prowl silently through a rising, irradiated Pacific.
Two years after AUKUS announcement, American politicians are divided on delivery of submarines to Australia
ABC By North America bureau chief Jade Macmillan in Washington DC, 16 Sept 23
A Republican senator has renewed calls for the US to step up its production of nuclear-powered submarines before selling them as part of AUKUS, arguing America is as “unprepared” as it was ahead of the Pearl Harbor attack.
The US is set to transfer at least three Virginia-class submarines to Australia from the early 2030s under the AUKUS agreement.
However, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services committee, Roger Wicker, told a hearing in Washington this week that the US was failing to meet its own shipbuilding targets.
“We should be producing somewhere between 2.3 and 2.5 attack submarines a year to fulfil our own requirements as we implement AUKUS,” he said………….
Senator Wicker insists he supports the AUKUS agreement but has refused to back legislation in congress authorising the transfer of the submarines, arguing substantial new investments are needed in America’s shipbuilding capacity first.
In a letter to the president last month, he and 24 other Republicans argued selling submarines to Australia without a clear plan to replace them would “unacceptably weaken” the US fleet at the same time that China expands its military power.
Push for speed amid prospect of another Trump term
The AUKUS agreement will see Australia obtain up to five Virginia-class submarines from the US before eventually building its own nuclear-powered boats.
But two years after the deal was first announced, the US Congress still needs to sign off on several legislative proposals to progress it.
They include legislation to approve the sale of the subs, to allow Australia to make a promised $3 billion contribution to US shipyards, and to facilitate the sharing of sensitive technology………………………………………………………………………………………………
The political debate in the United States comes amid ongoing questions in Australia about the merits and the cost of AUKUS, which could have a price tag of up to $386 billion…………………………
Tensions within the Labor Party were exposed at its recent national conference, while former prime minister Paul Keating has described the agreement as the “worst deal in all history”.
Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles also previously expressed confidence in the level of bipartisan support for the agreement in the US………………………………
Big batteries and solar push new boundaries on the grid
The rapid evolution of Australia’s energy system continues apace as the
mild weather of spring and new production benchmarks give voice to the new
capacity that has been added over the past 12 months. As noted earlier this
week, spring is the season for new records because of the good conditions
and moderate demand.
In South Australia on Sunday, solar set a new record
of 120 per cent of local demand in the state (the excess was exported to
Victoria) and on Wednesday and Thursday it was the turn of wind and battery
storage. Wind hit a peak of 141.4 per cent of local demand at 4.35am on
Thursday morning. That wasn’t a record in itself, but the big share of
wind and later solar during the daytime was accompanied by a record amount
of activity from the state’s growing fleet of big batteries.
Renew Economy 14th Sept 2023
Fossil fuel industries have captured global UN negotiations on climate change
Former US vice-president and climate campaigner Al Gore has hit out at the
fossil fuel industry’s “capture” of global UN negotiations on climate
change “to a disturbing degree”.
It was “time to abandon the mistaken
assumption” that oil and gas companies and petrostates were “good faith
participants” during the UN process that culminates in a summit to be
held in the United Arab Emirates this year.
Most in the sector wanted to
“block and delay and prevent anything that would reduce the sale and
burning of fossil fuels”, Gore added. “It’s simply not realistic to
believe that they are going to take the lead in solving this crisis,” he
said, ahead of a new report on sustainable investing by Generation
Investment Management, where he is co-founder and chair.
FT 14th Sept 2023
https://www.ft.com/content/65423811-7c7e-4ae5-876d-ffbed29cefcf
Public Need Versus the Business of War
What does military contracting tell us about the priorities of the U.S. ruling class?
CHRISTIAN, SEP 16, 2023 Christian’s Substack
The American public is hurting. The bare necessities—clean water, nutritious food, and affordable housing—are hard to come by.
Tap water is contaminated with lead, PFAS, and other pollutants. The water systems that serve cities and towns suffer additional stressors, including drought, overuse, and a failure to incorporate greywater systems. And, like many necessities, you have to pay for it in the United States: Water utility prices continue to go up and up.
Hunger is a severe problem. ……………………………………
Housing is prohibitively expensive. …………………………………..
What is U.S. Congress doing as the public suffers?
Water Is Not a Priority
Every year, U.S. Congress appropriates money for two federal water funds. The Environmental Protection Agency gives this money to states in the form of grants. The Washington Post recently reported, “Since 2022, the federal allocation has totaled roughly $5.5 billion, amounting to a literal and figurative drop in the bucket for a nation with an estimated $625 billion backlog in projects just to provide cleaner, reliable drinking water.”
In other words, Congress has allocated 0.88 percent of the funding needed to establish infrastructure that dependably provides potable water.
It gets worse. Members of Congress skim funds off the top……………………………………
Food is Not a Priority
Stephen Semler, co-founder of the Security Policy Reform Institute, recently showed that annual U.S. military spending increased during the Trump administration by 20 percent in nominal terms and then increased during the first two years of the Biden administration by 15 percent in real terms. The military budget is now a record $858 billion for fiscal 2023, a bipartisan feat.
Food insecurity “climbed 18 percent during the same stretch,” Semler explained. “Something’s wrong when either military spending or food insecurity spikes over a two-year period. When they soar in tandem, it’s an abomination…”
There is plenty of money available to make sure people don’t go hungry. For example, the amount of money to be spent over several years on new land-based nuclear weapons ($263.9 billion) could instead build 52.5 million community gardens ($2,750 each) across the country, with more than enough money left over ($119.52 billion) to cover a year of food stamps. Tax dollars, we see, could be used to nourish instead of accidentally or deliberately eliminating human life on Earth.
The Housing Crisis……………………………………
Support the Troops
Evidence suggests that the federal government doesn’t even prioritize the troops’ water, food, and housing…………………………………………………………………………………
A State of Permanent Warfare
Military and intelligence personnel don’t deploy themselves. The U.S. ruling class deploys them.
When “successful,” military or intelligence operations open up an economy to multinational corporations, enriching the ruling class. Examples spanning the three main eras of the military-industrial complex (the first Cold War, the “global war on terror”, and today’s “strategic competition”) illustrate this success:……………………………………………………………………………………….
Moreover, U.S. military activity itself is extremely profitable for Wall Street and top corporate executives, as the U.S. military doesn’t shoot, move, or communicate—let alone eat, refuel, fly, or spy—without corporate goods and services. Corporations absorb more than half of the U.S. military budget. Many regularly price gouge the military.
The ruling class is organized and relentless in its pursuit of profit. The three branches of government (legislative, judicial, executive) largely respond to the needs of this class. Some of the richest and/or most influential members of U.S. government, such as a coal baron or a person who has profited from the provision of healthcare, even come from that class.
The Front Burner
A military aircraft, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, embodies the priorities of the ruling class. With a lifetime cost expected to top $1.7 trillion, the F-35 is on track to becoming the most expensive weapon of all time………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
One-Two Punch
The military-industrial complex is a one-two punch to the public………………………………………………………………………………… more https://thebusinessofwar.substack.com/p/public-need-versus-the-business-of?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1769284&post_id=137081544&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=c9zhh&utm_medium=email
Uranium Mining Protections Needed Across the West
The Biden administration needs to protect communities and water supplies across the West from the dangers of uranium mining.
Geoffrey H. Fettus Senior Attorney, Nuclear, Climate & Clean Energy Program
President Biden’s designation of the Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni—Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument will go far in protecting the rich cultural and ecological value of this majestic landscape. It will safeguard some of the most iconic public lands in the American West from the ravages of destructive mining and destructive waste. This protection has been a top priority for tribes in the area, and the designation is long overdue.
“That’s our aboriginal homelands,” Dianna Sue Uqualla, a Havasupai tribal council member, told the Bureau of Land Management at a public meeting according to Bloomberg Law. The monument will “keep at bay these mining people that are coming in,” and will protect the Grand Canyon from companies that are “desecrating, raping the Mother Earth.”
This is wonderful news, but there is much more to be done about uranium mining across the American West. And there’s also a lot of misinformation out there that muddies what should be a clear path forward to protecting all the people and watersheds of the West from unchecked uranium mining.
Uranium mining contaminated tribal lands for decades
The uranium mining industry has left a dreadful history of contamination and harm across vast swathes of the American West, but especially with respect to the Indigenous People who call this area home. It’s a complicated history that intertwines with the Manhattan Project and the Cold War, and it’s a legacy that has yet to be addressed.
On Navajo land alone, nearly four million tons of uranium ore were extracted from 1944 to 1986. The industry and the U.S. government left behind hundreds of abandoned uranium mines, four inactive uranium milling sites, a former dump site, and the widespread contamination of land and water; this includes the 1979 collapse of a tailings dam in Church Rock, New Mexico, that deposited 93 million gallons of radioactive and chemically contaminated liquid and 1,100 tons of solid radioactive tailings into the Rio Puerco, contaminating the river for more than 60 miles downstream. After decades of pressure, the government has finally started to assess and mitigate this contamination.
Much is left to be done: More than 500 abandoned uranium mines remain on Navajo land.
We need new standards
Back in 2016, the Obama administration was poised to take action on uranium mining standards, but then Donald Trump was elected president. It will come as no surprise that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Trump administration cast aside the Obama EPA’s long-overdue protective environmental standards. In an about-face, the Trump EPA and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) moved to weaken uranium mining rules.
Once Biden took office in 2021, NRDC had hoped for a new approach. So far, however, we haven’t heard anything from either the EPA or NRC, despite repeated requests by NRDC and other major environmental groups, tribal representatives, and regional groups across the West.
It is time for the EPA to clear the obstacles and move forward on the uranium protections it drew up years ago.
The Biden administration can begin to protect the communities and water resources that have been negatively affected by uranium mining for decades by taking two steps: (1) dissolving a 2020 memorandum of understanding between the EPA and NRC that undercuts the EPA’s ability to enact standards; and (2) issuing protective uranium in situ mining standards that have been sitting on a shelf for years. ……………………………………………………………….
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 