UK court orders delay to extradition of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to US on espionage charges
By Associated Press, By OLIVER PRICE , 27 March 2024 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13239885/Julian-Assange-appeal-against-extradition-court-rules.html?fbclid=IwAR05bAhgRzHKwygiC0ljNnPEU_bL1uwPz2mIRy7vU9RzSU0J_Qbi4aOpK_M_aem_AahKjiDK6G3wRltDvIaC_MtPOcRzYRMwUFpdRPeR7yiJcdMyJyjQi03SWVMX6MWQenTiiAm9LmgWVamqopIy9ZT_
The United States must give assurances that Julian Assange will not face the death penalty before judges will consider dismissing the WikiLeaks founder’s bid to bring an extradition appeal, the High Court has ruled.
Assange, 52, faces prosecution in the US over an alleged conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defence information following the publication of hundreds of thousands of leaked documents relating to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
In a 66-page ruling, Dame Victoria Sharp said: ‘Before making a final decision on the application for leave to appeal, we will give the respondent an opportunity to give assurances.
‘If assurances are not given then we will grant leave to appeal without a further hearing.
‘If assurances are given then we will give the parties an opportunity to make further submissions before we make a final decision on the application for leave to appeal.’
These assurances are that Assange would be protected by and allowed to rely on the First Amendment – which protects freedom of speech in the US, that he is not ‘prejudiced at trial’ due to his nationality, and that the death penalty is not imposed.
The judges said the US authorities had three weeks to give those assurances, with a final hearing potentially taking place in late May.
In her ruling, Dame Sharp said any assurances from the United States would need to include ‘that the applicant (Julian Assange) is permitted to rely on the First Amendment, that the applicant is not prejudiced at trial, including sentence, by reason of his nationality, that he is afforded the same First Amendment protections as a United States citizen, and that the death penalty is not imposed’.
Speaking after the judgment, the Australian’s wife Stella Assange described the ruling as ‘astounding’.
She said: ‘What the courts have done has been to invite a political intervention from the United States… send a letter saying ‘its all ok’. I find this astounding.
‘This case is a retribution. It is a signal to all of you that if you expose the interests that are driving war they will come after you, they will put you in prison and will try to kill you.
‘The Biden administration should not issue assurances. They should drop this shameful case that should never have been brought.’
Addressing Julian Assange’s legal ground about freedom of speech guarantees in the US, Dame Victoria Sharp said: ‘The applicant wishes to argue, at any trial in the United States, that his actions were protected by the First Amendment.
‘He contends that if he is given First Amendment rights, the prosecution will be stopped. The First Amendment is therefore of central importance to his defence to the extradition charge.’
She continued: ‘If he is not permitted to rely on the First Amendment because of his status as a foreign national, he will thereby be prejudiced, potentially very greatly prejudiced, by reason of his nationality.’
Dame Victoria concluded: ‘It follows that it is arguable that the applicant might be treated differently at trial on the grounds of his nationality.
‘Subject to the question of whether this could be addressed by means of an assurance from the respondent, we would grant leave to appeal.’
WikiLeaks initially reacted positively to the news, saying Assange had been granted ‘leave to appeal’ his extradition, but he will only be allowed to do so if ‘assurances’ are not met.
Reacting to the ruling on X, formerly Twitter, this morning, WikiLeaks posted: ‘Julian Assange has been granted leave to appeal extradition to the US.
‘Having spent almost five years detained at the UK’s most secure prison the publisher will continue his long detention separated from his young family for revealing war crimes. #FreeAssangeNOW.’
WikiLeaks has now deleted this tweet.
WikiLeaks later added: ‘The court has given US Gov 3 weeks to give satisfactory assurances: That Mr. Assange is permitted to rely on the First Amendment to the US constitution; not prejudiced at trial by reason of his nationality; and that the death penalty is not imposed. #FreeAssange.’
The hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice today was attended by Assange’s wife Stella, dozens of journalists and members of the public, with hundreds observing remotely.
Dozens of people stood outside the central London courthouse to await the judgment, holding placards bearing the message ‘Free Julian Assange’ and chanting ‘There is only one decision, no extradition’.
Speaking at a press conference after Julian Assange’s bid to appeal against extradition to the US was delayed, Jennifer Robinson, WikiLeaks legal counsel, said the decision raised ‘fundamental concerns about free speech’.
She added: ‘It is absurd that we are five years into this case and the US has not offered assurance to protect him from (the death penalty).’
Ms Robinson added: ‘The judgment today demonstrates that if Julian was extradited to the United States there is a real risk and concern that he would not be afforded free speech protections.
‘We say the US should not be offering assurance in response to this judgment, they should be dropping the case and it is a case that should never have been brought in the first place.’
Speaking after the latest Julian Assange ruling, Michelle Stanistreet, general secretary of the National Union of Journalists, said: ‘A temporary reprieve is clearly preferable to an extradition that would have taken place in the coming days.
‘However, the conditionality around the grounds of appeal, which are contingent on the examination of US government assurances that he will not face the death penalty and has the right to free speech, mean the risks to Assange and press freedom remain stark.
‘Assange’s prosecution by the US is for activities that are daily work for investigative journalists – finding sources with evidence of criminality and helping them to get their stories out into the world.
‘If Assange is prosecuted, free expression the world over will be damaged.’
She added: ‘The nuanced nature of this appeal judgment makes an alternative ending to this situation even more pressing.
‘In recent months there has been increasing speculation about some kind of plea deal, to bring this saga to a swift and straightforward conclusion. I urge the US to return to these options.
‘Media freedom is under threat all over the world, compassion and common sense from the US Department of Justice would do much to restore Washington’s reputation as a bastion of free expression.’
Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has called for the US to drop the charges against Julian Assange.
Speaking outside the Royal Courts of Justice, Mr Corbyn said Tuesday’s decision was ‘big step forward’ for Assange’s case but that it is ‘not the victory’ his supporters are looking for.
Mr Corbyn said: ‘Above all, the pressure has to be on the US administration to drop the charges against Julian Assange.
‘He’s a brave journalist who tells the truth.’
When asked why Assange’s case was important to him, the Corbyn said: ‘Because he’s told some very uncomfortable truths about the military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places around the world, but also the effects of corporate greed on the natural world and environment.
‘If Julian goes down for that, then every serious journalist around the world is going to be feel a bit constrained, and that’s dangerous.’
n a January 2021 ruling, then-district judge Vanessa Baraitser said that Assange should not be sent to the US, citing a real and ‘oppressive’ risk of suicide, while ruling against him on all other issues.
But later that year, US authorities won their High Court bid to overturn this block, paving the way towards Assange’s extradition.
During a two-day hearing in February, lawyers for the 52-year-old asked for the go-ahead to challenge the original judge’s dismissal of other parts of his case to prevent his extradition.
And in a judgment today, Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Johnson dismissed most of Assange’s legal arguments but said that unless assurances were given by the United States, he would be able to bring an appeal on three grounds.
The judges said the US authorities had three weeks to give those assurances, with a final decision to be made in late May.
At the start of Assange’s bid last month, Mark Summers KC argued the US’s prosecution would be retribution for his political opinions, meaning it would be unlawful to extradite him under UK law.
However the two judges rejected this argument.
Dame Victoria said: ‘The applicant’s case before us amounts simply to a reassertion of his case on this issue, and a disagreement with the (district) judge’s conclusion.
‘It does not engage with the judge’s reasoning. Far less does it identify any flaw in her factual conclusions.’
Nuclear ranks last on list of good investments by big institutions
Marion Rae, Mar 25, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-ranks-last-on-list-of-good-investments-by-big-institutions/
Nuclear energy is last on the list of technologies that investors want exposure to, according to a survey of big financial institutions.
The vast majority of investors do not see nuclear power as a good investment, with less than one in 10 exploring this technology, the survey released on Monday found.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton is spruiking nuclear reactors as an option for Australia’s future low-carbon economy although the energy source is illegal under existing laws and Labor has ruled it out.
Renewable energy is tipped to deliver the best long-term financial returns, with half the investors surveyed exploring opportunities to invest.
Investors have also become more confident about Australian climate policy under the Albanese government, according to the survey by the Investor Group on Climate Change.
“Investors have given the government a pretty good report card,” the group’s policy chief Erwin Jackson said.
But Australia will need globally competitive, targeted incentives to suit the nation’s economic strengths and values to stop “ongoing capital flight” to the United States and Europe where there are more generous tax breaks.
Clear timelines for the phase-out of fossil fuels by 2050 would also help investors manage transition risks and remain invested in the Australian economy, according to the group.
This year’s data includes 63 superannuation funds as well as other asset owners and managers, with more than $37 trillion in assets under management globally. Their beneficiaries include more than 15 million Australians.
Emerging priorities include clear timelines for phasing out coal, oil and gas and clear policies to build resilience and adapt to physical damage from climate change.
Opinions citing policy and regulatory uncertainty as a barrier to clean economy investment in Australia have changed dramatically, supported by four out of 10 investors compared with 7 out of 10 in 2021.
Renewable energy (47 per cent) was picked as the best option for long-term climate solutions, followed by nature-based schemes including biodiversity projects (34 per cent).
But investors are still in the dark on the federal government’s sector-by-sector decarbonisation plans for heavy polluters such as the energy, transport, agriculture and resources industries – and on the scope of the 2035 emissions reduction target.
“Credible and clear sector by sector decarbonisation plans to achieve a 2035 target with the highest possible level of ambition are critical for investment and it is critical to build on the steps already taken,” Mr Jackson said.
Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen has said the 2035 target will be “ambitious and achievable”, with advice to come from Australia’s recently beefed-up Climate Change Authority.
The sectoral review by the authority has an August 1 deadline, and will be released shortly afterwards.
AAP
The AUKUS Cash Cow: Robbing the Australian Taxpayer
The eye-opener in the AUKMIN chatter is the promise from Canberra to send A$4.6 billion (£2.4 billion) to speed up lethargic construction at the Rolls-Royce nuclear reactor production line. There are already questions that the reactor cores, being built at Derby, will be delayed for the UK’s own Dreadnought nuclear submarine.
The eye-opener in the AUKMIN chatter is the promise from Canberra to send A$4.6 billion (£2.4 billion) to speed up lethargic construction at the Rolls-Royce nuclear reactor production line.
March 26, 2024, by: Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.com/the-aukus-cash-cow-robbing-the-australian-taxpayer/
Two British ministers, the UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron and Defence Secretary Grant Shapps, paid a recent visit to Australia recently as part of the AUKMIN (Australia-United Kingdom Ministerial Consultations) talks. It showed, yet again, that Australia’s government loves being mugged. Stomped on. Mowed over. Beaten.
It was mugged, from the outset, in its unconditional surrender to the US military industrial complex with the AUKUS security agreement. It was mugged in throwing money (that of the Australian taxpayer) at the US submarine industry, which is lagging in its production schedule for both the Virginia-class boats and new designs such as the Columbia class. British shipyards were hardly going to miss out on this generous distribution of Australian money, largesse ill-deserved for a flagging production line.
A joint statement on the March 22 meeting, conducted with Defence Minister Richard Marles and Foreign Minister Penny Wong, was packed with trite observations and lazy reflections about the nature of the “international order”. Ministers “agreed the contemporary [UK-Australian] relationship is responding in an agile and coordinated way to global challenges.” When it comes to matters of submarine finance and construction, agility is that last word that comes to mind.
Boxes were ticked with managerial, inconsequential rigour. Russia, condemned for its “full-scale, illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine.” Encouragement offered for Australia in training Ukrainian personnel through Operation Kudu and joining the Drone Capability Coalition. Exaggerated “concern at the catastrophic humanitarian crisis in Gaza.” Praise for the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and “respect of navigation.”
The relevant pointers were to be found later in the statement. The UK has been hoping for a greater engagement in the Indo-Pacific (those damn French take all the plaudits from the European power perspective), and the AUKUS bridge has been one excuse for doing so. Accordingly, this signalled a “commitment to a comprehensive and modern defence relationship, underlined by the signing of the updated Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for Defence and Security Cooperation.”
When politicians need to justify opening the public wallet, such tired terms as “unprecedented”, “threat” and “changing” are used. These are the words of foreign minister Wong: “Australia and the United Kingdom are building on our longstanding strategic partnership to address our challenging and rapidly changing world.” Marles preferred the words “an increasingly complex strategic environment.” Shapps followed a similar line of thinking. “Nuclear-powered submarines are not cheap, but we live in a much more dangerous world, where we are seeing a much more assertive region [with] China, a much more dangerous world all around with what is happening in the Middle East and Europe.” Hardly a basis for the submarines, but the fetish is strong and gripping.
With dread, critics of AUKUS would have noted yet another round of promised disgorging. Britain’s submarine industry is even more lagging than that of the United States, and bringing Britannia aboard the subsidy truck is yet another signal that the AUKUS submarines, when and if they ever get off the design page and groan off the shipyards, are guaranteed well deserved obsolescence or glorious unworkability.
A separate statement released by all the partners of the AUKUS agreement glories in the SSN-AUKUS submarine, intended as a joint effort between BAE Systems and the Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC). (BAE Systems, it should be remembered, is behind the troubled Hunter-class frigate program, one plagued by difficulties in unproven capabilities.)
An already challenging series of ingredients is further complicated by the US role as well. “SSN-AUKUS is being trilaterally developed, based on the United Kingdom’s next designs and incorporation technology from all three nations, including cutting edge United States submarine technologies.” This fabled fiction “will be equipped for intelligence, surveillance, undersea warfare and strike missions, and will provide maximum interoperability among AUKUS partners.” The ink on this is clear: the Royal Australian Navy will, as with any of the promised second-hand Virginia-class boats, be a subordinate partner.
In this, a false sense of submarine construction is being conveyed through what is termed the “Optimal Pathway”, ostensibly to “create a stronger, more resilient trilateral submarine industrial base, supporting submarine production and maintenance in all three countries.” In actual fact, the Australian leg of this entire effort is considerably greater in supporting the two partners, be it in terms of upgrading HMAS Stirling in Western Australia to permit UK and US SSNs to dock as part of Submarine Rotational Force West from 2027, and infrastructure upgrades in South Australia. It all has the appearance of garrisoning by foreign powers, a reality all the more startling given various upgrades to land and aerial platforms for the United States in the Northern Territory.
The eye-opener in the AUKMIN chatter is the promise from Canberra to send A$4.6 billion (£2.4 billion) to speed up lethargic construction at the Rolls-Royce nuclear reactor production line. There are already questions that the reactor cores, being built at Derby, will be delayed for the UK’s own Dreadnought nuclear submarine. The amount, it was stated by the Australian government, was deemed “an appropriate and proportionate contribution to expand production and accommodate Australia’s requirements.” Hardly.
Ultimately, this absurd spectacle entails a windfall of cash, ill-deserved funding to two powers with little promise of returns and no guarantees of speedier boat construction. The shipyards of both the UK and the United States can take much joy from this, as can those keen to further proliferate nuclear platforms, leaving the Australian voter with that terrible feeling of being, well, mugged.
On nuclear, Coalition prefers the optimism of misleading, decade-old, unverified claims
The Coalition is a fan of quoting the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation’s optimism on nuclear timelines compared to the CSIRO. But do the numbers add up?
JOHN QUIGGIN, MAR 22, 2024, https://johnquigginblog.substack.com/p/on-nuclear-coalition-prefers-the?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=806934&post_id=142847313&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
To the extent that most Australians have heard of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), we know it as a supplier of radio-isotopes for use in medicine and as the operator of a small research reactor at Lucas Heights in the suburbs of Sydney.
So, it may have come as a surprise to hear shadow energy minister Ted O’Brien cite ANSTO as the source for an estimate that a small modular reactor (SMR) could be constructed in three to five years, and a large reactor in eight to 12 years.
Appearing on the ABC’s 7:30 report in mid-March, O’Brien stated “that is the advice from ANSTO. That is the advice of the Albanese government’s nuclear agency”. In view of the fact that widely publicised advice from an extensive study undertaken by CSIRO yields much less optimistic conclusions, that seems like a surprising claim.
But O’Brien is correct. ANSTO is indeed the government agency officially advising on nuclear technology, including nuclear power.
Section 5 of the ANSTO Act mandates the organisation provide advice on aspects of and the application and use of nuclear science and nuclear technology. ANSTO provides such advice to government, parliaments, ministers, departments and agencies, inquiries and investigations, members of the public, and international, multilateral and bilateral partners — in pursuit of the national interest.
In a submission to the Senate standing committee on environment and the communications inquiry into the environment and other legislation amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022, ANSTO stated that SMRs “have the potential to reduce build costs using a variety of strategies, including reducing plant build times from six to eight years for large reactors to two and a half to four years for SMRs via the use of series-production methods“.
These numbers are even more optimistic than those cited by Ted O’Brien. But terms like “potential” can do a lot of work in claims of this kind. Nuclear fusion, for example, has the potential to meet all the energy needs of the planet, but it won’t do so any time soon.
A natural response from an interested member of the public would be to visit the ANSTO website to get more detailed information on the assessment of nuclear technology. This leads us to a webpage titled “What are small modular reactors and what makes them different?”, which leads with the claim “the USA is expected to have its first SMR operating by 2026” and includes the timeframe of three to five years for construction.
A note hastily added in the last week states: “Please note that this content was current at the time of publishing (July 2020), and the projected construction time of SMRs (three to five years) is referenced from a University of Leeds research paper. In November 2023, NuScale [the subject of the 2026 claim] announced it was discontinuing its SMR project in Idaho.”
Even in 2020, this research was out of date. The NuScale project, originally projected to be delivering power in 2023, had already pushed its target past 2026 by then. But given that the project has been abandoned, there’s no need to look too closely at this.
The University of Leeds paper is more interesting. It turns out to be a literature survey covering the period 2004-19. The three- to five-year estimate for the construction time for SMRs is taken from a non-peer-reviewed 2016 report by consulting firm Ernst and Young (which worked with one of the authors on the University of Leeds study). The information used to compile the report is even older, going back to 2014 or earlier. To put it bluntly, this is worthless.
Rather than complying with its legal obligation to keep abreast of nuclear power technology and inform the public of its findings, ANSTO has relied on decade-old, unverified claims, made by a consulting company. This sloppy treatment of an issue that should be a central focus of ANSTO analysis contrasts sharply with the careful assessment undertaken by CSIRO.
I went to ANSTO for a response but didn’t hear back.
Ted O’Brien can scarcely be blamed for taking ANSTO’s word on these matters, particularly when its claims are so convenient to his case. But ANSTO needs to retract its misleading claims as soon as possible. That would give the LNP an opportunity, if it wants it, to drop its nuclear policy and put the blame on an Albanese government agency for misleading it.
One final irony. The ban on nuclear power, which is now the subject of so much controversy, was introduced by the Howard government to secure the passage of legislation that allowed ANSTO to build a new research reactor at Lucas Heights. In light of this history, maybe ANSTO’s remit should be revised to steer the organisation clear of nuclear power once and for all.
The extraordinary financial costs of ‘small’ nuclear power stations
By Alan Finkel, Cosmos, 21 Mar 24
Partial extract from an article to be posted in 360info.org
They’re being touted as the solution to kickstarting a nuclear power industry in Australia.
According to the Opposition’s Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Ted O’Brien, small modular reactors (SMR) could be built within ten-year period if it wins the next election.
However, it would likely take 20 years to commence commercial operation of any nuclear reactors in Australia from the time in-principle approval was reached. To reach that starting point and enable detailed consideration of the challenges and costs of nuclear power, the existing legislative ban on nuclear power in Australia will need to be removed.
There are other obstacles.
While there’s plenty of excitement about SMRs, the problem is there just isn’t enough data about them, mainly because there are none operating in any OECD country.
And it’s unknown when any might be. As Allison Macfarlane, former chair of the US Nuclear Regulatory commission, argues in her article,The end of Oppenheimer’s energy dream, the proposal for small modular reactors to help us in the clean energy transition is fanciful.
The SMR furthest along the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval process, from the US company NuScale, cancelled its first planned installation in Utah last November when the initial cost blew out to USD$9 billion, corresponding to USD$20 billion per GW.
The only countries with working SMRs are China and Russia.
Micro and large reactors
Micro reactors are intended to generate electrical power up to 10 MW per unit. Although companies such as Rolls Royce are developing these, there do not appear to be any commercial micro modular reactors that have completed their design.
That leaves full-scale reactors, which have also been mentioned as part of a possible Australian nuclear power play.
Korean company KEPCO builds most of the nuclear reactors in Korea and has now built one at Barakah in the United Arab Emirates. This 5.6 GW plant, scheduled to open this year, has taken 16 years to complete and cost USD$24 billion (AUD$36 billion). At 5.6 GW, that is AUD$6.4 billion per GW. Given salaries and skills shortages in Australia, inflation, interest rates and our regulatory requirements, it would cost more and take longer in Australia.
The Hinkley C plant in the UK was supposed to be finished in 2017 but has been delayed again until 2031 – 23 years after approval. The estimated construction cost ballooned to AUD$89 billion. At 3.2 GW electrical power, that is AUD$28 billion per GW.
In the US, the most recent nuclear reactors to be built are the Vogtle 3 and 4built at the existing facility that is home to the Vogtle 1 and 2 reactors. Both were anticipated to be in service in 2016. Vogtle 3 began commercial operation in July 2023. Vogtle 4 is projected to commence operation in the second quarter of 2024 – 15 years after the construction contract was awarded.
Construction cost USD$34 billion (AUD$52 billion) for the combined 2.2 GW output of the two reactors, or AUD$24 billion per GW.
Construction of nuclear plants in the United States has declined dramatically over the years. Approximately 130 were built from the mid 1950s to the mid 1990s. Only four commenced operation in the 30 years from the mid 1990s to now, and at the time of writing there are no nuclear reactors under construction in the United States.
In France, only one nuclear power plant is under construction. The 1.65 GW Flamanville EPR reactor is hoped to be completed and begin to supply electricity later this year, 17 years after construction began. The most recent cost estimate was AUD$22 billion or AUD$13 billion per GW. No other nuclear power plants are planned in France.
These high costs and long delivery durations for full-scale reactors are the reasons SMRs are proposed as a way forward in Australia. However, SMRs are a new technology. There are none in operation or construction in any OECD countries, thus it is not possible to estimate the costs or delivery schedules. NuScale’s investment to date suggests that the capital cost for the first units to be delivered will be very high. ………… https://cosmosmagazine.com/technology/energy/the-extraordinary-financial-costs-of-nuclear-power/
Climate-conscious investors put nuclear dead last on list of desirable Australian ventures
Fewer than one in 10 investors exploring new investments in the technology, with most preferring renewables
Guardian, Paul Karp Chief political correspondent, 25 Mar 24
Nuclear energy ranks last on the list of climate technologies that big institutional investors want exposure to, according to a survey of climate conscious investors with $37tn under management.
Fewer than one in 10 investors were exploring new investments in nuclear technology in the survey of the Investor Group on Climate Change, whose 100 members include super funds and asset managers looking after the funds of 15 million Australians.
The survey found a rebound in confidence in Australia’s climate policy but a growing appetite for clear timelines for the phase-out of coal, oil and gas.
The opposition, led by Peter Dutton, plans to propose locating nuclear power plants on the site of retiring coal power plants, claiming that this would save having to build new transmission infrastructure for renewables.
But the plan has been widely panned. The energy department has estimated it would cost $387bn to go nuclear, and Dutton faces opposition from his own state colleagues.
Australia’s big private electricity generators have dismissed nuclear energy as a viable source of power for their customers for at least another decade, and likely more.
In the yearly survey by the Investor Group on Climate Change investors were asked which energy and climate solutions they believed had good long-term returns. Nuclear energy was ranked last of 14 possible responses, along with sustainable oceans.
“This is due to nuclear energy’s very high cost, and the lack of maturity and deployment in next generation technologies,” a policy brief on the survey said, citing the CSIRO’s gencost report.
The five most popular options were: renewable energy (backed by 47% of respondents); nature solutions, including biodiversity or nature capital (34%); energy storage (32%); low carbon transport (32%); and industry/materials, including critical minerals (32%).
In 2021 about 70% of investors cited policy and regulatory uncertainty as a barrier to investing in climate solutions, a figure that dropped to 40% in the 2023 data released on Monday.
Asked to nominate the policies they wanted the government to prioritise, most investors (56%) called for sector-by-sector decarbonisation plans to keep global heating under the 1.5C threshold.
There was also majority support for improved carbon pricing through the safeguard mechanism (54%), funding support for new technology (53%), and phasing out fossil fuel subsidies (51%).
The policy brief said “emerging priorities” included mandatory climate-related disclosures, timelines for the phase-out of coal, oil and gas, and clear policies to build resilience and adapt to the physical damages of climate change.
Erwin Jackson, Investor Group on Climate Change’s managing director of policy, said: “Investors have given the government a pretty good report card………………………………………………….more https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/mar/25/climate-conscious-investors-put-nuclear-dead-last-on-list-of-desirable-australian-ventures
Man blames nuclear meltdown for deformities in city more radioactive than Chernobyl
Ozersk – code named City 40 – was the birthplace of the Soviet nuclear weapons programme, now it’s one of the most contaminated places on the planet with residents exposed to high radiation levels.
By Kelly Williams, Assistant News Editor (Live) https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/man-blames-nuclear-meltdown-deformities-32405120
A man living in a secret city five times more radioactive than Chernobyl has been left with facial deformities he blames on huge nuclear meltdowns.
Vakil Batirshin has massively swollen lymph nodes said to be caused by radiation-related illness. He lives in Ozersk – code named City 40 in Russia – which was built in total secrecy around the huge Mayak nuclear power plant by the Soviets in 1946.
For the first eight years after City 40 was built, Ozersk residents were forbidden from communicating with the outside world. Like Chernobyl, it was designed as a place to house the scientists working at the plant who – unbeknownst to the world – were leading the Soviet Union’s nuclear weapons programme during the Cold War era.
Locals were told they were “the nuclear shield and saviours of the world,” and everyone on the outside was an enemy.
They also kept it a secret that the extreme exposure to radiation was affecting the health of the city’s inhabitants. They started to get sick and die and the authorities were clandestine about the mortality rate.
However, the city’s graveyard with all its young victims tells the story.
Ozersk, nicknamed “The graveyard of the Earth,” was surrounded by guarded gates and barbed wire fences and did not appear on any maps.
Its inhabitants’ identities were also erased from the Soviet census to guard their secret.
The Mayak nuclear plant went through Russia’s biggest nuclear disaster when the facility allegedly dumped 200million curies worth of radioactive material into the environment around Ozersk.
The residents also suffered the Kyshtym disaster in 1957, the worst nuclear disaster the world had seen before Chernobyl.
Radiation bathed the city when a cooling system exploded at Mayak with the force of 100 tons of dynamite.
One of the nearby lakes has been so heavily contaminated by plutonium that locals have renamed it the “Lake of Death” or “Plutonium Lake”.
In an interview which resurfaced earlier this week on X (formerly Twitter), Vakil Batirshin struggles to speak, his neck is painfully swollen from lymph nodes that have grown to triple their normal size.
His exact diagnosis remains steeped in mystery as doctors say it can be hard to trace any one condition to radiation.
But asked if he has any doubt his symptoms are related to radioactivity, he said: “Well, when I lived in my home village, I didn’t have anything. Everything was great.
“When I came here, it all started.”
Another resident, Gilani Dambaev is riddled with diseases doctors think are linked to a lifetime’s exposure to excessive radiation. He and his family have government-issued cards identifying them as residents of radiation-tainted territory.
He said: “Sometimes they would put up signs warning us not to swim in the river, but they never said why. After work, we would go swimming in the river. The kids would too.”
Although the secret is now out and Ozyorsk resembles “a suburban 1950s American town” according to The Guardian, residents know their water is contaminated, their crops are poisoned, and their children may be sick.
Half a million people in Ozersk and its surrounding area are said to have been exposed to five times as much radiation as those living in the areas of Ukraine affected by the Chernobyl nuclear accident.
But most refused to leave, because while the Soviet population were suffering from famine and living in extreme poverty, the city was regarded as a paradise as authorities gave them private apartments, plenty of food, good schools and healthcare, and a plethora of entertainment and cultural activities.
Even still, residents opt against leaving. The Guardian reported that “it is prestigious to live in Ozersk.”
Residents describe it as a town of “intellectuals”, where they are used to getting “the best of everything for free”.
Living in Mayak’s nuclear shadow and resigned to her fate, one said: “I don’t hope for anything anymore. If we get sick, we get sick.”
Some locals, however, claim that long term dumping by the nuclear plant’s management continues today.
The government has started resettling residents to new homes away from the river, but the process only began in 2008.
‘The graveyard of the Earth’: inside City 40, Russia’s deadly nuclear secret
The city’s residents know the truth, however: that their water is contaminated, their mushrooms and berries are poisoned, and their children may be sick. Ozersk and the surrounding region is one of the most contaminated places on the planet, referred to by some as the “graveyard of the Earth”.
City 40’s inhabitants were told they were “the nuclear shield and saviours of the world”
From the late 1940s, people here started to get sick and die: the victims of long-term exposure to radiation.
‘The graveyard of the Earth’: inside City 40, Russia’s deadly nuclear secret, https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/jul/20/graveyard-earth-inside-city-40-ozersk-russia-deadly-secret-nuclear Samira Goetschel, Wed 20 Jul 2016 Ozersk, codenamed City 40, was the birthplace of the Soviet nuclear weapons programme. Now it is one of the most contaminated places on the planet – so why do so many residents still view it as a fenced-in paradise?
“Those in paradise were given a choice: happiness without freedom, or freedom without happiness. There was no third alternative.” (From the dystopian novel We, by Yevgeny Zamyatin, 1924)
Deep in the vast forests of Russia’s Ural mountains lies the forbidden city of Ozersk. Behind guarded gates and barbed wire fences stands a beautiful enigma – a hypnotic place that seems to exist in a different dimension.
Codenamed City 40, Ozersk was the birthplace of the Soviet nuclear weapons programme after the second world war. For decades, this city of 100,000 people did not appear on any maps, and its inhabitants’ identities were erased from the Soviet census.
Today, with its beautiful lakes, perfumed flowers and picturesque tree-lined streets, Ozersk resembles a suburban 1950s American town – like one of those too-perfect places depicted in The Twilight Zone.
Continue reading1.This month.
14 May Industrial Decarbonisation Summit
Sydney Get involved at eec.org.au/summit-registration
15- 16 May Sydney – EEC National Conference Efficiency Electrification Decarbonisation more https://eec.my.canva.site/eecnc24
The video on Palestine that got Yanis Varoufakis BANNED from Germany
Keep U.S. military expansion out of Australia
Petition EN5543 – Call for termination of the US-Australia Force Posture Agreement
Antinuclear 