How bloated energy supply projections are usually wrong – a history of energy efficiency tells us why
As we can see, overblown energy projections are now manifesting themselves in new ways. In Australia, the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) is being criticised for imagining a future natural gas supply shortage. This is despite the fact that natural gas use in Australia is declining because of increasing electrification of services (See HERE).
One problem that obscures this, and makes the energy supply lobby ignore energy efficiency, is that the electricity supply and natural gas supply interests are intertwined. AEMO in Australia feels the need to bang the drum for natural gas, even though electrification is more efficient and more sustainable than natural gas.
David Toke, Substack, Mar 23, 2025
There’s a general belief going around about surging energy demand in developed countries like the USA and the UK. Goldman Sachs, for example, has been leading the chorus proclaiming massive AI-led increases in energy demand (See HERE). But such claims are likely much exaggerated. They are the latest in a history of falsely predicted energy bubbles. These have served the interests of the big energy corporations and their bizarre demands for state funding of technologies like small modular reactors (see my post HERE). I want to discuss this history of bloated projections of future energy consumption. I want to talk about how it is that they are false prophets, both in history and now.
Yes, we need to electrify the economy to make it more energy-efficient using things like heat pumps and EVs. These technologies will increase electricity demand, but they will actually reduce overall energy demand, not increase it. The stories about ‘surging’ energy demand imply absolute increases in energy consumption, not relative shifts.
The (historical) role of bloated projections of future energy consumption has been to distract attention from energy efficiency improvements. These are important, if not the overriding, means through which the bloated energy projections are confounded. It is doubly true today when we desperately need to encourage energy efficiency through electrification. This will reduce emissions, increase energy security and create more demand for renewable energy.
A history of bloated energy projections
Bloated projections in the USA
Yes, we’ve been here before. The big energy corporations with their demands for massive investment in centralised power plant trade on the fact that the general public do not remember the past and the inaccuracy of the past claims of massive increases in energy consumption.
In the 1970s it became clear that the world could not survive unsustainable increases in energy production and pollution. This was, by the way, before climate change became a major issue even within the green movement. Amory Lovins led the way in charting a strategy based on decentralised energy consumption in a book called ‘Soft Energy Paths’. published in 1977. He noted how the US Government and its agencies were predicting a doubling of energy consumption in the year 2000 compared to 1975 (note: all energy not just electricity). They were predicting a massive increase in reliance on coal and nuclear power.
Lovins talked about what he called an alternative ‘soft energy path’ to this ‘hard energy path’. In his projection total energy projection increased by only around a third by 2000, and thereafter began to decline (pages 29 and 38 compared)1. He mused about how solar photovoltaics ‘could be used, to increase the range of functions now performed by electricity’ (page 143). Amazingly his projection of total US energy consumption by 2000 turned out to be broadly correct, even though many of his general policy rescriptions were not adopted. Energy consumption increased by only around a third compared to the confident predictions made by Government agencies and reports supported by big corporations.
Exaggeration of future energy demand is the usual practice of the Government. The US Government’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) publishes a lot of very useful data about energy. However its future energy projections are riddled with overestimations………………………………………..
I am focusing on the USA because I have more data for this discussion. The same general position holds in the UK………………………………
As we can see, overblown energy projections are now manifesting themselves in new ways. In Australia, the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) is being criticised for imagining a future natural gas supply shortage. This is despite the fact that natural gas use in Australia is declining because of increasing electrification of services (See HERE).
How energy efficiency deflates bloated energy demand projections
Energy efficiency is the creeping destroyer of energy demand projections. I call it ‘creeping’ energy efficiency because this is often missed by people who are modeling projections of future energy. They simply do not know what improvements in energy efficiency there are going to be. But they do know how much is generated by power stations or supplied by gas. So they just do multiplication sums involving the supply-side data they do know about and they do not make radical enough assumptions about the development of energy efficiency.
Recently I have seen projections of the impact of AI on energy consumption derived by assuming a constant relationship between the amount of AI and data centres and energy consumption. They then multiply the expected expansion of AI by the current expected energy consumption of AI and arrive at some very large quantities. But this is stupid.
It is as if somebody in the year 1900 was projecting how much coal was going to be used in power stations in the future relying on the energy efficiency of a coal-fired power plant existing in 1900. This was around 10 percent (ie 10 percent of the coal’s energy was converted into electricity). Of course, this energy efficiency increased, ultimately to over 40 percent. So anybody doing these sums about future coal consumption would have gotten their answers absurdly wrong. Nowadays coal is on its way out, in the West, at least. But as will coal-fired power plants, the efficiencies of AI will improve. This may happen very rapidly.
Early 2025 saw the emergence of DeepSeek, an AI system that is radically cheaper than other US based systems. They, reportedly, have reduced energy consumption by around 75 per cent (see HERE), or perhaps even more according to some estimates (see HERE). Other companies will have to try to emulate their success since they will struggle to compete if they do not. According to an analysis of the company’s efforts:
‘DeepSeek’s research team disclosed that they used significantly fewer chips than their competitors to train their model. While major AI companies rely on supercomputers with 16,000+ chips, DeepSeek achieved comparable results using just 2,000. This strategic approach could mark a turning point in AI energy efficiency and resource allocation.’ (see HERE)
After the emergence of DeepSeek, much of the conversation on the energy demand from AI centres briefly paused. Then, the lessons of the example of DeepSeek apparently lost the cacophony of voices carried on from before in the vein of talking about ‘surging’ AI-related demand for energy.
So as was the case with coal-fired power plants, the efficiencies of AI will improve. This will happen very rapidly indeed if DeepSeek is anything to go by since the other AI companies will have to keep up with improving efficiencies and cutting costs if they are to keep up with the competition.
…………………. even in the case of the USA, it has all been much overblown. Certainly AI and data centers are unlikely to produce a substantial increase in energy demand in the UK. Indeed, AI is likely to induce declines in energy consumption, as I argue in an earlier post (see HERE).
Energy Efficient lighting
A good case study of how energy efficiency almost silently hacks away at energy is lighting…………………………………………………………………………….
Future energy efficiency
Often talk about likely increases in electricity consumption to power more energy-efficient technologies like EVs and heat pumps becomes confused with talk about surges in energy demand through data centres (which are overblown, as I argue). Heat pumps and EVs will reduce energy consumption overall – by pretty large amounts. Battery-electric technology will expand to all of transport (ultimately even including aircraft). Heat pumps will provide residential, commercial, and industrial space heating. The energy-saving potential is immense. Up to half of all energy consumption could be saved. Energy consumption has already stabilised in most western states – and has reduced in some such as the UK.
Conclusion
As we have seen, in the past clams of projected surges in energy demand have been undermined by greater energy efficiency. So why is it that demands for energy supply increases to meet overblown estimations of surges in energy demand receive so much more publicity than energy efficiency?
One major reason is that big corporations whose interests are concerned with building large power stations have concentrated political power. The lobby for greater energy efficiency has a much more diffuse base. But today the renewable energy lobbies and the energy efficiency lobbies should have a much keener interest in working together. To create a much bigger market for renewable electricity, electrification needs to be rapidly developed.
One problem that obscures this, and makes the energy supply lobby ignore energy efficiency, is that the electricity supply and natural gas supply interests are intertwined. AEMO in Australia feels the need to bang the drum for natural gas, even though electrification is more efficient and more sustainable than natural gas. The big energy corporations tend to sell both electricity and gas, and so they will try and promote both of them.
We need to combat the influence of the big corporations. We need to put our shoulders on the wheel in backing incentives and regulations to be shifted in favour of energy efficiency. Otherwise the energy transition will take much longer to happen.
https://davidtoke.substack.com/p/how-bloated-energy-supply-projections
Dutton’s seat a target in $2m union war against nuclear
David Marin-Guzman, AFR, 24 Mar 25
Unions will spend more than $2 million on an anti-nuclear energy campaign targeting the Coalition in key electorates ahead of the federal election, including Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s own marginal Queensland seat.
The Electrical Trades Union is leading the campaign, involving television, FM radio and digital ads, with $1.5 million funding and is backed by the Maritime Union of Australia and the plumbers’ union, which are spending $400,000 and $200,000, respectively.
The campaign is one of the most significant union spends in the election and will attack the huge cost and time involved in building nuclear plants and question nuclear as the fix to energy concerns.
It will target a dozen Liberal and Labor seats in play across the east coast, including Hunter, Reid and Banks in NSW – the latter held by opposition foreign affairs spokesman David Coleman – and McEwen, Hawke, Dunkley and Bruce in Victoria.
In Queensland, the ads will focus on Capricornia, held by Liberal MP Michelle Landry, the inner-Brisbane seat of Bonner held by Liberal MP Ross Vasta, the regional seat of Flynn held by Nationals MP Colin Boyce, Labor’s working-class Brisbane seat of Blair, and Dutton’s seat, Dickson, which he holds by a margin of 1.7 per cent.
This is not a fear campaign’
The unions will also campaign in Moore in Western Australia, which the Liberals held by less than 1 per cent in the 2022 election. Electrician turned lawyer and ETU member Tom French is challenging for the seat on behalf of Labor after Liberal MP Ian Goodenough was ousted in pre-selection last year.
ETU national secretary Michael Wright, whose union holds a historic opposition to nuclear, said the ads ask: “How does a nuclear reactor built in 2045 keep the lights on in 2025?”
“Nuclear is too little energy for too much money coming too late,” he said. “This is not a fear campaign. It’s grounded in science and where this country is. If you can engage people with the facts you don’t need to scare people. Nuclear just doesn’t make sense.”
Plumbing and Pipe Trades Employees Union national secretary Earl Setches said Dutton was peddling a “nuclear fantasy”.
“We will not support a plan that costs out at, best guess, $600 billion to power only 4 per cent of the grid and will take over 20 years to become reality,” he said.
“Australian workers need a real secure plan for their future and this nuclear scheme will not provide that security. It will, in fact, kill jobs.”
MUA national secretary Paddy Crumlin said maritime workers were already working on offshore energy projects that promised jobs for “generations of Australian seafarers and wharfies”.
“A sudden shift to nuclear energy will bring that work to a standstill,” he warned.
Building trust in renewables
Dutton has said “nuclear energy will set us up for the next century” and criticised Labor’s early scare campaign as “childish” and “embarrassing”.
However, the advertisements, which run the slogan “Dutton’s Nuclear Plan: Why?” and feature experts, electricians and farmers, avoid the memes of three-eyed fish initially shared by Labor MPs when the opposition leader announced his plans……………………..
In WA, the union campaign would focus on water concerns in the state by emphasising that nuclear power consumes about 1.4 times more water than coal to produce the same amount of electricity.
Wright said the ETU had a particular interest because Dutton’s nuclear plans and opposition to renewables were “already delaying projects and that costs my members jobs”…………………………… https://www.afr.com/politics/dutton-s-seat-a-target-in-2m-union-war-against-nuclear-20250321-p5llh8
Integrity watchdog boss steps aside from six defence investigations
ABC News by political reporter Olivia Caisley, Sun 23 March 25
In short:
The National Anti-Corruption Commission has confirmed its chief Paul Brereton has recused himself from six defence matters referred to the watchdog and assigned those matters to a deputy commissioner.
Integrity experts are concerned about how Mr Brereton is handling potential conflict of interest issues related to defence.
What’s next?
The integrity watchdog will appear before a Senate committee on Thursday.
The head of the National Anti-Corruption Commission continues to hold senior roles in the Army Reserves, raising fresh questions about perceptions of neutrality as the watchdog probes a $45 billion federal defence contract.
Six months after a unintentional misconduct finding was made against Paul Brereton over a robodebt referral, the NACC has confirmed the commissioner is self-managing potential conflict of interest issues if and when they arise.
When contacted by the ABC the NACC did not detail whether Mr Brereton had stepped away from a referral regarding the navy’s $45b Hunter frigate project, but confirmed he had recused himself from six defence matters to avoid any perceptions of bias.
Federal crossbenchers — including Greens senator David Shoebridge and Independent MP Helen Haines — have flagged issues with the integrity body since its inception in July 2023 and are pushing for increased transparency in the next term of parliament…………………………………
A NACC spokesperson confirmed Mr Brereton has recused himself from six defence matters being investigated by the commission, but it’s unclear at what point in the process he stepped away.
“The commissioner has appropriately remained involved in decision making and deliberations where the matter does not involve the interests of an individual or unit with whom he has or has had a close association,” they said.
“… Where an actual or perceived conflict is declared or ruled, the member does not participate in the discussion and leaves the meeting while the matter is discussed and determined.”
But Greens senator David Shoebridge told the ABC Mr Brereton’s continued association with defence raised a red flag and the commissioner shouldexplain whether he’s recusing himself from early deliberations or just decision making.
“I think most people will just be shaking their heads at this” he said.
Responding to questions about whether it’s appropriate for Mr Brereton to retain his position as Major General in the ADF Reserves, as well as honorary appointments as Colonel Commandant of the Royal New South Wales Regiment and the University of New South Wales Regiment, the NACC said it wasn’t concerned.
“The commissioner’s ongoing defence roles are honorary appointments and generally present no conflict of interest,” a spokesperson told the ABC.
Director of The Center for Public Integrity, Geoffrey Watson SC, described the NACC’s explanation as problematic.
“I haven’t got complete confidence in the commissioner’s ability to gauge conflict of interest — given his robodebt error,” he said.
“The response seems to gloss over potential defence conflicts of interest because certain appointments of Mr Brereton’s are ceremonial or honorary. I would think if your commitment is so emotionally strong you’re willing to do it for free — it makes it worse not better.”
The August declaration provided to the Senate also lists nine current and former politicians with whom Mr Brereton has previously had professional contact.
Those names include — Defence Minister Richard Marles, former defence minister Linda Reynolds and Marise Payne, who was the defence minister at the time the frigate announcement was made.
The Guardian reported last year Mr Brereton’s Robodebt conflict related to his service in the army reserves.
Senator Shoebridge says he’s been waiting 18 months for a substantive response to his NACC referral regarding the Hunter frigates.
“I have not had any clarification about who is dealing with it, what stage it is at and I’m troubled commissioner Brereton might have had a role in it,” he said……………. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-23/integrity-watchdog-boss-steps-aside/105084982?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=twitter
Coalition must provide clear answers on nuclear policy
March 24, 2025 AIMN Editorial, Australians for Affordable Energy https://theaimn.net/coalition-must-provide-clear-answers-on-nuclear-policy/
The Coalition must provide immediate and detailed answers about its nuclear energy policy after Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor failed to confirm even basic costs.
Australians for Affordable Energy is calling for clearer policy and direct answers from the Coalition, with households deserving transparency on a policy that could reshape the nation’s energy mix and increase household bills.
“The continued failure to provide clear details on the costs, timelines and locations of the proposed nuclear rollout is unacceptable,” AFAE spokesperson Jo Dodds said.
“Australians are already doing it tough with soaring power prices and cost-of-living pressures. They deserve to know how much this nuclear plan will cost them – not just vague promises and evasive responses.”
Mr Taylor on Sunday repeatedly deflected when asked for key details on the financial impact of the Coalition’s nuclear proposal.
“Energy policy is not a guessing game,” Ms Dodds said.
“Before the Coalition asks Australians to sign up to nuclear power, they need to come forward with detailed and credible answers. Australians expect honesty and transparency from our political leaders, especially when it comes to something as critical as energy security and affordability.
“This nuclear plan remains a risky and uncertain proposition for Australian households and businesses.”
AFAE welcomes the Federal Government’s announcement of additional power bill relief, but it is only a temporary fix to a deeper affordability crisis.
“Relief will always be welcomed by struggling households, but these rebates are a band-aid on a long-term problem,” Ms Dodds said.
“What Australians really need is a comprehensive, sustainable energy policy that lowers prices over the long term, not short-term handouts to mask rising costs.”
Complicity of Labor and Liberal in Israel’s genocide of Palestinians
David Bradbury, 21 Mar 25
This clip shows the complicity of the Australian Govt – both major parties – in allowing/subsidising over 70 Australian companies to produce vital component parts for Lockheed Martin’s F35 fighter which has caused so many deaths in Gaza, the West Bank, southern Lebanon and Syria. Elsewhere in the world.
Nuclear power is such a mess – Zaporizhzhia plant as the shining example.
https://theaimn.net/nuclear-power-is-such-a-mess-zaporizhzhia-plant-as-the-shining-example/ 23 Mar 25
You do wonder how the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) can tell us with a straight face, that nuclear power is safe !
Nobody talks about Chernobyl any more (melted down 1986), Fukushima (melted down 2011). They’re ancient history. No, not really. The cleanup in each case is really only just beginning.
The Chernobyl ‘sarcophagus’ – still contains the molten core of the reactor and an estimated 200 tonnes of highly radioactive material. The stability of the structure has developed into one of the major risk factors at the site. Fukushima – Experts say the hard work and huge challenges of decommissioning the plant are just beginning. There are estimations that the work could take more than a century.
But – let’s look at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine. With 6 reactors (all shut down) it’s the largest nuclear power station in Europe. It’s a messy nuclear plant, in that it was originally set up to use Russian nuclear technology and fuel, enriched uranium (U-235). Then later the Ukrainians gradually changed the fuel type to American Westinghouse. By 2024, this fuel type at Zaporizhzhia was expiring. Now under the Russians’ control, they could not now access this fuel, if Russia did seek to restart the reactors.
Suddenly, the status and future of the Zaporizhzhia plant has become a very timely question. With the ceasefire negotiations going on, have President Trump and President Putin been discussing this? Nobody is letting on. The White House and the US State Department are keeping mum. Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Voldymyr Zelensky are reported to have discussed “American ownership” of the Zaporizhzhia plant, with Zelensky insisting that it could function only under Ukrainian ownership. Russia has been reported as planning to make those reactors functional again.
That critical question comes to mind – What’s In It For Whom?
Is it the glory? The pride of ownership? A wonderful economic opportunity? That last one is dubious. Ownership in wartime is fraught with danger. The IAEA repeatedly warns of the danger of a military strike on the plant, including on its hazardous spent fuel pools. With cessation of fighting, it’s still dangerous. To reactivate it would take years. It’s not just the confusion of using American or Russian fuel, (both in supplies now out of date.)
What about the water? Even now, as the reactors are in cold shutdown, they still need continuous supplies of water to reduce the residual heat from the shutdown reactors, to cool the spent fuel, and to cool the emergency diesel generators if the plant loses off-site power.
But if the Zaporizhzhia nuclear station were to be brought back into operation, it would require massive amounts of water. The destruction of the Kakhovka dam in 2023 has left Zaporizhzhia without that essential supply. It’s estimated that to restore the plant the plant to function would take several years. Shut for three years, and constantly in military danger, the plant had safety problems, including fires, even before the war began.
These questions of fuel and water are the obvious practical ones. But dig deeper into this Zaporizhzhia nuclear station problem and we find almost insuperable problems of logistics, legal and regulatory requirements, costs, and the conflicting ambitions and abilities and hostilities of the men in leadership in Ukraine, Russia, and USA. And for now, the plant is on the front line, in territory controlled by Russia.
Voldymyr Zelensky – always the shining hero, knows the right solution. The nuclear station can belong only to Ukraine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umwwpybIW3k
The Zelensky simple solution assumes that in a ceasefire, or negotiated end to the war, the plant, along with all the now Russian- occupied territories, will be returned to Ukraine ownership, (and that the USA will pay up for the plant’s necessary repairs and modernisation). And Ukraine will prosper, selling the electricity to Europe. These are big assumptions, considering that Russia now controls 20% of Ukrainian territory and now has the advantage in the war.
For Russia, that Zelensky scenario has zero appeal, and you wonder why anyone would expect Russia to simply capitulate to Zelensky’s wishes. For Russia, at present, keeping the nuclear station in their own hands is the safest option, defending it against Ukrainian attacks. But, even if the Zaporizhzhia plant becomes permanently owned by Russia, there are still risks of Ukrainian sabotage, and there will be the costly and difficult process of trying to restart the reactors, and what to do with the hazardous old nuclear fuel.
For the USA, ownership of the plant would have its attractions: it would benefit Westinghouse, expanding its market for nuclear technology. But all of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants are owned by Energoatom, and Ukrainian law prohibits their privatization. There would certainly be resistance in Ukraine to this American takeover. Complicated legal and financial gymnastics would go on. Perhaps Trump would see the American ownership as part of the war debt that he intends to get from Ukraine; he estimates that debt as over $300billion, although others differ about that amount. Whatever the involvement of the USA in the future management of these nuclear reactors, the USA will face the same daunting problems in trying to operate them. Nobody seems to know what is the extent of repairs needed. The Zaporizhzhia nuclear station continues to be in a state of peril, as Raphael Grossi of the IAEA constantly reminds us, (in between his promotion of new nuclear power)
This huge nuclear station is indeed a test case for the whole industry. While the much-hyped small nuclear reactors are turning out to be unaffordable and impractical mythical beasts, UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and others are going all-out for new big nuclear reactors. But this Ukraine situation demonstrates the dangers of big nuclear reactors.. Not only do they have the well-known hazards of accident risk, health and environmental hazards, toxic wastes problem, but also those complicated problems of military attack, international political relations, and that always supreme consideration – who will pay?
Nuclear Power In Australia: A Little More Conversation?
March 21, 2025 by Michael Bloch, https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/nuclear-ban-australia-mb3142/
Self-described grassroots movement Nuclear for Australia is calling for policy makers to kick off a science-driven conversation about including nuclear power in Australia’s future energy mix.
The group announced yesterday that more than 100,000 Australians (101,334 at the time of writing) have signed their petition calling for removing a ban on nuclear power here.
Nuclear for Australia was founded in December 2022 and is chaired by the former CEO of Australia’s Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) Dr Adi Paterson. Also involved with the organisation is founder of Dick Smith Electronics, Dick Smith, who is a patron.
“Australians are tired of distractions and misinformation,”1 said Will Shackel, Founder of the group. “Over 100,000 signatures show that people want nuclear power on the table as a practical solution for Australia’s energy needs.”
As for the call for a science-based conversation on nuclear power, if only there was a suitable organisation policy makers could turn to for pretty reliable information.
How about the CSIRO? It’s in their name: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Science *and* Industrial research – it seems like a suitable candidate to lead this. Now, if only CSIRO would weigh in on the thorny topic.
What’s that you say? They have?
Nuclear Not A Timely, Cost-Competitive Or Efficient Solution
The answer to the question of nuclear in Australia’s electricity sector is answered on this CSIRO page. The CSIRO is pretty clear in its view, last updated in early December 2024.
- Currently, nuclear power doesn’t offer the most cost-competitive solution for low emission electricity in Australia.
- Long development lead times mean nuclear can’t make a significant contribution to achieving net zero emissions by 2050.
- While nuclear power plants have a long operational life, this offers no unique cost advantage over shorter-lived technologies.
CSIRO’s draft2 GenCost 2024-25 Report found renewables continue to have the lowest cost range of any new build electricity generation technologies (for the seventh year in a row). That’s including the cost of firming – taking into consideration storage, transmission, system security and “spilled” energy.
Reversing The Ban A Pointless Distraction
As for other countries pursuing nuclear power; some are setting a good example of what *not* to do in Australia – and that is pursue nuclear energy.
A recent example is the latest reported cost blow-out for the UK’s proposed Sizewell C nuclear plant3; which has doubled since 2020 to around $80 billion Australian dollars. Along with large-scale firmed renewables, that could buy a lot of rooftop solar power systems and home batteries.
According to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), Sizewell C’s current estimated costs are about 2.5 times the capital cost used in the Coalition’s modelling for its nuclear dreams in Australia.
“For an Australian nuclear plant with similar costs to those reported for Sizewell C to be commercially viable, average household power bills would need to increase by between $561 and $961 per year,” states IEEFA.
It makes the electricity price rises on the cards for many Australians in 2025/26 seem like chump change.
As for mature and scientific conversation, we can do that until the cows come home and we have been; along with plenty of other types of conversations (including some here on SQ). But it’s not really a complicated thing to grasp – reversing a ban wouldn’t change the fact that:
Nuclear power is too expensive for Australia.
But cost alone isn’t a good reason for maintaining a ban. So what harm is there in removing it?
Given all the other issues associated with nuclear energy when there are more appropriate solutions already good to go and being implemented (renewables), just going through the motions and its impacts would turn into a huge time-sucking exercise and dangerous distraction. Time is a luxury we don’t have given all the faffing about with fossil fuels over the years – and that would be extended too.
To have nuclear power on the table as an energy solution in Australia, you’d first need to scrape it off the floor. Maintaining the ban helps save us from ourselves.
Never forget’: Pacific countries remember nuclear test legacy as weapons ban treaty debated.
Supporters of the UN treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons gathered this month in New York to call for wider ratification
Jon Letman, Guardian, 21 Mar 25
Growing up in the Pacific nation of Kiribati, Oemwa Johnson heard her grandfather’s stories about nuclear explosions he witnessed in the 1950s. The blasts gave off ferocious heat and blinding light. He told her people were not consulted or given protective gear against bombs detonated by the US and UK at Kiritimati Island, now part of Kiribati, decades ago.
People in Kiribati suffered grave health consequences as a result of exposure to radiation from the tests in the late 1950s and early 1960s, a legacy they say continues to this day. Johnson says there’s a lack of accountability and awareness of how nuclear testing by foreign countries has harmed her people and homeland.
“It doesn’t matter if they’re very small island nations, their stories matter,” the 24-year-old says.
Between 1946 and 1996, the US, the UK and France conducted more than 300 underwater and atmospheric nuclear tests in the Pacific region, according to Pace University International Disarmament Institute. Kiribati, French Polynesia, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands were among the most affected.
For decades the countries have called for justice for the ongoing environmental and health impacts of nuclear weapons development. The push intensified this month as supporters of the UN treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons (TPNW) – including many from Pacific nations – met to discuss the treaty and call for wider ratification.
The treaty imposes a ban on developing, testing, stockpiling, using or threatening to use nuclear weapons – or helping other countries in such activities. It entered into force in 2021 and has 98 countries as parties or signatories. In the Pacific region 11 countries have backed the treaty. Treaty supporters want universal global support but many countries – including the US, the UK and France – oppose the treaty.
The nine nuclear armed countries argue that nuclear weapons are critical to their security. Likewise, Nato nations, Japan, South Korea and others are not yet party to the treaty. Australia, where the UK conducted nuclear tests in the 1950s, has not ratified the TPNW despite the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, saying in 2018 that Australia would do so the treaty when his party was in power…………………………..
‘Nuclear risks rising’
Against this backdrop, politicians, activists and other representatives gathered at UN headquarters in New York this month for week-long discussions on how to secure more support for the TPNW.
Hinamoeura Morgant-Cross, a representative of the French Polynesia assembly, was among the parliamentarians. She says her family was significantly affected by French nuclear detonations at Moruroa and Fangataufa atolls between 1966 and 1996. Morgant-Cross told the forum high rates of radiation-induced cancer in her family had motivated her to become an anti-nuclear activist and assembly member.
“It started with my grandma with thyroid cancer,” she said. “Then her first daughter – my auntie – with thyroid cancer. She also got breast cancer. My mom and my sister have thyroid disease. I got chronic leukemia when I was 24 years old. I’m still fighting against this leukemia.”
New Zealand’s UN representative in Geneva, Deborah Geels, stressed the treaty’s “special importance in the Pacific”, warning: “Tensions between nuclear-armed states and nuclear risk are rising, and no region is immune – even the South Pacific.”……………………………….. more https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/21/never-forget-pacific-countries-remember-nuclear-test-legacy-as-weapons-ban-treaty-debated
‘Vandals in the White House’ no longer reliable allies of Australia, former defence force chief says
Henry Belot and Ben Doherty, Guardian, 21 Mar 25
Chris Barrie says Donald Trump’s second term is ‘irrecoverable’, but stops short of calling for end to Aukus pact.
A former Australian defence force chief has warned “the vandals in the White House” are no longer reliable allies and urged the Australian government to reassess its strategic partnership with the United States.
Retired admiral Chris Barrie spent four decades in the Royal Australian Navy and was made a Commander of the Legion of Merit by the US government in 2002. He is now an honorary professor at the Australian National University.
“What is happening with the vandals in the White House is similar to what happened to Australia in 1942 with the fall of Singapore,” Barrie said. “I don’t consider America to be a reliable ally, as I used to.
“Frankly, I think it is time we reconsidered our priorities and think carefully about our defence needs, now that we are having a more independent posture … Our future is now in a much more precarious state than it was on 19 January.
“Trump 1.0 was bad enough. But Trump 2.0 is irrecoverable.”
Barrie said it was “too soon” to say whether Australia should end its multibillion-dollar Aukus partnership, but raised concerns about a lack of guarantee that nuclear-powered submarines would actually be delivered. He also warned about an apparent lack of a back-up option.
Pillar One of the Aukus deal – which would see the US sell Australia nuclear-powered submarines before the Aukus-class submarines were built in Australia – is coming under increasing industry scrutiny and political criticism, with growing concerns the US will not be able, or will refuse, to sell boats to Australia, and continuing cost and time overruns in the development of the Aukus submarines.
“Let’s define why we really need nuclear submarines in the first instance, given a new independent defence posture for Australia,” Barrie said. “If they still make sense in that context, fine. But they might not. There might be alternatives. There might be alternatives with conventional submarines if we didn’t want to go any further than the Malacca Straits.”
Barrie’s warning comes after former foreign affairs minister Bob Carr said Australia would face a “colossal surrender of sovereignty” if promised US nuclear-powered submarines did not arrive under Australian control.
Carr, the foreign affairs minister between 2012 and 2013, said the Aukus deal highlighted the larger issue of American unreliability in its security alliance with Australia.
“The US is utterly not a reliable ally. No one could see it in those terms,” he said. “[President] Trump is wilful and cavalier and so is his heir-apparent, JD Vance: they are laughing at alliance partners, whom they’ve almost studiously disowned.”………………………. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/mar/21/vandals-in-the-white-house-no-longer-reliable-allies-to-australia-former-defence-force-chief-says-ntwnfb?CMP=share_btn_url
Liberals must abandon unpopular nuclear policy and return to winning formula
Liberals Against Nuclear, 21 Mar 25
The Liberal Party’s conspicuous silence on nuclear energy in its advertising confirms the policy does not have internal party support, is electoral poison and must be dumped.
The Liberal Party’s conspicuous silence on nuclear energy in its advertising confirms the policy does not have internal party support, is electoral poison and must be dumped.
An analysis of Meta’s advertising library published today in the Nine newspapers reveals the Liberal Party has not used the word “nuclear” in any of its 24 paid social media advertisements currently running, having last funded promotion of its nuclear power policy in November 2024. Additionally, it was revealed earlier this week that only nine of the Coalition’s candidates for the upcoming election are promoting nuclear energy on their campaign websites.
“The Liberal Party’s actions speak louder than words,” said Andrew Gregson, spokesperson for Liberals Against Nuclear. “They avoid mentioning nuclear in their advertising because they know voters don’t want it. If the party leadership knows this policy is unpopular enough to hide from voters, they should abandon it so they can win the election and put Peter Dutton in the Lodge.
Recent Resolve Political Monitor polling shows just 21 percent of voters favor government subsidies for nuclear energy.
“The party’s silence on nuclear in its advertising suggests internal polling matches what we’re seeing publicly – nuclear is a losing proposition. People just don’t want to be lumbered with public debt and massive government intrusion.”
Liberals Against Nuclear is calling on party leadership to return to the winning formula that has historically delivered electoral success for the Liberal Party: lower taxes and strong borders.
“The Liberal Party knows how to win elections – by focusing on economic management through tax relief for hardworking Australians and ensuring our national security through strong border protection,” Gregson said.
“The absence of nuclear policy from almost all candidate websites says loudly what no one wants to say out loud – candidates know it’s either electoral poison in their electorates or, more likely, they realise the building and running seven government-owned nuclear plants is a terrible policy that contradicts core liberal values. Building a massive socialist project will force them to raise taxes, grow the debt, and have government running an enterprise that belongs in the private sector. It’s a bit awkward when your signature policy – nuclear – is the one policy you’re trying to avoid. The simple answer is to dump it
“Voters are desperate for immediate relief on power bills, not a $600 billion nuclear scheme that delivers nothing for decades. The Liberal Party should focus on immediate tax relief for struggling families and businesses while developing practical energy solutions that align with liberal values of smaller government and free markets.
“If the Liberal Party leadership feels they have to hide this policy in their advertising, they should take the next logical step and formally abandon it before it costs them the election.”Media contacts:
Andrew Gregson +61 432 478 066
www.liberalsagainstnuclear.au
Activists are spending big on pro-nuclear ads, but it’s Dutton’s silence that has Labor’s attention
The Age ByPaul Sakkal and Mike Foley, March 21, 2025
The Liberal Party has not used the word “nuclear” in any of its 24 paid ads running on social media, prompting Energy and Climate Minister Chris Bowen to claim the Coalition is now hiding its signature energy policy as protesters crash opposition media events.
An analysis of Meta’s advertising library, which tracks the messages that parties boost, shows the Liberals promoting Labor’s handling of the inflation crisis, energy bill prices and other key talking points, but the party last funded a push of its nuclear power policy back in November.
Anti-nuclear activists from radical climate group Rising Tide snuck into separate events at which Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and shadow treasurer Angus Taylor were speaking on Thursday, underscoring the contentiousness of the proposal to build seven nuclear plants to reach net zero emissions by 2050.
At Taylor’s event in Sydney, activists dressed in business attire effectively took over the press conference, raising questions about the security of MPs ahead of an election campaign.
Coalition MPs, unauthorised to speak to the media, told this masthead they wanted to see an opposition policy on gas and more immediate policies to put downward pressure on power bills, as LNP senator Matt Canavan calls for the opposition to embrace coal as a cheap form of energy. Currently, the Coalition promises a cheaper energy grid by 2050 but does not offer lower energy price rises in the short- or medium-term.
Dutton has posted written messages or videos about nuclear three times this year on Facebook. Energy spokesman Ted O’Brien has posted about nuclear a handful of times since January, but often omits mention of nuclear when writing online about energy and did not mention nuclear in his statement following last week’s power bill price rise.
Dutton is keen to emphasise the Coalition’s “balanced energy mix” that modelling carried out by Frontier Economics estimates would come in cheaper than Labor’s plan, and be underpinned mostly by renewable energy. Labor disputes these figures.
Bowen said “Peter Dutton knows his $600 billion nuclear scheme is a policy dud”, arguing the opposition was “now hiding nuclear as his signature policy” in advertising.
…………………………………………………………………… Resolve’s December survey shows 21 per cent of voters favoured government subsidies for nuclear energy, while 45 per cent of voters backed subsidies for rooftop solar and 34 per cent supported subsidies for home batteries.
Despite the opposition’s paltry marketing of nuclear power, third-party activist groups are spending big on pro-nuclear advertising to influence the federal election. https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/activists-are-spending-big-on-pro-nuclear-ads-but-it-s-dutton-s-silence-that-has-labor-s-attention-20250319-p5lkoc.html
“We will not back down:” Court tells Greenpeace to pay billion dollar damages bill to oil and gas company
The case has been mired in controversy from the outset with many jurors holding unfavourable views of the protests and it was reported that more than half the jurors selected to hear the case had ties to the fossil fuel industry.
the US decision is a good indicator about what may be in store for Australia.
Royce Kurmelovs, Mar 20, 2025,
https://reneweconomy.com.au/we-will-not-back-down-court-tells-greenpeace-to-pay-billion-dollar-damages-bill-to-oil-and-gas-company/
A jury in the US has hit Greenpeace with $US660 million ($A1.04 billion) in damages for defamation and other claims for the green group’s part in a campaign led by First Nations people against an oil pipeline in 2016 and 2017.
The Standing Rock protests marked a major turning point in the movement against new oil and gas infrastructure, when the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe led a campaign against the construction of the Dakota Access pipeline.
Right wing organisations and groups mobilised in response to the protests that became a flashpoint in the broader fight over climate change, with sweeping anti-protest laws rolled out across the United States.
The case against Greenpeace is the latest reaction to the protest with Dallas-based oil and gas company, Energy Transfer Partners, alleging it lost $70 billion as a result of the campaign. It pursued Greenpeace in the courts alleging defamation and incitement of criminal behaviour against the project.
The lawsuit relied upon a US-specific statute, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), that was initially written to target the mob, but has since been used to prosecute international football federation FIFA for corrupt conduct and ExxonMobil for its role in attacking the science of climate change.
By seeking hundreds of millions in compensation against an organisation that played a minimal role in the protests, legal experts have described the litigation known as “strategic litigation against public participation”, or a “SLAPP Suit”. These are cases brought by large corporation to shut down public criticism or protest about a company’s activities.
The case has been mired in controversy from the outset with many jurors holding unfavourable views of the protests and it was reported that more than half the jurors selected to hear the case had ties to the fossil fuel industry.
Greenpeace made multiple attempts to move the hearings to another venue over concerns it would not get a fair hearing but were denied.
Following the verdict, Greenpeace International Executive Director Mads Christensen linked the decision to a broader corrosion of the right to protest in the US under the Trump administration.
“We are witnessing a disastrous return to the reckless behaviour that fuelled the climate crisis, deepened environmental racism, and put fossil fuel profits over public health and a liveable planet,” Christensen said.
“The previous Trump administration spent four years dismantling protections for clean air, water, and Indigenous sovereignty, and now along with its allies wants to finish the job by silencing protest.”
“We will not back down. We will not be silenced.”
David Mejia-Canales, a senior human rights lawyer from the Human Rights Law Centre, said the US decision is a good indicator about what may be in store for Australia.
SLAPP suits are not new in Australia, but the US lawfirm representing oil company Santos in the recent Munkara decision that ruled against the Environmental Defenders Office used an approach similar to US-style RICO litigation.
Coalition leader Peter Dutton has already pledged to defund the Environmental Defenders Office after the ruling in Munkara found its lawyers had behaved improperly, but has recently proposed to formally introduce RICO-style laws into Australia if elected.
Mejia-Canales said it was early days on the opposition leader’s proposal that seemed “a bit of a thought bubble” but said that should these laws be introduced, they had “potential to be abused”.
“In a way, the Greenpeace decision in the US is peering a little bit into our own future,” he said. “What we are seeing happening in the US today might be happening here tomorrow.”
“If these RICO type laws get introduced in Australia, they’re not doing it for the greater good or the greater purpose, it’s to stop us critiquing these massive companies whose behaviour leads to a whole lot of criticism and we should be able to do that safely.”
The Human Rights Law Centre is working to draft a bill that would introduce a set of principles for Australian courts to follow when confronted by a SLAPP litigation.
International ‘nuclear tombs’ are being built, but how do we warn future generations of what’s inside?
in November 2024, Adelaide residents said they were “blindsided” when federal parliament legislation allowed for nuclear waste to be stored and disposed of at a shipping yard in Osborne — 25 kilometres north-west of the CBD and seaside suburbs.
The plans are part of the $368 billion AUKUS project, which will involve building nuclear submarines in South Australia, and include a commitment from the federal government that it would secure storage for nuclear waste produced.
By Megan Macdonald for Future Tense, 20 Mar 25, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-20/nuclear-tombs-overseas-offer-warning-for-future-generations/105024144
Earth is no spring chicken.
In fact, based on scientific dating, it’s considered to be 4.5 billion years old.
Coincidentally, that’s also how long depleted uranium (a by-product of the process of enriching uranium for use in nuclear power reactors and weapons) remains dangerous.
And so, as the idea of using nuclear energy as an alternative power source dominates headlines, the safe storage of toxic waste produced by nuclear power and how we warn future generations about its dangers is being considered.
Dr Shastra Deo, a nuclear semiotics expert and author at the University of Queensland, tells ABC Radio National’s Future Tense this is a quandary at the centre of nuclear semiotics.
“Nuclear semiotics is obsessed with this idea of creating a sign to warn us about the dangers of nuclear waste into deep time … The main timeline we’re working with is 10,000 years, but that’s frankly not enough to keep us safe,” she says.
Nuclear on the mind
In June 2024, in response to Australia’s cost-of-living crisis and an upcoming federal election, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton announced his proposal for nuclear power in Australia.
Promising zero emissions and lower power prices, the announcement named seven locations for the nuclear power plants across Australia, which would be built next to existing infrastructure.
These included Mount Piper Power Station in New South Wales, Loy Yang Power Stations in Victoria and Tarong Power Station in Queensland.
While the announcement didn’t include a plan for how the toxic waste produced from nuclear power would be managed, it did state that a community engagement process would occur alongside “a comprehensive site study including detailed technical and economic assessments”.
Mr Dutton’s announcement added that currently, “32 countries [are] operating zero-emissions nuclear plants. Another 50 countries are looking to do so”.
Yet, while nuclear energy is a source of power for many countries, the question of what to do about the highly toxic waste that nuclear energy produces is not settled.
Toxic tension
The rolling hills of France’s Champagne region are known for their green landscapes and quaint villages.
But nearly 500 meters beneath the small village of Bure, France, large tomb-like chambers are being constructed by France’s national radioactive waste agency, Andra, so that they can demonstrate their suitability for building a geological disposal facility (GDF).
GDFs are built to store intermediate to high-level nuclear waste safely for thousands of years.
Andra’s chambers are part of a huge international engineering effort to build giant underground nuclear tombs for waste storage across the United Kingdom (UK) and Europe
Finland was the first country to build a deep GDF to store spent nuclear fuel for 100,000 years, and initial testing has already begun.
Mark Piesing, a UK-based freelance journalist, reported on the European and UK GDF plans last year.
He says GDFs take many years to get approved and built, and their long-term success relies on decades of future political stability.
“The security of them depends on the continuation of governments and states as we know it … If there is a political upheaval, if there [are] revolutions, if climate change brings about social chaos, then the security of these installations will be compromised,” he says.
Mr Piesing visited the Andra testing facility in Bure, France, and he describes the scale of the proposed GDF as “quite awe-inspiring”.
“The scale of it … you could imagine the pharaohs building something similar, the workers working for years,” he says.
While impressive, the construction and plans for GDFs across Europe haven’t been without controversy.
The Andra project underneath Bure, France (with a population of only 82 residents) has sparked protests — some violent — from anti-nuclear activists over the company’s plans to build a GDF for nuclear storage.
In Sweden, the Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company commenced test drilling across the country in the 1980s to find suitable locations for potential nuclear waste storage, a move that didn’t go down well.
“The Swedish authorities perhaps didn’t consult the community enough. So this caused protests in a number of locations where they’re trying to do their test drilling,” Mr Piesing said.
And here in Australia, proposed sites for storage of toxic nuclear waste have also received backlash.
Where would we store nuclear waste in Australia?
The storage of nuclear waste has been a long-held issue of national contention, particularly in South Australia.
In 2023, the Barngarla traditional owners of SA’s Eyre Peninsula won a legal challenge to stop the federal government from building a nuclear waste facility near Kimba.
The plans were to store low and intermediate-level radioactive waste at the proposed facility.
Then, in November 2024, Adelaide residents said they were “blindsided” when federal parliament legislation allowed for nuclear waste to be stored and disposed of at a shipping yard in Osborne — 25 kilometres north-west of the CBD and seaside suburbs.
The plans are part of the $368 billion AUKUS project, which will involve building nuclear submarines in South Australia, and include a commitment from the federal government that it would secure storage for nuclear waste produced.
Ted O’Brien, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy, tells the ABC that the Coalition has a long-term plan for nuclear waste storage if it wins the upcoming election.
“Spent fuel from nuclear power plants will be temporarily stored on-site before being transported to a permanent waste repository, where spent fuel from our AUKUS nuclear submarines will also be stored,” he says.
Mr O’Brien says the permanent site’s location is a matter for the federal government.
The location of the permanent site under the AUKUS deal has not been addressed since late last year by the federal government.
However in January it was revealed by former senator Rex Patrick that documents obtained via Freedom of Information (FOI) show South Australia’s Defence Industries Minister met with a defence company in the UK for the “specific purpose of being briefed” on the dismantling of nuclear reactors and the waste associated with them.
“[The government is] yet to clarify the location … It is now Labor’s responsibility for identifying a long-term waste repository,” Mr O’Brien says.
“We stand ready to cooperate constructively.”.
A warning for generations to come
While the future for Australia’s nuclear waste remains unclear, Dr Shastra Deo says we can look back at history to inform the need for warnings surrounding toxic waste storage for future generations.
“You see the [Egyptian] pyramids and they’re very intriguing to us … There was a warning message on them from one of the pharaoh’s viziers that said, ‘If you intrude on my tomb, I will curse you and you will die,’ — and we went in anyway,” he explains.
“We’re curious people. That’s what humanity is … we want to find out what’s in these spaces.
n Ms Deo’s field of nuclear semiotics, several ideas have been raised to warn future generations of the dangers of toxic waste stored below ground.
These include hostile architecture (an urban design strategy that uses elements of a built environment to purposefully guide behaviour of humans), the use of symbols and an “atomic priesthood” of knowledge keepers.
Rounding out the list is the “black hole” which, as Ms Deo explains, would involve “putting granite over the area and the sun would heat it up to a point where you just couldn’t walk across it”.
Ms Deo says the ongoing challenge lies in the length of time these warnings are required, which can be hundreds of thousands of years.
“How can we create a message that will last this long? Already you can kind of see the impossibility in that.”
Ms Deo says that regardless of the challenges, we must consider our accountability to those who come after us.
“We need to send a message to ourselves about this technology and how we’re going to move forward with it — and how we’re going to store it.”
It’s a question that we’ve yet to answer.
The “Great Era of Nuclear Decommissioning” begins – well, sort of, even in Australia
https://theaimn.net/the-great-era-of-nuclear-decommissioning-begins-well-sort-of-even-in-australia/ 20 Mar 25
Nuclear is big news for Australia. For the coming election, the federal Opposition party – the Liberal-National Coalition, has as its major, indeed, pretty much its only, policy – to establish the nuclear power industry at 7 sites across the continent. At the same time, a Liberal group has sprung up – Liberals Against Nuclear, vowing to ditch that policy.
Meanwhile the AUKUS plan, (beloved of both major parties) to buy super-expensive nuclear submarines, has run into problems, and is at risk of being ditched.
Also now, on March 4th the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) announces that it is embarking on a major decommissioning project , getting into the wonderful new Era of Nuclear Decommissioning. This Era was predicted by The Ecologist, back in 2019, but only now is it reported to be getting underway.
Japan, one of the top nuclear nations, has just announced the first dismantling of a commercial nuclear reactor – ‘signifying that the so-called “great era of decommissioning” has begun in earnest in Japan.’ They have another 59 to go (10 cleared for operation, 23 described as “operable” , and 26 shut-down ones).
So what indeed is the “great era of decommissioning”? What does “decommissioning” actually mean?
According to the European Union – “ It involves all activities starting from the shutdown of the facility and the removal of all nuclear material right down to the environmental restoration of the site. The whole process is complex and typically takes 20 to 30 years to complete.“
So, in Japan, they really mean business – “dismantling of the reactor, which began on March 17, is considered the main part of the decommissioning work“
In Australia -not so much. It means that ANSTO, a few weeks ago, got a licence from the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), to begin Phase A, Stage 1, and is now beginning to remove peripheral equipment from the the 67 year old Hifar nuclear reactor, now 18 years out of action. More Phases and Stages to go.
Both the Japanese and Australian news items give short shrift to that final problem – nowhere to put the radioactive remains. ANSTO’s at pains to stress how small an amount it is “be managed and stored safely onsite at Lucas Heights” . The Japanese article concludes “While Japan has entered an era of decommissioning, decommissioning plans continue to be postponed due to the lack of a finalized waste disposal site.”
The World Nuclear Association goes into much detail on the decommissioning of 700 nuclear reactors, but only a few of these have been completely dismantled, and still no way of permanently disposing of their radioactive remains.
Meanwhile the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the governments of the most powerful nations are all complacently touting the need for new nuclear reactors. Australian authorities, keen to stress Australia’s nuclear know-how are joining in this happy disregard of the importance of dangerous radioactive trash.
That famous old Australian character “blind Freddy” would immediately know that this is an unreasonable and immoral attitude.
The “era of nuclear decommissioning” is not really underway at all. If it were happening, there’d be no more hype about new nuclear. I fear that the sad reality is that the men in charge realise that nuclear decommissioning is just too expensive, too fraught with problems “best to just leave it alone, until we are comfortably superannuated out, or dead. “
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 