SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA – OCTOBER 11: Dr Jane Goodall poses for a photo at Taronga Zoo on October 11, 2008 in Sydney, Australia. Goodall, the world renowned primatologist, has acknowledged the breeding and work research carried out by the Chimpanzee Group at Taronga Zoo over recent years. (Photo by Robert Gray/Getty Images)
The Conversation, Mireya Mayor, Director of Exploration and Science Communication, Florida International University, October 2, 2025
Anyone proposing to offer a master class on changing the world for the better, without becoming negative, cynical, angry or narrow-minded in the process, could model their advice on the life and work of pioneering animal behavior scholar Jane Goodall.
Goodall’s life journey stretches from marveling at the somewhat unremarkable creatures – though she would never call them that – in her English backyard as a wide-eyed little girl in the 1930s to challenging the very definition of what it means to be human through her research on chimpanzees in Tanzania. From there, she went on to become a global icon and a United Nations Messenger of Peace.
Until her death on Oct. 1, 2025 at age 91, Goodall retained a charm, open-mindedness, optimism and wide-eyed wonder that are more typical of children. I know this because I have been fortunate to spend time with her and to share insights from my own scientific career. To the public, she was a world-renowned scientist and icon. To me, she was Jane – my inspiring mentor and friend.
Despite the massive changes Goodall wrought in the world of science, upending the study of animal behavior, she was always cheerful, encouraging and inspiring. I think of her as a gentle disrupter. One of her greatest gifts was her ability to make everyone, at any age, feel that they have the power to change the world.
Discovering tool use in animals
In her pioneering studies in the lush rainforest of Tanzania’s Gombe Stream Game Reserve, now a national park, Goodall noted that the most successful chimp leaders were gentle, caring and familial. Males that tried to rule by asserting their dominance through violence, tyranny and threat did not last.
While a treaty prohibits nuclear weapons stationed in Australia, the Government tries to circumvent it. Rex Patrick and Philip Dorling on Labor’s duplicitous nuclear word games.
From 2032, nuclear-armed cruise missiles will be loaded into US Navy Virginia-class subs. The Treaty of Rarotonga prohibits nuclear weapons from being ‘stationed’ at HMAS Stirling, but maybe it’s OK for them to be ‘rotated’ through the base.
The South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone (SPNFZ) Treaty, first signed at Rarotonga in August 1985, was one of the successes of Australia’s activist nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation diplomacy of the Hawke and Keating Governments. Born out of South Pacific opposition to French nuclear testing and broader concerns about superpower competition in the Pacific, the Treaty entered into force on 11 December 1986. Amongst other things,
it prohibits the stationing of nuclear weapons within the South Pacific by member states. Australia is a member state.
Stationing is defined in the treaty as “emplantation, emplacement, transportation on land or inland waters, stockpiling, storage, installation and deployment.”
The treaty doesn’t prevent nuclear-armed ships from visiting a member state’s ports or transiting their waters. The Treaty was drafted to allow this, in part to accommodate Australia’s ANZUS defence relationship with the US. At the time US warships and submarines carried tactical nuclear weapons, but the US ‘neither confirmed or denied’ whether individual vessels were actually carrying them.
Additional protocols not ratified
At the urging of the Keating Government, in March 1996 President Bill Clinton’s Administration signed three Protocols to the Treaty of Rarotonga, giving an undertaking, amongst other things, not to station nuclear weapons on its territories within SPNFZ (American Samoa and Jarvis Island), and not to contribute to any act by a party to the Treaty that constitutes a violation of the Treaty.
After much delay, President Barack Obama’s Administration submitted the SPNFZ Protocols to the US Senate, but ratification has not occurred owing to Republican obstruction.
However, with USN submarines and surface vessels stripped of tactical nuclear weapons in 1991 (at the end of the Cold War), and US ballistic missile submarines not deployed from any South Pacific ports, the Protocols largely fell into contemporary irrelevance. However, with Donald Trump’s return to the White House, that’s all about to change.
Sea launched missiles
Sea launched missiles
In his first term, Trump ordered the US Navy to develop a new nuclear-armed, sea-launched cruise missile, SLCM-N, to provide the US subs and warships with flexible and low-yield nuclear strike options. In 2022, President Biden proposed cancelling the program, but Congress continued to fund it.
Now, with Trump back in the White House, the SLCM-N program is accelerating.
Trump’s ‘big beautiful Bill’ included US$2B for work on the missile and $US400m to accelerate work on its W80-4 warhead, likely to have a variable yield between 5 and 150 kilotons (the weapon that destroyed Hiroshima had a 15 kiloton yield).
Further funding is now proposed in the 2026 budget, with plans to move forward SLCM-N entry into service from 2034 to 2032.
Once the SLCM-N is deployed, the stationing of US attack subs in Australia could give rise to a breach of Australia’s obligations under the SPNFZ Treaty. The US could also be acting contrary to Protocol 2 to the Treaty, which it has signed, though not ratified.
A criminal offence
If US submarines ‘stationed’ in Australia are armed with SLCM-N missiles, Australian officials could be in some legal jeopardy.
The SPNRZ Treaty Act 1986 gives legal effect to Australia’s obligations under the SPNFZ Treaty.
Section 11 of the Act states, “A person who stations, or does any act or thing to facilitate the stationing of, a nuclear explosive device in Australia commits an offence against this section”. The penalty for doing so is imprisonment of up to 20 years, or a significant fine, or both.
So, MWM guesses it’s a really good thing that no US attack subs will be ‘stationed’ at HMAS Stirling, they’ll just be there as a “rotational force”. At least the Albanese Government wants everyone to think this is a big difference.
1×1515
4:46 / 8:46
Listen to this story
9 min
While a treaty prohibits nuclear weapons stationed in Australia, the Government tries to circumvent it. Rex Patrick and Philip Dorling on Labor’s duplicitous nuclear word games.
From 2032, nuclear-armed cruise missiles will be loaded into US Navy Virginia-class subs. The Treaty of Rarotonga prohibits nuclear weapons from being ‘stationed’ at HMAS Stirling, but maybe it’s OK for them to be ‘rotated’ through the base.
The South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone (SPNFZ) Treaty, first signed at Rarotonga in August 1985, was one of the successes of Australia’s activist nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation diplomacy of the Hawke and Keating Governments. Born out of South Pacific opposition to French nuclear testing and broader concerns about superpower competition in the Pacific, the Treaty entered into force on 11 December 1986. Amongst other things,
it prohibits the stationing of nuclear weapons within the South Pacific by member states. Australia is a member state.
Stationing is defined in the treaty as “emplantation, emplacement, transportation on land or inland waters, stockpiling, storage, installation and deployment.”
The treaty doesn’t prevent nuclear-armed ships from visiting a member state’s ports or transiting their waters. The Treaty was drafted to allow this, in part to accommodate Australia’s ANZUS defence relationship with the US. At the time US warships and submarines carried tactical nuclear weapons, but the US ‘neither confirmed or denied’ whether individual vessels were actually carrying them.
Additional protocols not ratified
At the urging of the Keating Government, in March 1996 President Bill Clinton’s Administration signed three Protocols to the Treaty of Rarotonga, giving an undertaking, amongst other things, not to station nuclear weapons on its territories within SPNFZ (American Samoa and Jarvis Island), and not to contribute to any act by a party to the Treaty that constitutes a violation of the Treaty.
After much delay, President Barack Obama’s Administration submitted the SPNFZ Protocols to the US Senate, but ratification has not occurred owing to Republican obstruction.
However, with USN submarines and surface vessels stripped of tactical nuclear weapons in 1991 (at the end of the Cold War), and US ballistic missile submarines not deployed from any South Pacific ports, the Protocols largely fell into contemporary irrelevance. However, with Donald Trump’s return to the White House, that’s all about to change.
Sea launched missiles
In his first term, Trump ordered the US Navy to develop a new nuclear-armed, sea-launched cruise missile, SLCM-N, to provide the US subs and warships with flexible and low-yield nuclear strike options. In 2022, President Biden proposed cancelling the program, but Congress continued to fund it.
Now, with Trump back in the White House, the SLCM-N program is accelerating.
Trump’s ‘big beautiful Bill’ included US$2B for work on the missile and $US400m to accelerate work on its W80-4 warhead, likely to have a variable yield between 5 and 150 kilotons (the weapon that destroyed Hiroshima had a 15 kiloton yield).
Further funding is now proposed in the 2026 budget, with plans to move forward SLCM-N entry into service from 2034 to 2032.
Once the SLCM-N is deployed, the stationing of US attack subs in Australia could give rise to a breach of Australia’s obligations under the SPNFZ Treaty. The US could also be acting contrary to Protocol 2 to the Treaty, which it has signed, though not ratified.
If US submarines ‘stationed’ in Australia are armed with SLCM-N missiles, Australian officials could be in some legal jeopardy.
The SPNRZ Treaty Act 1986 gives legal effect to Australia’s obligations under the SPNFZ Treaty.
Section 11 of the Act states, “A person who stations, or does any act or thing to facilitate the stationing of, a nuclear explosive device in Australia commits an offence against this section”. The penalty for doing so is imprisonment of up to 20 years, or a significant fine, or both.
So, MWM guesses it’s a really good thing that no US attack subs will be ‘stationed’ at HMAS Stirling, they’ll just be there as a “rotational force”. At least the Albanese Government wants everyone to think this is a big difference.
Nuclear re-armament
At the outset of the AUKUS agreement, the Australian Government would have been well aware of the first Trump Administration’s commitment to the SLCM-N program and its continuation under the Biden Administration.
Although this has received no public attention in Australia, the prospect that US Virginia-class subs will be nuclear armed is not a secret.
It’s in this context that the Australian Government have very deliberately used the words “Submarine Rotational Force-West (SRF-West)” to describe the presence of US submarines from 2027.
At a 14 March 2023 press conference, when a journalist asked the question,
“You made it very clear in the literature this morning that the stationed submarines in Western Australia will not constitute a US base. However, if there are up to four submarines out there, helping to train Australian sailors, they could be called on at any time to provide support in the Pacific or in Asia for the US. In what way is that not a base?”
Defence Minister Richard Marles responded with force:
Well, it’s a forward rotation. So, they’re not going to be based there.
When Defence Personnel Minister Matt Keogh introduced the Defence Housing Australia Amendment Bill 2025 in the Parliament in July this year, he explained the Bill was necessary, in part, to ensure housing for US personnel is available in close proximity to HMAS Stirling.
Defence is now committed to spending billions on upgrading and expanding facilities at HMAS Stirling to accommodate the continuous presence of USN attack subs, including housing for hundreds of American personnel and their families.
It’s really hard not to characterise what’s happening as ‘stationing’.
And eventually those stationed USN submarines are going to be nuclear-armed.
Situational double-speak
The stationing of nuclear weapons contrary to the SPNFZ Treaty is undoubtedly an issue the Government’s going to have to grapple with in relation to its leftie rank and file, but also diplomatically and legally.
There’s certainly potential for controversy and collateral damage to Australia’s relations in the South Pacific. Australia’s Pacific Islands partners are deeply attached to SPNFZ as the most significant legacy of the long campaign against nuclear testing in the Pacific and a declaration of the region’s desire for independence from the dictates of nuclear powers.
That was once part of Australia Labor’s political heritage, too, but that’s now being swept aside by AUKUS.
Foreign Minister Penny Wong has insisted that Australia is still committed to SPNFZ. In January 2023 she affirmed that, “… in partnership with the Pacific family, we remain steadfastly committed to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty.”
Three months later, she declared, “I want to make this crystal clear – we will ensure we comply with our obligations under the Treaty of Rarotonga.”
There’s no breach of treaty obligations yet, but Wong’s pledges will look pretty duplicitous when USN Virginia-class subs loaded with nuclear-armed cruise missiles are eventually based at HMAS Stirling.
Pacific Islands countries might wish to take the issue up through the Consultation Committee and complaints process established under Article 10 and Annexes 3 and 4 of the SPNFZ Treaty.
Moreover, while no one’s going to jail under Labor’s watch, the Government’s sophistry may also not stop an application for a permanent injunction being filed in the Federal Court, where the actual disposition of the US subs can be legally tested against the definition of the word ‘stationing’ in the Treaty.
In the meantime, MWM has fired off some new Freedom of Information requests (while we still can) to get to the bottom of it all. That includes one to the Australian Submarine Agency, which, according to a disclosure just made to the Senate, has recently opened a file on their system called “South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Act 1986”.
Nuclear weapons could be fired by artificial intelligence, Australia’s Foreign Affairs Minister has warned the United Nations.
Speaking to the UN in New York on Thursday US time, Penny Wong issued a stark speech about technological advancements and armed conflict.
“AI’s potential use in nuclear weapons and unmanned systems challenges the future of humanity,” she said.
“Nuclear warfare has so far been constrained by human judgment, by leaders who bear responsibility and by human conscience. AI has no such concern, nor can it be held accountable.
“These weapons threaten to change war itself and they risk escalation without warning.”
Senator Wong has been with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Communications Minister Anika Wells at the UN this week, promoting Australia’s world-first under-16 social media ban.
Australia’s representatives have also been pushing to become one of 10 smaller nations to gain a 10-year non-permanent seat on the UN’s Security Council.
Senator Wong delivered the doomsday warning to the Security Council.
“Decisions of life and death must never be delegated to machines, and together we must set the rules and establish the norms,” she said.
“We must establish standards for the use of AI to demand it is safe, secure, responsible and ethical.
“To ensure AI transforms the tools of conflict and diplomacy for the better, the Security Council must lead by example – to strengthen international peace and security and ensure it is not undermined.”
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy delivered a similar warning to the UN’s General Assembly a day prior.
“It’s only a matter of time, not much, before drones are fighting drones, attacking critical infrastructure and targeting people all by themselves, fully autonomous and no human involved, except the few who control AI systems,” he said.
“We are now living through the most destructive arms race in human history because this time it includes artificial intelligence.”
President Trump has spoken at the United Nations, and now Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has too.
The contrast could not have been starker. Trump rambled like a man who’d just been handed the microphone at a small-town karaoke night – except the song was foreign policy and he didn’t know the words. He wandered through half-baked grievances, boasted about imaginary achievements, and at one point seemed to forget which country he was president of.
Albanese, meanwhile, spoke like an actual world leader – calm, confident, and passionate. He talked about climate action, regional security, and cooperation with the kind of clarity that makes you think, “Ah yes, this person knows what he’s talking about.”
And yet, if you relied on Australia’s right-wing media, you’d think you’d just watched two completely different events. To them, Trump was basically Moses parting the Red Sea with one hand while balancing the U.S. economy on the other. Albanese, apparently “reckless,” was a bumbling tourist who accidentally stumbled into the General Assembly and asked for directions to Times Square.
One commentator even claimed Trump was “extraordinary” – which is technically true if you count all the diplomats burying their heads in their hands. Meanwhile, Albanese’s calm and measured speech was branded “utterly humiliating” and dismissed as nothing but “symbolic gestures,” because apparently international diplomacy should be performed like a WWE entrance.
This is the theatre we live with now: policy and substance don’t make headlines, but a man ranting about wind turbines does. If Trump had started selling selfies from the UN podium, they’d have called it “bold economic diplomacy.”
The world saw two very different leaders this week – one looking like he could chair a serious discussion about global challenges, the other looking like he should be gently escorted back to his seat before he accidentally sanctioned Canada.
More than 40 organisations have signed a declaration calling on the federal government to rule out Port Kembla as a future nuclear submarine base.
The site was shortlisted as a possible location for an east coast base in 2022, but local groups say it would harm the community and industry.
What’s next?
The federal government says it will not make a decision on the location of the east coast base until later this decade.
More than 40 organisations have called on the federal government to rule out Port Kembla as a future location for a nuclear submarine base under the AUKUS deal.
The Port Kembla Declaration — signed by 43 local, state and national organisations — was launched as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese locked in a meeting with US President Trump in October, amid uncertainty around the future of the AUKUS deal.
The declaration was unveiled at a memorial to the historic Dalfram strike at the port.
The 1938 anti-war strike saw wharfies at Port Kembla refuse to load pig iron onto steamships bound for Japan, including the Dalfram, amid concerns about its use in the military conflict with China at the time.
“We’re here in the same spirit, to launch the Port Kembla Declaration,” South Coast Labour Council president Tina Smith said.
“Port Kembla is not for sale, we want no nuclear base here.”
The declaration was signed by trade unions, church groups, local Australian Greens branches, Health Cities Australia and dozens of other groups.
It raises concerns about health, safety, industry jobs and transparency around plans for the site, as well as the potential for Wollongong to become a military target if the base goes ahead.
“You’ve got one of the major trading ports in the country that would be impacted — I don’t think it makes any sense to anybody,” the NSW Maritime Union’s Garry Keane said.
“Our union has always supported peace over confrontation and the Dalfram dispute is a prime example of that — we will stand by those principles and do everything we can to oppose a nuclear submarine base in Port Kembla.”
Wollongong Against War and Nukes president Gem Romuld said in the absence of any consultation or clarity since then, the community was using the declaration to make its stance clear.
“We’re concerned that plans are being made behind closed doors to advance the case for a nuclear submarine base in Port Kembla,” she said.
“The government is not transparent about this, and we’re concerned that they could go ahead with an announcement and override local opposition to establish a base here at any time.”
Planning for ports raises questions
In August, the NSW Department of Planning refused a Freedom of Information application by former South Australian Senator Rex Patrick for records pertaining to a submarine base at either Newcastle or Port Kembla.
In documents shared with the ABC, the department’s solicitor said that “premature disclosure” of the requested information could prejudice cabinet deliberations, as the records included information which revealed “the methodology of analysis used for inputs into the final business case being prepared for cabinet on this issue”.
NSW Planning Minister Paul Scully dismissed as baseless any speculation that the government was secretly preparing a business case for Port Kembla at the time.
In a statement, the state government reinforced the position, denying any work was being done on a case for Port Kembla or Newcastle.
“These documents all relate to the Perrottet government and cabinet relations from that period,” a spokesperson said.
The federal government said in a statement it had agreed in principle to establishing an east coast facility for Australia’s future submarine capability.
“A decision won’t be taken until later in the decade,” a spokesperson said.
Ms Romuld said the declaration did not just oppose a base in Port Kembla, but also supported opposition in Newcastle or other ports.
“We’ll work with other communities … along the east coast as well,” she said.
The Appeal has been endorsed by over 300 civil society organisations from around the world, including from peace, disarmament, human rights, youth, women’s rights, sustainable development and climate/environmental protection fields – and by over 500 individuals, including legislators, former high-level officials (such as foreign ministers and UN officials), religious leaders, medical practitioners, academics/teachers, youth leaders, private sector (corporate) leaders and others.
The Joint Appeal will be presented to the High-Level Meeting on September 26 by Dr. Deepshikha Kumari Vijh, Executive Director of Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy and Coordination Team Member for the September 26 Working Group. You can watch the High-Level meeting on UN Web TV. The civil society presentations will come at the end of the session.
Forty local organisations and community groups are launching a joint Port Kembla Declaration today, opposing the establishment of a nuclear submarine base at Port Kembla.
They’re calling for the federal government to rule it out, saying the risks are far too great, the declaration has been endorsed by many organisations, including health, faith, and social justice.
Tina Smith, President of the South Coast Labour Council, said they reject the idea of turning the region into a frontline for war games or nuclear escalation.
The National Response to Islamophobia report confirms what Muslim Australians have long known: anti-Muslim prejudice is systemic. Professor Fethi Mansouri calls for rethink.
The report was released this week by the Office of the Special Envoy to Combat Islamophobia, with its main conclusion being that prejudice is not confined to a handful of abusive individuals. It is systemic — embedded in schools, workplaces, laws, media narratives, and in the everyday harassment of visibly Muslim people, especially women.
There are also a number of areas where the report could and should have done much better. Most strikingly, for a Report on Islamophobia, its silences on major recent and current Islamophobic events are as revealing as its well-meaning recommendations.
Ignoring the main narrative
First, the Christchurch massacre – the worst act of anti-Muslim violence in modern history – barely gets a mention. Fifty-one worshippers were gunned down in their mosques, many with ties to Australia.
Christchurch has devastatingly revealed that Islamophobia is not simply about Muslims feeling offended, being sensitive to criticisms of Islam as a religion, or Muslim migrants being incapable or unwilling to integrate socially and assimilate culturally.
Second, the Report avoids confronting hyper-securitisation. Since 9/11, Muslim Australians have lived under some of the harshest counter-terrorism laws in the democratic world, alongside a sprawling CVE (Countering Violent Extremism) regime that has almost exclusively targeted Muslims. Surveillance, raids, and “community engagement” framed through suspicion have entrenched stigma.
Any serious attempt to tackle Islamophobia must grapple with this machinery of control.
Sensible proposals
The report ranges in scope and ambition. It calls, among other things, for curriculum reform, data collection, community safety programs, and legal change. It points to the weight of evidence, collected by groups such as the Islamophobia Register Australia, showing years of racist abuse and negative media framing. The Report’s call for a coordinated federal response was overdue and would, in theory, be a step in the right direction.
Some of the Report’s proposals are important and achievable.
Data collection is the clearest starting point: police hate-crime figures are inconsistent, and national surveys rarely capture religious discrimination. Embedding Islamophobia in ABS surveys and police registers would make the problem harder to deny.
Education and awareness programs should also be rolled out; research shows sustained anti-racism initiatives can shift attitudes across generations.
But without acknowledging Christchurch, securitisation, and anti-Palestinian racism, the strategy risks reducing Islamophobia to matters of civility and sensitivity. Recognition days, awareness campaigns, and grants may improve atmospherics, but they will not dismantle the structures that cast Muslim and Arab Australians as perpetual outsiders, suspects, or enemies within.
Australia has produced many reports on racism. The question is whether this one will drive structural reform,
or whether Islamophobia will remain endlessly studied, politely condemned, and institutionally entrenched.
The test is clear: will governments act, or will Muslim Australians be told — once again — to wait and to be more resilient in the face of bigotry and hate?
The special envoy conundrum
We have seen in recent years a proliferation of special envoys, from the Special Envoy for Social Cohesion, now defunct, to the two special envoys on Antisemitism and Islamophobia, respectively.
Special Envoys are ‘diplomatic’ appointments that have neither ministerial statutory powers nor, necessarily, broad community or political support. Such appointments appear at best to be a reaction to specific events.
At worst, they can compound the very issues they were meant to address.
Tackling various forms of racism, including those specifically directed against Jewish and Muslim Australians, should be pursued through existing statutory bodies such as the Australian Human Rights Commission. These bodies are best equipped and resourced to deal with all forms of discrimination if properly resourced and supported.
Professor Fethi Mansouri is a Deakin Distinguished Professor in Migration and Intercultural Studies and founding Director of the Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation (ADI), a leading research institute that undertakes significant social sciences and humanities research in Australia and across many disciplinary fields.
The World Bank and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) are international financial institutions funded by governments to support economic development, poverty reduction, and infrastructure.
Until now, both institutions have avoided supporting nuclear power projects for the following reasons:
nuclear proliferation risks
serious concerns over safety
radioactive waste
extremely high costs
On June 10, the World Bank’s Board decided to lift its ban on financing nuclear projects.
The ADB is currently reviewing its energy policy, and indications suggest it may also move to allow support for nuclear power.
However, the problems of nuclear power — safety risks, radioactive waste, nuclear proliferation, and high costs — remain unresolved.
Introducing nuclear power in developing countries would impose major risks and costs not only on today’s citizens but also on future generations.
For these reasons, we are preparing to send the following petition to both the World Bank and ADB. We ask for your support by adding your signature. We will submit all signatures and comments to the World Bank and ADB.
Let’s act together to prevent today’s decisions from burdening tomorrow’s generations.
International Petition: “Say No to Nuclear Financing – World Bank and ADB, Why Turn Away from the Right Path?”
To: Mr. Ajay Banga, President of the World Bank Group To: Mr. Masato Kanda, President of the Asian Development Bank
We are deeply concerned that the World Bank Group and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) are moving toward lifting the ban on financing and supporting nuclear power projects.
The core reasons why the World Bank and the ADB have long refrained from supporting nuclear energy include inseparable risks of nuclear weapons proliferation and the unresolved problems of radioactive waste. These concerns remain unchanged today. Furthermore, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has revealed that nuclear power plants can become military targets, adding another serious security threat.
As demonstrated by the Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disasters, one accident can cause widespread, long-term contamination and serious social and economic disruption.
Even without accidents or attacks, nuclear energy releases radioactive substances into the environment at every stage of its lifecycle—mining, fuel production and processing, operation, decommissioning, and the disposal of spent nuclear fuel. Uranium mining, in particular, has often violated the rights of Indigenous peoples and harmed their health, lands and environment.
Nuclear waste generated from operating nuclear power plants remains hazardous for tens of thousands of years, requiring secure isolation from the biosphere for geological periods of time. Yet most countries still have no disposal site.
Due to “security” considerations, some information related to the planning and construction of nuclear power plants is kept secret. As a result, communities and NGOs often have limited access to crucial safety information. This lack of transparency conflicts with the safeguard policies of international financial institutions which emphasize openness, accountability, and stakeholder consultation.
In recent years, the cost of building nuclear power plants has soared, often reaching tens of billions of USD per unit and increasing several-fold beyond initial estimates. Private investors have shifted away from nuclear power and toward renewable energy, leading to the rapid growth of renewable energy technologies. The high costs of nuclear power – now the most expensive form of new electricity generation – and its requirement for large direct and indirect government subsidies have high opportunity costs, delaying and undermining the needed rapid scale-up of benign renewable energy.
Construction of nuclear power reactors typically takes well over a decade, often more than two, too slow for mitigating the accelerating climate crisis.
We must also recognize the vulnerabilities of nuclear power. As a large, centralized source of electricity, nuclear plants can have far-reaching impacts when they unexpectedly shut down due to accidents or technical problems. In recent years, heatwaves have raised seawater and river temperatures, making it impossible to obtain cooling water in some cases.
Small modular reactors (SMRs) also fail to address many of these concerns, especially those related to fissile material, radioactive wastes, nuclear weapons proliferation risks and economic viability.
Supporting the construction of nuclear power plants in developing countries would impose not only serious long-term dangers but also a massive economic burden on current and future generations in those nations.
We therefore call on the World Bank Group and the ADB to refrain from providing any form of support or financing for nuclear power.
Initial Endorsers:
11 march movement, Belgium 350.org Japan, Japan Aktionsbündnis STOP Westcastor Jülich, Germany AKW-nee-Gruppe Aachen, Germany Alliance for Climate & Ecology, Korea Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), Australia
AYUS International Buddhist Cooperation Network／アーユス仏教国際協力ネットワーク, Japan Belgische Coalitie Stop Uraniumwapens (Belgian part of the International Coalition for a Ban on Uraniumweapons), Belgium Beyond Nuclear, United States Bündnis für „Sichere Verwahrung von Atom-Müll, Germany Centre for Financial Accountability(CFA), India Citizen’s Eyes on Nuclear Regulation／原子力規制を監視する市民の会, Japan Citizens’ Commission on Nuclear Energy (CCNE) ／原子力市民委員会, Japan Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center／原子力資料情報室, Japan Climate Express11 march movement, Belgium Corner House, United Kingdom Ecodefense, Russia Environmental Association “Za Zemiata” – Friends of the Earth Bulgaria, Bulgaria European Environmental Bureau, Belgium Forum for Protection of Public Interest (Pro Public) , Nepal Friends of the Earth Australia, Australia Friends of the Earth India, India Friends of the Earth International, International
Now we see it- the nuclear industry, adopted by government, will lead to fascism.
Added to the madness, governments are hell-bent on making more nuclear radioactive trash that they don’t know how to get rid of.
“However, in the case of the UK, the DESNZ’s review raises the possibility that overriding public approval could be a matter of policy.
“These developments point to a growing sense of futility and desperation, to secure both a suitable site for nuclear waste disposal and public support for it.”
it mirrors developments in Australia, where efforts to secure sites for nuclear waste disposal have, just like the UK, been repeatedly stalled by local opposition.
“But critics are now concerned that recent legislation grants broad powers to the Australian government to designate any site as a nuclear waste dump, even without local or indigenous approval.”
It is “inevitable” that the government moves away from the consent-based approach for deciding where to site the planned geological disposal facility (GDF) for nuclear waste, a former Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) minister has told NCE.
The comments come as reports suggest the government is considering scrapping the “consent-based” approach for siting the GDF. However, DESNZ has asserted that the reports are “wrong” and “no changes are planned to this process currently”.
The GDF is currently the only solution proposed by the government for disposing of high level nuclear waste (HLW). HLW is generated by both the civil and defence nuclear sectors
It would involve disposing of HLW in an engineered vault placed between 200m and 1km underground, covering an area of approximately 1km2 on the surface.
Work to select a GDF site should take 20 years, according to the government body responsible for the project – Nuclear Waste Services (NWS) – and a further 150 years to build, fill and close the facility.
The HLW then needs to sit and remain undisturbed for 100,000 years before its radioactivity has reduced sufficiently for people to be able to be near it. Due to the hazards associated with radioactive waste, the government has always maintained that a GDF will only be sited in a location where the local community has agreed to host it. This is known as the “consent-based” approach and it has been in discussion with a few communities for a number of years.
Consent-based approach seeing little progress over years
The “voluntary” or “consent-based” approach to deciding where to site a GDF was first proposed by the government in a White Paper published in 2008 titled Managing radioactive waste safely: a framework for implementing geological disposal.
“For the purposes of this White Paper ‘an approach based on voluntarism’ means one in which communities voluntarily express an interest in taking part in the process that will ultimately provide a site for a geological disposal facility,” the paper said.
“Initially communities will be invited to express an interest in finding out more about what hosting a geological disposal facility would mean for the community in the long term.
“Participation up until late in the process, when underground operations and construction are due to begin, will be without commitment to further stages, whether on the part of the community or government. If at any stage a community or Government wished to withdraw then its involvement in the process would stop.
“In practice, development could also be halted by the independent regulators at any point in the process through a refusal to grant authorisations for the next stage of work.”
The government further committed to the approach in 2014, when the then secretary of state for energy and climate change Ed Davey said: “The UK Government also continues to favour an approach to identifying potential sites for a GDF that involves working with communities who are willing to participate in the siting process.”
Despite having been committed to the approach for more than 10 years, NWS only has two communities it is making gradual progress with via community partnerships – Mid Copeland and South Copeland. Lincolnshire withdrew from the process in June after a change in governance.
With the government pushing for the deployment of dozens more nuclear reactors in the coming decades, the need to confirm a long-term solution for the waste is pressing – something that has been stressed to NCE by both the Nuclear Industry Association (NIA) and anti-nuclear campaigners.
Reports say Government reviewing consent-based approach
The Telegraph published a story on 22 September that claimed, based on a government source, that DESNZ had decided to review the consent-based approach to siting the GDF.
The source told the newspaper that conversations were taking place within government to consider prioritising areas with the best geology rather than areas with the most welcoming communities.
Ending the consent-based process could result in ministers effectively imposing a GDF on a community, although they would still face the standard planning and consenting obstacles, including judicial reviews from campaigners.
A DESNZ spokesperson denied the reports, saying: “Our position continues to be that any potential geological disposal facility site will be subject to agreement with the community and won’t be imposed on an area without local consent.
“Progress continues to be made, with two areas in Cumberland taking part in the siting process for this multi-billion-pound facility, which would bring thousands of skilled jobs and economic growth.”
Former minister tells NCE ‘we must get on with GDF’
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath is now a backbench Labour peer but was a DESNZ minister of state from July 2024 to May 2025. He was also an energy minister at the end of the previous Labour government from 2008 to 2010 and served in shadow front bench roles from 2010 to 2018.
“This is an inevitable approach. We must get on with GDF,” Hunt told NCE.
“It’s vital to the nuclear programme. It’s a matter of national strategic importance and should proceed on that basis.”
Reported policy change points to ‘growing sense of desperation’
Nuclear Information Service research manager Okopi Ajonye told NCE: “The prospect of the DESNZ reforming policy to override local consent for hosting a geological disposal facility is very concerning.”
“Furthermore, it mirrors developments in Australia, where efforts to secure sites for nuclear waste disposal have, just like the UK, been repeatedly stalled by local opposition.
“But critics are now concerned that recent legislation grants broad powers to the Australian government to designate any site as a nuclear waste dump, even without local or indigenous approval.”
“However, in the case of the UK, the DESNZ’s review raises the possibility that overriding public approval could be a matter of policy.
“These developments point to a growing sense of futility and desperation, to secure both a suitable site for nuclear waste disposal and public support for it.”
End to consent-based approach would ‘lead to more vociferous public resistance’
Nuclear Free Local Authorities secretary Richard Outram told NCE: “Any decision to abandon the established consent-based approach to siting a nuclear waste dump will be an admission by ministers that no community actually wants to host it.
“Proposals to site a GDF at South Holderness and Theddlethorpe were roundly defeated by massive and persistent public protests, backed by responsive local councillors.
“Opposition is also growing in South Copeland with residents impacted by the declared area of focus up in arms.”
Outram added that two local councils in the South Copeland area – Millom Town Council and Whicham Parish Council – have withdrawn their support for the process, and a third – Millom Without Parish Council – is “about to confer with parishioners about continued engagement”, he said.
He also said that the NWS community partnership was “described in a recent external review as ‘dysfunctional’ and seemingly at war with itself”.
“Replacing voluntarism with a plan to railroad such a controversial project onto an unwilling community will be a retrograde step and simply lead to more vociferous public resistance,” he added.
Government reveals to NCE it is ‘replanning’ GDF project
These latest developments add to the uncertainty that has bubbled around the GDF project in recent months.
DESNZ added: “However, a GDF will always remain necessary as there are currently no credible alternatives that would accommodate all categories of waste in the inventory for disposal.”
Nuclear industry says credible GDF plan needed for investor confidence
The Nuclear Industry Association, which represents more than 300 companies across the civil and defence nuclear supply chain, was perturbed by this uncertainty around the GDF and told NCE: “A credible, long-term policy on HLW disposal is very important. Developers need confidence that the back end of the fuel cycle is being responsibly and sustainably managed, not just for regulatory compliance but also to secure investor confidence and public trust.
“Clarity and credibility in government policy reduces uncertainty, helps de-risk new nuclear projects and ensures that developers can focus on safe, efficient generation”
Dan Tehan told Sky News he planned to visit Idaho to investigate developments relating to small modular reactors (SMRs). But the only significant recent SMR ‘development’ in Idaho was the 2023 cancellation of NuScale’s flagship project after cost estimates rose to a prohibitive A$31 billion per GW.
The NuScale fiasco led the Coalition to abandon its SMR-only policy and to fall in love with large, conventional reactors despite previously giving them a “definite no”.
SMR wannabes and startups continue to collapse on a regular basis. WNISR-2025 reports that two of the largest European nuclear startups Newcleo (cash shortage) and Naarea (insolvent) are in serious financial trouble.
Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation filed for bankruptcy protection in the US last year – just a year after a company representative falsely told an Australian Senate inquiry that it was constructing reactors in North America. The Nuward project was suspended in France last year following previous decisions to abandon four other SMR projects in France.
The latest edition of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report paints a glum picture for the nuclear power industry — the number of countries building reactors has plummeted from 16 to 11 over the past two years — and gives the lie to claims by the Coalition that Australia risks being ‘left behind’ and ‘stranded’ if we don’t jump on board.
That appears to be news to new Coalition energy spokesman Dan Tehan, who has taken over the portfolio from Ted O’Brien, the chief architect of the nuclear power policy that cost the Coalition around 11 seats in the May 2025 election.
Speaking to Sky News from the US, where he says he is on a nuclear “fact-finding” mission, Tehan said Sky News that “every major industrialised country, apart from Australia, is either seriously considering nuclear or is adopting nuclear technology at pace”.
Continuing with the theme, Tehan said: “Australia is going to be completely and utterly left behind, because we have a nuclear ban at the moment in place, and if we’re not careful, the rest of the world is going to move and we are going to be left stranded.”
The simple fact is, however, that there isn’t a single power reactor under construction in the 35 countries on the American continent; and the number of countries building reactors has plummeted from 16 to 11 over the past two years.
World Nuclear Industry Status Report
Tehan could — but won’t — read the latest edition of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR-2025), released on Monday. For three decades, these annual reports have tracked the stagnation and decline of the nuclear industry.
There are two related factoids that nuclear enthusiasts can latch onto among the 589 pages of bad news in WNISR-2025: record global nuclear power generation of 2,677 terawatt-hours in 2024 and record capacity of 369.4 gigawatts (GW) as of December 2024. But they are pyrrhic wins. Both records are less than one percent higher than the previous records and they mask the industry’s underlying malaise.
Nuclear power generation has been stagnant for 20 years. Then, a relatively young reactor fleet was generating a similar amount of electricity. Now, it’s an ageing fleet. WNISR-2025 notes that the average age of the 408 operating power reactors has been increasing since 1984 and stands at 32.4 years as of mid-2025.
For the 28 reactors permanently shut down from 2020-24, the average age at closure was 43.2 years. With the ageing of the global reactor fleet and the closure of more and more ageing reactors, the industry will have to work harder and harder just to maintain the long pattern of stagnation let alone achieve any growth. Incremental growth is within the bounds of possibility; rapid growth is not.
Further, the global figures mask a striking distinction between China and the rest of the word. WNISR-2025 notes that in the 20 years from 2005 to 2024, there were 104 reactor startups and 101 closures worldwide. Of these, there were 51 startups and no closures in China. In the rest of the world, there was a net decline of 48 reactors and a capacity decline of 27 GW. So much for Tehan’s idiotic claim that Australia risks being “left behind” and “stranded”.
Even in China, nuclear power is little more than an afterthought. Nuclear’s share of total electricity generation in China fell for the third year in a row in 2024, to 4.5 percent. Nuclear capacity grew by 3.5 GW, while solar capacity grew by 278 GW. Solar and wind together generated about four times more electricity than nuclear reactors.
Since 2010, the output of solar increased by a factor of over 800, wind by a factor of 20, and nuclear by a factor of six. Renewables, including hydro, increased from 18.7 percent of China’s electricity generation in 2010 to 33.7 percent in 2024 (7.5 times higher than nuclear’s share), while coal peaked in 2007 at 81 percent and declined to 57.8 percent in 2024.
Global data
In 2024, there were seven reactor startups worldwide — three in China and one each in France, India, the UAE and the US. There were four permanent reactor closures in 2024 — two in Canada and one each in Russia and Taiwan. The 2025 figures are even more underwhelming: one reactor startup so far and two permanent closures.
As of mid-2025, 408 reactors were operating worldwide, the same number as a year earlier and 30 below the 2002 peak of 438.
Nuclear’s share of total electricity generation fell marginally in 2024. Its share of 9.0 percent is barely half its historic peak of 17.5 percent in 1996.
The number of countries building power reactors has fallen sharply from 16 in mid-2023 to 13 in mid-2024 and just 11 in mid-2025. Only four countries — China, India, Russia, and South Korea — have construction ongoing at more than one site.
As of mid-2025, 63 reactors were under construction, four more than a year earlier but six fewer than in 2013. Of those 63 projects, more than half (32) are in China.
As of mid-2025, 31 countries were operating nuclear power plants worldwide, one fewer than a year earlier as Taiwan closed its last reactor in May 2025. Taiwan is the fifth country to abandon its nuclear power program following Italy (1990), Kazakhstan (1999), Lithuania (2009) and Germany (2023).
Nuclear newcomers
Only three potential newcomer countries are building their first nuclear power plants — Bangladesh, Egypt and Turkiye. All of those projects are being built by Russia’s Rosatom with significant financial assistance from the Russian state.
(According to the World Nuclear Association, only one additional country — Poland — is likely to join the nuclear power club over the next 15 years.)
The number of countries operating power reactors reached 32 in the mid-1990s. Since then it has fallen to 31. That pattern is likely to continue in the coming decades: a trickle of newcomers more-or-less matched by a trickle of exits.
Russia is by far the dominant supplier on the international market, with 20 reactors under construction in seven countries (and another seven under construction in Russia). Apart from Russia, only France’s EDF (two reactors in the UK) and China’s CNNC (one reactor in Pakistan) are building reactors abroad.
WNISR-2025 notes that it remains uncertain to what extent Russia’s projects abroad have been or will be impacted by sanctions imposed on Russia following its invasion of Ukraine. Sanctions — including those on the banking system — have clearly delayed some projects.
Construction of nine reactors began in 2024: six in China, one in Russia, one Chinese-led project in Pakistan, and one Russian-led project in Egypt.
Chinese and Russian government-controlled companies implemented 44 of 45 reactor construction starts globally from January 2020 through mid-2025, either domestically or abroad. The one exception is a domestic construction start in South Korea.
Small modular reactors
Dan Tehan told Sky News he planned to visit Idaho to investigate developments relating to small modular reactors (SMRs). But the only significant recent SMR ‘development’ in Idaho was the 2023 cancellation of NuScale’s flagship project after cost estimates rose to a prohibitive A$31 billion per GW.
The NuScale fiasco led the Coalition to abandon its SMR-only policy and to fall in love with large, conventional reactors despite previously giving them a “definite no”.
Or perhaps Tehan was at Oklo’s SMR ‘groundbreaking ceremony’ in Idaho on Monday. Oklo doesn’t have sufficient funding to build an SMR plant, or the necessary licences, but evidently the company found a shovel for a ‘pre-construction’ ceremony and photo-op.
Worldwide, there are only two operating SMRs plants: one each in Russia and China. Neither of the plants meet a strict definition of SMRs (modular factory construction of reactor components). Both were long delayed and hopelessly over-budget, and both have badly underperformed since they began operating with load factors well under 50 percent.
WNISR-2025 notes that there are no SMRs under construction in the West. Pre-construction activity has begun at Darlington in Canada. But as CSIRO found in its latest GenCost report, even if there are no cost overruns in Canada, the levelised cost of electricity will far exceed the cost of firmed renewables in Australia.
Argentina began planning an SMR in the 1980s and construction began in 2014, but it was never completed and the project was abandoned last year.
SMR wannabes and startups continue to collapse on a regular basis. WNISR-2025 reports that two of the largest European nuclear startups Newcleo (cash shortage) and Naarea (insolvent) are in serious financial trouble.
Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation filed for bankruptcy protection in the US last year – just a year after a company representative falsely told an Australian Senate inquiry that it was constructing reactors in North America. The Nuward project was suspended in France last year following previous decisions to abandon four other SMR projects in France.
Nuclear vs. renewables
For two decades, global investments in renewable power generation have exceeded those in nuclear energy and are now 21 times higher.
Total investment in non-hydro renewables in 2024 was estimated at US$728 billion, up eight percent compared to the previous year.
In 2024, solar and wind capacity grew by 452 GW and 113 GW, respectively, with the combined total of 565 GW over 100 times greater than the 5.4 GW of net nuclear capacity additions.
In 2021, the combined output of solar and wind plants surpassed nuclear power generation for the first time. In 2024, wind and solar facilities generated over 70 percent more electricity than nuclear plants.
In April 2025, global solar electricity generation exceeded monthly nuclear power generation for the first time and kept doing so in May and June 2025. In 2024, wind power generation grew by 8 percent, getting close to nuclear generation.
Renewables (including hydro) account for over 30 percent of global electricity generation and the International Energy Agency expects renewables to reach 46 percent in 2030. Nuclear’s share is certain to continue to decline from its current 9 percent.
WNISR-2025 concludes: “2024 has seen an unprecedented boost in solar and battery capacity expansion driven by continuous significant cost decline. As energy markets are rapidly evolving, there are no signs of vigorous nuclear construction and the slow decline of nuclear power’s role in electricity generation continues.”
Antinuclear 