Smoke from nuclear war would devastate ozone layer, alter climate
SMOKE FROM NUCLEAR WAR WOULD DEVASTATE OZONE LAYER, ALTER CLIMATE Atmospheric impacts of global nuclear war would be more severe than previously thought https://news.ucar.edu/132813/smoke-nuclear-war-would-devastate-ozone-layer-alter-climate
OCT 13, 2021 – BY DAVID HOSANSKY The massive columns of smoke generated by a nuclear war would alter the world’s climate for years and devastate the ozone layer, endangering both human health and food supplies, new research shows.
The international study paints an even grimmer picture of a global nuclear war’s aftermath than previous analyses. The research team used newly developed computer climate modeling techniques to learn more about the effects of a hypothetical nuclear exchange, including complex chemistry interactions in the stratosphere that influence the amounts of ultraviolet (UV) radiation that reach the planet’s surface.
Since the ozone layer protects Earth’s surface from harmful UV radiation, such impacts would be devastating to humans and the environment. High levels of UV radiation have been linked to certain types of skin cancer, cataracts, and immunological disorders. The ozone layer also protects terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, as well as agriculture.
“Although we suspected that ozone would be destroyed after nuclear war and that would result in enhanced ultraviolet light at the Earth’s surface, if there was too much smoke, it would block out the ultraviolet light,” said study co-author Alan Robock, a professor of climate science at Rutgers University. “Now, for the first time, we have calculated how this would work and quantified how it would depend on the amount of smoke.”
Continue reading‘Profiteers of Armageddon’: Report Reveals Who Benefits From US ‘Nuclear Modernization’ Plan
While “a handful of prime contractors” are the initial recipients and main beneficiaries of public money spent on bombers, missiles, and submarines, “the funds trickle down to subcontractors” that often include other prominent companies. The report names firms such as Bechtel, General Dynamics, Honeywell, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon.
Hartung directs attention to the millions of dollars in political activities by key contractors, writing that “while not all of this spending is devoted to lobbying on nuclear weapons programs, these expenditures are indicative of the political clout they can bring to bear on Congress as needed to sustain and expand the budgets for their nuclear weapons-related programs.”
They also spent $57.9 million on lobbying last year, employing 380 lobbyists, over two-thirds of whom “passed through the ‘revolving door’ from top positions in Congress, the Pentagon, and the Department of Energy to work for nuclear weapons contractors as executives or board members.”
And it should be noted that the revolving door swings both ways,” the report adds, noting that “three of the past five secretaries of defense worked as lobbyists or board members of major nuclear weapons contractors before taking up their positions in the Pentagon: James Mattis (General Dynamics); Mark Esper (Raytheon); and Lloyd Austin (Raytheon).”
‘Profiteers of Armageddon’: Report Reveals Who Benefits From US ‘Nuclear Modernization’ Plan, While taking aim at special interest lobbying and corporate profits that impede “sensible” policy, the author argues the “only way to be truly safe from nuclear weapons is to eliminate them altogether.” https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/10/12/profiteers-armageddon-report-reveals-who-benefits-us-nuclear-modernization-plan
JESSICA CORBETT A short list of contractors that pour large sums of money into campaign contributions, lobbying, and industry-friendly think tanks benefits from the U.S. government’s ongoing, decadeslong “nuclear modernization” plan worth up to $2 trillion, according to a report out Tuesday.
The issue brief—entitled Profiteers of Armageddon: Producers of the next generation of nuclear weapons—was authored by William Hartung, director of the Arms and Security Program at the Center for International Policy, who also outlined his report in Inkstick.
Hartung details how the U.S. departments of Defense (DOD) and Energy (DOE) are ramping up a plan to build the next generation of nuclear-armed bombers, missiles, and submarines as well as warheads, and the beneficiaries are major contractors along with operators of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) nuclear weapons complex.
The brief notes the U.S. nuclear weapons budget has climbed in recent years to over $43 billion in the Biden administration’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2022, and warns that “this figure will grow dramatically,” pointing to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate that parts of the Pentagon’s plan “will cost tens of billions each over the next decade, including $145 billion for ballistic missile submarines, $82 billion for the new Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM), and $53 billion for the new nuclear-armed bomber.”
“And the costs will not end there,” the report continues, noting that “the estimated lifetime cost of building and operating the new ICBM is $264 billion.”
While “a handful of prime contractors” are the initial recipients and main beneficiaries of public money spent on bombers, missiles, and submarines, “the funds trickle down to subcontractors” that often include other prominent companies. The report names firms such as Bechtel, General Dynamics, Honeywell, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon.
Hartung directs attention to the millions of dollars in political activities by key contractors, writing that “while not all of this spending is devoted to lobbying on nuclear weapons programs, these expenditures are indicative of the political clout they can bring to bear on Congress as needed to sustain and expand the budgets for their nuclear weapons-related programs.”
From 2012 to 2020, campaign contributions from contractors mentioned in the brief topped $119 million, more than a quarter of which was in the 2020 cycle alone. They also spent $57.9 million on lobbying last year, employing 380 lobbyists, over two-thirds of whom “passed through the ‘revolving door’ from top positions in Congress, the Pentagon, and the Department of Energy to work for nuclear weapons contractors as executives or board members.”
And it should be noted that the revolving door swings both ways,” the report adds, noting that “three of the past five secretaries of defense worked as lobbyists or board members of major nuclear weapons contractors before taking up their positions in the Pentagon: James Mattis (General Dynamics); Mark Esper (Raytheon); and Lloyd Austin (Raytheon).”
The brief also pushes back against “routinely exaggerated” claims about job creation that both companies and lawmakers use to promote nuclear weapons programs, and points out that contractors pump millions into supporting think tanks that opine on relevant policy.
Continued lobbying for the modernization plan “ignores the fact that building a new generation of nuclear weapons at this time will make the world a more dangerous place and increase the risk of nuclear war while fueling the new arms race,” Hartung argues. “It’s long past time that we stopped allowing special interest lobbying and corporate profits stand in the way of a more sensible nuclear policy.”
While asserting that “the only way to be truly safe from nuclear weapons is to eliminate them altogether,” in line with a global treaty that states with such weapons continue to oppose, Hartung also highlights that “the organization Global Zero has outlined an alternative nuclear posture that would eliminate ICBMs, reduce the numbers of bombers and ballistic missile submarines, and implement a policy of no first use of nuclear weapons as part of a ‘deterrence-only’ strategy that would reduce the danger of a nuclear conflict.”
Global Zero CEO Derek Johnson welcomed Hartung’s brief in a tweet Tuesday.
Earlier this year, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Adam Smith (D-Calif.) led the reintroduction of legislation (S.1219/H.R. 2603) to establish that “it is the policy of the United States to not use nuclear weapons first,” but the bill has not advanced in Congress, despite pressure from progressive lawmakers and campaigners.
Peace Action of Wisconsin’s Pamela Richard said in August that while activists encourage the passage of Warren and Smith’s bill as well as a related one (S. 1148/H.R. 669) from Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), “our long-term goal is total nuclear disarmament.”
“Unstoppable transition:” Australia can hit 91% renewables by 2030 — RenewEconomy
Transgrid study says Australia could – and should – be 100% renewable powered by 2035, with all coal generation phased out by 2032. The post “Unstoppable transition:” Australia can hit 91% renewables by 2030 appeared first on RenewEconomy.
“Unstoppable transition:” Australia can hit 91% renewables by 2030 — RenewEconomy
Diné groups seek justice — Beyond Nuclear International
Navajo have suffered disproportionately from legacy of uranium mining
Diné groups seek justice — Beyond Nuclear International
NSW unveils $80 billion green hydrogen strategy, with incentives to plug into grid — RenewEconomy
NSW unveils a green hydrogen plan, aiming to attract $80 billion of investment and slashing costs of the technology. The post NSW unveils $80 billion green hydrogen strategy, with incentives to plug into grid appeared first on RenewEconomy.
NSW unveils $80 billion green hydrogen strategy, with incentives to plug into grid — RenewEconomy
Australians reject “gas led recovery” as climate concern surges to new highs — RenewEconomy
New survey shows 8 in 10 Australians support the phase-out of coal power, and vast majority say economic recovery should be powered by renewables, not gas. The post Australians reject “gas led recovery” as climate concern surges to new highs appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Australians reject “gas led recovery” as climate concern surges to new highs — RenewEconomy
Australia’s weak climate policies a threat to 70,000 Australian jobs — RenewEconomy
Tens of thousands of Australian jobs at risk due to country’s weak climate policies, as other countries ponder carbon border taxes. The post Australia’s weak climate policies a threat to 70,000 Australian jobs appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Australia’s weak climate policies a threat to 70,000 Australian jobs — RenewEconomy
October 13 Energy News — geoharvey
Opinion: ¶ “Should Australia Build Nuclear Power Plants To Combat The Climate Crisis?” • While Australia holds 31% of the world’s supply of uranium, it has always been cheaper to rely on less expensive sources of power, fueled by coal and gas. That situation has not improved for nuclear power. Also, many Australians simply will […]
October 13 Energy News — geoharvey
The week in nuclear news, Australia and more
Keeping up with the pandemic – it’s all still happening.
The nuclear submarines and AUKUS have continued in the news, and re likely to keep going – problems about who’ll supply them, about their HEU fuel, about obsolescence, about anxieties in South East Asia, about revving up tensions between USA and China.
However, as this week develops, the news focus is shifting to the coming Cop26 climate conference. The nuclear lobby is now salivating about the possibility of it having a role in this international.summit
AUSTRALIA
Australians for Assange call for help – save our failing democracy, as USA continues, by despicable means, their case against him.
Nuclear submarines. Can the Australian government ignore this powerful letter exposing the foolish decision to ”go nuclear” with submarines and AUKUS? Morrison’s decision on AUKUS and nuclear submarines was made with no debate in Parliament. Growing pressure for Australia to scrap the plan for nuclear submarines fuelled by Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU). It’s unfortunate that the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal looks like weakening global nuclear non proliferation. Nuclear submarine deal needlessly raises tensions — Highly Enriched Fuel a particular danger. Nuclear submarines – A step towards nuclear power and nuclear weapons?
US and UK begin jostling to supply Australia with nuclear submarine fleet. Taiwan endorses AUKUS pact, asks Australia for help in war with China.
Minerals Council pushes for the nuclear industry, despite its failing record compared to renewables. The facts contradict the pro nuclear spin of the Minerals Council of Australia‘s report, written by Ben Heard.
Radioactive waste dump and ANSTO. Kimba Consultative Committee living in la la land over the prospect of stranded nuclear wastes. Danger in transporting nuclear wastes from Lucas Heights, and ANSTO’s conflict of interest. Questions for Ministers Taylor, Birmingham and Hunt, on their extravagant claims about ANSTO’s ”great commercial future”.
‘Do more’: COP26 president urges Morrison to make climate top priority
Scott Morrison’s bromance with Boris Johnson is being tested, because Morrison might not attend Glasgow climate conference. Scott Morrison gets a mention on global summary of climate change leaders – and it’s not good!. Prince Charles urges Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and other leaders to attend COP26
Australia could ‘green’ its degraded landscapes for just 6% of what we spend on defence.
INTERNATIONAL
Pandora Papers reveal world’s Tax Avoidance B-Team. Where’s the A-Team? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4kN2MeJg6c
The CIA Plot to Kidnap or Kill Julian Assange in London is a Story that is Being Mistakenly Ignored. Deathly Silence: Journalists Who Mocked Assange Have Nothing to Say About CIA Plans to Kill Him.
Chris Busby on the truth about black rain, radiation and cancer. Nuclear Radiation – Incompatible with Life. Low dose radiation and cancer – the Linear No Threshold model holds good.
Saving Us: A Climate Scientist’s Case for Hope and Healing in a Divided World. Developing countries demand action on climate from the polluting rich countries
The stagnating landscape of the nuclear industry -no chance of competing with renewables.
Why Greta Thunberg’s speech was the best – blah none
What is Cop26 and why does it matter? The complete guide
Who’s who at Cop26: the leaders who hold the world’s future in their hands
Will all submarines, even nuclear ones, be obsolete and ‘visible’ by 2040? Nuclear submarine deal needlessly raises tensions.
Questions for Ministers Taylor, Birmingham and Hunt, on their extravagant claims about ANSTO’s ”great commercial future”
I suggest a proper independent and expert review and assessment by appropriately qualified experts. It would however be essential that ANSTO and all other government entities be compelled to provide on request all necessary information for the review
The Ministers released a joint statement -Technology. Safeguarding the future of critical medicine supply, 30 September 2021
Joint media release with the Minister for Finance, Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham and the Ministerfor Health and Aged Care, the Hon Greg Hunt MP MP,,
The Morrison Government is safeguarding Australia’s sovereign capability to produce vital nuclear medicines by launching a $30 millionproject to design a new world-leading manufacturing facility to be built at Lucas Heights in Sydney.
So many questions to be answered about this:
Question: What precisely is to be involved in this design project for a new manufacturing facility?
What will the new facility comprise in an engineering and technical sense?
In any case the purchase by Australia of overseas nuclear medicine during the several occasions when the OPAL reactor at Lucas Heights was shut down proved to be a relatively easy and cost effective manner of satisfying the local consumption with no greater sovereign risk than applicable to other essential imports
country.
Acting Minister for Industry, Science and Technology Angus Taylor said the new facility will not only help to improve health care in Australia, but will also support nearly 1000 highly-skilled jobs across the country.
Questions. How will the improved health care be achieved by the new facility in light of the continued reduction in using reactor generated nuclear medicine – this goes against all the known facts?
How many of the total staff complement of ANSTO are actually involved in the production and associated services for the nuclear medicine isotopes?
The actual staff of ANSTO is more like 1,200 but their number and nature of work are really questioned despite the high government funding involved. Is this not another scheme by ANSTO to fund its large staff levels and its operational expenses?
Minister Taylor ‘s claims of expanding production of nuclear medicine, creating many high skilled jobs, collaboration with other agencies and radiopharmaceutical companes —
Questions. Please identify which major or even medium sized pharmaceutical manufacturers internationally are involved at present in the manufacture of reactor generated isotopes
Who are the main overseas customers or purchasers of the ANSTO produced isotopes?
What price do they pay for them?
Will there be any third world countries who are unable to pay for their purchase as has already been the case for some years?
What price do they pay for them?
What are the full production costs of ANSTO for these isotopes? As it is known that the sales revenue derived by ANSTO is only a fraction of the production costs calculated in a properly commercial manner how and to what extent is this subsidised by the federal government?
Minister Hunt’s claims of improved health care across the nation.
Question. Again how will the improved health care be achieved?
Claims of expanding industry – Australia a world leader in nuclear radiopharmaceuticals.
COMMENT. You cannot surely be serious when the production and use of reactor generated isotopes is in major decline worldwide due to its inherent dangerous nature and many alternative methods with far
less risk are now being used for diagnostic and treatment procedures
**********************************
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
How will this sit with the proposed but somewhat limited inquiry by ARPANSA as to the public consultations for the licensing applications by ANSTO for what appears to be an unjustified
extension of its temporary but now described as interim solid ntermediate level nuclear waste facility at Lucas Heights?
If the now new proposal described by the government as the design a new world-leading manufacturing facility is to be built at Lucas Heights then I suggest that it be the subject of a proper independent
and expert review and assessment by appropriately qualified experts which should be as wide and far ranging as possible and include all related aspects.
I suggest this review in preference to a more formal parliamentary inquiry whether self constituted or called externally which ultimately will depend on research and advice by persons who would have limited knowledge and experience of the issue under consideration.
In all probability the review will need to be carried out by overseas experts since none is available locally.
Moreover this review should prove to be far more effective and suitable than a formal inquiry process and at a much lower cost.
It would however be essential that ANSTO and all other government entities be compelled to provide on request all necessary information for the review
We must question why small modular reactors and the rebirth of nuclear energy are all the rage
These considerations should lead us to make saner and more realistic choices for our children and our children’s children
Roland Ngam • 11 October 2021, We must question why small modular reactors and the rebirth of nuclear energy are all the rage, Daily Maverick,
Small modular nuclear reactors are being widely punted as the energy source of the future. But if we are looking only at costs, solar and wind are way cheaper than small modular reactors and battery technology is way better today than it was only three years ago.
Small modular reactors (SMRs) seem to be all the rage these days. Dismiss them at your peril. I am no conspiracy theorist, but everyone is talking about them just as energy prices are spiking in Europe, the UK is struggling to supply its filling stations with fuel, the green parties want to cancel Nord Stream 2 and China is rationing electricity after recent widespread outages in 22 states.
Could it be that some of these crises — and ergo, energy panic — are artificially made in order to give fossils one last hurrah in the limelight? Nuclear energy is renewable [Ed. this is not true] , but I mean, you need fossils and a lot of capital investment to make them! Also, are those who are betting on SMRs as the technology of the future right to place their hopes in this sector rather than in greener alternatives?………………
America has been subsidising research in SMRs for more than a decade now. They paid $226-million in research grants for the light-water SMR built by Nuscale Power for Energy Northwest. The US Congress has already passed a nuclear production tax credit (PTC) act to subsidise energy from the plant for the next 10 years and the Department of Energy further approved $1.355-billion to fund the Carbon Free Power Project (CFPP), which involves investing massively in SMRs.
China already has a bunch of floating SMR powerships and started construction on a 125 MWe land-based pressurised water reactor (PWR) in Hainan province in June 2021. The project was officially launched by the Ministry of Ecology and Environment (which is another point I will get back to in a moment, i.e. that countries are pushing nuclear hard as the green solution of the future).
In the United Kingdom, SMRs are a key part of the decarbonisation strategy. Last year, Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced a £525-million investment in SMR development and Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng is about to approve a contract for Rolls-Royce to build a fleet of them in order to assure energy self-sufficiency, which has become a hotly debated topic after Brexit and now amidst the fuel shortages that have hit the nation.
Not to be outdone, French President Emmanuel Macron wants to make SMRs a cornerstone of his 2022 re-election campaign. It is believed that France will spend €50-million from the Euro Recovery Plan on SMR research. Industry players in the nuclear space have already announced plans for the construction of a university of nuclear research. About 30 research centres have also received funds from the France Relance plan for nuclear research. Although France is a world leader in nuclear technology, they have been caught napping by Russia, the US and China which are already way ahead of them in SMR technology.
So the race is on to scale up production of affordable commercial land-based SMRs which could potentially fill up the manufacturing companies’ order books.
Now, back to why nuclear technology is enjoying a comeback — well, it never went away, but it is enjoying a renaissance of sorts among the ever-more confident G20 leaders — because, as Maud Bregeon puts it in Nucléaire: un patrimoine industriel et écologique, even the IPCC and the UN say that “all low-carbon technologies are needed to meet our climate goals, including nuclear.
…….. is the world right to focus on SMRs as the future? If we are looking only at costs, solar and wind are way cheaper than SMRs and battery technology is way better today than it was only three years ago.
According to the International Energy Agency and the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, the kilowatt-hour price for SMR is almost certainly always going to be higher than what bigger power plants can offer. It is for this reason that many question why South Africa’s Energy Minister is still determined to commit to new nuclear capacity in line with the integrated resource plan (IRP). That allocation could be shifted to a cheaper energy source.
Three billion dollars is a massive drop from the $10-billion that is the going rate for a big nuclear plant. However, even at $3-billion in start-up for a small plant, the average African country simply cannot afford this type of technology. By comparison, they can get going on a modular solar plant with only a few thousand dollars.
Then there is the toll that continued investment in nuclear has on the environment. In an essay titled An Obituary for Small Modular Reactors, Friends of the Earth Australia argues that “about half of the SMRs under construction (Russia’s floating power plant, Russia’s RITM-200 icebreaker ships, and China’s ACPR50S demonstration reactor) are designed to facilitate access to fossil fuel resources in the Arctic, the South China Sea and elsewhere”.
Drought-hit Namibia, which has about 5% of the world’s uranium resources has seen an increase in investments in the uranium sector. Russia (
Helpless activists in Namibia have also been trying to draw the world’s attention to the unusually high numbers of former uranium mine workers who have been dying of cancer, without much success. As investments in uranium pick up, and as some environmental activists make the case for nuclear as green technology, it is important to remember the toll that it is taking on people and ecological systems in the Global South.
These considerations should lead us to make saner and more realistic choices for our children and our children’s children. https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2021-10-11-we-must-question-why-small-modular-reactors-and-the-rebirth-of-nuclear-energy-are-all-the-rage/
.
Deathly Silence: Journalists Who Mocked Assange Have Nothing to Say About CIA Plans to Kill Him
Deathly Silence: Journalists Who Mocked Assange Have Nothing to Say About CIA Plans to Kill Him https://fair.org/home/deathly-silence-journalists-who-mocked-assange-have-nothing-to-say-about-cia-plans-to-kill-him/, JOHN MCEVOY,YAHOO! NEWS (9/26/21) A BOMBSHELL REPORT DETAILING THE US CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY’S “SECRET WAR PLANS AGAINST WIKILEAKS,” INCLUDING CLANDESTINE PLOTS TO KILL OR KIDNAP PUBLISHER JULIAN ASSANGE WHILE HE TOOK REFUGE IN THE ECUADORIAN EMBASSY IN LONDON.
Following WikiLeaks‘ publication of the Vault 7 files in 2017—the largest leak in CIA history, which exposed how US and UK intelligence agencies could hack into household devices—the US government designated WikiLeaks as a “non-state hostile intelligence service” (The Hill, 4/13/17), providing legal cover to target the organization as if it were an adversarial spy agency.
Within this context, the Donald Trump administration reportedly requested “sketches” or “options” for how to kill Assange, according to the Yahoo! expose (written by Zach Dorfman, Sean D. Naylor and Michael Isikoff), while the CIA drew up plans to kidnap him. (Assange was expelled from the embassy in 2019 and has since then been in British prison, fighting a demand that he be extradited to the US to face charges of espionage—FAIR.org, 11/13/20.)
Shortly after publication, former CIA director Mike Pompeo (Yahoo! News, 9/29/21) seemed to confirm the report’s findings, declaring that the former US intelligence officials who spoke with Yahoo! “should all be prosecuted for speaking about classified activity inside the CIA.”
Ghoulish indifference
It would seem that covert plans for the state-sanctioned murder on British soil of an award-winning journalist should attract sustained, wall-to-wall media coverage.
The news, however, has been met by Western establishment media with ghoulish indifference—a damning indictment of an industry that feverishly condemns attacks on press freedom in Official Enemy states.
BBC News, one of the most-read news outlets in the world, appears to have covered the story just once—in the Somali-language section of the BBC website (Media Lens on Twitter, 9/30/21).
Neither the New York Times or Washington Post, two of the world’s leading corporate news organizations, have published any articles about Assange since July 2021.
To its credit, since the story first broke on September 26, the Guardian has reported twice on the CIA-led conspiracy to kill or kidnap Assange. But to offer perspective, during the week after Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny was reported to have been poisoned by the Russian government, the Guardian published 16 separate pieces on the issue, including video reports and opinion pieces.
Similarly, a Nexis search of British newspapers for the word “Navalny” brings up 288 results from August 20–25, 2020. The same search for “Assange” between September 26–October 1, 2021, brings up a meager 29 results—one of which, a notable exception, was a Patrick Cockburn piece in the Independent (10/1/21).
Crucial relief
As is typical of stories that embarrass the Western intelligence services, independent media provided crucial relief to the backdrop of chilling indifference, with the Grayzone’s Aaron Maté (YouTube, 9/30/21) conducting a rigorous interview with one of the report’s authors, Michael Isikoff.
Indeed, the Grayzone (5/14/20) was the first outlet to provide evidence of a CIA-linked proposal to “kidnap or poison Assange” in May 2020. The story, however, was almost universally ignored, suggesting that, as Joe Lauria wrote in Consortium News (10/2/21), “until something appears in the mainstream media, it didn’t happen.”
One thing the corporate media cannot be accused of with regards to Assange, however, is inconsistency. After a key witness in the Department of Justice’s case against the publisher admitted to providing the US prosecution with false testimony, a detail that should
ordinarily turn a case to dust, the corporate media responded by ignoring the story almost entirely. As Alan MacLeod wrote for FAIR.org (7/2/21):
The complete uniformity with which corporate media have treated this latest bombshell news raises even more concerns about how fundamentally intertwined and aligned they are with the interests of the US government.
Even after it was revealed that the UC Global security firm that targeted Assange had also spied on journalists at the Washington Post and New York Times, neither outlet mounted any
protest (Grayzone, 9/18/20).
Perhaps most remarkably, UK judge Vanessa Baraitser relied on a falsified CNN report (7/15/19) to justify the CIA’s spying operation against Assange (Grayzone, 5/1/21). Now, CNN’s website contains no reports on the agency’s plans to kill or kidnap Assange.
The prevailing silence has extended into the NGO industry. Amnesty International, which refused in 2019 to consider Assange a prisoner of conscience, has said nothing about the latest revelations. Likewise, Index on Censorship, which describes itself as “The Global Voice of Free Expression,” hasn’t responded to the story.
The establishment media’s dismissal of Assange supports Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky’s framework of “worthy” and “unworthy” political dissidents, with Assange situated firmly in the latter camp.
The present circumstances become even more deplorable upon consideration of the corporate journalists who arrogantly diminished, or even delighted in, Assange’s concerns for his own safety.
Continue readingPrince Charles urges Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and other leaders to attend COP26
Prince Charles urges Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and other leaders to attend COP26 ABC By Jack Hawke in London 11 Oct 21, Prince Charles has urged Prime Minister Scott Morrison and other world leaders to attend the UN’s climate change conference, calling it a “last chance saloon” to save the planet.
Key points:
- Prince Charles appeared surprised to learn Prime Minister Scott Morrison may not attend the COP26 UN climate change conference
- More than 100 world leaders, including US President Joe Biden, the Queen and the Pope will attend the summit
- Prince Charles also said he shared the concerns of younger generations that not enough is being done to combat cliamte issues
World leaders including Joe Biden, Boris Johnson, the Queen and the Pope will be at the event, but Mr Morrison has not yet made a decision on whether he will attend.
The Prince of Wales was giving an interview to the BBC when he was pressed about Australia’s action on climate change ahead of the COP26 UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow at the end of this month.
Prince Charles seemed genuinely surprised when told by the BBC’s climate editor Justin Rowlatt that Mr Morrison was still on the fence about coming.
“Is that what he says?” Charles asked……… https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-12/prince-charles-scott-morrison-climate-change-cop26/100531092
Scott Morrison gets a mention on global summary of climate change leaders – and it’s not good!
Who’s who at Cop26: the leaders who hold the world’s future in their hands, Guardian 11 Oct 21,
”……..Scott Morrison
“A rogue nation on the climate” is how one Cop expert describes Australia, urging other countries to ostracise the coal exporter, which under Morrison has refused to take on new commitments on emissions. But if anything the Aukus deal appears to have buoyed the Australian prime minister’s sense that he can get away with it – he may not even attend……..” https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/11/whos-who-at-cop26-the-leaders-who-hold-the-worlds-climate-in-their-hands
What is Cop26 and why does it matter? The complete guide
What is Cop26 and why does it matter? The complete guide
Everything you need to know about the Glasgow conference seeking to forge a global response to the climate emergency
Who’s who at Cop26: the leaders who hold the world’s future in their hands
Will China even come? Can the UK hosts outflank Brazil? A look at who will – and who may not – be at Glasgow climate summit
1 This month.
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/235274195556
19 May – Webinar- Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-05-19 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-05-19 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
20 May – Webinar – The dangerous world of AUKUS, US, military occupation and suppression of dissent
National Webinar, 20th May, 2026, 6.30pm AEST. Confronting laws restricting/suppressing protest speech and action
Speakers: Former Sen. Rex Patrick, Lawyer Nick Hanna ,Arthur Rorris ,Jorgen Doyle, Sen David Shoebbridge,
Facilitator Kelley Tranter.
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 