Exposing the misinformation of Michael Shellenberger and 
‘Environmental Progress’, Nuclear Monitor Issue: #853 4689 30/10/2017, Jim Green ‒ Nuclear Monitor editor, and national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia
Michael Shellenberger’s pro-nuclear lobby group ‘Environmental Progress’ (EP) is celebrating the decision to proceed with two partially-built reactors in South Korea. A citizens jury appointed by the government voted almost 60% in favor of completing the reactors. President Moon Jae-in said the government would allow construction of the reactors to proceed but “we will completely stop all plans for the construction of new nuclear reactors.”1
It’s doubtful that Shellenberger’s California-based organization could have significantly swayed the citizens jury in South Korea, but EP was very active in the debate and presumably had some effect in shifting opinions. Here is a summary of the work EP carried out in South Korea this year:2
- EP published a 62-page pro-nuclear report ‒ ‘The High Cost of Fear: Understanding the Costs and Causes of South Korea’s Proposed Nuclear Energy Phase-Out’.3
- Shellenberger visited South Korea four times between April and October 2017, giving speeches, holding press conferences on collaborating with nuclear advocates. He claims that dozens of media outlets reported on EP’s visits, that a press conference in Seoul was “packed”4, and that he enjoyed “a crush of media attention”.5
- EP sent a sign-on letter to South Korean President Moon Jae-in in July 2017 and another in August 2017.
- In October, EP wrote to the citizens jury tasked with deciding the fate of the two partially-built reactors (Shin Kori 5 and 6).6
- EP produced a video promoting nuclear power in South Korea.
- Shellenberger has been talking and writing about his bizarre plan to bring peace to the Korean Peninsula by supporting the development of nuclear power in North Korea.
- And, according to Shellenberger, EP countered the “lies” of Friends of the Earth (FOE) and Greenpeace in “two investigative pieces and three separate open letters to President Moon and the citizens jury that were signed by climate scientists and environmentalists from around the world.”6
EP’s campaign has involved a blizzard of misinformation and relentless, dishonest attacks against environment groups, particularly Friends of the Earth (FOE) and Greenpeace. Shellenberger claims4 that the “greatest coup” of the two groups was the “Hollywood-style anti-nuclear disaster movie” called Pandora7 which was released last year and has been watched by millions, mostly on Netflix. But FOE and Greenpeace had nothing to do with the production of the Pandora film!……..
The funding of the Pandora film isn’t an important issue but it neatly illustrates Shellenberger’s M.O. of relentless repetition of falsehoods in the hope that some mud sticks…..
Shellenberger himself featured in the dishonest and wildly inaccurate ‘Pandora’s Promise’ film a few years ago………
Nuclear power and weapons proliferation
Shellenberger states: “One of FOE-Greenpeace’s biggest lies about nuclear energy is that it leads to weapons. Korea demonstrates that the opposite is true: North Korea has a nuclear bomb and no nuclear energy, while South Korea has nuclear energy and no bomb.”4
In fact, the connections between nuclear power (and associated industries such as enrichment and reprocessing) and weapons proliferation are well understood and there are countless real-world examples demonstrating the risks.26
Prominent nuclear lobbyists are now openly talking about the connections between nuclear power (and related industries) and weapons production in order to boost the case for further subsidies to support the ‘civil’ nuclear industry, particularly in the US.27 It seems Shellenberger didn’t get the memo.
As for Shellenberger’s claims about proliferation on the Korean peninsula, he ignores the fact that North Korea uses what is calls an ‘experimental power reactor’ (based on the UK Magnox power reactor design) to produce plutonium for weapons.28 He ignores the fact that North Korea acquired enrichment technology from Pakistan’s A.Q. Khan network, who stole the blueprints from URENCO, the consortium that provides enrichment services for the nuclear power industry.28 He ignores the fact that North Korea’s reprocessing plant is based on the design of the Eurochemic plant in Belgium, which provided reprocessing services for the nuclear power industry.28
And Shellenberger ignores South Korea’s history of covertly pursuing nuclear weapons, a history entwined with the country’s development of nuclear power. For example, the nuclear power program provided a rationale for South Korea’s pursuit of dual-use reprocessing technology……..https://wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/853/exposing-misinformation-michael-shellenberger-and-environmental-progress
December 29, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
South Korea, spinbuster |
Leave a comment
How Trump could kill the Iran nuclear deal in January The president will soon face a series of deadlines during which he could deliver on a campaign promise to rip up the 2015 agreement. Politico eu, By
MICHAEL CROWLEY, 12/28/17, President Donald Trump allowed the Iran nuclear deal to survive through 2017, but the new year will offer him another chance to blow up the agreement — and critics and supporters alike believe he may take it.
By mid-January, the president will face new legal deadlines to choose whether to slap U.S. sanctions back on Tehran. Senior lawmakers and some of Trump’s top national security officials are trying to preserve the agreement. But the deal’s backers fear Trump has grown more willing to reject the counsel of his foreign policy team, as he did with his recent decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital……..
The deal was negotiated in 2015 by the Obama administration, along with five other nations. It lifted U.S. and European sanctions on Iran in exchange for strict limits on Tehran’s nuclear program. …..
The deadlines for Trump begin on January 11, when the agreement requires him — as it does every 90 days — to certify whether Tehran is meeting its obligations under the deal. International inspectors who visit the country’s nuclear facilities have repeatedly said Iran is doing so. But Trump refused to certify Iranian compliance in mid-October……..
upcoming deadlines for Trump to continue the temporary waiver of U.S. sanctions on Iran, which the deal dictates will not be permanently repealed for several more years. The president must renew the waivers every 120 days. Sources familiar with the law said multiple waiver deadlines arrive between January 12 and January 17, forcing Trump to reassess the deal.
If Trump rejects the waivers and restores biting sanctions, Tehran is certain to claim the U.S. has breached the agreement and — supporters of the deal say — may restart its nuclear program. That could court a military confrontation with the U.S. and Israel. At a minimum, the U.S would find itself isolated abroad given that every other party to the deal — France, the U.K., Germany, China and Russia — all strongly oppose a U.S. withdrawal from the agreement.
Top Trump officials, including National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, all hope to avoid that outcome, telling others that while they may not love the nuclear deal, the potential fallout from a unilateral U.S. withdrawal would be too great to risk……….https://www.politico.eu/article/iran-how-donald-trump-could-kill-the-iran-nuclear-deal-in-january/
December 29, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Iran, politics international, USA |
Leave a comment
CORE 26th Dec 2017, There can’t be many nuclear bodies that choose to bury – just three days before Christmas – what is touted as a good news story by the industry. But this is exactly what Sellafield Ltd has contrived to do in its 22nd December announcement that the long overdue and eye-wateringly expensive Evaporator D has come on line at Sellafield.
Yet by confirming that the new Evaporator actually came on line at 0800 on the 8th December, the start-up has been kept under wraps for a fortnight until a time when public attention was focused on seasonal festivities rather than on nuclear
news. Keeping such a story under the public radar for so long is, to say the least, wholly out of character for the industry – though the Evaporator’s history is hardly something to shout about.
It is not however just about the burial of ‘good’ news itself that many will find disturbing, but rather the manner in which the burial rites have been manipulated and massaged to dupe the wider world. Designed to process the dangerous high level waste liquids produced by the site’s reprocessing operations so that they can be vitrified and canned for eventual disposal, Evaporator D is located in the site’s Highly Active Liquid Evaporation and Storage (HALES) facility.
Its tortured construction track record since its inception over a decade ago by British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) is well
documented and gives the lie to its original costings and timescale. As reported in the industry’s Nuclear Fuel journal in 2009 ‘Sellafield operators estimated (in 2007) the cost of the proposed Evaporator D at GBP90 million and said they expected it to be operational around 2010/2011’. Now in operation over six years late, the Evaporator’s £750M cost today represents an eight-fold increase on its original costing. …..
There are few positives to be taken from the Evaporator D saga that rivals the similar squandering of public money on the ill-fated and now defunct Sellafield MOX plant and even – when its financial accounts are eventually exposed publicly for the first time – the THORP plant itself. The one positive that will bring at least some cheer to the UK taxpayer is that, then costed at £600M, plans for an Evaporator E were abandoned by Sellafield in 2012. http://corecumbria.co.uk/briefings/sellafields-delayed-evaporator-d-now-operating-and-gift-wrapped-for-christmas/
December 29, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
UK, wastes |
1 Comment
Fears of another Fukushima as Tepco plans to restart world’s biggest nuclear plant, Consent given to turn reactors at the massive Kashiwazaki-kariwa plant back on, but Japanese worry over active fault lines and mismanagement, Guardian Justin McCurry , 28 Dec 17, If a single structure can define a community, for the 90,000 residents of Kashiwazaki town and the neighbouring village of Kariwa, it is the sprawling nuclear power plant that has dominated the coastal landscape for more than 40 years.
When all seven of its reactors are in operation, Kashiwazaki-kariwa generates 8.2m kilowatts of electricity – enough to power 16m households. Occupying 4.2 sq km of land along the Japan Sea coast, it is the biggest nuclear power plant in the world.
But today, the reactors at Kashiwazaki-kariwa are idle. The plant in Niigata prefecture, about 140 miles (225km) north-west of the capital, is the nuclear industry’s highest-profile casualty of the nationwide atomic shutdown that followed the March 2011 triple meltdown at Fukushima Daiichi.
The company at the centre of the disaster has encountered anger over its failure to prevent the catastrophe, its treatment of tens of thousands of evacuated residents and its haphazard attempts to clean up its atomic mess.
Now, the same utility, Tokyo Electric Power [Tepco], is attempting to banish its Fukushima demons with a push to restart two reactors at Kashiwazaki-kariwa, one of its three nuclear plants. Only then, it says, can it generate the profits it needs to fund the decommissioning of Fukushima Daiichi and win back the public trust it lost in the wake of the meltdown.
This week, Japan’s nuclear regulation authority gave its formal approval for Tepco to restart the Kashiwazaki-kariwa’s No. 6 and 7 reactors – the same type of boiling-water reactors that suffered meltdowns at Fukushima Daiichi.
After a month of public hearings, the nuclear regulation authority concluded that Tepco was fit to run a nuclear power plant and said the two reactors met the stricter safety standards introduced after the 2011 disaster.
Just before that decision, Tepco gave the Guardian an exclusive tour of what it claims will be the safest nuclear plant in the world…….
‘This is no place for a nuclear power plant’
The public, however, is far from convinced. Last year, the people of Niigata prefecture registered their opposition to the utility’s plans by electing Ryuichi Yoneyama, an anti-nuclear candidate, as governor. Exit polls showed that 73% of voters opposed restarting the plant, with just 27% in favour.
Yoneyama has said that he won’t make a decision on the restarts, scheduled for spring 2019, until a newly formed committee has completed its report into the causes and consequences of the Fukushima disaster – a process that could take at least three years.
For many residents, the plant’s location renders expensive safety improvements irrelevant. “Geologically speaking, this is no place for a nuclear power plant,” says Kazuyuki Takemoto, a retired local councillor and a lifelong anti-nuclear activist.
Takemoto cites instability caused by the presence of underground oil and gas deposits in the area, and evidence that the ground on which Tepco’s seawall stands is prone to liquefaction in the event of a major earthquake.
Local critics have pointed to the chaos that could result from attempting to evacuate the 420,000 people who live within a 30km radius of Kashiwazaki-kariwa. “That’s more people than lived near Fukushima, plus we get very heavy snowfall here, which would make evacuating everyone impossible,” Takemoto adds. “The situation would be far worse than it was in Fukushima.”
Adding to their concerns are the presence of seismic faults in and around the site, which sustained minor damage during a magnitude-6.6 offshore earthquake in 2007. Two active faults – defined by nuclear regulators as one that has moved any time within the last 400,000 years – run beneath reactor No. 1.
But for Tepco, a return to nuclear power generation is a matter of financial necessity, with the utility standing to gain up to ¥200 billion in annual profits by restarting the two reactors at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa…….. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/28/fears-of-another-fukushima-as-tepco-plans-to-restart-worlds-biggest-nuclear-plant
December 29, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, Japan, politics |
Leave a comment
North Korea will not be accepted as a nuclear power by US or Russia, say Rex Tillerson and Sergei Lavrov Both sides agree to pursue a ‘diplomatic solution’ to the crisis, The Independent, Mythili Sampathkumar New York @MythiliSk 28 Dec 17 The US and Russia have insisted they will not accept North Koreaas a “nuclear state”, amid a series of missile tests by the East Asian nation and increased rhetoric from both Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump.
US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov spoke by phone on a myriad of issues, but both agreed on their stance regarding Pyongyang’s continued development of nuclear weapons despite United Nations sanctions.
State Department Heather Nauert said in a statement that “both sides agreed that they will continue to work towards a diplomatic solution to achieve a denuclearised Korean peninsula”. However, on the same call on Tuesday, Mr Lavrov criticised President Donald Trump’s “aggressive rhetoric” towards North Korea……..
Late last week, the UN Security Council also unanimously passed – including votes from Russia and China who have closer ties to Pyongyang – more sanctions on North Korea, further limiting its oil supplies and slave labour market. …..
according to Chinese customs data, China exported no oil products to North Korea in November – something that was above and beyond UN sanctions requirements. Beijing also imported no North Korean iron ore, coal or lead in last months, the second full month of those trade sanctions, the data showed….. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/north-korea-us-russia-nuclear-power-recognise-rex-tillerson-sergei-lavrov-a8130316.html
December 29, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
North Korea, politics international, Russia, USA, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
Exposing the misinformation of Michael Shellenberger and ‘Environmental Progress’ Jim Green, Nuclear Monitor Issue: #853 4689 30/10/2017 “………….Fake scientists and radiation quackery
Environmental Progress’s UK director John Lindberg is described as an “expert on radiation” on the EP website.38 In fact, he has no scientific qualifications whatsoever let alone specialist qualifications regarding the health effects of ionizing radiation. Likewise, a South Korean article39 reposted on the EP website (without correction) falsely claims that Shellenberger is a scientist; in fact, he has a degree in cultural anthropology.
Lindberg is an ‘Associate Member’ of Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information (SARI)40, a group comprised mostly of quacks, cranks, non-scientists and conspiracy theorists whose views are directly at odds with those of scientific associations such as UNSCEAR.
SARI is at war with the linear, no-threshold (LNT) model ‒ the group’s short ‘Charter & Mission’ insists three times that LNT is “misinformation”.41 Yet LNT enjoys heavy-hitting scientific support. For example the 2006 report of the US National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation states that “the risk of cancer proceeds in a linear fashion at lower doses without a threshold and … the smallest dose has the potential to cause a small increase in risk to humans.”34 Likewise, a report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences states: “Given that it is supported by experimentally grounded, quantifiable, biophysical arguments, a linear extrapolation of cancer risks from intermediate to very low doses currently appears to be the most appropriate methodology.”42
A 2010 UNSCEAR report isn’t sold on the linear part of LNT but it is at odds with SARI (and EP) on the question of a threshold. The UNSCEAR report states that “the current balance of available evidence tends to favour a non-threshold response for the mutational component of radiation-associated cancer induction at low doses and low dose rates.”43By contrast, SARI promotes hormesis ‒ the discredited view that low-dose radiation exposure is beneficial to human health.44 https://wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/853/exposing-misinformation-michael-shellenberger-and-environmental-progress
December 29, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
spinbuster, USA |
Leave a comment
Climate Change To Triple Number Of Migrants Reaching European Union By 2100, Study Predicts, Clean Technica, December 28th, 2017 by James Ayre
The number of migrants making their way into the European Union will nearly triple by the year 2100 if rapid climate warming occurs, according to a new study published in the journal Science.
The new study — which was actually requested by the European Commission itself — relates directly only to climate warming, it should noted — mass migrations triggered by wars and cultural conflicts would be in addition to those discussed by the study……
the reality is that the findings are likely a vast underestimate of what will be occurring during the second half of the 21st century — as climate warming and weirding intensify; and as the common human activities of projection, scapegoating, and lazy thinking do as well.
According to the new study, asylum applications to the EU (from across 103 different nations) tended “to rise in the 2000–2014 period when temperatures at home were far hotter or colder than the ideal for growing maize.”
The projection put forward by the study is that asylum applications could climb to 1.01 million per year by 2100 (up from an average of 351,000 during 2000-2014) under a scenario that sees temperatures rise fairly fast. The primary driver of this rise would be reduced agricultural productivity (again, the human conflict aspects of what’s coming aren’t being factored into this work).
As I noted above, the reality is that even that figure is likely a vast underestimate of what’s coming — based on a look back at earlier periods of rapid climatic change and/or ecological collapse (soil fertility loss included) and taking into account more factors than the research did………
won’t rising temperatures and falling agricultural yields lead directly to weakening civil institutions (self-consumption), political repression, and civil war? Isn’t that exactly what’s happened in Syria over the last decade?
I’ll end things here with the study’s assertion that “our findings support the assessment that climate change, especially continued warming, will add another ‘threat multiplier’ that induces people to seek refuge abroad.”https://cleantechnica.com/2017/12/28/climate-change-triple-number-migrants-reaching-european-union-2100-study-predicts/
December 29, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
climate change, EUROPE |
Leave a comment
South Carolina Spent $9 Billion on Nuclear Reactors That Will Never Run. Now What? The legislature must decide whether residents will keep being charged, possibly for decades, for the failed project. Governing. BY ALAN GREENBLATT | JANUARY 2018 It has to be one of the greatest wastes of money in any state’s history. Last summer, two utility companies halted construction on nuclear reactors in South Carolina. They had already sunk more than $9 billion into the project, which will never be completed or generate a kilowatt of power. The state is now trying to figure out who’s to blame, and who will pay.
The story started a dozen years ago. Back in 2006, South Carolina, along with several other states, passed legislation to try to jumpstart the moribund nuclear construction industry………
Customers have already been billed some $2 billion for the reactors. Under current regulations, the utilities continue to collect $37 million per month. That means the average ratepayer is paying an additional $250 per year, or 18 percent of the bill. This could go on for 60 years. “You will literally have your children and grandchildren pay for this mistake,” says Bursey.
Some legislators have argued that consumers shouldn’t be on the hook for the billions already charged. But it may not be legally possible to recover the money. It may not even be feasible. The utilities don’t have the cash to give back, even if they wanted to. “That would be the fair thing, but it’s not realistic,” Massey says.
Instead, the fight in the legislature this year will be about whether to curtail additional payments going forward. Needless to say, the utilities are opposed to that idea. They insist they must collect the money, or they won’t be able to continue operating or have access to capital. They aren’t sympathetic actors, but Santee Cooper is state-owned so legislators will have to take its concerns seriously…..http://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructure/gov-south-carolina-nuclear-reactors.html
December 29, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, USA |
Leave a comment
Exposing the misinformation of Michael Shellenberger and ‘Environmental 
Progress’ Jim Green,
Nuclear Monitor Issue: #853 4689 30/10/2017 “…..Chernobyl and Fukushima
Shellenberger says that at a recent talk in Berlin: “Many Germans simply could not believe how few people died and will die from the Chernobyl accident (under 200) and that nobody died or will die from the meltdowns at Fukushima. How could it be that everything we were told is not only wrong, but often the opposite of the truth?”4
There’s a simple reason that Germans didn’t believe Shellenberger’s claims about Chernobyl and Fukushima ‒ they are false.
Shellenberger claims that “under 200” people have died and will die from the Chernobyl disaster. In fact, the lowest of the estimates of the Chernobyl cancer death toll is the World Health Organization’s estimate of “up to 9,000 excess cancer deaths” in the most contaminated parts of the former Soviet Union.29 And of course there are higher estimates for the death toll across Europe.30,31
Shellenberger claims that the Fukushima meltdowns “killed precisely no one” and that “nobody died or will die from the meltdowns at Fukushima”.4 An EP report has this to say about Fukushima: “[T]he science is unequivocal: nobody has gotten sick much less died from the radiation that escaped from three meltdowns followed by three hydrogen gas explosions. And there will be no increase in cancer rates.”3
In support of those assertions, EP cites a World Health Organization report that directly contradicts EP’s claims. The WHO report concluded that for people in the most contaminated areas in Fukushima Prefecture, the estimated increased risk for all solid cancers will be around 4% in females exposed as infants; a 6% increased risk of breast cancer for females exposed as infants; a 7% increased risk of leukaemia for males exposed as infants; and for thyroid cancer among females exposed as infants, an increased risk of up to 70% (from a 0.75% lifetime risk up to 1.25%).32
Applying a linear-no threshold (LNT) risk factor to the estimated collective radiation dose from Fukushima fallout gives an estimated long-term cancer death toll of around 5,000 people.33 Nuclear lobbyists are quick to point out that LNT may overestimate risks from low dose and low dose-rate exposure. But LNT may also underestimate the risks. The 2006 report of the US National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) states: “The committee recognizes that its risk estimates become more uncertain when applied to very low doses. Departures from a linear model at low doses, however, could either increase or decrease the risk per unit dose.”34 And the BEIR report states that “combined analyses are compatible with a range of possibilities, from a reduction of risk at low doses to risks twice those upon which current radiation protection recommendations are based.”34
Fukushima evacuation
Shellenberger claims that the Fukushima evacuation was “entirely unnecessary and indeed counterproductive” and it was the “outcome of the kind of fear-mongering engaged in by Moon, FOE, and Greenpeace.”4 But of course Moon Jae-in, FOE and Greenpeace had nothing to do with the evacuation of 160,000 people in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster. Evacuations were ordered not on the basis of fear-mongering by nuclear critics; they were ordered on the basis of multiple fires, hydrogen explosions and presumed meltdowns.
EP states: “In 2013, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) concluded that the vast majority of the Fukushima evacuation zone is safe and nearly all residents could have returned long ago ‒ indeed, most should never have left.”3 But the UNSCEAR report didn’t conclude that the vast majority of the Fukushima evacuation zone is safe or that nearly all residents could have returned long ago, and it didn’t state that most evacuees should never have left.35 The UNSCEAR report states: “The actions taken to protect the public significantly reduced the radiation exposures that could have been received. This was particularly the case for settlements within the 20-km evacuation zone and the deliberate evacuation zones, where the protective measures reduced the potential exposures in the first year by up to a factor of 10.”35
An EP report berates the Japanese government for failing to follow “normal protocols” by ordering Fukushima residents to evacuate instead of sheltering in place.3 EP cites a 2015 IAEA report36 in support of that argument, but nowhere in the IAEA report (or any IAEA report) is there a proscription against evacuation in response to nuclear accidents. No IAEA report states that sheltering in place should be the “normal protocol” in the event of a nuclear accident ‒ the appropriate response depends entirely on the circumstances. A 2011 IAEA report points to the impracticality of sheltering in place as a long-term response to elevated radiation levels following nuclear accidents: “Lesson 12: The use of long term sheltering is not an effective approach and has been abandoned and concepts of ‘deliberate evacuation’ and ‘evacuation-prepared area’ were introduced for effective long term countermeasures using guidelines of the ICRP [International Commission on Radiological Protection] and IAEA.”37
The 2015 IAEA report notes that radiation levels were astronomical in some areas in the days after the Fukushima disaster ‒ even in some locations beyond the 20 km exclusion zone, dose rates of the order of a few hundred microsieverts per hour were measured from 15 March 2011 onward.36 Thus the annual public limit of 1 millisievert from anthropogenic sources would be reached in just a few hours, and the Japanese government’s new limit of 20 millisieverts in Fukushima-contaminated regions would be reached in just a few days.https://wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/853/exposing-misinformation-michael-shellenberger-and-environmental-progress
December 29, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
spinbuster, USA |
Leave a comment
On the boil: five climate lawsuits to watch in 2018 Reuters
Sebastien Malo, Sophie Hares, NEW YORK/TEPIC, Mexico (Thomson Reuters Foundation) 28 Dec 17 – Lawyers and advocates stepped up the fight against climate change this year by pursuing a rising number of legal cases around the world that aim to test the limits of national laws.
Climate change cases numbered nearly 900 in 24 nations as of March, according to a survey by UN Environment and Columbia Law School, marking a steady increase in lawsuits filed to hold governments and companies to account over carbon pollution.
They include a handful of milestone suits that charge violations of various states’ constitutions.
Here are five cases whose outcomes, some expected in the coming year, could reshape the roles and responsibilities of governments and businesses in tackling climate change:
– URGENDA FOUNDATION V. KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS (NETHERLANDS)
This landmark case energized the climate movement in 2015 when a district court sided with the nearly 900 Dutch citizens behind it, ordering their government to cut greenhouse has emissions faster.
It was “one of the most important climate change decisions ever issued”, said Michael Gerrard, director of Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law in New York…….
– JULIANA V. UNITED STATES (UNITED STATES)
Trial in this federal suit filed by a group of 21 U.S. teenagers could begin in February 2018……
– LLIUYA V. RWE (GERMANY)
A Peruvian farmer, Saúl Luciano Lliuya, is seeking $20,000 in damages from a large German energy utility based half-way around the world…..- EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION V. MAURA TRACY HEALEY (UNITED STATES)
Exxon Mobil is battling attorney generals in Massachusetts and New York who are investigating the oil giant, after news reports charged in 2015 that its own scientists had found cutting fossil fuel use was needed to slow down climate change…….
– GREENPEACE NORDIC V. GOVERNMENT OF NORWAY (NORWAY)
In another case rooted in a constitutional argument, this lawsuit charges that Norway violated the country’s constitution by letting energy firms explore for oil and gas in the Arctic Barents Sea….. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-climatechange-lawsuit-factbox/on-the-boil-five-climate-lawsuits-to-watch-in-2018-idUSKBN1EM0J7
December 29, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
2 WORLD, climate change, Legal |
Leave a comment
geoharvey
Opinion:
¶ “2017: The year climate change hit” • “Crazy” weather has been a hot topic for elevator conversations this year, as extremes are becoming the new normal. No continent was spared by 2017’s extreme weather. From droughts to hurricanes, from smog to forest fires, events killing thousands of people have been directly linked to climate change. [Deutsche Welle]
Flooding in the Philippines
¶ “Green tech will be everywhere in 2018” • With climate change problems mounting, national and local governments are pushing for more renewable energy and an end to fossil-fueled cars, despite hostility from President Donald Trump. People want fewer gas-powered vehicles and coal plants, and more EVs, solar panels and wind turbines. [Yahoo Finance UK]
World:
¶ The Loeriesfontein and Khobab wind farms in South Africa are operational, with 280 MW of capacity. Lekela Power said the commercial operations were achieved “on schedule, on…
View original post 775 more words
December 29, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Uncategorized |
Leave a comment
New York Removes Old Nuclear Fallout Shelter Signs in Move That Seems Premature, Gizmodo
December 29, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
USA, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
Mesothelioma Compensation Center Now Offers Guidance for a Nuclear Power Worker or Navy Veteran With Mesothelioma to Ensure They Hire the Nation’s Top Lawyers for Compensation, https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/mesothelioma-compensation-center-now-offers-guidance-for-a-nuclear-power-worker-or-navy-veteran-with-mesothelioma-to-ensure-they-hire-the-nations-top-lawyers-for-compensation-300575560.html NEW YORK, Dec. 28, 2017 /PRNewswire/ — The Mesothelioma Compensation Center says, “We are the only group in the nation that specializes in assisting nuclear power plant workers or US Navy Veterans who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma and our number one objective is a person like this receives the very best possible financial compensation. If a nuclear power worker or Navy Veteran calls us at 800-714-0303 we will have them talking directly to some of the nation’s most skilled, experienced and capable mesothelioma attorneys typically within 20 or 30 minutes.” http://MesotheliomaCompensationCenter.Com
The reason the Mesothelioma Compensation Center frequently mentions nuclear power plant workers and US Navy Veterans with mesothelioma in the same sentence is because many nuclear power plant workers received their initial training about reactors in the US Navy. The US Navy literally has a school where navy sailors learn about nuclear reactors and it is called ‘Nuke School.’
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=79643.
According to the Mesothelioma Compensation Center, “The mesothelioma lawyers we suggest work their mesothelioma compensation claims extremely hard and they typically get the best financial compensation results for their clients on a nationwide basis.
A case work up typically involves every single place or instance where a diagnosed person could have been exposed to asbestos. Further there is no charge for their services if there is not a financial settlement.
“When it comes to receiving the best possible mesothelioma financial compensation it is absolutely vital you hire the most qualified mesothelioma attorneys, as we would like to discuss anytime at 800-714-0303 – especially if you are a nuclear power plant worker or US Navy Veteran. The potential compensation for a nuclear power worker or Navy Veteran with mesothelioma could easily exceed a million dollars provided they have the best legal representation.” http://MesotheliomaCompensationCenter.Com
The Mesothelioma Compensation Center is especially focused on assisting nuclear power workers or Navy Veterans with mesothelioma in the following states:
- California
- New York
- Texas
- Florida
- Washington
- Connecticut
- Arizona
- Georgia
- South Carolina
- Pennsylvania
- Michigan
- Ohio
- Tennessee
- Maine
For more information, a nuclear power worker or a US Navy Veteran with confirmed mesothelioma, or their family members, are encouraged to call the Mesothelioma Compensation Center anytime at 800-714-0303 for their unsurpassed free services, or they can contact the group via its web site at http://MesotheliomaCompensationCenter.Com
The Mesothelioma Compensation Center specializes in assisting US Navy Veterans, power plant workers, shipyard workers, oil refinery workers, public utility workers, hydro-electric workers, chemical plant workers, nuclear power plant workers, manufacturing workers, oil and gas field production workers, plumbers, electricians, millwrights, pipefitters and welders who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma. In most instances these people were exposed to asbestos during the1950’s, 1960’s, 1970’s, or 1980’s.
US Navy Veterans account for a significant portion of all diagnosed victims of mesothelioma each year. The average age for a diagnosed victim of mesothelioma is about 70 years old. Each year between 2,500 and 3,000 US citizens will be diagnosed with mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is attributable to exposure to asbestos.
According to the CDC, the states indicated with the highest incidence of mesothelioma include Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, Louisiana, Washington, and Oregon. However, a nuclear power plant worker or Navy Veteran who worked on nuclear reactors with mesothelioma could live in any state including California, New York, Florida, Texas, Illinois, Ohio, Missouri, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, or Alaska.
For more information about mesothelioma please refer to the National Institutes of Health’s web site related to this rare form of cancer: https://www.cancer.gov/types/mesothelioma.
Media Contact:
Michael Thomas
800-714-0303
186798@email4pr.com
SOURCE Mesothelioma Compensation Center
Related Links
http://MesotheliomaCompensationCenter.Com
December 29, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
health, Legal, USA |
Leave a comment
A Response For People Using Record Cold U.S. Weather To Refute Climate Change, Forbes,
“……..Weekly or daily weather patterns tell you nothing about longer-term climate change (and that goes for the warm days too). Climate is defined as the statistical properties of the atmosphere: averages, extremes, frequency of occurrence, deviations from normal, and so forth. The clothes that you have on today do not describe what you have in your closet but rather how you dressed for today’s weather. ……
December 29, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
climate change, USA |
Leave a comment
nuclear-news 