U.S. election – views of Presidential candidates about nuclear weapons
Nuclear weapons — they’re still out there. Presidential candidates have ideas on them, San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko Dec. 1, 2019 , One topic that’s gotten little attention during the presidential campaign is the high-stakes issue of nuclear weapons. That’s partly because campaigns tend to focus on bread-and-butter issues, like health care and taxes. They largely steer clear of foreign policy, especially an aspect that’s downright terrifying.
One question that has surfaced is whether the United States, the only nation that has ever used atomic weapons, should reverse its policy and declare it would not strike the first nuclear blow in a future war.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has introduced legislation that would establish “no first use” of nuclear weapons as binding law. Sen. Bernie Sanders, independent-Vt., is a co-sponsor. Former Vice President Joe Biden told a public gathering in June that “I supported it 20 years before she introduced it.” Several other presidential hopefuls — Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii; entrepreneur Andrew Yang; spirituality author Marianne Williamson; billionaire Tom Steyer — have endorsed the concept.
The only Democratic candidate with a contrary view is Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, who said in the second presidential debate in July that “I wouldn’t want to take that (first use) off the table.”
But others — Sens. Kamala Harris of California, Cory Booker of New Jersey and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, and former U.S. Housing Secretary Julián Castro — have told interviewers in recent months that they hadn’t reviewed Warren’s proposal and weren’t ready to take a position on it.
The interviewers were from the Union of Concerned Scientists, which favors nuclear de-escalation and sent young people to campaign events to question the candidates.
One prominent candidate, South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, appears to have come down on both sides…….
Besides no first use, The Chronicle asked candidates about the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, signed by the United States in 1963 but never ratified by the Senate; the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, a disarmament pact endorsed by the U.N. General Assembly and ratified by 33 nations so far, but not by the United States or any other nuclear powers; and the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, a 1988 agreement between the Soviet Union and the United States under President Ronald Reagan that banned land-based ballistic missiles with a range of up to 3,400 miles. The Trump administration withdrew from that treaty in February.
Some candidates did not respond, including Warren, Harris and Booker. Among those who did, Sanders, Williamson and Steyer took the firmest positions in support of the weapons treaties……..
While Warren’s campaign did not reply to questions about the treaties, the senator has publicly opposed the nuclear buildup proposed by Obama and endorsed by Trump.
“No new nuclear weapons,” Warren said in a November 2018 speech on foreign policy. “We should not spend over a trillion dollars to modernize our nuclear arsenal, at a time when the president is doing everything he can to undermine generations of verified arms-control agreements.”
Perhaps some of those discussions will reach a public forum as the campaign continues. Bob Egelko is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: begelko@sfchronicle.com Twitter:@BobEgelko https://www.sfchronicle.com/nation/article/Nuclear-weapons-they-re-still-out-there-14873992.php
UK election. Nuclear power is a hot topic in Wales
 General election 2019: Nuclear power in Wales – what will parties do? BBC News, 2 December 2019 Pick up any of the main parties’ election manifestos and it is hard to escape pledges on the environment and climate change.The Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru all make promises ranging from a “green industrial revolution” to “decarbonisation”.
One question you have been asking is: What about nuclear power in Wales?….. Energy Island On Anglesey, nuclear has always been a hot potato of a topic – especially at election timeA lingering hope remains that a new plant will be built – and with it, more jobs – always a vote winner.
But there is also a vocal anti-nuclear lobby – they would rather see cash invested in wind, wave and solar technology, which is also a significant employer in a constituency that dubs itself ‘energy island‘…… The UK government’s research and innovation arm is pumping £18m into a consortium led by Rolls-Royce to develop low-cost, factory assembled small nuclear plants. Those involved hope they can use these sites to deliver “nuclear power at the price of wind”…… Where do the parties stand on nuclear? The Conservatives have been emphatically in favour of nuclear power – their manifesto states: “We will support gas for hydrogen production and nuclear energy, including fusion, as important parts of the energy system, alongside increasing our commitment to renewables.” Asked specifically about Wales – and Wylfa, the party said: “The Welsh Conservatives support Wyfla B and we believe that nuclear power will continue to play a vital role in meeting the energy needs of Wales and the UK in the coming decades. “We do not believe that Wales will need more nuclear power stations in addition to Wyfla.” Labour’s manifesto is equally clear in Wales – it is also backing nuclear power – insisting new nuclear is “needed for energy security”. On Wylfa Newydd – the party said: “The Tories have let down the people of Ynys Môn by failing to deliver the Wylfa project. Labour will work with people on the island to maximise its potential for new nuclear energy, alongside investment in renewables.” Plaid Cymru also addresses the issue – which is politically tricky for a party with an eye on recapturing Anglesey from Labour. Its manifesto states it will “oppose the development of new sites for nuclear power stations”. On Wylfa, the party said: “The question is hypothetical as the plans are currently suspended and no-one is proposing to underwrite the project. “Plaid Cymru opposes new nuclear projects and our priority is on the green jobs revolution – investing in renewables, creating tens of thousands of green collar jobs (including on Anglesey) and tackling the climate emergency.” The Liberal Democrats say they want to “decarbonise the power sector completely”. The party’s UK manifesto does not deal with the issue of nuclear energy directly – rather focusing on “supporting renewables”. But the Welsh party said there was currently “no economic or environmental case” to build any new nuclear plants in the UK. They went even further on Wylfa and new Welsh plants: “We therefore would not support a new nuclear site on Wylfa Newydd or new nuclear stations elsewhere in Wales.” However, because of the electoral pact with Plaid Cymru – the Welsh Liberal Democrats and the Green Party are not fielding candidates in Ynys Môn. The Green Party said nuclear energy was “a distraction from developing renewable energy”. It says it would “prohibit the construction of nuclear power stations” in its manifesto, ‘If Not Now, When’. UKIP’s manifesto states: “UK needs a mix of energy sources comprising nuclear, conventional and renewable”, while nuclear power does not feature in the Brexit Party’s election contract. https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50559046 [ This site invites questions] |
|
Disasters fuelled by climate change are the top driver of human displacement.
Nobody is immune’: Climate-fuelled disasters forcing millions from their homes, As the 25th UN climate summit gets underway in Spain, a new report by Oxfam has found disasters fuelled by climate change are the top driver of human displacement.
SBS NEWS BY CASSANDRA BAIN 2 DEC 19 More than 20 million people across the globe have been displaced by “climate-fuelled” disasters in the past decade, new research by Oxfam has revealed.The Oxfam report found people are three times more likely to be internally displaced by cyclones, floods and bushfires, than they are by conflict, and seven times more likely than earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.
It linked a number of recent catastrophic events to climate change, including Cyclone Winston which devastated Fiji in 2016, the prolonged drought in Guatemala, and recent bushfires across NSW and Victoria.
“The current bushfires in Australia have shown that nobody is immune to the impacts of the climate crisis,” Oxfam Australia climate change advisor Simon Bradshaw told SBS News.
“Our research reaffirms that communities in the Pacific face particularly severe impacts from global heating, including being forced from their homes by extreme weather disasters.”
The report found small island nations, including Fiji and some of Australia’s other Pacific neighbours, make up seven of the 10 countries facing the highest risk of internal displacement from extreme weather events.
On average, nearly five per cent of the populations of Tuvalu, Cuba and Dominica were displaced by extreme weather each year in the decade between 2008 and 2018.
Emissions per capita from developing small island nations are about a third of those of high-income countries.
We can see clearly that extreme weather disasters, many of which of course are being heavily exacerbated by the climate crisis, have been by far the biggest driver of displacement within countries over the last decade,” Mr Bradshaw said.
Mr Bradshaw said the report shone a light on the unequal impacts of the climate crisis across the globe.
It found people living in low-income countries such as India, Nigeria, and Bolivia are more than four times likely to be displaced by extreme weather disasters than people in richer countries, such as the United States or Australia…….
Oxfam is now calling on world leaders at COP25 to reduce their country’s carbon emissions and provide more support to help low-income communities recover from climate disasters.
During the summit, delegates from 125 countries will discuss climate-related challenges and progress towards the 2015 Paris Agreement, which aims to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius……. HTTPS://WWW.SBS.COM.AU/NEWS/NOBODY-IS-IMMUNE-CLIMATE-FUELLED-DISASTERS-FORCING-MILLIONS-FROM-THEIR-HOMES
COP 25 – a chance to avoid catastrophic climate change.
Earth has a couple more chances to avoid catastrophic climate change. This week is one of them https://theconversation.com/earth-has-a-couple-more-chances-to-avoid-catastrophic-climate-change-this-week-is-one-of-them-128120 Robert Hales
Director Centre for Sustainable Enterprise, Griffith University, December 3, 2019 Almost 200 world leaders gather in Madrid this week for climate talks which will largely determine the success of the Paris agreement, and by extension, the extent to which the planet will suffer under climate change.
Negotiations at the so-called COP25 will focus on finalising details of the Paris Agreement. Nations will haggle over how bold emissions reductions will be, and how to measure and achieve them.
Much is riding on a successful outcome in Madrid. The challenge is to get nations further along the road to the strong climate goals, without any major diplomatic rifts or a collapse in talks.
What COP25 is about
COP25 is a shorthand name for the 25th meeting of the Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (or the nations signed up to the Paris agreement).
After Paris was signed in 2015, nations were given five years in which to set out bolder climate action. Current targets expire in 2020. At next year’s November COP in Glasgow, nations will be asked to formally commit to higher targets. If Madrid does not successfully lay the groundwork for this, the Glasgow talks are likely to fail.
The United Nations says the world must reduce overall emissions by 7.6% every year over the next decade to have a high chance of staying under 1.5℃ warming this century.
The 1.5℃ limit is at the upper end of the Paris goal; warming beyond this is likely to lead to catastrophic impacts, including near-total destruction of the Great Barrier Reef.
Presently, emissions reduction targets of nations signed up to Paris put Earth on track for a 3.2℃ increase.
A global carbon market
Parties will debate the mechanism in the Paris agreement allowing emissions trading between nations, and via the private sector.
Such mechanisms could lower the global cost of climate mitigation, because emissions reduction in some nations is cheaper than in others. But there are concerns the trading regime may lack transparency and accountability.
Among the risks are that emissions cuts are “double counted” – meaning both the buying and selling nation count the cuts towards their targets, undermining the aims of the agreement.
Help for vulnerable nations
Small island states say COP25 is the last chance to take decisive action on global emissions reduction.
Fossil fuel burning in the developing world is largely responsible for the carbon dioxide that drives global warming. Developing nations are particularly vulnerable to the loss and damage caused by climate change.
Parties will discuss whether an international mechanism designed to assess and compensate for such damage is effective.
Developing nations are expected to contribute to the Green Climate Fund to help poorer nations cope with and mitigate climate change. Some 27 nations contributed US$9.78 billion in the last funding round.
Some nations have indicated they will not contribute further, including Australia, which says it already helps Pacific nations through its overseas aid program.
Arguments about cost
Nations opposed to adopting stronger emissions reduction targets often argue the costs of decarbonising energy sectors, and economies as a whole, are too high.
However, recent cost benefit analysis has found not taking action on climate change will be expensive in the long run.
Realisation is also growing that the cost of emissions reduction activities has been overestimated in the past. In Australia, prominent economist Ross Garnaut recently said huge falls in the cost of equipment for solar and wind energy has created massive economic opportunity, such as future manufacturing of zero-emission iron and aluminium.
The shift in the cost-balance means nations with low ambition will find it difficult to argue against climate mitigation on cost grounds.
Australia’s position at Madrid
At the Paris talks, Australia pledged emissions reduction of 26-28% by 2030, based on 2005 levels. The Morrison government has indicated it will not ramp up the goal.
About 68 nations said before COP25 they will set bolder emissions reduction targets, including Fiji, South Africa and New Zealand. This group is expected to exert pressure on laggard nations.
This pressure has already begun: France has reportedly insisted that a planned free trade deal between Australia and the European Union must include “highly ambitious” action on climate change.
The Climate Action Tracker says Australia is not contributing its fair share towards the global 1.5℃ commitment. Australia is also ranked among the worst performing G20 nations on climate action.
The Madrid conference takes place amid high public concern over climate change. Thousands of Australians took part in September’s climate strikes and the environment has reportedly surpassed healthcare, cost of living and the economy as the top public concern.
Climate change has already arrived in the form of more extreme weather and bushfires, water stress, sea level rise and more. These effects are a small taste of what is to come if negotiations in Madrid fail to deliver.
Johanna Nalau, Samid Suliman and Tim Cadman contributed to this article.
Rafael Mariano Grossi, new UN nuclear agency chief, states he will be“firm and fair” stance on Iran
|
New UN nuclear agency chief: “firm and fair” stance on Iran , https://www.yahoo.com/news/argentina-grossi-cleared-helm-un-102125633.html 2 Dec 19, VIENNA (AP) — The incoming head of the U.N.’s atomic watchdog agency said Monday he will take a “firm and fair” approach toward inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities, and plans to visit Tehran in the near future.Argentine diplomat Rafael Mariano Grossi’s comments came after he was confirmed as the new director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency unanimously at a special session. His four-year term begins on Tuesday.
The 58-year-old succeeds Yukiya Amano, who died in July, and takes over at a time when the nuclear deal between Iran and world powers is unraveling. The landmark 2015 deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action promised Iran economic incentives in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program. The IAEA’s role has been to inspect and verify Iran’s compliance with the deal. With the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the agreement last year and the imposition of new American sanctions, Iran’s economy has been struggling. So far, the other nations involved — France, Germany, Britain, China and Russia — have been unable to offset the effects, and Iran has slowly been violating the terms of the JCPOA. Tehran is, however, continuing to provide IAEA inspectors access. Grossi told reporters he expected to travel to Iran himself in the “relatively near future” to meet with leaders there. “It is really a priority,” he said of the situation in Iran, adding that his philosophy on inspection safeguards was to be “firm and fair.” Those “two guiding principles” apply not just to Iran, but to how the IAEA deals with everybody, though “different cases demand different approaches,” he said. “An inspector is not a friend. He’s someone who comes and needs to ascertain the facts without bias, without agenda, in an objective and impartial way,” Grossi said. “This has to be done in firmness, but in fairness as well.” Grossi became Argentina’s ambassador to the Vienna-based IAEA in 2013 and was previously the IAEA’s chief of cabinet under Amano. |
|
UN chief praises youth leadership on climate action, deplores government inaction
COP25: youth ‘leadership’ contrasts with government inaction, says UN chief, Ahead of Madrid climate change conference António Guterres says political will missing, Guardian, Fiona Harvey Environment correspondent, 2 Dec 19, António Guterres, the United Nations secretary general, contrasted the “leadership” and “mobilisation” shown by the world’s youth on the climate emergency with the lack of action by governments, which were failing to keep up with the urgency of the problem despite increasing signs that the climate was reaching breakdown.
Before the start of a critical conference on the climate crisis on Monday, he said the world had the technical and economic means to halt climate chaos, but what was missing was political will.
“The technologies that are necessary to make this possible are already available. Signals of hope are multiplying. Public opinion is waking up everywhere. Young people are showing remarkable leadership and mobilisation. [But we need] political will to put a price on carbon, political will to stop subsidies on fossil fuels [and start] taxing pollution instead of people.”
Guterres called for further investment from rich countries and support for poor nations to make the changes needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and cope with the impacts of global heating. Amid rising temperatures, wildfires, heatwaves, droughts and floods, the danger signals were clear and must be acted on without further delay, he said…..
The countries most at risk of deluge from climate chaos have issued an impassioned plea to the industrialised world ahead of crucial negotiations on the Paris agreement that start on Monday in Madrid.
“We see [these talks] as the last opportunity to take decisive action,” Janine Felson, deputy chair of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) told the Guardian.
“Anything short of vastly greater commitment to emission reduction, a new climate finance goal and tangible support for disaster risk reduction will signal a willingness to accept catastrophe.” https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/dec/01/island-states-want-decisive-action-to-prevent-inundation
Antarctic ice sheets could be at greater risk of melting than previously thought
|
|
|
Coal power becoming ‘uninsurable’ as firms refuse cover
Coal power becoming ‘uninsurable’ as firms refuse cover, US insurers join retreat from European insurers meaning coal projects cannot be built or operated, Guardian, Julia Kollewe, Mon 2 Dec 2019 The number of insurers withdrawing cover for coal projects more than doubled this year and for the first time US companies have taken action, leaving Lloyd’s of London and Asian insurers as the “last resort” for fossil fuels, according to a new report.The report, which rates the world’s 35 biggest insurers on their actions on fossil fuels, declares that coal – the biggest single contributor to climate change – “is on the way to becoming uninsurable” as most coal projects cannot be financed, built or operated without insurance.
Ten firms moved to restrict the insurance cover they offer to companies that build or operate coal power plants in 2019, taking the global total to 17, said the Unfriend Coal campaign, which includes 13 environmental groups such as Greenpeace, Client Earth and Urgewald, a German NGO. The report will be launched at an insurance and climate risk conference in London on Monday, as the UN climate summit gets underway in Madrid.
The first insurers to exit coal policies were all European, but since March, two US insurers – Chubb and Axis Capital – and the Australian firms QBE and Suncorp have pledged to stop or restrict insurance for coal projects.
At least 35 insurers with combined assets of $8.9tn, equivalent to 37% of the insurance industry’s global assets, have begun pulling out of coal investments. A year ago, 19 insurers holding more than $6tn in assets were divesting from fossil fuels…… https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/02/coal-power-becoming-uninsurable-as-firms-refuse-cover
Support candidates in 2020 who will work for nuclear disarmament
|
Support candidates in 2020 who will work for nuclear disarmament, https://www.thetimesnews.com/opinion/20191202/letter-support-candidates-in-2020-who-will-work-for-nuclear-disarmament?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter Anne Cassebaum It was good to hear Mikhail Gorbachev given some air time to speak of the unspoken. Current tension and permanent war, he warned, make the danger of nuclear weapons “colossal.”Nuclear weapons rarely make the news; recent worry about ours in Turkey was fleeting, so the danger is pushed back in many Americans’ consciousness. The result: Pentagon spending balloons, and the Trump administration carries forward President Obama’s plan to modernize our nuclear forces.
Modernization may sound good and even inevitable; it is neither. In fact, it will set off a new arms race of smaller nuclear weapons that are, imagine, “more usable.” And smaller means reduced to Hiroshima and Nagasaki-sized bombs that killed more than 200,000 people. The price tag for this 30-year modernization is $1.2 trillion and rising. The beneficiaries will be weapons producers, such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing, for whom the Pentagon budget acts as an ATM, as one researcher quipped. We could be pursuing disarmament treaties and diplomacy. Money siphoned for endless oil wars and weapons buildup could instead create jobs in green energy and deal with climate change, which, like radioactivity, respects no borders. Any nuclear exchange would be a climate crisis of its own. As Gorbachev put it, ” … nuclear weapons should be destroyed. This is to save ourselves and our planet.” The 2020 elections offer a time to consider candidates who see a new arms race as insanity, not security.
|
|
|
Nuclear Weapons: The Lies and Broken Promises
US Cover for Israel
Early in the morning of September 22, 1979, a US satellite recorded a double flash near the Prince Edward Islands in the South Atlantic. The satellite, a Vela 5B, carries a device called a “bhangmeter” whose purpose is to detect nuclear explosions. Sent into orbit following the signing of the Partial Test Ban Treaty in 1963, its job was to monitor any violations of the agreement. The treaty banned nuclear explosions in the atmosphere, underwater, and in space.
Nuclear explosions have a unique footprint. When the weapon detonates, it sends out an initial pulse of light. But as the fireball expands, it cools down for a few milliseconds, then spikes again.
“Nothing in nature produces such a double-humped light flash,” says Victor Gilinsky. “The spacing of the hump gives an indication of the amount of energy, or yield, released by the explosion.” Gilinsky was a member of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and a former Rand Corporation physicist.
From Carter onward, every US president has covered up the Israeli violation of the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty, as well as the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). So when Netanyahu says Iran is lying about its nuclear program, much of the rest of the world — i
ncluding the US nuclear establishment — roll their eyes.
Nuclear Apartheid
As for President Erdogan, he is perfectly correct that the nuclear powers have broken the promise they made back in 1968 when the signed the NPT. Article VI of that agreement calls for an end to the nuclear arms race and the abolition of nuclear weapons. Indeed, in many ways, Article VI is the heart of the NPT. Non-nuclear armed countries signed the agreement, only to find themselves locked into a system of “nuclear apartheid” — where they agreed not to acquire such weapons of mass destruction, while China, Russia, the United Kingdom, France and the US get to keep theirs.
The “big five” not only kept their weapons, but they are also all in the process of upgrading and expanding them. The US is meanwhile shedding other agreements, like the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force Agreement. Washington is also getting ready to abandon the START treaty that limits the US and Russia to a set number of warheads and long-range strategic launchers.
What is amazing is that only four other countries have abandoned the NPT: Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and India (only the latter three have been sanctioned by the US). But that situation cannot hold forever, especially since part of Article VI calls for general disarmament, a pledge that has been honored in the breach. The US currently has nearly the largest defense budget in its history and spends as much on its military as 144 other countries combined……..
If the US were willing to cover up the 1979 Israeli test while sanctioning other countries that acquire nuclear weapons, why would anyone think that this is nothing more than hypocrisy on the subject of proliferation? And if the NPT is simply a device to ensure that other countries cannot defend themselves from other nations’ conventional and/or nuclear forces, why would anyone sign on or stay in the treaty?
Erdogan may be bluffing. He loves bombast and uses it effectively to keep his foes off balance. The threat may be a strategy for getting the US to back off on its support for Israel and Greece in their joint efforts to develop energy sources in the eastern Mediterranean Sea.
But Turkey also has security concerns. In his speech, Erdogan pointed out, “There is Israel just beside us. Do they have [nuclear weapons]? They do.” He went on to say that if Turkey did not respond to Israeli “bullying,” in the region, “we will face the prospect of losing our strategic superiority in the region.”
Iran may be lying about the scope of its nuclear ambitions — although there is no evidence that Tehran is making a serious run at producing a nuclear weapon — but if they are, they’re in good company with the Americans and the Israelis.
The Path to Sanity
Sooner or later, someone is going to set off one of those nukes. The likeliest candidates are India and Pakistan, although use by the US and China in the South China Sea is not out of the question. Neither is a dustup between NATO and Russia in the Baltic.
It is easy to blame the current resident of the White House for world tensions, except that the major nuclear powers have been ignoring their commitments on nuclear weapons and disarmament for over 50 years.
The path back to sanity is thorny but not impossible. First, the US should rejoin the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, thus making Russia’s medium-range missiles unnecessary, and reduce tensions between the US and China by withdrawing ABM systems from Japan and South Korea.
Second, the US should reinstate the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Agreement and find a way to bring China, India and Pakistan into it. That will require a general reduction of US military forces in Asia, coupled with an agreement with China to back off on its claims over most of the South China Sea. Tensions between India and Pakistan would be greatly reduced by simply fulfilling the UN pledge to hold a referendum in Kashmir. The latter would almost certainly vote for independence.
Third, the US must continue its adherence to the START agreement, while the “big five” countries need to halt the modernization of their existing arsenals — and begin, at long last, to implement Article VI of the NPT in regards to both nuclear and conventional forces.
Pie in the sky? Well, it beats a mushroom cloud.
Climate activists protest Black Friday shopping sprees
Climate Activists Protest Black Friday Around the World https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2019/11/climate-activists-protest-black-friday-around-the-world/
27 people were arrested in New York City while calling for action to fight climate change. NATHALIE BAPTISTE ON BLACK FRIDAY,
Climate change activists in cities all over the planet took to the streets to decry the biggest shopping day of the year.According to the New York Post, 300 protesters marched down a busy street in New York City then blocked traffic near Herald Square by sitting in an intersection. Police arrested 27 people after they refused to clear the road. Law enforcement said the individuals would be charged with disorderly conduct.
Protests were widespread across Europe. In France, protesters targeted Amazon’s French headquarters. Other climate demonstrators protested at a shopping center in Paris. At a Lyon protest, video captured riot police dragging protesters. In the United Kingdom, protesters chanted outside of shopping centers.
1 This Month.
5 January -Webinar-What is Trump’s Golden Dome?
REGISTER AT Massachusetts Peace Action Education
New book – https://www.amazon.com/dp/1923372157?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- December 2025 (293)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
- January 2025 (250)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 