TODAY. SMRs underground – long drop nuclear toilets? – a chance to use that beaut new word – enshittification
Yes, I learned that Word of the Year 2024 – Macquarie only yesterday, and have been dying to use it. So, thanks to NucNet – Small Modular Reactors / Underground Plants ‘Could Be Built In City Centres’ 27/11/24 – I have now got a most appropriate opportunity.
“Small modular reactors (SMRs) should be built underground, including in city centres, to protect them from military attacks, seismic activity and other natural hazards, according to a new academic study.“
Gee, that’s nice. Deep Fission, a startup based in Berkeley, California, has raised funding to start this idea – “The concept is simple yet groundbreaking: build a small nuclear reactor just 30 inches wide and lower it into a mile-deep drill shaft. This approach could sidestep the immense costs and safety concerns that have long plagued traditional nuclear power.”
Yay! It’s a simple idea – a “small” nuclear reactor, a mile under the city centre, doesn’t need a containment cover – “a cost-effective, scalable solution to the world’s energy needs“.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) defines ‘small’ as under 300 MWe, – but that’s got a bit blurry lately. NuScale’s (failed) small nuclear reactor project was for 462 MWe.
But anyway, isn’t it a relief to know that our cities can have the Artificial Intelligence data centres quite handily placed with the “small” nuclear reactors tucked away underneath us? And of course, it’s all going to be so very cheap. Although, If the SMRs are really only 30 inches wide, we might need quite a lot of them, to meet all our energy needs, not just the data centre’s needs. Will that be cheap?
But – wait a minute? Why do they need to be a mile underground? I thought that the beloved, though not yet existing, small nuclear reactors were already so very safe and so cheap.
Safety has been the big selling point for SMRs. The top nuclear marketing body – The International Atomic Energy Agency tells us of their wonderful safety features – Passive cooling systems , Fewer mechanical parts , Auto fail safe , Increased safety margins . Lower power output. The IAEA means that SMRs are safer than big reactors. (Oh dear – it does not mean that they are safer than wind and solar power.!)
So – everybody has been enthused over the safety of these not-yet-existing nuclear gimmicks – but now we’re being told that they might be a target for military or terrorist attacks and natural hazards.
So – underground will be fine? With climate change – what about flooding? Oh dear – the marketing story for the nuclear industry moves further into confusion. Thank you, Macquarie Dictionary for that so applicable term – “enshittification”. And I like their second choice, too – “brainrot”
France is weighing zero-interest loan for 6 nuclear reactors, sources say
- Summary
- EDF faces financing challenges due to high debt and project delays
- French government faces no-confidence vote over budget with spending cuts
- EU approval needed for state aid in nuclear projects
PARIS, Nov 27(Reuters) Reporting by Benjamin Mallet; additional reporting by Leigh Thomas; writing by Dominique Patton; editing by Nina Chestney and Tomasz Janowski- https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/france-is-weighing-zero-interest-loan-6-nuclear-reactors-sources-say-2024-11-27/
French officials are drawing up plans to provide an interest-free loan to state-owned power utility EDF to finance a significant portion of the construction of six new nuclear reactors, two people familiar with the matter said.
The financing would clear a major hurdle for one of the country’s biggest public projects in years.
The plans are similar to financing agreed recently for a single reactor in the Czech Republic, and although the size of the loan is not yet known, it shows the growing need for state support in financing new nuclear projects in Europe.
The plans also include a long-term guaranteed price for the power generated, known as a contract for difference (CfD), said the people, who declined to be identified because they are not authorised to speak with media.
The Ministry of Finance and EDF declined to comment.
The discussions on financing the projects that could cost well over 50 billion euros ($52.60 billion) come as the French government faces a potential no-confidence vote over a proposed budget that contains measures to cut spending and raise taxes to contain the country’s soaring debt.
President Emmanuel Macron announced plans in early 2022 for six new reactors with a total production capacity of about 10 gigawatts to partly replace an ageing nuclear fleet and secure future energy supplies.
Construction of the first reactor is due to start in 2027 but Macron has never said who would pay for the project, which at the time was estimated to cost around 52 billion euros. Recent media reports suggest costs may be higher, reaching as much as 67 billion euros.
France’s current 57 nuclear reactors in operation were largely financed by EDF, which was a publicly-listed company until it was fully nationalised last year.
But the company is unlikely to be able to secure private financing for new projects, given its already high debt, and there have been multiple delays and cost overruns at recent projects like Flamanville in France and Hinkley Point in England.
CZECH MODEL
While there is general agreement to provide a zero-interest loan to EDF during the construction phase, the amount is not yet decided and there are still “intense discussions” on matters such as the sharing of risk between the utility and the state from any additional costs and delays, one of the sources said.
The plan also needs approval from the finance minister once EDF submits a final costing for the projects, expected early next year.
As a form of state aid, it also needs to be cleared by the European Commission.
French officials have been encouraged, however, by Brussels’ approval for a similar financing structure for one 1 gigawatt Czech unit at Dukovany, the sources said.
Under the Czech arrangement, interest on a state loan increases to at least 2% after the plant begins operating.
Europe is seeing a resurgence of interest in nuclear power projects, with nations including Poland and the UK planning new plants to shore up their energy self-sufficiency after a major energy crisis in the region.
Financing remains a huge challenge, with construction risks weighing on utilities’ balance sheets and credit ratings.
The British government recently pledged more than 5.5 billion pounds ($6.93 billion) to help fund early development of the 3.2 GW Sizewell C project.
Another project in Britain, EDF’s 3.2 GW Hinkley Point C plant, which is expected to cost between 31 billion pounds and 34 billion pounds based on 2015 values, is also backed by a contract for difference scheme.
($1 = 0.9506 euros)
($1 = 0.7931 pounds)
“Israel Wants Wars”: Gideon Levy on Lebanon Ceasefire, Gaza & Gov’t Sanctions Against Haaretz
Democracy Now, 27 Nov 24
Gideon LevyIsraeli journalist and author. Lina MounzerLebanese writer and editor.
We’re joined by Israeli journalist Gideon Levy as we continue our conversation on the Israeli-Lebanon ceasefire. We take a look at the mood within Israel, where Levy characterizes the Israeli public as “sour” about what is seen as a premature deal. “They would like to see more blood, more destruction in Lebanon,” says Levy. “Israel wants wars.” This retributive stance is still being felt in Lebanon, adds writer Lina Mounzer, who says Lebanese people are “very terrified of the day after” and do not feel that they have been awarded peace, despite the terms of the ceasefire.
Meanwhile, the Israeli government has unanimously voted to sanction the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, claiming that its editorials “have hurt the legitimacy of the state of Israel and its right to self defense.” Haaretz has criticized the move, which comes just months after Israel banned the international media outlet Al Jazeera, as anti-democratic. Levy, a columnist for Haaretz, says the sanction makes it clear that Israelis cannot take the freedom of speech “for granted anymore.”
Media Options
Transcript……………………………………………………………………………………….. more https://www.democracynow.org/2024/11/27/israel_lebanon_ceasefire_haaretz
The United States Raises a Middle Finger to the International Criminal Court
As the International Criminal Court finally issues arrest warrants for Israeli leaders Netanyahu and Gallant, the United States confirms it has no regard for international law or a genuine rules-based order.
28 November 2024 tricontinental,
Finally, before history ends, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The indictment stated that there ‘are reasonable grounds to believe that both individuals intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival, including food, water, and medicine and medical supplies, as well as fuel and electricity’. The court found sufficient reasons to believe that the two men ‘bear criminal responsibility’ for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare, the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts, and the war crime of intentionally directing an attack against a civilian population. Almost immediately, US President Joe Biden condemned the court’s actions, stating that the ‘ICC issuance of arrest warrants against Israeli leaders is outrageous’. The United States, Biden said, ‘will always stand with Israel’………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… more https://thetricontinental.org/newsletterissue/icc-arrest-warrants-israel/
‘Unprecedented’ climate extremes are everywhere. Our baselines for what’s normal will need to change
November 28, 2024 , https://theconversation.com/unprecedented-climate-extremes-are-everywhere-our-baselines-for-whats-normal-will-need-to-change-244298
Extreme temperature and rainfall events are increasing around the world, including Australia. What makes them extreme is their rarity and severity compared to the typical climate.
A region’s “climate” is defined by a 30-year average of mainly rainfall and temperature. Increasingly, these climate definitions have become less appropriate – we need to look at events over shorter time periods to gain a more accurate picture.
We can see this in the recent worldwide proliferation of extreme flooding and prolonged heatwaves.
Using southern Australia as a prime example, our newly published research in Academia Environmental Sciences and Sustainability shows that machine learning techniques can help identify key climate drivers, supporting a redefinition of climate in a warming world.
Increasing ‘flash’ events
In Australia, eastern coastal regions of Queensland and New South Wales continue to receive record downpours and flash floods, interspersed by dry periods of a few months to a few years.
In stark contrast, southern coastal regions are drying and facing more extreme heatwaves. With already parched vegetation and catastrophic fire dangers, this region is experiencing drought conditions due to decreased cool season rainfall and increased temperatures.
Notably, flash droughts and flash floods have adversely affected both agricultural crop yields and grazing pasture quality. Flash droughts greatly reduce moisture for germination. Flash floods ruin crops close to harvest time.
The problem with these “flash” events is just how difficult they are to forecast. To make more accurate seasonal and annual predictions for rainfall and temperatures, we need to update our climate models. But how do we know which climate drivers need to be included?
Seeking a new normal
To keep track of typical climate conditions and provide context for weather and climate forecasts, the World Meteorological Organization uses a set of data products known as climatological standard normals.
They define climate as averages of monthly, seasonal and annual weather-related variables such as temperature and rainfall, over consecutive 30-year periods.
Climate normals can be used to assess how typical of the current climate a particular event was in a given location. It’s how we arrive at temperature anomalies.
For example, to tell whether a year was relatively “hot” or “cool”, we look at the anomaly – the difference between the average temperature for the calendar year in question, compared to the climate normal.
But extreme variations are now occurring in periods of ten years or even shorter. Consequently, multiple increases and decreases can cancel each other out over a 30-year period. This would hide the large changes in statistics of weather variables within that period.
For example, large rainfall changes in average monthly, seasonal and annual amounts can be hidden within 30-year averages. Global warming often amplifies or diminishes the impacts of multiple climate driver phases within approximately ten-year periods. When averaged over 30 consecutive years, some information is lost.
What did we find?
Over the past decade or so, machine learning (where computers learn from past data to make inferences about the future) has become a powerful tool for detecting potential links between global warming and extreme weather events. This is referred to as attribution.
Machine learning techniques are simple to code and are well-suited to the highly repetitive task of searching through numerous combinations of observational data for possible triggers of severe weather events.
In our new study, machine learning helped us untangle the dominant climate drivers responsible for recent flash flood rainfall on the east coast of Australia, and a lack of rainfall on the southern coast.
Along the southern coast, the cool season from May to October is typically produced by mid-latitude westerly winds. In recent years these winds were farther away from the Australian continents, resulting in the recent drought of 2017–19 and flash drought of 2023–24.
In contrast, after the 2020–22 La Niña, the east coast continues to experience wetter conditions. These come from generally higher than average sea-surface temperatures off the east coast and Pacific Ocean, due to the presence of onshore winds.
Machine learning identified the dominant drivers of the scenario above: the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, the Southern Annular Mode, the Indian Ocean Dipole, and both local and global sea surface temperatures.
A key finding was the prominence of global warming as an attribute, both individually and in combination with other climate drivers. Climate drivers and their combinations can change with increasing global warming over shorter periods that contain extremes of climate. Hence, the use of 30-year periods as climate normals becomes less useful.
Finding regional attributes for better forecasting
Climate models often disagree on the climate drivers likely to be relevant to extreme events.
A key feature of machine learning is the ability to deal with multi-source data by identifying regional attributes. We can combine possible climate-driver predictors with high-resolution climate model predictions, especially after the climate model data are downsized to cover specific regions of concern. This can help with extreme event forecasting at a local scale.
Scientists are continuously developing new methods for applying machine learning to weather and climate prediction.
The scientific consensus is that global warming has dramatically increased the frequency of extreme rainfall and temperature events. However, the impacts are not uniform across the world, or even across Australia. Some regions have been more affected than others.
Currently there is no single alternative definition to the traditional 30-year climate normal, given the variable impacts across the planet. Each region will need to determine its own relevant climate time period definition – and machine learning tools can help.
Ceasefire Falters as Israel Launches Airstrikes, Artillery Shelling on Southern Lebanon
Israel says ‘suspects’ in vehicles violate ceasefire by trying to return home
by Jason Ditz November 28, 2024, https://news.antiwar.com/2024/11/28/ceasefire-falters-as-israel-launches-airstrikes-artillery-shelling-on-southern-lebanon/
The Israel-Lebanon ceasefire began Wednesday morning. Less than two days later, it seems to be faltering, with multiple reports of Israeli attacks across southern Lebanon, and claims of violations by both sides.
Israel carried out an airstrike against the outskirts of Baysariyeh, which is near Tyre. They confirmed the attack, saying they were targeting a Hezbollah storage facility after seeing “terrorist activity.” They added in their statement that they were “acting to enforce violations of the ceasefire.”
Though the claims of violations are coming from both sides, so far it is only Israeli forces whose violations actually involve firing. Lebanese people continue to try to return to their homes in the south, despite Israel’s military forbidding them to do so.
There are multiple reports of Israel carrying out artillery shelling against towns and villages across southern Lebanon this afternoon. Strikes were reported against the towns of Halta, Taybeh, Khiam, and Rmeish. In Rmeish the attack damaged a supermarket and a home. Three were injured in Taybeh.
There were also reported Israeli tank shellings in several places, including the village of Markaba. In that incident, a car was attacked and multiple civilians were wounded. Israeli ground troops also opened fire on vehicles multiple times across southern Lebanon, incidents which happened both on Wednesday and Thursday.
Israel presented the people they were shooting at as a “number of suspects,” and said that any vehicles in southern Lebanon amount to a ceasefire violation. There is no indication vehicles are actually forbidden by the terms of the ceasefire. Shooting at people, as Israel has been throughout the day, is plainly a violation, however.
Transfer of nukes to Kiev would be viewed as attack on Russia – Medvedev
Rt.com 26 Nov 24
The former president’s warning follows reports that discussions have been held in the US about Ukraine obtaining a nuclear arsenal .
Moscow will consider any threat of nuclear arms being supplied to Ukraine by the US as preparation for a direct war with Russia, former president Dmitry Medvedev has warned. The actual transfer of nuclear weapons would be tantamount to an attack on the country under Russia’s new nuclear doctrine, he added.
In a Telegram post on Tuesday, Medvedev referenced a recent report in the New York Times. In a piece bylined by four of its journalists, the NYT claimed that US and EU officials are “discussing deterrence as a security guarantee” for Ukraine, claiming a conversation is underway to consider giving Ukraine nuclear weapons.
US politicians and journalists are seriously discussing the consequences of providing Kiev with nuclear weapons, said Medvedev, who serves as the deputy chair of the Russian Security Council…………………………………………………………………………………………………… more https://www.rt.com/russia/608212-medvedev-nukes-transfer-ukraine/
The Antisemitism Awareness Act Is the Death Knell for Free Speech
Mike Whitney • November 21, 2024, The Unz Review
Freedom of speech is the principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins….Ben Franklin.
The Antisemitism Awareness Act is a wrecking ball designed to pulverize the First Amendment. While the alleged intention of the bill is to make Jewish students feel safer on campus, the real purpose is to put an end to the anti-genocide demonstrations that have broken out across the country and to prevent the criticism of Israel. The proposed bill invokes a dodgy legal mechanism to derail the protests and to silence Israel’s critics. By using a broad and ambiguous definition of antisemitism, the bill compels university administrators to crackdown on free speech invoking sketchy claims of discrimination. Political analyst Paul Craig Roberts summed it up like this: “if universities …don’t suppress student protests against Israel’s massacre of civilians in Gaza and Lebanon they will lose their accreditation and federal financial support.” In short, universities are being encouraged to quash the free expression of political ideas to preserve their federal funding. This helps to illustrate how Zionist lobbyists are now engaged in a full-throated assault on constitutionally protected civil liberties, namely free speech.
The bill—which already passed the House with a sizable majority—shows how the charge of antisemitism can be used as a coercive political tool to silence Israel’s critics. That is why civil liberties organizations—like the ACLU, PEN America, the Alliance Defending Freedom and even Jewish groups like Bend the Arc and T’ruah—strongly oppose the bill based on free speech grounds. Even so, this attack on constitutionally protected rights has a good chance of passing the senate due to the arm twisting of powerful interest groups that have their tentacles wrapped tightly around both houses of congress. Here’s a brief summary from political analyst Guy Christensen:
The House just passed the Antisemitism Awareness Act which will shut down college protests against Israel and silence all future criticism of the state of Israel. The law literally redefines antisemitism as criticizing the state of Israel and makes it a violation of Title 6 to do so. The purpose of this is to allow politicians to pull federal funding from colleges who don’t stop these college protests and let their students continue to criticize Israel.
We must speak out against the Antisemitism Awareness Act. This is insanity. These people are full-on Zionists trying to silence free speech here in America, trying to silence criticism of the oppression of the Palestinians, criticism of the state of Israel that murdered 14,000 children.
Like I said, the guy who wrote the bill, Mike Lawler, is funded by AIPAC $180,000 (he said to NBC News when talking about this bill.) When you hear “River to the sea, Palestine will be free” that is calling for the eradication of the Jews in the state of Israel. (They are) Literally trying to make it illegal to criticize Israel.
If you don’t know how Title 6 works, all federally funded programs and institutions must follow it or they won’t receive any more federal funding. This includes US colleges and K through 12 schools who are very strict about following Title 6 because they need that funding. They can’t go without it. So, if we let this become law, it would force US colleges to shut down all these protests immediately.
This contends for the most outrageous bill for Israel the government has ever tried to pass. I will not vote or say a kind word about any politician who voted in favor of this bill…. (your representative ) care more about Israel than they care about your free speech. What they are doing is incredibly dangerous. Zionists are scared because American public opinion is changing. Students across the country are protesting against Israel. You know they’re scared because this is one of the boldest things they’ve ever tried to do…..AIPAC and the pro-Israel lobby is behind all of this. Ban AIPAC Stop the Antisemitism Awareness Act. We have to protect our free speech and our right to protest against evil. YourFavoriteGuy@guychristensen_
Not surprisingly, President Donald Trump—whose campaign was given $100 million by a strident Zionist donor—confirmed that he will aggressively implement the blatantly unconstitutional law by cancelling the funding of any college that tolerates the anti-genocide protests. He further stated that he will prosecute the universities for, what he calls, “violations of the civil rights law.” In other words, it is not the tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians that have been killed by Israel who are the victims, but the Jewish university students who feel “unsafe.” (Note—Trump refers to the protestors views as “antisemitic propaganda”)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………more https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/the-antisemitism-awareness-act-is-the-death-knell-for-free-speech/
Hinkley Point C: Hundreds down tools over concerns
By Seth Dellow, Bridgwater Mercury 28th Nov 2024
HUNDREDS of workers at Hinkley Point C have stood down today over unresolved concerns.
The action short of strike began at 9am this morning with workers claiming it concerns fingerprint scanners in a small area on site. They have claimed there are only five scanners serving 13,000 workers on site but this is strongly denied by EDF which runs the Hinkley Point site. Electricians, pipe fitters and welders are all said to have walked out.
The number of affected workers could be up to 1,600 as the action only involves some of the MEH workers on site. MEH has contracted staff doing work on the Hinkley Point site.
Earlier, workers claimed between 2,000 and 6,000 workers had walked out.
One electrician, who spoke anonymously to the Bridgwater Mercury, said that workers were “being taken advantage of.”
The nuclear power station is already behind schedule and is expected to be operational between 2029 to 2031.
Workers are planning on taking full strike action on Monday, December 2, 2024, as they say they will be blocked from entering the site because of their actions today.
It follows recent strike action which saw EDF workers walk out over pay concerns. ………………
https://www.bridgwatermercury.co.uk/news/24757425.hinkley-point-c-6-000-workers-walk-concerns/
Why Bunkers Won’t Save The Super Rich
Inside the doomsday culture of the elites.
- Jessica Wildfire, November 26 2024, https://www.the-sentinel-intelligence.net/why-bunkers-wont-save-the-super-rich/?ref=ok-doomer-newsletter
If you ever wonder if you’re taking the end of the world too seriously, you can always google “doomsday bunkers” and see what the billionaires are up to. Also, Germany just started designing an app to help its citizens find a fallout shelter in case Putin ever makes good on his nuclear threats.
Five years…
That’s how long you’d last in the Survival Condo, a luxury bunker built into an abandoned missile silo. It’s what Bradley Garrett describes as a geoscraper, an inverse skyscraper designed to withstand the collapse of civilization. This thing has everything a disaster movie could want.
The operation is run by Larry Hall, a former military contractor and entrepreneur who once designed hardened data centers.
From House Beautiful:
There’s a general store, an indoor pool and spa, a gym, medical first aid center, a library, a classroom, a bar and more.
But features like the direct shooting range, digital weather station, monolithic dome cap, and security command center remind guests of the structure’s war zone history. “The mission is to protect residents from a whole wide range of threats,” Hall said. “Everything from viral or bacterial threats and chemicals to volcanic ash, meteors, solar flares and civil unrest,” he says.
The place also has at least one remote-controlled rifle turret. As the guy in charge says, “You can kill people like it’s a video game.” I wouldn’t be surprised if they’ll have drones and robots soon. This underground fortress also boasts three military-grade air filtration systems, at $30,000 each.
The cost of a suite here runs into the millions.
A Saudi Prince tried to buy one of Hall’s latest projects outright. He turned them down out of principle. As Hall himself admits, any bunker needs social cohesion to ensure survival. Even at the end of the world, people need to feel normal. Otherwise, they go bonkers… inside their bunkers.
Over the last decade, prepping has turned into a multi-billion dollar industry, filled with companies ready to capitalize on everyone’s growing sense of dread about the future. And yet, nobody does it like the rich. They’re spending millions of dollars on bunker palaces with moats, water cannons, and secret tunnels lined with flame throwers. I’m not even kidding.
Read this:
“The client [a business mogul] was saying, ‘I want to make sure that no one can get to my family,’ so we wound up literally building a 30-foot-deep lake [around the compound] skimmed with a lighter-than-water flammable liquid that can transform into a ring of fire.”
When they’re not preparing for the end of the world, the rich can use their water canons to play games or “blow rainbows in the air.”
Yep, some bunkers double as theme parks.
Obviously, it’s no fun to have a bunker if you can’t show it off to all your rich friends. According to a 2017 piece in The New Yorker, that’s exactly what the bankers and hedge fund managers do. They get together over wine.
They brag about their doomsday plans.
Luxury bunkers surged in popularity at the start of the pandemic, but they have a long heritage. Governments around the world have built thousands of them over the last century with hundreds of billions in taxpayer money. As militaries abandon the originals for better designs, the ultra rich have been snatching them up and flipping them. There’s a real booming dooming market for apocalyptic real estate, explored by Garrett in his book Bunker.
Yeah, bunker flipping.
It’s a thing.
If Douglas Rushkoff’s Survival of The Richest whet your curiosity for the doomsday culture of the super rich, then Bunker satisfies it and then some. Toward the end, I was going, “Jeez another one…?”
(That’s a good thing.)
With enough subtility to avoid pissing off his interview subjects, Bradley Garrett answers every question I ever had about bunkers, specifically if they even stood a chance of surviving real doom.
Let’s dig in.
Unidentified drones continue to fly over US military bases in UK
American air force still investigating ‘small unmanned aerial systems’, days
after troops and counter-drone measures were deployed.
Times 27th Nov 2024, https://www.thetimes.com/uk/defence/article/drones-over-uk-us-military-bases-ongoing-vcr3vjtq0
Donald Trump’s quick trip to absolute dictatorship
November 27, 2024: The AIM Network. Noel Wauchope, https://theaimn.com/donald-trumps-quick-trip-to-absolute-dictatorship/
Comparisons are odious, particularly between Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler. I must be plain from the start, that these individuals have had completely different aims and ideology.
The comparisons I’m making here are just about methods of gaining absolute power. And here, I think, there are parallels. And we can learn, from Hitler, how Trump could well go about attaining dictatorship status – way faster than people realise.
Trump and Hitler do have this in common – a reckless ruthlessness about destroying institutions and crossing boundaries. And both had earlier associations with street violence – Hitler with his Brown Shirts, and the Beer Hall Putsch, and Trump, less obviously, with the Proud Boys and the Capitol attack on January 6th 2021.
Hitler became dictator by very quickly using legitimate political mechanisms, and Trump will be able to do the same.
Hitler, moving towards purging his movement of the Brown Shirts, gained much public support, and business interests saw him as a force to stop street violence, and a protector and support of property and business. Meanwhile, largely thanks to the genius of Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda machine flourished, exploiting the latest technology, – radio, and aircraft – “Hitler over Germany”. By 1933 the German economy was recovering, and Hitler’s success in elections did in fact drop, but his National Socialist Party still held a third of the seats in the Reichstag.
Here’s where it got interesting, and it all took just 7 and a half weeks.
30 January 1933 – Hitler was appointed Chancellor. The role of the Chancellor, while being symbolically like the role of the British Prime Minister, was in fact, quite limited. The real power was in the President. President von Hindenburg, bowing to pressure, was persuaded that Hitler could indeed be controlled, by giving him the status of Chancellor.
-Advertisement-
27 February 1933 – the German parliament (Reichstag) building burned down. Without going into the discussion on who caused the fire – it was the trigger for Hitler to persuade von Hindenburg to issue the Reichstag Fire Decree – Emergency Decree for the Protection of the German People, on 28 February, declaring a state of emergency, and abolishing most civil liberties, including the rights to speak, assemble, protest, and due process.
23 March 1933, Hitler proposed the Enabling Law to the Reichstag. This new law, passed on 24 March, gave Chancellor Hitler the power to rule by decree rather than passing laws through the Reichstag and the President. He was now effectively the dictator.
We could go on from there – listing Hitler’s dictatorial actions – National Socialists the only party permitted, trade unions disbanded. Any autonomous states lost those powers – officials appointed as state governors – and much, much more.
July 1934 – Hitler becomes “Fuehrer” – the finishing touch. With the death of President von Hindenburg, Hitler abolishes the now powerless position of “President”.
What has all this got to do with Trump?
Admittedly, the burning down of the Reichstag was a key factor, and we’re not expecting Capitol Hill to burn down. But the thing is that Hitler was at least a super-opportunist, even if the Nazis did not purposely cause this event. If it hadn’t been this event, probably something else could be triggered for a “state of emergency”. So, it would also be very beneficial to Trump- and save a lot of time, if some suitable “event” were to justify Trump, (also a super-opportunist) to declare emergency powers.
In the meantime, Trump is already working on removing the powers of the Department of Justice, and has various avenues open for him to take quick executive action. The President can issue executive orders. There are checks and balances, but these rely on the Supreme Court, and the Congress. So, Trump, with a majority in Congress has freedom – ‘I have an Article 2 where I have the right to do whatever I want as president’.
Trump’s plan for a radical reorganization of the executive branch starts with ending “the post-Watergate norm of Justice Department independence from White House political control.”
Trump will be very careful about which officials he appoints – due to constitutional “checks and balances”. He’d need to pick a compliant Acting Attorney General. The obstacles to be eliminated include an independent Justice Department, independent leadership in administrative agencies and an independent civil service. Trump’s plan would substitute loyalty to him for loyalty to the Constitution.” In 2020 Trump called for the “termination of … the Constitution.”
In the USA, theoretically, there are constraints on the President’s power. But, as in Germany in the 1930s, the leader has already arranged for the administration and every government department to be run by his sycophants.
Also, as in Hitler’s Germany, Trump has extraordinary influence over media, especially social media. Hitler had the brilliance of Goebbels to swamp the public with his lies and spin. Trump is almost one better – he does it all himself.
So – there are similarities between Hitler and Trump in the way to gain absolute power. There’s the opportunism, the clique of dedicated sycophants, the inspired exploitation of new technology, of new media, the reckless crossing of normal boundaries, and the background of violence, (with the potential for violence again).
The differences between them are striking. Hitler had a coherent almost mystical theory – involving war – to gain world domination for the master “Aryan” race, and to eliminate the Jews and other “Untermenschen”. To a large extent, Hitler’s close associates shared that dream, even if jostling for power between each other– Goebbels, Hess, Himmler, Goering, Speer, von Ribbentrop, Heydrich, Bormann. They more or less held to Hitler’s philosophy, and feared Hitler if they stepped out of line. Quite a few, though not all, stayed with Hitler until the very bitter end.
I can’t see Trump’s associates having that kind of dedication. From his previous presidency, there is a long list of former allies who turned against him.
Donald Trump seems to have no coherent theory or aim – other than to be super-powerful and rich, and take revenge on his opponents. He admires dictators, hates China, doesn’t like war, and fears nuclear bombs. If Trump has any philosophy at all, apart from him being at the top, it would be for a world economy dominated by American business. War is not Trump’s chosen method to win, but building up weaponry, and the threat of war – a sort of global bullying is his favoured method.
Trump’s top associates are currently dedicated to him – but are closely connected to billionaires, and not necessarily sharing philosophies. There’s Elon Musk, obsessed with the control of space, and the colonisation of Mars, John Bauer who devised the case for presidential absolute immunity from prosecution, Stephen Miller determinedly anti-immigrant, Fox News employee Pete Hegseth, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. sceptic of public health, Dave Weldon, anti-abortion doctor. What they do seem to have in common is big egos, and rather questionable qualifications for the jobs that they’ll be getting.
So, unlike Hitler, Trump doesn’t seem to have a team dedicated to a single-minded cause. In the short run, things might look good for the new Republican administration, and even for the American public. Dictatorships can do that, for a bit – as the workers found, in the early years of the Hitler administration, and of the Mussolini one in Italy. But it’s anybody’s guess how the new Trump dictatorship will finally work out.
What Project 2025 Would Do to the Environment – and How We Will Respond
The policy playbook from the Heritage Foundation would strip away our rights to clean air, clean water, and a healthy planet.
By Earthjustice November 12, 2024, https://earthjustice.org/article/what-project-2025-would-do-to-the-environment-and-how-we-will-respond
When Donald Trump takes office for the second time in January, we expect his administration to dramatically dismantle environmental protections. We see the shape of what’s coming not just from battling his first administration, but because of the blueprint laid out in Project 2025.
Project 2025 is 900 pages, and 150 of them are about how to destroy the environment. This deregulatory agenda, written by former Trump government officials and Heritage Foundation staff, would strip away our rights to clean air, clean water, and a healthy planet.
Earthjustice is built for moments like this. We’re the legal arm of the environmental movement, with more than 200 attorneys wielding the power of the law to defend the planet and its people. We filed more lawsuits on behalf of clients against the last Trump administration to protect the environment than any other organization – and we won 85% of our cases.
We’ve shown that we can take on the Trump administration’s worst ideas and win.
We’ve studied the proposed tactics in Project 2025, including undermining government staff who are charged with safeguarding health and environmental protections. We are prepared to defend the environment and communities from what comes next, no matter how long it takes. Here are some of the Project 2025 recommendations we’re most concerned about:
Taking a hatchet to bedrock environmental laws
What Project 2025 says:
- Gut the Endangered Species Act (ESA): Project 2025 would rewrite the most successful legal tool we have for protecting wildlife in ways that would harm imperiled species. It specifically calls for removing protections from gray wolves and Yellowstone grizzlies.
- No need for national monuments: Another proposal would repeal the Antiquities Act, which would strip the president of the ability to protect priceless public lands and waters as national monuments.
- Weaken the Clean Air Act: Project 2025 would nix the part of the law that requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set health-based air quality standards.
- Less say for communities in environmental decisions: The plan would undermine key portions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which ensures you have a voice in major projects built near you.
Why we’re prepared:
- Defending endangered species: The Trump administration went after both Yellowstone grizzlies and the Endangered Species Act itself. Both times, Earthjustice went straight to court. One of our cases spared the grizzlies from planned trophy hunts, and the Biden administration subsequently reversed some damaging changes to the ESA.
- Defending national monuments: When the Trump administration gutted Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments in Utah, Earthjustice immediately sued. Protections for the monuments have now been restored. We also helped defend the monuments from a later legal challenge by the state of Utah that attacked the Antiquities Act itself.
- Defending NEPA: This summer, when 21 state attorneys-general sued to block important updates to NEPA, we intervened to fight back. The updates will ensure that critical infrastructure needed for the clean energy transition is built quickly and equitably and is resilient to climate change.
More mining and fossil fuel development on public lands
What Project 2025 says:
- Prioritize oil and gas: Project 2025 tells the agencies that manage federal lands and waters to maximize corporate oil and gas extraction. It calls for approving more pipelines like Keystone XL and Dakota Access.
- Willow? Make it bigger: The agenda explicitly aims to expand the Willow Project, which is already the largest proposed oil and gas undertaking on U.S. public lands.
- Target iconic landscapes: The project also calls for drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and mining in Minnesota’s Boundary Waters wilderness, among other irreplaceable natural treasure
Why we’re prepared:
- Fighting on all fronts: Under the Trump administration, Earthjustice challenged an aggressive extractive agenda at every turn. Our victories included winning protections for 128 million acres of ocean and hundreds of thousands of acres of sage-grouse habitat threatened by oil and gas development.
- We’ve defended many of the places Project 2025 targets:
- We have been defending the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from fossil fuel development since the 1980s, and we celebrated last year when the government canceled a set of illegal oil leases
- Our litigation and advocacy has helped secure a 20-year mining ban in the Boundary Waters.
- Currently, we are fighting the Willow Project in court.
- Undermining science and the regulation of toxic chemicals
- What Project 2025 says:
- Trust the chemical companies: Project 2025 tells the EPA to be more open to industry science and to stop funding major research into toxic chemical exposure.
- Make it harder to regulate chemicals: The plan calls for the EPA to meet an absurdly high standard of proof that a chemical is hazardous before deciding to regulate it. This would give chemical companies greater freedom to put toxic substances into our air, water, and products.
- Forever chemicals are fine: Project 2025 would walk back the determination that PFAS — the “forever chemicals” linked to reproductive harms, developmental delays, and increased risk of cancer — are a hazardous substance.
Why we’re prepared:
- Fighting for the full use of the law: The government has the authority to protect us from harmful chemicals under a critical law called the Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA. Earthjustice is fighting to force the Biden administration to use this law more effectively.
- Pushing for transparency: When the Trump administration EPA understated the risks of deadly chemicals, Earthjustice sued under TSCA.
- Taking on PFAS: Earthjustice has fought for an array of protections against PFAS. We have helped protect communities from PFAS incineration, defended the public’s right to know about PFAS releases, pushed for stronger state laws regulating PFAS in water, and more.
Ending government efforts to address the climate crisis
What Project 2025 says:
- The plan’s authors are climate skeptics: The document refers pointedly to “the perceived threat of climate change.”
- Climate solutions? Don’t need ‘em: Project 2025 calls for undoing many of the clean energy investments in the Inflation Reduction Act, the largest climate solutions bill in history. It also supports Congressional efforts to repeal the law entirely.
- Shut down climate research: The plan would get rid of more than a dozen government offices and agencies that study climate change.
Why we’re prepared:
- Confronting government with climate reality: We have fought every administration in recent decades to include climate change impacts in various decisions. Earlier this century, we joined in a suit that became a landmark Supreme Court ruling, Massachusetts v. EPA, which found that carbon emissions are air pollutants and consequently the EPA must set limits on such pollution. We will defend the necessity to combat climate change — but further delays will hurt us all. An analysis from Energy Innovation found that enacting Project 2025 would increase carbon emissions by 2.7 billion tons by 2030 — equivalent to the annual emissions of India. These policies would cost households $32 billion in higher energy costs, result in 1.7 million lost jobs, and decrease the U.S. GDP $320 billion per year by 2030.
- Fighting for science: Earthjustice has previously defended the critical role of scientific experts within the government. In 2020, we won a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s illegal decision to remove independent science advisors from the EPA.
Eliminating environmental justice programs
What Project 2025 says:
- Environmental justice is not the government’s problem: Project 2025 questions whether the government should address the ways that communities of color and low-income communities are disproportionately exposed to dangerous pollution.
- Get rid of staff who work on these issues: The plan calls for disbanding offices with the Department of Justice and the EPA that focus on environmental justice.
Why we’re prepared:
- An environmental justice first: In 2021, after years of pushing by Earthjustice and our partners, the Justice Department opened its first-ever environmental justice investigation, looking into whether an Alabama county was managing sewage in a way that disproportionately harmed Black communities.
- Raising our voice: We helped advocate for billions of dollars of funding from the Inflation Reduction Act to go to the communities that need it most.
What You Can Do
- Take action: Join Earthjustice to fight back against Project 2025
From Genocide Joe to Omnicide Joe
Instead of fulfilling his 2020 campaign promise to adopt a U.S. policy of no-first-use of nuclear weapons, two years ago Biden signed off on the Nuclear Posture Review policy document that explicitly declares the opposite. Last year, under the euphemism of “modernization,” the U.S. government spent $51 billion — more than every other nuclear-armed country combined — updating and sustaining its nuclear arsenal, gaining profligate momentum in a process that’s set to continue for decades to come.
the Biden administration has said it did not want to cross its own red lines—and then has repeatedly proceeded to do so.
Biden’s recent green light for Ukraine to launch longer-range missiles into Russia is another jump toward nuclear warfare.
Norman Solomon 25 Nov 24, https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/genocide-joe
Whether heralded or reviled, Biden’s supposed restraint during the Ukraine war has steadily faded, with more and more dangerous escalation in its place.
President Biden has never wavered from approving huge arms shipments to Israel during more than 13 months of mass murder and deliberate starvation of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. Biden’s crucial role earned him the name “Genocide Joe.”
That nickname might seem shrill, but it’s valid. Although Biden will not be brought to justice for serving as a key accomplice to the horrific crimes against humanity that continue in Gaza, the label sticks—and candid historians will condemn him as a direct enabler of genocide.
Biden could also qualify for another nickname, which according to Google was never published before this article: “Omnicide Joe.”
In contrast to the Genocide Joe sobriquet, which events have already proven apt, Omnicide Joe is a bit anticipatory. That’s inevitable, because if the cascading effects of his foreign policy end up as key factors in nuclear annihilation, historians will not be around to assess his culpability for omnicide—defined as “the destruction of all life or all human life.”
That definition scarcely overstates what scientists tell us would result from an exchange of nuclear weapons. Researchers have discovered that “nuclear winter” would quickly set in across the globe, blotting out sunlight and wiping out agriculture, with a human survival rate of perhaps 1 or 2 percent.
With everything—literally everything—at stake, you might think that averting thermonuclear war between the world’s two nuclear superpowers, Russia and the United States, would be high on a president’s to-do list. But that hardly has been the case with Joe Biden since he first pulled up a chair at the Oval Office desk.
In fact, Biden has done a lot during the first years of this decade to inflame the realistic fears of nuclear war. His immediate predecessor Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of two vital treaties — Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces and Open Skies — and Biden did nothing to reinstate them. Likewise, Trump killed the Iran nuclear deal negotiated during the Obama administration, and Biden let it stay dead.
Instead of fulfilling his 2020 campaign promise to adopt a U.S. policy of no-first-use of nuclear weapons, two years ago Biden signed off on the Nuclear Posture Review policy document that explicitly declares the opposite. Last year, under the euphemism of “modernization,” the U.S. government spent $51 billion — more than every other nuclear-armed country combined — updating and sustaining its nuclear arsenal, gaining profligate momentum in a process that’s set to continue for decades to come.
Before and after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in late February 2022, Biden showed a distinct lack of interest in actual diplomacy to prevent the war or to end it. Three days before the invasion, writing in the Financial Times, Jeffrey Sachs pointed out: “Biden has said repeatedly that the U.S. is open to diplomacy with Russia, but on the issue that Moscow has most emphasized—NATO enlargement—there has been no American diplomacy at all. [Russian President Vladimir] Putin has repeatedly demanded that the U.S. forswear NATO’s enlargement into Ukraine, while Biden has repeatedly asserted that membership of the alliance is Ukraine’s choice.”
While Russia’s invasion and horrible war in Ukraine should be condemned, Biden has compounded Putin’s crimes by giving much higher priority to Washington’s cold-war mania than to negotiation for peace—or to mitigation of escalating risks of nuclear war.
From the outset, Biden scarcely acknowledged that the survival of humanity was put at higher risk by the Ukraine war. In his first State of the Union speech, a week after the invasion, Biden devoted much of his oratory to the Ukraine conflict without saying a word about the heightened danger that it might trigger the use of nuclear weapons.
During the next three months, the White House posted more than 60 presidential statements, documents and communiques about the war in Ukraine. They all shared with his State of the Union address a stunning characteristic — the complete absence of any mention of nuclear weapons or nuclear war dangers—even though many experts gauged those dangers as being the worst they’d been since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.
With occasional muted references to not wanting a U.S. military clash with nuclear-armed Russia, during the last 33 months the Biden administration has said it did not want to cross its own red lines—and then has repeatedly proceeded to do so.
A week ago superhawk John Bolton, a former national security advisor to President Trump, summarized the process on CNN while bemoaning that Biden’s reckless escalation hasn’t been even more reckless: “It’s been one long public debate after another, going back to ‘Shall we supply ATACMS [ballistic missiles] to the Ukrainians at all?’ First it’s no, then there’s a debate, then there’s yes. ‘Should we supply the Ukrainians Abrams tanks?’ First it’s no, then there’s a long debate, then it’s yes. ‘Should we supply the Ukrainians with F-16s?’ First it’s no, then there’s a long debate, and it’s yes. Now, ‘Can we allow the Ukrainians to use ATACMS inside Russia?’ After a long debate, now it’s yes.”
Whether heralded or reviled, Biden’s supposed restraint during the Ukraine war has steadily faded, with more and more dangerous escalation in its place.
Biden’s recent green light for Ukraine to launch longer-range missiles into Russia is another jump toward nuclear warfare. As a Quincy Institute analyst wrote, “the stakes, and escalatory risks, have steadily crept up.” In an ominous direction, “this needlessly escalatory step has put Russia and NATO one step closer to a direct confrontation—the window to avert catastrophic miscalculation is now that much narrower.”
Like Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken as well as the Democratic and Republican phalanx of Ukraine war cheerleaders on Capitol Hill, Bolton doesn’t mention that recent polling shows strong support among Ukrainian people for negotiations to put a stop to the war. “An average of 52 percent of Ukrainians would like to see their country negotiate an end to the war as soon as possible,” Gallup reported last week, compared to only 38 percent who say “their country should keep fighting until victory.”
Biden and other war boosters have continued to scorn, as capitulation and accommodation to aggression, what so much of the Ukrainian population now says it wants—a negotiated settlement. Instead, top administration officials and laptop-warrior pundits in the press corps are eager to tout their own mettle by insisting that Ukrainians and Russians must keep killing and dying.
Elites in Washington continue to posture as courageous defenders of freedom with military escalation in Ukraine, where hundreds of thousands have already died. Meanwhile, dangers of nuclear war increase.
Last week, Putin “lowered the threshold for a nuclear strike in response to a broader range of conventional attacks,” Reuters reported, “and Moscow said Ukraine had struck deep inside Russia with U.S.-made ATACMS missiles…. Russia had been warning the West for months that if Washington allowed Ukraine to fire U.S., British and French missiles deep into Russia, Moscow would consider those NATO members to be directly involved in the war in Ukraine.”
For President Biden, the verdict of Genocide Joe is already in. But if, despite pleas for sanity, he turns out to fully deserve the name Omnicide Joe, none of us will be around to read about it.
1 This Month.
Let’s keep radioactive waste away from our river!
Nuclear Power? -Never again
(Switzerland –https://www.greenpeace.ch/de/handeln/atomkraft-nie-wieder/+)
PETITION – Close Down the Monticello Nuclear Reactor on the Mississippi River!
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- December 2025 (223)
- 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 