nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Chilling Warnings for Syria: When Foreign Interventions Go Bad

December 10, 2024,  Dr Binoy Kampmark,  https://theaimn.com/chilling-warnings-for-syria-when-foreign-interventions-go-bad/

The reports through Western presses read rather familiarly. Joyful residents taking selfies on abandoned, sullen tanks. Armed men ebullient and shooting into the sky with adventurist stupidity. The removal of statues and vulgar reminders of a regime. Prisoners freed; torture prisons emptied. The tyrant, deposed.

This is the scene in Syria, a war with more external backers and sponsors than causes. The terrain for some years had been rococo in complexity: Russia, Iran and Shia militants in one bolstering camp; Gulf states and Turkey pushing their own mixture of Sunni cause and disruption in another; and the US throwing in its lot behind the Kurdish backed People’s Protection Units (YPG). Even this schema is simplified.

While there will be an innumerable number of those delighted at the fall of Bashar al-Assad, the end of the Arab socialist Baathist regime provides much rich food for thought. Already, the whitewash and publicity relations teams are doing the rounds, suggesting that we are seeing a sound, balanced group of combatants that will ensure a smooth transition to stable rule. Little thought is given to the motley collection of rebels who might, at any moment, seek retribution or turn on each other, be they members of the Turkish-backed Syrian National Army (SNA), or those from the largest, most noted group, Hayat Tahrir al–Sham (HTS).

There is little mention, for instance, about the blotted resume of the aspiring usurper, Abu Mohammad Al-Jolani, who retains a bounty of US$10 million for information on his whereabouts and capture by US authorities. Human rights activist and former British diplomat Craig Murray helpfully posted a link from the US embassy in Syria from 2017, with the blood red title “Stop This Terrorist”. As he acidly notes, “You might want to retweet this before they delete it.”

When foreign powers meddle, particularly in the Middle East, the result is very often a cure worse than the disease. The billowy rhetoric follows a template: evil dictators, oppressors of their people, finally get their just desserts at the hands of a clearly demarcated, popular insurrection, helped along, naturally, by the world’s freedom lovers and democracy hailers. That those same freedom loving powers tolerated, traded and sponsored those same despots when it was convenient to do so is a matter confined to amnesia and the archives.

A few examples suffice. The scene in Libya in the immediate aftermath of the 2011 NATO intervention that overthrew Muammar al-Gaddafi saw commentary of delight, relief and hope. New prospects were in the offing, especially with the news of his brutal murder. “For four decades the Gaddafi regime ruled the Libyan people with an iron fist,” stated US President Barack Obama. “Basic human rights were denied, innocent civilians were detained, beaten and killed.” At the end of the regime, Obama confidently claimed that the new administration was “consolidating their control over the country and one of the world’s longest serving dictators is no more.”

UK Prime Minister David Cameron struck the same note. “Today is a day to remember all of Colonel Gaddafi’s victims.” Libyans “have an even greater chance, after this news, of building themselves a strong and democratic future.” French President Nicolas Sarkozy chose to see the overthrow of Gaddafi as the result of a unified, uniform resistance from “the Libyan people” who emancipated “themselves from the dictatorial and violent regime imposed on them for more than 40 years.”

What followed was not stability, consolidation and democratic development. Jihadi fundamentalism exploded with paroxysms of zeal. The patchwork of unsupervised and anarchically disposed militia groups, aided by NATO’s intervention, got busy. Killings, torture, enforced disappearances, forced displacement and abductions became common fare. The country was nigh dismembered, fragmenting from 2014 onwards between rival coalitions backed by different foreign powers.

-Advertisement-

The same gruesome pattern could also be seen in the post-Saddam Hussein Iraq of 2003. It began with a US-led invasion based on sham premises: Weapons of Mass Destruction that were never found. It also resulted in the overthrow of another Arab socialist Baathist regime. Statues were toppled. There was much celebration and looting. Even before the invasion inMarch that year, US President George W. Bush was airily declaring that “a new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region.” In November 2004, Bush would dreamily state that the US and Britain “have shown our determination to help Iraqis achieve their liberty and to defend the security of the world.”

The consequences of the invasion: the effective balkanisation of Iraq aided by the banning of the Baath Party and the disbanding of the Iraqi Army; the murderous split between Sunni and Shia groups long held in check by Saddam with Kurdish rebels also staking their claim; the emergence of Iran as a regional power of significance; the continued thriving of al-Qaeda and the emergence of the caliphate-inspired Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) group.

Even as the body count was rising in 2006, Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair was still fantasising about the political wishes of a country he had been so instrumental in destroying. “This is a child of democracy struggling to be born,” he told a gathering at Georgetown University in May that year with evangelical purpose. “The struggle for Iraqis for democracy should unite them.” The unfolding disasters were mere “setbacks and missteps”. Blair continued to “strongly believe we did and are doing the right thing.”

And so, we see the same pieties, the same reassurances, the same promises, played on a sedating loop regarding Syria’s fate, the promise of democratic healing, the transfiguration of a traumatised society. How long will such prisons as Sednaya remain unfilled? Therein lies the danger, and the pity.

December 11, 2024 Posted by | politics international, Syria | Leave a comment

Will Donald Trump kill US-UK-Aussie sub defense deal?

The landmark defense agreement between the U.S, U.K. and Australia could be in jeopardy with the maverick Republican back in the White House.

Politico, December 9, 2024, By Stefan Boscia and Caroline Hug

LONDON — There are few issues on which we do not know Donald Trump’s opinion.

After thousands of hours of interviews and speeches over the past eight years, the president-elect has enlightened us on what he thinks on almost any topic which enters his brain at any given moment.

But in the key area of defense, there are some gaps — and that’s leading global military chiefs to pore over the statements of the president’s allies and appointees to attempt to glean some clues, specifically over the $369 billion trilateral submarine program known as AUKUS he will inherit from Joe Biden.

Trump does not appear to have publicly commented on the AUKUS pact — named for its contingent parts Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States — which would see the U.S. share technology with its partners to allow both countries to build state-of-the-art nuclear submarines by the 2040s.

This uncertainty has left ministers and government officials in London and Canberra scrambling to discover how the Republican is likely to view the Biden-era deal when he returns to the White House in January.

Two defense industry figures told POLITICO there were serious concerns in the British government that Trump might seek to renegotiate the deal or alter the timelines.

This is because the pact likely requires the U.S. to temporarily downsize its own naval fleet as a part of the agreement — something Trump may interpret as an affront to his “America First” ideology.

Looking east

There is hope in Westminster that Trump would be in favor of a military project which is an obvious, if unspoken, challenge to China.

The deal would see American-designed nuclear submarines right on China’s doorstep and would form a part of Australia’s attempts to bolster its military might in the Indo-Pacific.

When former U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson said in September 2021 that the deal was not “intended to be adversarial toward China,” President Xi Jinping simply did not believe him.

The Chinese leader said AUKUS would “undermine peace” and accused the Western nations of stoking a Cold War mentality.

Mary Kissel, a former senior adviser to Trump’s ex-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, said “you can assume Trump two will look a lot like Trump one” when it comes to building alliances with other Western countries against China.

“We revivified the Quad [Australia, India, Japan and the U.S.], got our allies to bolster NATO funding and worked to prevent China from dominating international institutions,” she said.

However, the deal also forces the U.S. government to sell Australia three to five active Virginia attack submarines, the best in the U.S. Navy’s fleet, by the early 2030s as a stopgap until the new AUKUS subs are built.

Is America first?

This coincides with a time where there is a widely recognized crunch on America’s industrial defense capacity.

In layman’s terms, the U.S. is currently struggling to build enough submarines or military equipment for its own needs.

One U.K. defense industry figure, granted anonymity to speak freely, said there was “a lot of queasiness” in the U.K. government and a “huge amount of queasiness in Australia” about whether Trump would allow this to happen.

“There is a world in which the Americans can’t scale up their domestic submarine capacity for their own needs and don’t have spare to meet Australia’s needs,” they said.

“If you started pulling on one thread of the deal, then the rest could easily fall away.”

One U.K. government official played down how much London and Canberra are worried about the future of the deal, however.

They said the U.K. government was confident Trump is positive about the deal and that the U.S. was “well equipped with the number of submarines for their fleet.”………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

‘Everyone’s a winner

This attempted U.K.-China reset will likely be high on the list of talking points when Healey meets with his Australian counterpart Richard Marles next month in London for an “AUKMIN” summit.

The Australian Labor government, after all, has conducted a similar reset with the Chinese government since coming to power in 2022 after relations hit a nadir during COVID.

Also at the top of the agenda will be how to sell the incoming president on the AUKUS deal in a positive way.

A second defense industry insider said the British and Australian governments should try to badge the deal in terms that make it look like Trump has personally won from the deal.

“Everybody is worried about America’s lack of industrial capacity and how it affects AUKUS,” they said.

“He is also instinctively against the idea of America being the world’s police and so he may not see the value in AUKUS at all, but they need to let him own it and make him think he’s won by doing it.”………………………………………………………………………..

Pillar II

While the core nuclear submarine deal will get most of the headlines in the coming months, progress on the lesser-known Pillar II of AUKUS also remains somewhat elusive.

Launched alongside the submarine pact, Pillar II was designed to codevelop a range of military technologies, such as quantum-enabled navigation, artificial intelligence-enhanced artillery, and electronic warfare capabilities. 

One Pillar II technology-sharing deal was struck on hypersonic missiles just last month, but expected progress on a range of other areas has not transpired.

Ambitions to admit Japan to the Pillar II partnership this year have also gone unfulfilled……………………………………………………………
https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-aukus-kill-us-uk-aussie-sub-defense-deal/

December 11, 2024 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, politics international, UK | Leave a comment

The Fall of Assad & What it Means for The Middle East (w/ Alastair Crooke) | The Chris Hedges Report 

December 9, 2024, By Chris Hedges / The Chris Hedges Report  https://scheerpost.com/2024/12/09/the-fall-of-assad-what-it-means-for-the-middle-east-w-alastair-crooke-the-chris-hedges-report/

The fall of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, ending a 55-year dynasty begun by his father, dramatically shifts the pieces on the chessboard of the Middle East. The rebel group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), led by Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, is armed and backed by Turkey and was once allied with Al Qaeda. It is sanctioned as a terrorist group. Turkey’s primary goal is to prevent an independent Kurdish state in northern Syria where Kurds have formed an autonomous enclave. But it may not only be Turkey that is behind the overthrow of Assad. It may also be Israel. Israel has long sought to topple the Syrian regime which is the transit point for weapons and aid sent from Iran to the Lebanese militia group Hezbollah. The Syrian regime was backed by Russia and Iran, indeed Russian warplanes routinely bombed Syrian rebel targets. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has gloated about the ousting of Assad calling it an “historic day” and said it was a direct result of Israel’s actions against Hezbollah and Iran. But at the same time, Israel will soon have an Islamic state on its border.

Syria, a country of 23 million, is geopolitically important. It links Iraq’s oil to the Mediterranean, the Shia of Iraq and Iran to Lebanon, and Turkey, a NATO ally, to Jordan’s deserts.

Assad’s decision to brutally crush a pro-democracy movement triggered a 14-year-long civil war in 2011 that led to 500,000 people being killed and more than 14 milliondisplaced.

Now What? Will Hayat Tahrir al-Sham seek to renew relations with Iran? Will it impose an Islamic state, given its jihadist roots? Will Syria’s many minority groups, Alawite, Druze, Circassian, Armenian, Chechen, Assyrian, Christian and Turkoman,be persecuted, especially the Alawites, a heterodox offshoot of Shiite Islam comprising around 10 percent of the population, which Assad and the ruling elites were members of? How will it affect the U.S.-backed and Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, which holds the Syrian oil-rich territory in north and east Syria? Why are the U.S. and Israel bombing targets in Syria following the ouster of Assad? Will the new regime be able to convince the U.S. and Europe to lift sanctions and return the occupied oil fields? What does this portend for the wider Middle East, especially in Lebanon and the Israeli occupied territories?

Joining Chris Hedges to discuss the overthrow of the Assad regime and its ramifications is former British diplomat Alastair Crooke. He served for many years in the Middle East working as a security advisor to the EU special envoy to the Middle East, as well as helping lead efforts to set up negotiations and truces between Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian resistant groups with Israel. He was instrumental in establishing the 2002 ceasefire between Hamas and Israel. He is also the author of Resistance: The Essence of the Islamist Revolution, which analyzes the ascendancy of Islamic movements in the Middle East

December 11, 2024 Posted by | MIDDLE EAST, politics | Leave a comment

Syria – Winners And Losers Or Both

Bruce K. Gagnon, https://www.moonofalabama.org/ 9 Dec 24

Syria has fallen.

It is now highly likely that the country will fall apart. Outside and inside actors will try to capture and/or control as many parts of the cadaver as each of them can.

Years of chaos and strife will follow from that.

Israel is grabbing another large amount of Syrian land. It has taken control of the Syrian city of Quneitra, along with the towns of Al-Qahtaniyah and Al-Hamidiyah in the Quneitra region. It has also advanced into the Syrian Mount Hermon and is now positioned just 30 kilometers from (and above) the Syrian capital.

It is also further demilitarizing Syria by bombing every Syria military storage site in its reach. Air defense positions and heave equipment are its primary targets. For years to come Syria, or whatever may evolve from it, will be completely defenseless against outside attacks.

Israel is for now the big winner in Syria. But with restless Jihadists now right on its border it remains to be seen for how long that will hold.

The U.S. is bombing the central desert of Syria. It claims to strike ISIS but the real target is any local (Arab) resistance which could prevent a connection between the U.S. controlled east of Syria with the Israel controlled south-west. There may well be plans to further build this connection into an Eretz Israel, a Zionist controlled state  “from the river to the sea”.

Turkey has had and has a big role in the attack on Syria. It is financing and controlling the ‘Syrian National Army’ (previously the Free Syrian Army), which it is mainly using to fight Kurdish separatists in Syria.

There are some 3 to 5 million Syrian refugees in Turkey which the wannabe-Sultan Erdogan wants, for domestic political reasons, to return to Syria. The evolving chaos will not permit that.

Turkey had nurtured and pushed the al-Qaeda derived Hayat Tahrir al-Sham to take Aleppo. It did not expect it to go any further. The fall of Syria is now becoming a problem for Turkey as the U.S. is taking control of it. Washington will try to use HTS for its own interests which are, said mildly, not necessary compatible with whatever Turkey may want to do.

A primary target for Turkey are the Kurdish insurgents within Turkey and their support from the Kurds in Syria. Organized as the Syrian Democratic Forces the Kurds are sponsored and controlled by the United States. The SDF are already fighting Erdogan’s SNA and any further Turkish intrusion into Syria will be confronted by them.

The SDF, supported by the U.S. occupation of east-Syria, is in control of the major oil, gas and wheat fields in the east of the country. Anyone who wants to rule in Damascus will need access to those resources to be able to finance the state.

Despite having a $10 million award on its head HTS leader Abu Mohammad al-Golani is currently played up by western media  as the unifying and tolerant new leader of Syria. But his HTS is itself a coalition of hardline Jihadists from various countries. There is little left to loot in Syria and as soon as those resources run out the fighting within HTS will begin. Will al-Golani be able to control the sectarian urges of the comrades when these start to plunder the Shia and Christian shrines of Damascus?

During the last years Russia was less invested in the Assad government than it seemed. It knew that Assad had become a mostly useless partner. The Russia Mediterranean base in Khmeimim in Latakia province is its springboard into Africa. There will be U.S. pressure on any new leadership in Syria to kick the Russians out. However any new leadership in Syria, if it is smart, will want to keep the Russians in. It is never bad to have an alternative choice should one eventually need one. Russia may well stay in Latakia for years to come.

With the fall of Syria Iran has lost the major link in its axis of resistance against Israel. Its forward defenses, provided by Hizbullah in Lebanon, are now in ruins.

As the former General Wesley Clark reported about a talk he once had in the Pentagon:

“This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”

Six of the seven countries mentioned in that famous memo have by now been thrown into chaos. Iran is -so far- the sole survivor of those plans. It will urgently have to further raise its local defenses. It is high time now for it to finally acquire real nuclear weapons.

The incoming Trump administration sees China as its major enemy. By throwing Syria (and Ukraine) into chaos the outgoing Biden administration has guaranteed that Trump will have to stay involved in the Middle East (and eastern Europe).

The massive U.S. ‘Pivot to Asia’ will again have to wait. This gives China more time to build its sphere of influence. It may well be the only power that has been a winner in this.

December 11, 2024 Posted by | politics, Syria | Leave a comment

Climate crisis deepens with 2024 ‘certain’ to be hottest year on record.

 This year is now almost certain to be the hottest year on record, data
shows. It will also be the first to have an average temperature of more
than 1.5C above preindustrial levels, marking a further escalation of the
climate crisis.

Data for November from the EU’s Copernicus Climate Change
Service (C3S) found the average global surface temperature for the month
was 1.62C above the level before the mass burning of fossil fuels drove up
global heating. With data for 11 months of 2024 now available, scientists
said the average for the year is expected to be 1.60C, exceeding the record
set in 2023 of 1.48C.

Samantha Burgess, the deputy director of C3S, said:
“We can now confirm with virtual certainty that 2024 will be the warmest
year on record and the first calendar year above 1.5C. This does not mean
that the Paris agreement has been breached, but it does mean ambitious
climate action is more urgent than ever.”

 Guardian 9th Dec 2024
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/09/climate-crisis-deepens-with-2024-certain-to-be-hottest-year-on-record

December 11, 2024 Posted by | climate change | Leave a comment

Taliban In Afghanistan Bad, Al-Qaeda In Syria Good

Caitlin Johnstone, Dec 10, 2024, Caitlin’s Newsletter

It’s pretty wild how the west went directly from “We need to occupy Afghanistan for two decades to prevent it from being taken over by the Taliban” to “Yay! Syria’s been taken over by al-Qaeda!”

❖

The IDF has moved to occupy new stretches of Syrian land in the name of protecting its safety and security in the wake of Assad’s removal, to approximately zero condemnation from the western power alliance.

One of the dumbest things we are asked to believe about Israel is that the only thing it can ever do to ensure its safety and security when a danger presents itself is to grab more land. Land grabs are always the answer.

So to recap:

Russia invading a country in the name of protecting its security interests from perceived threats on its border = wrong, evil, worst thing ever.

Israel invading a country in the name of protecting its security interests from perceived threats on its border = fine, normal, nothing to worry about.

The US is considering removing Hayʼat Tahrir al-Sham from its list of designated terrorist organizations following the al-Qaeda affiliate’s victory in Syria. I have said it before and I’ll say it again: “terrorist organization” is a completely arbitrary designation which is used as a tool of western narrative control to justify war and militarism. In effect it just means “disobedient population who need bombs dropped on them”.

I find it hilarious how empire simps are still shrieking “ASSADIST!” at me for criticizing western regime change interventionism in Syria like that means something. Assad’s gone. They can’t claim I’m helping him stay in power anymore. This shows they were never mad at me for “supporting Assad” or any of that nonsense; they were always just mad at me for criticizing the western empire, which was all I was ever doing

Assad’s not a thing anymore. Your guys are in power now, and your beloved empire got the regime change it’s been chasing for years. You don’t get to pretend you’re sticking up for the little guy any longer. If you’re going to keep simping for the empire you’ve got to do it right out in the open now; you can no longer mask your bootlicking by hurling bizarre false accusations of treasonous loyalty toward some random middle eastern leader at anyone who criticizes the empire’s actions in Syria. You need to find different tactics for your empire apologia.

 personally do not believe western interventionism in the middle east leads to positive results and peace, because I am not a newborn baby with a soft squishy head who joined the earth’s population yesterday evening.

❖

Empire apologists rely heavily on the appeal to emotion fallacy when discussing Syria, because they have no real arguments. They can’t counter criticisms of the years of western interventionism which destroyed Syria, so they babble about Assad’s victims instead. But no matter how many sad stories you tell and no matter how much sympathy you elicit, it will not amount to a counter-argument against the extensively documented fact that the US and its allies worked to destroy Syria with the goal of toppling Damascus from the very beginning in 2011. You can rend your garments about barrel bombs and prisoners all you want, but it still won’t be an argument.

I personally don’t blame people for misunderstanding what’s been happening in Syria all these years. Some of my favorite analysts got Syria wrong in the early years of the war. It’s a complicated issue. It’s hard to sort out the true from the false, and it’s hard to sort through the moral complexities and contradictions of it all as a human being. What matters is that you stay curious and open and sincerely dedicated to learning what’s true instead of bedding down and making an identity out of your current understanding.

For years Syria was awash with some of the most complex psychological operations and hybrid warfare the world has ever seen. It’s okay if you didn’t understand it at first. The world is a confusing place, and is rapidly becoming more so. Just do your best, stay curious, and keep learning………………………………. https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/taliban-in-afghanistan-bad-al-qaeda?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=152873905&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

December 11, 2024 Posted by | politics, Syria | Leave a comment

A promissory note to sway the vote? Lincolnshire opts to seek nuclear waste Hosting Agreement.

9 Dec 24, https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/a-promissory-note-to-sway-the-vote-lincolnshire-opts-to-seek-hosting-agreement/

It is said that money talks, and the nuclear industry and national government making an offer of owdles of cash to any financially-challenged local authority[1] which might be a partner in hosting a radioactive waste dump would be a guaranteed conversation starter.

Impatient to jump the gun, the Executive of Lincolnshire County Council met last week to initiate that conversation by placing their own monetary mark in the sand. Before them was a report recommending an approach be made to Nuclear Waste Services and Whitehall for an Hosting Agreement to provide for ‘Significant Additional Investment’ should Theddlethorpe be selected as the eventual location of the Geological Disposal Facility.

In giving their approval to such a proposal, Lincolnshire Councillors were following the lead shown by elected members of two small townships in Ontario, which agreed Host Agreements with Canada’s own NWS, the Nuclear Waste Management Organisation (NWMO) were they to accommodate a Deep Geological Repository. The NWMO was established by the Canadian nuclear industry to find a final destination for that nation’s legacy radioactive waste. Through Host Agreements with the NWMO, Ignace Town Council was promised $170 million over 81 years, whilst South Bruce stood to receive a more significant $418 million over 138 years.

Big money indeed for small municipalities, and certainly the promise of accessing this largesse is likely to have provided a significant inducement to some residents to vote ‘yes’ when casting their vote in recent online ballots, which determined whether their respective communities would continue to be engaged in the siting process. These ballots both led to ‘yes’ results.

So on Tuesday 3 December, citing South Bruce as being ‘of the most relevance’, the Lincolnshire County Council Executive decided to follow their example in seeking their own Hosting Agreement, guaranteeing big bucks to meet six key infrastructure asks in coastal defences, road and rail networks and public transport, education and skills training, energy, the environment and in the economy.


The irony is that the Council bigwigs were meeting after the South Bruce cash cow had bolted; for on 28 November NWMO had announced with great fanfare that they had selected Ignace instead. The NFLAs can speculate that this selection was made on the basis that the latter was so much cheaper and came with greater public backing. For in Ignace 77.3% of those participating in the poll said ‘yes’, but in South Bruce this fell to only 51.2%. Whilst this might seem incongrous, given the whopping disparity in the promised payout, the site in South Bruce was quite close to the township, whilst in Ignace the proposed site is at Revell Lake, some 34 Kms away. Trying not to be a sore loser, South Bruce Council issued a statement congratulating NWMO on its selection and Ignace on its success, whilst seeking to highlight its concilation prize for participating in the process – a disappointing exit payment of $4 million.

The experience of South Bruce demonstrates that hitching your wagon to any competitive sitiing process in the hope of major infrastructure investment is a risky strategy as there is no guarantee your horse will arrive first at its desired destination. And in the UK there are two other competing runners and riders – both in West Cumbria – rather than the two horse race in Canada.

Given the siting process is a long and uncertain race, electors would surely expect the elected members and officers of Lincolnshire County Council to be already repeatedly and vigorously lobbying central government for the money needed to satisfy its wishlist, rather than relying on this game of chance. Can Lincolnshire really wait up to 15 years for site selection before its promissory note is made real? It is difficult to believe that the county has over 15 years of grace before improving its sea defences when climate change will mean steadily encroaching sea levels on England’s East coast.


The County Council can also be challenged on its impartiality over any decision in hosting a GDF. For in seeking a Hosting Agreement so early in the process, the impression is conveyed that the Council would welcome the GDF development were the cash to be forthcoming.

There is also a certain degree of hypocrisy in the ‘asks’ made by the County Council.

For instance, in seeking investment in tourism no account is taken of the massively deleterious impact on the tourist economy that must result from the construction and operation of a GDF on the holiday coast.

A report completed by Global Tourism Solutions and published by East Lindsey District Council in early September revealed that in 2023 4.57 million people visited the district, an 8.2% increase from 2022, whilst in 2023 the local economy benefitted from £857.9 million of tourist income, a new record building on the £824.2 million received in 2022. This sustained an estimated 8,033 tourist jobs (equivalent to 6,143 full time posts).[2]

The results of a survey of over 1,100 tourists were recently published by the Guardians of the East Coast. 83% of respondees said they would question whether to return to any Lincolnshire seaside resort should this massive engineering project come to Theddlethorpe. If this negative sentiment translates into reduced visitor numbers, the economic downturn would be disastrous. In its accompanying report, GOTEC estimated a 40.5% decline in tourism would result, amounting to over 3,000 jobs lost and almost £250 million in lost annual income.

And in seeking investment to grow energy generating capacity which is not ‘visually damaging’ to the environment, the Council seems to have no qualms about trading this for hosting the UK’s largest engineering project, with the construction of the GDF being compared to building the Channel Tunnel.

Finally, there is a further clue as to another probable motivation for seeking a Hosting Agreement at this time and it rather reveals a focus on an event in three years time rather than fifteen.

In the report it states that ‘It is, however, important that LCC ensures that all opportunities that the facility could provide are identified. This will help inform the local community’s response to the Test of Public Support (ToPS) which the council has sought to be held no later than 2027’.

This could be interpreted as the Council adopting a policy of ‘dangling’ the investment carrot before the public in the hope that this will convince them to vote ‘yes’ to the development in three years time; in effect making the Host Agreement a promissory note to sway the vote.

Ends://..For more information please contact the NFLA Secretary Richard Outram by email to richard.outram@manchester.gov.uk

December 11, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment