Rachel Reeves to cut ‘bats and newts’ in boost to developers

Developers would also no longer have to prove that projects would have no impact on protected natural sites, under plans that would abolish the “precautionary principle” enshrined in
European rules.
Chancellor considers making it harder for concerns about nature to stand in
the way of infrastructure projects, in an effort to boost the economy.
Rachel Reeves is preparing to strip back environmental protections in an
effort to boost the economy by speeding up infrastructure projects. The
chancellor is considering reforms that would make it far harder for
concerns about nature to stop development, which she insists is crucial to
restoring growth and improving living standards.
The Treasury has begun
preparing for another planning reform bill and is thinking about tearing up
key parts of European environmental rules that developers say are making it
harder to build key projects. Labour ministers have repeatedly insisted
that their current planning overhaul will not come at the expense of
nature, promising a “win-win” system where developers will pay to
offset environmental damage.
But Reeves is understood to believe that the
government must go significantly further, after expressing frustration that
the interests of “bats and newts” are being allowed to stymie critical
infrastructure. She has tasked officials with looking at much more
contentious reforms, which are likely to provoke a furious backlash from
environmentalists and cause unease for some Labour MPs.
A smaller, UK-only
list of protected species is being planned, which would place less weight
on wildlife — including types of newt — that is rare elsewhere in
Europe but more common in Britain. Developers would also no longer have to
prove that projects would have no impact on protected natural sites, under
plans that would abolish the “precautionary principle” enshrined in
European rules. Instead, a new test would look at risks and benefits of
potential projects. Further curbs to judicial review are also being
considered by Reeves to stop key projects being delayed by legal challenges
from environmentalists.
Times 17th Aug 2025, https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/rachel-reeves-strip-back-environmental-protections-planning-projects-xjxn02crs
Ministry of Defence urged to publish full details of Faslane incident.

The Ministry of Defence is being urged to publish full details of
a nuclear incident which took place at Faslane earlier this year. As
revealed by The Herald, the most serious grade of Nuclear Site Event Report
(NSER), Category A, took place at HMNB Clyde between January 1 and April
22.
The facility on Gare Loch is home to all of the Royal Navy’s
submarines, including the Vanguard class which are armed with Trident
missiles and the nuclear-powered Astute class hunter-killer vessels.
A Category A NSER carries an “actual or high potential for radioactive
release to the environment”. Approached for comment, the Ministry of
Defence said there had been “no unsafe releases of radioactive material” in
the Category A incident at Faslane but that it could not disclose details
of individual incidents for reasons of national security.
The MoD had previously admitted that radioactive material had been released into Loch
Long from RNAD Coulport after the Royal Navy failed to adequately maintain
the network of 1,500 water pipes on the base. Now SNP MSP Bill Kidd is
calling for the Ministry of Defence to publish full details of the Category
A incident, provide a complete contamination report for Loch Long, and set
out a clear plan for clean-up and prevention.
Herald 18th Aug 2025,
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/25394175.mod-urged-publish-full-details-faslane-incident/
Unproven and costly: Nuclear Waste Dump ‘Red’ Rated as Unachievable.

NFLA 18th Aug 2025, https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/unproven-and-costly-nuclear-waste-dump-red-rated-as-unachievable/
A leading Government body charged with responsibility for monitoring the delivery of major taxpayer funded infrastructure projects has just published a report in which the plan to develop a subterranean Geological Disposal Facility to hold Britain’s legacy and future high-level radioactive waste has been ‘Red’ rated as ‘unachievable’.
The GDF was previously rated ‘Amber’ in an assessment by the Infrastructure and Projects Authority published in January of this year[i], signifying that: ‘Successful delivery appears feasible, but significant issues already exist, requiring management attention. These appear resolvable at this stage and, if addressed promptly, should not present a cost/schedule overrun.’
But in a report just published by the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA), a new body formed by the Labour Government[ii], the GDF is now instead ‘Red’ rated indicating that: ‘Successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable. There are major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable. The project may need re-scoping and/or its overall viability reassessed.’
The UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities were unsurprised to hear the news. When contacted by New Civil Engineer for a quote, NFLA Secretary Richard Outram said:
“The NISTA Red rating is hardly surprising. The GDF process is fraught with uncertainties and the GDF ‘solution’ remains unproven and costly. A single facility, as estimated by government sources, could cost the taxpayer between £20-54 billion, but this being a nuclear project it is much more likely to be the latter and beyond.’
Government policy for the Geological Disposal Facility is predicated upon finding a project development site that is publicly acceptable, geologically ‘suitable’ and affordable.
So far, the first two of these hurdles have proven problematic to jump for the taxpayer funded body charged with finding a site and developing the facility. Nuclear Waste Services has being forced to retreat from South Holderness and Theddlethorpe in the face of steadfast public opposition and obliged to withdraw from Allerdale citing a lack of suitable geology.
Consequently, NWS is once more now limited to the pursuit of a site in Mid and South Copeland in West Cumbria. Both areas adjoin the beautiful Lake District National Park. They were previously the focus of failed attempts to impose a GDF, but the geology was found unsuitable, and the opposition of Cumbria County Council ended the process.
Resistance is growing to a GDF in South Copeland. Local people have formed an opposition group; two local Councils have condemned the plan and withdrawn their support from the process; and a review of the Community Partnership found it to be in disarray with factional infighting.
It is therefore not inconceivable that plans for a GDF in South Copeland could also soon be shelved.
Now Radiation Free Lakeland / Lakes against the Dump is gathering signatures from Cumbrians on a petition calling on Cumberland County Councillors to debate and vote upon their continued engagement with the GDF process. Once 1,000 County residents have signed the petition, the Council’s constitution provides for such a debate to be held in response.
Here are links to the petition: www.change.org/CumbriaNuclearDump https://www.change.org/p/massive-mine-shafts-and-nuclear-dump-for-cumbria-coast-tell-cumberland-council-vote-now
Judicial review sought at High Court into flood barriers.
16th August, By Dominic Bareham, Geographic Specialist Reporter, https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/25391172.judicial-review-sought-high-court-flood-barriers/
Campaigners fighting the new Sizewell C nuclear power station have been granted a hearing in the High Court.
Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) is seeking a judicial review into plans for additional sea defences as part of the project.
The action group is calling for Sizewell C’s development consent order, granted in 2022, to be revoked or varied.
A judge at the High Court will hear TASC’s representatives claim project developer, power firm EDF, kept plans for the flood barriers secret in order to avoid scrutiny.
A decision would then be made on whether to grant a judicial review hearing, which would take place at a later date.
A TASC spokesperson said: “Sizewell C’s attempt to avoid scrutiny of these additional sea defences now means the project is proceeding without its full environmental impact having been assessed, this being in contravention of the UK Habitat Regulations.
“Sizewell C clearly believe they can do as they see fit with our heritage coast, national landscape and designated wildlife sites irrespective of the damage they will cause – this government, the largest shareholder in Sizewell C, must be challenged on this.”
TASC believe that the barriers were omitted from the original planning application that was granted development consent and fear that their construction could disrupt nearby wildlife habitats.
The campaigners would like less invasive flood barrier options to be pursued.
TASC has lost previous judicial reviews into the new station, which is set to cost £38 billion, including in June 2023 when the High Court rejected a legal challenge over the disposal of nuclear waste and the provision of a water supply.
In 2022, a similar legal challenge claiming the development was unlawful because of concerns about the maintenance of a water supply, was also rejected.
Trump on Summit with Putin: We Made Great Progress Today.

Russian President Vladimir Putin concluded the summit by inviting Trump to Moscow
by Kyle Anzalone | August 15, 2025 https://news.antiwar.com/2025/08/15/trump-on-summit-with-putin-we-made-great-progress-today/
Following a three-hour meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and President Donald Trump, the leaders delivered brief statements at a press conference, stating that the talks were productive and constructive.
Putin spoke first, telling the press that the talks were in a “constructive atmosphere of mutual respect. We had very thorough negotiations.” He added that he hoped European governments and Ukraine would receive the agreements made with Trump “constructively” and that they would not interfere with the progress.
The Russian leader also blamed former US President Joe Biden for starting the war in Ukraine and argued that the invasion would not have happened if Trump had been the president. Trump has often claimed the conflict in Ukraine was Biden’s war, and he could have prevented the war from breaking out.
Putin noted that before the start of the war in 2022, Moscow sent Washington a proposal that would have stopped the Russian invasion of Ukraine. A core issue for the Kremlin was the growing ties between NATO and Ukraine. However, the Biden administration refused to negotiate on this point, and Putin ordered the invasion.
The Russian President said that during the Biden administration, US and Russian relations hit a post-Cold War low point. Putin expressed hope that the summit would be the start of the process to repair the ties and resolve the Ukrainian crisis.
“I believe we had a very productive meeting. There were many, many points we agreed on, I would say most of them,” Trump said. “A couple of big ones we haven’t quite gotten there, but we made some headway.”
Trump explained that no final agreement was made. “So there’s no deal until there’s a deal,” he added. He went on to say he would call European leaders and Ukrainian President Zelensky. He added that it was ultimately up to the Ukrainians to accept any agreement.
The President did not specify what issues were left unresolved, but later in his statement, he mentioned that the “most significant” issue remains unsettled.
At the end of the press conference, Putin extended an invitation to Trump to attend a summit in Moscow. “That is an interesting one. I will get a little heat on that one. But I can see it possibly happening,” Trump replied.
Friday’s meeting in Alaska also included Secretary of State Marco Rubio, envoy Steve Witkoff, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and aide Yury Ushakov.
Kyle Anzalone is the opinion editor of Antiwar.com and news editor of the Libertarian Institute. He hosts The Kyle Anzalone Show and is co-host of Conflicts of Interest with Connor Freeman.
The West initiated the Ukraine crisis, and will have to work to fix it.

But this account is wrong: the United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis. The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West…………….
Stopping The Gaza Holocaust Is The First Step Toward A Healthy World
Caitlin Johnstone, Aug 13, 2025, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/stopping-the-gaza-holocaust-is-the?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=170832055&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Nicole on Facebook writes, “I would love to hear you explain how Palestine is the moral question of our time. Why it’s so important. How it’s related to every movement and should be a concern to everyone.”
Palestine is the moral question of our time because the abuse of the Palestinians is the most glaring, in-your-face symptom of the imperial disease. You can see the effects of so many of the empire’s abusive dynamics in how this thing is playing out, from racism to colonialism to militarism to war profiteering to mass media propaganda to empire-building to government corruption to suppression of free speech to ecocide to the heartless, mindless, soul-eating nature of the capitalist system under which we all live.
But there’s more to it than that. The primary reason to place Palestine front and center as the moral issue of our time is because if we can’t sort out the morality of an active genocide backed by our own western governments, we’re not going to be able to sort out anything else. Stopping the Gaza holocaust and bringing justice to the Palestinians is the very first step toward a healthy civilization.
Palestine is the moral issue of our time for the same reason if you saw someone in your family torturing another member of your family to death, it would be the most urgent matter happening in your life at that moment. You’d have other problems in your life, but that would come first.
If we’re the sort of society that would allow a live-streamed genocide to take place with the support of our own government and its allies, then we’re not the sort of society that can steer away from its trajectory toward dystopia and armageddon. If you’re the sort of individual who would allow a live-streamed genocide to take place with the support of your own government and its allies, then you’re not the sort of individual who can help steer our species away from disaster.
Gaza is not the only thing that matters in the world. But if you’re not forcefully opposing the Gaza holocaust, you definitely don’t have a healthy enough conscience to address any of the world’s other problems.
I sometimes see Israel supporters refer to pro-Palestine sentiment as “virtue signaling”, which is funny because it means they view themselves as holding the unpopular, unvirtuous position. But really there’s nothing particularly virtuous about supporting Gaza, and it’s not some cool, special thing you’d want to signal about yourself. It’s just what you do when you’re not an extremely shitty person. It’s the basic, bare-minimum expectation of normal human morality.
I don’t want to be friends with anyone who doesn’t oppose the Gaza holocaust. I don’t want to follow any commentators or analysts who don’t speak out against the Gaza holocaust. At this point I don’t even want to listen to any music or read any poetry from people who don’t take a stand against the Gaza holocaust. Since 2023 I’ve moved from rejecting anyone who actively sided with Israel to rejecting anyone who is even complicit in their silence.
The other day I saw some Australian influencer forcefully trying to assert that it’s okay not to take a position on Gaza, and nobody in her replies was buying it. Supporting Israel and aligning with US foreign policy comes with a lot of career benefits for high-profile individuals, and you don’t get to both enjoy those perks and also keep ethical people interested in what you have to say. You can’t have it both ways. You have to choose between the perks and the people. You actually do.
Opposition to the Gaza holocaust is the very first step in assessing if someone is worth my time. If you can’t even meet the basic, bare-minimum expectation of opposing an active genocide, then you are too callous and apathetic to be my friend. If you can’t even get this basic, kindergarten-level moral question right, then your mind is too shallow and your heart too hardened for me to be interested in your analysis, your ideas, your politics, or your art.
There are so many terrible things in our world, and there is so much work that needs to be done to address them. I don’t know what ideas, strategies and movements will get us out of this mess, but I do know that if any are going to emerge they’re going to come from the people who’ve been taking a strong stand against Israel and its western allies these last two years. Those are the individuals, movements, and political factions to pay attention to going forward. Nobody else is equipped to help.
Trump meets with Putin: the non-event that was sold as history.
16 August 2025 Michael Taylor, https://theaimn.net/trump-meets-with-putin-the-non-event-that-was-sold-as-history/
The buildup was epic. For weeks, the Trump administration talked up the meeting with Vladimir Putin as if the world was about to witness a defining moment in history. Media speculation was feverish – would there be a grand bargain on Ukraine, arms control, or even global security itself? Some even hinted it might mark the beginning of a “new era” in U.S.–Russia relations.
And then it happened.
The meeting was less “historic breakthrough” and more “awkward photo-op.” No landmark agreements were reached, no peace deals signed, no strategies unveiled. Just vague talk about “respect,” “better relations,” and “future discussions.” In other words: business as usual, wrapped in hype.
Trump will, of course, try to frame it as a personal victory – that’s his style. He even claimed afterward that Putin praised him for what he’d done for America. Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t – but given Trump’s track record of exaggerating praise, it’s hard to take the claim at face value. What we do know is that there was little of substance for anyone to point to. America’s allies were left wondering why so much diplomatic capital was spent for so little return, while adversaries quietly enjoyed the spectacle.
Putin, for his part, looked calm and unruffled. He gave away nothing, promised little, and let Trump carry the theatrics. In the end, he walked away looking like the steady hand, while Trump appeared desperate for validation.
This wasn’t the dawn of a new era. It was a reminder that in international politics, theatrics without substance are just that – theatrics. And the more often the world sees this pattern repeat, the less seriously America’s leadership is taken on the global stage.
Trump and Putin End Alaska Summit Without Cease-Fire Deal on Ukraine.
NYT. August 15, 2025
President Trump and President Vladimir Putin of Russia concluded their summit in Alaska without declaring agreement on any issue, much less the one Mr. Trump said was at the top of his agenda, ending the war in Ukraine.
War’s final act: Zelensky’s dangerous play to crash Russia-US talks

For Zelensky, peace is political extinction. Any agreement that cements territorial realities will shatter the narrative that has sustained his rule. It will mark the end of his leverage in the West, the erosion of his political base at home, and likely the swift rise of challengers eager to blame him for Ukraine’s fate.
As Ukraine’s defeat becomes undeniable, Zelensky resorts to desperate provocations – risking wider conflict to block peace talks between Russia and the US
By Nadezhda Romanenko, political analyst, 12 Aug 25, https://www.rt.com/russia/622816-enemy-of-peace-zelensky-seems/
The war in Ukraine is no longer balanced on a knife’s edge, as some might have thought during the Kursk invasion. The outcome is now visible to anyone willing to look past the headlines: Kiev’s forces are depleted, morale is collapsing, and the long-promised ‘turning points’ have come and gone without materializing. Even Western officials, once confident in endless military aid, are now speaking in guarded tones about “realistic expectations.” On the battlefield, the momentum has shifted irreversibly.
Against this backdrop, the recent statement from Russia’s Ministry of Defense should not be dismissed as mere rhetoric. Moscow alleges that Ukrainian forces are preparing a major provocation – an attack designed to sabotage the upcoming Russia-US peace talks. For those who understand the stakes, the logic is disturbingly clear.
Donald Trump, now poised to play a decisive role in shaping Washington’s foreign policy, has shown a pragmatic grasp of reality. Unlike his predecessors, he is not bound by the fantasy that Ukraine can ‘win’ if only more money and weapons are sent. He has signaled that ending this conflict is both possible and necessary. This puts him on a collision course with those who see peace not as a goal, but as a threat to their own survival.
For Zelensky, peace is political extinction. Any agreement that cements territorial realities will shatter the narrative that has sustained his rule. It will mark the end of his leverage in the West, the erosion of his political base at home, and likely the swift rise of challengers eager to blame him for Ukraine’s fate. Under such pressure, the temptation to derail talks by any means available – including acts of sabotage – becomes more than plausible.
This is not conjecture; it is the historical pattern of leaders who find themselves cornered. In modern conflicts across the globe, we’ve seen desperate governments resort to reckless measures when facing the collapse of their strategic position. The danger here is that such a provocation, if timed to coincide with peace negotiations, could provoke outrage in Washington, disrupt fragile diplomatic channels, and push the conflict back toward open escalation.
Trump has already done much to shift the debate away from the entrenched ‘forever war’ mindset. He has taken political risks to challenge the military-industrial inertia that thrives on endless conflict. But now, perhaps more than ever, he will need to remain steady. The coming weeks will test his ability to see through manipulations and to resist being drawn into the agendas of those who profit from instability.
Peace is within reach – but it will not survive if the world falls for one last, desperate trick from a regime with nothing left to lose.
Serious nuclear incident’ took place at Scottish Navy base
14 Aug 25, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/08/14/serious-nuclear-incident-clyde-faslane-navy-base/
MoD admits ‘Category A’ event at HMNB Clyde which will raise concerns about maintenance of Trident nuclear submarines
‘Potentially serious’ event at HMNB Clyde prompts concerns about maintenance of Trident submarines
Category A events are defined as those which carry “actual or high potential for radioactive release to the environment”.
The revelation will raise serious concerns about how the Trident nuclear submarines in Scotland are being maintained. It is also likely to prompt questions over transparency and why the incident was not known about until now.
HMNB Clyde houses every Royal Navy submarine, including the Vanguard-class vessels which are armed with Trident missiles.
On Wednesday afternoon, the SNP demanded an urgent explanation from the Labour Government in Westminster over a “catalogue of failures” including separate contamination nearby.
The MoD declined to offer specific details of the incident, which was first reported by the Helensburgh Advertiser. This means it was unclear if any radiation was leaked into the environment or if there was a risk of this taking place.
The incident is not the first category A incident to take place at Faslane, with the MoD having reported two such cases from 2006 to 2007 and a third that took place in 2023.
The incident was disclosed in a written parliamentary answer by Maria Eagle, the procurement minister, after she was asked to provide the number of Nuclear Site Event Reports (NSERs) at the Coulport and Faslane naval bases.
She said there had been one category A event at Faslane between Jan 1 and April 22, two category B, seven category C and four category D. A further five events were deemed to be “below scale”, meaning they were less serious.
Nearby Coulport, where the UK’s nuclear missiles and warheads are stored, had four category C and nine category D events over the same period.
Ms Eagle told Dave Doogan, the SNP MP who tabled the question: “I cannot provide specific detail for the events as disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of any relevant forces.
“I can assure the honourable member that none of the events listed in question 49938 caused harm to the health of any member of staff or to any member of the public and none have resulted in any radiological impact to the environment.”
She also said that NSERs “are raised to foster a robust safety culture that learns from experience, whether that is equipment failures, human error, procedural failings, documentation shortcoming or near-misses”.
Category B incidents are defined as having “actual or high potential for a contained release within [a] building or submarine or unplanned exposure to radiation”.
Category C incidents have “moderate potential for future release”, while category D incidents are unlikely to prompt any release but “may contribute towards an adverse trend”.
Radioactive water leak
It emerged last week that radioactive water from the Coulport and Faslane bases, which are situated near Glasgow, was allowed to leak into the sea after several old pipes burst.
The substance was released into Loch Long because the Royal Navy inadequately maintained a network of around 1,500 pipes on the base, a regulator found.
The Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the pollution watchdog north of the border, found up to half the components at the base were beyond their design life.
David Cullen, a nuclear weapons expert at the Basic defence think tank, said attempts to hide previous serious incidents from the public had been “outrageous”.
Mr Cullen said: “The MoD is almost 10 years into a nearly £2bn infrastructure programme at Faslane and Coulport, and yet they apparently didn’t have a proper asset management system as recently as 2022.
“This negligent approach is far too common in the nuclear weapons programme, and is a direct consequence of a lack of oversight.”
Government accused of ‘cover-up’
Keith Brown, the deputy leader of the SNP, accused the Government of a cover-up in relation to the incident at Faslane.
Mr Brown said: “Nuclear weapons are an ever-present danger and this new information is deeply worrying.
“With repeated reports of serious incidents at Faslane and now confirmed radioactive contamination in Loch Long, it’s clear these weapons are not only poorly maintained but are a direct threat to our environment, our communities, and our safety.
“Worse still, the Labour Government is refusing to provide any details about the category A incident, or the full extent of the contamination, including who could potentially be affected.”
The SNP has vowed to scrap Trident, despite consensus in Westminster and among defence experts that the world is now more dangerous than at any point since the Cold War.
The accusations over a cover-up come after The Telegraph disclosed last month that Britain had secretly offered asylum to almost 24,000 Afghan soldiers and their families.
The Government earmarked £7bn to relocate Afghans to the UK over five years after they were caught up in the most serious data breach in history.
Despite enormous costs to the taxpayer, the breach was kept secret from the public for 683 days by two successive governments after the first use of a super-injunction by ministers.
An MoD spokesman said: “We place the upmost importance on handling radioactive substances safely and securely. Nuclear Site Event Reports demonstrate our robust safety culture and commitment to learn from experience.
“The incidents posed no risk to the public and did not result in any radiological impact to the environment. It is factually incorrect to suggest otherwise. Our Government backs our nuclear deterrent as the ultimate guarantor of our national security.
The MoD said it was unable to disclose details of individual incidents for “national security reasons”. However, it is understood all the NSERs were categorised as having a “low safety significance”.
Nuclear legacy costs far outweigh Germany’s environmental protection investments.

Clean Energy Wire, 23 Jul 2025, Benjamin Wehrmann, Germany https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/nuclear-legacy-costs-far-outweigh-germanys-environmental-protection-investments
Over half of the German environment ministry’s (BMUKN) budget for 2025 will be spent on managing the country’s nuclear waste and preparing a decision for a final nuclear repository. According to a government budget draft, the ministry led by Social Democrat (SPD) Carsten Schneider will receive 2.7 billion euros this year, about 300 million euros more than in 2024. Out of this sum, 1.4 billion euros are reserved for the “temporary and final storage of radioactive waste,” a parliament report on the draft said.
In 2024, Germany spent about 1.1 billion euros on nuclear waste management, after the country shuttered its last commercial nuclear power plants in mid-2023. Some 860 million euros from the 2025 ministry budget will be spent on the search for a final repository and about 535 million euros on temporary storage.
By contrast, about 460 million euros were marked for nature and environment protection measures by the ministry, while the subordinate Federal Environment Agency (UBA) will receive another 205 million euros. Climate action costs were not yet reflected in the budget, as the environment ministry was handed responsibility for this policy field from the economy ministry only in spring this year, the parliament report said. It did not specify which measures are covered under this field. Energy policy remains with the economy ministry.
“Nuclear waste is eating up environmental protection,” Wolfgang Ehmke from the citizen initiative for environmental protection of Lüchow-Dannenberg, told newspaper Tageszeitung (taz). The rural district in northern Germany is known for its temporary nuclear repository in the municipality of Gorleben, which has been the site of many anti-nuclear protests over the past decades. Management and construction works at the Gorleben repository alone climbed from 20 million euros in 2024 to 33 million one year later, the newspaper said.
Another repository, Asse near the town of Wolfenbüttel, would even require maintenance investments of 206 million euros this year. Costs for managing the country’s nuclear waste are even higher, as part of the legacy costs are carried by other ministries. For example, the research ministry is responsible for research reactors, while the finance ministry handles nuclear infrastructure in the former eastern German states, as agreed in the country’s reunification treaties, taz added.
Part of the costs of Germany’s nuclear waste management are financed through a fund filled by the former nuclear plant operators. These made a one-off payment of 24 billion euros in 2017 and were subsequently freed of further financial liabilities. Following Germany’s 2011 renewed commitment to phase out nuclear power, the country started looking for a location to safely store its roughly 28,100 cubic metres of radioactive material for hundreds of thousands of years. Initially, the aim was to select a location for the final repository by 2031 but, in 2022, the responsible agency pushed the deadline to until at least 2046.
Don’t believe the hype about nuclear weapons.
13 Aug 25, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/12/dont-believe-the-hype-about-nuclear-weapons
We must continue to challenge claims that nuclear weapons are a ‘necessity’, says Caroline Lucas, while Gerry Weston says they don’t protect us from Russian aggression and Michael Newman says they didn’t end the second world war.
Polly Toynbee is right to point out that while nuclear war has been pushed down the “league table of fear”, most recently by concerns about the climate crisis, the nuclear threat itself remains “as great or greater” and should be the subject of much more urgent debate (I changed my mind on banning the bomb, but the threat of nuclear war is growing – and so is complacency, 7 August). All the more surprising, then, that she overlooks some of the more promising steps towards nuclear disarmament.
In particular, momentum is building behind the UN treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, which came into force in 2021 and is now supported by nearly half the countries in the world. The treaty was the focus of much of the debate in Hiroshima, where I attended the 80th anniversary commemorations, and it deserves to be much better known.
How disappointing, then, that the UK government is not only failing to support it but is actively trying to suppress information about the impact of nuclear war as one of just three countries to vote against the creation of a UN scientific panel on its effects. Instead, it’s choosing to accept a recommendation from the recent strategic defence review to run a PR campaign to convince people of the “necessity” of a growing nuclear arsenal.
If we are to have any success in challenging this, we need to promote a public education campaign that sets out the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons, the flaws in so-called deterrence theory and measures that could immediately reduce risk – taking weapons off hair-trigger alert, for example, and joining China in a “no first use” policy.
Recent polling from More in Common suggests that young people believe nuclear conflict is the greatest threat to Britain. We owe it to them not to give up.
Caroline Lucas
Vice-president, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament; former Green party MP
I normally agree with Polly Toynbee, and was also on the Aldermaston marches as a child, but she is misguided in believing that a joint European nuclear capability would make us safer from Russian aggression. If Russian tanks were to roll into Poland, does she envisage Europe threatening to take out Moscow? If so, I hope that it would be an empty threat and hence useless; if a real threat, we are on the road to Armageddon.
Maybe it would deter a nuclear attack or threat, but is such a situation conceivable? After all, Vladimir Putin could launch a nuclear attack on Ukraine, which has no nuclear umbrella. The more places that have such weapons, the more the risk of misjudged situations. In practice, the nuclear option is useless, unsafe and costly, as well as immoral.
Gerry Weston
Willesden Green, London
The dangerous myth that the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima ended the Pacific war is perpetuated in all the coverage of its 80th anniversary. When I attended an intensive summer course with my students, organised by Hiroshima City University in 2005, we discussed the evidence against this contention. Subsequently, Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, in his book Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan, laid out the overwhelming evidence that it was the Soviet entry into the war that finally forced the surrender. Nuclear weapons kill people and may destroy the planet – they do not end war.
Michael Newman
Emeritus professor, London Metropolitan University
A Shield of Lies: Netanyahu’s Battle Against the World

13 August 2025 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/a-shield-of-lies-netanyahus-battle-against-the-world/
It was a sign of someone desperate that his message has failed to take wing and make its way to better lands. With the strategy of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Gaza Strip sundered and falling over, leaving only a thick butcher’s bill (over 60,000 deaths for starters), extraordinary suffering and humanitarian catastrophe, he thought it wise to confront foreign press outlets on a late Sunday in the hope that the tide might turn away from his exemplary viciousness. There had been, he moaned like a wounded starlet, a “global campaign of lies” about Israel’s war in Gaza. In doing so, he merely inflated the arguments against him with boisterous credit and almost irrefutable plausibility.
The conference, which gave “an opportunity to puncture the lies and tell the truth,” involved the following points: Hamas still has thousands of fighters in Gaza; it vowed to repeat what it had done on October 7, 2023; it continued to expound the goal of wishing to destroy Israel even as it subjugated Gazans, stole their precious food, and shot those seeking to move to safe zones, the latter term being itself a monstrosity in the context of this conflict. Paternally, Netanyahu as the punishing father figure, thought he had deciphered the true desire of those in Gaza, which presumably would not have entailed the killing of Palestinians by the tens of thousands and starving the rest. Everything could be blamed on a militant organisation he had done so much to praise as a countering force against Fatah in the West Bank. As things stood now, Gazans seemed to be suffering from a highly developed sense of Stockholm’s syndrome, “begging us, and they’re begging the world: ‘Free us, Free us, and free Gaza from Hamas’.”
With a solid body of mendacity to work with, Netanyahu proceeded to build an edifice of fantasy few others outside Israel could contend with: that the same Israeli forces who starve, kill and maim the civilian populace of the Strip have no wish to impose an occupation but “free it from Hamas terrorists. The war can end tomorrow if Gaza, or rather if Hamas lays down its arms and releases all the remaining hostages.” Israeli policy was not one of starving the Palestinians into famine wrecks, skeletal ruin and physiological malfunction. That hideous criminal pursuit fell to Hamas, apparently responsible for the violent looting of aid trucks and the deliberate creation of “a shortage of supply.” Fantastically, Netanyahu blamed the United Nations for refusing “to distribute the thousands of trucks that we let into Gaza through the Kerem Shalom crossing,” a delightful complaint given his government’s overt hatred for a body he always wished to be rid of from the occupied territories. The synapses in Netanyahu-Land seemed frailer than ever, if not altogether snapped.
He then belted out the now familiar five-point vision of the Strip once Hamas is defeated. This elusive “day after” includes the following objectives: the disarming of Hamas, the freeing of all hostages, the demilitarising of the Gaza Strip, granting Israel “overriding security control”, the creation of a non-Israeli administration that will not “educate its children for terror, doesn’t pay terrorists and doesn’t launch terrorist attacks against Israel.” Unlike other proposals advanced by France, the UK and Canada, the Palestinian Authority is also excluded from the arrangements, since no Palestinian politician is worth the Israeli PM’s time. Netanyahu’s idea of a politically viable Palestinian is one manacled to the security regime of other powers.
The stage for the next slaughter is set, namely, the dismantling of “the two remaining Hamas strongholds in Gaza City and the Central Camps. Contrary to false claims, this is the best way to end the war, and the best way to end it speedily.” Netanyahu feigns a humanitarian streak in stating that the civilian population will be allowed to “leave the combat areas to designated safe zones.” The process of ethnic cleansing, or simply cleansing of the population, is to simply continue.
Oblivious to Netanyahu’s fortified wall of prejudice is that much of the groundwork for precisely those outcomes he hopes to avoid have already been laid. Whether it be Hamas or any other militant organisation, the notion of pacifist subordinate figures content with their status in any territory where Israel has the last word on everything is absurdly unrealistic.
Doing everything to make his case even less convincing, Netanyahu then told Israeli journalists after seeing the foreign scribblers off that he had never halted all humanitarian aid to Gaza. Even the patriotic Times of Israel found this a bit rich, noting that “his government had enacted that policy earlier this year.” The paper went on to quote the announcement from the premier’s office on March 2: “Prime Minister Netanyahu has decided that, as of this morning, all entry of goods and supplies into the Gaza Strip will cease.”
Netanyahu also refused to accept the proposition that Gaza’s population was starving. Shortages in supply yes; starvation no. “If we had wanted starvation, if that had been our policy, 2 million Gazans wouldn’t be living today after 20 months.” The same could be said about the supreme crime of all: “if we wanted to commit genocide, it would have taken exactly one afternoon.” A wise head might have told him that few who commit genocide or engineer circumstances of mass murder ever make the intention that obvious.
Switzerland moves to lift ban on new nuclear power plants
Critics counter that new reactors carry high costs, waste disposal challenges and potential public pushback.
The Swiss government has presented draft legislation to end its ban on
building new nuclear power plants, reversing a policy adopted in 2018 to
phase out the technology. The plan, a counterproposal to the popular
initiative “Stop the Blackout,” would allow companies to apply for
licenses to construct reactors — if approved by Parliament and upheld in
a potential referendum.
The popular initiative, meanwhile, wants the shift
to be constitutionally enshrined, which would be more difficult to achieve
than a legislative change. Lifting the ban would mark a major shift in
Switzerland’s energy policy. Proponents argue nuclear will be needed
alongside renewables to meet rising electricity demand, cut emissions and
stabilize the grid. Critics counter that new reactors carry high costs,
waste disposal challenges and potential public pushback. Neighboring
Germany exited nuclear power completely in 2023.
Politico 15th Aug 2025, https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2025/08/15/switzerland-moves-to-lift-ban-on-new-nuclear-power-plants-00509734
-
Archives
- January 2026 (283)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
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




