USA does not have to march into war with Russia over Ukraine. It can choose to keep to the Minsk-Normandy process
The current crisis should be a wake-up call to all involved that the Minsk-Normandy process remains the only viable framework for a peaceful resolution in Ukraine. It deserves full international support, including from U.S. Members of Congress, especially in light of broken promises on NATO expansion, the U.S. role in the 2014 coup, and now the panic over fears of a Russian invasion that Ukrainian officials say are overblown.
Memo to Congress: Diplomacy for Ukraine Is Spelled M-I-N-S-K
Ukrainians of all ethnicities deserve genuine support to resolve their differences and find a way to live together in one country—or to separate peacefully.
https://portside.org/2022-02-08/memo-congress-diplomacy-ukraine-spelled-m-i-n-s-k Medea Benjamin, Nicolas J.S. Davies COMMON DREAMS
While the Biden administration is sending more troops and weapons to inflame the Ukraine conflict and Congress is pouring more fuel on the fire, the American people are on a totally different track.
A December 2021 poll found that a plurality of Americans in both political parties prefer to resolve differences over Ukraine through diplomacy. Another December poll found that a plurality of Americans (48 percent) would oppose going to war with Russia should it invade Ukraine, with only 27 percent favoring U.S. military involvement.
The conservative Koch Institute, which commissioned that poll, concluded that “the United States has no vital interests at stake in Ukraine and continuing to take actions that increase the risk of a confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia is therefore not necessary for our security. After more than two decades of endless war abroad, it is not surprising there is wariness among the American people for yet another war that wouldn’t make us safer or more prosperous.”
The most anti-war popular voice on the right is Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who has been lashing out against the hawks in both parties, as have other anti-interventionist libertarians.
On the left, the anti-war sentiment was in full force on February 5, when over 75 protests took place from Maine to Alaska. The protesters, including union activists, environmentalists, healthcare workers and students, denounced pouring even more money into the military when we have so many burning needs at home.
You would think Congress would be echoing the public sentiment that a war with Russia is not in our national interest. Instead, taking our nation to war and supporting the gargantuan military budget seem to be the only issues that both parties agree on.
Most Republicans in Congress are criticizing Biden for not being tough enough (or for focusing on Russia instead of China) and most Democrats are afraid to oppose a Democratic president or be smeared as Putin apologists (remember, Democrats spent four years under Trump demonizing Russia).
Both parties have bills calling for draconian sanctions on Russia and expedited “lethal aid” to Ukraine. The Republicans are advocating for $450 million in new military shipments; the Democrats are one-upping them with a price tag of $500 million.
Progressive Caucus leaders Pramila Jayapal and Barbara Lee have called for negotiations and de-escalation. But others in the Caucus–such as Reps. David Cicilline and Andy Levin–are co-sponsors of the dreadful anti-Russia bill, and Speaker Pelosi is fast-tracking the bill to expedite weapons shipments to Ukraine.
But sending more weapons and imposing heavy-handed sanctions can only ratchet up the resurgent U.S. Cold War on Russia, with all its attendant costs to American society: lavish military spending displacing desperately needed social spending; geopolitical divisions undermining international cooperation for a better future; and, not least, increased risks of a nuclear war that could end life on Earth as we know it.
For those looking for real solutions, we have good news.
Negotiations regarding Ukraine are not limited to President Biden and Secretary Blinken’s failed efforts to browbeat the Russians. There is another already existing diplomatic track for peace in Ukraine, a well-established process called the Minsk Protocol, led by France and Germany and supervised by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
The civil war in Eastern Ukraine broke out in early 2014, after the people of Donetsk and Luhansk provinces unilaterally declared independence from Ukraine as the Donetsk (DPR) and Luhansk (LPR) People’s Republics, in response to the U.S.-backed coup in Kiev in February 2014. The post-coup government formed new “National Guard” units to assault the breakaway region, but the separatists fought back and held their territory, with some covert support from Russia. Diplomatic efforts were launched to resolve the conflict.
The original Minsk Protocol was signed by the “Trilateral Contact Group on Ukraine” (Russia, Ukraine and the OSCE) in September 2014. It reduced the violence, but failed to end the war. France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine also held a meeting in Normandy in June 2014 and this group became known as the “Normandy Contact Group” or the “Normandy Format.”
All these parties continued to meet and negotiate, together with the leaders of the self-declared Donetsk (DPR) and Luhansk (LPR) People’s Republics in Eastern Ukraine, and they eventually signed the Minsk II agreement on February 12, 2015. The terms were similar to the original Minsk Protocol, but more detailed and with more buy-in from the DPR and LPR.
The Minsk II agreement was unanimously approved by the U.N. Security Council in Resolution 2202 on February 17, 2015. The United States voted in favor of the resolution, and 57 Americans are currently serving as ceasefire monitors with the OSCE in Ukraine.
The key elements of the 2015 Minsk II Agreement were:
- an immediate bilateral ceasefire between Ukrainian government forces and DPR and LPR forces;
- the withdrawal of heavy weapons from a 30-kilometer-wide buffer zone along the line of control between government and separatist forces;
- elections in the secessionist Donetsk (DPR) and Luhansk (LPR) People’s Republics, to be monitored by the OSCE; and
- constitutional reforms to grant greater autonomy to the separatist-held areas within a reunified but less centralized Ukraine.
The ceasefire and buffer zone have held well enough for seven years to prevent a return to full-scale civil war, but organizing elections in Donbas that both sides will recognize has proved more difficult.
Continue readingFrance is exploring new ways to dispose of radioactive materials but public opposition is as fierce as ever

“There may be a price [communities] are willing to accept in order to stomach the waste and its risks, but we don’t know what that price is yet,” … “If it’s high enough, it will ultimately add to the cost of disposal.” Local authorities have poured millions of euros of subsidies and compensation into the area to support the project
The nuclear power dilemma: where to put the lethal waste
France is exploring new ways to dispose of radioactive materials but public opposition is as fierce as ever, Ft.com Anna Gross in Chooz and Sarah White in Bure 6 FEB 22,
”………………….Resistance is fissile Cigeo has attracted the same kind of vocal opposition found at other potential burial sites. And, as a result Bure, a village of fewer than 100 inhabitants, has become a battleground where protesters have regularly clashed with police over the future of the site. Demonstrators have set up a “house of resistance” in Bure that has become a magnet for anti-nuclear protesters around the country. The former barn is equipped with a projection room, mattresses to welcome guests and a cosy communal kitchen.
Campaigners say the Bure site has become representative of a broader cause. “Beyond the waste, it’s nuclear production above all else that worries us,” says a 29-year-old jurist who gave his name as Antoine, one of a handful of campaigners manning the fort on a snowy February morning. “It’s a supposedly low carbon source of energy, but you’ve got to build the reactors . . . it is such a dangerous and destructive solution.” Yet the state holds that the undeniable risks of nuclear energy are outweighed by its potential benefits as a cost-effective way of cutting CO2 emissions. According to a report last year from French grid operator RTE, France’s cheapest way to reach carbon neutrality by 2050 would involve building 14 new reactors. Under the scenarios RTE presented, if France built no new nuclear reactors and relied exclusively on expanding renewables and extending the lifespan of existing nuclear, this would cost €10bn more per year than other options including new reactors, with the cost of decommissioning factored into the final bill.
But that may not factor in the costs of convincing French citizens to host such facilities in their backyards. Bure resident Anne-Marie Henn, a retiree, says the project has forced her and her artist husband Jacques to give up on their dream of creating a painting atelier in an annex to their home. “We’d like to leave, but our house isn’t worth anything any more,” she says. Ed Lyman, senior global security scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, who has spent decades researching nuclear power safety, says the science behind burying waste is robust, and the dangers of corrosion or leakage minimal. But there remain real risks for the public, he says, such as accidents happening when materials are transported to the site.
“There may be a price [communities] are willing to accept in order to stomach the waste and its risks, but we don’t know what that price is yet,” he adds. “If it’s high enough, it will ultimately add to the cost of disposal.” Local authorities have poured millions of euros of subsidies and compensation into the area to support the project and residents. In Bure, that has translated into snazzy lampposts lining every street alongside the barns and stone houses; households have also got fibre optic internet connections and sanitation networks have been improved. “We’ve got to deal with this crap,” Henn says. “At the very least we can benefit a bit from [subsidies].”
But the concerns of many communities go way beyond immediate dangers to more existential questions: how can we ensure that not just our children and grandchildren, but people living thousands of years in the future have the knowledge and understanding to handle it responsibly? And how can we be sure that the storage containers we have developed now will stand the test of time? “What we’ll be getting here is the really dangerous core of the waste,” Henn says, adding that it was “the generations to come” that worried her.
Andra, the French state agency responsible for nuclear waste management, is considering ways to warn future generations of what lies below Bure — perhaps by inscribing microscopic information on a hard disk of sapphire, designed to withstand erosion, should the site be forgotten. “Even if we lose our collective memory, the storage site will be safe,” says spokesperson Audrey Guillemenet. If these kinds of innovations fail to impress French lawmakers and the site does not win approval, that leaves the government with a problem that goes far beyond the billions spent on construction. “Some 50 per cent of the [nuclear] waste destined to come here eventually already exists,” says Guillemenet. Forget the next generation of power plants; the decades-old materials Gannaz and his predecessors have removed from Chooz A are a problem that needs a solution. If it is not Bure, then what is it? https://www.ft.com/content/246dad82-c107-4886-9be2-e3b3c4c4f315?segmentid=acee4131-99c2-09d3-a635-873e61754ec6
Sizewell C nuclear plant will have catastrophic effects on nature, and the Minsmere nature reserve.

RSPB officials have expressed dismay at the government’s decision to back the potential Sizewell C nuclear plant with £100million of funding. The proposed twin reactor development would be built next to Sizewell B, close to the RSPB Minsmere nature reserve. The RSPB and the Suffolk Wildlife Trust have long been opposed to the development because they say it will lead to a large loss of habitat for animals and could see millions of dead fish pumped into the sea each year. EDF has always maintained that the power station would help biodiversity by helping to tackle climate change. A spokesperson for the RSPB said: “The RSPB is shocked to hear that the government will be investing £100million of tax payer’s money in Sizewell C before a decision has been made to build it. The government claim to want to be a world leader in their response to the nature crisis. That’s a great ambition, but it is utterly incompatible with throwing £100m at a development that could have catastrophic impacts on nature. East Anglian Daily Times 27th Jan 2022 https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/business/suffolk-groups-react-to-sizewell-c-100m-8649412 |
Call to stop the unfair Vogtle nuclear construction surcharge

Now they want US to pay for THEIR mistakes, botched work & do-overs, delays, and retesting. NO…THEY SHOULD PAY!
REPEAL THE UNFAIR VOGTLE CONSTRUCTION SURCHARGE
5 Repeal Reasons Below
It is simply wrong and disgraceful for the state of Georgia to continue to have
elderly, schools, food banks, mom & pop restaurants, churches, tire stores, car repair shops, households, gas stations, doctors offices, renters, dentists, synagogues, beauty parlors, dry cleaners, shoe stores, insurance offices, meals-on-wheels, homeless shelters, colleges and universities, Salvation Army stores, drug stores, police stations, nursing homes, car washes, pet stores, fast-food restaurants, veterinarian offices, county governments, small manufacturing businesses, hospitals, recycling centers, animal shelters, hardware stores, grocery stores, YMCA & YWCA, bookstores, healthfood stores, consignment stores, rehab centers, phone stores, barbershops, grocery stores, warehouses, franchise businesses, clothing stores…
all paying month after month an extra surcharge amount on their Georgia Power electric bill to finance, without compensation, someone else’s years overdue for-profit venture.
The nuclear finance surcharge law was for construction, not for costly, continuing re-dos, re-testing, and delays after delays.
The surcharge is clearly failing to benefit customers, as the 2009 legislature was led to believe.
STOP The Surcharge Fee On Georgia Power Customers’ Electric Bills
Repeal the Unfair 2009 Nuclear Energy Finance Act
1. The original controversial nuclear finance act of 2009 anticipated that Georgians would pay a surcharge for five years. However, Georgia Power has collected the nuclear tax for SIX YEARS LONGER than anticipated with no end in sight.
2. The original finance act DID NOT anticipate making people pay for expensive construction mistakes, costly delays, and expensive do-overs.
3. The company testifies that construction is 99% complete. Most of the current work is fixing mistakes and do-over work. Customers should not keep paying surcharges if the project is so near completion as claimed, yet so late.
4. Extensive ITAAC testing (Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria) is far from complete. Numerous problems found by testing will push startup much later than the present startup claim of late 2022, and thus continue the surcharges even longer. Note: NRC reports that, of the 399 tests, about 150, or 38% remain to be done. All tests must be complete before fuel is loaded.
5. The surcharge unfairly burdens the small and medium size residential and commercial customers, including schools, elderly, non-profit services, while it unfairly gives a pass to very large customers. These very large customers get to use rates that avoid much of the surcharge. (See Reference 1)
Surcharges started on Georgia Power bills in 2011
In 2019, they hit a high of 10.76 %
In 2020, they were 9.46 % (The NCCR-10 rate)
In 2021, they are 9.46 %
In January, 2022, they will be 3.81 % (The NCCR-11)
Background For Repealing the 2009 Georgia Nuclear Energy Financing Act:
The nuclear surcharge finances the new power plant Vogtle “Vortex” 3 & 4 nuclear reactors. The surcharge is money given to a private for-profit endeavor.
The surcharge takes money from Georgia electric power customers, and there is nothing in return.
The average Georgia residential customer has already paid over $ 850.00 in Vogtle surcharges. So far, Georgia Power has collected over $ 3.6 Billion from Georgians via this nuclear tax!
The nuclear finance surcharge goes on and on, month after month, years longer than proposed. This was not intended by legislators, more than half of whom have retired, when they enacted the 2009 Georgia Nuclear Energy Financing law.
The surcharge began when Vogtle nuclear construction started in 2011 and went to a high of 10.76% in 2019. Under the current law, the nuclear surcharge will stay on Georgians’ power bills until the reactor is operating and selling electricity. Ongoing massive construction delays and cost overruns make that date uncertain………… http://stopvogtlesurcharge.org/
Anglesey does not need nuclear energy – Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA)
Anglesey does not need nuclear energy, says Welsh NFLA chair https://www.northwaleschronicle.co.uk/news/19853825.anglesey-not-need-nuclear-energy-says-welsh-nfla-chair/
By Matthew Chandler @chandler98_ 17 Jan 22, Report THE chair of the Welsh Forum of Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) has countered the recent suggestion by Isle of Anglesey County Council’s leader that nuclear energy is needed ‘now more than ever’.
Councillor Llinos Medi, made this claim to Guto Harri on S4C’s current affairs series, Y Byd yn ei Le.
Responding, the chair of the NFLA Welsh Forum, Councillor Ernie Galsworthy, said: “The council leader seems unaware of the reality that is nuclear power and unaware of her own party’s (Plaid Cymru’s) position on the subject.
“Nuclear energy projects are notorious for being delivered years late, being delivered massively over budget, and on occasions – as we have seen at Wylfa in the recent past – being delivered not at all.
“If the council leader really does want to keep the lights on for her electors then it is pointless looking to nuclear energy to deliver the goods.
“The small modular reactors that Councillor Medi talks of are reliant upon designs that are not yet proven and will not be operational until the mid-2030s at the earliest, and we need to tackle energy insecurity and climate change now.
“They would also be delivered at a massive cost to the Welsh taxpayer as everyone will face a ‘nuclear tax’ on their electricity bills to fund it, thanks to the Conservative Government’s Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill.”
The NFLA is clear on its own position: Wales should move away from nuclear and make a commitment to powering the nation using 100 per cent renewables.
Councillor Galsworthy added: “The Scottish Government has set itself a target of meeting 100 per cent of their nation’s energy needs through renewables alone, and they are now up to 96 per cent, and the Welsh Government should look to do the same.
“Our nation is blessed with natural resources that can, and should, be utilised to meet our current and future energy needs.
“I would urge Councillor Medi not to become another Atomic Kitten. Wales does not ‘need’ nuclear and we do not have to ‘have’ it.
Solar, tidal, wind and hydro-electric power projects can all be delivered now using proven technology far more quickly and at much less cost than nuclear, and without the dangers associated with nuclear power or the need to store safely the resultant radioactive waste.
“Anglesey as the ‘energy island’ could be at the forefront of that renewables’ revolution bringing the many jobs, far more than nuclear, for that island community that would result.
“If Councillor Medi wishes to have a ‘conversation’ about bringing that vision to the island, the Welsh NFLA will be happy to have it.”
Norway Activists Protest After Docking Of US Nuclear Submarine In Tromso: Reports

Norway Activists Protest After Docking Of US Nuclear Submarine In Tromso: Reports, https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/us-news/norway-activists-protest-after-docking-of-us-nuclear-submarine-in-tromso-reports-articleshow.html
Protest intensified in Norway as an American nuclear submarine has docked in Tromso– a city in northern Norway, news agency Sputnik reported.
By Ajeet Kumar 12 Jan 22, Protest intensified in Norway as an American nuclear submarine has docked in Tromso, a city in northern Norway. According to a report by news agency Sputnik, the US nuclear submarine was docked on January 11, the second time in a year. The media report said that the submarine was loaded with arms and missiles and tasked with patrolling the northern waters. As the news of an American submarine docked in Tromso hit headlines of several national media outlets, hundreds of protesters marched towards the guarded gates of the Tonsnes harbour. The protestors termed the recent move of America “a destructive game between superpowers.”
US nuclear submarine arrival in Norway sparks strong reactions
Hakon Elvenes, who represents the protestors, asserted the United States should not dock its submarine in Norway and added the act has a long “symbolic effect”. “This represents a dangerous mix of military and civilian purposes. It is a mixture that may be in conflict with international law, and which hasn’t been assessed well enough by the Norwegian authorities,” Sputnik quoted Elvenes as saying to the national broadcaster NRK. “There is always a risk that something can happen to any nuclear reactor, we have plenty of examples of that. And if something happens first, the consequences will be great,” added Hakon Elvenes.
Tension between two countries soar
Meanwhile, Alberta Tennoe Bekkhus, who represent, the youth wing of the Reds Party argued that the recent action by the US will contribute to unnecessary provocations and further conflict. “The fact that we invite American forces in the way we do makes us more insecure. It contributes to unnecessary provocations and further conflict,” Sputnik quoted Bekkrus as saying. “The way NATO is doing now, I believe it makes the world more insecure. This puts Norway in a more dangerous situation,” she added.
It is worth mentioning that the tension between US and Scandinavian countries has soared in the past few years due to action taken by the US Naval forces. Earlier in November last year, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin met with Norway’s new Defense Minister, Odd Roger Enoksen, in his first visit to the US since taking the position. According to AP, both said the commitment to NATO and the challenges posed by Russia would be topics high on the agenda during their meeting. The duo also discussed the recent activities of the US Navy in northern Norway and added the matter would be solved with discussions.
To Avert ‘Global Nuclear Holocaust,’ US Groups Demand Abolition of ICBMs
To Avert ‘Global Nuclear Holocaust,’ US Groups Demand Abolition of ICBMs https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/01/12/avert-global-nuclear-holocaust-us-groups-demand-abolition-icbmsWhistleblower Daniel Ellsberg says no other immediate action would go further “to reduce the real risk of a false alarm in a crisis causing the near-extinction of humanity.”
JAKE JOHNSON More than 60 U.S. organizations issued a joint statement Wednesday calling for the total elimination of the country’s land-based nuclear missiles, warning that the weapons are both an enormous waste of money and—most crucially—an existential threat to humankind.
Organized by the advocacy groups RootsAction and Just Foreign Policy, the statement argues that intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) are “uniquely dangerous, greatly increasing the chances that a false alarm or miscalculation will result in nuclear war.”
“There is no more important step the United States could take to reduce the chances of a global nuclear holocaust than to eliminate its ICBMs,” continues the statement, which was signed by Beyond the Bomb, Global Zero, Justice Democrats, CodePink, and dozens of other anti-war groups.
“Everything is at stake,” the groups warn. “Nuclear weapons could destroy civilization and inflict catastrophic damage on the world’s ecosystems with ‘nuclear winter,’ inducing mass starvation while virtually ending agriculture. That is the overarching context for the need to shut down the 400 ICBMs now in underground silos that are scattered across five states—Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Wyoming.”
The statement comes just two weeks after President Joe Biden signed into law a sprawling military policy bill that allocates billions of dollars to research, development, and missile procurement for the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) program, an initiative that is expected to replace the current Minuteman III ICBMs in the coming years.
Ahead of the $778 billion legislation’s passage, some progressive lawmakers—most prominently Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.)—called for a pause in GBSD development, a demand that went unheeded.
Daniel Ellsberg, the legendary whistleblower and longtime proponent of nuclear disarmament, told Common Dreams in an email that “most of the so-called ‘defense’ budget is legislative pork.”
“But some of it—in particular, the maintenance and proposed replacement to the current ICBM program—is toxic pork,” he added. “It’s not just unnecessary, it’s positively dangerous, to our own security and that of the rest of the world.”
Before leaking the Pentagon Papers to the press in 1971, Ellsberg specialized in nuclear weapons and operational planning for a possible nuclear war during his time as a consultant to the Defense Department, an experience he recounts in his 2017 book The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner.
“We should have gotten rid of our silo-based ICBMs no less than half a century ago, when they had become totally vulnerable to attack,” Ellsberg told Common Dreams. “Ever since then, deterrence of a nuclear attack should have been based solely on our invulnerable submarine-launched missile force, which is itself far larger than that function requires or should permit.”
Echoing the anti-war coalition’s fear that a potential “false alarm” could spark nuclear catastrophe, Ellsberg noted that “the survival in wartime of hundreds of land-based missiles depends on their being launched, irrevocably (unlike bombers), on electronic and infrared warning before attacking missiles might arrive.”
“Such a warning, however convincing, may be false; and that has actually happened, more times than our public has ever become aware,” he said. “No other strategic weapons besides ground-based ICBMs challenge a national leader to decide, absurdly within minutes, whether ‘to use them or lose them.’ They should not exist.”
“No other specific, concrete American action would go so far immediately to reduce the real risk of a false alarm in a crisis causing the near-extinction of humanity,” Ellsberg concluded.
In a statement, RootsAction national director Norman Solomon lamented that recent public discussion surrounding U.S. nuclear weapons policy “has been almost entirely limited to the narrow question of whether to build a new ICBM system or stick with the existing Minuteman III missiles for decades longer.”
“That’s like arguing over whether to refurbish the deck chairs on the nuclear Titanic,” said Solomon. “Both options retain the same unique dangers of nuclear war that ICBMs involve. It’s time to really widen the ICBM debate, and this joint statement from U.S. organizations is a vital step in that direction.”
Protesters call for abolition of nuclear weapons
Protesters call for abolition of nuclear weapons, https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20220102_02/ Protesters in the Japanese city of Nagasaki took part in a sit-in on New Year’s Day and called for the abolition of nuclear weapons. A sit-in is held in the city every year on January 1. Nagasaki was hit by an atomic bomb during World War Two.
More than 60 people participated in the protest in the city’s Peace Park on Saturday.
The protesters observed a moment of silence at 11:02 a.m. The atomic bomb exploded in Nagasaki at that time on August 9, 1945. The participants held up pieces of paper with the word “peace” written on them in Japanese.
Atomic bomb survivor Tanaka Yasujiro said 2022 will be an important year. He said he wants non-nuclear countries to surround nuclear states, so that the number of nuclear warheads can be reduced.
The states, which signed the UN treaty that bans nuclear weapons, are scheduled to meet for the first time in March 2022.
The Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons may be held in August.
Parties to the NPT meet every five years to review the accord. A meeting was scheduled to take place in January. But the participants agreed to postpone it for the fourth time, due to the coronavirus pandemic. Various options are now being considered. A gathering in August is a possibility.
Strong local Council opposition to Hartlepool plan for hosting Britain’s nuclear waste dump .

Talks on multi-billion pound nuclear waste facility in Hartlepool stall amid lack of council support. Talks over Hartlepool potentially becoming home for a multi-billion pound development to store large amounts of nuclear waste underground have stalled.
Presentations on the controversial development for a Geological Disposal Facility were led by leaders of
Hartlepool community organisation The Wharton Trust earlier this year (2020). But the issue is unlikely to go any further after the leader of Hartlepool Borough Council and other political leaders spoke out strongly against it. ………………….
Councillor Shane Moore said: “I want to be absolutely clear with residents that I do not support any proposal to create a site for the disposal of nuclear waste here in Hartlepool and it is disappointing to hear that people are still trying to push this.
“I am not prepared to be the council leader that started the ball rolling to turn my hometown into the nuclear waste dump of the United Kingdom and frankly I don’t care how many pieces of silver are being offered.”
Hartlepool Mail 30th Dec 2021
Residents on Taiwan’s Orchid Island hope that the nuclear waste storage facility will now be closed
For decades, Taiwan has been storing barrels of radioactive waste on
Orchid Island, home to some 5,000 — mostly Indigenous people. DW’s Joyce
Lee met residents who hope that the facility will be finally closed after
all those years.
Deutsche Welle 16th Dec 2021
https://www.dw.com/en/living-next-to-taiwans-nuclear-dump-site/av-60154113
Sweden’s Non Government Organisations want the government to reject nuclear repositary plans, on safety grounds
The new Minister of Climate and Environment Annika Strandhäll at a press
conference on December 8 presented a timetable for a decision on the
planned repository for spent nuclear fuel in Forsmark, and a decision on
the extension of the current repository for short-lived radioactive waste
(SFR 2).
The nuclear fuel repository decision will be taken on January 27,
2022, and the SFR 2 decision already on December 22. The Swedish Society
for Nature Conservation, the Swedish Friends of the Earth and the Swedish
NGO Office for Nuclear Waste Review (MKG) want the government to say no to
both repositories.
The organisations are of the opinion that it has still
not been shown that the spent nuclear fuel repository is safe enough and
believe that the LOT experiment can, if necessary, be used to develop more
knowledge about copper as a canister material before a decision is made.
If the government intends to say yes to the start of construction repository,
the decision should follow the Swedish Council for Nuclear Waste’s proposal
to condition an approval to more research and that a separate decision
under the Environmental Code be given separately to start operation when
that time.
MKG 8th Dec 2021
Protesters denounce French push to label nuclear as sustainable energy
Protesters denounce French push to label nuclear as sustainable energyReuters PARIS, Dec 14 (Reuters) – Demonstrators unfurled a banner declaring “Gas & nuclear are not green” outside France’s foreign ministry on Tuesday in protest at a government drive to label nuclear energy and fossil gas as sectors for climate-friendly investment……………
Protesters denounce French push to label nuclear as sustainable energy, Reuters PARIS, Dec 14 (Reuters) – Demonstrators unfurled a banner declaring “Gas & nuclear are not green” outside France’s foreign ministry on Tuesday in protest at a government drive to label nuclear energy and fossil gas as sectors for climate-friendly investment……………
The European Union is preparing a rulebook on climate friendly investments, which from next year will define which activities can be labelled as green in sectors including transport and buildings.
The EU’s aim is to restrict the green investment label to climate-friendly activities, steer cash into low-carbon projects and stop companies or investors making unsubstantiated environmental claims.
The French government hopes that having the sustainable energy label could boost France’s struggling nuclear energy industry, which was bailed out by the state in 2017 following construction delays and cost overruns.
“By taking the lead of the toxic alliance between fossil gas and nuclear (energy) at a European level, Emmanuel Macron clearly sides with the polluters’ camp. Nuclear is not a green energy: it produces radioactive waste that piles up across the country”, said Nicolas Nace, a member of environmentalist group Greenpeace.
Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said last month that one of the priorities of France’s six-month EU presidency, starting on Jan. 1, would be to include nuclear power in Europe’s sustainable finance taxonomy.
Some EU countries, including Germany, do not agree with this policy.
France generates about three quarters of its electricity in nuclear reactors operated by state-owned utility EDF. https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/protesters-denounce-french-push-label-nuclear-sustainable-energy-2021-12-14/
Prominent Indian activist Medha Patkar urges Tamil Nadu’s Chief Minister to close down Kudankulam nuclear power station.

Medha Patkar urges Stalin to close nuclear plant at Kudankulam https://www.dtnext.in/News/TamilNadu/2021/12/14043718/1333730/Medha-Patkar-urges-Stalin-to-close-nuclear-plant-at-.vpf
Dec 14,2021 Noted activist Medha Patkar met Chief Minister M. K. Stalin in Chennai on Monday and urged him to shut down the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant
Chennai: “Radiation causes serious impact on human beings as well as aquatic species, and when there are over four nuclear plants (at Koodankulam nuclear plants) close to the sea, it is even more destructive,” said social activist Medha Patkar, while discussing environmental issues in Tamil Nadu, at Chennai press club on Monday.
Even as the opposition to the two units of nuclear power plants was continuing, they have started the construction of 3, 4, 5 and 6 units. In this situation, they are planning to begin the seventh and eighth unit and reprocessing plant said the national convener of the National Alliance of People’s Movement.Chennai: “Radiation causes serious impact on human beings as well as aquatic species, and when there are over four nuclear plants (at Koodankulam nuclear plants) close to the sea, it is even more destructive,” said social activist Medha Patkar, while discussing environmental issues in Tamil Nadu, at Chennai press club on Monday.
Even as the opposition to the two units of nuclear power plants was continuing, they have started the construction of 3, 4, 5 and 6 units. In this situation, they are planning to begin the seventh and eighth unit and reprocessing plant said the national convener of the National Alliance of People’s Movement.
Opposition to small nuclear reactor project for Oyster Creek
Small Nuclear Reactor Might Be Built At Oyster Creek, Jersey Shore Online, 10 Dec,
”……………….Janet Tauro, who serves as New Jersey Board Chair of Clean Water Action, told The Southern Ocean Times that her organization was not in favor of the idea. “The last thing we need is another nuclear reactor at a site that has millions of gallons of waste material still in their fuel pool.”
She expressed concerns of where Oyster Creek’s current nuclear waste would end up, noting that Holtec’s application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a consolidated interim storage facility that would be based in New Mexico has not been approved and is facing resistance by residents and officials of that state.
“Nothing is happening any time soon – if at all – and we don’t want to saddle other people with other state’s nuclear waste.” She noted spent nuclear fuel rods on site at Oyster Creek must be removed from their storage casks every 20 years and put into new containers.
“This is a bad idea. Ocean County shouldn’t be a test case for unproven technology. Oyster Creek is the first nuclear power plant that Holtec has decommissioned. It is needless to expose Ocean County to that risk. Spent fuel rods should be nowhere near another nuclear reactor,” she added.
-
Archives
- April 2026 (114)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
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




