Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CFTPP) held over Taiwan , because of its referendum rejecting food from Fukushima
FOOD IMPORTS FROM FUKUSHIMA-AFFECTED AREAS BECOME WEDGE ISSUE WITH JAPAN https://newbloommag.net/2018/12/17/fukushima-food-cftpp/18DECEMBER 2018 by Brian Hioe
I T IS UNSURPRISING that Taiwan will not be admitted to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CFTPP) because of the referendum vote against food imports from Fukushima-affected areas held in late November concurrent with nine-in-one elections. Namely, the issue of food imports is one upon which Taiwan has long been pushed around by larger, more powerful countries, who dangle the threat of being denied admittance to international free trade agreements if Taiwan does not allow food imports.
The Abe administration has in the past made allowing food imports from Fukushima-affected areas a condition for stronger diplomatic relations with Japan. This would be part of a more general effort by the Abe administration to promote the prefecture of Fukushima as safe, with concerns that lingering radiation may still cause harmful effects in the region after the 2011 Fukushima disaster. The Abe administration has thus attempted to promote food exports from the area, as well as to encourage tourism to the area.
Concerns over whether food from Fukushima is safe are valid, seeing as this is an issue of contention in Japan itself. Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) is deeply wedded to the Japanese nuclear industry, with an unusual willingness to push for nuclear energy in spite of outbreaks of large-scale public protest. Concerns have also been longstanding that the LDP has been unwilling to provide accurate nuclear assessments for the Fukushima area, or sought to mislead through official statistics.
After the results of the referendum in late November, in which 7,791,856 voted against allowing food imports from Fukushima, the Japanese government initially expressed understanding regarding the results of the referendum, suggesting that not allowing food imports from Fukushima would not be an obstacle for Japan-Taiwan relations going forward. However, this appears to have not entirely been the truth.
Indeed, as the KMT was a powerful force behind the push for the referendum, it is likely that the KMT sought to use the issue of food imports from Fukushima-affected areas as a means to not only to attack the DPP with the accusation that it was endangering public safety but also sabotage closer relations between Japan and Taiwan. Apart from that the KMT’s Chinese nationalism has a strong anti-Japanese element, the KMT is pro-unification and so opposes closer ties between Japan and Taiwan, seeing as Japan could be a powerful regional ally that interceded on behalf of Taiwan against Chinese incursion.
The CFTPP is a regional free trade agreement that is the form that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) took on after America withdrew from the trade agreement under Donald Trump. Despite the fact that the TPP was orchestrated under American auspices as a means to counter growing Chinese influence in the Asia-Pacific region, the Trump administration favored protectionism instead of free trade, seeing free trade as overextending American resources rather than expanding its economic reach.
This would not be the first time that food imports have been used as a condition of Taiwan’s admittance to or denial from the TPP framework. America previously made allowing American beef imports into Taiwan to be a condition of Taiwan’s possibly entering into the TPP, seeing as there were in concerns in Taiwan that the use of the hormone ractopamine—banned in most of the world’s countries but not in America—was unsafe. This, too, was a valid concern regarding food safety, but the KMT was interested in the issue because it hoped to use this as a wedge issue to sabotage relations between Taiwan and the US.
Now that Japan is the primary driving force behind the CFTPP, as the renewed version of the TPP, food imports from Fukushima-affected areas have taken priority as the issue which would determine Taiwan’s admittance or non-admittance to the CFTPP. As free trade agreements are more generally a way for large, powerful countries to coerce smaller, weaker countries into relations of economic subordination, this would be nothing surprising.
More generally, free trade agreements have also long been held over the heads of Taiwanese voters in order to influence how they vote, as observed in the examples of the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement or the Cross-Strait Services Trade Agreement under the Ma administration. But in light of the issue of food imports from Fukushima-affected areas being a contested issue in Taiwan, it remains to be seen whether the CFTPP will become a significant wedge issue in Taiwanese politics going forward.
Trump and Putin could save The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force Treaty, and it’s worth saving
Landmark nuclear treaty can still benefit US, NATO and Russia security. They should delay action for six months and negotiate ways to show compliance. The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force Treaty — a key part of the post cold war nuclear system of controls and restraint — is on life support. President Donald Trump announced his desire to withdraw from the 1987 INF pact in October, citing Russian cheating and a desire to deploy missiles against China as motives. German Chancellor Angela Merkel reportedly convinced Trump this month to hold off on withdrawal for at least two months so the NATO alliance could act in a more united fashion to either bring Russia back into compliance or show it was trying.
As officials who helped negotiate the last two major strategic arms control agreements, we believe there is a deal to save the treaty and ensure its benefits can continue. This will require creative, serious and genuine negotiations by Washington and Moscow. We know firsthand, however, that negotiating with Russia can lead to surprising and positive results. Such engagement is desperately needed now, and could save a critical part of the post-Cold War arms control system that benefits American security
There’s no doubt that Russia violated INF Treaty The INF Treaty signed by President Ronald Reagan and General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev bans the US and Russia from having land-based missiles with ranges from 500-5500 kilometers. The Treaty helped end the cold war and paved the way for reductions in strategic nuclear weapons. Banning these weapons gave leaders in Russia, Europe and America more time to make decisions in a crisis, and the treaty is worth saving if all sides can show there are fully complying with the deal.
There is no real question that Russia has violated the INF treaty. The United States has been sure of this since 2013 and has been increasingly clear about how Russia has violated the deal. Russia tested its 9M729 cruise missiles from a mobile fixed launcher to a distance of over 500 KM — something allowed by the treaty — and then later tested the same system from a ground-mobile launcher, making the missile a ground-launched system under the terms of INF.
Russia denies the 9M729 missile violates INF and instead accuses the United States of violating the INF by deploying the Mark-41 missile launcher as part of NATO missile defenses in Europe. The Mk-41 on shore is used to launch missile defense interceptors, but is used by the U.S. Navy on ships to launch offensive missiles. Russia claims this violates INF. Washington says the Mk-41 launcher for NATO’s defense is physically capable of holding canisters to launch offensive missiles like the Tomahawk cruise missile, but the land-based variant deployed in NATO is not equipped with firing software. Washington claims this makes the launcher legal, but this explanation gives Moscow little comfort.
For five years, the two countries have tried to get the other to admit their violation. That approach has failed and the treaty is now at risk of disappearing. The only way to save it — something both countries say they want — is for both to go beyond what the treaty requires to assure the other that it is in compliance.
Over the last year, former officials and experts from Russia and the United States have met privately to explore what an extra transparency regime might look like. Russian former military officials have said that the 9M729 should be made available for both inspection and even taken apart for American inspectors to determine if it can travel over 500km. While not an official Russia government offer, it seems unlikely that former officials would suggest such a thing without a sense that it might be possible.
The INF Treaty is beneficial and worth saving
Former American officials, for their part, have said NATO missile defense sites could be made available for visits by Russian officials to show no offensive missiles deployed on site. Other more extreme steps might be to modify the Mk-41 launcher so that it cannot physically hold or launch offensive missiles.
This deal is worth official exploration. Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin should pledge not to take any unilateral steps on the INF Treaty — including withdrawal — for at least six months. They should send senior officials from their militaries, the State and Defense departments, and the White House and Kremlin to negotiate on a continual basis to see if such a deal is technically feasible. The teams should be directed to produce a draft deal for both presidents and for NATO — whose security is most at risk and whose members will need to agree to steps providing transparency over NATO missile defense sites — in three months for official consideration.
Trying to save the INF treaty can have important benefits for the United States and its NATO allies. Now that the US has publicly released details of Russia violations, European NATO states may be able to bring more pressure on Russia to come back into compliance. If in the end, Russia’s violations cannot be reversed, making these efforts will show it is a lack of political will, and not technical problems, that led to the treaty’s demise. This will in itself help NATO allies as they wrestle with how to manage security and stability in a post-INF world.
Treaties should only remain in force if they benefit American and allied security, and sometimes treaties outlive their usefulness. But the INF still can protect these interests, and Russian security as well, if all sides are prepared to show that they remain in compliance.
Richard Burt is for the former ambassador to Germany and led the 1991 START Agreement talks. Ellen Tauscher is the former undersecretary of state for arms control and international security and oversaw negotiation of the New START Treaty. Both are members of the Nuclear Crisis Group based in Washington.
Russia woos China to join nuclear framework with US
Moscow sees new opportunities as Cold War deal crumbles https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-Relations/Russia-woos-China-to-join-nuclear-framework-with-US
The U.S. and Russia are currently bound by the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which prohibits ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500 km to 5,500 km. But U.S. President Donald Trump in October announced plans to withdraw over what he publicly painted as Russian violations.
On Dec. 4, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gave Russia 60 days to return to compliance before Washington begins the process of leaving. Moscow says it has not violated the treaty and points an accusing finger at the U.S. for its missile defense hardware in Eastern Europe.
The two sides are believed to be working out a new framework behind closed doors to replace the INF Treaty. “I am certain that, at some time in the future, President Xi [Jinping of China] and I, together with President [Vladimir] Putin of Russia, will start talking about a meaningful halt to what has become a major and uncontrollable Arms Race,” Trump tweeted on Dec. 3.
Putin may have touched on a joint framework with China when he briefly spoke with Trump in Buenos Aires on Dec. 1, a source close to the Russian government said.
Putin said on Dec. 5 that Russia will follow suit if the U.S. starts developing missiles now banned by the INF treaty. “This is actually true,” he said of the argument that they are the only two nations that do not produce such arms. “Many other countries — probably about a dozen already — make such weapons, while Russia and the United States have limited themselves bilaterally.”
Russia likely sees the INF as essentially dead. Significantly outgunned by NATO in conventional arms, the country has been thought to even welcome the American decision as an excuse to strengthen its own nuclear posture.
“The United States is primarily focused on Asia where it would like to compensate for the ‘unfair’ lack of intermediate- and shorter-range weapons there,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in October. Moscow hopes that Beijing would take its side against strengthened missile defenses by the U.S. in Asia.
Meanwhile, the nuclear issue is one of the few Trump can meet with Putin on amid the ongoing probe into Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. It remains to be seen whether more hawkish members of his administration, like National Security Adviser John Bolton, will be open to adding China to the mix.
Global nuclear industry’s confidence is wobbling, as China loses enthusiasm for nuclear power
China’s losing its taste for nuclear power. MIT Technology Review, Once nuclear’s strongest booster, China is growing wary about its cost and safety. by Peter Fairley,December 12, 2018
Most beautiful wedding photos taken at a nuclear power plant” might just be the strangest competition ever. But by inviting couples to celebrate their nuptials at the Daya Bay plant in Shenzhen and post the pictures online, China General Nuclear Power (CGN), the country’s largest nuclear power operator, got lots of favorable publicity.
A year later, the honeymoon is over.
For years, as other countries have shied away from nuclear power, China has been its strongest advocate. Of the four reactors that started up worldwide in 2017, three were in China and the fourth was built by Beijing-based China National Nuclear Corp. (CNNC) in Pakistan. China’s domestic nuclear generation capacity grew by 24% in the first 10 months of 2018.
The country has the capacity to build 10 to 12 nuclear reactors a year. But though reactors begun several years ago are still coming online, the industry has not broken ground on a new plant in China since late 2016, according to a recent World Nuclear Industry Status Report.
Officially China still sees nuclear power as a must-have. But unofficially, the technology is on a death watch. Experts, including some with links to the government, see China’s nuclear sector succumbing to the same problems affecting the West: the technology is too expensive, and the public doesn’t want it.
The 2011 meltdown at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant shocked Chinese officials and made a strong impression on many Chinese citizens. A government survey in August 2017 found that only 40% of the public supported nuclear power development.
The bigger problem is financial. Reactors built with extra safety features and more robust cooling systems to avoid a Fukushima-like disaster are expensive, while the costs of wind and solar power continue to plummet: they are now 20% cheaper than electricity from new nuclear plants in China, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Moreover, high construction costs make nuclear a risky investment.
And gone are the days when nuclear power was desperately needed to meet China’s soaring demand for electricity. In the early 2000s, power consumption was growing at more than 10% annually as the economy boomed and manufacturing, a heavy user of electricity, expanded rapidly. Over the past few years, as growth has slowed and the economy has diversified, power demand has been growing, on average, at less than 4%.
China’s disenchantment with nuclear power corresponds with an overall decline in nuclear generation elsewhere in the world. Utilities are retiring existing plants and have stopped building new ones. If China, too, gives up on nuclear, it could sound the death knell………
Within days of Fukushima, nuclear reactor construction in China was frozen. When building resumed months later, after a wave of inspections, Beijing insisted that future nuclear power projects adopt more advanced designs with extra safety features.
The damage to public confidence, however, had already been done. In 2013 over a thousand people assembled in Jiangmen, east of Hong Kong, to decry a planned uranium fuel plant. Within days the state-run project was scrapped. In 2016 local officials suspended preliminary work on a site in Lianyungang, in northeastern Jiangsu province, after an uproar caused by revelations that it might host a recycling plant for spent nuclear fuel. In the wake of that protest, China’s State Council amended its draft regulations on nuclear power management, requiring developers to hold public hearings before siting projects…………
Dwindling options
The government has lately said little about nuclear policy. Its official target, last updated in 2016, calls for 58 gigawatts of nuclear generating capacity to be installed by 2020 and for another 30 GW to be under construction. All experts agree China won’t reach its 2020 goal until 2022 or later, and pre-Fukushima projections of 400 GW or more by midcentury now look fanciful. Han says he is betting that after the country builds the 88 GW in its 2020 plan, it will move on to other energy sources. …….
If the Hualong One proves too expensive, China’s lingering nuclear hopes will be pinned to its advanced-reactor program—an effort to develop a new generation of technologies that include high-temperature gas-cooled reactors, designs cooled with sodium metal or salt, and smaller versions of pressurized-water reactors. These various designs are meant to be cheaper to build and operate—and much safer—than conventional reactors.
But so far there is little evidence that any of them will solve nuclear’s problems. A sodium-cooled reactor completed near Beijing in 2011 has had familiar technical glitches such as problems in its coolant systems. And the rising cost of a pair of high-temperature gas-cooled reactors nearing completion at Shandong Province’s Shidao Bay ended plans for a further 18 such reactors at the site.
There’s always the possibility of a breakthrough that would make nuclear safe and cheap enough to compete with renewables and coal. But even China’s nuclear giants are hedging their bets. Both CGN and the state-owned firm funding China’s AP1000 investments rank among the world’s top 10 renewable-power operators……..
Pacific island countries accuse USA of obstructing talks at UN climate change summit
Vanuatu’s foreign minister says worst offenders on global warming are blocking progress, Guardian, Ben Doherty in Katowice@bendohertycorro, Wed 12 Dec 2018
The United States and other high carbon dioxide-emitting developed countries are deliberately frustrating the UN climate summit in Katowice, Poland, Vanuatu’s foreign minister has said. His warning came as Pacific and Indian ocean states warned they faced annihilation if a global climate “rule book” could not brokered.In a bruising speech before ministers and heads of state, Vanuatu’s foreign minister, Ralph Regenvanu, singled out the US as he excoriated major CO2-emitting developed countries for deliberately hindering negotiations.
“It pains me deeply to have watched the people of the United States and other developed countries across the globe suffering the devastating impacts of climate-induced tragedies, while their professional negotiators are here at COP24 putting red lines through any mention of loss and damage in the Paris guidelines and square brackets around any possibility for truthfully and accurately reporting progress against humanity’s most existential threat,” he said.
Regenvanu said the countries most responsible for climate change were now frustrating efforts to counter it.
The UN’s climate change talks in Poland have been distracted by a semantic debate over whether the conference should “welcome” or “note” the IPCC’s special report warning of dire consequences if global warming rises more than 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, with a bloc of four oil-producing countries – the US, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Kuwait – insisting the report be only “noted”.
Documents from the conference presidency, seen by the Guardian, indicate the issue of how to acknowledge the report will be returned to later in the week and is likely to further slow progress on negotiating a final outcome. Negotiators said they are growing increasingly pessimistic that talks can be concluded by their deadline on Friday…….
As 193 countries at the climate talks seek to establish a “rule book” on how to implement the commitments made in the Paris agreement three years ago, Regenvanu condemned a two-tier system that exempted high-emissions countries from reductions obligations, saying the world needed “one common rule book, in which rules apply to all”.
The US state department declined to comment on his remarks……https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/11/us-accused-of-obstructing-talks-at-un-climate-change-summit
France, Hungary Conclude Military, Nuclear Energy Agreements
Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó announced the deals on Tuesday after meeting his French counterpart Jean-Yves Le Drian.
Hungary’s armed forces have ordered twenty Airbus helicopters from France.
Meanwhile, two French companies, including a state-owned company, will have a major role in operating the current Paks nuclear power plant and in manufacturing turbines for the expanded Paks plant.
“We will continue to strengthen the French-Hungarian alliance that has emerged in the peaceful use of nuclear energy,” Szijjártó said, adding that France and Hungary both adhere to the principle that the national energy mix must remain a national competence…….https://hungarytoday.hu/france-hungary-conclude-military-nuclear-energy-agreements/
Fossil fuel panel, of Americans plus Australia’s ambassador for environment, Patrick Suckling, scorned in Ploand
The only non-American was Patrick Suckling, the ambassador for the environment in Australia’s coal-enthusiast government.A Trump administration presentation extolling the virtues of fossil fuels at the UN climate talks in Poland has been met with guffaws of laughter and chants of “Shame on you”.Monday’s protest came during a panel discussion by the official US delegation, which used its only public appearance to promote the “unapologetic utilisation” of coal, oil and gas. Although these industries are the main source of the carbon emissions that are causing global warming, the speakers boasted the US would expand production for the sake of global energy security and planned a new fleet of coal plants with technology it hoped to export to other countries.
The event featured prominent cheerleaders for fossil fuels and nuclear power,including Wells Griffith, Donald Trump’s adviser on global energy and climate, Steve Winberg, the assistant secretary for fossil energy at the energy department, and Rich Powell, the executive director of the ClearPath Foundation, a non-profit organisation focused on “conservative clean energy”. The only non-American was Patrick Suckling, the ambassador for the environment in Australia’s coal-enthusiast government.
None of the US participants mentioned climate change or global warming, focusing instead of “innovation and entrepreneurship” in the technological development of nuclear power, “clean coal” and carbon capture and storage.
Ten minutes into Griffith’s opening speech, he was interrupted by a sudden, sustained, loud volley of laughter by several dozen protesters that was then followed by a single shout of “It’s not funny”, and then a series of chants of “Keep it in the ground” and “Shame on you”.
Several campaigners read statements. “There is no such thing as clean coal. Coal is deadly from the beginning to the end. They talk about the life cycle of coal, I talk about it as a death march. My father died of black lung, and I am in this struggle with others whose fathers and husbands are dying of black lung right now,” said Teri Blanton of Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, which represents Appalachian coal workers in North America.
After the protesters were led away by security guards, Griffiths said: “In the US our policy is not to keep it in the ground, but to use it as cleanly and efficiently as possible”.
This statement was contradicted by climate analysts, who noted the US environment agency estimates that 1,400 more deaths per year will result from Trump’s proposal to replace the Clean Power Act.
“It’s ludicrous for Trump officials to claim that they want to clean up fossil fuels, while dismantling standards that would do just that,” said Dan Lashof, the director of the World Resources Institute. “Since taking office, this administration has proposed to roll back measures to cut methane leaks from oil and gas operations, made it easier for companies to dump coal ash into drinking water, and just days ago proposed easing carbon pollution rules for new coal-fired power plants.” …….
Echoing a claim often made by Trump, Griffiths said the US would not be subject to agreements that hamstrung domestic growth, while allowing China to operate with high emissions.
This was the second consecutive year that the Trump team was heckled after promoting fossil fuels and nuclear power at the climate talks, underscoring how the US position has shifted since the president took power in 2017………
An alternative, non-official US delegation has backed a faster transition to renewables. Made up of city- and state-level governments, business executives and religious leaders, the “We’re still in” group is staging dozens of events in a bid to show action is still possible without White House support.
Nonetheless, many observers at the official US panel were ashamed at the position of their federal government. “I was completely embarrassed to be an American”, said Leo McNeil Woodberry of the Climate Action Network. “Everything they proposed was absolutely wrong. I can’t believe they are putting profits over the planet, and profits over people.” https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/10/protesters-disrupt-us-panels-fossil-fuels-pitch-at-climate-talks
Australia’s dirty tricks in Poland: getting away with no reduction in greenhouse emissions
Fake action’: Australia’s secret path to hitting Paris climate goals, Brisbane Times, By Peter Hannam,– 10 December 2018 Australia could use a little-known loophole to help meet up to half its Paris climate commitments in a move that analysts warn could undermine the global accord.
Neither Environment Minister Melissa Price nor Labor will rule out counting Australia’s expected credits from beating its 2020 goal under the soon-to-be-superseded Kyoto Protocol against its 2030 Paris pledge.
The analysts say such a move by Australia would encourage other nations to follow suit.
One ex-member of Australia’s negotiating team said the government had considered using the credits for some time even though it went against the spirit of the Paris accord signed in 2015. While not formally on the agenda at the current climate talks in Poland, the issue of Kyoto credits is expected to be discussed in coming days.
Ms Price, who is attending the summit in the city of Katowice, has put the expected surplus by 2020 – when the Paris agreement kicks in –
at 294 million tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent.
However, consultancy Climate Analytics calculated the final figure will be at least 333 million tonnes. If accounting around land use changes – including tree planting and land clearing – is settled in Australia’s favour, the surplus could swell to 400 million tonnes.
Australia’s current pledge under the Paris agreement is to cut emissions 26-28 per cent below 2005 levels by the year 2030.
Unless other nations object to the use of carryover credits, it could then meet the target with just a 15 per cent cut – a much easier task.
“This appears to be the ‘canter’ the government keeps talking about,”
said Bill Hare, director of Climate Analytics. “It is fake action and would be rorting the planet, and will undermine real action in Australia.”
Carryover estimates are based on data provided by Australia to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at the end of 2017.
Ms Price declined to directly answer questions about how it will use any Kyoto carryover.
‘Fatal undermining’
Richie Merzian, who was part of Australia’s climate negotiations
team for nine years before joining think tank The Australia Institute in April, said the government had long considered deploying a Kyoto surplus towards its Paris target.
“It was certainly part of their train of thinking,” Mr Merzian said. “It could be they were banking on this.”
“You’re basically getting away without reducing your emissions,” he said…….
Labor caution
Mark Butler, Labor’s climate spokesman, declined to rule out using Kyoto credits if the ALP wins office next year………
Adam Bandt, the Greens’ climate spokesman, said the public expected “a government of climate deniers to use dodgy accounting to shirk their climate responsibilities, but not Labor”.
“Labor needs to follow the lead of many other developed countries and immediately rule out using carryover credits to meet our measly Paris obligations if it wins office,” he said.
Emma Herd, chief executive of the Investor Group on Climate Change, said any weakening of emissions targets would sap investments needed to tranform the economy to net-zero emissions by mid-century.
“To secure the long-term prosperity of Australia, targets need to be in line with the objectives of the Paris Agreement – limiting warming to 1.5 degrees and well below 2 degrees,” Ms Herd said.
“The longer we delay credible taking action, the harder the economic adjustment will be and Australia will continue to lose the opportunity to unlock the benefits of investment in clean energy and other low carbon
Donald Trump – ” It’s time to scrap the Paris climate accord
|
Trump, observing French turmoil, suggests end of climate change pact https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-france/trump-observing-french-turmoil-suggests-end-of-climate-change-pact-idUSKBN1O70RP, 9 Dec 18WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump, commenting on the clashes between police and “yellow vest” protesters in Paris, said on Saturday that it may be time to do away with the Paris accord on climate change. “Very sad day & night in Paris,” the president said in a message issued on Twitter. “Maybe it’s time to end the ridiculous and extremely expensive Paris Agreement and return money back to the people in the form of lower taxes?” Reporting by David Morgan; Editing by Nick Zieminski |
|
When UK leaves European Union how will disputes on the new UK-Belgium energy interconnector be resolved?
energy interconnector (“Funding Nemo: £600m power cable now links UK to Belgium,” overlooks one crucial matter: how will any disputes arising from the joint facility be resolved once the UK has left the EU and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice?
months ago ( “Staying Connected: Key Elements for UK–EU27 Energy Cooperation After Brexit”, 10 May 2017
https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/staying-connected-key-elements-uk-eu27-energy-cooperation-after-brexit,
authored by Antony Froggatt, Senior Research Fellow on Energy, Environment and Resources at CH, (and his colleagues from CH Europe Programme plus the Energy Policy Group at University of Exeter). Their research paper proposed that energy – particularly electricity – should be treated as a special case in the UK’s future relationship with the EU27. They argue that “strong UK–EU27 energy cooperation could help ensure that existing and future interconnectors – physical pipes and cables that transfer energy across borders – between the UK, Ireland and the continent are used as efficiently as possible.”
http://drdavidlowry.blogspot.com/2018/12/future-regulation-of-uk-eu-energy.html
UK govt allowing Chinese nuclear technology for Bradwell reactor?
Times 9th Dec 2018 Something that would once have been unthinkable took another step towards
becoming reality last month just 40 miles east of London on the Essex
coast.
Britain’s nuclear watchdog nudged a Chinese reactor a step closer
to being allowed to operate in the UK, sending it through the “initial
high-level scrutiny” phase. It will eventually be built at
Bradwell-on-Sea. Much tougher hurdles lie ahead, but regulators have so far
been able to find no reason to block China General Nuclear’s HPR1000.
This is the dilemma facing Britain — one that has been thrown into stark
relief by the events of the past week. The arrest of Meng Wanzhou, the
chief financial officer of telecoms giant Huawei, means all that must be
seen through a different lens. The daughter of Huawei’s founder was
arrested in Canada at the behest of the US authorities and faces charges of
fraud and breaching US sanctions on Iran.
However, the tone on Chinese investment in Britain has now changed and recalls the words of Theresa
May’s former adviser Nick Timothy in 2015, when he said the government was
“selling our national security to China”. A deep-seated suspicion of
Huawei at GCHQ has finally surfaced as open hostility, while,
coincidentally, BT is removing Huawei technology from its 4G mobile
network. Yet all this looks remarkably like shutting the stable door after
the horse has bolted. If there was a time to reject Chinese investment, it
was 20 years ago.
Now, with ministers reliant on Chinese cash to fund a
significant slice of our future power needs, do they dare bite the hand
that feeds? Plus, in a post-Brexit world, a trade deal with China is meant
to top the priority list. For all the braggadocio, I suspect there will be
much soothing talk between London and Beijing in the months ahead. Does the
government really think it can put the Chinese dragon back in the bottle?
And can it afford to?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/6cfdbf12-fafc-11e8-9a07-72ebead02362
If USA does not lift sanctions, North Korea could revive nuclear weapons development
North Korea warns it could revive nuclear development if U.S. does not lift sanctions, Global News, The Associated Press, 3 Nov 18
The statement released by the Foreign Ministry on Friday evening said North Korea could bring back its “pyongjin” policy of simultaneously advancing its nuclear force and economic development if the United States doesn’t change its stance. The North stopped short of threatening to abandon ongoing nuclear negotiations with Washington.
Still, it accused Washington of derailing commitments made by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and President Donald Trump at their June summit in Singapore to work toward a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. It was the first time the North said it could potentially resume weapons tests and other development activities since Kim signalled a new state policy in April.
In an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Friday, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said he plans to talk next week with his North Korean counterpart, apparently referring to senior North Korean official Kim Yong Chol. Pompeo did not provide the location and date for the meeting, which will likely be focused on persuading North Korea to take firmer steps toward denuclearization and setting up a second summit between their leaders……https://globalnews.ca/news/4626862/north-korea-revive-nuclear-sanctions/
UK must explain its plans for civil nuclear power security under ‘no deal’ Brexit scenario
Reeves calls for clarity for nuclear in ‘no deal’ Brexit scenario https://utilityweek.co.uk/reeves-calls-clarity-nuclear-no-deal-brexit-scenario/ David Blackman , 7 Dec 18 Rachel Reeves has urged the government to provide greater clarity about its plans for civil nuclear power if the UK leaves the EU without a withdrawal deal.
The chair of the House of Commons Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy committee has written to Richard Harrington, who has responsibility for the nuclear industry in his portfolio as minister for busiUK
In the letter, Reeves acknowledges indications of progress on the civil nuclear relationship between the EU and the UK regarding issues like safeguards and trading arrangements.
The government passed a bill last year outlining plans to create a new safeguarding regime for nuclear material and labour once the UK has to leave its existing arrangements under the Euratom treaty.
The letter seeks more detail on the plans that the government is making to ensure that the civil nuclear sector can continue to function after next March if parliament has been unable to secure a broader separation agreement and whether a side-deal with Euratom is being pursued.
She also quizzes Harrington on whether the UK has received any signals from Euratom about whether it will be possible to maintain the “close association” that the government has said it wanted with the EU-wide nuclear co-operation arrangement.
Reeves also asks whether the government has made any arrangements to overcome possible hitches in the nuclear new build programme if the upcoming migration white paper inhibits the inflow of the migrant labour which has been “essential” for such projects.
Reeves said: “In the event of no deal and no transition period, the ongoing operation of the UK’s nuclear power stations could be put at risk. The government needs to spell out what it is doing to ensure that nuclear power stations continue to function from 29 March 2019 and whether it will seek a separate deal with Euratom in these circumstances.
“The government also needs to be clearer about its plans to facilitate the building of construction of major facilities such as Hinkley Point C if restrictions on migrant labour are introduced in the future.”
U.S. preparing to wreck the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START)?
U.S. Preparing Grounds to Scrap Key Nuclear Treaty, Lavrov Says, Bloomberg, By Stepan Kravchenko, December 7, 2018, NATO rejected Russian offer to discuss INF accord, Lavrov says. Huawei official’s arrest shows U.S. ‘arrogance,’ minister says
The U.S. is preparing to wreck the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), a key accord with Russia on limiting nuclear weapons, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said.
“I have the impression that they are preparing the ground to destroy this document as well,” following the U.S. decision to withdraw from another nuclear accord, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, Lavrov told a televised press conference in Milan on Friday after a meeting of OSCE foreign ministers. Russia has repeatedly sent proposals to the U.S. to begin talks on extending the START agreement but has received no response so far, he said.
The New START treaty signed in 2010, which followed on from a 1991 agreement, is due to expire in 2021. Under the accord, Russian and U.S. arsenals are restricted to no more than 1,550 strategic warheads on no more than 700 deployed strategic missiles and bombers. U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton said during a visit to Moscow in October that Washington “does not have a position that we’re prepared to negotiate” on a new START treaty, adding that there’s “plenty of time” before the deal expires…….https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-07/u-s-preparing-grounds-to-scrap-key-nuclear-treaty-lavrov-says
1 This Month
26 September – International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons
PLEASE OPPOSE HR 8255 AND S.3639 – bills would accelerate satellite deployment, with no environmental review or safeguards – https://ncstd5li.quorum.us/campaign/169331/
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- September 2026 (305)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
-
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
