Trump’s harsh approach on Iran. Biden firm, but more conciliatory
Trump and Biden propose different paths for taking on Iran and its nuclear ambitions, by Stephen Loiaconi, Saturday, October 10th 2020 WASHINGTON (SBG) — With less than four weeks until Election Day, President Donald Trump is escalating a maximum pressure campaign against Iran that he has claimed will produce swift results if he is reelected, but some experts on the region do not share his confidence.
The White House’s latest actions appear intended to set up a second-term drive to corner the Iranian regime into accepting stiffer restrictions on its nuclear program and other activities or face economic collapse. President Trump’s Democratic opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden, has promised a more conciliatory approach that harkens back to the diplomatic engagement he fostered during the Obama administration.
“What the U.S. has now done, it has said essentially, if you are dealing with this Iranian bank, you’re going to be sanctioned and you’re going to have to pay fines,” said Hossein Askari, a professor emeritus of international affairs at George Washington University.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani declared the new sanctions “cruel, terrorist and inhumane,” according to state media. Foreign Minister Javad Zarif accused the Trump administration of trying to “blow up our remaining channels to pay for food & medicine.”……..
experts are skeptical humanitarian transactions can continue unimpeded with Iran’s banks blacklisted. Askari, who has acted as a mediator between Iran and Saudi Arabia and Iran and Kuwait, said he knows people in Iran who have been unable to get medication because of existing sanctions, and he fears the hardships will only get worse.
“The people that are going to suffer are the average Iranians because of what the United States is doing right now,” he said……..
Many countries have experienced economic strains because of coronavirus lockdowns, but the damage to Iran’s economy has been compounded by severe U.S. sanctions. Constraints on oil and other exports have limited the country’s ability to restart economic activity.
“These sanctions have now been building up ever since the Trump administration came to office This is an economy in really critical trouble and it’s also an economy that faces major military and defense expenditures,” said Anthony Cordesman, a national security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and former Department of Defense official……….
David Belt, an expert at National Intelligence University, warned in a post for Modern Diplomacy Friday that U.S. sanctions are pushing Iran into a closer relationship with Russia and China. The two countries have veto power on the U.N. Security Council, allowing them to challenge U.S. attempts to step up international pressure on Tehran.
“Necessity is the mother of all invention, and Iran has been forced to look to China and Russia for every national security need to avoid the impact of sanctions…The main rivals of the U.S. are cautiously weighing the costs of an informal economic and security bloc, in part to mitigate the impact of U.S. sanctions and other economic pressures on them as well,” Belt wrote.
The direction of U.S. policy toward Iran is one of many issues on the ballot in November. Trump and Biden have drastically different approaches, and experts are divided on which is more likely to produce results and avert a military conflict neither country wants. ……..
Biden has made clear his top priority for arms control policy is to return to the nuclear deal if Tehran is willing to fall back into compliance with its commitments. He has called for using “hard-nosed diplomacy” to strengthen and extend the agreement while challenging Iran’s destabilizing activities on other fronts.
“We have lost our standing in the region,” Biden said during a primary debate in January. “We have lost the support of our allies. The next president has to be able to pull those folks back together, re-establish our alliances, and insist that Iran go back into the agreement, which I believe with the pressure applied as we put on before we can get done.”…………… https://mynbc15.com/news/nation-world/trump-and-biden-propose-different-paths-for-taking-on-irans-nuclear-ambitions
The road to fascism. Trump is quite open about his plans to derail the election
Trump Isn’t Keeping His Fascist Plan Secret. He’s Trying to Derail the Election. David Renton, Truthout, 
October 1, 2020
In the 1930s, when a New York publishing company was thinking of bringing out an unexpurgated English-language edition of Hitler’s Mein Kampf, its editors first approached the radicals of New York’s New School for Social Research, who assembled a specialist team of anti-fascist German refugees to do the translation. Why would the refugees do that — one might think — hadn’t they suffered enough? But the translators agreed readily. They wanted the world to know what Hitler was thinking, to take his ideas seriously, to grasp how different his politics was from the “normal” right-wing politics that had come before.
We should look at Trump’s comments in Tuesday’s presidential debate in the same spirit and take them as seriously as he does. We should think about the exchange when Trump was asked, “What are you prepared to do to reassure the American people that the next president will be the legitimate winner of this election?”
He answered, “Don’t tell me about a free transition…. We won’t know. We might not know for months because these ballots are going to be all over.”
Trump wasn’t saying he would reject an election that Biden won. Rather, he was threatening to use the office of the president to prevent there from being a decisive outcome against him………
In-person votes will be counted first. So, even if by the time all postal votes have been counted, Biden can be shown to have won by, say, seven or more clear percentage points, Trump may be ahead on election night.
It’s much easier to challenge postal votes than it is to challenge in-person votes. What if the security envelopes are marked, or there are no security envelopes at all? What if the envelope arrives but the postmark is almost invisible? Trump wants Republican vote counters to object to every postal vote they can, raising the natural 1 or 2 percent rejection rate to more like 30 or 40 percent.
If that happens, then we may never get to the point where anyone can say with any clarity that Biden did in fact win by seven clear points, because state after state is going to be bogged down in partisan recounts………
For one thing, Trump is calling on his supporters to attend the polls in person and “watch” (by which he likely means “demonstrate”). “I’m urging my supporters to go into the polls and watch very carefully,” he said. “They’re called poll watchers, a very safe, very nice thing.”
There’s a long and honorable tradition of neutral observers traveling to watch disputed elections in semi-democratic states. That’s not what Trump is getting at. He’s not planning to mobilize neutrals; he’s calling out his own base.
A model for this kind of behavior happened in Fairfax, Virginia, where, in September, a group of Trump supporters walked into the polling place waving flags and shouting, “Four more years.” So powerful is the megaphone of Trump’s Twitter account with its 86 million followers that we should see this as a real threat……..
Finally, Trump signaled at the debate to his armed supporters that if the election does go the way of Florida in 2000, he expects them to play their part in backing him. It’s in that context that Trump’s “stand by” order was given to the Proud Boys……..
In turning to his street supporters, Trump is calling on people who feel no doubts about using violence. For since 2016, attacks on left-wing demonstrators have become ever more frequent. The best known remains the killing of anti-fascist protester Heather Heyer at Charlottesville, when James Alex Fields Jr. drove his car at protesters after being photographed earlier brandishing a shield with Mussolini’s fasces symbol, complete with an executioner’s axe.
Since late May, more than 100 white supremacists have attempted to disperse anti-racist protests by driving their cars at demonstrators.
At the heart of Trump’s plan is the idea of using crowds of hostile people to bring the election counts to a halt, to so foul up the reality of which votes went to which candidate that no one could say any longer what was fake and what was real.
However, massive voter turnout — particularly in-person voting — could thwart Trump’s plan. …….. https://truthout.org/articles/trump-isnt-keeping-his-fascist-plan-secret-hes-trying-to-derail-the-election/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=0018d1e1-82a8-4f1e-91cf-32ac2c3010b2
U.S. election: Progressive groups are mobilizing to de-escalate far right violence at the polls
Progressive Groups Are Mobilizing to De-Escalate Far Right Violence at the Polls, Ella Fassler, Truthout, October 1, 2020 In preparation for potential voter intimidation this year, the Women’s March, Working Families Party, Movement for Black Lives Electoral Justice Project, United We Dream and other organizations are mobilizing “election defenders” to de-escalate tense situations as well as provide voters with personal protective equipment and water on Election Day.
“So far, more than 6,000 people across the country have signed up to be election defenders,” Working Families Party National Director Maurice Mitchell told Truthout. “Trump is operating from a place of weakness, not strength, and the single best way to avoid a contested election is for voters to repudiate him at the polls by an overwhelming margin.
Mobilization efforts are likely to ramp up following Trump’s call-to-action during the first presidential debate on Tuesday. “I’m urging my supporters to go in to the polls and watch very carefully, because that’s what has to happen,” he said at the debate. “I am urging them to do it.” In addition Trump told the far right paramilitary group the Proud Boys, who have said on tape “Hitler did nothing wrong,” to “stand back and stand by.”
Already, roughly 20 Trump supporters had descended on a polling booth in Fairfax, Virginia, intimidating early voters and election staff. The demonstrators gathered from a “Trump Train” parade, according to The New York Times; some chanting “Four more years, four more years!” and holding Trump flags, while others drove circles around the voters. Election officials provided escorts for voters and moved the line indoors……..
Truthout contributor Mark Bray, an author and historian of human rights, terrorism and fascist movements, says we can’t treat this election as any other. Bray tweeted: “Trump has articulated his plan to mobilize fascists for voter intimidation, reject the outcome of the election, and hold on to power (while not denouncing white supremacy). If he and his followers won’t recognize the vote, then ‘just vote’ is a woefully insufficient response.”
There’s a strong precedent for statements like Trump’s, which sow deep distrust in the electoral process……….
Whether Trump’s supporters will disrupt polls on a wide scale this time around remains to be seen. But, from Trump’s “joking” about holding power beyond his term limit, to enfeebling the integrity of mail-in ballots without evidence, it’s clear that voter intimidation may be the tip of the iceberg of what’s to come. https://truthout.org/articles/progressive-groups-are-mobilizing-to-de-escalate-far-right-violence-at-the-polls/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=0018d1e1-82a8-4f1e-91cf-32ac2c3010b2
Joe Biden on climate change
What a Joe Biden presidency would mean for five key science issues. The coronavirus pandemic, climate change and space exploration are among the issues that Biden will influence if he wins the upcoming US election. Nature, Amy Maxmen, Nidhi Subbaraman, Jeff Tollefson, Giuliana Viglione & Alexandra Witze, 2 Oct 20,
If Biden wins the election on 3 November, he will inherit not only a country in the throes of a pandemic that’s destroyed lives and livelihoods — but also one in which public opinion is deeply divided over the true extent of the coronavirus outbreak and the measures taken to abate it. Despite public-health agencies counting more than 200,000 COVID-19 deaths in the country, some Trump supporters feel that the impact of the virus has been exaggerated in an effort to control the populace.
Biden would also inherit a haphazard pandemic response, researchers say ……….. Biden’s pandemic plans — which his team has been preparing since March, say sources close to the campaign — promise to ramp up the country’s test-and-trace programmes; address racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-19 infection rates and outcomes; and rebuild pandemic-readiness programmes cut by the Trump administration……… The Biden team will need to change the public-health messaging so that it supports the science without driving sceptics even further away,……
If Biden wins, his administration will have to tackle public mistrust of the federal agencies leading the US response to curtail the pandemic. …….
If elected, Biden has committed to supporting the World Health Organization (WHO), which Trump began to withdraw the United States from in July. …….
Climate change
The coronavirus pandemic isn’t the only divisive issue that Biden would face if elected — he would also be confronting climate change. Trump has moved to pull the United States out of the 2015 Paris climate treaty, rolled back a suite of regulations intended to reduce greenhouse-gas regulations and called global warming a hoax.
In contrast, Biden is now campaigning on the most aggressive climate platform ever advanced by a US presidential nominee in the general election. Addressing the demands of an increasingly vocal liberal base, his US$2-trillion plan calls for massive investments in clean-energy research and development and low-carbon infrastructure, such as public transit and energy-efficient buildings. It also calls for the United States to generate 100% clean electricity by 2035 and to produce “net-zero emissions” by 2050. The question facing Biden and his team, if they win in November, is how to make it happen.
Biden has said he will have the United States rejoin the Paris climate accord, making the country an active partner of the more than 190 nations that have committed to limiting global warming to 1.5–2 oC above pre-industrial levels. He would also appoint climate-friendly leadership at the Environmental Protection Agency and quickly move to restore — or even bolster — climate and environmental regulations rolled back under Trump over the past four years. It could take a few years to finalize those changes, but Biden could do so with existing authority under federal law…… https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02786-4
America’s nuclear waste crisis doesn’t get a mention in Democrats’ or Republicans’ platform
|
Four powerful players want a nuclear waste solution. What’s stopping them? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists By David Klaus, September 29, 2020 The 92-page platform adopted at the Democratic National Convention does not include a single sentence on the issue of how to manage the more than 80,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel sitting at 70 sites in communities across the country. The Republicans adjourned without adopting any new platform for 2020, leaving their 2016 platform in place—but it also did not address the nuclear waste issue.
Ironically, political interest in addressing the spent fuel issue is decreasing at a time when the number of closed nuclear plants in the United States is increasing—and it is common practice to level the plant and leave the spent fuel behind. If the issue had been as significant a political priority today as it was in the past, it would have been included in one or both of the platforms. In its 2004 and 2008 platforms, the Democratic Party committed to “protect Nevada and its communities from the high-level nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, which has not been proven to be safe by sound science.” Republicans, in their 2012 platform, focused on how “[t]he federal government’s failure to address the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel has left huge bills for States and taxpayers.” with the 2020 elections around the corner and Congress winding down, it is clear that is nothing is going to happen anytime soon. Why? Because none of the organizations claiming they want a permanent waste disposal facility is actually serious about a solution. The missing coalition. There should be a powerful coalition of diverse interests working to find a permanent disposal path for the thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel held in temporary storage facilities at commercial nuclear plants across the country. That coalition would include:
Such a coalition of diverse interests should be an effective political force. Why hasn’t it produced any results? The answer is that, notwithstanding their public statements, none of these potential interests really supports addressing the spent fuel issue or is willing to make it a political priority. Economic disincentives. For the nuclear utility companies, nuclear waste management is a matter of simple economics. Under current court orders, the US government covers the utilities’ cost for storing spent nuclear fuel. In addition, the courts have put a freeze on utility payments to the Nuclear Waste Fund. Every legislative proposal to address the spent fuel issue reinstates utility payments to the fund and potentially shifts short-term storage costs back to the utilities. For Congress and the White House, enthusiasm for ending the current $600 million per year payments to the utilities is complicated by budget scoring rules. Today, payments to utilities are made out of the federal government’s Judgment Fund, because they are required by court order rather than statute. The Judgment Fund is an indefinite appropriation and is considered to be off-budget, which means payments from the fund are not counted in the budget scoring system or allocated against specific accounts. Legislation to address the spent fuel issue would change that, forcing appropriators to find $600 million in savings from other programs or to identify new revenue sources to offset the expenditure. It’s easier for Congress and the administration to keep their heads in the sand. The nuclear industry’s position in support of spent fuel legislation is tempered by a combination of reality and priorities. While the industry regularly testifies in favor of finding a long-term solution to the spent fuel problem, the reality is that state legislative prohibitions on the construction of new nuclear reactors are meaningless, given that no new reactors are planned in the foreseeable future. It is uneconomic and/or not politically viable to build a new reactor in the United States—even one of the small modular reactors under development. The nuclear industry has other significant political issues related to its existing fleet of reactors, and these have pushed the spent fuel issue toward the bottom of the priority list. ………. Ultimately, leadership on the issue is going to have to come from a president and congressional leaders who take seriously the US government’s legal obligation to accept commercial spent fuel and build a long-term repository to hold it. This obligation is grounded in nonproliferation policy and was established by statute in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. ……. https://thebulletin.org/2020/09/four-powerful-players-want-a-nuclear-waste-solution-whats-stopping-them/ |
|
|
The Proud Boys – far right group that backs Donald Trump
Organisation founded ahead of 2016 US election is classified by the FBI as an ‘extremist group’, Guardian, Martin Belam in London and Adam Gabbatt in New York, Thu 1 Oct 2020 Freshly brought to the world’s attention by Donald Trump’s refusal to condemn their associations with white supremacist ideology during Tuesday night’s US presidential debate, the US neo-fascist group the Proud Boys was created by the Canadian-British far-right activist and Vice magazine co-founder Gavin McInnes in 2016 in the lead-up to Trump’s election as president.
The group, which admits men only, was classified in 2018 by the FBI as an “extremist group”, while the US research and advocacy organization Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) lists it as a hate group. The Anti-Defamation League describes the group as misogynistic, Islamophobic, transphobic and anti-immigration.
It is based in America, mostly the western US, but has a presence in some other countries, notably Canada, the UK and Australia.
And while it has an outsize reputation based on the high-profile agitation events and street brawls its members are most infamous for, and now a reference in a presidential debate, the Proud Boys is believed to be a very small group comprising maybe just a few hundred members in the US.
It is one of a sheaf of far-right groups with ready access to legal firearms in the US and with overtly pro-Trump or libertarian stances and an affinity for presenting as vigilantes or paramilitaries, especially during far-right gatherings or when showing up to disrupt liberal-leaning protests.
To join the Proud Boys, members must make an oath: “I am a proud western chauvinist, I refuse to apologise for creating the modern world”, as well as endure a violent “hazing” process. While the group maintains it is not racist, and simply wants to hark back to traditional ““western” values, its worldview incorporates elements of the “white genocide” conspiracy theory. Members are pro-gun rights, against feminism and gender equality, and take a libertarian stance on issues such as welfare.
During the debate, Trump was asked repeatedly by the moderator, Chris Wallace, to condemn violence by white supremacists and rightwing groups, such as armed militias.
When Trump asked specifically who he should be addressing, Biden prompted him by saying the Proud Boys.
Trump then addressed the Proud Boys, saying: “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by! But I’ll tell you what, somebody’s got to do something about antifa and the left.”
Members of the group immediately celebrated the president’s comment in posts on social media and rightwing discussion-board platforms such as Telegram and Parler. One Proud Boys group added the phrase “Stand Back, Stand By” to their logo. Another post was a message to Trump: “Standing down and standing by sir.”……….
The group are identifiable by their adopted uniform of red “Make America Great Again” caps, associated with Donald Trump’s 2016 and 2020 election campaigns, and black Fred Perry polo shirts with some narrow yellow stripes and the company’s yellow laurel wreath logo, which the company earlier this week stopped selling as a result. The sports clothing manufacturer recently withdrew the design, citing its unwillingness to be associated with the group……..https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/30/proud-boys-who-are-far-right-group-that-backs-donald-trump
Donald Trump Junior calls for volunteers to join an ”army” and ”secure” the 2020 election
DONALD TRUMP JR. CALLS FOR VOLUNTEERS TO JOIN AN ‘ARMY’ AND ‘SECURE’ THE 2020 ELECTION https://www.lancastercourier.com/2020/09/27/donald-trump-jr-calls-for-volunteers-to-join-an-army-and-secure-the-2020-election/, by Will Bishop | Sep 27, 2020 | Election 2020, A new video ad appearing on social media features the president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., urging volunteers to join an “army” and keep the “radical left” from succeeding in their attempt to “steal” the 2020 election: [tweets shown here]…….
“What else does one even say about these insane … Trump-Pence ads, and the curiously addled Don Jr., who resembles a crackhead in the throes of addiction? What else does one say, but holy shit. Long past time for Twitter and Facebook, where these ads are trending, to take action — the ads are lying, and they’re inciting armed violence against Americans.”
If there is indeed violence on Election Day and it can be traced back to this ad or others circulating online, those who made the spots need to be arrested and charged with conspiracy to interfere with an election and accessory to commit a violent crime.
The U.S. media’s resposibility to question Trump and Biden on nuclear arms control and nonproliferation
|
Whether President Trump or one of his challengers is sworn in as president on January 20, 2021, he or she will have the complete and unchecked authority to order the use of the approximately 4,000 nuclear weapons in the active US stockpile. When running for the highest office in the land, each presidential candidate is asking the American public to trust him or her implicitly with this singular responsibility. Given that reality, it is actually quite strange that plans and policies for the management of the most destructive force ever created are rarely discussed on the campaign trail. ………..with the exception of the Nov. 20, 2020 Democratic debate, television network hosts have largely avoided foreign policy questions in multi-candidate forums. Political reporters inside the Beltway and in the field rarely ask candidates about nuclear policy issues, despite the multiple nuclear crises unfolding around us in real time. There does not seem to be any acknowledgement that nuclear issues are inextricably linked to so many of the other issues being discussed. Relations with Russia, currently at a post-Cold War low, could slide from terrible to disastrous in the absence of verifiable, bilateral controls over the US and Russian nuclear arsenals. It is hard to envision a successful economic pivot to Asia that doesn’t involve a long-term solution to the North Korean nuclear crisis and a better strategic stability relationship between the United States and China. Getting the military budget under control is impossible without taking a hard look at the nearly $1.7 trillion (at least) that the United States is planning to spend on modernizing US nuclear forces. There is no “peace in the Middle East” without constraints on weapons of mass destruction in the region. Long-term solutions to climate change are all for naught if we ignore the other existential threat to humanity: nuclear war. The list could go on, but the point is that we ignore nuclear issues at our own peril. The next president will have to deal with many pressing questions on day one (or day 1,461), but few are as consequential as this one: Do we want to live in a world in which the number of nuclear weapons is going up or going down?……….. Despite the stated commitment to arms control and non-proliferation policies in the 2018 Nuclear Posture Reviewi, the Trump administration has mostly dismantled and dismissed standing nuclear agreements…….. No matter who sits behind the Resolute Desk on Jan. 20, 2021, he or she will have to scramble to triage the challenges left to them on the arms control and nonproliferation front. The most pressing challenge will be the possible end of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), which is set to expire on Feb. 5, 2021. ………. While most Democratic candidates have affirmedv that they would extend the treaty as long as Russia remains in compliance, they should be asked to outline their plans for extension and how they would handle the broader strategic stability dialogue with Russia. ……… Plans to deal with the North Korean nuclear program are inextricably linked to other strategic security issues in the region. ………. The other major nonproliferation challenge for the candidates in 2020 will be the future of the Iranian nuclear program. The Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran will affect the foreign policy landscape in 2021 and beyond. ………. With any of these matters, candidates should not be allowed to speak in bromides about the value of diplomacy. As uninspiring and tedious as the press may find it to focus on technical details, they should not buy into the idea that a quick-fix grand bargain is possible with Russia, Iran, or North Korea. Presidential candidates are asking for the privilege and responsibility of running American foreign policy, so it is completely reasonable to expect them to describe the mechanics of their proposals, even as they acknowledge that those proposals may need to change over time ………. The future president will also need to manage the growing unease between nuclear weapons states and non-nuclear weapons states. In particular, the United States will need to assess how it has related and will relate to signatories of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, often known as the ban treaty, since the treaty will likely enter into force in the coming years. ……… Even with enhanced interest in and knowledge of nuclear policy, it is unlikely that reporters covering the 2020 presidential election will spend a significant amount of time on arms control and nonproliferation agreements. There are simply too many challenges facing the American public to expect hyper focus on any one policy area. That said, it would be extremely unfortunate to see the press ignore the subject of how we reduce nuclear risks—while gladly covering the president’s latest nickname for a rival or his challenger’s most memorable Trump put-down. For the past half-century, American presidents and administrations of both political parties have painstakingly built an intricate collection of arms control and nonproliferation agreements. They have brought the overall number of nuclear weapons in the world from almost 70,000 to around 14,000. They have prevented the mass spread of nuclear weapons, containing nuclear weapons programs to just nine countries. They have kept fear, mistrust, and the impulsive tendencies of fallible humans in check. As we approach the 75th year of the nuclear age, these hard-won agreements are disappearing. Americans will enter the voting booth on November 3, 2020 to select a leader who will either reverse that unfortunate trend or doom us to repeat the folly of the Cold War arms race. Let’s hope those voters they have all the information they need to make the right choice. https://thebulletin.org/premium/2020-01/what-the-presidential-candidates-should-be-asked-about-arms-control-and-nonproliferation/?utm_source=Announcement&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Announcement09232020&utm_content=NuclearRisk_AskCandidates_01132020 |
|
Biden would push for less US reliance on nukes for defense
Biden would push for less US reliance on nukes for defense, Robert Burns, The Associated Press 20 Sep 20, WASHINGTON — Democrat Joe Biden leaves little doubt that if elected he would try to scale back President Donald Trump’s buildup in nuclear weapons spending. And although the former vice president has not fully detailed his nuclear priorities, he says he would make the U.S. less reliant on the world’s deadliest weapons…….. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/election-2020/2020/09/20/biden-would-push-for-less-us-reliance-on-nukes-for-defense/
Fires show climate change an existential threat, says Biden
Fires show climate change an existential threat, says Biden
14 Spt 20, Dense smog from US bushfires that have burnt more than 2 million hectares and killed 31 people smothers the West Coast, as presidential challenger Joe Biden warns climate change is becoming an existential issue. … (Subscribers only)
Joe Biden, if President would re-enter nuclear deal with Iran
Biden Says Iran Closer to Nuclear Weapons Under Trump, Would Re-Enter Deal. NewsWeek, BY DAVID BRENNAN ON 9/11/20 Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has claimed that Iran is now closer to a nuclear weapon that it was during President Barack Obama’s administration, criticizing President Donald Trump for walking away from the nuclear deal Biden wishes to resurrect.
At a virtual fundraiser hosted by the JStreet PAC on Thursday, Biden said he would seek to re-engage with Tehran though admitted this would not be easy after four years of antagonism.
On Thursday, Biden said Trump had made an Iranian nuclear weapon more likely despite his claims to the contrary. “Iran is closer to a weapon now than we were when we left office in 2017,” he said, according to a press pool report sent out by his campaign.
The former vice president defended the JCPOA, describing it as the “most intrusive inspection regime in history.”
Trump abandoned the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in May 2018, claiming the deal was too lenient and fulfilling a promise that became a key part of his foreign policy campaign strategy.
Trump withdrew despite other signatories urging him to reconsider and despite the International Atomic Energy Agency confirming that Tehran was complying with the agreement.
U.S.-Iran reactions have continued deteriorating since, with the two sides launching strikes against each other and flirting with an open conflict. Trump has maintained his “maximum pressure” campaign against Tehran, seeking to undermine the regime with crippling economic sanctions.
Trump withdrew despite other signatories urging him to reconsider and despite the International Atomic Energy Agency confirming that Tehran was complying with the agreement.
U.S.-Iran reactions have continued deteriorating since, with the two sides launching strikes against each other and flirting with an open conflict. Trump has maintained his “maximum pressure” campaign against Tehran, seeking to undermine the regime with crippling economic sanctions……… https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-iran-closer-nuclear-weapons-under-donald-trump-re-enter-deal-153121
Connecticut senate candidate Ryan Fazio’s very bad idea – to buuild more nuclear power plants
CT senate candidate Ryan Fazio wants to build more nuclear reactors, https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/opinion/article/Opinion-CT-senate-candidate-Ryan-Fazio-wants-to-15553213.php By Sean Goldrick, September 9, 2020 Ryan Fazio wants to build you a nuke. Yep, that’s right. Fazio, the Republican candidate for state senate in Connecticut’s 36th district — Greenwich, north Stamford, and New Canaan — has at the top of his power plan for Connecticut building new nuclear power plants: “As your state senator, I will advance an all-of-the-above clean energy strategy that incorporates more nuclear, hydroelectric, and other affordable power sources to our grid.”
“More nuclear …”? Does he want to replace the Indian Point, the nuclear power plant on the Hudson River just minutes’ drive from Greenwich that’s shutting down next spring, with a new nuke in Connecticut? Perhaps he wants to build a second Shoreham nuclear power plant, the Long Island nuke that was shut down due to overwhelming opposition by residents without ever delivering a single watt of power. Fazio thinks that Connecticut, the third smallest and fourth most densely populated state in the nation, is the perfect place to build more nuclear? Before we hand him the keys to the reactor, let’s review what nuclear has done to us.
Our downwind location from Indian Point has resulted in thyroid cancer rates in Fairfield County substantially higher than the national average — and rising. Thyroid cancer’s only known cause is exposure to radiation. Thyroid cancer rates are higher in Westchester County, and higher still in Putnam County. The closer one gets to Indian Point, the higher the cancer rates. Residents of Connecticut’s New London County, in which the aptly named Millstone nuclear power plant is located, also suffer high rates of thyroid cancer. In 2012, the federal government initiated a five-year study of cancer incidence in New London County and Fairfield County, but shut it down suddenly in 2015 with little explanation, and no release of data.
Research shows that the unsubsidized levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of large scale wind and solar is a fraction of the cost of new nuclear generators. So nuclear power, which Fazio wants foist on Connecticut ratepayers, is actually not an “affordable power source” at all, but one that can only operate with massive subsidies.
And given that nuclear power plants demand massive quantities of water to cool their reactor cores, a new nuclear plant would have to be built on the Connecticut shoreline. So would you like a new nuke In Norwalk? Shall we foist one onto the people of Bridgeport? Will you feel comfortable with a nuclear reactor in Connecticut even closer to us than Indian Point?
So, high and rising thyroid cancer rates, uncontrolled leaks of tritium into the groundwater, taxpayer subsidies to Millstone for its economically unviable, uncompetitive, and expensive nuclear power, all crowding out wind and solar power, real clean energy that continues to achieve dramatic reductions in cost of generation. But nuclear tops the list on Ryan Fazio’s energy plan?
Joe Biden if president will push allies like Australia to do more on climate, adviser says
Joe Biden if president will push allies like Australia to do more on climate, adviser says
Jake Sullivan says the former vice-president, if elected, won’t ‘pull any punches’ on what is a global problem. Guardian Daniel Hurst @danielhurstbne, Mon 7 Sep 2020
Joe Biden will not pull any punches with allies including Australia in seeking to build international momentum for stronger action on the climate crisis, an adviser to the US presidential candidate has said.
If elected in November, Biden will hold heavy emitters such as China accountable for doing more “but he’s also going to push our friends to do more as well”, according to Jake Sullivan, who was the national security adviser to Biden when he was vice-president and is now in the candidate’s inner circle……..
While Australia’s prime minister, Scott Morrison, is likely to welcome the pledge of US coordination with allies on regional security issues, there may be unease in government ranks about the potential for tough conversations about Australia’s climate policies.
The Coalition government has resisted calls to embrace a target of net-zero emissions by 2050 and it proposes to use Kyoto carryover credits to meet Australia’s 2030 emission reductions pledge. Some Coalition backbenchers still openly dispute climate science.
Sullivan said climate change would be a big priority for Biden, both in domestic policy – with climate and clean energy issues placed at the heart of his economic recovery visions – and in foreign policy, where he would do more than just reverse Donald Trump’s decision to abandon the Paris agreement.
He has said right out of the gate, we’re not just rejoining Paris – we are going to rally the nations of the world to get everyone to up their game, to elevate their ambition, to do more,” Sullivan told the Lowy Institute. ………. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/07/joe-biden-if-president-will-push-allies-like-australia-to-do-more-on-climate-adviser-says
A Republican voter changes sides – wants nuclear disarmament
|
Nuclear policy her deciding factor https://www.hutchnews.com/opinion/20200907/letter-to-editor-nuclear-policy-her-deciding-factor, – Dawn Olney, Prairie VillageI In early 2020, at President Trump’s request, the U.S. built and deployed “low yield” nuclear missiles. This new model, W76-2, is currently armed on submarines and is an escalation of nuclear armament. As recently as May 2020, Trump and his administration have been in discussions to test nuclear weapons, which the US has not done since 1992. The Republicans in the Senate approved at least $10 million in the 2021 budget for nuclear testing. It is unfathomable that the US would again spread radiation in our own country by detonating nuclear bombs, yet plans are being laid to do just that. These steps surely increase the likelihood of nuclear development and warfare escalation by other countries, a vicious circle we have tried to avoid for decades. This behavior is obviously alarming to our allies, as our leadership position in the world continues to erode. At the recent Republican convention, it was decided their platform would be to support President Trump’s agenda. Electing Trump and any Republican to the U.S. Senate and U.S. House would enable Trump to proceed with these dangerous plans that would escalate global violence and wars. I used to be a Republican, but these decisions would be disastrous to the U.S. and the world. The best hope to avoid irradiation of our country by our own government, and to discourage the spread of nuclear weapons in the world, is to vote for Biden, Bollier and De La Isla.
|
|
The nuclear industry a big winner from U.S. election as Democrats and Republicans embrace this toxic industry
Nuclear Power Could Win Big In U.S. Elections, Oil Price By Jon LeSage – Sep 2, 2020The world’s largest nuclear power market is ready to gain more government backing for the
energy — no matter who wins in November.
For nearly a half century, the Democratic Party’s election year party platform has excluded nuclear energy, but that’s not the case this year. The newly-released party platform says It favors a “technology-neutral” approach that includes all zero-carbon technologies, including hydroelectric power, geothermal, existing and advanced nuclear, and carbon capture and storage.
It’s the first time since the 1972 election year that the party has had any positive statements to make about nuclear power, which did include early testing of fusion nearly a half century ago. That year, the Democratic party said it supported “greater research and development” into “unconventional energy sources” including solar, geothermal, and “a variety of nuclear power possibilities to design clean breeder fission and fusion techniques.”
Since then, the Democratic Party has either ignored or opposed nuclear energy. Environmental groups have been opposed to nuclear power for years, and have had much influence on campaigns and elected officials.
A clear example of it comes from 2005, when about 300 environmental groups –
including Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and Public Citizen – signed a statement which said “we flatly reject the argument that increased investment in nuclear capacity is an acceptable or necessary solution….[N]uclear power should not be a part of any solution to address global warming.”
The Sierra Club, the largest US environmental lobby, says it remains “unequivocally opposed to nuclear energy.”………
Presidential candidate Joe Biden’s campaign website also includes nuclear power support …..
Biden has been championing starting a new agency, Advanced Research Projects Agency for Climate Change (ARPA-C). Like predecessor ARPA-E that funded advanced technology in renewable energy, electric vehicles, and other technologies, and DARPA that supported advanced military vehicle applications, ARPA-C would back test projects working toward lowering cost, driving efficiency, and reducing emissions.
The change in policy statements is good news for the American nuclear-energy sector…….
But its already been in the works in Washington. During the past two years, bipartisan support on Capitol Hill has led to new laws, including the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act and the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act …… https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Nuclear-Power-Could-Win-Big-In-US-Elections.html
1 This Month
Website of the Week
New book – https://www.amazon.com/dp/1923372157?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (106)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 