|
 A resolution offering support to Utah cities considering nuclear energy is headed to the governor. Environmentalists oppose it. The Salt Lake Tribune, By Taylor Stevens, 1 Mar 19,
A bill that would offer support to Utah cities participating in a project to add nuclear energy to their power portfolios received final passage in the House on Wednesday.
|
|
March 2, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, USA |
Leave a comment
https://www.counton2.com/news/local-news/berkeley-county-news/santee-cooper-continues-search-for-new-owner-after-failed-nuclear-project/1820291050 MONCKS CORNER, SC – A special legislative committee is looking into what to do with state-owned utility, Santee Cooper.
The company is in billions of dollars in debt because of the failed nuclear reactor project in Fairfield County.
The State newspaper reports that this week the committee authorized co-chairmen State Senator Paul Campbell of Charleston and State Representative Murrell Smith of Sumter to hire an outside consultant.
That hire will eventually evaluate bids to buy Santee Cooper and negotiate with those potential buyers.
March 2, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, USA |
Leave a comment
Department of Energy moves forward with controversial test reactor, Science, By Adrian ChoFeb. 28, 2019 ,The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced today that it will go forward with plans to build a controversial new nuclear reactor that some critics have called a boondoggle. If all goes as planned, the Versatile Test Reactor (VTR) will be built at DOE’s Idaho National Laboratory (INL) near Idaho Falls and will generate copious high-energy neutrons to test new material and technologies for nuclear reactors. That would fill a key gap in the United States’s nuclear capabilities, proponents say. However, some critics have argued that the project is just an excuse to build a reactor of the general type that can generate more fuel than it consumes by “breeding” plutonium…….
The VTR—also known as the Versatile Fast Neutron Source—would be the first reactor DOE has built since the 1970s. It would differ in one key respect from the typical commercial power reactors. Power reactors use a uranium fuel that contains just a few percent of the fissile isotope uranium-235 and is made to be used once and discarded. In contrast, the VTR would use a fuel richer in uranium-235 that would generate more high-energy neutrons as it “burned.” Those neutrons could be used to test how new materials and components age within the core of a conventional nuclear reactor, a key factor in reactor design.
In principle, such a “fast reactor” could also convert nonfissile uranium-238 to plutonium-239, which could be extracted by reprocessing the fuel……https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/02/department-energy-moves-forward-controversial-test-reactor
|
|
|
March 2, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
reprocessing, USA |
1 Comment
It wasn’t enough radiation to be alarming, but it could be a sign of an ongoing problem The Verge By Rachel Becker Feb 26, 2019, 1A crematorium in Arizona became contaminated with radiation when workers cremated a man who had received radiation treatments for cancer right before he died, a new study reports. The findings highlight a potential safety gap for crematory workers, who might not know what’s in the body they’re cremating.
In this case, the radiation in the crematorium wasn’t significant enough to be worrying for the crematory worker’s health, according to a study published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association. But the study also found clues that exposure to radioactive compounds from medical treatments may be an ongoing safety risk for crematory workers……..
It’s not an easy problem to fix. Manufacturers provide detailed instructions for handling the drug with patients who are alive, but not for ones that have died, Yu says. “It presents a unique safety challenge.” Detecting radioactive materials is more complicated than running a Geiger counter over the body. And there aren’t any federal regulations for what to do with a radiation-treated body, Yu says, so the laws change from state to state. ……https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/26/18241402/radiation-crematorium-arizona-radiopharmaceuticals-cancer-body-lutetium
March 2, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
employment, radiation, USA |
Leave a comment
White House bans four journalists from covering Trump-Kim dinner, SMH, By Philip Rucker
and Josh Dawsey
February 28, 2019 Hanoi, The White House abruptly banned four US journalists from covering President Donald Trump’s dinner on Wednesday with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un after some of them shouted questions at the leaders during their earlier meetings.Reporters from the Associated Press, Bloomberg News, the Los Angeles Times and Reuters were excluded from covering the dinner because of what White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said were “sensitivities over shouted questions in the previous sprays”. Among the questions asked of Trump was one about the congressional testimony of his former lawyer, Michael Cohen.
The White House’s move to restrict press access was an extraordinary act of retaliation by the US government, which historically has upheld the rights of journalists while a president travels overseas. It was especially remarkable because it came during Trump’s meeting with the leader of a totalitarian state that does not have a free press.
Trump’s exchanges with Kim were being covered by the standard 13-member travelling White House press pool, but ahead of the dinner Sanders sought to exclude all reporters from the pool and permit only the photographers and television crew, citing “sensitivities over shouted questions in the previous sprays”.
After loud pushback, including from photojournalists who protested, Sanders allowed a single reporter in the pool for the dinner: Vivian Salama of the Wall Street Journal, who was serving as the print pooler and did not ask a question at the dinner. In addition, at least two members of the North Korean media contingent, a photographer and cameraman, were seen covering the dinner.
Reporters for the three wire services, as well as a second print pooler, were excluded. They included two journalists who had asked Trump questions in the earlier appearances: Jonathan Lemire of the AP and Jeff Mason of Reuters. Also excluded were Justin Sink of Bloomberg and Eli Stokols of the Los Angeles Times………..
Lauren Easton, a spokeswoman for the AP, said in a statement: “The Associated Press decries such efforts by the White House to restrict access to the president. It is critically important that any president uphold American press freedom standards, not only at home but especially while abroad.” .
…… Trump has long complained about reporters asking him questions at photo opportunities, especially when he is in the presence of foreign leaders, which aides have said he views as disrespectful and lacking in decorum. The White House occasionally has punished reporters for their questioning, including CNN’s Jim Acosta and Kaitlan Collins……https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/white-house-bans-four-journalists-from-covering-trump-kim-dinner-20190228-p510qg.html
February 27, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
civil liberties, USA |
Leave a comment
Korean War could be declared over at Trump-Kim summit, says South Korea There’s an upbeat tone that a formal declaration ending the Korean War could be made at the Hanoi summit this week. SBS News 25 Feb 19, Hopes that US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un will formally declare an end to the 1950-53 Korean War at the Hanoi summit rose Monday, after South Korea said the two leaders could reach an agreement.
The devastating conflict between communist North Korea, backed by China, and the capitalist South, aided by the United States, ended with an armistice rather than a peace treaty, leaving Pyongyang and Washington still technically at war.
“I believe that the possibility is there,” the South’s presidential Blue House spokesman Kim Eui-kyeom told reporters about a formal declaration.
“There is no way of knowing what kind of declaration it might be, but I believe the US and North Korea may reach an agreement.”
President Moon Jae-in said in October “it was only a matter of time” before Washington and Pyongyang declared an end to the war.
The US has also struck an upbeat tone. Stephen Biegun, the US special envoy for North Korea, said earlier this month that Trump was “ready to end this war”, fuelling speculation that the formal end of the conflict may be near.
Kim, the leader of North Korea, is due to meet the US president in the Vietnamese capital on Wednesday and Thursday, where it is hoped the pair will make progress in talks on denuclearisation, and a possible peace treaty……..
President Trump says he would be happy as long as North Korea maintains its pause on weapons testing, and he is in no rush to strike a nuclear deal with Kim Jong-un. …..https://www.sbs.com.au/news/korean-war-could-be-declared-over-at-trump-kim-summit-says-south-korea
February 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
North Korea, politics international, South Korea, USA, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
After Putin’s warning, Russian TV lists nuclear targets in U.S. Andrew Osborn, MOSCOW (Reuters) 25 Feb 19, – Russian state television has listed U.S. military facilities that Moscow would target in the event of a nuclear strike, and said that a hypersonic missile Russia is developing would be able to hit them in less than five minutes.
The targets included the Pentagon and the presidential retreat in Camp David, Maryland.
The report, unusual even by the sometimes bellicose standards of Russian state TV, was broadcast on Sunday evening, days after President Vladimir Putin said Moscow was militarily ready for a “Cuban Missile”-style crisis if the United States wanted one.
With tensions rising over Russian fears that the United States might deploy intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe as a Cold War-era arms-control treaty unravels, Putin has said Russia would be forced to respond by placing hypersonic nuclear missiles on submarines near U.S. waters.
……..The targets, which Kiselyov described as U.S. presidential or military command centers, also included Fort Ritchie, a military training center in Maryland closed in 1998, McClellan, a U.S. Air Force base in California closed in 2001, and Jim Creek, a naval communications base in Washington state.
Kiselyov, who is close to the Kremlin, said the “Tsirkon” (‘Zircon’) hypersonic missile that Russia is developing could hit the targets in less than five minutes if launched from Russian submarines.
Hypersonic flight is generally taken to mean traveling through the atmosphere at more than five times the speed of sound……. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclear-russia/after-putins-warning-russian-tv-lists-nuclear-targets-in-us-idUSKCN1QE1DM
February 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics international, Russia, USA, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
Nukes Are No Answer To Climate Crisis RALPH NADER RADIO HOUR https://ralphnaderradiohour.com/nukes-are-no-answer-to-climate-crisis/?fbclid=IwAR1WWrHrMbT0bflR2p7fJDw89KeS_qb1fMSRcAX6ESDXanFL6A2hDNbM8To
by Skro35 at February 16, 2019 Ralph spends the entire hour with physicist and former Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Dr. Gregory Jaczko, talking about his book “Confessions of a Rogue Nuclear Regulator.”
Dr. Gregory Jaczko served as Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission from 2009-2012, and as a commissioner from 2005-2009. As Chairman, he played a lead role in the American government’s response to the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan. Dr. Jaczko is now an adjunct professor at Princeton University and Georgetown University, and an entrepreneur with a clean energy development company. He is the author of Confessions of a Rogue Nuclear Regulator.
“There are a lot of people running around, talking about how nuclear is the only way we’re going to solve climate change. And it just reminds me of these predictions back in the ‘60s of how we were going to have an entire country powered by nuclear power. A generation has forgotten those promises, and now they’re latching onto nuclear as some kind of solution to climate change. That, to me, is a real mistake.” Dr. Gregory Jaczko, former Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and author of “Confessions of a Rogue Nuclear Regulator”
February 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
climate change, Resources -audiovicual, USA |
Leave a comment
‘Tit-for-tat steps’ toward a nuclear war, DAILY SABAH, Hakkı Öcal 25 Feb 19, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s response to reports that the U.S. would deploy short-range missiles has strong warnings about how they could counter this move.
Those missiles, Putin estimates, could reach Moscow in 10 minutes and he considers this “a very serious threat.” He declared in his response in English, “In this case, we will be forced – I repeat – forced to take tit-for-tat steps.”
Now, read this warning with another piece of news from the Truthout.org website. According to the Truthout report, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), the U.S. federal agency responsible for the military application of nuclear science, announced that the first of a new generation of strategic nuclear weapons had rolled off the assembly line. It is smaller in size and power; it will yield “only” about one-third of the power of the bomb the U.S. had dropped on Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945. In one day, 145,000 people were killed in Hiroshima. So, this “small” bomb, that is officially designated as the W76-2, could kill approximately 50,000 people.
A smaller missile and a smaller bomb, according to the group known as the Union of Concerned Scientists, are actually more dangerous than those monster nuclear weapons, for they kill fewer people. No, there is no contradiction in this evaluation. What precluded the use of the big bombs by both sides was the fear that mutual destruction from both sides’ large atomic weapons would mean the annihilation of civilization. That mutual assured destruction (MAD) theory made a thermonuclear disaster “unthinkable.” ……
This small bomb, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, is not a deterrent against another country; it is going to be used. It is designed to be used. Its power is not the equivalent of the roughly 100 kilotons of TNT as the ones that had devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but five kilotons. A practical guy like Trump would like to teach a lesson or two to those who are on his national strategy document as “the enemies of the U.S.” using this rather economic weapon. It would not end capitalism and the financial network as the “big one” would have.
Policy analysts think that the Pentagon would definitely deploy short-range nuclear-capable missiles in Eastern Europe and on islands off the Chinese coast. Watch for the deployment of those small bombs on nuclear submarines around Iran, too.
We are closer to a nuclear war than we would like to believe. https://www.dailysabah.com/columns/hakki-ocal/2019/02/25/tit-for-tat-steps-toward-a-nuclear-war
February 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Russia, USA, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
Why proposals to sell nuclear reactors to Saudi Arabia raise
red flags, The Conversation, Chen Kane,Director, Middle East Nonproliferation Program, Middlebury, February 23, 2019 According to a congressional report, a group that includes former senior U.S. government officials is lobbying to sell nuclear power plants to Saudi Arabia. As an expert focusing on the Middle East and the spread of nuclear weapons, I believe these efforts raise important legal, economic and strategic concerns.
It is understandable that the Trump administration might want to support the U.S. nuclear industry, which is shrinking at home. However, the congressional report raised concerns that the group seeking to make the sale may have have sought to carry it out without going through the process required under U.S. law. Doing so could give Saudi Arabia U.S. nuclear technology without appropriate guarantees that it would not be used for nuclear weapons in the future.
A competitive global market
Exporting nuclear technology is lucrative, and many U.S. policymakers have long believed that it promotes U.S. foreign policy interests. However, the international market is shrinking, and competition between suppliers is stiff.
Private U.S. nuclear companies have trouble competing against state-supported international suppliers in Russia and China. These companies offer complete construction and operation packages with attractive financing options. Russia, for example, is willing to accept spent fuel from the reactor it supplies, relieving host countries of the need to manage nuclear waste. And China can offer lower construction costs.
Saudi Arabia declared in 2011 that it planned to spend over US$80 billion to construct 16 reactors, and U.S. companies want to provide them. Many U.S. officials see the decadeslong relationships involved in a nuclear sale as an opportunity to influence Riyadh’s nuclear future and preserve U.S. influence in the Saudi kingdom.
Why does Saudi Arabia want nuclear power?
With the world’s second-largest known petroleum reserves, abundant untapped supplies of natural gas and high potential for solar energy, why is Saudi Arabia shopping for nuclear power? Some of its motives are benign, but others are worrisome. ………..
US nuclear trade regulations
Under the U.S. Atomic Energy Act, before American companies can compete to export nuclear reactors to Saudi Arabia, Washington and Riyadh must conclude a nuclear cooperation agreement, and the U.S. government must submit it to Congress. Unless Congress adopts a joint resolution within 90 days disapproving the agreement, it is approved. The United States currently has 23 nuclear cooperation agreements in force, including Middle Eastern countries such as Egypt (approved in 1981), Turkey (2008) and the United Arab Emirates (2009).
The Atomic Energy Act requires countries seeking to purchase U.S. nuclear technology to make legally binding commitments that they will not use those materials and equipment for nuclear weapons, and to place them under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. It also mandates that the United States must approve any uranium enrichment or plutonium separation activities involving U.S. technologies and materials, in order to prevent countries from diverting them to weapons use.
American nuclear suppliers claim that these strict conditions and time-consuming legal requirements put them at a competitive disadvantage. But those conditions exist to prevent countries from misusing U.S. technology for nuclear weapons. I find it alarming that according to the House report, White House officials may have attempted to bypass or sidestep these conditions – potentially enriching themselves in the process.
According to the congressional report, within days of President Trump’s inauguration, senior U.S. officials were promoting an initiative to transfer nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia, without either concluding a nuclear cooperation agreement and submitting it to Congress or involving key government agencies, such as the Department of Energy or the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission. One key advocate for this so-called “Marshall Plan” for nuclear reactors in the Middle East was then-national security adviser Michael Flynn, who reportedly served as an adviser to a subsidiary of IP3, the firm that devised this plan, while he was advising Trump’s presidential campaign.
The promoters of the plan also reportedly proposed to sidestep U.S. sanctions against Russia by partnering with Russian companies – which impose less stringent restrictions on nuclear exports – to sell reactors to Saudi Arabia.
Flynn resigned soon afterward and now is cooperating with the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 campaign. But IP3 access to the White House persists: According to press reports, President Trump met with representatives of U.S. industry, a meeting organized by IP3 to discuss nuclear exports to Saudi Arabia as recently as mid-February 2019……..https://theconversation.com/why-proposals-to-sell-nuclear-reactors-to-saudi-arabia-raise-red-flags-112276
February 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, politics international, Saudi Arabia, USA, weapons and war |
1 Comment
Guardian 23rd Feb 2019 The idea that the US might sell state-of-the-art nuclear technology to
Saudi Arabia, potentially enabling Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s reckless regime to build nuclear weapons, sounds so far-fetched as to be almost grotesque.
After all the near-hysterical American and Israeli warnings about the risk of Iran, the Saudis’ arch-rival, acquiring the
bomb, surely even Donald Trump would balk at such breathtaking – and dangerous – hypocrisy? Apparently not.
According to a congressional inquiry, senior White House officials, retired generals and Trump’s close relatives and business cronies have been secretly pursuing a multibillion-dollar scheme to cut a nuclear deal with Riyadh.
The talks are said to be continuing, despite increased public scrutiny and legal advice that a technology transfer lacking strict conditions could contravene US law, breach international counter-proliferation safeguards, and fuel a
nuclear arms race.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/23/trump-cronies-secret-talks-nuclear-tech-saudi-arabia
February 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Saudi Arabia, secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA |
Leave a comment
Nuclear safety board still wary of DOE changes, BY MARK OSWALD / JOURNAL STAFF WRITER February 23rd, 2019 Albuquerque Journal
SANTA FE – At the end of a hourslong meeting in Albuquerque on Thursday night, officials from U.S. Department of Energy agencies had failed to persuade an independent nuclear safety board and a contingent of interested New Mexicans that a DOE rules change won’t restrict efforts to keep the state’s national laboratory sites safe.
Bruce Hamilton, a Republican who chairs the presidentially appointed Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, said DOE officials had continued to downplay the impact of DOE Order 140.1, which last May placed new limits on the board’s 30-year-old oversight role.
“We have repeatedly heard from DOE representatives that they really don’t mean what they wrote (in the rule) or at least that they really don’t intend to follow what they wrote,” said Hamilton. He said this is a “particularly bizarre argument coming out of the nuclear culture that has set the standard for following the written rules to the letter.”
The new rule says the private contractors that manage facilities like the Los Alamos and Sandia national labs can’t respond to DNFSB information requests without notifying or the approval of a DOE liaison and that the weapons facilities can refuse to provide information that is “pre-decisional” or that the DOE determines on its own is not needed by DNFSB inspectors to do their jobs.
Also, the rule excludes more than 70 percent of weapons complex facilities from DNFSB’s formal safety recommendations that require a response from the DOE.
The definition of “public health and safety” under DNFSB oversight was changed to exclude the safety of workers at nuclear facilities. The safety board’s regular reports posted on the web often focus on whether protocols to protect employees, and not just the public in general, are being followed.
The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad could be one of the sites most affected, as the underground nuclear waste storage facility’s “hazard category” would fall outside formal DNFSB jurisdiction.
Coincidentally, at Thursday’s meeting at the Albuquerque Convention Center, Don Hancock, of the watchdog Southwest Research and Information Center, broke some news about WIPP. The DOE’s own safety and security assessment wing will investigate WIPP contractor Nuclear Waste Partnership LLC over “industrial hygiene” issues.
DOE’s Office of Enterprise Assessments says on its website that it will probe incidents at WIPP that took place from July through October last year including “multiple overexposures to hazardous chemicals, including carbon tetrachloride, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide, as well as a series of heat-stress incidents.”……
Board members said they believed the DOE representatives present were sincere and had good intentions. But they said the issues about the DNFSB’s role under the new rule can’t be left to “personalities.”
Board member Joyce L. Connery said the comments by the NNSA folks at the meeting don’t match up with “the literal words” of the DOE order and that the rule should be suspended and revised. Board members also said the language of the rule isn’t consistent with federal law, including the Atomic Energy Act.
During a long public comment period, Jay Coghlan of Nuclear Watch New Mexico went the board members one better and said the rule is “flat-out illegal.” He said that as the Los Alamos lab ramps up the production of plutonium “pits,” the cores of nuclear weapons, and safety lapses are reported by the DNFSB, the Department of Energy wants to “shoot the messenger.” …….. https://www.abqjournal.com/1284667/nuclear-safety-board-still-wary-of-doe-changesnew-order-says-contractors-that-manage-labs-cant-respond-to-information-requests-without-notifying-or-the-approval-of-a-doe.html
February 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
safety, USA |
Leave a comment
Feds reject JEA plan to ditch Georgia nuclear plant, JEA still responsible for billions to help pay for Plant Vogtle, News4JAX, By Jim Piggott – Reporter ,February 23, 2019 JACKSONVILLE, Fla. – The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission says it will not intervene in JEA’s dispute with the owners of Plant Vogtle and that JEA is still bound by its agreement to buy power from the nuclear plant still under construction.The expansion of Plant Vogtle, a nuclear power plant near Waynesboro, Georgia, is way behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget.
JEA is on the hook for billions of dollars to help pay for that construction because, in 2008, the utility signed a contract to fund 41 percent of the construction cost and, in turn, JEA would get a good price on electricity for 20 years. The problem is that construction cost has doubled and there’s still no power coming online anytime soon. JEA is trying to get out of the deal. It has filed lawsuits and taken other measures, but so far that has not worked. JEA is still bound by the contract.
JEA was hoping to get help from the feds, but now, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission says it’s not going to intervene. That means JEA is still responsible for 41 percent of the construction cost, which is now nearly $3 billion, and that could go up even more. ……
More court actions are expected, with both sides planning lawsuits. For now, plan on seeing JEA pay billions. If history holds true, that means customers could see an increase in rates to pay for it. https://www.news4jax.com/news/feds-vote-to-reject-jeas-request-to-withdraw-from-power-purchase-deal
February 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, USA |
Leave a comment
A winner: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal, Independent Australia
By
Dr Steven Hail | 24 February 2019,
The Green New Deal offers a unique chance to stop the worst effects of climate change, writes Dr Steven Hail.YOU MUST HAVE noticed the emergence of a new political phenomenon in Washington D.C. – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The youngest ever Congresswoman – she has the values, the attitude and the agenda you might expect from a progressive millennial from the Bronx. More than that, she has charisma. For many of us, she is a beacon of hope.
For the Trumpian Republicans, she is their worst nightmare.
Her most important contribution so far is the Green New Deal. Its objective is to, finally, confront the threat of imminent and potentially catastrophic climate change, and the role the U.S. economy and its energy system are playing in driving global carbon emissions and the resulting apparently inexorable increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.
You have probably read numerous articles referring to the Green New Deal – some enthusiastic and supportive; some (from the conservative side, and what a misnomer the word “conservative” is when used to refer to destructive climate change deniers) aggressively dismissive; and some (from the establishment democrat side) affirming its ideals, but bemoaning its lack of realism, and offering to devise a more “pragmatic” approach.
What does the Green New Deal actually involve? You can read it for yourself. It is House Resolution 109 in the 116th Congress (2019-20).
This resolution accepts the evidence from climate scientists that climate change is driven by human activity. It accepts that warming of more than two degrees over pre-industrial levels will have a series of catastrophic consequences, which it lists. It accepts the scientific evidence that major emissions reductions are needed within ten years and that net-zero emissions worldwide must be achieved within thirty years if we are to be confident of avoiding this outcome……..https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/a-winner-alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-green-new-deal,12393
February 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, USA |
Leave a comment
