Are We Forever Captives of America’s Forever Wars? This is what needs to be done to finally end our forever wars.
Are We Forever Captives of America’s Forever Wars? This is what needs to be done to finally end our forever wars.
KAREN GREENBERG December 10, 2021 by TomDispatch As August ended, American troops completed their withdrawal from Afghanistan almost 20 years after they first arrived. On the formal date of withdrawal, however, President Biden insisted that “over-the-horizon capabilities” (airpower and Special Operations forces, for example) would remain available for use anytime. “[W]e can strike terrorists and targets without American boots on the ground, very few if needed,” he explained, dispensing immediately with any notion of a true peace. But beyond expectations of continued violence in Afghanistan, there was an even greater obstacle to officially ending the war there: the fact that it was part of a never-ending, far larger conflict originally called the Global War on Terror (in caps), then the plain-old lower-cased war on terror, and finally—as public opinion here soured on it—America’s “forever wars.”
As we face the future, it’s time to finally focus on ending, formally and in every other way, that disastrous larger war. It’s time to acknowledge in the most concrete ways imaginable that the post-9/11 war on terror, of which the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan was the opening salvo, warrants a final sunset.
True, security experts like to point out that the threat of global Islamist terrorism is still of pressing—and in many areas, increasing—concern. ISIS and al-Qaeda are reportedly again on the rise in the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa.
Nonetheless, the place where the war on terror truly needs to end is right here in this country. From the beginning, its scope, as defined in Washington, was arguably limitless and the extralegal institutions it helped create, as well as its numerous departures from the rule of law, would prove disastrous for this country. In other words, it’s time for America to withdraw not just from Afghanistan (or Iraq or Syria or Somalia) but, metaphorically speaking at least, from this country, too. It’s time for the war on terror to truly come to an end.
With that goal in mind, three developments could signal that its time has possibly come, even if no formal declaration of such an end is ever made. In all three areas, there have recently been signs of progress (though, sadly, regress as well).
Repeal of the 2001 AUMF
First and foremost, Congress needs to repeal its disastrous 2001 Authorization for the Use of Force (AUMF) passed—with Representative Barbara Lee’s single “no” vote—after the attacks of 9/11. Over the last 20 years, it would prove foundational in allowing the U.S. military to be used globally in essentially any way a president wanted.
That AUMF was written without mention of a specific enemy or geographical specificity of any kind when it came to possible theaters of operation and without the slightest reference to what the end of such hostilities might look like. As a result, it bestowed on the president the power to use force when, where, and however he wanted in fighting the war on terror without the need to further consult Congress. Employed initially to root out al-Qaeda and defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan, it has been used over the last two decades to fight in at least 19 countries in the Greater Middle East, Africa, and Asia. Its repeal is almost unimaginably overdue…………….
At the moment, some efforts towards repeal again seem to be gaining momentum, with the focus now on the more modest goal of simply reducing the blanket authority the authorization still allows a president to make war as he pleases, while ensuring that Congress has a say in any future decisions on using force abroad……………..
Closing Gitmo
A second essential act to signal the end of the war on terror would, of course, be the closing of that offshore essence of injustice, the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba (aka Gitmo) that the Bush administration set up so long ago. …………
some progress is being made, but as long as Gitmo remains open, our own homemade version of the war on terror will live on.
Redefining the Threat
Another admittedly grim sign that the post-9/11 war on terror could finally fade away is the pivot of attention in this country to other far more pressing threats on a planet in danger and in the midst of a desperate and devastating pandemic. Notably, on the 20th anniversary of those attacks, even former President George W. Bush, whose administration launched the war on terror and its ills, acknowledged a shift in the country’s threat matrix: “[W]e have seen growing evidence that the dangers to our country can come not only across borders, but from violence that gathers within.”
some progress is being made, but as long as Gitmo remains open, our own homemade version of the war on terror will live on.
Redefining the Threat
Another admittedly grim sign that the post-9/11 war on terror could finally fade away is the pivot of attention in this country to other far more pressing threats on a planet in danger and in the midst of a desperate and devastating pandemic. Notably, on the 20th anniversary of those attacks, even former President George W. Bush, whose administration launched the war on terror and its ills, acknowledged a shift in the country’s threat matrix: “[W]e have seen growing evidence that the dangers to our country can come not only across borders, but from violence that gathers within.”
Each of these potential pivots suggest the possible end of a war on terror whose casualties include essential aspects of democracy and on which this country squandered almost inconceivable sums of money while constantly widening the theater for the use of force. It’s time to withdraw the ever-expansive war powers Congress gave the president, end indefinite detention at Gitmo, and acknowledge that a shift in priorities is already occurring right under our noses on an ever more imperiled planet. Perhaps then Americans could turn to short-term and long-term priorities that might truly improve the health and sustainability of this nation. https://www.commondreams.org/views/2021/12/10/are-we-forever-captives-americas-forever-wars
Radionuclides found from Hinkley nuclear mud Bristol Channel Citizens Radiation Survey .
Radionuclides found…! Bristol Channel Citizens Radiation Survey, Tim Deere-Jones, Stop Hinkley C. A new survey has concluded the spread of man-made radioactivity from reactor discharges into the Bristol Channel is far more extensive and widespread than previously reported.
The research has also detected a high concentration of radioactivity in Splott Bay, which could be linked to the controversial dumping of dredged waste off the Cardiff coast in 2018.The survey was undertaken over the summer by groups from both sides of the Bristol Channel after EDF Energy refused to carry
out pre-dumping surveys of the Cardiff Grounds and Portishead sea dump sites where they have disposed of waste from the construction of the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant.
The survey found that shoreline concentrations of two radio nuclides (Caesium 137 and Americium 241)
typical of the effluents from the Hinkley reactors and indicators of the presence of Plutonium 239/240 and 241, do not decline significantly with distance from the Hinkley site as Government and Industry surveys had previously reportedOverall, the study found significant concentrations of Hinkley derived radioactivity in samples from all 11 sites, seven along the Somerset coast and four in south Wales and found unexpectedly high concentrations in sediments from Bristol Docks, the tidal River Avon, the
Portishead shoreline, Burnham-on-Sea and Woodspring Bay.
Public Enquiry 11th Dec 2021
Research finds ‘significant concentrations’ of radioactivity in
samples taken from across the Somerset and south Wales coast. Nation Cymru 9th Dec 2021
Saudi Arabia Arms Sale Is One of Biden’s Many Militaristic Actions in First Year.
Saudi Arabia Arms Sale Is One of Biden’s Many Militaristic Actions in First Year, Khury Petersen-Smith, Truthout, 12 Dec 21,
Given the brutish approach of his predecessor, many expected President Joe Biden to shift away from the worst practices in U.S. foreign policy and at the border in the previous four years. Indeed, in the first weeks of his presidency, the Biden administration signaled changes. In Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s first press briefing, the State Department announced that it was reviewing weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) — which have led the catastrophic war on Yemen with essential U.S. partnership.
A week later, Biden declared in his first foreign policy address as president that “We are ending all American support for offensive operations in the war in Yemen, including relevant arms sales.”
Regarding its practices at the border, Biden administration officials promised a shift away from Trump’s practices of separating families and caging children, calling them a “moral failing.” He said that the new White House would “deal with immigration comprehensively, fairly, and humanely.”
As 2021 comes to a close, however, we are seeing the latter part of a trajectory that settles into familiar, disastrous militarism.
The U.S. is selling Saudi Arabia $650 million worth of missiles and providing $500 million worth of maintenance for U.S.-made aircraft, training and other support for its military operations.
These arrangements come as Saudi Arabia is escalating its devastating bombing in Yemen. In November, Saudi forces carried out the largest number of air strikes since Trump’s last year in office.
These bookends — Biden’s early announcement of an end to U.S. support for the war in Yemen and his subsequent robust material support of that war — capture the set of practices that the Biden White House is settling into, not only in Yemen, but also in the realm of war and imperialism more broadly.
Consider the White House’s approval of a $23 billion weapons sale to the U.A.E., which provides the Emirates with attack drones and F-35 fighter jets. The arrangement was negotiated under the Trump administration as the prize for the U.A.E.’s role in leading the normalization of diplomatic relations between Israel and itself, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan, despite Israel’s deepening violence against Palestinians.
The Biden administration embraced the normalization agreements, along with Trump’s other actions meant to consolidate U.S. support and extend legitimacy to Israel in a time when Palestinian protest presents a steady challenge to Israeli apartheid, and global Palestine solidarity campaigns have gained more traction than ever……………………. https://truthout.org/articles/saudi-arabia-arms-sale-is-one-of-bidens-many-militaristic-actions-in-first-year/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=4190f671-99bd-42a7-a84d-db9a6d698398
UK’s Hinkley B nuclear power station to shut down permanently next summer.
Hinkley Point B to start final run of producing electricity before
shutting down next summer. Hinkley Point B is about to start its final run
of producing electricity before it shuts down for good next summer. The
nuclear power station on the West Somerset coastline has been operating for
over 45 years and it’s expected that many members of staff will stay on to
help with de-fuelling and decommissioning.
ITV 11th Dec 2021
Push for a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East, BUT Israel is the elephant in the room
A Nuclear-Weapons-Free-Zone in the Middle East— & the Elephant in the Room http://www.ipsnews.net/2021/12/nuclear-weapons-free-zone-middle-east-elephant-room/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=nuclear-weapons-free-zone-middle-east-elephant-room By Thalif Deen UNITED NATIONS, Dec 8 2021 (IPS) – Israel’s nuclear presence in the Middle East is best characterized as “the elephant in the room” -– an obvious fact intentionally ignored with deafening silence.
A Wall Street Journal cartoon, amplified the idiom, when it depicted a group of animals huddled together in the jungle with the elephant complaining: “I don’t know why they keep ignoring me when I am in the room.”
Nobody wants to openly discuss Israel as a nuclear power because it is a politically-sensitive issue, particularly in the United States.
And Israel has remained tight-lipped in the company of the world’s eight other nuclear powers– US, UK, France, China, Russia, India, Pakistan and North Korea— and it has never formally declared itself a nuclear power.
In an op-ed piece in the New York Times last August, Peter Beinart, a Professor of Journalism and Political Science at the City University of New York, wrote that US attempts at “feigning ignorance about Israeli nuclear weapons makes a mockery of America’s efforts at non-proliferation.”
Last December, President-elect Joe Biden warned that if Iran goes nuclear, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt might go nuclear too — “and the last goddamn thing we need in that part of the world is a build-up of nuclear capability.”
But like most US politicians and presidents, including Barack Obama, Biden too believes that Israel’s nuclear weapons are best ignored—and never challenged in public.
Back in 2009, says Professor Beinart, when Obama was asked by a reporter if he knew of any country in the Middle East with nuclear weapons, he said: “I don’t want to speculate.”
It is time for the Biden administration to tell the truth, Beinart wrote.
The nuclear weapons gamesmanship in the militarily and politically volatile Middle East goes in circles and semi-circles reaching a point of no return.
If Israel gets away with its nukes, the Iranians argue, “why shouldn’t we go nuclear too”, while the Saudis, the Egyptians and Turks warn: “If Iran goes nuclear, we will follow too”.
Meanwhile, since 1967, five nuclear-weapon-free zones (NWFZ) have been established worldwide — in Latin America and the Caribbean, South Pacific, Southeast Asia, Africa and Central Asia.
But such a weapons-free zone in the conflict-ridden Middle East continues to remain elusive.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres points out that the established five zones include 60 percent of the UN’s 193 Member States– and cover almost all of the Southern Hemisphere.
Guterres welcomed the successful conclusion of the Second Session of the “Conference on the Establishment of a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction,” which took place November 29 to December 3, and congratulated the participating States “on their constructive engagement and the decision to establish a working committee to continue deliberations during the intersessional period”.
Dr M.V. Ramana, Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs (SPPGA), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told IPS establishing a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East is not only a major challenge but it is also important.
The challenge is primarily due to Israel’s refusal to not just discuss its decades-old nuclear weapons program but even acknowledge it, while at the same time attacking countries like Iran over even its nuclear energy-related programs, he argued.
Being backed by the United States, which adopts one rule for Israel and another rule for other countries, it is very difficult to involve Israel, said Dr Ramana, who is also Director of the Liu Institute for Global Issues and the Acting Director of the Centre for India and South Asia Research (CISAR) in the Institute of Asian Research.
The only way to change this state of affairs is for efforts like this to be mounted. Even if they are not successful, they at least raise the issue publicly, Dr Ramana declared.
Hillel Schenker, Co-Editor, Palestine-Israel Journal, told IPS there is no question that a Nuclear and Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Free Zone in the Middle East is in the interests of all the peoples of the region.
However, the issue of a WMD Free Zone is simply not on the political or public agenda in Israel, whose leaders and people find it very convenient to be the only presumed nuclear power in the region, he noted.
“And it also doesn’t appear to be on the agenda of the Egyptians who used to be the primary advocates for the Zone.”
Right now, he said, the main possible step to advancing towards this goal is a successful conclusion of the talks being held in Vienna for a revival of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the nuclear agreement with Iran and the Western powers.
Although Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and Foreign Minister Yair Lapid have expressed opposition to a renewed deal, many senior figures in the Israeli security establishment support it, and believe it was a major mistake for former Prime Minister Netanyahu to have urged former US President Trump to withdraw from the JCPOA, he added.
If the talks are not successful, and Iran moves forward towards becoming a nuclear threshold state, it could produce a very dangerous chain reaction which might motivate Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and perhaps others to also try to go nuclear, seriously destabilizing the entire region, said Schenker.
Abdulla Shahid of the Maldives, President of the UN General Assembly, said nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regimes remain pivotal in ensuring that such an intolerable reality never manifests. And Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones are crucial to the success of disarmament and non-proliferation regimes, he said.
Like other regions, he argued, the geopolitics of the Middle East are complex. Reaching just settlements that will satisfy all parties requires sound diplomacy and negotiations based on good faith.
The addition of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction to the region’s politics will complicate an already challenging process, undermining trust and portending existential consequences.
It was in recognition of this that the General Assembly mandated a nuclear-weapons-free Middle East back in 1974, he said last week.
‘Spend money on the National Health Service – not nuclear submarines’
‘Spend money on the NHS – not nuclear subs’ https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/19777700.spend-money-nhs—not-nuclear-subs/ Philip Gilligan On behalf of South Lakeland and Lancaster District CND, 12 Dec 21, SINCE September, local Conservative politicians have seemed very eager to praise the new military pact known as AUKUS.
They are apparently unconcerned that the US and UK will be assisting Australia to acquire new long-range strike capabilities for its air force, navy and army, including the provision of nuclear-powered submarines fuelled by weapons grade uranium.
They clearly hope that BAE Systems staff in Barrow will be involved in designing and building the submarines, but appear to have ignored the potential threats to peace and stability inherent in such military escalation.
They seem unconcerned that AUKUS has already sparked tensions between the UK and France and seems likely to provoke a regional arms race in the South China Sea.
In the UK, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) is calling on the UK government to focus its resources instead on funding our NHS more adequately and on meeting the social care needs of our communities.
Indeed, CND wants the government to halt all its dangerous and provocative nuclear adventures.
Meanwhile, in Australia, the Maritime Union is also calling for a shift away from wasteful and environmentally harmful military spending to investment in health care and socially useful jobs.
They say that the pact will “continue to escalate unnecessary conflict with China”, and state “We don’t want war”.
This Saturday, Australian peace campaigners and trade unionists are holding an international day of action in opposition to the AUKUS pact.
South Lakeland and Lancaster District CND expresses its solidarity with the Australian campaign, while calling on the UK government to make genuine efforts to invest in increased and more diverse employment opportunities in Barrow.
Iran slams Europeans over nuclear deal stance
Iran slams Europeans over nuclear deal stance – Press TV https://www.reuters.com/world/iran-slams-europeans-over-nuclear-deal-stance-press-tv-2021-12-12/Reuters DUBAI, Dec 12 (Reuters) – European countries have failed to offer any constructive proposal or initiative amid efforts to revive a 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, Tehran’s top nuclear negotiator told Press TV on Sunday.
“European parties fail to come up with any initiatives to resolve differences over the removal of sanctions (on Iran),” Ali Bagheri said, referring to Britain, France and Germany, which are among the big powers trying to salvage the deal.
U.S. European Command, NATO Supreme Headquarters Allied Command Europe leaders meet to “improve warfighting readiness” — Anti-bellum
The two commands share a top commander, currently General Tod Wolters. U.S.-NATO staff talks fortify ironclad security alliance U.S. European Command and NATO Supreme Headquarters Allied Command Europe leaders met today for staff talks, enhancing military coordination for deterrence and security. *** The collaborative meeting strengthens…improving warfighting readiness between the two military organizations and is […]
U.S. European Command, NATO Supreme Headquarters Allied Command Europe leaders meet to “improve warfighting readiness” — Anti-bellum
A lonely evening at home for Fukushima man retracing past
Unsurprisingly, concerns about radiation levels are still on the minds of many former residents. His wife, Mikiko, 64, refused to accompany him for that reason. Ikeda was the only individual in his neighborhood who took up the offer to return home.
December 11, 2021
OKUMA, Fukushima Prefecture–Settling in for the night, Mitsuhide Ikeda poured sake into a glass and raised a toast to framed photos of his deceased parents: “I finally made it back home. Let’s drink together.”
The last time the 60-year-old cattle farmer spent a night at home was 10 years and nine months ago.
Large parts of this town that co-hosts the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant were declared “difficult-to-return” zones after the triple meltdown triggered by the 2011 earthquake and tsunami disaster.
Ikeda’s parents died after the nuclear accident.
The Shimonogami district where the Ikeda’s home is located lies about five kilometers southwest of the Fukushima nuclear facility.
As part of efforts to rebuild the areas around the plant, the government recently began letting residents return home for an overnight stay as a means of preparing for the day when they can do so permanently.
Unsurprisingly, concerns about radiation levels are still on the minds of many former residents. His wife, Mikiko, 64, refused to accompany him for that reason. Ikeda was the only individual in his neighborhood who took up the offer to return home.
Dangerously high radiation levels registered immediately after the disaster that made it impossible for anybody to live in the area have gradually fallen. The government spent vast sums on the time-consuming process of decontaminating topsoil as a way of reducing radiation levels.
It intends to lift the evacuation order for some parts of Okuma in spring. That would be the first step for setting the stage for residents to return home.
The temporary overnight stay program began in Katsurao on Nov. 30 and is gradually being expanded to five other municipalities, including Okuma.
A check for radiation in November on the Ikeda plot found one spot with a reading of 3.8 microsieverts per hour, above the level deemed safe enough for the government to lift the evacuation order.
Even though the Environment Ministry is planning additional decontamination work, Mikiko was unsettled by the reading and concluded it would be impossible to pick up the threads of their past life in Okuma.
Other changes in the close to 11 years since the nuclear disaster make a return to Okuma unrealistic.
While a large supermarket, hospital and bank branch remain standing in the town, there is no indication when those facilities might resume operations.
In the interim, the Ikedas plan to commute to Okuma from the community they moved to as evacuees.
The overnight stay program is restricted to an area close to what was once the bustling center of the town. About 7,600 residents lived there before the nuclear disaster.
The town government envisions that as many as 2,600 people will reside in the town within five years of the evacuation order being finally lifted if plans proceed to rebuild social infrastructure.
But the writing is on the wall for many people.
According to the Environment Ministry, about 1,150 homes in the district had been torn down as of the end of September.
And as of Dec. 8, only 31 residents in 15 households applied for the overnight stays.
Even Ikeda admits that Okuma will likely never return to the community he knew before 2011.
“Too much time has passed,” he said.
President of the European Commission to have the final say on whether Europe considers nuclear power to be ”clean” and ”green”?
Gas and nuclear: Fate of EU green taxonomy ‘now in the hands of von der Leyen’ By Frédéric Simon and Kira Taylor | EURACTIV.com, 10 Dec 2021
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has taken charge of a soon-to-be-published list of sustainable investments amid controversy around the possible classification of fossil gas and nuclear energy as “green” or “transitional” activities under certain conditions, according to several sources familiar with the process.
The European Union is moving closer to integrating nuclear power and natural gas into the bloc’s sustainable finance taxonomy – a set of rules designed to provide investors with a common definition of what is green and what is not in order to channel more capital into sustainable businesses.
The list of activities that Europe considers “green” or “transitional” investments will be laid down in a so-called ‘delegated act’ adopted by the European Commission setting out detailed implementing rules under the EU’s sustainable finance taxonomy regulation, adopted in December 2019.
But after several failed attempts and mounting controversy over the role of gas and nuclear power in the energy transition, President von der Leyen has now taken matters into her own hands, several sources told EURACTIV………
On Wednesday evening, the EU passed the first part of its taxonomy rulebook, setting out environmental criteria for investments including renewable energy, shipping and car manufacturing that will apply as of January 2022.
But no decision has been taken yet on the most politically sensitive part of the taxonomy, dealing with gas and nuclear investments…………. Contacted by EURACTIV, the European Commission did not confirm whether von der Leyen had taken charge. Most likely, the proposal will be presented to the College of Commissioners by Mairead McGuinness, the EU financial services commissioner, and Valdis Dombrovskis, the vice-president in charge of the economy, a spokesperson said.
Given internal procedures, a final proposal should be ready by Friday before it is submitted to the college for approval next week, according to an EU source.
Europe divided
European countries are deeply divided on the subject. While France is leading a group of twelve countries supporting the inclusion of nuclear energy in the taxonomy, five other EU countries expressed their opposition to the move, with Austria even warning it was ready to challenge the decision before the EU court of justice.
Central and eastern European countries are also pushing to include fossil gas as a “transitional” activity in the taxonomy, arguing that gas is needed as a stepping stone for them to exit coal, the most polluting of all fossil fuels.
But the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI), a network of international investors, has advised the EU against allowing these energy sources a sustainable label.
The inclusion of gas-fired power “would seriously compromise” the taxonomy’s role as an independent and scientific tool in line with Europe’s climate goals, PRI warned in a briefing note.
And while a report from the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) looked favourably at the inclusion of nuclear, it did “not sufficiently [address] risks related to the storage of nuclear waste, severe incidents and nuclear proliferation,” UNEP said.
The UN-supported initiative recommends that Europe explores alternatives, either by developing a proposal for sectors involved with the energy transition or extending the taxonomy “to recognise intermediate economic activities and transition pathways such as gas-fired power that operates below the ‘significant harm’ threshold of 270g CO2/kWh”………
Technology neutral
In the end, it looks increasingly likely that both gas and nuclear will be included in the list of sustainable investments as transitional fuels………….
For nuclear, however, the choice to call it transitional is still subject to controversy, with supporters arguing it should labelled “sustainable” because of its low-carbon [?]nature………..
Nuclear split in three categories
According to the EU’s energy commissioner Kadri Simson, the proposal “will be ready in the coming weeks…and it will clarify whether or not nuclear energy generation, waste disposal or fuel supply can be classified as sustainable activities for investors.”
Simson’s comments suggest that the upcoming delegated act could split nuclear activities into three categories: fuel supply, energy generation and waste.
…. the management of radioactive waste and the possibility of a nuclear incident remains a cause of concern for the United Nation’s PRI, which says these were not sufficiently explored in the JRC report.
“The materialisation of the risks above could seriously harm most – if not all – of the five environmental objectives other than climate mitigation that are part of the EU Taxonomy Regulation,” the PRI said in its briefing note.
…….. There is still no confirmed date for the publication of the taxonomy’s delegated act, but the European Commission says it will be published before the end of the year. Some expect it to be published alongside the gas package on 14 December while others are talking about it coming out on 22 December. https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/gas-and-nuclear-fate-of-eu-green-taxonomy-now-in-the-hands-of-von-der-leyen/
UK’s Nuclear Energy Finance Bill Committee hears problems about funding of new nuclear projects, that will be too late to affect climate change.
nuClear News No 126 December 21, . New Nuclear Energy Developments In Safe Energy Journal No.92 and nuClear News No.135 we reported on a debate in the House of Commons on the Second Reading of the Nuclear Energy Finance Bill, which took place on 3rd November. (1) Since then, there have been several meetings of the Nuclear Energy Finance Bill Committee, including one session which took evidence from Doug Parr of Greenpeace, Mycle Schneider of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report and Professor Steve Thomas. (2)
The SNP’s Energy Spokesperson at Westminster, Alan Brown, asked Mycle Schneider about the argument that the UK needs baseload power and can’t meet its net zero targets without nuclear power. Mycle pointed out that we are in a climate emergency, so we need reductions in carbon emissions as quickly as possible. For every pound we spend we need to see large and fast results. It’s clear that there are other options beside nuclear which are more climate effective. The cost of renewables is cheaper and nuclear is five times slower. Possible investments in nuclear which might deliver after 2030 are much too slow.
Regarding the need for baseload electricity, the National Grid’s scenarios say nothing about the need for reliable baseload. Only one out of their three scenarios needs Sizewell C. Nuclear is not flexible. If the wind isn’t blowing nuclear doesn’t help. What is required is batteries and demand-side responses to compensate for intermittency.
Analysis of the French nuclear fleet shows that nuclear power is not a reliable source providing power 24/7. For 2019 – the year before Covid – when EDF starts an outage for maintenance and refuelling it has lost control entirely over the date and time it is able to restart its reactors. There were over 40 cases of revised times and dates. EDF was not even able to make reliable predictions 24 hours before the reactors were due to restart.
Labour’s Alan Whitehead asked Mycle Schneider about the experience of the United States using the Regulated Asset Base (RAB) funding model for two plants in South Carolina which were abandoned recently. Should there be measures in any Bill which make sure any nuclear plant is finished to avoid consumers being dumped with the cost of a plant that wasn’t finished. Construction of VC Summer started in 2013 and it was supposed to come on-line in 2017. By 2017 the cost estimate had increased by 75%. In July 2017 construction was abandoned. This was one of the consequences of the fact that Westinghouse filed for bankruptcy. The affair has cost consumers billions.
Steve Thomas said what marked out the VC Summer project and a similar project in Georgia from other US projects was that they allowed the recovery of costs from consumers before completion of the reactors. The Summer experience shows very clearly the folly of using the RAB model. We would have to be careful with any legislation which prevents nuclear plants under construction being abandoned. Dungeness B took 24 years from the start of construction to commercial operation, and over its 32 years of operation its availability was well below 50%. It should have been abandoned before it was completed.
Matthew Pennycook said there is a lack of clarity around the Chinese company, CGN’s investment in Sizewell C and how that interacts with the intentions of this Bill. He asked what is in the 2016 Strategic Investment Agreement and what provisions there are in that agreement that would allow the Government to remove CGN. And related to that there was £1.7 billion in the budget to enable a final investment decision for a large scale nuclear project. Is that money to buyout the CGN stake?
Steve Thomas said in the 2016 Agreement CGN agreed to take up to 20% of the Sizewell C project up to the Final Investment Decision (FID). They have an option to take 20% of the construction and operation of the plant if it goes ahead. EDF and CGN have spent about half a billion pounds so far, It may take another £0.5 billion at the most to get to FID. So £1.7bn seems too much. In terms of how you get CGN out of Sizewell C it probably depends on what happens to Bradwell B. The Chinese really want to get the endorsement of UK nuclear regulators for it HPR1000 reactor. If they are not going to be allowed to build Bradwell B, they are unlikely to be interested in putting money into Sizewell C.
Steve Thomas told MPs there is a lot of missing detail in the RAB proposals. One of the biggest elements is how much the surcharge will be during the construction. The Government has said it will be a maximum of about £10 per year per consumer. That would yield £6bn. In the context of a project that will cost £24-40bn, plus financing costs, £^bn is not much of a game changer.
PMQs On 24th November, during Prime Minister’s Questions Matthew Pennycook asked: “The Government’s integrated review has concluded that the Chinese state poses a systemic challenge to our national security, and the Prime Minister has made it clear that when it comes to China, we must remain vigilant about our critical national infrastructure. Can he therefore confirm unequivocally today that plans for China General Nuclear to own and operate its own plant at Bradwell in Essex have been abandoned, and explain to the House precisely how and when his Government intend to remove CGN’s interest from the Sizewell C nuclear project?”
Boris Johnson replied that “…we do not want to see undue influence by potentially adversarial countries in our critical national infrastructure. That is why we have taken the decisions that we have. On Bradwell, there will be more information forthcoming – What I do not want to do is pitchfork away wantonly all Chinese investment in this country, or minimise the importance to this country of having a trading relationship with China.” (3)
The Times pointed to the National Security and Investment Bill, going through parliament at present, which will allow the government to “screen” and potentially block sensitive foreign investments, and concluded that China will be cut out of future involvement in developing new nuclear power stations, but this is still not entirely clear. (4)
Mr Pennycook later responded to the PMs answer via Twitter: “We need certainty on the future of China’s involvement in UK nuclear power and clarity about how and when the Government intends to remove China’s state-controlled nuclear energy company from involvement in any future UK project.”
Subsequently the team behind Bradwell B said China’s nuclear group remains committed to the project. (5) https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/nuClearNewsNo136.pd
European Union passes sustainable taxonomy law, but postpones decision about nuclear power.
“The commission must deliver a science-based taxonomy regulation that excludes fossil gas, nuclear, and factory farming. Otherwise, the credibility of the taxonomy is ruined.”
EU green taxonomy becomes law, gas and nuclear postponed, Institutional investors have signalled they want a taxonomy that is based on science – not political compromise. euobserver, By WESTER VAN GAAL 11 Dec 21,
BRUSSELS, The first two chapters of the sustainable taxonomy, the EU’s ambitious labelling system for green investment, were passed on Thursday (9 December).
Until midnight on Wednesday, EU member states had time to reject this first set of rules – the so-called ‘first delegated act’.
But despite opposition from a group of countries, the proposal passed and will come into force on 1 January 2022. It will describe the sustainable criteria for renewable energy, car manufacturing, shipping, forestry and bioenergy and more, and include a “technology-neutral” benchmark at 100 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour for any investments in energy production.
The criteria for the list has mainly been compiled by the Sustainable Finance Platform, a group of 57 NGOs, scientific and financial experts, making the first part of taxonomy “science-based”…..
The European Commission will now likely unveil the second delegated act on 22 December.
This will describe how nuclear and gas will be labelled under the taxonomy. But the process has become highly-politicised over the last months.
Second act
In a meeting of member states on 29 November the project nearly faltered.
An EU diplomat, speaking anonymously, explained to EUobserver that a French-led group of 13 member states tried to block the first list “out of principle” – because the commission had not agreed to include nuclear and gas in the green taxonomy.
France and Finland pushed for nuclear to be “fully part of the taxonomy.” Ten other mainly eastern European countries want gas included. Sweden joined the group because the new rules endanger its forestry sector.
The group tried to gain a supermajority of 15 to force the commission’s hand but fell short. Germany and Italy abstained, but did not respond to requests for explanation made by EUobserver.
The commission will now decide how to label nuclear and gas before the end of the year, and it is not yet clear how the issue will pan out…………..
Whatever the commission will decide, only a supermajority in the council – 15 member states – or a parliamentary majority can block the second delegated act. Both are unlikely.
What next?
Institutional investors have already signalled they want a taxonomy based on science, not political compromise.
This will “harm the objective-scientific, transparent character of the taxonomy and increases the risk of ‘greenwashing’. Europe promised the world climate leadership, it is time to show it,” a group of banks wrote this week.
Sebastien Godinot, a senior economist at WWF and member of the EU’s Sustainable Finance Platform, said the commission must not give in to blackmail and bullying.
“The commission must deliver a science-based taxonomy regulation that excludes fossil gas, nuclear, and factory farming. Otherwise, the credibility of the taxonomy is ruined.”
But the commission may have no choice but to compromise between the gas and nuclear-supporting member states on one side, and countries opposing these on the other – while also being mindful that investors and experts from its Sustainable Finance Platform will reject a system containing contradictory political concessions. https://euobserver.com/climate/153776
Appeal to UK’s Supreme Court will just lengthen Julian Assange’s legal torment
Edward Fitzgerald QC, for Assange, previously told the High Court that Australia had not indicated whether it would accept Assange, who “will most likely be dead before it can have any purchase, if it ever could”……..
Assange lawyers eye UK Supreme Court, The North West Star.Jess Glass and Tom Pilgrim, PA
11 Dec 21, Julian Assange’s lawyers intend to take his case to the Supreme Court, his fiancee says, after the High Court allowed the WikiLeaks founder’s extradition to the United States.
Assange, 50, is wanted in the US over an alleged conspiracy to obtain and disclose classified information following WikiLeaks’ publication of hundreds of thousands of leaked documents relating to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars
US authorities brought a High Court challenge against a January ruling by then-district judge Vanessa Baraitser that Assange should not be sent to the US, in which she cited a real and “oppressive” risk of suicide.
After a two-day hearing in October, the Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett, sitting with Lord Justice Holroyde, ruled in favour of the US on Friday………..
The judges ordered that the case must return to Westminster Magistrates’ Court for a district judge to formally send it to UK Home Secretary Priti Patel.
Assange’s fiancee Stella Moris called the ruling “dangerous and misguided” and said his lawyers intended to seek an appeal at the Supreme Court……..
The legal wrangling will go to the Supreme Court, the United Kingdom’s final court of appeal.
“It is highly disturbing that a UK court has overturned a decision not to extradite Julian Assange, accepting vague assurances by the United States government,” Assange’s lawyer Barry Pollack said.
“Mr Assange will seek review of this decision by the UK Supreme Court.”
Supporters of Assange gathered outside of the court after the ruling, chanting “free Julian Assange” and “no extradition”.
They tied hundreds of yellow ribbons to the court’s gates and held up placards saying “journalism is not a crime”.
If Assange’s lawyers do take his case to the Supreme Court, justices will first decide whether to hear the case before any appeal is heard.
During October’s hearing, James Lewis QC for the US said that the “binding” diplomatic assurances made were a “solemn matter” and “are not dished out like Smarties”.
The assurances included that Assange would not be held in a so-called “ADX” maximum security prison in Colorado or submitted to special administrative measures (SAMs) and that he could be transferred to Australia to serve his sentence if convicted.
But lawyers representing Assange had argued that the assurances over the WikiLeaks founder’s potential treatment were “meaningless” and “vague”.
Edward Fitzgerald QC, for Assange, previously told the High Court that Australia had not indicated whether it would accept Assange, who “will most likely be dead before it can have any purchase, if it ever could”……..
The United Nations’ special rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer sharply criticised the verdict.
“This is a shortcoming for the British judiciary,” Melzer told the DPA news agency on Friday.
“You can think what you want about Assange but he is not in a condition to be extradited,” he said, referring to a “politically motivated verdict”.
with reporting from Reuters and DPA https://www.northweststar.com.au/story/7547237/assange-lawyers-eye-uk-supreme-court/?cs=13136
Russia Angered by Senator Roger Wicker’s Nuclear Strike Remarks on Ukraine
Russia Angered by Senator Roger Wicker’s Nuclear Strike Remarks on Ukraine, NewsWeek, BY BRENDAN COLE ON 12/9/21 Russia has condemned GOP Senator Roger Wicker for suggesting that the U.S. should consider launching a nuclear strike to defend Ukraine.
The Russian embassy in Washington also hinted that Wicker was championing businesses in his home state of Mississippi when he called for U.S. military intervention over Moscow’s buildup of troops close to the Ukrainian border.
Wicker provoked the stern Russian response after telling Fox News host Neil Cavuto: “I would not rule out American troops on the ground. We don’t rule out first-use nuclear action.”……
The statement added that “long-term security guarantees” between the U.S. and Russia required “a demonstration of readiness to compromise. It is unlikely that Roger Wicker’s ill-considered statements will help us get out of the current acute phase of Russian-American relations.”……….. https://www.newsweek.com/russia-nuclear-ukraine-roger-wicker-embassy-irresponsible-putin-biden-summit-1657634
1 This Month
19 November – Webinar – The Reality of Reprocessing
Time: 11:00 AM Pacific Time (US & Canada) / 2:00 PM Eastern / 7:00 PM UK / 8:00 PM CET
Register for the Zoom Event Here
Shut down the radiation-damaged Heysham nuclear reactors now
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
-
Archives
- November 2026 (74)
- October 2026 (302)
- September 2026 (339)
- 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)
-
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
