Ethical Investors press Serco to drop bid for contract with the Atomic Weapons Establishment
Best known for its involvement with NHS test and trace during the
coronavirus pandemic Serco is believed to have had plans to compete for
contracts with the Atomic Weapons Establishment, which makes and maintains
warheads. Serco abandoned its bid after investors warned that if the
FTSE250 company began working on nuclear weapons they may have to dump
shares to meet Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) standards, the
Telegraph first reported. A spokesperson for Serco declined to comment on
the news.
City AM 7th Nov 2021
Winning and losing the nuclear peace
HOW TO AVOID NUCLEAR WAR, War on the Rocks, MICHAEL KREPON 8 Nov 21, Arms control has become passé. Russian and U.S. leaders have cast aside treaties as inconvenient to their pursuit of freedom of action. Republican presidents produced great arms control achievements. At present, most Republican senators and aspirants for higher office denigrate arms control and treaty-making as a failed, unnecessary, and unwise pursuit. Arms control provided necessary guardrails in the past. Now, dangerous military practices are on the rise, especially in Ukraine and across the Taiwan Strait. U.S.-Chinese relations are trending toward crisis. Four nuclear-armed states in Asia — China, Pakistan, India, and North Korea — are increasing their nuclear arsenals. Every nuclear-armed competitor is relying increasingly on deterrence as the diplomacy of arms control is in the doldrums. If unaltered, these trend lines point toward tragedy.
Many have forgotten what is crucial to remember: Deterrence is dangerous by design and has a track record of failure in lesser cases. ……………………………………..
Those who denigrate arms control forget that, by the end of the Cold War, conditions for lasting nuclear peace were in hand — not because of strengthened deterrence, but because champions of deterrence adopted the practices of arms control. The United States and Russia were no longer enemies. Crucial norms were in place alongside the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which codified national vulnerability, thereby removing one incentive for increased nuclear force levels. Strategic forces were no longer threatening: Indeed, Boris Yeltsin agreed in the second Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty to the prohibition of land-based missiles carrying multiple warheads. Conditions for strategic, crisis, and arms race stability were therefore at hand. Deep cuts were envisioned. Dangerous military practices were absent. Major powers respected the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of others.
This was the inheritance that Vladimir Putin, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump found unnecessary and inconvenient. ……………………..
In my book, Winning and Losing the Nuclear Peace: The Rise, Demise, and Revival of Arms Control, I propose that we embrace an ambitious goal of extending the three norms of no use, no testing, and no new proliferation to the 100th anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki…………………………………………..
Michael Krepon is the co-founder of the Stimson Center and the author of Winning and Losing the Nuclear Peace: The Rise, Demise, and Revival of Arms Control, from which this essay is drawn. https://warontherocks.com/2021/11/how-to-avoid-nuclear-war/
How Bodega Head almost ended up with a nuclear power plant – but a resistant commmunity won.
How Bodega Head almost ended up with a nuclear power plant, https://www.sonomacountygazette.com/sonoma-county-news/how-bodega-head-almost-ended-up-with-a-nuclear-power-plant/. TOM AUSTIN. November 8, 2021 Bodega Bay, and nearby Bodega, have deeper histories than most Sonoma County towns. Being a pristine, protected natural harbor will do that for you. Bodega Bay was nearly the landing spot for Sir Francis Drake, although recent finds have pretty conclusively held that Drake’s Bay in nearby Pt. Reyes is properly named. Bodega Bay was named after Juan Francisco de la Bodega y Quadra, an explorer for the Spanish Navy –except where HE landed was nearby Tomales Bay. And of course both seaside hamlets are famous for being the locale for the classic Hitchcock thriller “The Birds.”
However, the most significant happening in Bodega Bay is of much more modern vintage. In 1958, four full years before Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” ignited the modern environmental movement, PG&E was planning the world’s first commercially viable nuclear power plant. In an absolutely characteristic example of Big Power’s public instincts, they had chosen scenic Bodega Head as the location for this Atomic Age wonder. “What could go wrong?” they chirped. “Nuclear power is clean, safe and limitless!”
Of course, it wasn’t just scenic wonder at stake here. Bodega Head, as most people know, is within spitting distance of the San Andreas Fault (running along the shoreward side of the bay), and even closer to two smaller faults straddling Bodega Head itself.
The full story of the fight over the Bodega Head nuclear plant would be book-length, so please pardon my brevity here. The cast of characters are timeless: on the “pro” side: PG&E itself, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, and nuclear advocates across political spectra (at the time, nuclear was considered by many environmentalists to be less damaging than, for example, hydroelectric power from dams). On the “con” side was the whole spectrum: The Sierra Club (or at least factions within it) was concerned about the loss of a wild and scenic place: the local ranchers and fishermen were concerned about the dangers to their livelihood; the nascent New Left that started gaining steam in the early ‘60s were concerned about the antidemocratic nature of the pro-business, pro-development organizations pushing for the plant.
The fight was long, protracted and dirty. From 1958 to 1962, as opposition was just coalescing, PG&E continued planning and started building, getting a series of approvals and permits from apparently compliant state and local governments. The building for the main reactor, located on the harbor side of the Head, included a 70-foot-deep circular pit. As construction continued, the opponents were educating far and wide about the dangers of nuclear power, the earthquake danger, the thermal effects on local fisheries and more. In 1962, “Silent Spring” was published, and the environmental movement grew ever faster: musicians were performing at benefits and writing anti-nuclear songs. However, it was the earthquake danger that eventually served as the deal-breaker: UC Berkeley Conservation Editor David Pesonen, one of the leaders of the opposition, hired Geologist Pierre Saint-Amand to consult on the suitability of the proposed plant site. Saint-Amand found a “spectacular” earthquake fault slicing directly through the deep pit. His testimony that “a worse foundation condition… would be difficult to envision.” His argument was the tipping point, as political supporters started peeling away from PG&E, who at length threw in the towel and suspended construction in October 1963.
What remains at the site today is a quiet spot favored by songbirds. Rainwater filled the pit and turned it into a pond. The rest, you know: when you spot whales at the Head, or walk the trails nearby. If you venture a little bit north, you find the Kortum trail, named after local environmentalist Bill Kortum (1927-2014), one of many citizen leaders of the fight. The reverberations are still being felt today.
Time for American lawmakers to press for USA to sign up to the UN Nuclear Weapons Prohibition Treaty
Local Opinion: U.S. should limit nuclear weapons, Raymond Graap, Special to the Arizona Daily Star, 8 Nov 21,
ED. The writer first outlines the near misses – almost nuclear war, that have occurred from the 1960sc onward
”……………This story is told to show how close we came, and how one individual prevented nuclear catastrophe. There have been at least seven other instances when we came very close. Nearly all were terminated by the action of one person, utilizing human judgement instead of reliance on computer warning systems. Humans have made errors, too. The last was a false alarm in Hawaii on Jan. 13, 2018, when a technician sent out the following: “EMERGENCY ALERT. BALLISTIC MISSILE THREAT INBOUND TO HAWAII. SEEK IMMEDIATE SHELTER. THIS IS NOT A DRILL”. Chaotic activity throughout the state followed until a second message 38 minutes later went out advising that the first was an error.
- So, what have we learned about controlling these global terminating weapons? That we must have a different approach. Instead of restraint, the U.S. is on a frantic race to modernize and replace all our bombers, land-based missiles and submarines. So, what are other nuclear-armed countries doing? The same. All are spending huge amounts of money on weapons that no one can use without committing national and global suicide.
- However, for the first time in our history, a treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons was passed by the United Nations in 2017 and entered into force in January of this year after the 50th nation ratified it. This represents our only hope as it outlaws the use, possession, manufacture, threat of use, and transfer of nuclear weapons. The goal is the global elimination of these sordid inventions of the human mind.
How many of the nuclear weapons-armed nations have signed on? None, the U.S. included. Our senators and representatives need to vigorously support this effort.
Graap is a retired physician and board member of Physicians for Social Responsibility, , Arizona Chapter. Information about current efforts to abolish nuclear weapons is available at www.preventnuclearwar.org. https://tucson.com/opinion/local/local-opinion-u-s-should-limit-nuclear-weapons/article_1b44011e-3e50-11ec-b9b4-c3cf4a446a5d.html
UK government considers withdrawing from EU science and research programmes
| The government is considering withdrawing from EU science and research programmes worth £77 billion because of deteriorating relations with Brussels. Ministers are working on alternatives to Horizon Europe, the EU’s research funding scheme, Copernicus, its satellite system, and Euratom, its atomic energy treaty. Withdrawing would pull up to £15 billion in funding from Brussels and deny British researchers the opportunity to participate in its programmes. A government paper circulated to a Brexit cabinet sub-committee last week and leaked to The Sunday Telegraph suggests that the government is considering pulling out of the schemes if relations with Brussels deteriorate further. The UK is to pay £2.1 billion annually to the Horizon programme to maintain access for British scientists and researchers to pan-European projects and funding. It has also secured access to the Copernicus Earth observation programme, important to the UK space sector, and has also agreed to continue its involvement in the Euratom nuclear research programme. Times 8th Nov 2021 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/row-with-european-union-puts-77bn-science-and-research-schemes-at-risk-33n82pv9z |
Rapid growth in solar and wind power in UK
| MORE than 10,000 megawatts per hour of renewable energy were produced in Southampton last year. Figures from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show 16,730 megawatts per hour (around 17 gigawatts) of renewable electricity were generated in Southampton in 2020. This was 10% more energy than the 15 GWh produced the year before, and 23% more than the amount produced in 2014 – the earliest year of data available. Across the UK, 134,600 GWh of renewable energy was generated in 2020, a 13% rise on the year before, and above the 9% increase from 2018 to 2019. Climate think tank Ember said huge falls in costs means the growth in offshore wind power is set to go “parabolic” in the coming months. Phil MacDonald, chief operating officer at the organisation, added: “But the Government is still missing the opportunity of cheap onshore wind, and not doing enough to explore earlier-stage technologies like geothermal and tidal. The biggest producer of energy in Southampton last year was solar power, which generated 10 GWh – 62% of the total. Daily Echo 8th Nov 2021 https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/19700736.figures-renewable-energy-produced-southampton-yearly/ |
COP26 – Why Nuclear is NOT a Solution.
Don’t Nuke the Climate press conference in Glasgow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjSMd1pmsqQ
Sasha Gabizon, Executive Director – Women Engage for a Common Future hosts this COP26 panel on why nuclear energy is NOT a climate solution.
The panel members:
— Makoma Lekalakala, Earthlife Africa https://earthlife.org.za/ SEGMENT: https://youtu.be/LjSMd1pmsqQ?t=281
— Ayumi Fukakusa, Friends of the Earth Japan https://www.foejapan.org/en/ SEGMENT: https://youtu.be/LjSMd1pmsqQ?t=868
— Angelika Claussen, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) https://www.ippnw.org SEGMENT: https://youtu.be/LjSMd1pmsqQ?t=1168
— Günter Hermeyer, Don’t Nuke the Climate https://dont-nuke-the-climate.org/ SEGMENT: https://youtu.be/LjSMd1pmsqQ?t=111
— Gavan McFadzean, Australian Conservation Foundation https://www.acf.org.au/ SEGMENT: https://youtu.be/LjSMd1pmsqQ?t=1538
——————————————————
Don’t Nuke the Climate statement now signed by 461 organisations around the world (including 50+ in Australia):
https://dont-nuke-the-climate.org/cop-26-statement
Progress report on Glasgow climate talks
The Guardian view on climate progress: now for the detail, Editorial https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/05/the-guardian-view-on-climate-progress-now-for-the-detail
Pledges made during Cop26’s first week were encouraging. But without adequate finance and monitoring they don’t mean much
f week one of the climate conference in Glasgow set out a strong outline, the task for next week is to fill in as many details as possible. The long-term ambition of the global environmental policy now being negotiated would have been hard to imagine just a few years ago. While it is not yet clear exactly where the various pledges will get us to in terms of limiting temperature rises, the new agreement on methane spearheaded by President Joe Biden and a commitment by India to get half of its energy from renewable sources by 2030 are highly significant.
Also encouraging is the more integrated approach to the many environmental challenges humanity faces. Previously, conservation and biodiversity were to some extent viewed as separate issues from the changing atmospheric chemistry that drives global heating. Now, with a promise to reverse deforestation and provide funding directly to indigenous people to help them protect their lands, there is greater recognition of the vital part that nature plays in regulating the climate.
The pledges made so far are far from sufficient, and must be viewed as part of a continuing process. The decisions by China’s Xi Jinping and Russia’s Vladimir Putin to stay away inevitably undermine confidence in the overall project. Their refusal, along with India, to join the methane agreement is worrying. The possibility of a return to office by Donald Trump, or the election of a Republican in a similar mould, must be regarded as a serious threat. But there is a sense of momentum in Glasgow, and many climate scientists are relieved that the goal (a net zero planet) is increasingly accepted, even as arguments about how to get there continue to rage.
Investment in new technologies such as “clean” aviation fuel should be encouraged, as subsidies for fossil fuels are cut off. The pace of development in the wind and solar industries has been astonishing. There are some grounds for optimism about the role that the private sector can play in the transition ahead. But nonexistent technology, and the hopes invested in it, played an oversized role in the UK government’s recently launched net zero strategy. One of the challenges of the coming days is to ensure that the plans put forward by governments, known as nationally determined contributions, are not built on wishful thinking. Years of delays mean that the timetable is incredibly tight. Leaders cannot afford to be passive.
Once commitments have been made, mechanisms must be developed to measure and report on progress. This is an enormous task that will not be completed at the first attempt. With regard to the $100bn (£70bn) of climate finance that is supposed to be provided annually by rich countries to poorer ones, for example, more transparency is needed. Poor countries cannot be expected to choose green energy over fossil fuels unless they are supported. Calls from India and African countries for massively increased sums (Narendra Modi has suggested $1tn annually) make the establishment of a trusted carbon accounting system all the more urgent.
After a dip during the pandemic, global emissions have jumped alarmingly. Unless they start to fall dramatically over the next two years, Cop26 will have been a failure. Overshadowing all the technical details is the overwhelming injustice of a situation in which the countries that have contributed least to global heating are already suffering most from its effects. This is a moral point, but also a practical and political one. Eliminating carbon emissions is a collective endeavour in which our civilisation must succeed if it is to continue to thrive. Questions of environmental justice, engaging the past as well as the future, must be confronted head-on in the days ahead.
Nuclear power, fossil fuel companies represented at COP26 climate talks
Revealed: 1,000 fossil fuel and big business reps at COP26, The Ferret, Rob Edwards November 6, 2021,
As many as 141 people registered for COP26 from the nuclear power industry across the globe, including the UK’s Nuclear Industry Association and the World Nuclear Association.
More than 20 were part of the Young Generation Network of nuclear professionals.
Nearly 1,000 representatives from the fossil fuel industry, big business and nuclear power companies have registered to attend the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, according to an analysis by The Ferret.
They include executives from Shell, BP, Equinor, Chevron, Total, Gazprom and other major oil and gas companies, as well as multinational corporations such as McDonald’s, Bayer, Walmart, HSBC, PepsiCo, Nestlé and Microsoft.
There are also delegations from the coal industry, tobacco companies and pesticide manufacturers. Eleven people from two climate sceptic think-tanks have registered for the summit.
Campaigners are outraged that the oil and nuclear industries were being allowed to influence COP26, and called for polluters to be kept away from the summit. They warned of the “corporate capture of climate policies”….. They include executives from Shell, BP, Equinor, Chevron, Total, Gazprom and other major
oil and gas companies, as well as multinational corporations such as McDonald’s, Bayer, Walmart, HSBC, PepsiCo, Nestlé and Microsoft. There are also delegations from the coal industry, tobacco companies and pesticide manufacturers. Eleven people from two climate sceptic think-tanks have registered for the summit. [details of these participants is given]…………………..
As many as 141 people registered for COP26 from the nuclear power industry across the globe, including the UK’s Nuclear Industry Association and the World Nuclear Association. More than 20 were part of the Young Generation Network of nuclear professionals.
The nuclear industry promotes itself as a low-carbon solution to the climate crisis. But some environmentalists argue that it’s too expensive, unreliable and dangerous, compared to renewable energy……..
This list is described as “provisional”, with a final version due to be issued after COP26 has closed. It does not include so-called “overflow” delegates which under UN rules can been added by countries without their names appearing on the official list of participants.
Friends of the Earth Scotland called for polluters to be kept out of COP26. “Many different groups in society need to talk and work together to tackle the climate crisis,” said the environmental group’s director, Dr Richard Dixon.
“But the last people you want at the COP are the big oil firms who continue to profit from fuelling climate change and the nuclear, carbon capture and carbon market enthusiasts who are peddling solutions that are no solution at all.”
The campaign group, Glasgow Calls Out Polluters, decried “political failure” at COP26. “These big polluters’ climate plans are a death sentence for many, but they are nevertheless appeased by the authorities at the COP,” said the group’s Scott Tully from Glasgow.
“The presence and access of these big polluters is in stark contrast with the exclusion of civil society, which draws into disrepute the legitimacy of these talks.”
The anti-poverty charity, Oxfam Scotland, said it was “worrying” that those who have fuelled the climate crisis were given so much access. “Civil society groups, in particular from poorer countries in the south, have found it so hard to attend or even to observe the talks,” said the group’s head, Jamie Livingstone.
“Unless COP26 prioritises the voices of those facing the consequences of climate inaction, it will be impossible for the talks to deliver climate justice.”
Dr Will Dinan, an expert on lobbying from the University of Stirling, accused fossil fuel companies of lobbying to delay action to cut climate pollution. “Climate campaigners have long been concerned about corporate influence on UN environmental decision-making in general, and the corporate capture of climate policies in particular,” he said………….. https://theferret.scot/1000-fossil-fuel-big-business-cop26/
Anxieties in Pays de la Loire over plan for small nuclear reactor.
With her proposal to host a mini-power plant, the president of Pays de la Loire is reviving local tensions around nuclear power. The idea of setting up an SMR on the site of the Cordemais coal-fired power station launched by
Christelle Mor Anglais, President of Les Républicains in the Pays de la Loire region, is causing concern.
Le Monde 6th Nov 2021
Seismic danger: Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant – a geological saga
Lori Dengler | Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant: a geologic saga, Times Standard LORI DENGLER |November 6, 2021 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is about to accept PG&E’s application to terminate the license for Humboldt Bay Power Plant nuclear facility, Unit #3. It’s been a long time coming.
The nuclear facility ceased operations in 1976 for maintenance and refueling. It never produced power again and PG&E decided to permanently shut down the reactor in 1983. Dismantling began in 2009 and unused fuel rods, spent fuel, and contaminated parts of the facility were put into casks and buried on the site.
Here’s the Unit #3 bare-bones history: planning in the late 1950s, groundbreaking January 1961, commissioned August 1963, shut down July 1976, PG&E notice of permanent closure 1983, a license for storage of waste on site 1988, and active decommissioning and waste storage 2009- 2018. But between those points, there are many stories, and the geologic one traverses some of the biggest milestones in Earth Sciences.
Nuclear power was considered a solution to energy needs in the 1950s. PG&E was looking at three potential sites: Point Arena, Bodega Bay, and Humboldt. Proximity to the San Andreas fault and local activist outcry at the time took the first two off the list and they moved forward on the Humboldt Bay site.
How could they build a reactor in one of the most seismically active areas of the contiguous forty-eight states and only a few miles above the only U.S. fault outside of Alaska capable of producing a M9 earthquake? The simple answer is what they didn’t know; they had no clue that such a large earthquake could occur………………………………………..
Thus began the geologic scrutiny of the North Coast. For geologists, Unit #3 was an unexpected boon. The seismic network was only the first step. A few years later, PG&E brought on Woodward Clyde consultants (now URS) to study surface faulting potential and do the detailed analysis that an environmental impact study should routinely uncover today. Even after the decision was made to permanently close the reactor, studies continued on the storage site and the tsunami potential.
The saga of #3 reminds me of what Donald Rumsfeld (DOD Secretary) said in 2002 “… But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know.” Ah yes, those unknown unknowns. So much that we didn’t know when the plant was designed and constructed, and, in hindsight, were important to know. I’m only just beginning to scratch the surface on the geologic story of nuclear power on the North Coast. More next week. https://www.times-standard.com/2021/11/06/lori-dengler-humboldt-bay-nuclear-power-plant-a-geologic-saga/
Precious waters — Tribes file to stop pollution from uranium and other hard rock mines
“The Havasupai Tribe has fought for decades to protect our beautiful water and traditional cultural lands from the harmful effects of uranium mining,”
Tribes file to stop pollution from uranium and other hard rock mines
Precious waters — Beyond Nuclear International Tribes, Indigenous groups, conservation organizations file petition to strengthen federal mining rules, By Earthworks, 7 Nov 21, Tribes, Indigenous groups and conservation organizations filed a rulemaking petition on September 16 with the U.S. Department of the Interior to improve and modernize hardrock mining oversight on public lands. The proposed revisions aim to safeguard critically important lands across the West and Alaska, including sacred lands and their cultural resources, vital wildlife habitat, and invaluable water resources.
“It’s long past time to reform the nation’s hardrock mining rules, end generations of mining-inflicted injustice to Indigenous communities, and chart a new course for public lands stewardship toward a sustainable, clean energy economy,” the petition states. “For far too long, mining companies have had free rein to decimate lands of cultural importance to tribes and public lands at enormous cost to people, wildlife, and these beautiful wild places of historic and cultural significance. The harm is undeniable, severe, and irreparable. Reforming these rules will prevent more damage, help us transition to green infrastructure, and leave a livable planet to future generations.”
The petition seeks to significantly update hardrock mining regulations, a need the Biden administration has also identified, to avoid perpetuating the mining industry’s toxic legacy. Current regulations disproportionately burden Indigenous and other disenfranchised communities with pollution and threaten land, water, wildlife and climate. New mining rules would help protect these resources and minimize the damage from the mineral demands of transitioning to a cleaner energy economy……………
“It is unacceptable for mining companies to evade scrutiny and tribal consultation requirements using outdated regulatory loopholes,” said Tohono O’odham Nation Chairman Ned Norris, Jr. “At this very moment, mining projects in Arizona are threatening the permanent destruction of dozens of sacred sites for the Tohono O’odham Nation and other tribes. That is why the Tohono O’odham Legislative Council has unanimously taken a position in support of righting this historic wrong. The time has come for the federal government to uphold its responsibility in ensuring that sacred lands and waters are properly protected.”
“The Havasupai Tribe has fought for decades to protect our beautiful water and traditional cultural lands from the harmful effects of uranium mining,” said Vice Chairman Matthew Putesoy, Sr. of the Havasupai Tribe. “Each day uranium mining threatens contamination of Havasu Creek, which is the sole water source that provides life to Supai Village, our tribal homeland located at the bottom of the Grand Canyon. Without this precious resource, our Tribe and our homeland will be destroyed. We know that uranium poses a serious and irreversible threat to our survival as a people. This petition is necessary to hold the Department of Interior accountable for meeting its federal trust responsibility and helping to protect our sacred traditional cultural homelands and waters from the harmful and often irreversible effects of mining.”……………….
“We face an existential climate crisis, and must move quickly to convert our infrastructure to support low-carbon energy — but we must do so without replacing dirty oil with dirty mining,” said Lauren Pagel of Earthworks. “The Biden administration has an historic opportunity to confront the legacy of injustice to Indigenous communities and damage to the public lands and waters held in trust for all Americans. Seizing that opportunity requires policies that prioritize metals recycling and reuse over new mining. Where new mining is acceptable, the mining industry must undertake the most responsible methods.”
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the metals mining industry is the single largest source of toxic waste in the United States, and hardrock mines have contaminated an estimated 40% of Western watersheds. Unlike the oil, gas, and coal industries, metal mining companies pay nothing to extract publicly owned minerals from public lands across the West and Alaska.
The Interior Department oversees the regulations governing compliance with federal mining law and other public lands laws. The petition proposes revisions to several mining regulations and includes legal and policy analysis for each proposed improvement.
Overhauling the rules is a critical step toward bringing mining regulations and policy into the 21st century to protect public health and Indigenous and public lands and resources in the West.
Proposed revisions include:
– Clarifying that the BLM must use its authority to protect tribal and cultural resources and values, wildlife, and water quality and quantity;
– Requiring the BLM to verify mining rights;
– Closing loopholes that allow the mining industry to escape public review and consultation with local tribes and governments
The Interior Department is required to respond to the petition within a reasonable amount of time and indicate whether it will revise the rules. https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2021/11/07/precious-waters/
Much pressure on President Biden to drop plans to limit nuclear weapons
Pentagon bearing down on Biden to shelve nuclear reforms
The president has pledged to narrow the role of atomic weapons. But others cite China to argue for the status quo. Politico, By BRYAN BENDER, ALEXANDER WARD and PAUL MCLEARY 11/05/2021,
President Joe Biden’s pledge to limit the role of nuclear weapons is facing growing resistance from Pentagon officials and their hawkish allies, who are arguing to keep the status quo in the face of Chinese and Russian arms buildups.
Biden’s top national security advisers will soon review the conditions under which the United States might resort to using nuclear weapons. Among the options are adopting a “no first use” policy, or declaring that the “sole purpose” of the arsenal is to deter a nuclear conflict and not use them in response to a conventional war or other strategic assault like a cyber attack.
Both would mark major departures from the current posture, which has been purposely ambiguous throughout the nuclear age about whether the United States might strike first, and holds that atomic weapons are for “deterrence of nuclear and non-nuclear attack.”
Biden’s National Security Council plans to convene a high-level meeting on nuclear declaratory policy this month, according to a White House official who spoke to POLITICO on the condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity.
But China’s surprising nuclear expansion in recent months alongside Russia’s modernization of its arsenal has strengthened the hand of military leaders who oppose any policy changes or significant cuts to a new generation of missiles, bombers and other atomic weapons, according to a half a dozen current and former government officials privy to the discussions.
Lack of answers’
Biden’s allies in Congress are also beginning to complain about the lack of details from the administration on the nuclear review process, who is advising it, and what it might mean for the president’s goals.
“The Nuclear Posture Review must reflect the President’s guidance to ‘reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national strategy,’” Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee and co-chair of the Nuclear Weapons Working Group, told POLITICO.
Markey penned a letter to Biden in September seeking further explanation on why the Pentagon removed Leonor Tomero from her position running the nuclear review. Tomero, a longtime nuclear policy official, previously worked for Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), chair of the House Armed Services Committee, who has promised legislation to adopt a no first use policy………………..
The “Pentagon’s lack of answers to date about the Nuclear Posture Review leave me concerned the policy review will prioritize the old assumptions of the military industrial complex at the expense of diverse voices seeking to reduce nuclear risks,” Markey told POLITICO in a statement.
………………….. leading arms control advocates don’t sound hopeful that Biden will get the full menu to choose from. “We want to make sure that the president is presented with a full range of options even those that particular agencies — NSC, the Pentagon — may not prefer or recommend,” said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. “And it would be a disservice to the president’s Nuclear Posture Review if the nuclear weapons blob at the Pentagon were to give him a limited range of options.” https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/05/pentagon-biden-nuclear-weapons-519738
Former UK environment minister Tim Yeo an unreliable ”expert” on nuclear energy .
Is Tim Yeo really a reliable expert of nuclear energy? https://electricalreview.co.uk/2021/11/05/is-tim-yeo-really-a-reliable-expert-of-nuclear-energy/
As part of a lengthy feature querying the need for new nuclear power stations, how magnanimous it is of The Sunday Times to quote Tim Yeo, the former Tory environment minister.
He said, “We need a significant nuclear element in the energy mix if we’re going to get to net zero in the timeframe that is necessary — and that means having these new plants built.” He was cited as the current chairman of an entity called New Nuclear Watch Institute, which is funded by the nuclear industry.
But how reliable is Tim Yeo? Back in 2015, Yeo was described by a judge when he lost a libel case as “unreliable,” “dishonest,” “untruthful,” “untrue,” and “unworthy of belief.”
He has also recently been found guilty of deliberately misusing his “fiduciary powers” as Chair of TMO Renewables, and repeatedly offering misleading evidence in court. He was accused of a “dishonest strategy for maintaining control of the board,” a strategy that included “misleading existing shareholders” into thinking the company had just received a substantial cash investment, when in reality the ‘new friendly shareholders’ he had cited had not invested a penny. Amongst the latest judge’s conclusions were that Yeo was motivated by an “improper purpose,” and that his tendency to “speechify” gave his evidence a “contrived, evasive and rather self-serving quality.”
I am sure it is a coincidence that the libel case he lost back in 2015 was against The Sunday Times.
Serco pulls out of bidding for work on UK’s nuclear arsenal, because of ethical investing concerns
The rise of ethical investing has forced the outsourcer Serco to
pull out of bidding to help manage Britain’s nuclear weapons arsenal,
leaving the Ministry of Defence reliant on fewer potential partners for the
critical work. The FTSE 250 company has abandoned plans to compete for
contracts with the Atomic Weapons Establishment, which designs, makes and
maintains warheads, City sources revealed. The decision follows warnings
from fund managers that working with nuclear weapons might force them to
dump Serco shares due to non-compliance with Environmental, Social and
Governance (ESG) standards.
Telegraph 6th Nov 2021
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 (84)
- 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
