The following is a statement from Extinction Rebellion, UK, in light of misrepresentations of their movement by a former team member now working for a pro-nuclear front group.It alleges that Environmental Progress, its new employee, Zion Lights, its founder, Michael Shellenberger, and the group’s predecessor, Breakthrough Institute (still operating as well) have ties to big corporations and to climate denial.
There have been a number of stories in the press in the last few weeks with criticisms about Extinction Rebellion by Zion Lights, UK director of the pro-nuclear lobby group Environmental Progress. It appears that Lights is engaged in a deliberate PR campaign to discredit Extinction Rebellion.
For any editors who might be considering platforming Lights, we would like to make you aware of some information about the organisation she works for and her employer, Michael Shellenberger.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRESS & MICHAEL SHELLENBERGER
Environmental Progress is a pro-nuclear energy lobby group. While the group itself was only established in 2016, its backers and affiliates have a long and well-documented history of denying human-caused climate change and/or attempting to delay action on the climate crisis. A quick look at groups currently promoting Zion Lights through their social media channels include climate deniers and industry lobbyists such as The Global Warming Policy Foundation and the Genetic Literacy Project (formerly funded by Monsanto).*
The founder of Environmental Progress, Michael Shellenberger, has a record of spreading misinformation around climate change and using marketing techniques to distort the narrative around climate science. He has a reputation for downplaying the severity of the climate crisis and promoting aggressive economic growth and green technocapitalist solutions.
Shellenberger appeared on the Tucker Carlson Show on Fox News just last week to say that the forest fires currently raging in California are due to “more people and more electrical wires that they’ve failed to maintain because we’ve focused on other things like building renewables” and we’ve been “so focused on renewables, so focused on climate change.”
In his recent book Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts us All, Shellenberger argues that there are no limits to growth and that environmental problems can be solved by everyone getting richer. The book has been widely criticised by many respected scientists both for its central premise and its misunderstanding, misinterpretation and misuse of the facts. (See here and here.)
His stance on fundamental and vitally important points of scientific consensus around the climate crisis is flat out wrong. In his essay promoting his book published in June of this year on the Environmental Progress website and The Australian – ‘On behalf of environmentalists, I apologise for the climate scare’ –he claims that “climate change is not making natural disasters worse” and that “Humans are not causing a ‘sixth mass extinction”. He also argues that “fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003,” and, “The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California.” These claims contradict reports from the IPCC and misrepresent the discussion taking place in the scientific community.
One science advisor with Environmental Progress, respected MIT climate expert Professor Kerry Emanuel, spoke publicly about being “very concerned” about the essay, and felt unsure whether he would remain involved with the organisation.
The article was published in Forbes, before being pulled offline the same day for violating its code of ethics around self-promotion.
A key tactic from the climate delayer playbook used in the essay is that of the repentant environmentalist, according to investigative journalist, Paul Thacker. After gaining credibility by aligning themselves with a section of the environmental movement, the repentant environmentalist then performs a volte face and attacks their former position.
This tactic has also been used by Zion Lights, who first overstated her role within Extinction Rebellion (she was a member of the media team, not ‘co-lead’ as stated on the Environmental Progress website) and then denounced the movement following an apparent change of heart.
BREAKTHROUGH INSTITUTE
Shellenberger is co-founder of the Breakthrough Institute, a lobbying group masquerading as a “think tank”. The Breakthrough Institute has “a clear history as a contrarian outlet for information on climate change [which] regularly criticises environmental groups”, according to Paul Thacker. Breakthrough has also been described as a “program for hippie-punching your way to fame and fortune.”
Shellenberger co-founded the Breakthrough Institute with Ted Nordhaus, nephew of economist, William Nordhuas. William Nordhaus features in Merchants of Doubt – Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway’s examination of the PR strategies used both by the tobacco and fossil fuel industries. His interventions in the 1990s helped set back essential action on climate change by decades.
Other figures associated with Shellenberger and the Breakthrough Institute include:
Owen Paterson, one of the UK’s most prominent climate deniers who helped with the UK launch of the group’s Ecomodernist manifesto in 2015.
Matt Ridley, coal mine owner, once hereditary Conservative Peer and famous climate delayer / ‘lukewarmist’ who spoke at the UK launch event. (more…)
Ministers who visit Sellafield for the first time are left with no illusions about the challenge at Europe’s most toxic nuclear site.
One former UK secretary of state described it as a “bottomless pit of hell, money and despair”, which sucked up so much cash that it drowned out many other projects the economy could otherwise benefit from.
For workers, it is a place of fascination and fear.
“Entering Sellafield is like arriving in another world: it’s like nuclear Narnia,” according to one senior employee. “Except you don’t go through a cupboard, you go through checkpoints while police patrol with guns.” Others call it nuclear Disneyland.
Sellafield, a huge nuclear dump on the Cumbrian coast in north-west England, covers more than 6 sq km (2 sq miles). It dates to the cold war arms race, and was the original site for the development of nuclear weapons in the UK in 1947, manufacturing plutonium. It was home to the world’s first full-scale commercial nuclear power station, Calder Hall, which was commissioned in 1956 and ceased generating electricity in 2003.
It has been at the centre of disaster and controversy, including the Windscale fire of 1957. The blaze was considered one of the worst nuclear incidents in Europe at the time, and carried a plume of toxic smoke across to the continent. The milk from cows on 200 sq miles of Cumbrian farmland was condemned as radioactive.
Sellafield began receiving radioactive waste for disposal in 1959, and has since taken thousands of tons of material, from spent fuel rods to scrap metal, which is stored in concrete silos, artificial ponds and sealed buildings. A constant programme of work is required to keep its crumbling buildings safe and create new facilities to contain the toxic waste. The site is expected to be in operation until at least 2130.
The estimated cost of running and cleaning up the site have soared. Sellafield is so expensive to maintain that it is considered a fiscal risk by budgetary officials. The latest estimate for cleaning up the Britain’s nuclear sites is £263bn, of which Sellafield is by far the biggest proportion. However, adjustments to its treatments in accounts can move the dial by more than £100bn, more than the UK’s entire annual deficit. The cost of decommissioning the site is a growing liability that does not count towards the calculation of the UK’s net debt.
Sellafield is owned by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, a quango sponsored and funded by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero that is tasked with cleaning 17 sites across the UK.
The site has a workforce of 11,000, with its own railway, road network, laundry services for normal and potentially radioactive garments, and its own police force with more than 80 dogs. It has almost 1,000 buildings.
Sellafield’s impact on the environment has been a longstanding concern. Local animals, including swallows, have been found to carry radioactive traces from the site with them. Debate rages locally over just how toxic the “atomic kittens” – stray cats that inhabit the site – may be. Sellafield says cats are screened for radioactivity before they are rehomed.
The activities at the site are a matter of significant scrutiny to countries including the US, Norway and Ireland, given that Sellafield hosts the largest store of plutonium in the world and takes waste from countries such as Italy and Sweden.
Excellent table here on original, showing current status of the world’s nuclear reactors
Norwegians have long feared the effects of an accident at the site, with modelling suggesting that prevailing south-westerly winds could carry radioactive particles from a large incident at the site across the North Sea, with potentially devastating consequences for its food production and wildlife.
Jobs at Sellafield are often considered to be a golden ticket, according to sources, as the site offers long-term employment with above-average wages in a region with few big employers.
Sellafield is at the heart of the so-called “nuclear coast” in West Cumbria, sandwiched between the Lake District national park and the Irish Sea. At its southern end, BAE Systems in Barrow-in-Furness builds nuclear submarines. Land neighbouring the site has long been earmarked for a new nuclear power station but plans for Moorside collapsed in 2018 when the Japanese conglomerate Toshiba walked away.
The Air Force is expanding its study of whether service members who worked with nuclear missiles have had unusually high rates of cancer after a preliminary review determined that a deeper examination is needed
abc news, ByTARA COPP Associated Press, December 5, 2023
WASHINGTON — The Air Force is expanding its study of whether service members who worked with nuclear missiles have had unusually high rates of cancer after a preliminary review determined that a deeper examination is needed.
The initial study was launched in response to reports that many who served are now ill. The Air Force isn’t making its initial findings of cancer numbers public for a month or so, but released its initial assessment Monday that more review is necessary.
“We’ve determined that additional study is warranted” based on preliminary analyses of the data, said Lt. Col. Keith Beam, one of several Air Force medical officers who updated reporters on the service’s missile community cancer review.
The findings are part of a sweeping review undertaken by the Air Force earlier this year to determine if missileers — the launch officers who worked underground to operate the nation’s silo-launched nuclear missiles — were exposed to unsafe contaminants. The review began after scores of those current or former missile launch officers came forward this year to report they have been diagnosed with cancer.
In response, medical teams went out to each nuclear missile base to conduct thousands of tests of the air, water, soil and surface areas inside and around each of its three nuclear missile bases; Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana, Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota and F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming.
The former chairman of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, the state entity charged with regulating utilities, is the latest to be indicted in connection with the nuclear bailout scandal. The indictment of former PUCO Chair Sam Randazzo comes a little over five months after Republican former House Speaker Larry Householder and former Ohio Republican Party chair Matt Borges were sentenced to prison on racketeering charges related to the case.
Randazzo surrendered to federal authorities this morning at US District Court in Cincinnati. This afternoon, Randazzo, appeared in court. His hands and feet were shackled. Randazzo pleaded “not guilty” to an 11-count indictment on charges of bribery, wire fraud and illegal monetary transactions and he was released on bond without fronting any money to do so. Randazzo could face up to 20 years in prison if convicted of the crimes.
The indictment alleges Randazzo accepted $4.3 million by FirstEnergy and used it “for his own personal benefit.” It says Randazzo “personal official action for the benefit of [FirstEnergy].”
Federal authorities raided Randazzo’s home in November 2020 and he resigned from his post as leader of the agency that regulates utilities shortly after that. First Energy, the utility company at the center of the HB 6 scandal, said in its prosecution agreement with federal officials that it bribed both Randazzo and Householder.
Lt. Gov. Jon Husted has been subpoenaed to testify in a civil suit involving the company this week. And Gov. DeWine’s office has been asked to furnish information as part of that inquiry.
Republican former House Speaker Larry Householder is serving a 20-year prison sentence, and former Ohio Republican Party chair Matt Borges is in prison for five years after their convictions in connection with the scandal. Lobbyist Juan Cespesdes and former Householder aide Jeff Longstreth pleaded guilty in connection with the case, as did FirstEnergy and the dark money group Generation Now. Lobbyist Neil Clark was also arrested in the case but died by suicide in March 2021.
Maureen Willis, director of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel, the agency that is responsible for representing consumers in utility cases, is weighing in on the indictment.
“The indictment of former Public Utilities Commission Chair Sam Randazzo is an important step to bring justice to Ohio utility consumers. It underscores the need for near-term reform of the PUCO selection process that led to his appointment as Chair of the PUCO. OCC’s calls for reform so far have gone unanswered. Ohioans deserve better from the public officials in this state,” Willis said.
This indictment is prompting a renewed call to rescind HB6 from an Ohio lawmaker who has been clamoring for its repeal. Rep. Casey Weinstein (D-Hudson) said Ohioans are still paying for the corruption that came from this bill. But he says this indictment answers questions about the extent of Randazzo’s involvement.
“I love consequence culture. I’m all for accountability and finally we are going to get that. A little sunshine is a great disinfectant in terms of the money that moved, that fueled the passage of this terrible law,” Weinstein said.
Majority Republicans who control the Ohio Legislature have not responded to calls to repeal HB 6 in the past.
Nick Swartsell, reporter for WVXU in Cincinnati, contributed to this story.
The B-2 Spirit stealth bomber aircraft has become the first U.S. warplane to be cleared to carry the B61-12, the newest nuclear bomb on the block. The clearance featured in the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan (SSMP) for Fiscal year 2024 was unclassified by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) last week.
The B61 series is one of the longest-serving weapons in the US stockpile, the first iteration having debuted in the 1960s. The B61-3, -4, and -7 continue to be part of the nuclear lineup available with the U.S., even as plans are afoot to phase them out. Details of the phase-out plan remain unknown for now……………………………………………………
The 825-pound (lb), or ~374 kilograms (kg) bomb project is being undertaken at a cost of nearly $8.3 billion, with experts suggesting that costs could rise to $10 billion, Popular Mechanics reported. Around 480 of these bombs are expected to be made using the B61-4 bombs. The effective cost of making these bombs exceeded the cost of their weight in gold…………………………………..
The US Air Force has plans to equip its F-35, F-15, and F-16s with the B61-12, even though the timeline for these clearances remains unknown for now. The availability of F-35s with NATO allies also means that the B61-12 could also serve US allies in the future, and earlier this month, the Royal Netherlands Air Force confirmed that its F-35As had received an initial certification for the weapon with the German and Italian Tornado fighter bombers also in the queue to use the B61-12………………………….. https://interestingengineering.com/culture/b2-spirit-b61-12-nuclear-bombs
CND’s Chair, Tom Unterrainer, attended the recent meeting at the UN in New York, of states that back the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Here Tom writes a guest blog about the event.
The non-nuclear majority met in New York between 27 November and 1 December for the Second Meeting of States Parties (2MSP) to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). This coming together was not simply ‘non-nuclear’ but decidedly anti-nuclear in outlook and approach. The TPNW represents many things: a ‘work in progress’, a part of international law, a mechanism for the eventual abolition of nuclear weapons and similar. What it represents politically, at the time of coming into force and since, is a full-frontal rejection of ‘nuclearism’ and a challenge to the nuclear-armed world. 2MSP saw discussion and decision making on how to embed this aspect of the Treaty.
Between 15 and 27 October 1953, the British government carried out ‘Operation Totem’ over an area in Southern Australia. Totem I and Totem II were atmospheric nuclear tests and together with five additional ‘non-critical’ tests, Britain delivered death and catastrophe on the First Nations people inhabiting the area. These people “felt the ground shaking and the black mist rolling”, as Karina Lester put it on the floor of 2MSP. “We know our lands are poisoned”, she went on, clearly stating that “we want governments to recognise what they have done.” What the British government did in 1953 was to consign a people and their land to death, destruction and continuing – intergenerational – harm.
The British government has refused to recognise or make recompense for what it did over seventy years ago and recently affirmed that it would not do so now. This roadblock to justice must be challenged, as should the other roadblocks to peace and justice that are erected by nuclear-armed states. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has been engaged on the question of Britain’s legacy of nuclear colonialism and recently agreed a resolution at our 2023 Policy Conference to enhance this work. The message coming loud and clear from 2MSP is that this aspect of our work is urgently necessary and incredibly important. Even in states like the UK which possess nuclear weapons and which take a hostile approach to the TPNW, the overall message and intent of the Treaty has universal applicability.
The theme of ‘universalisation’ was prominent at 2MSP, with a series a working papers, proposals and speeches made to address the concept. In an early ‘thematic debate’, a representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross outlined some of what this could mean. For example, highlighting and embedding the anti-nuclear consensus that any nuclear use would have an enormous humanitarian impact; being clear that nuclear possession is “not exceptional” and does not stand above and beyond international law.
A working paper submitted by the government of Austria goes into more detail, with specific reference to concepts of security: “the argument that opponents of the Treaty frequently employ in their criticism of the Treaty is that it ‘does not take today’s security environment into account’ or that ‘the security environment is not conducive to nuclear disarmament.’” In response to these ‘arguments’, Austria is clear that “there has been little readiness by opponents of the Treaty, especially by the nuclear-armed States, to engage constructively with the legitimate security concerns formulated in and through the Treaty.” What does this mean? That State Parties to the TPNW are not simply rejecting nuclear-weapon possession for the obvious moral and ethical reasons but because they fully reject the ‘security’ arguments of nuclear-possessor states and are clear that the destructive humanitarian impact of any nuclear use must be fully recognised and accounted for.
There were many similar contributions and discussions at 2MSP, both on the floor of the meeting and in a series of lively side events. These events ranged from addressing the issues of ‘nuclear secrecy’ to more in-depth discussions and seminars on nuclear risks and global politics.
What is clear is that the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament can and will play an important role in pressing forward with ‘universalising’ anti-nuclear ideas, including those embodied in the TPNW. It is also clear – and this is one of the more positive aspects of such international meetings – that CND and our supporters are the representatives of majority non-nuclear and anti-nuclear thinking in the UK. Given Britain’s nuclear-armed status and nuclear alliances, our work – and the work of the TPNW community globally – is as important as ever.
National Catholic Reporter, STEVEN SCHWANKERT, New York — December 4, 2023
The threat from nuclear weapons is as great now as ever, and their destructive power is more immediate than climate change, said Archbishop John C. Wester of Santa Fe, New Mexico, at a Nov. 29 Mass in Manhattan that remembered Catholic activist Dorothy Day, a candidate for sainthood recognized by the church as a “servant of God.”
Wester was visiting New York for the United Nations’ second Meeting of States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, held from Nov. 27 to Dec. 1 at U.N. headquarters in Manhattan. The visit also came four years to the week of Pope Francis’s visit to Japan, when the pontiff declared that the possession, construction and use of nuclear weapons are all immoral.
The Mass at Church of Our Saviour on Park Ave. also coincided with the 42nd anniversary of Day’s death…………………………………………………………………………..
“Catholics should establish disarmament as a critical pro-life issue,” Wester said, referring to his own Archdiocese of Santa Fe as “the birthplace of nuclear weapons.”
………………………………”The trouble with this issue is that it’s in the background. We’ve been lulled into a false sense of complacency really since the 1980s. Climate destruction is indeed very important, but this is equally important — in some ways more important — because while climate change is gradual, this would be instantaneous. This would be the destruction of human civilization within about 24 hours,” he said.
…………………………………………….The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons — the first legally binding international agreement to prohibit and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons — took effect Jan. 22, 2021. Only 93 countries out of the U.N.’s 193 member states have signed it, and the nine states known to have military nuclear programs have not. They are Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea……………………………………………………………. more https://www.ncronline.org/news/nuclear-disarmament-critical-pro-life-issue-warns-archbishop-wester
The way countries view nuclear weapons is shifting. As past arms control measures have ended or decayed, the United States, Russia, and China are investing heavily (again) in their nuclear arsenals, pursuing new capabilities and discarding constraints once seen as fundamentally stabilizing………………
Launched last week, the Nuclear Weapons Systems Project seeks a “qualitative rethink” by providing a curated data source for all major nuclear delivery systems ever deployed. By seeing more easily what has changed and when, users can better identify the benefits of states’ long trajectory of narrowing the types of nuclear capabilities in the world, understand the risks of a new expansion of nuclear capabilities, and develop ways to de-risk the current situation and prevent future security crises……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Through this project, the CSR team hopes to provide a useful source of information and perspective that can be drawn forward and applied now to help avoid destabilizing actions and limit risk in the future. We invite the open use of the dataset by anyone interested in better understanding the arsenals of the P5 over history. For more on the methodology of our research, its limitations and qualifications, and a list of definitions, please see our launch post. https://thebulletin.org/2023/12/new-information-tool-on-nuclear-weapons-seeks-to-identify-the-next-arms-control-strategies/
The question of whether a nuclear deterrent might be necessary for South Korea has experienced a resurgence over the past few years, becoming a “mainstream feature of South Korea’s national security discourse”. With recent escalation in the pace of North Korea’s nuclear provocation, China’s aggressive buildup of its nuclear arsenal, and waning confidence in the U.S. commitment to extended deterrence, the public perception in South Korea has reflected a sense of increased vulnerability. Consequently, public polling in January of this year found that 71 percent of South Koreans support the return of nuclear weapons to their country — even if it means engaging in indigenous development. In 2023, South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol spoke openly, for the first time, of the perceived need to either redeploy American non-strategic nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula or build their own. The reality is that it is not in South Korea’s national interest to have a nuclear weapon — politically, militarily or economically.
Despite this, the debate on the Peninsula is real and the country’s legitimate security concerns should be considered. With the North making regular threats, the trepidations of South Koreans are understandable and the need to take measures to reduce the threat from the North clear, but it remains questionable if nuclear weapons would serve such a purpose. More likely, a South Korean nuclear weapon would serve to fuel a destabilizing arms race in Asia and could actually undermine South Korea’s negotiating position vis-a-vis North Korea.
Politically, a nuclear weapon would not make South Korea safer. As an active member of multiple non-proliferation agreements including the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the 1992 Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, South Korea uses these agreements to condemn North Korea’s proliferation and mobilize international support against the nuclear activities of its adversary. South Korea’s own proliferation would jeopardize its ability to do so as well as damage its standing in the international community and its relationship with its primary security ally, the United States.
Militarily, a nuclear weapon would not make South Korea safer. The ROK already has the conventional capabilities needed to strike any target in North Korea through the use of short-range ballistic missiles and precision strike weapons, has recently committed $81 billion toward strengthening its pre-existing defense capabilities, and has established a strategic command to oversee its “three-axis” defense system. Nuclear weapons would add little while increasing paranoia north of the DMZ.
To reinforce reliability of the U.S. commitment to extended deterrence, Presidents Joe Biden and Yoon announced the Washington Declaration in early 2023, as well as the creation of the bilateral Nuclear Consultative Group. In early November, the two countries updated their Tailored Deterrence Strategy agreement for the first time in a decade to reflect their “ironclad” commitment to collective security underscored by the symbolic deployment of major U.S. military assets to the country, such as a nuclear ballistic missile submarine and a nuclear capable B-52 bomber. South Korea is not only conventionally capable of deterring a nuclear attack by North Korea, but it is also protected by a renewed commitment to extended deterrence by the United States, making the development of a nuclear weapon redundant and escalatory.
Economically, a nuclear weapon would not make South Korea safer. A withdrawal from the NPT would bring an array of potential sanctions with the ability to cause real economic damage. Even if the impact of these sanctions is mitigated by allies to protect regional security interests, the impact of potential Chinese sanctions would be severe. Moreover, this withdrawal would impact international cooperation with Seoul’s nuclear energy program, an economic and energy priority.
Thus, although a nuclear weapon might make South Koreans feel safer, at least temporarily, it would not make the country any more secure. Conversely, creation of a nuclear weapon will undermine South Korean efforts to protect itself against a North Korean threat. Instead, the legitimate security concerns voiced by South Koreans could be addressed by strengthening conventional capabilities as well as engaging with international arms control efforts and dialogue across the DMZ. Such measures would do more to promote confidence among Korean citizens than engaging in a destabilizing arms race.
The White House has issued a blunt warning that the US is set to run out of funds to aid Ukraine by the end of the year, saying that a failure by Congress to approve new support would “kneecap” Kyiv.
The alert from Shalanda Young, the White House budget director, in a letter to congressional leaders on Monday, represented the most specific assessment yet of Washington’s waning financial and military support for Ukraine.
“Without congressional action, by the end of the year we will run out of resources to procure more weapons and equipment for Ukraine and to provide equipment from US military stocks,” Young wrote to political leaders of both parties.
“There is no magical pot of funding available to meet this moment. We are out of money — and nearly out of time,” she said.
President Joe Biden’s request for $106bn in emergency funding for his biggest foreign policy priorities, including Ukraine, Israel, and the Indo-Pacific, remains mired in stalemate on Capitol Hill, driven by mounting Republican opposition to helping Kyiv.
Some lawmakers — especially in the Senate, where backing for Ukraine runs deeper — are trying to negotiate a bipartisan deal that would contain aid for Kyiv alongside new immigration and asylum procedures to reduce the number of undocumented people arriving in the US through its southern border.
Even if an agreement is reached in the Senate, however, it is unclear if it can pass the Republican-led House, whose new speaker Mike Johnson has been sceptical of funding for Ukraine.
“Cutting off the flow of US weapons and equipment will kneecap Ukraine on the battlefield, not only putting at risk the gains Ukraine has made, but increasing the likelihood of Russian military victories,” Young wrote to Congress.
“Already, our packages of security assistance have become smaller and the deliveries of aid have become more limited . . . while our allies around the world have stepped up to do more, US support is critical and cannot be replicated by others,” she added.
The White House warning comes as EU member states are struggling to reach a budget deal in Brussels that would send €50bn to Ukraine, people close to the discussions told the Financial Times.
Young said Ukraine also needed economic support, which is in danger of stalling.
“If Ukraine’s economy collapses, they will not be able to keep fighting, full stop,” she wrote. “Putin understands this well, which is why Russia has made destroying Ukraine’s economy central to its strategy — which you can see in its attacks against Ukraine’s grain exports and energy infrastructure,” she added.
Young also said money for Ukraine would bring benefits to the US economy. Sincethe start of Russia’s full invasion in February 2022, Washington has approved $111bn in aid to Kyiv.
“While we cannot predict exactly which US companies will be awarded new contracts, we do know the funding will be used to acquire advanced capabilities to defend against attacks on civilians in Israel and Ukraine — for example, air defense systems built in Alabama, Texas, and Georgia and vital subcomponents sourced from nearly all 50 states,” she said……… https://www.ft.com/content/ca16e42d-fda9-4c1d-b2c9-410d764745b7
Nuclear power is costly, inefficient and leaves a long and toxic legacy.
Doubling down on nuclear power will not solve the climate crisis, says the Scottish Greens climate spokesperson Mark Ruskell.
Mr Ruskell was responding to the announcement from the COP climate summit that 22 countries, including the US, France and the UK, have signed a declaration to triple nuclear capacity by 2050.
Mr Ruskell said: “Nuclear energy is costly, dangerous and out of date. It’s no kind of solution, and will leave a long and toxic legacy for generations to come. The UK experience of Hinkley Point underlines all of these problems, with delay after delay and ever-ballooning costs.
“The climate emergency is happening all around us. We simply don’t have time to waste on overpriced and dirty solutions like nuclear energy.”
Mr Ruskell welcomed the announcement that 118 countries have pledged to triple renewable energy, saying: “This is a significant step in the right direction and could be key to our shift away from climate-wrecking fossil fuels.
“Locally sourced renewable energy is the cheapest and greenest energy available. We have more and better technology available to us than ever before, all that is missing is the political will.
“I hope that this summit can be when leaders finally turn a corner and start to give renewables the investment and support that they deserve.”
Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited Israel this week, and while calling for Israel to protect civilians, refused to set conditions that would disrupt the $3.8 billion Israel receives in annual military assistance or the $14.3 billion supplemental aid package.
Phase One of Israel’s genocidal campaign on Gaza has ended. Phase Two has begun. It will result in even higher levels of death and destruction.
By Chris Hedges /Original to ScheerPost
The skies over Gaza are filled — after a seven-day truce — with projectiles of death. Warplanes. Attack helicopters. Drones. Artillery shells. Tank shells. Mortars. Bombs. Missiles. Gaza is a cacophony of explosions and forlorn screams and cries for help beneath collapsed buildings. Fear, once again, is coiling itself around every heart in the Gazan concentration camp.
By Friday evening, 184 Palestinians — including three journalists and two doctors — had been killed by Israeli air strikes in the north, south and central Gaza, and at least 589 injured, according to the Ministry of Health in Gaza. Most of them are women and children. Israel will not be deterred. It plans to finish the job, to obliterate what is left in the north of Gaza and decimate what remains in the south, to render Gaza uninhabitable, to see its 2.3 million people driven out in a massive campaign of ethnic cleansing via starvation, terror, slaughter and infectious diseases.
The aid convoys, which brought in token amounts of food and medicine — the first batch was shrouds and coronavirus tests according to the director of al-Najjar hospital — have been halted. No one, least of all President Joe Biden, plans to intervene to stop the genocide. Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited Israel this week, and while calling for Israel to protect civilians, refused to set conditions that would disrupt the $3.8 billion Israel receives in annual military assistance or the $14.3 billion supplemental aid package. The world will watch passively, muttering useless bromides about more surgical strikes, while Israel spins its roulette wheel of death. By the time Israel is done, the 1948 Nakba, where Palestinians were massacred in dozens of villages and 750,000 were ethnically cleansed by Zionist militias, will look like a quaint relic of a more civilized era.
Israel began to bomb Khan Younis on Friday after dropping leaflets warning civilians to evacuate further south to Rafah, located on the border crossing with Egypt. Hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians had sought refuge in Khan Younis. Once Palestinians are pushed to Rafah, there is only one place left to flee — Egypt. The Israeli Ministry of Intelligence, in a leaked report, calls for the forcible transfer of Gaza’s population to Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula. A detailed plan to intentionally displace the Palestinians in Gaza and push them into Egypt has been embedded in Israeli doctrine for five decades. Already, 1.8 million Palestinians in Gaza have been driven from their homes. Once Palestinians cross the border into Egypt — which the Egyptian government and Arab leaders are seeking to prevent despite pressure from the U.S. — Palestinians will never return.
This is not a war against Hamas. It is a war against Palestinians.
Israeli strikes are generated at a dizzying rate, many of them from a system called “Habsora” — The Gospel — which is built on artificial intelligence that selects 100 targets a day. The AI-system is described by seven current and former Israeli intelligence officials in an article by Yuval Abraham on the Israeli sites +972 Magazine and Local Call,as facilitating a “mass assassination factory.” Israel, once it locates what it assumes to be a Hamas operative from a cell phone, for example, bombs and shells a wide area around the target, killing and wounding tens, and at times hundreds of Palestinians, the article states.
“According to intelligence sources,” the story reads, “Habsora generates, among other things, automatic recommendations for attacking private residences where people suspected of being Hamas or Islamic Jihad operatives live. Israel then carries out large-scale assassination operations through the heavy shelling of these residential homes.”
Some 15,000 Palestinians, including 6,000 children and 4,000 women, have been killed since Oct. 7. Some 30,000 have been wounded. Over six thousand are missing, many buried under the rubble. More than 300 families have lost 10 or more members of their families. More than 250 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank since Oct. 7, and more than 3,000 injured, although the area is not controlled by Hamas.TheIsraeli military claims to have killed between 1,000 and 3,000 of some 30,000 Hamas fighters, a relatively small number given the scale of the assault. Most resistance fighters shelter in their vast tunnel system.
Israel’s playbook is the “Dahiya Doctrine.” The doctrine was formulated by former Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of Staff Gadi Eizenkot, who is a member of the war cabinet, following the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Dahiya is a southern Beirut suburb and a Hezbollah stronghold. It was pounded by Israeli jets after two Israeli soldiers were taken prisoner. The doctrine posits that Israel should employ massive, disproportionate force, destroying infrastructure and civilian residences, to ensure deterrence.
Daniel Hagari, spokesman of the IDF, conceded at the start of Israel’s most recent attack on Gaza that the “emphasis” would be “on damage and not on accuracy.”
Israel has abandoned its tactic of “roof knocking” where a rocket without a warhead would land on a roof to warn those inside to evacuate. Israel has also ended its phone calls warning of an impending attack. Now dozens of families in an apartment block or a neighborhood are killed without notice.
The images of mass destruction feed the thirst for revenge within Israel following the humiliating incursion by Hamas fighters on Oct. 7 and the killing of 1,200 Israelis, including 395 soldiers and 59 police officers. There is a sadistic pleasure voiced by many Israelis over the genocide and a groundswell of calls for the murder or expulsion of Palestinians, including those in the occupied West Bank and those with Israeli citizenship.
The savagery of the air strikes and indiscriminate attacks, the cutting off of food, water and medicine, the genocidal rhetoric of the Israeli government, make this a war whose sole objective is revenge. This will not be good for Israel or the Palestinians. It will fuel a conflagration throughout the Middle East.
Israel’s attack is the last desperate measure of a settler colonial project that foolishly thinks, as many settler colonial projects have in the past, that it can crush the resistance of an indigenous population with genocide. But even Israel will not get away with killing on this scale. A generation of Palestinians, many of whom have seen most, if not all, of their families killed and their homes and neighborhoods destroyed, will carry within them a lifelong thirst for justice and retribution.
Sellafield discharges two million gallons of radioactive water into the Irish Sea every day at high tide. This includes a cocktail of over 30 alpha, beta and gamma radionuclides. BNFL admits that radioactive discharges in the 1970’s were 100 times those of today. As a result of these discharges, which include around half a tonne of plutonium, the Irish Sea has become the most radioactively contaminated sea in the world. Caesium-137 and Iodine-129 from Sellafield have spread through the Arctic Ocean into the waters of northern Canada and are having a bigger impact on the Arctic than the Chernobyl accident. Sellafield’s gas discharges of Krypton can be measured in Miami.
The guinea pigs in a ‘deliberate scientific experiment’ to find out levels of contamination in the food chain, were the Cumbrian people and their environment. Claiming then that the radioactive materials discharged from the 2km pipeline would dilute and disperse into the wider oceans, the industry clearly got it wrong, with high levels of radioactive discharge material washed ashore and trapped in the coastal sands and sediments.
A leading government-backed scientist from East Anglia University discovered that plutonium particles, concentrated in waves breaking on the shore, was being blown over West Cumbria, as far as 37 miles inland.This was confirmed by analysis of vacuum cleaner house dust samples taken up and down the coast by a National Radiological Protection Board investigation.
That Sellafield plutonium gets everywhere was shown in post-mortem examinations of former Sellafield workers. Concentrations of hundreds and in one case thousands of times higher than in the general population were found. Cumbrians who never worked at the plant had plutonium levels ranging from 50% to 250% above the average compared to elsewhere in Britain. Atomic Energy Authority scientist, Prof. Nick Priest, studied the teeth of over 3000 young people throughout Britain and Ireland. He found traces of Sellafield plutonium in varying doses, the highest doses being closest to Sellafield.
In November 1983 a team of Greenpeace divers tried to block the Sellafield underwater discharge pipe. When they emerged from the water, their Geiger counters revealed that they were seriously contaminated. It was only when they publicised this fact that BNFL admitted to having problems with their radioactive discharges and that a tankfull of ‘radioactive crud’ had been flushed out to sea. As radioactive flotsam was being washed ashore, posing a danger to health, the Department of the Environment effectively closed the beach and warned the public not to use the fifteen-mile stretch of shoreline north and south of Sellafield. This advice stayed in force for a full six months. In June 1985 BNFL faced a three-day trial, was found guilty and fined £10,000.
BNFL’s own environmental monitoring figures for the first quarter of 1997 revealed alarmingly raised levels of Technetium 99 in seaweed samples from the West Cumbrian coast. A Tc-99 level of 180,000 Bq/Kg in seaweed was sampled from Drigg, just south of the plant. This compared to a level of 71,000 Bq/Kg sampled in the previous quarter and to a level of just 800 Bq/Kg in 1992. Via the food chain Tc-99 is now found in duck eggs, and the use of locally harvested seaweed as a garden fertiliser has led to the discovery of Tc-99 in locally grown spinach. Irish Sea lobster have shown a similar alarming rise from 210 Bq/Kg in 1993 to 52,000 Bq/Kg in 1997 – over 40 times the EU Food Intervention Level set as a safety level for foodstuffs contaminated following a nuclear accident. Raised levels of Tc-99 were subsequently found in Norwegian lobsters.
A wide range of fish, shellfish and molluscs continue to show varying degrees of radioactive contamination from Sellafield’s discharges.
ABC’s 1983 film ‘The Day After’ — the subject of a new documentary as well as a book —not only blew America’s (and Ronald Reagan’s) mind, but it may also have changed the course of human history.
“………………………………… Next to the moon landing, it’s hard to think of a TV moment that had a bigger impact on the collective psyche than The Day After, ABC’s white-knuckle drama depicting the aftermath of a nuclear strike on the United States. Its airing 40 years ago — which is being commemorated on Dec. 4 with a new PBS documentary, Television Event, as well as a just-published book about the film, Apocalypse Television — didn’t just terrify the nation. It may have also altered the course of human destiny, which at that time, the red-hot height of the Cold War, seemed to be barreling towards an inevitable atomic showdown……………
“I’ve come to believe that’s true,” says Nicholas Meyer, 77, who directed the three-hour film. “The movie may have indeed helped prevent a nuclear war. It certainly changed one person’s mind on the subject, and that person just happened to be the President of the United States. Ronald Reagan wrote about watching the movie in his memoir. His biographer, who spent three years in the White House, said the only time he ever saw Reagan flip out was after seeing the movie. Ultimately, it sent Reagan into such a tailspin, he signed the Intermediate Missile Range Treaty, the only treaty that ever resulted in the physical dismantling of nuclear weapons.”
The brains behind The Day After, the one who deserves most of the credit not only for conceiving the concept but also strong-arming a reluctant ABC into putting it on the air, was the late Brandon Stoddard, then the network exec in charge of ABC’s made-for-TV movies.
“Brandon was stunned by Three Mile Island,” recalls Meyer. “And that’s how he came up with The Day After. ‘What if we showed a nuclear exchange and what would happen to regular people if they got nuked?’”
Unsurprisingly, ABC’s top executives were not entirely onboard with Stoddard’s vision…………………………………
For one thing, there was considerable political pushback. Conservative groups went on the warpath against the network, claiming the movie was Soviet propaganda designed to undermine America’s nuclear deterrent (even though Hume’s script never identified who launched the strike against the U.S. or why). For another, the subject matter of atomic war was, predictably, radioactive to advertisers. They began pulling out in droves………………………………………………………… https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/how-the-day-after-saved-the-world-12357
China won’t yet commit to keep autonomy out of its nuclear command and control. It will take a lot more talking to get there.
News reports leading up to the meeting between President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping in November indicated that the United States sought to reach an agreement to keep autonomy out of nuclear command-and-control systems (C2)—or at least set up a formal dialogue on the issue. A South China Morning Post headline, citing unidentified sources, proclaimed: “Biden, Xi set to pledge ban on AI in autonomous weapons like drones, nuclear warhead control: sources.” Before the meeting, an Indo-Pacific expert at the German Marshall Fund told the press that China had signaled interest in discussing norms and rules for artificial intelligence (AI), something Biden’s team surely knew as well. The administration seemingly sought to capitalize on that interest by seeking a meeting of the minds on the narrow but important topic of nuclear C2.
But the U.S. aspirations, while laudable, proved to be too ambitious. As the New York Times reported, “On one of the critical issues, barring the use of artificial intelligence in the command and control systems of their nuclear arsenals, no formal set of discussions was established. Instead, Mr. Biden’s aides said that Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser, would keep talking with Wang Yi, China’s chief foreign affairs official.”
It is not surprising that the Biden administration was not able to make more progress with China. First, the United States and China do not seem to have had many direct bilateral conversations about military AIto date. Reaching agreement about nuclear AI—even in a statement that would be nonbinding—was an ambitious goal.
Second, the United States already committed unilaterally to maintaining human control over nuclear decisions, so the U.S. government would not have had to “give up” anything to reach a bilateral commitment about nuclear C2.
……………………………………………………………………………. The U.S. government is to be commended for fleshing out in greater detail some norms that states should pursue for their military AI systems, including through its political declaration and its efforts to open a military AI dialogue with China. But these recent developments further illustrate how difficult it will be to obtain legally binding international agreements—even very narrow ones—among states that are actively pursuing military AI.
As I wrote in an earlier Lawfare paper, “[R]egulation of national security AI is more likely to follow the path of hostile cyber operations, which have seen limited large-scale international agreement about new rules. Absent a precipitating crisis, small-group cooperation and unilateral efforts to develop settled expectations around the use of national security AI are far more likely.” It will be a good sign if future U.S.-China dialogues about AI—even informal and low-profile ones—proceed, as these meetings will give the United States more chances to explain to China how the Defense Department is trying to establish strong, high-level oversight over uses of military AI. But the bilateral trust between the United States and China is so low and the verification problems are so hard that it may take a while before the two states reach a shared view about keeping autonomy out of nuclear C2. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/too-much-too-soon-china-the-u.s.-and-autonomy-in-nuclear-command-and-control
