NucNews July 17, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR The G-8's Risky Nuclear Embrace Mark Hertsgaard Mon Jul 17, 2006 The Nation http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060717/cm_thenation/20060731hertsgaard2 At their summit in St. Petersburg this weekend, leaders of the G-8--the world's richest economies--are poised to endorse a major expansion of nuclear power as part of the "energy security" agenda proposed by Russian president Vladimir Putin. Leaked drafts of the summit's final communique mirror a statement released by energy ministers of the eight nations, which read, "For those countries that wish, wide-scale development of safe and secure nuclear energy is crucial." Nuclear power is often perceived as a potential counter to climate change because nuclear plants release much less carbon dioxide than coal or natural gas plants do. But aside from the safety and security risks of nuclear power, the fact is that the atom's unfavorable economic performance means that going nuclear would actually make climate change worse. During the lead-up to the summit, Russia and the United States have been the strongest pro-nuclear voices. France, which generates nearly 80 percent of its electricity in nuclear reactors, is a strong supporter as well. Germany and Italy remain opposed, both having passed laws prohibiting additional nuclear power plant construction. But the country to watch is Britain. The pro-nuclear argument got a strong push earlier this week when Prime Minister Tony Blair's government endorsed nukes as a crucial weapon in the fight against climate change. The endorsement came as part of the government's new energy policy. While that policy includes increased reliance on wind and other forms of renewable energy, nuclear power is expected to make, in the words of Alistair Darling, the trade and industry secretary, a "significant contribution" to cutting carbon emissions. The Blair government's announcement triggered a political firestorm in Britain. The embrace of nuclear power, which had been rejected by a government White Paper on energy in 2003, was widely attacked both by environmentalists to Blair's left and the two opposition parties to his right. But there is a big catch in Blair's nuclear plan--one that could settle the question once and for all of whether nuclear power makes sense as a response to global warming. The catch is that Britain will not publicly subsidize nuclear power. According to Secretary Darling, private investors alone must pay to finance, construct, operate and eventually dismantle any new nuclear plants. They also must help pay to dispose of the plants' radioactive waste--an activity whose cost is unknown, since scientists remain uncertain about how to store the waste safely. This no-subsidy pledge amounts to a revolution in nuclear economics. There are 440 nuclear plants now operating around the world. Not one of them was built without sizable public subsidies. Governments have subsidized nukes both directly--through R&D funding, cheap loans and guaranteed insurance--and indirectly, by allowing electric companies to pass billion-dollar cost overruns onto consumers. The US government has historically spent ten times more on nuclear subsidies than it has for solar, wind and other renewable energy sources, according to studies by the Renewable Energy Policy Project and the energy policy analyst Charles Komanoff. Perhaps the most critical subsidy is the Price- Anderson Act, which shifts most of the liability for a major accident at a US reactor to the federal government--in other words, the taxpayers. Without Price-Anderson's protections, no nuclear plant would remain in operation, as pro-nuclear legislators point out every time the act comes up for renewal by Congress. Despite these ongoing subsidies, nuclear power remains forbiddingly expensive. A recent MIT study calculated that in the United States, nuclear power costs 6.7 cents per kilowatt hour. That's nearly 50 percent higher than natural gas, coal or wind, and it is vastly higher than energy efficiency, the least polluting form of electricity. None of this stops nuclear industry flaks from regularly claiming, as one did not long ago on public radio, that nuclear power is the cheapest electricity around--a statement so deliberately misleading, it qualifies as a lie. It's true that nuclear's operating costs--for fuel, labor and personnel--are low. But its capital costs--for buying the reactor, concrete and other materials and, above all, for borrowing the money needed to finance years of construction and permitting--are astronomical. In short, saying nuclear power is cheap is like saying a Rolls-Royce is cheap. It's true, but only if you count just the money you spend on gas and repairs, not the price of buying the car in the first place. Investors know all this. That's why nuclear power survives today only in countries like Russia, China and France, where state-controlled electricity systems can ignore market forces. "The financial outlook of nuclear power has always been, and remains today, poor," says Brice Smith, an analyst at the Institute for Energy and Environment Research and author of Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers of Using Nuclear Power to Combat Global Climate Change. "Nuclear is seen as such a risk that Standard & Poor's issued a report in January saying that despite all the new nuclear subsidies the Bush Administration inserted in the 2005 Energy Act, S&P still might downgrade the bond rating of any utility company that ordered a nuke." If G-8 leaders want to honor last year's pledge to fight climate change, they need to understand that going nuclear would actually represent a big step backward. Because nuclear power is so expensive, it delivers seven times fewer greenhouse reductions per dollar invested than boosting energy efficiency does. Tony Blair--like George W. Bush, for that matter--says it's not an either/or question; we need energy efficiency and nuclear power and lots of other energy sources in the future. But in the real world, capital is scarce. To divert capital to nuclear when efficiency can work so much faster would delay our transition to a low-carbon economy when in fact we need to accelerate it. It's hard to believe Blair doesn't know this. In any case, he's in for a big surprise if he truly expects any nuclear plants will be built anywhere, without continued subsidies from the public purse. -------- africa Niger permits Chinese uranium search From correspondents in Niamey July 17, 2006 Agence France-Presse http://couriermail.news.com.au/story/0,20797,19814182-1702,00.html?from=rss NIGER has authorised three Chinese companies to begin prospecting for uranium in the northern desert area, the government has announced. The companies, led by the China National Uranium Corporation (CNUC), will "shortly begin" working at the Madaouela and Teguidda sites, the cabinet said in a statement. "If the search is successful" the exploitation of uranium ore will be managed by a company which will be created for the purpose, the statement added, giving no time scale for the exploration. The 1953-sq km Teguidda site is situated in the northern Agadez region while the 1872-sq km Madaouela site is further north in the Arlit region where the French group Areva, number one civil nuclear company in the world, is already exploiting two uranium deposit sites. For the authorities here, "the resumption of the global demand for uranium and notably China's adoption of nuclear energy augur well," for Niger, one of the poorest nations in the world. Niger is the world's third-largest producer of uranium, accounting for 9 per cent of the world market. Uranium provides a large slice of export revenues, but with the world market falling since the end of the 1980s due to a drop in demand, the authorities have been prospecting for oil and gold. The new exploration will begin amid controversy over the radioactive risks posed at Arlit, with local NGOs opposed to the mining of uranium. Thousands took to the streets in May calling for an enquiry into the risks of radioactivity in the area. The national human rights commission has carried out an investigation but its results have not been published. -------- australia Howard eyes "energy superpower" status for Australia, backs nuclear SYDNEY (AFP) Jul 17, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/2006/060717075814.78nj27ej.html Prime Minister John Howard Monday outlined plans to make Australia an "energy superpower" and said nuclear energy was a vital part of his vision. Howard told an economics forum that Australia's energy resources were a major asset, already generating 45 billion Australian dollars (34 billion US) a year in export earnings, and would become increasingly important as global demand grows. "As an efficient, reliable supplier, Australia has a massive opportunity to increase its share of global energy trade -- with the right policies, we have the makings of an energy superpower," he said. Howard said that by 2030 India and China were set to use the equivalent of three times the United States' current energy consumption, and that Australia's proximity to the Asian giants put it in prime position to supply them. He pointed out that Australia already had a 25 billion Australian dollar liquefied natural gas (LNG) contract with China and could become the world's second largest LNG exporter by 2015. It was already the world's largest coal exporter, accounting for 30 percent of world trade, and had extensive potential in renewable energy resources such as hydro, wind and solar power, he added. Howard said much of Australia's potential oil reserves remained unexplored and therefore untapped. The premier also pointed out that Australia holds 40 percent of the world's uranium reserves, saying that made it a major player in the debate about nuclear energy. "Australia cannot absent itself from global developments surrounding nuclear energy," he said. "For Australia to bury its head in the sand on nuclear energy is akin to Saudi Arabia turning its back on global oil developments." Howard said even some environmentalists were now urging a reappraisal of nuclear power because they recognised it had a role to play in stabilising greenhouse gas emissions, which are blamed for global warming. The conservative leader, who last month set up a taskforce to examine long-term nuclear power options for Australia, said he wanted a mature debate on the emotive issue. "If Australia does not engage, if we sacrifice rational discussion on the altar of anti-nuclear theology and political opportunism, we will pay a price," he said. "Maybe not today or tomorrow. But in 10, 15, 20 years time, Australia will assuredly pay a price." Australia has only one nuclear reactor, which is used for medical purposes, and has no nuclear power plants. Its uranium exports are strictly controlled and come from a limited number of mines, with a ban on new mines. Howard has repeatedly called for the ban to be lifted and urged Australians not to reject nuclear energy. "It is hypocritical because it says that while Australia will not use uranium, we are very happy to sell it to other countries and let them deal with the consequences," he said. -------- britain Lothians MP attacks Darling over plans to replace Torness BILL JACOBS WESTMINSTER EDITOR Mon 17 Jul 2006 Scotsman http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1039082006 FORMER Cabinet Minister Gavin Strang has attacked his Edinburgh Labour colleague Alistair Darling over his support for a new nuclear power station at Torness. The Edinburgh East MP spoke out after the Trade and Industry Secretary made it clear the Government wants to see more atomic power stations built to fill the energy gap. Edinburgh South West MP Mr Darling and East Lothian MP Anne Moffatt have both supported the idea of a new plant on the Torness site. It is thought that building new stations on existing sites would come up against less resistance from locals and could shorten the lengthy planning process needed for new reactors. But First Minister Jack McConnell, who with the Holyrood Parliament would have the final say on the development, has opposed such a move suggesting instead the existing station has its life extended by up to ten years. Mr Strang, Transport Minister for a year after Labour's 1997 landslide election victory, welcomed moves announced by Mr Darling in his Commons statement in the energy review to promote renewable energy and energy efficiency. But he said: "I think Alistair got it wrong on a new generation of nuclear power stations. I would oppose a new reactor at Torness where they have had safety problems in the past. "I would be prepared to support extending the life of Torness providing experts are sure it would not compromise safety. It was clear from the exchanges in the House of Commons after the statement that new nuclear power stations would be opposed by the majority of Labour MPs. "I welcome what Mr Darling said about improving energy efficiency, including scrapping stand-by switches on TVs and electrical appliances, and moves to promote renewable energy sources. However, I think that the Government's emphasis on new nuclear power stations will prove to be a diversion from these important aims." Edinburgh West Liberal Democrat MP John Barrett said: "There is a real danger that the Government's support for nuclear power will now make it far more difficult for renewable energy projects to attract the funding they need. "Scotland has the opportunity to be at the forefront of renewable energy generation. We have massive natural energy resources from both wind and wave. "The one thing which would squander this opportunity would be to allow investment to be diverted to building expensive new nuclear power stations." Torness power station was expected to close in 2023 but owner British Energy is currently considering updating vital equipment that could extend Torness' operating life. Bosses at the Dunbar plant, which provides nearly a quarter of Scotland's electricity, say replacing parts of the station, such as pumps and transformers, will add years to its output. With more than 600 staff, Torness is one of the largest employers in East Lothian. -------- china Energy-hungry China to seek uranium in Niger Mon Jul 17, 2006 (Reuters) By Abdoulaye Massalatchi http://za.today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=businessNews&storyID=2006-07-17T123815Z_01_BAN745491_RTRIDST_0_OZABS-NUCLEAR-NIGER-CHINA-20060717.XML NIAMEY - Niger has awarded licences to a group of companies from China to explore for uranium as the Asian economic powerhouse steps up its hunt for strategic sources of energy and raw materials in Africa. China, one of the world's fastest growing economies, is looking to meet booming energy demand by rapidly expanding its nuclear energy programme. The exploration licences announced were the first for Chinese firms in Niger's uranium sector. The group led by the China National Uranium Corporation (CNUC) would hunt for uranium at two sites, Madaouela and Teguidda, in the Agadez region, about 1,000 km (600 miles) northeast of the capital Niamey, a Niger government statement said on Monday. "Approval of these agreements gives the CNUC the contractual framework to initiate mining activities in Niger," said the statement, quoted by state media. Beijing has launched a widening diplomatic and trade offensive in recent years to secure vital oil and raw materials supplies from mineral-rich Africa and Latin America. Niger, an impoverished landlocked former French colony on the southern side of the Sahara, has significant reserves of uranium, from which nuclear fuel is made. The Niger government said prospects for the development of the uranium sector, its biggest export earner, were being boosted by a pick up in world demand for the mineral and China's nuclear energy expansion plans. Uranium production in Niger peaked at 4,366 tonnes in 1981 and now stands at around 3,000 tonnes a year. In March, Niger awarded three uranium prospecting concessions to Canada-based mining firms, Northwestern Mineral Ventures Inc and North Atlantic Resources. Of Niger's current uranium output, around 2,000 tonnes is produced by the Compagnie Miniere d'Akouta (COMINAK), owned by the government with French, Japanese and Spanish interests, and the remainder by the French-controlled Societe des Mines et de l'Air (SOMAIR). SOMAIR has announced plans to open a second mining operation. The China National Petroleum Corporation is also exploring for oil in Niger's Agadez region. ---- China eyes uranium power plays By Mandi Zonneveldt July 17, 2006 Australia Finance News http://finance.news.com.au/story/0,10166,19808413-462,00.html CHINA has begun sizing up Australian uranium companies in a bid to secure supplies of the nuclear fuel. Senior representatives of four Chinese trading companies will attend a conference in Perth next week with a view to signing equity deals with Australian uranium explorers. Xu Gang, chief China representative for Australian consultants Sustainability, who will host the Chinese delegates, told Business Daily the companies were already at various stages of discussion with Australian explorers. He said off-take agreements would almost certainly form part of any deals negotiated. China's bid to grab a slice of the sector follows the signing of an agreement in April allowing uranium to be exported to the energy-hungry Asian powerhouse. China plans to build 40 new nuclear reactors by 2020 as the country's demand for power quadruples. Federal Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane wants Australian uranium exports to double from about 10,000 tonnes a year to meet demand from China. BHP Billiton is doing the numbers on a $6 billion expansion at Olympic Dam, with plans to double uranium output from the giant mine. But pressure is mounting on the state Labor governments to lift their opposition to the development of new mines in Australia. China is jostling for position ahead of an expected policy change next year. China has invested hundreds of millions of dollars this year in its bid to shore up supplies of increasingly-expensive natural resources. Chinese companies have been particularly active in the junior iron ore sector, prompted by hostile price negotiations with Australia's mining giants. Sinosteel, the second largest steel producer in China, has agreements with MidWest, Cape Lambert Iron Ore and Jupiter Mines, while Gindalbie Metals has signed a deal with AnSteel that will see the Chinese company underwrite its mining operations. Uranium explorer Uranex has already signed a deal with the China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC), a state-owned body, to explore and develop uranium at its projects in Australia and Tanzania. Mr Xu said China's involvement in Australian uranium would repeat the iron ore story. He said Chinese companies were keen to get access to good exploration ground, however he said local knowledge was a big barrier. "Most likely they will take part in activities of Australian uranium companies that they trust or companies that have (a) clear China background," he said. High-level Chinese government officials will also be among the delegates at the Australian Uranium Conference next week. The China Atomic Energy Authority, the state-owned regulatory body, will be represented, as will CNNC and the China Guangdong Nuclear Power Corporation, which is responsible for power plant construction in the southern province. Conference co-ordinator Doug Bowie said the conference provided Australian uranium industry players with a rare opportunity to network directly with interested parties from China. -------- europe Germany wants energy alliance with Russia July 17, 2006 (UPI) http://www.upi.com/Energy/view.php?StoryID=20060717-110250-6395r BERLIN - The German government looks for an "energy alliance" with Russia, according to a government official in Berlin. Michael Mueller, of the governing Social Democrats, said the increasing dependency on energy imports from Russia should be reduced by saving resources. "That's why we think of an energy alliance: Russia gets energy efficient technology, and we in turn get energy on a long-term basis," Mueller told Monday's Berliner Zeitung newspaper. "We have to tackle that in the coming months." The bickering inside Germany's grand coalition government is whether or not to phase out nuclear energy. Mueller said nuclear energy was not a reliable source for the future, despite calls from the Group of Eight leaders in St. Petersburg to pursue nuclear energy because it does not give off greenhouse gas emissions. "If we would increase the use of atomic energy five times, uranium would be depleted within 30 years," he said. Karl-Georg Wellmann, a member of Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats, however, said the phase out should be re-evaluated. Berlin has agreed to shut down all atomic power plants by 2021. "We are dependent on Russia by over 30 percent, so we should be asking the question if that makes sense," Wellmann told German news channel n-tv, adding that the German-Russian energy links are causing Poland and the Baltic states to build new nuclear power plants. -------- india Agni Failure Bad News For India by Martin Sieff UPI Senior News Analyst Washington DC (UPI) Jul 17, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Agni_Failure_Bad_News_For_India_999.html The failure of two major India missile launches in two days Sunday and Monday proved intensely embarrassing for the nation's prestige and threw major doubt on its military-industrial high-tech capabilities. An analysis from the Inter-Press Service that was published in the Asia Times Tuesday argued that the problems are deep-rooted in the Indian defense establishment. On Monday, a $50 million geosynchronous satellite launch vehicle, or GSLV, with a communications satellite on board was ordered to self-destruct as it veered off course soon after liftoff on Monday. Authorities at the civilian Indian Space Research Organization said one of its four strap-on rocket motors had failed. The day before, the Agni III intercontinental ballistic missile, the pride of India's strategic missile forces, failed shortly after take off. The Agni III was designed to have a range of 2,100 miles to 2,400 miles -- a capability that would have allowed it to deliver a nuclear weapon payload as far as the Chinese cities of Beijing and Shanghai. But on its first, and much delayed test launch, it crashed instead into the Bay of Bengal after flying less than 600 miles. Of the two unsuccessful launches, "the failure of the Agni III was in some ways more serious because it exposed the political limitations of India's attempts, despite its ambitions, to pursue a military capability which is truly independent of the U.S.'s strategic calculations," analyst Praful Bidwai wrote in the Asia Times. The Agni-III was originally meant to be tested in 2003-04. However, its first test was repeatedly postponed owing to technological problems. More recently, as we have noted previously in these columns, the Congress Party-led government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh deferred a scheduled test launch this year so as not to risk hostile reactions in the United States while the U.S. Congress was considering ratification of India's nuclear cooperation agreement with the United States. However, committees of both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives have given overwhelming approval to the nuclear agreement that was finalized in March and its passage through both main chambers of the U.S. legislature now appears assured. Also, Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, assured Indian officials in New Delhi in June that testing the Agni III would not be viewed as a concern by the Bush administration. Previously, some tests of the shorter range Agni-II with a range of around 1,200 miles also proved unsuccessful, Bidwai noted. "But what makes the Agni-III's failure significant is that unlike its shorter-range predecessors, it was a wholly new design, developed with the specific purpose of delivering a nuclear warhead," he wrote. "The causes of the failure of the test flight are not clear," Pridwai wrote. "Scientists at the DRDO (India's super-secret and prestigious Defense Research Development Organization) which designed and built the missile, have been quoted as saying that many new technologies were tried in the Agni-III, including rocket motors, "fault-tolerant" avionics and launch control and guidance systems. Some of these could have failed. Other reports attribute the mishap to problems with the propellant." "The DRDO isn't the world's most reliable weapons R&D agency," Admiral L. Ramdas, a former chief of staff of the Indian Navy, told Inter Press Service. "The Indian armed services' experience with DRDO-made armaments has not been a happy one. Their reliability is often extremely poor. We often used to joke that one had to pray they would somehow work in the battlefield." Despite an annual budget of $670 million, comparable to that of India's massive Department of Atomic Energy, "The DRDO has delivered very little," Anil Chowdhary of the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace told Bidwai. "None of the three major projects assigned to the DRDO has been completed on time or without huge cost-overruns," Bidwai noted. The organization's project to build India's first home-produced main battle tank began more than 30 years ago in 1974. Yet the tank has still failed to meet service requirement tests and is reportedly too heavy and undependable to be used in combat operations, he wrote. The equally venerable DRDO project to build India's first home-manufactured nuclear submarine is still not completed, despite expenditures on it of nearly $1 billion, Bidwai wrote. And a Light Combat Aircraft, or LCA project, launched in 1983, is also mired because the DRDO has failed to develop the right engine for it, he wrote. Even if the DRDO can manage a successful test launch of the Agni III ICBM in the next few months, Bidwai's analysis suggests that the structural problems of India's military-industrial sector are widespread and deep-rooted and unlikely to be satisfactorily resolved soon. That condition is likely to give an added impetus to India's efforts to develop ever-closer high tech ties with the United States. ---- US lawmakers to act on India nuclear deal: official Mon Jul 17, 2006 (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060717/pl_afp/usindianuclear_060717210331 WASHINGTON - The US government said it expects lawmakers to take up a landmark nuclear power deal with India within weeks, allowing the pact to win full congressional approval in September. Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Richard Boucher said the House of Representatives could begin debating the controversial deal next week, with the Senate following the week after. Then, both chambers would return after the summer recess, which starts for the House later this month, and the Senate on August 4, to put finishing touches on composite legislation, he said. "Perhaps in September, they could put through the final legislation," Boucher said at a briefing for foreign reporters here. His comments came hours after the deal was addressed during a meeting between President George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the sidelines of the Group of Eight summit in Russia. "Our congress is working on that important piece of legislation that will encourage and allow India and US cooperation, and I'm optimistic that we will get that passed," said Bush, who called the accord "that wonderful deal." Singh thanked Bush for his backing for the legislation and explained that there were concerns among Indian lawmakers too, saying: "We have a parliament which is very jealous of what we do and what we don't do." The nuclear pact won quick approval from the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House International Relations Committee last month, boosting its chances of garnering floor votes in the full chambers. Officials have been tinkering with the final bill, however, with opponents arguing that it does not include sufficient safeguards to prevent India from applying nuclear technology and material to military use. Under the deal, the United States will aid the development of civilian nuclear power in India in return for New Delhi placing some of its nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency inspections. The US Atomic Energy Act of 1954 currently prevents the United States from trading nuclear technology with nations that have not signed up to the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. The law has to be amended for the India deal to be effective. India tested nuclear weapons in 1974 and 1998 and, as a result, is currently banned by the United States and other major powers from buying fuel for atomic reactors and other related equipment. -------- iran Experts challenge White House on Iran’s influence By Guy Dinmore Financial Times (UK) July 17, 2006 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/825e4f2e-15dc-11db-9950-0000779e2340.html From the moment last Wednesday when Hizbollah fighters seized two Israeli soldiers, the Bush administration immediately held Iran and Syria responsible. The White House mounted a systematic campaign on the US airwaves to get that message across while seeking to put pressure on the G8 summit to unite in confronting those two governments. That it has become the received wisdom in the US that Iran was directing Hizbollah to deflect international pressure on Tehran’s nuclear programme, is testimony to the Bush administration’s ability to dominate the discourse in the mainstream media. The crisis has also demonstrated how it can rely on the support of the US foreign policy establishment – Democrat and Republican – when it comes to matters of vital national interest to the US and Israel. Challenging these assertions, Iranian analysts and activists in the US – both those for and against the Iranian theocracy – are warning that such simplified arguments may not only be completely erroneous, but will also complicate the process of calming down the crisis while raising the chances of a direct conflict between Iran and the US. Akbar Ganji, Iran’s most prominent dissident who recently emerged from six years in prison, began a symbolic hunger strike outside the UN headquarters in New York at the weekend to press for the release of all political prisoners in Iran. But he also said his mission to the US was to prevent the spread of war. “There are two voices in this – one is the voice of warmongers, terrorists and fundamentalists. The other is the voice of pacifists, pro-democracy activists and freedom-seekers,” he told the FT. “Unfortunately, the Christian-Jewish-Islamic fundamentalists are stirring up this situation and setting [Lebanon] ablaze,” he said. “They should all be isolated.” Fatemeh Haghighatjoo, a former reformist member of the Iranian parliament who was barred from seeking re-election by hardliners in 2004, said Iran knew that direct confrontation between Hizbollah and Israel would not benefit Hizbollah. “For this reason I don’t think Iran is provoking this situation or wants it to be intensified...Iran has taken a pragmatic approach in its foreign policy and does not want to get into a serious confrontation with Israel,” argued Ms Haghighatjoo, a visiting scholar at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She concedes Iran has influence over Hizbollah, but says exercising that will become more difficult as Tehran becomes the focus of US pressure. Ervand Abrahamian, history professor at the City University of New York, doubts Iran has sufficient influence over Hizbollah to calm the situation. “Hizbollah’s leaders are not the types to take orders from elsewhere,” he says. Mr Abrahamian believes the Bush administration’s main objective remains “regime change”, and does not rule out US air strikes. An Iranian expert, who is close to Tehran’s thinking and did not wish to be identified, told the FT that Iran was not looking for a crisis in Lebanon at a critical moment in the nuclear diplomacy. He said Iran had received signals from members of the UN Security Council last week that it would be given more time to consider the west’s proposals. It was inconceivable that Iran had ordered Hizbollah to take Israeli soldiers prisoner. Iran wanted a negotiated way out of the nuclear stand-off, he said. He argued that Israel’s fierce retaliation for the abduction of the soldiers strengthened the hands of US hardliners who did not want such a settlement. Meanwhile, American neoconservatives are calling for swift military action against Iran. William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, says Iran and Syria are enemies of both the US and Israel. “We have been too weak, and have allowed ourselves to be perceived as weak,” he wrote, urging the US to consider strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “Why wait?” he said. -------- pacific U.S. Congressional Delegation Tours Nuke-Impacted Islands by Aenet Rowa, Yokwe Online, July 17, 2006 - photos courtesy of Bikini Atoll Liaison Jack Niedenthal http://www.yokwe.net/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1435 A 10-member U.S. Congressional delegation arrived in Majuro last week to learn more about what happened in the Marshall Islands with regard to nuclear testing and to assess the current needs of the people. The Department of Energy, which has oversight for the U.S. health and environmental surveillance program in the Marshalls, provided logistical support, and accompanying officials gave historical and scientific briefings to the group. A CODEL of this nature happens every two or three years, according to Jack Niedenthal, Bikini Atoll Liaison. "We are all very thankful when a U.S. delegation comes to the Marshalls and makes a trip like this." "If you look at their schedule, there is never a day off, and it involves a lot of flying and uncomfortable boat rides," he said. Niedenthal was referring to the delegation's non-stop itinerary, which included trips to the Four Atolls -- Enewetak, Bikini, Rongelap and Utrik. The U.S. conducted 67 nuclear tests during the Cold War era at Enewetak and Bikini. Rongelap and Utrik Islands were exposed to fallout from Test Bravo in 1954. Making the trip from Washington were staffers Al Stayman, Josh Johnson, Michele Gordon, Emily Brunini, and Scott Dalzell. The Department of Energy team, led by Assistant Secretary of Energy Steve Cary, included John Cook, Bill Jackson, Yance Yamaguchi, and Dr. Terry Hamilton, scientist from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). Underlining the importance of the visit, Republic of the Marshall Islands' (RMI) officials led by President Kessai Note, set aside time for the two-day trip. Accompanying the President was Marshallese Ambassador to the U.S. Banny Debrum, Minister Gerald Zackios, Minister Donald Capelle, and Assistant to the President Chris deBrum. Bikini Atoll officials included Senator Tomaki Juda, Mayor Eldon Note, Councilman Quincy Calep, and Liaison Niedenthal. Enewetak Senator Ishmael John, Mayor Jackson Ading, Lawyer Davor Pevec, and Advisor Sam Smith, were also on-hand. Representing the United States Embassy at Majuro was Helen-Reed Rowe, Deputy Chief of Mission. Early Friday, July 14, the group flew out on Air Marshalls' DASH 8 to Kwajalein, and then on to Enewetak, arriving there about noon. After an airport welcome by the Marshallese community, they toured the island and visited the Enewetak Radiological Laboratory operated by LLNL and the local government. The Runit Dome, the next destination, required a 45-minute boat ride each way. The delegation gathered on top of the dome for a short lecture on its history by Dr. Terry Hamilton, who directs the Marshall Islands Radiological Surveillance Program at LLNL for the DOE. The U.S. conducted 42 tests on Enewetak. Clean-up efforts began in 1977. Over 100,000 cubic yards of plutonium contaminated soil and associated debris from the surface of 6 islands was removed and deposited in the CACTUS (shot) crater on Runit Island and capped with cement. The dome was completed in 1979. The LLNL periodically monitors the dome. The visit to Enewetak concluded with a luncheon of traditional Marshallese food hosted by the people of Enewetak. Friday afternoon, the delegation traveled to Bikini Atoll and spent the night there. They participated in talks about the history of Bikini and the current diving and fishing tourism program, and were shown experiments that Dr. Hamilton is doing for LLNL and the Bikinians. Due to the radioactive contamination, resettlement is not yet possible, and Bikinians have been in exile for sixty years. Nuke tests survivors and their descendants from the Four Atolls face not only displacement problems, but high levels of cancer and other diseases. On Saturday, Mayor James Matayoshi and Gordon Benjamin from Rongelap were on the plane which picked up the delegation at Bikini for the next stop -- a tour of Rongelap Atoll and the newly-built facilities there. Officials hope that Rongelap, which has undergone massive clean-up, will be resettled "very soon." The delegation met with various RMI government and Four Atoll officials the following Monday. A trip to Utrik Atoll was on the agenda for Tuesday, with departure from the Marshalls scheduled on Wednesday. For the staffers, who work with various appropriation committees in the U.S. Congress, the Marshallese and the problems of the Marshall Islands were "just words and numbers on a page" until they actually walked around on the islands and met the people, said Niedenthal. "In the end, we know it will all be very helpful for us," he said. -------- russia US And Russia Building A Friendship Based On Nuclear Waste by Mark N. Katz Washington (UPI) Jul 17, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_And_Russia_Building_A_Friendship_Based_On_Nuclear_Waste_999.html Since the mid-1990's, Moscow has sought to make money through storing spent nuclear fuel from other countries in sparsely populated regions of the Russian Federation. Up until recently, though, Washington has not allowed this due to its displeasure over Russian assistance to the Iranian nuclear program. This position not only prevented Russia from storing spent fuel from America, but also from the many other countries to which the U.S. supplies nuclear material. In early July, however, the Bush administration changed course and signaled its willingness to allow spent nuclear fuel under American jurisdiction to be stored in Russia even though Moscow has not stopped providing assistance to the Iranian atomic energy reactor program. But it has been widely reported that since Washington allowed it to store spent fuel that might be worth up to $20 billion to Moscow, the Bush administration hopes the Kremlin will become more amenable to cooperation with Washington on both Iran and North Korea. Why such an agreement would be appealing to both Washington and Moscow, if not to environmentalists or the Russian public, is understandable. American expectations that it will lead to Moscow supporting a hard-line U.S. stance on Iran, North Korea, or anything else, however, are unrealistic. That is because even though both governments support this deal, they are likely to view its implications differently. In Washington, the reversal of American opposition to Russia storing spent fuel under U.S. jurisdiction is seen as providing a financial windfall to Moscow which the Kremlin will value and be grateful for. Washington, then, should be able to use both the prospect of signing this agreement as well as the possibility of terminating it after it is signed as leverage for aligning Russia's policies toward Iran and North Korea with its own. In Moscow, however, this agreement is likely to be seen very differently. The Kremlin knows storing nuclear waste in their own countries is unpopular with the public in the United States and other countries. The Putin administration's willingness to store it in Russia, is therefore seen in Moscow as providing a significant benefit for which Russia deserves to be well paid. Furthermore, because America and the West benefit so much from Russia storing their nuclear waste, Moscow can hardly be expected to alter its policies toward Iran and North Korea. Given its past behavior, Moscow will undoubtedly see no reason why it cannot make money from the West for storing its spent fuel as well as from Iran for aiding its atomic energy program. If Washington and Moscow do indeed sign this agreement but have very different expectations about what it will lead to, the improvement in relations that both sides want is likely to be short-lived when the expectations of one or both go unfulfilled. This is what happened in the 1970's when Washington and Moscow signed agreements on strategic arms limitation. Both saw these as beneficial, but Washington thought they would also lead to reduced Soviet-American competition in the Third World. Moscow, by contrast, had no such expectation. After Moscow and its allies became militarily involved in several Third World conflicts culminating in the 1979 Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, Washington felt betrayed and called a halt to progress on arms control. Moscow, for its part, saw nuclear arms control as benefiting both sides equally no matter what happened in the Third World. In their view, Washington's halting the nuclear arms control process after Afghanistan was irrational. The result was that the hopes for détente of the 1970's gave way to a renewed Cold War in the 1980's. Hopes for improved Russian-American relations could again give way to heightened suspicion if Moscow and Washington sign a nuclear cooperation accord but have conflicting expectations about whether it should lead to Moscow adopting Washington's stance toward Iran and North Korea. In order to avoid this, the two sides need to reach a common understanding about how this proposed accord will affect their policies toward Tehran and Pyongyang, or whether it will have any impact on them at all. Mark N. Katz is a professor of government and politics at George Mason University. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- connecticut Dome nearly down at old nuclear plant The Hartford Courant, Connecticut (July 17, 2006) http://pepei.pennnet.com/news/display_news_story.cfm?Section=WIREN&Category=HOME&NewsID=137006 Jul. 17--HADDAM -- Forty years after rising between the lush forest of Haddam Neck and the Connecticut River, the stark concrete dome that shielded Connecticut Yankee nuclear power plant's uranium-fueled reactor is almost fully dismantled. Since mid-April, massive hydraulic hammers have methodically chipped away at the 170-foot-high dome. As of Friday, just 30 feet remained. Demolition crew supervisors expect the dome will be leveled - a major milestone - by Thursday. "Visually now, we are regaining a beautiful view of the Connecticut River no longer impaired by this large concrete structure," First Selectman Tony Bondi said. The fallen landmark's 44 million pounds of concrete and 12 million pounds of steel will be transported by railroad to a Utah low-level nuclear waste disposal site, upsetting environmental activists there. Gravity has been the key to bringing the dome down, Connecticut Yankee spokeswoman Kelley Smith said. Instead of imploding the dome or dismantling from the top down, workers have been weakening the structure from the bottom up, allowing the weighty dome to settle as its center of gravity shifts. Chuck Mercier, senior project manager for Plainville-based Manafort Brothers Inc., said it took seven months for the company to design and secure engineering approvals for a state-of-the-art dome-reduction method that has proved to save time and money. A 15-foot hydraulic hammer exerting 15,000 pounds of force has been dismantling steel-reinforced concrete walls from 2.5 feet to 4 feet thick. Demolition crews Tuesday dropped the dome more than 20 feet. Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Neil Sheehan said the unique use of "controlled drops" in the dome dismantling is "proceeding smoothly." "Most of the decommissioning plants around the United States have imploded the dome to bring it down," Sheehan said. The NRC expects the decommissioning of Connecticut Yankee to be completed in 2007, he said. Connecticut Yankee and Manafort officials declined to specify the cost of taking down the dome. It's part of Manafort's $35 million contract to dismantle the decommissioned Connecticut Yankee facility, which ceased electricity production in 1996 after having produced 110 billion kilowatt-hours over 28 years. Smith said decommissioning is more than 90 percent complete. The NRC and state Department of Environmental Protection have monitored the dome work. The concrete and steel debris will end up in Clive, Utah, a disposal facility owned and operated by EnergySolutions. The state permits the company to accept only low-level, Class A waste. Nationwide, Connecticut Yankee is among six plants being decommissioned. Seven plants - two in Pennsylvania and one each in Maine, Colorado, Oregon, New York and South Dakota - have completed decommissioning. Millstone 1 in Waterford is among eight other nuclear plants that are partially decommissioned or will complete decommissioning at a later date, according to Connecticut Yankee. -------- nevada Less Than Meets The Eye in Yucca Layoff Story Monday, July 17, 2006 NEI Nuclear Notes http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2006/07/less-than-meets-eye-in-yucca-layoff.html#links Saturday's edition of the Las Vegas Review-Journal carried a story headlined, Layoff notices set for Yucca staff. I checked in with my colleague Steve Kraft, and he tells me this is much ado about nothing: There will not be 500 layoffs in Las Vegas. The story in the LVRJ is about notices under federal law to workers potentially affected. In the transition to Sandia as the lead laboratory for the Yucca Mountain project, Bechtel/SAIC is shedding scientific responsibilities. About 500 positions have been identified for shifting. The positions will remain in Las Vegas. Sandia will review all the folks and decide to whom they want to make job offers. At the end of the process, whether there is a net decrease, increase or no change in the number of jobs remains to be seen. This is very typical when there is contractor turn over in an on-going federal project. -------- MILITARY -------- israel / palestine Lebanese run for cover as Israeli jets rip into the heart of Hizbollah By Tim Butcher in Lebanon (Filed: 17/07/2006) UK Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=NZNSUM3MZAQ2XQFIQMFCFF4AVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2006/07/17/wmid417.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/07/17/ixuknews.html Tim Butcher in Beirut feels the force of bombing campaign Beirut's southern suburbs echoed to the terrifying crash of Israeli bombs yesterday as the last residents in this Hizbollah stronghold searched for cover among the rubble and dust left where tower blocks stood the day before. A man walks past an apartment building reduced to rubble In between barrages the only sound was the tinkling of glass falling from bomb-damaged windows or the screech of wheels from a driver foolhardy enough to enter the warren of roads. The Haret Hareik suburb is the heartland of Hizbollah, at the centre of Israel's assault on the Shia Islamist movement, and any visitor knew that the next air assault was only minutes away. On Saturday night, Israel pounded the political headquarters of Hizbollah and the centre of the party's television station, al-Manar. All that was left of the broadcaster's headquarters was a dusty void stretching about three blocks. The floors of the building had collapsed on top of each other while neighbouring structures suffered only superficial damage. Parked cars looked as if they had been caught in a volcanic eruption, covered in a thick layer of grey dust. By yesterday morning, the remaining residents, almost all men, appeared to have developed a sixth sense for where the next bomb would land. I watched as a group of men who had ventured out on to the streets to board up a broken shop window suddenly looked into the sky and ran, screaming with alarm, to the safety of a nearby basement. Twenty seconds later three Israeli bombs landed a block or two away, shaking the ground and throwing up a pall of dust. "Get away, get away,'' shouted Yussef, 30, a doctor. "It is too dangerous here now. Everyone must go.'' He paused only to tear the page out of my notebook, scared that he would be punished by Hizbollah fighters nearby for talking to a foreign journalist. It was not clear how the men knew that the next barrage was coming. The Israeli aircraft were too high to be heard from ground level and the bomb made no sound before it struck. Its impact shook the masonry of walls nearby, followed by a terrifying noise. One man I met picking his way through the rubble had not yet learnt to dodge the raining bombs. We had scuttled into a basement during one attack and he offered me a sandwich from a bag he was carrying. But when I next saw his face, less than an hour later, it was contorted in pain as he writhed on a hospital bed after suffering a leg injury. Israel's attempts to destroy known Hizbollah targets have brought mass destruction to much of Haret Hareik but mercifully few casualties. First the Jewish state sent a clear signal that the half a million or so people inside the suburb and the neighbouring Shia suburbs should leave. They did this on the first night of the air assault, when warplanes bombed six road junctions in a precise, rectangular pattern around Haret Hareik. To a layman, the accuracy was impressive as they hit the precise centre of crossroads, roundabouts and flyovers, killing at least three people. This was enough to persuade almost all women, children and elderly to leave before the aircraft returned to attack targets inside the rectangle. Most of the residents of the southern Beirut suburbs took shelter in school buildings in the wealthy suburbs to the west and north while some drove to family living in the countryside. The pattern of Israel's campaign so far has been to identify a target and then hit it repeatedly, damaging more and more of the neighbouring buildings as larger and larger munitions are used. If this continues, there will not be much left of Haret Hareik. Other targets yesterday included Beirut airport and the southern port city of Tyre, where at least nine civilians were killed and 42 wounded. Lebanese officials said eight people with dual Lebanese and Canadian citizenship were killed during an air raid in the town of Aitaroun, which is on the border with Israel. Israel stepped up its propaganda -campaign yesterday when fighter jets dropped leaflets over southern Lebanon warning of more attacks. Two of the leaflets featured images of Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hizbollah, as a cobra destroying Lebanon, with one also including references to President Bashar Assad of Syria, Palestinian prime minister Ismail Haniya and Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmedinjad. The third pamphlet warned that Israel would increase its bombardment of Hizbollah and said: "Let it be known that continued terrorism against Israel will not allow you to be in peace." -------- ENERGY Facing a polluted future Despite emission policies such as the Kyoto Treaty, we are still facing a bleak environmental future Yolandi Groenewald 17 July 2006 07:59 Johannesburg South Africa Mail&Guardian http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=277729&area=/insight/monitor/ By the time 2050 rolls around, current decision-makers will either be dead or stuck in old-age homes. Yet the decisions they make today will have a significant effect on the economic and environmental future their grandchildren will face in 44 years. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) -- the West’s influential energy watchdog -- current emission policies, such the Kyoto Treaty, will not put the world on a path towards a sustainable future by 2050, leaving future generations to deal with a 137% emission increase. “Urgent action is required to promote, develop and deploy a full mix of energy technologies,” the agency’s director of energy technologies, Neil Hirst, said at a legislators’ dialogue on climate change in Brussels. The IEA’s warning is contained in its Energy Technology Perspectives: Scenarios and Strategies to 2050 report. It will be presented to the Group of Eight (G8) leaders at St Petersburg next week to advise on alternative strategies aimed at a clean, but competitive energy future. Our energy future In the agency’s ideal intervention scenario, which is “relatively optimistic” about the implementation of new technologies, it predicts that coal will account for more than a quarter of the world’s energy resources in 2050, gas for 22%, nuclear energy 16%, hydro-energy 15% and other renewables 15%. Hirst said significant progress could be made if countries did not put their eggs in one basket, but relied on a host of energy solutions. Coal South Africa has an abundance of coal resources, but its contribution to global warming has urged South Africa to look at other resources. Without technological interventions, coal would contribute almost half of the world’s power supply, resulting in an emission increase of 137%. Although its outlook is bleak, the agency says that by employing technologies that already exist or are under development, carbon dioxide levels can be brought back to today’s level. Technologies such as carbon-capture plants are essential and could extend the environmental life of coal, the IEA said. The energy watchdog predicts that carbon-capture storage could reduce the emission pumped into the atmosphere by coal plants to almost 0% if the technology is developed to its full potential, giving coal a sustainable future. Energy efficiency Energy efficiency is not a strange concept in South Africa with Eskom adverts on radio urging South Africas to save electricity. Eskom is on the right path because the IEA says energy efficiency will play a major role in lowering emissions if fossil fuels are still to be used. The agency urged consumers to change their behaviour and said that with increases in technologies, buildings could, in future, also be built to be 70% more efficient. “Windows are now available with three times the insulation value of their predecessors. Modern gas and oil furnaces have attained 95% efficiency,” the IEA said. “Efficient air conditioners use 30% to 40% less energy than the models of 10 years ago.” District heating, heat pumps and residential solar energy initiatives were critical, while improved lighting technologies could yield cost-effective savings of 30% to 60%, the report said. Natural gas Natural gas, which only emits about half as much carbon dioxide as coal per kilowatt, is seen as an environmentally friendly alternative to coal. “The improved efficiency of gas-fired electricity-generating plants is one of the success stories of modern power generation technologies,” Hirst said. Nuclear power South Africa is currently working on its fourth-generation nuclear technology, the Pebble Bed Molecular Reactor (PBMR) and according to the IEA it could play a big role in energy demand. It said that countries comfortable with using nuclear power should use it, but there are three major obstacles to nuclear energy’s further exploitation: large capital outlay, public opposition due to the storage of radioactive waste and possible nuclear accidents, and the possible proliferation of nuclear weapons. But the development of fourth-generation reactors, such as the PBMR, would address some of these hurdles, the agency said. Renewable energy Renewable resources have a big role to play, even with the continued use of coal, the agency predicted. With even more optimistic technology advances, usage of renewables could jump to 34% in 2050. For South Africa, solar power is very relevant and technologies such as photovoltaic panels are rapidly growing. But according to the report, solar power will make up less than 2% of power in 2050. Biofuels Hydrogen and biofuels are expected to provide 35% of total final transport energy demand in 2050, in a technologised world. More realistically, the agency predicts, it will only contribute about 13%. Hirst said decarbonising transport would take longer, “but must be achieved in the second half of the century”. -------- alternative energy Thinking The Unthinkable By Norman Church 17 July, 2006 Countercurrents.org http://www.countercurrents.org/po-church170706.htm "Down one road lies disaster, down the other utter catastrophe.Let us hope we have the wisdom to choose wisely." - Woody Allen Introduction Oil depletion is just the first of a series of resource crisis humanity is about to face because there are just too many of us! This century we will face peak resources, period. There are many fascinating and exciting renewable energy developments. Wind turbines, solar energy, geothermal, biomass, wave and tidal power schemes which are all important energy sources for the future - and could at least help keep the electricity grid going to some degree! The popular assumption is that these renewable energy sources, perhaps also including uranium, plutonium and just possibly nuclear, which seems to be coming back on the agenda, will smoothly replace fossil fuels as these become scarce, thanks to our inherited technological expertise. However, although these all produce electricity they are not liquid fuels. Unfortunately, these popular assumptions could hardly be more wrong. The energy budget must be positive. Output must exceed input. Too much tends to be expected of renewable energy generators today, because the contribution of fossil fuels to the input side is poorly understood. For example, a wind turbine is not successful as a renewable generator unless another similar one can be constructed from its raw materials using only the energy that the first one generates in its lifetime, and still shows a worthwhile budget surplus. Or, if corn is grown to produce bioethanol, the energy input to ploughing, sowing, fertilizing, weeding, harvesting and processing the crop must come from the previous year's bioethanol production. Input must also include, proportionately, mining and processing the raw materials and building the machines that do the work, as well as supporting their human operators. There is nothing that can replace cheap oil for price, ease of storage, ease of transportation and sheer volumes in the timeframe we need. There is continuing debate over whether a suitable energy alternative might be found to replace the energy from oil as it runs out, but there is certainly no compelling evidence that a comparable substitute will be found. It is difficult to think about 'how things will play out' when an oil-based global economy loses its cheap energy source. It has never happened before. It will never happen again. Many of the solutions to Peak Oil that are discussed revolve broadly round 'sustainability' and 'sustainable development', including replacement technologies and finding an alternate source of 'sustainable energy'. What is Sustainable Development? A Definition of Sustainable Development: Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. There are tremendous shortcomings in this definition as there is no requirement to conserve specific resources. It does not matter what mineral resources (e.g. fossil fuels, minerals) are depleted so long as something is found to replace them. From an economic perspective, all that matters is market value, cost per unit, and economic output. Any attempt by one generation to leave the world as it found it is unlikely and infeasible. Instead, all that is required to comply with this definition is that non-renewable resources that are used up must be replaced with something else. When one resource is depleted or destroyed, just find a different way of doing things, or do something else. Everything is expendable, everything is replaceable. All that matters is economic output and economic efficiency. Another way to put all of this is that any group of beings (human or nonhuman, plant or animal) who take more from their surroundings than they give back will, obviously, deplete their surroundings, after which they will either have to move, or their population will crash. The Future Mirrored in the Past The farther backward you can look the farther forward you are likely to see. (Churchill) 'Collapse' is the language of the apocalypse and we find such issues difficult if not impossible to deal with. The long-term consequence of Peak Oil will take decades to unfold as a series of rolling and interconnected crises, each one more difficult to cope with than the previous as resources become scarcer and as more and more systems break and infrastructure decays. However, let us be clear: overshoot created by a lack of energy means the human population of the earth will have to shrink to a sustainable number. Ecologists use a technical term, "die-off", to describe what happens when a population grows too big for the resources that sustain it. People are always saying the world will end and it never does. Maybe it won't this time, either. But, frankly, it's not looking good. Almost daily, new evidence is emerging that progress can no longer be taken for granted, that a new Dark Age is lying in wait for us and our children. By some estimates, 5 billion of the world's 6½ billion population would never have been able to live without the blessed effects of fossil fuels, and oil in particular. We also need to remember that when a civilization goes splat, the technologies that supported it tend to go with it. This is particularly true of systems that are based on highly interdependent technologies such as ours today. Greer states in 'Facing the New Dark Age: A Grassroots Approach'. 'Finally population die-off begins as the wrecked industrial system no longer produces enough to meet even the most basic human needs. The process ends with impoverished survivors a century or so from now scratching out a meager living amid the crumbling ruins of a once-great civilisation.' 'This Die Off scenario makes a shocking contrast to the cozy fantasies of perpetual progress most people cherish. Those who study history, on the other hand, will find it much more familiar. The same process has happened dozens of times before, and our present predicament can best be understood by paying attention to the past.' Another crucial lesson is that the common notion of holing up in a cabin in the hills with stockpiled food and enough firearms to outfit a Panzer division. This is not a realistic response. It takes time for a civilization to come apart, and the process is like rolling down a slope, not like falling off a cliff. We face a future of shortages, economic crises, disintegrating infrastructure, and collapsing public health, probably stretched out over a period of decades. A few years of stored food and an assortment of high-tech paramilitary gear are hopelessly inadequate preparations in the face of this reality. Stockpiles of precious metals, another common hedge against collapse, are even more useless. All the gold in the world means nothing unless people value it enough to trade scarce resources for it. Problems with Progress How many people nowadays can't light a fire without matches or butane lighter from some distant factory? The skills necessary to get by in a non-industrial society, skills that were still common knowledge a century ago, have been all but lost. Knowledge is critical and currently, there is little knowledge of basic survival skills, and even less knowledge of the scope of the problems that are looming. It's clear that whatever the future holds, it will hold many fewer people than today's world, and the road there won't be easy or pleasant. If there are problems with holding up in a cabin in the hills what about self sufficiency. Community survival during the coming energy decline "Those who already enjoy a measure of self-sufficiency, such as ecovillages and other kinds of sustainable intentional communities will already have some of the skills and experience needed for re-localization." In Powerdown, Richard Heinberg notes that small, self-sustaining communities may become cultural lifeboats in times to come. He says, "Our society is going to change profoundly-those of us who understand this are in a position to steward that change. We are going to become popular, needed people in our communities." But no matter how prepared an intentional community or organized neighborhood may be, it will be adversely impacted in some way. But is Community Enough Experts suggest several possible scenarios for the coming energy decline and any of these scenarios will present significant challenges for intentional communities. Even in the "soft landing" scenario, there will still be massive structural changes in society and being in debt may be the undoing of many. Common advice among many Peak Oil experts is to get out of debt! Let's say for example, that a community is deeply in debt, and is still paying off its property purchase loans. Let's say the community loses its financial resource base-if members lose their jobs or if a weak economy reduces the market for the goods and services the community produces-the group could default on its loan payments, and may have its property seized by the bank or other creditors. A property-value crash may worsen the debt situation for intentional communities. If a community's property value falls below their equity in the property, they won't be able to save themselves from defaulting on loans by selling off their land, which is typically the last resort of farmers in debt. All the shortages and systems failures that can affect mainstream culture can affect intentional communities as well. A community may not have enough foresight, labour, tools, or funds to create alternatives to whatever their members use now for heating, lighting, cooking, refrigeration, water collection, water pumping, and disposal utilization of gray water and human waste. Then there's the matter of community security-a subject many find "politically incorrect" to even consider. If the government fails; if the law and order system falls apart, there can be various kinds of dangerous consequences. Desperate, hungry people can loot and steal and take what they want from others. Vigilante groups can form to either deal with the lawlessness, and/or take what they want themselves. Government may declare martial law, rescind constitutional liberties, and send in troops to restore order and/or take what they want from others. Having supportive neighbors and good networking in the greater community may help. The social fabric has been unraveling for several decades, and the lack of solidarity or social cohesion is another one of the reasons there must be a collapse -- after all, do you see community-spirit on the rise and an actual transition underway to a sustainable and ecological society? So would it be possible to rebuild Civilisation after a collapse? Jason Godesky wrote in 'It will be Impossible to Rebuild Civilisation', "The current state of civilization is dependent on resources that are now so depleted, that they require an industrial infrastructure already in place to gather those resources. We can fetch this fossil fuel only because we have fossil fuels to put to the task." He goes on to comment on metals. * That to maintain civilization, only some metals are useful. * They must be strong enough for agriculture or war. * They must keep an edge. * They must occur in economically feasible quantities. * They must have a melting point low enough to be worked. Gold, silver, etc. immediately fail as the quantities are insufficient, and they are far too soft. There are many other metals which are basically all alloys and would be all but unworkable in a post collapse society. The metal that probably deserves the most attention is iron. He says that iron although problematic is not impossible and may well be the only metal that survivors will have access to. (1) Ore, Most near-surface iron deposits were exploited long ago. What remains is deep in the ground and is unlikely to be accessible without fossil fuels, except in rare exceptions. (2) Scavenged iron. Scavenged iron is, especially in the immediate aftermath of collapse likely to be the most abundant source although most of the sophisticated alloys we use now rely on the kind of high temperatures attainable only with fossil fuels. This shouldn't matter too much as there's still enough that can be done with heated and reworked scavenged metals. After a few decades the scavenged metals will become more and more rusted and even worn out and the metalworking will begin to diminish as it becomes harder and harder to make poorer and poorer metal weapons and tools. (3) Bog Iron. The final source is bog iron which is actually a renewable resource. About once each generation the same bog can be re-harvested but it may be up to a century before today's bog iron deposits are refilled; after that, it may enter the cycle of once-a-generation per bog. We should be aware of this factor because of one other necessary resource that we have so far only touched on briefly: knowledge. The knowledge of how to work iron and many other processes was accrued over centuries. Those who know, no longer do; those who do, no longer know. This may well end applying to a lot of knowledge. How much knowledge will manage to survive the post collapse period, for the time that comes after when it may become useful again? If it is insufficient, we will be starting from scratch again. This will apply to all knowledge and knowledge is a powerful thing, difficult to relearn from seed, and easily lost. How plausible would agriculture be after the collapse? Civilization is only possible through agriculture, because only agriculture allows a society to increase its food supply--and thus its population--and thus its energy throughput--and thus its complexity--so arbitrarily." Plants, like any other organism, take in nutrients, and excrete wastes. In nature, what one plant excretes as waste, another takes in as nutrients. They balance each other, and all of them thrive. But monoculture--planting whole fields of just one crop--sets fields of the same plant, all bleeding out the same nutrients, all dumping back in the same wastes. "The ecological effects of fossil-based food production have been catastrophic, particularly with respect to agriculture. As a result, the complex ecology of the living soil is being destroyed, leading to increased wind and water erosion. In the near-term, most arable land has long been depleted, and is now utterly dependent on fertilizers made from fossil fuels. In the course of our civilization we have used up all of the surface and near-surface deposits of all the economically viable fossil fuels and minerals. The lack of metals will continue to limit technological development after the collapse--and by limiting technological development, it will also limit all other forms of complexity. We are therefore talking about a complete break with the end of our current civilization. Whole generations will pass before civilisation becomes feasible again. What, then, of the distant future. The Distant Future After the passage of millennia, the soil may well heal itself, and the necessary climate may return. In that scenario, agriculture may be possible in those same areas, and under the same conditions, that it first occurred. With the passage of geological ages, though, this will pass. Fossil fuels will be replenished, and metal ores will rise to the surface. Then, if there are still humans so far into the future--this is a matter of at least tens of millions of years, far longer than humans have so far survived--then there might be another opportunity to rebuild civilization. So after the collapse, we may see a brief Iron Age, but it seems more likely to fade away within the next two centuries. Living without oil, if we don't start to prepare for it, will not be like returning to the pre industrial world, because we will have lost the infrastructure that made that life possible. We have also lost our basic survival skills. Today, the UK population is about 62 million. In 1750, when the Industrial Revolution was beginning, it was about 6 million. It had never exceeded this figure, although during the Dark Ages and after the Black Death it fell to one or two million. Most people lived and died in poverty. Pre-industrial farmers were pushed to the limit to feed so many. The population increased slightly in years with good harvests, but starvation and malnutrition cut it back to the 6 million norm when harvests were bad. Food is energy. And it takes energy to get food. These two facts, taken together, have always established the biological limits to the human population and always will. Conclusion The topic of Peak Oil is at present enveloped by a great silence and the public seems unprepared for rational discussion This reminds me of a comment made by Sherlock Holmes in A. Conan Doyle's story "Silver Blaze." Inspector Gregory had asked, "Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?" To this Holmes responded: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night time." "The dog did nothing in the night time," said the Inspector. "That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes. By asking himself what would repress the normal barking instinct of a watchdog, Holmes realized that it must be the dog's recognition of his master as the criminal trespasser. In a similar way we should ask ourselves what repression keeps us from discussing something as important as survival long term after Peak Oil. Curious, but understandable - for the foreseeable future I think that our survival demands that we govern our actions by the ethics of a lifeboat. Posterity will be ill served if we do not. Those who attended Peak Speak 1 in London last year may remember the lifeboat analogy I mentioned. Greer uses a similar point in his 'The Coming of Deindustrial Society'. 'Imagine that you're on an ocean liner that's headed straight for a well marked shoal of rocks. Half the crew is dead drunk, and the other half has already responded to your attempts to alert them by telling you that you obviously don't know the first thing about navigation, and everything will be all right. At a certain point, you know, the ship will be so close to the rocks that its momentum will carry it onto them no matter what evasive actions the helmsman tries to make. You're not sure, but it looks as though that point is already well past. What do you do? You can keep on pounding on the door to the bridge, trying to convince the crew of the approaching danger. You can join the prayer group down in the galley; they're convinced that if they pray fervently enough, God will save them from shipwreck. You can decide that everyone's doomed and go get roaring drunk. Or you can go around quietly to the other passengers, and encourage those people who have noticed the situation (or are willing to notice it) to break out the life jackets, assemble near the lifeboats, take care of people who need help, and otherwise deal with the approaching wreck in a way that will salvage as much as possible. Although there is growing awareness of the problem, there is also widespread ignorance and denial, even by people who should know better. Mankind has, it seems, an infinite capacity for denial. The evidence is overwhelming that we are in the "overshoot" phase of the industrial life cycle, yet most people and most organizations refuse even to discuss this matter, let alone acknowledge it. The world after the industrial age will be very different from the world of today. For most people on Earth (if mankind escapes extinction), it will be similar to the world of the past millions of years - a primitive, natural environment (although perhaps less bountiful and beautiful than before). Although most people will not survive the collapse of the industrial age, it will belong, in concept and structure, to those who prepare for the great change that is about to happen The arrays of skills necessary for people to 'thrive' and not just 'survive' in a non-oil economy are many. Most people do not have the essential skills to reproduce (or even repair) the technology on which we depend today. We seem to be in a state of delusional thinking and the only thing we're debating is how we're going to keep the cars running without oil. What I have said above is not, as some one said after my talk last year, to get you all to wear brown underwear. It is to try to show you that, even at this late stage, if we all do not think seriously, realistically and logically about the consequences of our inaction then what I have suggested may well become fact. We will be faced with the necessity to downscale, rescale and reorganize all the fundamental activities of our daily lives; the way we grow food, the way we conduct commerce, the way we manufacture things and school our children. We must learn to do this tomorrow....at the crack of dawn. We should seriously think of breaking out the "Life Jackets" and "Manning" the lifeboats which is as I said last year at least one step before "deploying" the lifeboats. References and sources quoted: 1. Greer. J.M. How Civilisations Fall:- A Theory of Catabolic Collapse. http://media.anthropik.com/pdf/greer2005.pdf 2. Godesky, Jason. It will be Impossible to Rebuild Civilisation. http://anthropik.com/2006/01/thesis-29-it-will-be-impossible-to-rebuild-civilization/ 3. Godesky, Jason. Collapse is Inevitable. http://anthropik.com/2006/01/thesis-26-collapse-is-inevitable/ 4. Greer J.M. Facing the New Dark Age: A Grassroots Approach'. http://www.survivingpeakoil.com/article.php?id=facing_dark_age 5. Godesky, Jason. Post Collapse Metals. http://anthropik.com/2006/03/correction-to-thesis-29-post-collapse-metals/ 6. Jan Steinman and Diana Leafe Christian 'Community survival during the coming energy decline.' http://www.ecoreality.org/wiki/Community_survival_during_the_coming_energy_decline "Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box." -Italian Proverb "To our grandfathers and grandchildren, the cavemen...." (Rene Barjavel 1911 - 1985) If you have any comments on this please contact me on the below: Norman@noidea.me.uk ---- Cashing in on China's Renewable Energy Boom Story by Alison Leung REUTERS CHINA: July 17, 2006 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/37280/newsDate/17-Jul-2006/story.htm HONG KONG - China is set to spend US$200 billion on renewable energy over the next 15 years, and industry players are racing to grab a slice of the action. That kind of money would buy you an oil firm the size of Chevron and leave change to fund the current renewables programmes of all Europe's top oil firms for 25 years. So from the arid plains of Xinjiang to the rolling hills of sub-tropical Guangdong, Chinese and foreign firms are erecting 40-storey wind turbines, installing solar panels, and conducting tests on corn for biofuel. Beijing wants a tenth of its energy to come from environmentally friendly sources by 2010 -- a desire driven by soaring air pollution and chronic environmental degradation that is swelling medical bills and provoking discontent. Projects will need turbines, blades and other power components, which is why General Electric Co., Vestas Wind Systems and Gamesa, as well as homegrown firms China Solar Energy Holdings Ltd. and Suntech, are expanding capacity in the country. "Renewable energy will likely become China's next boom sector with oil at historical high prices," said Norman Ho, a fund manager at Value Partners, which has invested in Chinese wind energy components supplier Nanjing Gearbox. "China needs energy to support its GDP growth." Crude hit a record above US$78 a barrel on Friday. Analysts like Suntech and Shanghai Electric, but call attention also to budding niche players such as China Solar and Taiwan's E-ton Solar. "We believe solar energy's high growth prospects, particularly off a small base, make it a viable component of any investment strategy focusing on the renewable energy theme," Merrill Lynch said in a recent research report. Credit Suisse estimates the compound annual growth rate of China's wind power capacity at 39 percent in 2004-10 and 20 percent in 2010-20. "This represents a remarkable growth potential for manufacturers of wind turbines," Credit Suisse's Angello Chan said. RISKS In the short run, teething troubles such as a shortfall of raw materials facing Taiwan solar player Motech Industries might be an issue. And crucially, analysts warn of a potential regulatory about-face or waning enthusiasm, the absence so far of a detailed incentives-and-subsidies plan, and a lack of official experience in the area. Credit Suisse also warned competition may put downward pressure on wind turbine prices, and thus margins. Yet if all gels, China -- which claims already to be the top annual investor in renewable energy on the planet -- could leverage the world's highest wind-power capacity potential. China aims to have 30 gigawatts of installed wind power capacity by 2020, up from just 1 GW last year and powering between 13 and 30 million households at full capacity according to industry estimates. Beijing's new renewable energy policy, unveiled in January, aims to create a system of financial and policy support for the use of renewable energy, including preferential tariffs for fuels such as biomass. Beyond 2010, the world's second-largest power user wants to boost consumption from renewable sources to a fifth of its total by 2020 and slash reliance on imported oil. Alternative energy sated 7 percent of China's needs last year, and the country's top economic planning agency said up to US$188 billion must be invested to reach the 2020 goal. Economic growth hovering at 10 percent will fuel power consumption over coming years anyway. China Solar wants a six-fold profit leap next year, and the nation's top wind turbine maker, Goldwind, is pursuing a US IPO to propel an eight-fold surge in sales to a target of US$500 million by 2008. CLP Holdings, Hong Kong's dominant power supplier, is planning Asia's largest offshore wind farm in the territory. And following a successful US IPO by Suntech Power last December, Yingli Solar plans to raise US$400 million in the Nasdaq's largest IPO by a Chinese firm, the first of at least five waiting in the wings, sources have told Reuters. Renewable energy projects need intensive and long term government support. Beijing appears to have the resolve -- and the need -- to push ahead, but a proper system of tax or policy incentives could take years. "Solar energy today is still expensive," said Chan Ka Keung, managing director at the renewable division of CLP Holdings Ltd. "It's beyond what we should consider on a commercial basis." (Additional reporting by Nao Nakanishi and Joy Leung and Emma Graham Harrison in Beijing) (US$1=7.988 Yuan) -------- ACTIVISTS The 1960s Antiwar Movement Revisited David R. Henderson Antiwar.com July 17, 2006 http://www.antiwar.com/henderson/?articleid=9315 I spent part of July 4 reading an antiwar book from the mid-1960s. Hey, call me a party animal. And what I learned gave me a perspective on today's antiwar movement. Unfortunately, the mid-1960s' movement makes today's look weak by comparison. So here are some of the highlights from the book, some comparisons to today's movement, and some suggestions for making today's movement more effective. What led me to buy it in a used-book store was its title: We Accuse. The title is obviously a takeoff on I Accuse, French author Emile Zola's famous letter attacking France's president and defending Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish military officer who was wrongly convicted of treason. Published in 1965 by the Diablo Press, We Accuse is a compilation of speeches given at a 36-hour "Vietnam Day" protest in Berkeley, California. Some of the speeches, as you might expect, were hard to get through. Comedian Dick Gregory's speech, for example, went on and on and often seemed off-point – maybe you had to be there. But what struck me was that, with the exception of a few moments of rhetorical excess, many of the speeches were literate, passionate, and informative. Even more important, they typically stayed on target. Everyone who spoke, possibly with the exception of the aforementioned Dick Gregory, focused on the Vietnam War, the invasion of the Dominican Republic, John F. Kennedy's huge gamble over nuclear weapons in Cuba, the Cold War, or other aspects of U.S. foreign policy. Almost no one used the forum as an excuse to talk about domestic policy issues. One of the main things I learned was just how shallow the case for having a Cold War was. This doesn't surprise me now. But I had grown up in Canada, believing from my teen years into my late 30s that the USSR was a grave threat to Canada and the United States and that NATO was absolutely necessary. I no longer believe that, based on much evidence I learned in the 1980s and 1990s. Had I known some of the things revealed in this book, I would have started questioning the Cold War in my teenage years rather than much later. Some highlights: From the speech by novelist Norman Mailer: "Bombing a country [Vietnam] at the same time you are offering it aid is as morally repulsive as beating up a kid in an alley and stopping to ask for a kiss!" (p. 10) "Let me list another difficulty in defining Communism in Vietnam: It is that the Communism of the Vietcong is attached to the local nationalism. With the exception of a few dedicated career soldiers, however, the average American in Vietnam is not much interested in the future of Asia." (p. 12) "We are a conservative, property-loving nation obsessed with the passion to destroy other nations' property." (p. 13) "He [John F. Kennedy] was a young, good-looking man with a beautiful wife, and he won the biggest poker game we ever played. The only real one. We lived for a week [of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis] ready to die in a nuclear war, whether we liked it or not." (p. 18) "War is indeed the health of a totalitarian state. And peace is its disease. Communism would split and rupture and war upon itself if ever it occupied most of the world. For then it would have to solve the problems of the world, and these problems are not soluble in the rigidity of a system. Like all top-heavy structures the greatest danger to Communism lies in its growth. Prosperity is its poison. For without a sense of crisis, Communism cannot discipline its future generations. Attack from capitalism is communism's transfusion of blood." (p. 20) "Let the Communists flounder in the countries they acquire. The more countries they hold, the less supportable will become the contradictions of their ideology, the more bitter will grow the divisions in their internal interest, the more enormous their desire to avoid a war which could only destroy the economies they would have developed at such vast labor and such vast waste. Let it be their waste, not ours." (p. 21) [The kind of thinking evidenced in the above two quotes makes one wonder why Mailer is thought of as a liberal/leftist. Mailer's reasoning sounds like that of the late Roy A. Childs Jr., a radical libertarian, in speeches in the late 1970s and early 1980s.] "Only listen, Lyndon Johnson, you've gone too far this time. You are a bully with an Air Force, and since you will not call off your Air Force, there are young people who will persecute you back. It is a little thing, but it will hound you into nightmares and endless corridors of night without sleep." (p. 22) From the speech of Isaac Deutscher, a Marxist, a specialist on the Soviet Union, and a biographer of Trotsky, Lenin, and Stalin: "That colossus, Russia, lost in the last war [World War II] over 20 million people alone. … When, after the war, the first population census was carried out in the Soviet Union, it turned out that in the age groups that were older than 18 years at the end of the war, that is, in the whole adult population of the Soviet Union, there were only 31 million men compared with 53 million women. … [T]his nation with this tremendous, huge deficit and its population imbalance, with a whole generation lost, this nation was supposed to threaten Europe with an invasion. And, until quite recently, this threat of invasion was all the time assumed to be real. NATO was formed in order to contain this threat. Any specialist in population statistics could have counted the number of years that it would have taken Russia to fill these gaps. "Moreover, from the end of the war until the proclamation of the Truman Doctrine in 1947, the Russians had demobilized their armies so rapidly that they reduced them from eleven and a half million men at the end of the war to less than three million. Only after the formation of NATO did they start remobilizing." (p. 39) "There was only one man in the West who saw the de-Stalinization coming, a change in the climate of opinion in Russia, and advocated a new approach to Russia. And that was Churchill, the prompter of the cold war, the man who had, in 1946, in his Fulton speech [the famous speech in which Churchill coined the term 'Iron Curtain'], made the great call for the rallying of the West against Russia. But then in 1953, it was he who spoke about the change in Russia and appealed to his NATO colleagues for a new, more conciliatory approach. He was disavowed by the White House and ridiculed by his own Foreign Office, although he was then the British Prime Minister." (p. 47) "Now, American policy-makers apparently didn't give any thought to the fact that only a few weeks after last year's American attacks in the Bay of Tonkin, Khrushchev fell. He fell, among other things, precisely because he advocated a rapprochement with America and advertised in the whole communist world the latent rationality of American policy. And, of course, the American attack on Vietnam was a refutation of Khrushchev's conciliatory policies." (p. 48) From the speech by M.S. Arnoni, a survivor of Nazi concentration camps and editor and publisher of Minority of One: An Independent Monthly for an American Alternative: "Twenty years later it still is a fact that the Red Army has neither moved nor attempted to move into any country since the end of the war. On the contrary, the Soviet armed forces have been withdrawn from three countries they had occupied during the war: Iran, Finland and Austria." (p. 57) "Much as our Government is opposed to socialism, it seems rather enthusiastic about a twisted type of a fiscal socialism of the armaments economics." (p. 57) From the speech by I.F. Stone, publisher of I.F. Stone's Weekly: "I think that De Gaulle is one of the great men of our times. He was brought to power by the forces deeply opposed to Algerian independence, and once he got to power, he set Algeria free. And he set Algeria free even though the French army was very close to a military victory. It was De Gaulle's greatness that he recognized that even had they crushed the rebellion, it would flare up again; there would have to be a period of occupation, and there would be a new rebellion. France would poison its relations with Africa and spill its blood to no measure in such a situation. I'd like to point out that France's withdrawal from North Africa increased its prestige in the eyes of the colonial world. And so would it be if we left." (p. 97) What's notable in all the above is its focus on war and foreign policy. Although I didn't quote his speech, Staughton Lynd, a noted history professor at Yale University, criticized Robert F. Kennedy for his support of the Vietnam War. Wouldn't it be refreshing if major left/liberal antiwar activists criticized Hillary Clinton for her support of the Iraq war? I know that some of them do, but a fair number don't. Having praised major parts of We Accuse, I have one major criticism. Most of the speakers, including the ones whose speeches were most informative and persuasive, used the word "we" when referring to Lyndon Johnson and other U.S. government officials. In his speech, Paul Potter, for example, a former president of the Students for a Democratic Society, stated that "we" installed Diem as a dictator of South Vietnam. But "we" did no such thing. I'm sure Potter had no role in it. Eisenhower was the main person responsible for installing Diem. People are responsible for their own actions, not those of others. For more on why this language matters, see my article, "Who is 'We'?" We need more things today like We Accuse. How about an "I Accuse" open letter to George W. Bush and, while we're at it, to those other recent warmongers who are still alive, Bill Clinton for his attacks on countries in the Balkans and George H.W. Bush for his attack on Panama? How about an antiwar rally in which the ground rules are that you actually have to talk about war and not domestic racism? How about making a case against the war rather than just repeating the mantra, "Bush lied"? The current antiwar movement has just scratched the surface of what's possible. ---- Protesters Condemn G8 Support of Nuclear, Coal, Oil ST. PETERSBURG, Russia, July 17, 2006 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2006/2006-07-17-05.asp Demonstrators blockading a main thoroughfare in St. Petersburg were arrested on Sunday as they protested the Group of Eight, G8, statement on Global Energy Security that includes support for nuclear power. They blocked the entrance of a hotel on the Nevsky Prospekt which was used by participants of the G8 summit. Protesters from St. Petersburg, Moscow, Minsk, Chishinau, Warsaw, Kiev, Cardiff, and Berlin took part in the demonstration, displaying posters saying "No G8!" in Russian and English. Russian riot police arrested all of the 37 activists and cleared the roadway. Some of the activists sat down and had to be carried away, others were forced to leave the street in what they said was a brutal manner. "We wanted to voice our demands to not develop nuclear energy," said Olga Miryasova from Russia's Network Against the G8. The protesters staged their demonstration to coincide with the G8 summit at Strelna where the leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union wound up their three day meeting today. The sit-in took place despite the growing suppression of dissent by the Russian government in recent years. Russian authorities preemptively arrested over 200 activists before the G8 summit and forbade protesters from leaving an alternative conference in St. Petersburg held on Saturday. The G8 statement on global energy security advocates nuclear energy as one way to address global climate change, yet environmental activists warn that nuclear energy cannot be considered a positive way to reduce carbon emissions and combat global climate change. "Nuclear reactors are dangerous, extremely expensive, take many years to build, and require massive government subsidies," the demonstrators said in a statement. The activists say they would like this funding to be used to quickly reduce carbon emissions through energy efficiency measures, development of renewable energy sources, and restoration of damaged wetland and forest ecosystems. In coalition with the protests in St. Petersburg, international demonstrations occurred on July 14 and 15 in numerous cities in the United States, the United Kingdom, Venezuela, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Germany. The protests included large "banner drops" in multiple cities, protests of coal and oil companies, and rallies at the U.S. embassy in London and the Washington, DC home of U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman. On Friday, protestors showed up at Bodman's home, demanding that the United States and the G8 abandon the focus on nuclear, coal, and on oil wars as "energy security." They chanted "No Coal, No Nukes, G-8 shut it down!" No arrests took place. "The G8 countries represent just 15 percent of the world's population but they produce 45 percent of all human emissions of carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas," said Ethan Green of Rising Tide North America, a group that publicized the July 15 protests against climate change and the G8 in the United States. "Poor, indigenous and environmentally vulnerable communities should not bear the brunt of disease epidemics, droughts, floods, melting ice, rising oceans, hurricanes, and other catastrophes caused by the global climate change that rich countries are responsible for due to our prodigious burning of coal, oil and gas for energy," said Green. On Friday, as a part of the Global Day of Action Against the G8 a small group of protesters demonstrated in front of the Consulate General of the Russian Federation in Sydney, Australia. The five protesters displayed signs, shared vodka and iced tea, discussed the implications of the G8's continued existence, and expressed solidarity with the protesters in Russia. In fear of a larger demonstration, the consulate was closed to visitors, part of the street was cordoned off, and at least 10 police officers guarded the area near the entrance. In Canada on Tuesday, a demonstration is planned at the Sidney, British Columbia office of federal Minister of Natural Resources Gary Lunn, to protest the withdrawal of support for the Kyoto climate protocol by the recently elected Conservative government. The protesters, organized by the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, will hold a brief rally with speakers, songs by the Raging Grannies, placards, and banners, followed by a petition drive to passersby in downtown Sidney, about 20 kilometers (12 miles) north of the provincial capital of Victoria. The Western Canada Wilderness Committee is calling on the federal Conservative government of Canada to "at the very least, honor Canada's participation in the Kyoto Accord by working to achieve its emissions targets for Canada of six percent below 1990 emissions levels by the year 2012." The protesters fault the Conservatives for "scrapping Canada's obligation to meet Kyoto's emissions reductions targets, falsely stating that it's impossible to meet the targets." They object to the elimination of over a dozen major federal climate change programs, including the C$1 billion dollar Partnership Fund which was to be used for climate change projects for five provinces, as well as the EnerGuide Program to provide rebates to Canadians who buy more energy efficient appliances. The Wilderness Committee says a leaked government document shows the Conservatives are "working to delay, obstruct and sabotage progress during negotiations among Kyoto signatories by trying to weaken emissions reductions targets, with a goal of eventually eliminating the entire agreement." Instead of reducing greenhouse gases, the demonstrators say the Conservatives are granting "huge subsidies to the highly destructive Alberta tar sands industry and the oil and gas industry in general."