Trident Replacement?

We have yet to hear, but I guess we might hear very little now from the Lib Dems in coalition government about opposition to Trident replacement. Their policy was a little like their Iraq war policy in any case (They opposed the war until it started , then "supported our boys", whilst loudly trumpeting at subsequent elections that they had been the "anti-war party". For Lib Dems anti-war presumably means until it starts then.) They said they were anti- Trident replacement, to win the anti-nuclear and peace vote and to be seen to be making savings, whilst quietly saying that they were really interested in a "cheaper alternative". So that is alright then - Lib Dems are only in favour of cheap weapons of mass destruction.
Nevertheless, the Lib Dems policy in the election campaign (presumably now quietly dropped) launched a lot of anguished shrieking about "deterrence" in a world of dangers from the big two establishment parties and the establishment media.
I had this thought the other day about the so called "Deterrence" argument.
The argument for deterrence implies that your potential enemies must be convinced that if attacked, your country will respond with devastating nuclear force. However, anyone who would launch a nuclear attack potentially killing and maiming millions of people would be by definition a war criminal and by implication a genocidal maniac and sociopath. So an ememy must be convinced that your defence is in the hands of genocidal maniacs. And the only way you could really convince their intelligence services of this would be to have people in post who were indistinguishable from such maniacs - such that *no-one* could tell whether they were or not. Otherwise deterrence would not be credible. So in effect, deterrence means handing over your defence to genocidal maniacs - the sort of people who might launch a nuclear attack in any number of circumstances! I do not think most people realise this implication and think this would be a very scary realisation for most people, if they really thought about it.
(Although of course, the British Independent Nuclear "Deterrent" is neither fully British, Independent or a Deterrent - how do you deter suicidal terrorists?)
With the importance the British establishment places on "British" nuclear weapons, one wonders how most of the countries of the world can live from day to day, being in constant fear of nuclear attack or blackmail as they must be, "unprotected" by "their own" nukes? Or then again, perhaps they are not in constant fear, save a lot of money and do not live with expensive and redundant Imperial hangups.......

Weekly Links 22/02/2009

International
Internationally the political temperature continues to rise, particularly for the Sarkozy regime in France, in Ireland, where 100,000 took to the streets and the inspiring Waterford occupation continues, in Latvia where the government has just fallen, and around the world as governments and their finances begin to look increasingly wobbly.


British Politics
The PCS union is mobilising around the proposed Labour Governmnent Welfare "reforms", with a lobby planned for next week.

Also this week, the Independent revealed the sorry tale of the possible destination of large quantities of British toxic waste.

On his Euro election blog this week, Derek Wall reports on the nasty effects of some EU policies on peasants and workers in Colombia.

There was a good turnout of Greens from London area (with some good work in achieving this from Green Left and the Campaign Against Climate Change)at the Downing Street demo last week against Heathrow expansion.

Peace
More details came out this week on the potentially disastrous crash between British and French nuclear submarines in the Atlantic. BBC report here and CND commentary here.

Gender Politics
For readers in England I have received the following about forthcoming events in Wolverhampton for International Women's Week -

A unique opportunity to listen to two prominent women leaders will take place in Wolverhampton on 12th March 2009. Ludmila Ermakova: Director and founder of the Crisis Centre “Ekaterina”, Ekaterinburg, Russia and Mavluda Shirinova: Director and founder of the Socio-Economic Development Centre “SABR”, Samarkand, Uzbekistan will be presenting their work together for the first time. You will also have the opportunity to listen to a contribution from Natalia Sukhareva, Head of the Sverdlovsk Regional Guild of Lawyers and her colleague Marina Zakharova, who were the first women in Russia to develop a training programme on domestic violence for lawyers.

The presentations will provide an opportunity to discuss the development of services for women abroad as well as debate and bring women’s issues to the forefront. The presentation is organised by The Haven Wolverhampton which has worked in partnership with the above organisations for over a decade and helped to support their work with vulnerable women and children (read more on http://www.havenrefuge.org.uk/International/International.htm).

The presentation will take place on 12th March 2009, from 1.00pm-4.00pm at the Light House Media Centre, Fryer Street, Wolverhampton. The event is free and open to anyone who wishes to learn more about women’s organisations in post-Soviet society. The presentations will be in Russian and in English. Please hurry, as places are limited.

On the same day the Light House will be hosting The Women’s Fair (11am-4pm) organised by WOW, The Haven Wolverhampton, YWCA and V Involved. This is a free event entitled ‘What Women Want’ which will include information stands, workshops covering everything from self defence and confidence building to pampering sessions, a children’s area and a large number of stalls from local groups and organisations. Free snacks and drinks will be provided. What’s more, the night will be rounded off with an evening of comedy from some of the UK best comediennes, courtesy of the Light House.

The events will take place as part of the City celebrations for International Women’s Week 2009 which was supported and managed by Wolverhampton City Council. All International Women’s Week events taking place in Wolverhampton are included in a programme which has been published by Wolverhampton City Council.

Reports from conference on class, coal and climate change in Newcastle

Here are two contrasting accounts of the conference in Newcastle at the weekend looking at the controversy around coal, energy workers and climate change.

Here is the positive view from a trade unionist and supporter of Workers Climate Action -

Ed is Red blog


And here is the view from North Eastern climate activists-

Toon Climate Camp

Weekly Links 21/09/2008

British Politics
It is the annual Party conference of the ruling Labour Party in Manchester this week - long term Labour MP and media personality Diane Abbott explains why she won't be going here.

John McDonnell MP reports on his hopes for the parallel Convention of the Left.

On the same site David Lowry has an article on the nuclear commitments of the Prime Minister.

Red Pepper have established a blog for the Convention of the Left.

Human Rights
Peter Tatchell has alerted us to several significant cases of human rights abuses in recent days. First he had an article in the New Statesman on the situation with Balochistan activists in Pakistan and the UK. Secondly he had an article on low caste Dalit people in India on the Guardian Comment pages. Finally he alerted us to an urgent action alert over the treatment of sexual minorities in Uganda.

Another Green activist has alerted us to the case of Annociate Nimpagaritse, who has been in danger of being deported to a very hazardous situation in Burundi.

On 29th September Mark Thomas has a Book Launch with Amnesty International of his new book, Belching Out The Devil - Global Adventures With Coca Cola.

Green Issues
Helpful news items from EUWID, a site that gives news for the recycling industry - a study has shown that recycling PET plastic bottles is much more environmentally friendly than incinerating them.

On the same site, news that the European recycling rate for paper and board has now hit 64.5%, on course for the 66% by 2010 target that the industry set itself. Good news for all those campaigning on these issues, but we need to keep up the work and pressure for higher rates of recycling in the UK.

Unions and Work
The Communications Workers Union (CWU) report for the UNI global union network on their action at the 2008 European Call Centre Awards Ceremony.

International
Greek ecosocialists (working within the broad left electoral coalition SYRIZA)have organized and now have an excellent website in several languages.

I have had the following solidarity request from the IWW International Solidarity Commission -

Dear friends and comrades,

For two week in late-April and early-May four members of the Industrial Workers of the World traveled to Haiti to meet with labor leaders and document the plight of the Haitian working class. During our trip we encountered a Haiti still reeling from food riots which had gripped it just weeks prior. We found the workers and organizers that we met with to be extremely competent and passionate, but almost completely immobilized by a severe lack of resources.

Now a new crisis grips the Haitian people in the form of over a thousand dead and one million out of a total population nine million people displaced as a result of the recent hurricanes which have battered the island.

Haiti's government struggles to respond to what can only be called a humanitarian disaster, but no longer has the infrastructure after years of brutally enforced hollowing out as a result of neo-liberal economic policies. With the shell of the government unable to respond, and profoundly corrupt and bloated NGOs unable deliver aid to where it is needed, the best hope for Haiti lies in the response of citizens and organizers who live and work in the country.

The Haitians themselves have the skills, the energy, and the organization to accomplish this task, what they lack is the resources.
We are making this urgent appeal for aid in order to help those we met in Haiti, who hosted us in their homes, who fed us when they were hungry, who showed us that they have the know-how and the energy, they just need the resources to get the job done. The International Solidarity Commission of the IWW has established a fund to help get money and aid to the people on the ground that need it most. Please send your donations to
*IWW Haiti Fund c/o General Headquarters
PO Box 23085,
Cincinnati OH 45223*
USA

A Green Answers Scargill And Monbiot

Last week I posted on the exchange between Arthur Scargill and George Monbiot on the Guardian website. Dave Howells, A Green Party Trade Union Group member from Gower has written a letter in response which he also circulated on the Green Party Trade Union Group E-list in case it did not get printed, so I am publishing it here. I do not agree with every point, but it is closer to my viewpoint than the arguments of Monbiot and Scargill.

To the Guardian -

Clean coal is a mirage.

Re Arthur Scargill's letter in support of coal (Guardian 8th Aug), no matter what the government's intentions, and George Monbiot's possible resignations about our energy situation, the future of nuclear power is hugely doubtful.
The answer to global warming is not nuclear power, because it is a massive, centralised and hugely expensive technology. It is aimed at perpetuating business-as-usual, ie. generating massive amounts of energy to enable us to carry on with our present lifestyle aimed at achieving "Progress" by means of eternal economic growth.

On pragmatic grounds the economic downturn is making such investments look increasingly risky, and so less likely. Investments are huge, and the payback time is a long way off. The world is slipping into economic slowdown while the cost of resources is increasing. Also, any large increase in nuclear generating capacity worldwide would mean even greater demand for uranium, and there are strictly limited reserves of this.

I have no reason to dispute Arthur's financial arguments, and the usual fiasco of the public eventually being made to foot huge bills to make the best of technological nightmares and writing off misguided private/political financial misjudgements. I agree with him too on the matter of nuclear waste still remaining an unsolved problem. Indeed, it is now looking overwhelmingly likely that, after all these years, there is really no solution. We are faced with the prospect that species of life that come and go on this planet from now on will have to live with this stuff for geological time.

I agree with Arthur too that we are sinking into an economic and political crisis of an unprecedented scale. Underneath the daily news of credit crunches, mortgages, employment and oil prices lies the increasingly voiced grassroots fear that the end of our current industrial lifestyle might wellbe much closer than is being publicly recognised. Our political system seems helpless in the face of this, and any form of competent leadership appropriate to the situation is completely absent.

I agree with him too that, for all the bad political decisions made in the past, the UK still sits on vast quantities of unexploited coal. I also agree with him that the UK has never had an integrated energy policy: when energy was cheap and in seemingly inexhaustible supply we never needed to.

However, I must fundamentally disagree with Arthur that coal can answer all our "needs" without causing harm to the environment. In his eyes the simple answer is to capture carbon dioxide produced by power stations and bury it.
However, if one looks at this claim realistically it quickly becomes unfeasible - or at least deeply dubious. In fact it seems that the idea is now failing.

As Arthur noted, only some 20 percent of the CO2 we produce comes from power stations. Secondly, most power stations are situated nowhere near any rock formations that would be suitable for burying the gas. Those that might be would find collection and pumping costs very large - indeed taking a sizeable percentage of the energy produced by the power station itself. The safety issues of burying the gas in or near any residential areas hardly bear thinking about. CO2 is colourless and odourless, and spending two minutes just breathing that would probably prove lethal.

Some may point to a few schemes already in operation. However, these are very few, overstated, and not at all representative of any broad commercial application. For instance, the hydrogen scheme in Peterhead, Scotland is planned in order to maintain pressure in a depleting North Sea oilfield, with the aim of wringing out as much oil as possible (and thus maximising financial returns for BP and Rio Tinto - with government backing).

At this point I feel that Arthur's letter becomes very misleading. His statement that "all existing and new coal-fired power stations should be fitted with clean coal technology - including carbon capture that would remove all CO2" could easily give the reader the impression that carbon capture is with us, and no obstacle to progress any more. That is most definitely not so. In fact the technology has not been developed at all yet, and there are no real genuine examples of it at all - anywhere in the world. But as usual promises abound, and dreams of widespread application are getting well out of step with reality.

UK energy policy has been talked about at length, but the pressure for business-as-usual remains as intense as ever - like a wolf in sheep's clothing. At the very least, any government that is serious about global warming would prohibit the building of any further coal and hydrocarbon power stations, and any other coal-processing industries (hydrogen,petrochemicals, etc), unless demonstrably workable carbon burial, specific to that project, is completely built in to the scheme from the very outset. Empty promises of retrospective bolt-on bits must be strictly not allowed.
We have to stop living on false promises.
Yours sincerely
Dave Howells
Green Party, Gower

Nuclear Errors

The ill-advised rush towards a new generation of nuclear reactors in some parts of Europe (usually justified on grounds of emissions reduction or energy security, and conveniently ignoring reference to the unsustainable, hazardous nature of the energy source and its' uselessness in countering the decline of oil stocks/soaring oil prices) has hit further problems, as noted by Greenpeace:

French nuclear safety agency stops construction of 'flagship' nuclear reactor

The French nuclear safety agency, ASN, has ordered construction to be suspended on the new nuclear reactor being built in France – the same model that would most likely be built in the UK.

Flamanville's construction in northern France has run into the same kinds of problems plaguing the ongoing construction of the only other European Pressurised Reactor (EPR), Olkiluoto 3, in Finland.

The move by ASN follows the agency's discovery of chronic problems affecting the quality of construction work since building work commenced on Flamanville 3 in December 2007.

ASN's call to halt construction follows a series of letters from the agency to Flamanville's construction manager. In the letters, ASN inspectors highlighted a range of problems including non-conformities in the pinning of the steel framework of the concrete base slab, incorrectly positioned reinforcements, and inadequacy of technical inspections by both the construction companies and Electricité de France (EdF).

Inspectors also uncovered inconsistencies between the blueprint for reinforcement work and the plan for its practical implementation. The incorrect composition of concrete had been used, that may lead to cracks and rapid deterioration. Samples of concrete were also not collected properly, according to ASN.

Cracks have already been observed at part of the base slab beneath the reactor building. The supplier of the steel containment liner reportedly lacks the necessary qualifications. Fabrication of the liner was continuing despite quality failures demonstrating the lack of competence of the supplier. As a result, one-quarter of the welds of the steel liner of the reactor containment building were deficient.

Ben Ayliffe, head of Greenpeace's nuclear campaign, said: "The only two EPRs being built today are construction fiascos. The one in Finland is years behind schedule and billions over budget and only six months into the project in France building work has come screeching to a halt.

"This reactor design is fast becoming a by-word for incompetence, massive delays, spiralling costs and dodgy engineering. We only have a limited time and budget to stave off the most catastrophic effects of climate change and we should stop pouring money down the nuclear black hole."

Olkiluoto has been under construction for three years but has been blighted ever since the concrete was poured. Poor quality concrete, bad welds on the containment liner and low-quality reactor components are among its problems. The schedule for completion has been put back by more than two years and costs have nearly doubled to over Euro 5 billion.

Meanwhile, events in Slovenia have shown up the problems with the current generation of reactors in Europe :

A leak of coolant prompted Slovenia to completely shut down the reactor at its only nuclear power plant.

The European Commission said parts were still cooling after the shutdown, but the situation was under control.

It said there appears to have been no discharge into the environment at the Krsko plant, which supplies energy to Slovenia and Croatia.

The Commission alerted all 27 EU member states under its Ecurie early warning system for nuclear emergencies.

Slovenia's nuclear safety chief Andrej Stritar said there was a water leak from the primary circuit inside the containment area.

He said operators had shut down the plant safely.

"Situation is under control," he said in a statement. "The plant is in stable condition. There is no off-site impact and there is no need for off-site protective measures. "

The Krsko plant has a US-made pressurised water reactor.
Source - BBC

This comes in the wake of power cuts in parts of Britain after various nuclear and coal fired plants here shut down due to problems and maintenance. Gordon Brown, the beleaguered British Prime Minister has been loudly trumpeting his intention to ride roughshod over any objections to his leading the country down the hyper-expensive route to new nuclear plants. Maybe he feels he has to match the rhetoric of the reactionary regime in Italy. The following was an article by Alessandro Barbera in La Stampa:

Rome - Ever since 2001 there has been a breach among the centre-left parties. At that time those who favoured nuclear power plants were in a minority and afraid to come out into the open. During the electoral campaign, the option got into the programme of the Party of Freedom [PDL], and Giulio Tremonti [current economy minister] envisioned the building of nuclear power plants on the coast of Balkan countries. Now, seven years after the formal motions and 21 years after a referendum in which the Italians said no to the nuclear option, the new development minister, Claudio Scajola, definitively breaks the taboo at a meeting with Italian industrialists: "Before the end of this legislature, the cornerstone of a series of new power plants will be laid. Italy needs a shift in the energy field. And the shift must be made with determination and a sense of responsibility. Only nuclear power plants make it possible to have large-scale and secure energy at a competitive cost and with respect for the environment."

It is too soon to talk about sites, or investments, but there are already plans. The third Berlusconi government relies on third-generation power plants . These are not yet "at zero risk," but according to specialists, they come very close to it. It is this type of power plant that, under an accord the Prodi Government signed in Nice last fall, ENEL [Italian Electricity Corporation] has started building on French soil along with the EDF [French Electricity Corporation]. It is called the Evolutionary Power Reactor, and the first one is being built at Flamanville, Normandy. The real model of what the Berlusconi government proposes lies further to the north: at Okiluoto, Finland, where the Green-backed conservative government has said yes to the construction of a power station financed by a consortium of electric enterprises which have acquired exploitation rights in advance.

As was to be expected, major companies like ENEL, ENI [Italian Oil Corporation], or Edison [second largest energy company in Italy in the field of electricity and natural gas] say they are ready right away. On the other hand, thanks to an amendment passed by the then Berlusconi Government, since 2004 only ENEL invests in nuclear power plants outside Italy. Now, following its takeover of Spain's ENDESA [National Electricity Enterprise], ENEL is among Europe's major builders of nuclear power plants: it owns nine working power plants and is building five more. ENEL Deputy Manager Fulvio Conti is sure that five years would be enough for one to be built in Italy. Deputy Minister for Productive Activities Adolfo Urso, who had favoured nuclear power plants all along, is more cautious: "Let us say that, what with projects and licenses, it will take up to seven years."

If the Union of Christian Democrats and Centrists [UDC], through its secretary, Lorenzo Cesa, says that it has "all along been for" a return to nuclear power, the centre-left says no to Scajola's statement. For the first time in a long time, opposition to nuclear power plants runs from the Democratic Party [PD] to the Communist Renewal, and comprises the Greens, the World Wildlife Fund, and all the environmentalists. "At last the government has said something that will make it lose votes," Veltroni's [PD chairman] right-hand man Ermete Realacci says. Roberto Seta, the PD's man in charge of the environment, is even more explicit: "It is an old, ideological, unrealistic, and unpopular proposition." In the PD, however, there are people who, like Pierluigi Bersani, speak in a different tone: "It is the Prodi Government that has taken the first steps towards third-generation nuclear power stations," people on the staff of the former prime minister say. Actually, in the PD's programme there is a yes to this type of technology which, however, will not be available according to specialists, for another 15 years. Theoretically speaking, though, science may shoot ahead: yesterday, for example, Il Sole 24 Ore on-line recounted a successful experiment of cold fusion at Osaka University: the dream of all environmentalists. However, a possible nuclear power plant is the one Scajola proposes. It remains to be seen whether the cornerstone of a nuclear station will really be laid in Italy. Urso safeguards himself: "Let us not forget that, two years ago Albania, was available for this project."

Source: La Stampa website, Turin, in Italian 23 May 08

It seems once again that the ruling class of Europe are reaching for an expensively marketed technical fix that will not only not solve the most pressing energy related problems, but will create and sustain a whole series of new and continuing problems like waste disposal, security of supply, runaway costs, lack of resilience and vulnerability to attack.

Weekly Links - 12/05/2008

Blogs
Critical Labour Left blogger Dave Osler has started a discussion on the class nature of Ken Livingstone's "progressive alliance" following Ken's latest Guardian article.

Green Left blogger Jim has an article on the Green-Ken "alliance" from the Green perspective (responding to the Independent publishing a critical letter on it from a "former" ultra-rightist, political tourist and all round dodgy individual), and also talks about Burma.

Sian Berry, the Green's Mayoral candidate posted her response to the result of the campaign on her New Statesman blog on Friday.

Meanwhile, GPEW Male PS Derek Wall posted an appeal for support for Zimbabwe's persecuted trades unionists on the Socialist Unity Blog.

Human Rights
The Amnesty International short film The Stuff Of Life exposing the reality of the torture known as "waterboarding" has been creating a real stir. You can watch it (not for the faint hearted or squeamish) here.

Nuclear Issues
An interesting analysis of some of the reasons why the British Government's enthusiasm for nuclear new build is misplaced by a member of the ruling party and former Cabinet Minister was published in the Guardian last week.

The Left
Former Soviet dissident and Socialist Boris Kagarlitsky had an article published by the CPGB this week giving his take on the choices facing the Left in Europe. Basically he diagnoses a fatal combination of utopianism and then disastrous alliance with the neo-liberal captured "centre left" in the name of "realism".

International
The Australian Green Left magazine last month had an article on the global food crisis and the role played in that by Biofuels.

Green Politics
The Crewe and Nantwich By-election is scheduled for next week on 22nd May and campaigning is well under way. The Greens have a young candidate, Robert Smith, fighting on a progressive platform with a focus on transport and the issue of the disaster that has been rail privatisation.

Aldermaston Demo Pics and Reports

As promised on Monday here are some pics and reports from the 50th Anniversary CND demos at Aldermaston.

Here are some pics and a report from the East Midlands contingent, posted on Indymedia.

More pictures here.

From the MSM, here is the report from the Independent, and here from the Guardian.

Weekly Links - 24/03/2008

Today is the anti-nuclear demonstration at Aldermaston marking 50 years of CND (The Campaign For Nuclear Disarmament.) I will hopefully be able to post some links to reports later in the week. First here are some photographs from the 15th March anti-war demo in London posted on the Green Party Trade Union Group blog. The blog also advertises the South East London Health Rally planned for Saturday 29th March.

Around the blogs this week A Very Public Sociologist comments on the turmoil within the Labour Party in Scotland, and Jim at The Quiet Road started a discussion on CO2 emissions per barrel of various oil products here, and continued it with corrections to some dubious oil company data here.

Chicken Yoghurt and Enemies of Reason blogs have posts about the human-animal embryo debate.

Smiffy has a post on Cedar Lounge Revolution blog dissecting the latest war apologetics of Christopher Hitchens which found their way to the Irish Times after being published in Slate (Warning for those of a nervous disposition - it starts with a truly stomach churning pic of Hitchens in the shower!) Dave Osler this week looked at the Iraq War anniversary.

Louise posted on the "counter terrorism" bill at the Socialist Unity blog this week, while Charlie Marks at Rebellion Sucks commented on the failure of the Police to prosecute the Tory MP at the centre of a nepotistic corruption scandal.

Liam MacUaid reports on the experience of attending a local Catholic Mass over Easter, while Jack Ray comments on the current debate around religion, race and politics in the US started by the words of Barack Obama's associate Reverend Wright. Green Left Infoasis has comment on similar topics from Cynthia McKinney.

Lastly, Derek Wall at Another Green World over the weekend blogged on food miles and the despicable behaviour of Foreign Office Minister and Columbian regime apologist Kim Howells.

Earthquake - Spooky !?

Did the earth move for you too?

We just had an earthquake/tremor ovenight in England, it was pretty unpleasant as it seemed (from here) to gradually grow in intensity - we woke up with the feeling of something huge and loud coming closer and closer which wasn't a nice experience.

The BBC report is here.

I don't want to go all conspiracist, but it does seem a little spooky that apparently a former nuclear weapons storage site that has since been used for explosives testing was very near the reported epicentre of the 'quake'! See here -

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/02/392386.html?c=on#c190017

(Note - the "green syndicalist" who posts on Indymedia is not me, but someone I know.)

50th Anniversary of First Aldermaston Peace March

The peace movement of the 1980's - mobilising against the threat of tactical nuclear weapons and the insane idea of "limited" or "theatre" nuclear war in Europe - was part of my introduction to politics. The marches, rallies and demonstrations against the siting of Cruise, Pershing II and SS20 missiles in Europe were formative experiences of activism and public protest for me. CND - the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament - was central to the movement in Britain, but started even earlier, in the 1950s with mobilisations against global nuclear testing and weapons development at Aldermaston.

Recently even the Tory journalist Matthew Parris had to recognise that CND and the broader peace movement played a crucial role in raising public awareness of the nuclear threat and created a more restricted environment for political and military figures who wished to take risks or act beligerently. The peace movement also was a key field in the early development of the New Left in Britain, and the arena in which Civil Disobedience and Nonviolent Direct Action (NVDA) were developed by the likes of the Committee of 100. In turn, the Committee was the subject of a popular Peace News Pamphlet published during the 1980's revival called "From Protest To Resistance" - a slogan taken up by many radicals at the time and used as the title of a song by 80's anarcho-punks Conflict.

This year sees the 50th anniversary of the famous original Aldermaston marches, recalled in the original march organiser Peggy Duff's interesting autobiography, "Left Left Left".

The following is an invitation from CND to this year's 50th anniversary protest at Aldermaston on Easter Monday, 24th March at 12 noon.

We invite you to participate in a lively demonstration against the development of nuclear weapons at Aldermaston and to celebrate 50 years of anti-nuclear protest in Britain.

This Easter marks the 50th anniversary of the first march to the Atomic Weapons Establishment Aldermaston - the heart of Britain's nuclear weapons programme. We need you - and your friends, colleagues, communities, and networks - to surround the base and create a colourful, effective, and massive demonstration.

With parliament voting in March 2007 for a new fleet of nuclear armed submarines, and with the construction of facilities for a new generation of nuclear warheads already underway at Aldermaston, it's time to send a clear message to the government that 50 years is enough!

While celebrating five decades of sustained campaigning against nuclear weapons, the emphasis will be on embracing the future, pushing for disarmament and working together to build a broad movement that grows from strength to strength.

The event will be lively, with each gate at the site being linked to a different era - with appropriate decoration and entertainment - and is being organised by CND national and regional groups and people from the wider anti-nuclear, peace and anti-war movements. If you would like to get involved in organising for this event in your area, please get in touch.

Groups can come dressed as they want, could be in theme with the gates, or as weapons inspectors, or campaigners from the future, or as nuclear bombs, or flowers!

The possibilities are endless! The event will be organised using the ' Block' structure so that your group comes ready to take up as much space around the site as possible. We have a website for your 'Block' to add their details and how much space they can take up along the fence line.

For Example, Eastern Block, dressing as nuclear cowboys can take up 200 meters of fence line using 2 banners 100 people and a radioactive horse prop!

That's just an example.

We need to start mobilising now and get our coaches booked and the seats full! It will take 5,000 people to surround Aldermaston AWE. The developments at Aldermaston are well on their way, we need to move our campaigning to the next stage, build an even stronger movement and stop the development of new nuclear weapons. THE BOMB STOPS HERE!


Aldermaston 2008 is organised by CND

For more information email: mellcndeast@cnduk.org or call 0845 3370282

Weekly Links - 20/01/2008

An eclectic mix this week.

A debate has raged on Comment Is Free after right wing loon David Cox posted an article suggesting that the Russians' active SETI (Search for extra terrestrial intelligence) is a threat to humanity.

Elsewhere on CIF reactionary philosopher John Gray lays into the Greens and suggests we are all (note how we are somehow a homogenous movement and uniform in our beliefs) no different to George Bush. Gray exposes himself as a Lovelock fan, but ignorant and simplistic on the topic he is discussing.

Earlier in the week Gordon Walker of Lancaster University covered the question I raised on my blog this week with regard to the siting of these putative new reactors.

A report on Indymedia of the anti-fascist meeting I blogged about on Friday.

Around the blogs, Jim is talking about Ethics, Derek is discussing biofuels, Louise reviews the new Coen brothers film on the Socialist Unity Blog, and Anton at Enemies of Reason has been looking at New Labour increasing inequality.

Cedar Lounge Revolution has a report on the Irish Greens vote on whether to take sides on the Lisbon Treaty vote (another rightward shift as far as I am concerned, with voters lobbied by unwanted intervention from the sold out, corrupted and decaying ghost of 1968, Cohn Bendit..... grrrr!)

UK Coastal Report Shows Major Flaw In Nuclear Plan

A report on the changes happening on Britain's coast and the likely effects of climate change has once again illuminated one of the flaws in the government's nuclear energy plans. The government approval for a new generation of reactors was officially announced last week - but the government have for a long time made it clear that they want the next wave of reactors to be sited at existing nuclear generating plants. Aside from fairly minor logistical concerns this appears to be largely for political reasons. (They gamble that resistance and unpopularity will be much less at existing facilities) In the UK this means largely coastal sites - some of them, like Dungeness, already requiring constant attention to ward off the encroaching seas.

The government sponsored Marine Climate Change Impacts Partnership report, as reported by the BBC says "seas are becoming more violent, causing coastal erosion and a higher risk of flooding". Furthermore, "The increasing choppiness of coastal waters means that 17% of Britain's coastline is being eroded. England is feeling the impact most, with 30% of its coast affected, compared to 23% for Wales and 12% in Scotland."

"An increasing trend in extreme water levels has been observed," the report concludes, which is most likely to be caused by the rise in average sea level, and which brings an increased risk of flooding.

MCCIP expects rising sea levels and an increase in storm intensity to spread the extent of erosion in future.

Even in the short term this is likely to mean expensive and CO2 emitting activity is required to defend the power stations against the seas. As the sea levels rise (with the now wideley predicted melting, for example, of the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets) the situation may become untenable - and remember the decommissioning and making safe of nuclear sites can take up to a century to achieve at the moment. The potential for extreme weather events and tidal surges presents an even more alarming scenario.

As I have said before, we have now gone beyond "business as usual" and even beyond the point of desperate measures (which is what the nuclear option is - as well as ineffective, expensive and dangerous). We must think of survival and giving those of our species who do survive te coming events a fighting chance. The nuclear option looks more and more like it will severely degrade those survival chances.

Brown Govt. Greenlights New Nukes

So, it is now official, the Brown Government sort of, half unconvinced, believes in the nuclear "technical fix" to the Climate Crisis. I say sort of, because the whole announcement and the things that it means the government is going to do remain shrouded in spin and obfuscation. Hutton was on C4 News and was adamant that the piece in the White Paper that talked about Carbon Pricing did not mean they were going to rig the market for the nuclear industry. He wriggled like a fish on the hook when it was suggested the government were going to pick up the bill for cleaning up the mess and said the companies would have to build in the cost of decommissioning and waste management into their plans. Oh yeah? Hmmm

The whole announcement and the government's stance reeks of their being stuck in a mass of contradictions - their commitment to the free market coming up against their wish to be seen to be doing something about the coming energy crisis and their wish to be seen as "green" coming up against their instincts and previous practice of pushing costs into the future and living on the never-never. I would not be surprised if the private argument in the govt. is that if the nuclear industry cannot deliver then they, and/or the pesky greens, can be blamed for the energy crisis, and the big "gap" forecast for 2015-20. Then the government's nuclear pals can be given loads of extra cash to "solve the problem" if the public will wear it, or be quietly marginalised if they won't. It amounts to political gambling with our environmental and energy future in a most dishonest way.

Suffice it to say that the Brown Government is once again exposed as Janus faced - talking about reducing emissions and approving new runways, motorway expansions and the likely expensive and environmentally nasty "stop gap" measure of further gas and coal fired power stations. Then a return to nuclear when the public have been softened up by the effects (high fuel bills and energy shortages) of the government's own incompetence. All this avoids the real short term wins of energy efficiency and conservation and new renewables and the necessary massive investment to bring this about. If (when) the nuclear option has to be bailed out, it will siphon off the resources needed for further growth in renewables, CHP, Biomass etc.

Plenty of stuff on the net about this -

BBC Report here.

Peter Tatchell on "Gordon's Nuclear Con Trick"

Tony Juniper of Friends of The Earth comments.

John Sauven of Greenpeace's view here

Green Party of England and Wales view here.

Caroline Lucas MEP view here.

A Blogging response from -
Derek Wall

And last, but not least a relevant story from Socialist Unity Blog

Climate - Dire Warnings And Faint Hopes

With the Bali summit underway a range of articles across the media on the issues. Good to see the palm oil and deforestation issue getting some coverage. I read in a recent article by Ronnie Hall of the Global Forest Coalition that deforestation is equivalent to one fifth of the world's greenhouse gas emissions - more than the contribution of cars, ships and planes combined. Much of this deforestation occurs to supply land for palm oil used in a vast range of products in developed economies and for timber (often illegally logged.)
Ronnie suggests that rather than spend so much time fiddling about with largely ineffective carbon markets and carbon trading the conference attendees should spend some time addressing this problem.

Elsewhere, a rather depressing article from George Monbiot on the shifting of goalposts caused by newer data on climate change (accompanied as ever in the comments by the usual chorus of naysayers, deniers, professional contrarians and blatant hate merchants.)

It becomes clearer and clearer that the nature of the crisis facing us and its likely effects makes the favoured "nuclear solution" of the neo-liberals less and less of a good idea. Apart from the fact that further nuclear plant cannot possibly be brought on line globally in sufficient quanities and quick enough to make a significant impact the fact remains that nuclear power is not a resilient (to use the terminology of the emergency planners) enough technology to survive the coming upheavals that now seem inevitable to a greater or lesser extent. Further nuclear plant will hinder mitigation, and eat resources needed for both mitigation and adaptation. It is a "carry on as though nothing is happening and no changes are needed in consumption patterns or resilience of communities and energy supplies" option that will aid nuclear proliferation and scatter toxic timebombs across the globe in the face of the rising sea levels, social disruption and probably wars that are coming.

What is needed is a massive turn to distributed, resilient, renewable energy generation, and social and economic changes on a global scale to take away the power of those who have got us into this situation (and are likely to doom us all if they continue along their current path of limited action and complacency) and give it to the people.

Young European Greens Oppose Return of Nuclear Power

The following is a news release from FYEG - the Federation on Young European Greens.

The Federation of Young European Greens (FYEG) participated last weekend in the celebrations (in Rome) of 20 years without nuclear energy in the transalpine country of Italy. The event, organized by Giovani Verdi (Italian Young Greens) was supported by more than 10.000 people from all over the country and by activists coming from different countries in Europe.

Marina Barbalata, Spokesperson of FYEG, comments: “In 1987, Italy voted against the use of nuclear energy sources. 20 years later, opinion polls and the high level of mobilisation in last weekends’ demonstrations show that Italian citizens’ strong feelings against atomic energy have not changed. Hence, there is no point in trying to re-open the debate and if that appears to happen it is merely due to powerful economic interests that do not care of neither public opinion nor citizens’ safety. Furthermore, it is cynical and thus unacceptable that nuclear lobbies use climate change as a pretext for the use of atomic energy. It is a fact that we are not speaking at all about a clean energy source, especially considering the risks of a catastrophe and abuse for criminal purposes. The fact is that so far there are no solutions for the safe disposal of radioactive waste, let alone the menace it poses in terms of potential atomic weapons proliferation. Assuming nuclear energy is the solution for climate change is similar to putting a patch to an open wound – it will turn an existing problem into an even bigger one.”

Rafi Korn, National coordinator of Giovani Verdi and Project Coordinator of FYEG, shows his satisfaction to the positive response to the event. However, he underlines: “Climate change and nuclear energy are both global threats and therefore we must take a global approach to both. We can not just adopt the Nimby attitude (Not in my backyard), and pretend that it is all over when we have accomplished having our nearest region free of nuclear power plants. Moving power plants to Eastern Europe under the camouflage of an economic injection towards development, as illustrated by the cases of the Mochovce and Belene power plants in Slovakia and Bulgaria, is not the solution. In order to be completely safe from the nuclear threat, a worldwide ban is required.”

Marc Giménez, Campaign Coordinator of FYEG, also points out: “There are economic and political aspects in addition to the social and ecological criteria that cannot be overlooked when talking about nuclear and energy policies in the EU in general. First of all, nuclear power plants can only provide around 15% of the EU’s energy demand, thus it is in no case a complete solution, but a merely partial one. Therefore, the risks taken by using atomic energy are unjustified in comparison to the solutions it provides. Moreover, it does not solve the external dependence on raw materials. There is little uranium found on EU territory and the uranium resources on the Globe are concentrated in specific regions. This can very well lead to future geopolitical tensions, as oil and gas resources cause today. Renewable energies on the other hand are unlimited and there is plenty of accessibility to them. Thus, it is clear that renewables are the only sustainable energy form of the future.”


For images of the Rome demonstration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Thz4ABCuwk

FYEG is currently running a campaign against climate change and the fight against a nuclear renaissance is one of the major issues covered


www.fyeg.blogspot.com

BP - Beyond Parody?

The latest news about BP (who like to trumpet their ethical nature and their aim to go "Beyond Petroleum") does not really surprise me, but nevertheless is worth noting!

The oil company BP today accepted blame for failures to protect employees, the environment and consumers as it agreed to hand over a total of $373m (£136.5m) to settle a string of criminal investigations into its conduct across America.

If the BP fines were not enough we have this fine bit of "splinter and plank" posturing from the legal representative of a government given to launching aggressive resource wars with the use of depleted-uranium munitions, stealing elections and handing out contracts in conquered territories to corporate pals:

The acting attorney general, Peter Keisler, said the deal demonstrated the US government's commitment to enforce laws to protect the integrity of both financial markets and the environment.

"Businesses that ignore those laws and endanger their workers and communities or corrupt our markets must be held accountable," said Mr Keisler.

You really couldn't make it up, could you?

Meanwhile, in Britain government policy wonks have been caught out planning the ditching and sabotaging of renewable energy targets. However, at the same time the government's transparently favoured nuclear newbuild is under threat from various problems and disagreements before the ink is dry on their fake nuclear consultation exercise. This has drawn comment from the likes of John Sauven of Greenpeace and John Vidal, the Guardian's Environment correspondent.

Meanwhile the European Commission seems set to back the building of further reactors in earthquake zones, as in Bulgaria.

Important New Report On Nuclear Power Expansion

Here is the Guardian story on the Oxford Research Group report on the nuclear industry.

A worldwide expansion of nuclear power has little chance of significantly reducing carbon emissions but will add dangerously to the proliferation of nuclear weapons-grade materials and the potential for nuclear terrorism, says a leading research group that has analysed the possible uptake of civil atomic power over the next 65 years.

The Oxford Research Group paper, funded by the Joseph Rowntree charitable trust, says that the worldwide nuclear "renaissance" planned by the industry to provide cheap, clean power is a myth. Although global electricity demand is expected to rise by 50% in the next 25 years, only 25 new nuclear reactors are currently being built, with 76 more planned and a further 162 proposed, many of which are unlikely to be built. This compares with 429 reactors in operation today, many of which are already near the end of their useful lives and need replacing soon.

Debunking The Base-Load Fallacy

With the British Government's Energy proposals being published this week, nuclearphiles, government apologists and others have taken it upon themselves to use the "base load" argument as their main weapon in debate on comment and talk boards and elsewhere. It is with this in mind that I publish a link to an article on the Australian Green Lefts:Left Greens blog that debunks their argument. The article is by Dr Mark Diesendorf.

Dr Mark Diesendorf is Director of Sustainability Centre Pty Ltd and Senior Lecturer in Environmental Studies at University of New South Wales. He is co-editor with Clive Hamilton of the interdisciplinary book, “Human Ecology, Human Economy: Ideas for an Ecologically Sustainable Future”, and co-author of the national scenario study, “A Clean Energy Future for Australia”.

Base-load alternatives to coal power can be provided by efficient energy use, bioenergy, wind power, solar thermal electricity with thermal storage, geothermal and gas. Large-scale wind power from geographically distributed sites is not ‘intermittent’. However it may require a little additional low-cost peak-load back-up from gas turbines.


Opponents of renewable energy, from the coal and nuclear industries and from NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) groups, are disseminating the fallacy that renewable energy cannot provide base-load power to substitute for coal-fired electricity. Even Government Ministers and some ABC journalists are propagating this conventional ‘wisdom’, although it is false. The political implications are that, if the fallacy becomes widely believed to be true, renewable energy would always have to remain a niche market, rather than achieve its true potential of becoming a set of mainstream energy supply technologies.

The full article can be found here.

And for further information, here is the Australian Energy Science website.

Planning Steamroller Set To Roll

You can often tell how important to New Labour it is to pass a (usually dubious) piece of legislation from the amount of spin and media manipulation accompanying its launch. Judging from the media manipulation surrounding the forthcoming Planning White Paper, (expected last week but now due for release this week alongside the energy proposals) this neo-liberal legislation is seen as crucial by New Labour apparatchiks. It is being accompanied by more spin than Walford Launderette!

The proposed legislation is being trailed in the compliant media as "helping you get loft conversions and conservatories approved easier and cheaper". This is magnifying the "sweetener" of the documents to overshadow the main drift of the legislation. And even the "sweetener" element has problems from a conservationist point of view, as indicated by the CPRE response. As Friends of the Earth have commented, the legislation is more about sucking up to big business and smoothing the way for massive expansion of airports, the new wave of incinerators, and the projected nuclear "renewal".

Greenpeace are also on the case. The planning proposals will result in big business and compliant local and regional authorities riding roughshod over the objections of local communities. The current planning system often leaves you negotiating over the colour of the fence of the chemical plant, rather than whether it should be sited there at all - the new proposals in "speeding up" and "simplifying" planning are likely to remove even the semblance of public involvement and consultation.

It is no coincidence that the planning proposals come out in the same week as the Energy proposals - the two are co-dependent. The government know that they would be in for a rough ride through the current planning system if they tried to bring in their nuclear programme without planning changes. Of course, they would most likely still get it through, but it would take longer and the falsehoods and manipulation behind their case would stand more chance of being publicly revealed. The longer it took, also, the more effective and financially attractive the renewable alternatives would be.

The energy proposals are also surrounded by acres of spin and falsehood. For example the claim at the end of this mildly critical, but still government-friendly Observer story that if the nuclear programme did not go ahead we would be dependent for "90%" of our energy requirement from "environmentally unfriendly gas-fired power stations and imports from unstable regions such as the Middle East and Russia". This is a complete distortion and manipulation of the figures, with one suspects, petrol and diesel imports for transport uses thrown into the equation and assuming no expansion in the renewables capacity.

The government know that a massive programme of energy saving, insulation, efficiency improvements - particularly in public and commercial buildings, but also in improvements to old housing stock and regulation of new build housing - and microgeneration could have a great effect on demand, and that the investment proposed for nuclear new build could be much more effectively spent on renewables. They are tied, however, to the multinational energy corporations who see mega profits to be made from nuclear new build now the climate crisis has swept away the financial objections (money is "no object" now). The role of the new planning changes in smoothing the way for new airport runways and incinerators gives the lie to the government's "climate change concern" reason for going nuclear. It is also ironic and transparent spin that the neo-liberals who tell us we do not need a manufacturing base and can rely on the rest of the world for cheap labour, manufactured products, food and just about everything else suddenly become dyed-in-the-wool protectionists and nationalists when it comes to energy. So food security and a manufacturing base are irrelevant but energy requires us to draw up the drawbridge? If it does come to the absolute crunch - unlikely if the transition to a low carbon, renewables based economy is done properly, but for the sake of argument say it did come to the crunch - what is to stop Britain buying nuclear generated energy from France to cover brief periods of high demand? After all the French have 'thoughtfully' situated much of their nuclear capacity in the North on the Channel coast to 'share the risk' with Southern England should there be an accident! And France is not at the moment an "unstable region" as far as I can tell!

Let New Labour and the corporatist Brown know, they may think this is going to be smooth sailing for them, but plenty of us have them rumbled and know who is really pulling the strings. Let battle commence.