Tag: nuclear-power

We Shouldn’t Fund Nuclear

Tony StauntonLeave a comment

My weekly Comment column in the daily Plymouth Herald (21.10.25), asking the obvious, stirring-up dissent in this city dominated by the Navy and the Trident Nuclear dockyard.
The point is to raise the issues for the environmental movement here ahead of COP30. There is an acquiescence to new nuclear power which has to be challenged. With 600 words its impossible to deal with the arguments against both nuclear power and nuclear weapons together, but a longer article does. That’s why the published version is below, followed by the longer version if you have the time and commitment! No to Nuclear Power! Teachers not Trident! Nurses not Nukes! Welfare not Warfare! ☮️

Watch the movie – House of Dynamite – Netflix from Friday!

The threat of nuclear war doesn’t seem to hit hit the top ten on anyone’s worry-list these days. Nuclear radiation is all around us, from Radon gas to reactor-emissions. The new, overpriced and polluting nuclear power plants are supposed to save us from climate disaster. Why should we worry?
Understand one thing. The nuclear industry is a single corporate industry uniting the technologies and infrastructure for producing both nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Weapons manufacture utilises the staff and resources required for nuclear power. Indeed, because nuclear power is so expensive and unprofitable, requiring massive tax-subsidies and ridiculously overpriced electricity charges, it wouldn’t exist without the nuclear weapons industry.
If you oppose nuclear weapons you’re bound to also oppose nuclear power. You can’t have the one without the other.
Why is the UK producing nuclear weapons? Shouldn’t we decommission them all, now? They are illegal weapons of indiscriminate mass destruction, condemned under international law and banned by 150 countries. They don’t stop nuclear war, they encourage it – when the US and UK produce new generations of nuclear warheads and carrier missiles, they require Russia and China to do the same, and more. In response to the bombings from USA and Israel, Iran has now withdrawn from any nuclear agreements. In response to the threat of deploying US Tomahawk nuclear-armed missiles to Ukraine, Russia is deploying intermediate-range nuclear-armed missiles. The stage is set.
Trump is pushing NATO to be nuclear-war-ready – the nuclear exchanges will fly first into Europe, not the USA. There has been a “bonfire of nuclear treaties”, destroying the old nuclear order. We are in new and uncharted nuclear territory. Last month, Plymouth MP and “Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry”, Luke Pollard told us, “you all know that we are not at war, but nor are we at peace any longer.”
Britain is one of 191 countries signed-up to the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) agreeing not to expand the nuclear arsenals, yet is building a complete new nuclear weapons system at the cost to the tax-payer of £13bn a year, breaking all Treaties that have sought to limit and disarm.
To rearm, the UK will shift from £62bn now to £74bn by 2027, working towards 5% of GDP to be spent on military with a heavy reliance in nuclear weaponry. The total nuclear bill of £210bn should instead be spent on our deteriorating social infrastructure, schools, hospitals and welfare benefits.
We have entered a new arms race as part of European rearmament, with much reliance upon nuclear weapons. We remain under the ever-darkening shadow of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).
The latest book by Annie Jacobsen, “Nuclear War, a Scenario”, half novel, half scientific manual, offers an in-depth account of modern nuclear weaponry, its proliferation and risks. It’s a “must read”, not only for peaceniks and environmentalists, but for everyone. It proves how much at risk we are of nuclear war by accident if not design, triggered by unregulated, poorly-programmed and hackable Artificial Intelligence.
Now it has been adapted into a film – “House of Dynamite” available on Netflix from Friday 24th October, which exposes the issues and vulnerabilities of the current deployment of nuclear weapons. Please watch it, and then join us to stop Trump placing US nuclear weapons on UK soil at Lakenheath, stop Starmer buying Trump’s air-launched B61-12 tactical nuclear missiles for use with F35A fighters stationed at Marham, and stop spending £205bn on new Trident nuclear weapons launched from the Vanguard and Dreadnought submarines destined to be serviced in Devonport, Plymouth. Join the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and say No to Nukes! http://www.CNDUK.org

_——————-
The threat of nuclear radiation doesn’t hit the top twenty on anyone’s worry-list these days. We’re mostly surviving despite it. Indeed, X-Rays of our lungs and organs are routine, despite releasing the ionising radiation and radioactive particles can cause cancer by damaging DNA. We want the medical diagnosis. How many tumours are caused by radiation damage is not known. The fact of the damage is well proven, not least from the aftermath of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the meltdowns at Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear power stations. Radiation makes people sick.
More locally, the naturally occurring radon gas, formed by decaying uranium found in rocks, is now the subject of controversy at Dartmoor prison – closed-down simply because of radioactive contamination. Radon is a leading cause of cancer in the UK and jail staff supported by their trade union, alongside up to 300 prisoners and former inmates, are seeking a legal challenge over their potential exposure to the gas. Uranium is the hard-to-refine ore essential to the production of nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons.
Plymouth is built upon the same radioactive rock and radon is a recognised threat inside our buildings. That may have been one of the criteria for Plymouth being the chosen centre for nuclear vessels and the Trident nuclear weapons-carrying submarines. Just add some more nuclear radiation to the already-present radioactive cluster, who would notice? In hindsight that wasn’t so clever. It costs the Ministry of Defence more than £30million each year to keep the 13 rotting hulks of nuclear subs from emitting the deadly pollution into our City. In any case, how would we know what radiation levels are attributable to the Devonport nuclear dockyard?
We know that radiation is dangerous and causes sickness and death. However you look at it, nuclear energy is not “clean energy” as currently described by Starmer’s government. And nuclear power is not a renewable. It produces radioactive waste. In every plan for new nuclear power plants, large or small, there is no costing for the “clean-up” and storage of radioactive waste some of which takes hundreds and even thousands of years to decay to a safe level.
We’ll have to just live with it, you say, and anyway “they” will solve the waste problem (whoever they are), eventually. Campaigners against the Sellafield new nuclear build are demanding that the Chancellor of Exchequer adds the cost of radioactive waste storage to the already astronomical cost of the nuclear power plant – the technology now completely outdated and redundant because of the rise of real renewables – energy production from solar, wind and wave power. The private corporations profiting from nuclear will never accept liability – the multi-billion cost of clean-up forever a liability for the tax-payer.
Understand one thing. The nuclear industry is a single corporate industry uniting the technologies and infrastructure for producing both nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Weapons manufacture needs the staff and resources in place because of the much larger scale of resources required for nuclear power. Indeed, because nuclear power is so expensive and unprofitable without massive tax-subsidies and the overpriced charges to the consumer, it wouldn’t exist without the nuclear weapons industry. If you oppose nuclear weapons you’re bound to oppose nuclear power. You can’t have the one without the other.
So why nuclear weapons? Surely we should decommission them all, now? They are illegal weapons of indiscriminate mass destruction, the subject of international law and banned by 148 countries. They don’t stop nuclear war, they encourage it – when the US and UK produce new generations of nuclear warheads and carrier missiles, they require Russia and China to do the same, and more. In response to the bombings from USA and Israel, Iran has now withdrawn from any nuclear agreements. In response to the potential use of US Tomahawk missiles, Russia has once again said it will deploy intermediate-range nuclear-armed missiles.
Trump is pushing NATO to nuclear-readiness – the nuclear exchanges will fly first into Europe, not the USA. There has been a “bonfire of nuclear treaties”, destroying the old nuclear order. We are in new and uncharted nuclear territory. Last month, Plymouth MP and “Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry”, Luke Pollard told us, “you all know that we are not at war, but nor are we at peace any longer.”
Britain is a signatory to the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty agreeing not to expand the nuclear arsenals, yet is building a complete new nuclear weapons system at the cost to the tax-payer of £13bn a year, breaking all Treaties that have sought to limit and disarm. To rearm, the UK will shift from £62bn now to £74bn by 2027, working towards 5% of GDP to be spent on military with a heavy reliance in nuclear weaponry. All this at a huge cost to our deteriorating social infrastructure, schools, hospitals and welfare benefits.
We have entered a new arms race as part of the European rearmament drive, with much focus being on nuclear weapons. We remain under the ever-darkening shadow of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).
The latest book by Annie Jacobsen, “Nuclear War, a Scenario”, half novel, half scientific manual, offers an in-depth account of modern nuclear weaponry, its proliferation and risks. It’s a “must read”, not only for peaceniks and environmentalists, but for everyone. It proves how much at risk we are of nuclear war by accident if not design, aided and abetted by unregulated, poorly-programmed and unmanageable Artificial Intelligence.
Now it has been adapted into a film – “House of Dynamite” a “must see”! Opening on Netflix this Friday evening, 24th October, it exposes the issues and vulnerabilities of the current development and placement of nuclear weapons. Please watch it, and then pledge to join us to stop Trump placing US nuclear weapons on UK soil at Lakenheath, and stop Starmer buying Trump’s air-launched B61-12 tactical nuclear missiles for use with F35A fighters stationed at Marham, and from spending £205bn on new Trident nuclear weapons launched from the Vanguard and Dreadnought subs destined to be serviced in Devonport, Plymouth. Join the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and say No to Nukes!

Labour Dumps the Climate

Tony StauntonLeave a comment

The hypocrisy and negligence of the political class in Britain is second to none. Amongst all the travesties, from the inhumanity towards Palestinians in Gaza to the one-in-three children living in relative poverty here at home, the disassociation of politicians from the lives of the vast majority is total. The denial of Climate Chaos is just one element, but a crucial one. This is the unedited version of my weekly Comment in the daily Plymouth Herald newspaper, wholly inadequate in the face of the absurdity and corruption of Parliamentary politics today.

So, not only the Tories but  now the Labour Party have dropped their pledges towards emissions reductions. Labour have taken away the pledge of £28 billion a year promised to protect us from global warming. 

Workers want the the investment in new infrastructure, Labour’s green industrial policy promising new jobs at a time when vacancies are falling and companies going bust, better public transport as travel costs escalate, cleaner city air to combat extreme pollution levels, and cheaper electricity, or at least affordable! 

Now it looks like the remaining funds identified will be eaten-up by the continued commitment to the absurdly expensive and wasteful nuclear power programme at the expense of all else.

Germany, meanwhile, alongside states across Europe and even the USA, is increasing investment, the country’s investment bank identifying green (non-nuclear) investment to a total of 15% of the country’s Gross Domestic Product. 

Britain needs the same level of infrastructure rebuild, if not more.

After the hottest year ever, with extreme weather shocking and destroying communities across the world, 2023 officially crossed the safe limit for global temperature increase. Yet there is no part of our political establishment prepared to take the threat of the deepening climate crisis seriously. 

Our economy, our food supply, our personal safety, indeed our freedom is at risk from the global Climate Catastrophe. We are facing disaster.

Why would politicians not act? It would appear that their prime purpose is to trumpet denial in front of the deniers. The political chase for the far-right and populist vote has become very dangerous. Tories are chasing the far-right “Reform” vote, Labour is chasing the Tory vote. The Greens have shifted rightwards to prove their commitment to a Capitalist future.

None are representative. Years of research prove that the vast majority of workers are concerned about climate change. Why wouldn’t we be? We have children and grandchildren, we enjoy the Great Outdoors, and we really value the world’s wildlife. There is huge concern for the growing level of extinction of everything from polar bears to bees, and we are more alert than ever to the threat from toxic pollution, chemicals and plastics.

Our collective problem is our own perceived lack of agency. We are continually instructed and moralised to that we should change our lifestyles, as if this is all our fault. But, whilst most of us recycle, we simply haven’t the resources to make the scale of change needed.

So when people in power instruct us to move away from car use whilst at the same time cutting back on public transport, we rightly feel put-upon and abused. 

When low-emissions zones are proposed to limit the high levels of debilitating city pollution but we are fined rather than facilitated, it is in the context of human rights that we shout-out and challenge the imposition.

When we are shouted at from a moral high-ground to buy an electric car when half our income goes out in rent and the other half in food and utilities, our personal debt racked-up by avaricious bankers and fossil fuel corporations, our blood rightly boils! 

But this is not climate denial! It is our outrage at the intentional demolition of society.

Working class families expect and demand a health service free at the point of need, an education service as-of-right for each of our children, a safe community to live in. Only the very rich care nothing for social infrastructure funded through the common purse, because they alone, the top fifteen percent. The rich are self-sufficient, protected in their accumulated wealth – they don’t need society and are contemptuous of it.

But it can also feel we are being talked down to and patronised by a middle class who at least have some agency and lifestyle choices. 

For the rest of us, our very survival requires the industries and System reliant on fossil fuels to be changed, completely, at societal level. 

The end of reliance on fossil fuels is a collective economic necessity. All the wealth, resource and technology is available now with which to save humanity and the environment, it is only the investment that is not.

We need government that organises and manages the basic needs of life. Our human drive for existence drives our demand for the infrastructure to prevent climate chaos and adapt to ensure safety from periods of extreme weather – floods, fires, droughts – as a basic human right.

The political class, overwhelmingly members of the top 5% of the wealthy, is cut-off from the lives of the vast majority of us, the working class. In this pre-election period they are second-guessing what we think, misinformed by absurdly superficial feedback from tiny chat-groups and social network 

The last thing we need is moralistic lectures from above. Essentially, we need agency.

Eleven million homes require insulation and refit away from gas and oil – that means mass funding of jobs and resources to bring our housing into the twenty-first century. We know that private landlords will not dip into their private profits in order to do this, so legislation and tax-cash is vital to force the change. We deserve warmer drier homes, but Labour has now reneged on that promise.

Public transport is not public at all, but run by private companies for their profit. We need massive public investment for an affordable and integrated transport system that gets us where we need to be when we need to be there. We need electrification of our bus and rail systems, Tory and now Labour unprepared to help.

And essentially, we urgently need complete refit of our electricity transmission system so that the renewable energy can get from where it’s made, off-and-onshore, to where it’s needed. 

That’s what Labour promised to do, against the Tory nonsense that the “private sector” will pay for it despite the negative return on any investment. 

Only a mass movement for mass investment, threatening the Vote, will force the political change needed. Only the wealthy can deny the need, even tho’ they, too, will face the social collapse as the climate system fragments. And trade unions have the collective power in workplaces to demand adaptation at an industrial level. It’s time to act!