The United Nations has resolved to modernise international law on the sustainable use of the high seas and their wildlife.

The move could lead to new laws to address many of the oceans most severe problems, including measures to combat over-fishing and illegal fishing, the regulation of ‘by catch’ by fishing vessels, and the conservation of endangered species.

Other issues on the agenda include the protection of the seabed from deep sea mining, ocean acidification from rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, marine biodiversity prospecting, regulation of offshore oil and gas prospecting, and the clean up of vast floating islands of plastic waste.

Following the decision by the United Nations Informal Working Group on Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ), negotiations will now begin for a new international agreement for the sustainable use and conservation of marine biodiversity in the high seas.

Encouraging and historic

The decision was welcomed by David Miliband, Co-chair of the Global Ocean Commission (GOC), who had himself addressed delegates at the BBNJ meeting. It was “encouraging to see the UN agreeing to take action”, he said.

“This was one of the main demands identified by the Global Ocean Commission. I’m glad the message is getting across. The consensus reached last week will be remembered as a milestone in the modernisation of ocean governance.”

GOC Commissioner Robert Hill, who was the first Chairperson of the BBNJ when it was formed in 2006, called last week’s decision “historic”, adding:

“As always with UN processes, the work is far from over. First, we have to ensure the consensus recommendation is not undermined when it goes before the General Assembly in a few months and, second, it will be important to monitor closely the treaty negotiation – including the Preparatory Committee process and ultimately the international conference.”

Last year the GOC called for a new Implementing Agreement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to prioritise ocean health and resilience, restore ocean productivity, guard against irresponsible, inefficient and wasteful exploitation, and allow for the creation of high seas marine protected areas (MPAs).

Such an agreement would extend governance to the 64% of the global ocean – and 45% of the planetary surface – that lies outside national jurisdiction, and provide a mechanism to conserve valuable high seas services such as carbon sequestration, worth between US$74 and US$222 billion annually, currently in jeopardy.

Time to end the high seas ‘failed state’

“The high seas are like a failed state“ , said Miliband. “Poor governance and the absence of policing and management mean valuable resources are unprotected or being squandered. The high seas belong to us all. We know what needs to be done but we can’t do it alone. A joint mission must be our priority.”

The GOC’s call was relayed and supported by more than 285,000 citizens from 111 countries, who signed a petition that was delivered to the UN Secretary General at the opening of the current Session of the UN General Assembly in September last year.

The BBNJ was mandated by the Rio+20 2012 Earth Summit to address the governance and conservation of the high seas – the portion of the ocean beyond a country’s 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone. These areas beyond national jurisdiction represent 64% of the ocean’s surface, and 45% of our entire planet.

Join the call: ‘Help secure a living ocean, food and prosperity – propose a new agreement for high seas protection‘.

“Russian aggression” is the BBC’s meme of the day. I lost count of how many times the phrase popped up in the first 15 minutes of Radio 4’s World at One programme, devoted entirely to the ‘Russian problem – but the theme was drummed in relentlessly.

The idea is that Russia presents a huge a growing threat to world peace and stability. Russian bombers are threatening the ‘English’ Channel (albeit strictly from international airspace). Russia is an expansionist power attacking sovereign nations, Ukraine in particular. And watch it – we’re next!

Commentators wheeled into the studio were unanimous in their views. NATO must stand up to the threat. Presient Vladimir Putin is a dangerous monster who refuses to abide by the rules of the international order. NATO countries must increase their defence spending to counter the Russian menace.

Not a single moderating voice was included in the discussion. No one to ask Jens Stoltenberg, Secretary General of NATO, if alliance aircraft ever fly close to Russia’s borders (they do). No one to point out that the real Ukrainian narrative in is not that of Russia’s ‘annexation’ of Crimea – but of NATO’s US-led annexation of Ukraine itself.

No one to argue that Russia’s assimilation of Crimea was effected with hardly a shot being fired, backed by overwhelming support in a referendum which reflected the popular will – and if you’re in any doubt, just compare it to Israel’s ongoing and endlessly justified annexation of Palestine.

The lies are in what the media don’t tell us

There was no one to discuss NATO’s plan to expand right up to Russia’s boundary with Ukraine, string its missile launchers along the frontier, and to seize the Sebastopol naval base, home to Russia’s Black Sea fleet, and hand it over to the US Navy. Aside: how would the US react if Russia tried that trick in Mexico and Guantanamo, Cuba?

While BBC news is prepared to speak of the million or so refugees from fighting in the Eastern provinces, there is no mention that those refugees have overwhelmingly fled to safety in Russia – a peculiar choice of destination if Russia is indeed the aggressor in the conflict.

Nor is there any mention that the massive humanitarian crisis in Eastern Ukraine that forced the refugees from their homes is overwhelmingly caused by the NATO / Kiev campaign of shelling and rocketing civilian areas of Donetsk and other cities. Or that local rebels’ fierce and ultimately victorious battle for the airport terminal was necessitated by its use as a base for Kiev’s heavy artillery to massacre the ordinary citizens of Donetsk.

Just as there was never any hint from the BBC that the Malaysian MH17 civilian aircraft downed over Eastern Ukraine could possibly have been shot down by any agency other than Russia’s. And now, as indications emerge that MH17 may in fact have been shot down by Ukrainian SU25s, the story has vanished from the news altogether.

And of course the BBC would never reveal, in other than the most guarded terms, that the real threat to world peace and stability is not Russia, which has more than enough resources – and problems to occupy itself with – within its own boundaries, but … NATO itself, and the wider Atlantic Alliance.

The other big threat the BBC endlessly warns of is that of Islamic extremism. But does it ever point out that, until recently, three independent secular regimes stood as firm bulwarks against Islamic extremism: Iraq, Libya and Syria? And if we go back a little further, why not add in Afghanistan, where the US created Al Qaida to overthrow a moderate Islamist regime?

And does the BBC ever point out that it is the deliberate destruction of these secular or moderate regimes by NATO and its allies that created the void that has been filled by Islamic State? And has lead to the growth of Islamic fundamentalism in north and west Africa, including the murderous Boko Haram?

Or does it ever let slip that 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were in fact citizens of Saudi Arabia, our great ally in the Middle East, and that this made NATO’s choice of Afghanistan as the country to go to war against a little … paradoxical?

It’s deju-vu all over again …

Anyway – the BBC’s dismal performance today on “Russian aggression” stirred up memories – memories of the run up to the Iraq war, when the BBC was similarly gung-ho in its depictions of Saddam Hussein as a real and present danger to us all, whose ambitions had to be countered by military force.

This gives me to cause to fear that we are being softened up for war. But this time, there’s a difference. Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction were, as many of us suspected, but we all now know, an invention of our mendacious politicans and intelligence services.

But Russia’s nuclear weapons are all too real, as is the danger they present. A full scale nuclear war would be an unthinkable disaster for all people and the entire planet. Yet NATO is deliberately baiting the Russian bear, and what we are now seeing, in Russia’s so called ‘aggression’, is that Russia is getting cross, and defensive. As they have very right to.

So what is NATO’s motivation? One simple reason is that NATO was set up as a cold war military alliance, and with the end of the cold war its raison d’etre evaporated. Simply put, we no longer need it, and its drain on our resources. So, the NATO logic goes, we had better start making some reasons fast. Which is exactly what they are doing.

Another reason is the US’s aspiration for a ‘unipolar world’ in which it enjoys ‘full spectrum dominance’. These ideas are those of the neocons who enjoyed supremacy under the presidenices of George W Bush. But they have now become the core philosophy of the American Imperium – and Barack Obama adheres to them as firmly as ‘Dubya’ ever did.

First, don’t fall for it!

So what, as ordinary citizens, can we do to block this push to a war that could, literally, annihilate civilization and much of life on planet Earth?

First, don’t fall for the vicious anti-Russian propaganda that the BBC and other news outlets relentless spout at us. Second, talk about it – with friends, family and down the pub. Share this article, and these thoughts, on social media.

Third, make it an election issue. Push electoral candidates in your area on where they stand. Emphasize the importance of making peace with Russia, rather than goading it into a wholly unnecessary and stupid war. Tell them your number one election priority is not the NHS, not immigration – but peace!

And remember – it can work. In August 2013 NATO was all set to go to war on Syria on the grounds – entirely unsupported by evidence – that President Assad was waging chemical warfare against his enemies in the civil war unleashed by … NATO, its member states and allies.

Overwhelming political pressure on MPs, and Labour MPs in particular, caused Ed Miliband to back out of a tentative agreement to back Cameron’s military adventurism. On 30th August the Commons vote for war was lost. In turn this undermined the US’s drive to war.

And while the situation in Syria remains dreadful, it’s surely nothing like as bad as it would have been with the additional devastation of millions of tonnes of NATO bombs. Just look at the failed states we have created in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya to see how bad things can get.

Yes, it’s hard for the essential sanity and peacefulness of ordinary people and families to prevail against the world’s most powerful military and propaganda regime. That’s why we need to be constantly bombarded with media lies: to overcome our right and proper horror of war, and manipulated into risking our lives, health, prosperity and wellbeing, all for a false cause of futility and destruction.

But it can be done. And for all our futures, for all generations to come and for Earth herself, sanity must prevail.

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

“Russian aggression” is the BBC’s meme of the day. I lost count of how many times the phrase popped up in the first 15 minutes of Radio 4’s World at One programme, devoted entirely to the ‘Russian problem – but the theme was drummed in relentlessly.

The idea is that Russia presents a huge a growing threat to world peace and stability. Russian bombers are threatening the ‘English’ Channel (albeit strictly from international airspace). Russia is an expansionist power attacking sovereign nations, Ukraine in particular. And watch it – we’re next!

Commentators wheeled into the studio were unanimous in their views. NATO must stand up to the threat. Presient Vladimir Putin is a dangerous monster who refuses to abide by the rules of the international order. NATO countries must increase their defence spending to counter the Russian menace.

Not a single moderating voice was included in the discussion. No one to ask Jens Stoltenberg, Secretary General of NATO, if alliance aircraft ever fly close to Russia’s borders (they do). No one to point out that the real Ukrainian narrative in is not that of Russia’s ‘annexation’ of Crimea – but of NATO’s US-led annexation of Ukraine itself.

No one to argue that Russia’s assimilation of Crimea was effected with hardly a shot being fired, backed by overwhelming support in a referendum which reflected the popular will – and if you’re in any doubt, just compare it to Israel’s ongoing and endlessly justified annexation of Palestine.

The lies are in what the media don’t tell us

There was no one to discuss NATO’s plan to expand right up to Russia’s boundary with Ukraine, string its missile launchers along the frontier, and to seize the Sebastopol naval base, home to Russia’s Black Sea fleet, and hand it over to the US Navy. Aside: how would the US react if Russia tried that trick in Mexico and Guantanamo, Cuba?

While BBC news is prepared to speak of the million or so refugees from fighting in the Eastern provinces, there is no mention that those refugees have overwhelmingly fled to safety in Russia – a peculiar choice of destination if Russia is indeed the aggressor in the conflict.

Nor is there any mention that the massive humanitarian crisis in Eastern Ukraine that forced the refugees from their homes is overwhelmingly caused by the NATO / Kiev campaign of shelling and rocketing civilian areas of Donetsk and other cities. Or that local rebels’ fierce and ultimately victorious battle for the airport terminal was necessitated by its use as a base for Kiev’s heavy artillery to massacre the ordinary citizens of Donetsk.

Just as there was never any hint from the BBC that the Malaysian MH17 civilian aircraft downed over Eastern Ukraine could possibly have been shot down by any agency other than Russia’s. And now, as indications emerge that MH17 may in fact have been shot down by Ukrainian SU25s, the story has vanished from the news altogether.

And of course the BBC would never reveal, in other than the most guarded terms, that the real threat to world peace and stability is not Russia, which has more than enough resources – and problems to occupy itself with – within its own boundaries, but … NATO itself, and the wider Atlantic Alliance.

The other big threat the BBC endlessly warns of is that of Islamic extremism. But does it ever point out that, until recently, three independent secular regimes stood as firm bulwarks against Islamic extremism: Iraq, Libya and Syria? And if we go back a little further, why not add in Afghanistan, where the US created Al Qaida to overthrow a moderate Islamist regime?

And does the BBC ever point out that it is the deliberate destruction of these secular or moderate regimes by NATO and its allies that created the void that has been filled by Islamic State? And has lead to the growth of Islamic fundamentalism in north and west Africa, including the murderous Boko Haram?

Or does it ever let slip that 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were in fact citizens of Saudi Arabia, our great ally in the Middle East, and that this made NATO’s choice of Afghanistan as the country to go to war against a little … paradoxical?

It’s deju-vu all over again …

Anyway – the BBC’s dismal performance today on “Russian aggression” stirred up memories – memories of the run up to the Iraq war, when the BBC was similarly gung-ho in its depictions of Saddam Hussein as a real and present danger to us all, whose ambitions had to be countered by military force.

This gives me to cause to fear that we are being softened up for war. But this time, there’s a difference. Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction were, as many of us suspected, but we all now know, an invention of our mendacious politicans and intelligence services.

But Russia’s nuclear weapons are all too real, as is the danger they present. A full scale nuclear war would be an unthinkable disaster for all people and the entire planet. Yet NATO is deliberately baiting the Russian bear, and what we are now seeing, in Russia’s so called ‘aggression’, is that Russia is getting cross, and defensive. As they have very right to.

So what is NATO’s motivation? One simple reason is that NATO was set up as a cold war military alliance, and with the end of the cold war its raison d’etre evaporated. Simply put, we no longer need it, and its drain on our resources. So, the NATO logic goes, we had better start making some reasons fast. Which is exactly what they are doing.

Another reason is the US’s aspiration for a ‘unipolar world’ in which it enjoys ‘full spectrum dominance’. These ideas are those of the neocons who enjoyed supremacy under the presidenices of George W Bush. But they have now become the core philosophy of the American Imperium – and Barack Obama adheres to them as firmly as ‘Dubya’ ever did.

First, don’t fall for it!

So what, as ordinary citizens, can we do to block this push to a war that could, literally, annihilate civilization and much of life on planet Earth?

First, don’t fall for the vicious anti-Russian propaganda that the BBC and other news outlets relentless spout at us. Second, talk about it – with friends, family and down the pub. Share this article, and these thoughts, on social media.

Third, make it an election issue. Push electoral candidates in your area on where they stand. Emphasize the importance of making peace with Russia, rather than goading it into a wholly unnecessary and stupid war. Tell them your number one election priority is not the NHS, not immigration – but peace!

And remember – it can work. In August 2013 NATO was all set to go to war on Syria on the grounds – entirely unsupported by evidence – that President Assad was waging chemical warfare against his enemies in the civil war unleashed by … NATO, its member states and allies.

Overwhelming political pressure on MPs, and Labour MPs in particular, caused Ed Miliband to back out of a tentative agreement to back Cameron’s military adventurism. On 30th August the Commons vote for war was lost. In turn this undermined the US’s drive to war.

And while the situation in Syria remains dreadful, it’s surely nothing like as bad as it would have been with the additional devastation of millions of tonnes of NATO bombs. Just look at the failed states we have created in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya to see how bad things can get.

Yes, it’s hard for the essential sanity and peacefulness of ordinary people and families to prevail against the world’s most powerful military and propaganda regime. That’s why we need to be constantly bombarded with media lies: to overcome our right and proper horror of war, and manipulated into risking our lives, health, prosperity and wellbeing, all for a false cause of futility and destruction.

But it can be done. And for all our futures, for all generations to come and for Earth herself, sanity must prevail.

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

Doing the right thing in the environs of the University of California, Davis – one of the foremost agricultural institutions in the US – means driving a carbon efficient car. And having a lawn that’s burned dry.

California’s worst drought on record is forcing people to cut back radically on water use – and that means letting lawns die, and cars get dusty. There was considerable rainfall last month, but it was not nearly enough to replenish the badly-depleted water resources.

Higher than average temperatures – particularly during the winter months – have combined with a lack of rainfall to produce severe drought conditions across much of the state.

Water restrictions have been brought in following the imposition of a drought emergency in January last year.

Dreaming of a wet winter

“If we don’t have rain in significant amounts by early March, we’ll be in dire straits”, says Professor Daniel Sumner, director of the Agricultural Issues Center at Davis. “Historically, California’s water has been stored in the snow pack in the mountains, but warmer winter temperatures have meant the pack has been melting.”

“The agricultural sector has made considerable advances in limiting water use, and new, more drought resistant, crops and plant varieties have been introduced, but aquifers have been pumped and they are not being replenished.

“In the past, massive projects were undertaken to distribute water round the state, but now there’s not the money available to do any more big-time plumbing work. Also, the regulations on diverting water for agriculture use are very tight – rivers can’t be pumped if it means endangering fish stocks or other wildlife.”

Whether or not climate change is causing the drought is a matter of considerable debate. A recent report sponsored by the US government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) says natural oceanic and atmospheric patterns are the primary drivers behind the drought.

A high pressure ridge that has hovered over the Pacific off California’s coast for the past three years has resulted in higher temperatures and little rainfall falling across the state, the report says.

However, a separate report by climate scientists at Stanford University says the existence of the high pressure ridge, which is preventing rains falling over California, is made much more likely by ever greater accumulations of climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere.

It’s not just the groundwater that’s depleted

Whatever the cause of the drought, the lack of rain is doing considerable environmental and economic damage. The Public Policy Institute of California, a not-for-profit thinktank, estimates that $2.2 billion in agricultural revenues and more than 17,000 jobs have been lost as a result of the drought.

Thousands of acres of woodland have been lost due to wildfires, while fisheries experts are concerned that severely depleted streams and rivers could lead to the disappearance of fish species in the area, such as coho salmon and steelhead trout.

The drought is not limited to California. Adjacent states are also affected, and over the US border to the south, in Mexico’s Chihuahua state, crops have been devastated and 400,000 cattle have died.

Frank Green, a vineyard owner in the hills of Mendocino County, northern California, says: “The vines are pretty robust and, despite the drought, our wines have been some of the best ever over the past two years.

“But there’s no doubt we need a lot more rain, and plenty more could be done on saving and harvesting water. Farmers have cut back on growing water-hungry crops like cotton, but California is still growing – and exporting – rice, which is a real water drinker. How crazy is that?”

Kieran Cooke writes for Climate News Network.

Also on The Ecologist:

• ‘Fish before agribusiness! California river tribes demand water‘ by Oliver Tickell;
• ‘Climate change and the downfall of California’s big agriculture‘ by Joshua Frank.

The UK’s planned Hinkley C nuclear plant is looking increasingly like a dead duck – or possibly parrot.

As the Financial Times reports today, Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee has abandoned plans to examine the ‘value of money’ Hinkley C offers taxpayers – because no deal has been reached and none is expected before the general election in May.

In other words, all that bullish talk about Hinkley C launching Britain’s ‘nuclear renaissance’ has melted away like a spring frost in the morning sun.

There is no deal on the table for the PAC to examine – indeed it’s looking increasingly as if there may never be a deal, in spite of the astonishingly generous £30 billion support package on offer, at the expense of UK taxpayers and energy users.

Only last week Austria confirmed that it will launch a legal action against the Hinkley C support package, on the grounds that it constitutes illegal state aid. The action looks likely to succeed – and even if it doesn’t, it’s predicted to ensure at least four years of delay.

The nuclear slump has gone global!

But it’s not just in the UK that the ‘nuclear renaissance has hit the rocks. Global nuclear power capacity remained stagnant in 2014 according to the World Nuclear Association:

• Five new reactors began supplying electricity and three were permanently shut down.
• There are now 437 ‘operable’ reactors compared with 435 reactors a year ago. Thus the number of reactors increased by two (0.5%) and nuclear generating capacity increased by 2.4 gigawatts (GW) or 0.6%. (For comparison, around 100 GW of solar and wind power capacity were built in 2014, up from 74 GW in 2013.)
• Construction started on just three reactors during 2014. A total of 70 reactors (74 GW) are under construction.

Thus a long-standing pattern of stagnation continues. In the two decades from 1995-2014, the number of power reactors leapt from 436 to 437.

Ten years ago, the rhetoric about a nuclear power renaissance was in full swing. In those ten years, the number of reactors has fallen from 443 to 437. But despite 20 years of stagnation, the World Nuclear Association remains upbeat. Its latest report, The World Nuclear Supply Chain: Outlook 2030, envisages the start-up of 266 new reactors by 2030.

The figure is implausible – it piles heroic assumptions upon heroic assumptions. If only the World Nuclear Association would take bets on its ridiculous projections, which are always proven to be wrong. Nuclear Energy Insider is a more sober and reflective in an end-of-year review published in December:

“As we embark on a new year, there are distinct challenges and opportunities on the horizon for the nuclear power industry. Many industry experts believe that technology like Small Nuclear Reactors (SMR) represent a strong future for nuclear.

“Yet, rapidly growing renewable energy sources, a bountiful and inexpensive supply of natural gas and oil, and the aging population of existing nuclear power plants represent challenges that the industry must address moving forward.”

Nuclear power’s ever shrinking share of global power generation

Steve Kidd, a nuclear consultant who worked for the World Nuclear Association for 17 years, is still more downbeat:

“Even with rapid nuclear growth in China, nuclear’s share in world electricity is declining. The industry is doing little more than hoping that politicians and financiers eventually see sense and back huge nuclear building programmes. On current trends, this is looking more and more unlikely.

“The high and rising nuclear share in climate-friendly scenarios is false hope, with little in the real outlook giving them any substance. Far more likely is the situation posited in the World Nuclear Industry Status Report …

“Although this report is produced by anti-nuclear activists, its picture of the current reactors gradually shutting down with numbers of new reactors failing to replace them has more than an element of truth given the recent trends.”

Kidd proposes reducing nuclear costs by simplifying and standardising current reactor designs.

Meanwhile, as the International Energy Agency’s World Economic Outlook 2014 report noted, nuclear growth will be “concentrated in markets where electricity is supplied at regulated prices, utilities have state backing or governments act to facilitate private investment.”

Conversely, “nuclear power faces major challenges in competitive markets where there are significant market and regulatory risks, and public acceptance remains a critical issue worldwide.”

Four countries supposedly driving a nuclear renaissance

Let’s briefly consider countries where the number of power reactors might increase or decrease by ten or more over the next 15-20 years. Generally, it is striking how much uncertainty there is about the nuclear programs in these countries.

China is one of the few exceptions. China has 22 operable reactors, 27 reactors under construction and 64 planned. Significant, rapid growth can be expected unless China’s nuclear program is derailed by a major accident or a serious act of sabotage or terrorism. But there are plenty of reasons to be concerned:

• numerous insiders have warned about inadequate nuclear safety standards in China;
• China’s nuclear regulatory agency is not independent and it is understaffed;
• China’s nuclear program lacks transparency, and there are repressive controls on the media and social media / the internet;
• the persecution of whistleblowers who have raised concerns about nuclear safety standards;
• China has the world’s worst insurance and liability arrangements;
• most reactors under construction in China are being built in areas at risk from tsunamis according to an Oilprice.com analysis; and
• security risks (in particular those associated with China’s fast reactor program) including inadequate laws and regulations for the physical security of materials and for mitigating insider threats; and
• risks arising from political instability, governance challenges, and “colossal corruption [at] every scale of state and society“.

In the other three countries supposedly driving a nuclear renaissance – Russia, South Korea and India – growth is likely to be modest and slow.

Russia has 34 operating reactors and nine under construction. Just three reactors began operating in the past decade and the pattern of slow growth is likely to continue. As for Russia’s ambitious nuclear export program, Steve Kidd noted in October 2014 that it “is reasonable to suggest that it is highly unlikely that Russia will succeed in carrying out even half of the projects in which it claims to be closely involved”.

South Korea has 23 operating reactors, five under construction and eight planned. Earlier plans for rapid nuclear expansion in South Korea have been derailed by the Fukushima disaster, a major scandal over forged safety documents, and a hacking attack on Korea Hydro’s computer network.

India has 21 operating reactors, six under construction and 22 planned. But India’s nuclear program is in a “deep freeze” according to a November 2014 article in the Hindustan Times.

Likewise, India Today reported on January 8: “The Indian nuclear programme is on the brink of distress. For the past four years, no major tender has gone through – a period that was, ironically, supposed to mark the beginning of an Indian nuclear renaissance in the aftermath of the landmark India-US civil nuclear deal.”

A November 2014 article in The Hindu newspaper notes that three factors have put a break on India’s reactor-import plans: “the exorbitant price of French- and U.S.-origin reactors, the accident-liability issue, and grass-roots opposition to the planned multi-reactor complexes.”

In addition, unresolved disagreements regarding safeguards and non-proliferation assurances are delaying US and European investment in India’s nuclear program.

What about South Africa and Saudi Arabia?

Last year Saudi Araba announced plans to build 16 reactors by 2032. Already, the timeline has been pushed back from 2032 to 2040. As with any country embarking on a nuclear power program for the first time, Saudi Arabia faces daunting logistical and workforce issues.

Numerous nuclear supplier are lining up to supply Saudi Arabia’s nuclear power program but political obstacles could easily emerge, not least because Saudi officials (and royalty) have repeatedly said that the Kingdom will build nuclear weapons if Iran’s nuclear program is not constrained.

As for South Africa, its on-again off-again nuclear power program is on again with plans for 9.6 GW of nuclear capacity in addition to the two operating reactors at Koeberg. In 2007, state energy utility Eskom approved a plan for 20 GW of new nuclear capacity.

Areva’s EPR and Westinghouse’s AP1000 were short-listed and bids were submitted. But in 2008 Eskom announced that it would not proceed with either of the bids due to lack of finance.

Thus the latest plan for 9.6 GW of new nuclear capacity in South Africa is being treated with scepticism. As academic Professor Steve Thomas noted in a July 2014 report:

“Overall, a renewed call for tenders (or perhaps bilateral negotiations with a preferred bidder) is likely to produce the same result as 2008: a very high price for an unproven technology that will only be financeable if the South African public, either in the form of electricity consumers or as taxpayers, is prepared to give open ended guarantees.”

Nuclear negawatts in North America

Now to briefly consider those countries where a significant decline of nuclear power is possible or likely over the next 15-20 years, patterns of stagnation or slow decline in North America and western Europe can safely be predicted.

Steve Kidd wrote in May 2014 that uranium demand (and nuclear power capacity) “will almost certainly fall in the key markets in Western Europe and North America” in the period to 2030.

The United States has 99 operable reactors. Five reactors are under construction, “with little prospect for more” according to Oilprice.com. Decisions to shut down just as many reactors have been taken in the past few years.

As the Financial Times noted last year, two decisions that really rattled the industry were the closures of Dominion Resources’ Kewaunee plant in Wisconsin and Entergy’s Vermont Yankee – both were operating and licensed to keep operating into the 2030s, but became uneconomic to keep in operation.

The US Energy Information Administration estimated in April 2014 that 10.8 GW of nuclear capacity – around 10% of total US nuclear capacity – could be shut down by the end of the decade.

The most that the US nuclear industry can hope for is stagnation underpinned by new legislative and regulatory measures favouring nuclear power along with multi-billion dollar government handouts.

And in the EU …

In January 2014, the European Commission forecast that EU nuclear generating capacity of 131 GW in 2010 will decline to 97 GW in 2025, mirroring the situation in North America.

The UK is very much a case in point – the nuclear power industry there is scrambling just to stand still, and as noted above, looks increasingly likely to lose its Hinkley C mascot.

France is well known as Europe’s most nuclear country, and that’s likely to be the case for some time. But nuclear’s share of its power generation could be set for a sharp decline.

The country’s lower house of Parliament voted in October 2014 to cut nuclear’s share of electricity generation from 75% to 50% by 2025, to cap nuclear capacity at 63.2 GW, and to pursue a renewables target of 40% by 2030 with various new measures to promote the growth of renewables. The Senate will vote on the legislation early this year.

However there will be many twists and turns in French energy policy. Energy Minister Segolène Royal said on January 13 that France should build a new generation of reactors, and she noted that the October 2014 energy transition bill did not include a 40-year age limit for power reactors as ecologists wanted.

Meanwhile in Germany, the  government is systematically pursuing its policy of phasing out nuclear power by 2023. That said, nothing is certain: the nuclear phase-out policy of the social democrat / greens coalition government in the early 2000s was later overturned by a conservative government.

The Fukushima effect, and ageing reactors

Japan’s 48 operable reactors are all shut down. A reasonable estimate is that three-quarters (36/48) of the reactors will restart in the coming years.

Before the Fukushima disaster, Tokyo planned to add another 15-20 reactors to the fleet of 55 giving a total of 70-75 reactors. Thus Japan’s nuclear power industry will be around half the size it might have been if not for the Fukushima disaster.

Part of Japan’s problem is that of ageing reactors, with many that it will simply be too expensive to bring up to current safety standards. The topic came into global focus in 2014 – and will remain in focus for decades to come with the average age of the world’s power reactors now 29 years and steadily increasing.

Problems with ageing reactors include:

• an increased risk of accidents (and associated problems such as generally inadequate accident liability arrangements);
• an increased rate of unplanned reactors outages (at one point last year, less than half of the UK’s nuclear capacity was available due to multiple outages);
• costly refurbishments;
• debates over appropriate safety standards for reactors designed decades ago; and
• the uncertainties and costs associated with reactor decommissioning and long-term nuclear waste management.

Greenpeace highlighted the problems associated with ageing reactors with the release of a detailed report last year, and emphasised the point by breaking into six ageing European nuclear plants on 5 March 2014.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) said in its World Energy Outlook 2014 report: “A wave of retirements of ageing nuclear reactors is approaching: almost 200 of the 434 reactors operating at the end of 2013 are retired in the period to 2040, with the vast majority in the European Union, the United States, Russia and Japan.”

A growing problem – underfunded nuclear decommissioning

IEA chief economist Fatih Birol said: “Worldwide, we do not have much experience and I am afraid we are not well-prepared in terms of policies and funds which are devoted to decommissioning. A major concern for all of us is how we are going to deal with this massive surge in retirements in nuclear power plants.”

The World Energy Outlook 2014 report estimates the cost of decommissioning reactors to be more than US$100 billion up to 2040. The IEA’s head of power generation analysis, Marco Baroni, said that even excluding waste disposal costs, the final cost could be as much as twice as high as the $100 billion estimate, and that decommissioning costs per reactor can vary by a factor of four.

Baroni said the issue was not the decommissioning cost per reactor but “whether enough funds have been set aside to provide for it.” Evidence of inadequate decommissioning funds is mounting.

To give just one example, Entergy estimates a cost of US$1.24 billion to decommission Vermont Yankee, but the company’s decommissioning trust fund for the plant – US$ 670 million – is barely half that amount. As Michael Mariotte, President of the US Nuclear Information & Resource Service, noted in a recent article:

“Entergy, for example, has only about half the needed money in its decommissioning fund (and even so still found it cheaper to close the reactor than keep it running); repeat that across the country with multiple and larger reactors and the shortfalls could be stunning. Expect heated battles in the coming years as nuclear utilities try to push the costs of the decommissioning fund shortfalls onto ratepayers.”

The nuclear industry has a simple solution to the problem of old reactors: new reactors. But the battles over ageing and decommissioned reactors – and the raiding of taxpayers’ pockets to cover shortfalls – will make it that much more difficult to convince politicians and the public to support new reactors.

This article is reprinted from Nuclear Monitor #797, January 2015, with updates by The Ecologist.

Dr Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and editor of the Nuclear Monitor newsletter. Nuclear Monitor is published 20 times a year. It has been publishing deeply researched, often strongly critical articles on all aspects of the nuclear cycle since 1978. A must-read for all those who work on this issue!

Beavers living in the River Otter in Devon will be allowed to remain in the wild following a historic decision by Natural England to allow their ‘re-introduction’.

Natural England’s Board today confirmed that a licence will be issued to Devon Wildlife Trust (DWT), permitting “the managed release into the wild of beavers currently resident in the River Otter catchment in Devon, on a 5 year trial basis.”

The move is being applauded by local people who want the beavers to remain in the River Otter, landowner Clinton Devon Estates, DWT and Friends of the Earth, which had started legal proceedings over earlier Government plans trap the beavers and hold them in zoo or other secure facility.

According to a statement released by NE, DWT’s licence application was “thoroughly assessed against the internationally recognised guidelines published by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.”

“Under the terms of the licence, by September at the latest, Devon Wildlife Trust must develop a management strategy to deal quickly with any undesirable impacts which the beavers may have on the River Otter during the trial period, as well as a monitoring programme to study their impacts.”

Another conditions stipulate that the beavers must be confirmed as being of are of Eurasian origin, and free of the rare but unpleasant tapeworm Echinococcus multilocularis, which can transfer to other wildlife and to people.

England’s first otters in hundreds of years!

“We are delighted by Natural England’s decision to grant us a licence to give these beavers a long term future on the River Otter”, said Harry Barton, Chief Executive of Devon Wildlife Trust.

“The beavers of the River Otter are the first breeding population in the English countryside for hundreds of years. We believe they can play a positive role in the landscapes of the 21st century through their ability to restore our rivers to their former glories.

“We know from our own research and research done in Europe that beavers are excellent aquatic-engineers improving the flood and drought resilience of our countryside and increasing the water quality of our rivers.  They are incredibly industrious animals and their hard work has benefits for people and wildlife.”

For the last six months DWT has been working with Defra, Natural England, local farmers and the wider community to secure a solution that would see the disease risk addressed and the beavers remain.

“This project will measure the impact that these beavers have on the local environment, on the local economy and on local people”, said Peter Burgess, DWT’s Conservation Manager, who led the licence application.

“The evidence from elsewhere shows that beavers should have an overwhelmingly positive effect, but this is the first time the animals will be living in a well-populated, agriculturally productive English landscape for hundreds of years.”

But he added: “We need to ensure that any negative impacts of beavers are avoided. This will mean working alongside the Environment Agency, local authorities and landowners to manage any problems that may arise over the coming years.”

Clinton Devon Estates, the biggest landowner on the lower River Otter, also welcomes the awarding of the licence. Dr Sam Bridgewater, the estate’s Nature Conservation Manager, says that the focus of the debate needs to be 20 to 30 years from now:

“We need to look at what’s happened on the continent where there were fewer than 2000 beavers at the start of the 20th Century but there are now over 600,000. If their numbers increase, then it is inevitable that they will eventually start to engineer their local environment.

“This will bring all kinds of benefits such as a potential slowing down of flood waters and an increase in the diversity of wildlife habitats, but will also likely cause some grief. I think a key issue for the authorities to address is that mechanisms are put in place to allow any conflicts to be avoided quickly in the future.”

Over 10,000 messages of support for the beavers

There has been overwhelming national and local support for the beavers to remain in the wild. Over 10,000 people sent messages to the Minister for the Natural Environment, and at a recent event in the village of Ottery St. Mary more than 100 people turned up, the vast majority in support of the beavers.

“This is great news for Devon’s beavers”, said Friends of the Earth campaigner Alasdair Cameron – who had earlier led the group’s application for a judicial review of an earlier decision to trap the beavers citing violations of the Habitats Directive.

“Beavers add to Britain’s rich natural heritage and can bring huge benefits to the local environment, such as boosting wildlife and reducing flooding risks. Hopefully we’ll now see renewed efforts to reintroduce beavers to other suitable locations right across the country.”

Natural England’s Chairman Andrew Sells confirmed that future decisions on the release of beavers will “in large part” be informed by the results of this trial, adding: “Reintroduction of a species is a complicated and emotive subject and we have considered this application very carefully.

“Responses to our written consultation and public meetings have been generally positive and we are now satisfied with Devon Wildlife Trust’s plans for managing and monitoring the project, which will allow important evidence to be gathered during the trial on any impacts which the beavers may have.”

But he warned: “The unauthorised release of beavers remains illegal and Natural England does not expect to grant any other licences for beaver release during this trial period.”

Trapping and testing of the animals for the Echinococcus multilocularis tapeworm will be carried out by the Animal and Plant Health Agency under a separate licence that was granted towards the end of 2014.

Support: Devon Wildlife Trust now faces the task of funding the River Otter Beaver Project. An initial call for donations led to £45,000 being raised in just two months. However the cost of the five year monitoring project is estimated to run well above this figure. DWT is now asking supporters of the beavers to donate via its website or by phone on 01392 279244.

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

The UK’s planned Hinkley C nuclear plant is looking increasingly like a dead duck – or possibly parrot.

As the Financial Times reports today, Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee has abandoned plans to examine the ‘value of money’ Hinkley C offers taxpayers – because no deal has been reached and none is expected before the general election in May.

In other words, all that bullish talk about Hinkley C launching Britain’s ‘nuclear renaissance’ has melted away like a spring frost in the morning sun.

There is no deal on the table for the PAC to examine – indeed it’s looking increasingly as if there may never be a deal, in spite of the astonishingly generous £30 billion support package on offer, at the expense of UK taxpayers and energy users.

Only last week Austria confirmed that it will launch a legal action against the Hinkley C support package, on the grounds that it constitutes illegal state aid. The action looks likely to succeed – and even if it doesn’t, it’s predicted to ensure at least four years of delay.

The nuclear slump has gone global!

But it’s not just in the UK that the ‘nuclear renaissance has hit the rocks. Global nuclear power capacity remained stagnant in 2014 according to the World Nuclear Association:

• Five new reactors began supplying electricity and three were permanently shut down.
• There are now 437 ‘operable’ reactors compared with 435 reactors a year ago. Thus the number of reactors increased by two (0.5%) and nuclear generating capacity increased by 2.4 gigawatts (GW) or 0.6%. (For comparison, around 100 GW of solar and wind power capacity were built in 2014, up from 74 GW in 2013.)
• Construction started on just three reactors during 2014. A total of 70 reactors (74 GW) are under construction.

Thus a long-standing pattern of stagnation continues. In the two decades from 1995-2014, the number of power reactors leapt from 436 to 437.

Ten years ago, the rhetoric about a nuclear power renaissance was in full swing. In those ten years, the number of reactors has fallen from 443 to 437. But despite 20 years of stagnation, the World Nuclear Association remains upbeat. Its latest report, The World Nuclear Supply Chain: Outlook 2030, envisages the start-up of 266 new reactors by 2030.

The figure is implausible – it piles heroic assumptions upon heroic assumptions. If only the World Nuclear Association would take bets on its ridiculous projections, which are always proven to be wrong. Nuclear Energy Insider is a more sober and reflective in an end-of-year review published in December:

“As we embark on a new year, there are distinct challenges and opportunities on the horizon for the nuclear power industry. Many industry experts believe that technology like Small Nuclear Reactors (SMR) represent a strong future for nuclear.

“Yet, rapidly growing renewable energy sources, a bountiful and inexpensive supply of natural gas and oil, and the aging population of existing nuclear power plants represent challenges that the industry must address moving forward.”

Nuclear power’s ever shrinking share of global power generation

Steve Kidd, a nuclear consultant who worked for the World Nuclear Association for 17 years, is still more downbeat:

“Even with rapid nuclear growth in China, nuclear’s share in world electricity is declining. The industry is doing little more than hoping that politicians and financiers eventually see sense and back huge nuclear building programmes. On current trends, this is looking more and more unlikely.

“The high and rising nuclear share in climate-friendly scenarios is false hope, with little in the real outlook giving them any substance. Far more likely is the situation posited in the World Nuclear Industry Status Report …

“Although this report is produced by anti-nuclear activists, its picture of the current reactors gradually shutting down with numbers of new reactors failing to replace them has more than an element of truth given the recent trends.”

Kidd proposes reducing nuclear costs by simplifying and standardising current reactor designs.

Meanwhile, as the International Energy Agency’s World Economic Outlook 2014 report noted, nuclear growth will be “concentrated in markets where electricity is supplied at regulated prices, utilities have state backing or governments act to facilitate private investment.”

Conversely, “nuclear power faces major challenges in competitive markets where there are significant market and regulatory risks, and public acceptance remains a critical issue worldwide.”

Four countries supposedly driving a nuclear renaissance

Let’s briefly consider countries where the number of power reactors might increase or decrease by ten or more over the next 15-20 years. Generally, it is striking how much uncertainty there is about the nuclear programs in these countries.

China is one of the few exceptions. China has 22 operable reactors, 27 reactors under construction and 64 planned. Significant, rapid growth can be expected unless China’s nuclear program is derailed by a major accident or a serious act of sabotage or terrorism. But there are plenty of reasons to be concerned:

• numerous insiders have warned about inadequate nuclear safety standards in China;
• China’s nuclear regulatory agency is not independent and it is understaffed;
• China’s nuclear program lacks transparency, and there are repressive controls on the media and social media / the internet;
• the persecution of whistleblowers who have raised concerns about nuclear safety standards;
• China has the world’s worst insurance and liability arrangements;
• most reactors under construction in China are being built in areas at risk from tsunamis according to an Oilprice.com analysis; and
• security risks (in particular those associated with China’s fast reactor program) including inadequate laws and regulations for the physical security of materials and for mitigating insider threats; and
• risks arising from political instability, governance challenges, and “colossal corruption [at] every scale of state and society“.

In the other three countries supposedly driving a nuclear renaissance – Russia, South Korea and India – growth is likely to be modest and slow.

Russia has 34 operating reactors and nine under construction. Just three reactors began operating in the past decade and the pattern of slow growth is likely to continue. As for Russia’s ambitious nuclear export program, Steve Kidd noted in October 2014 that it “is reasonable to suggest that it is highly unlikely that Russia will succeed in carrying out even half of the projects in which it claims to be closely involved”.

South Korea has 23 operating reactors, five under construction and eight planned. Earlier plans for rapid nuclear expansion in South Korea have been derailed by the Fukushima disaster, a major scandal over forged safety documents, and a hacking attack on Korea Hydro’s computer network.

India has 21 operating reactors, six under construction and 22 planned. But India’s nuclear program is in a “deep freeze” according to a November 2014 article in the Hindustan Times.

Likewise, India Today reported on January 8: “The Indian nuclear programme is on the brink of distress. For the past four years, no major tender has gone through – a period that was, ironically, supposed to mark the beginning of an Indian nuclear renaissance in the aftermath of the landmark India-US civil nuclear deal.”

A November 2014 article in The Hindu newspaper notes that three factors have put a break on India’s reactor-import plans: “the exorbitant price of French- and U.S.-origin reactors, the accident-liability issue, and grass-roots opposition to the planned multi-reactor complexes.”

In addition, unresolved disagreements regarding safeguards and non-proliferation assurances are delaying US and European investment in India’s nuclear program.

What about South Africa and Saudi Arabia?

Last year Saudi Araba announced plans to build 16 reactors by 2032. Already, the timeline has been pushed back from 2032 to 2040. As with any country embarking on a nuclear power program for the first time, Saudi Arabia faces daunting logistical and workforce issues.

Numerous nuclear supplier are lining up to supply Saudi Arabia’s nuclear power program but political obstacles could easily emerge, not least because Saudi officials (and royalty) have repeatedly said that the Kingdom will build nuclear weapons if Iran’s nuclear program is not constrained.

As for South Africa, its on-again off-again nuclear power program is on again with plans for 9.6 GW of nuclear capacity in addition to the two operating reactors at Koeberg. In 2007, state energy utility Eskom approved a plan for 20 GW of new nuclear capacity.

Areva’s EPR and Westinghouse’s AP1000 were short-listed and bids were submitted. But in 2008 Eskom announced that it would not proceed with either of the bids due to lack of finance.

Thus the latest plan for 9.6 GW of new nuclear capacity in South Africa is being treated with scepticism. As academic Professor Steve Thomas noted in a July 2014 report:

“Overall, a renewed call for tenders (or perhaps bilateral negotiations with a preferred bidder) is likely to produce the same result as 2008: a very high price for an unproven technology that will only be financeable if the South African public, either in the form of electricity consumers or as taxpayers, is prepared to give open ended guarantees.”

Nuclear negawatts in North America

Now to briefly consider those countries where a significant decline of nuclear power is possible or likely over the next 15-20 years, patterns of stagnation or slow decline in North America and western Europe can safely be predicted.

Steve Kidd wrote in May 2014 that uranium demand (and nuclear power capacity) “will almost certainly fall in the key markets in Western Europe and North America” in the period to 2030.

The United States has 99 operable reactors. Five reactors are under construction, “with little prospect for more” according to Oilprice.com. Decisions to shut down just as many reactors have been taken in the past few years.

As the Financial Times noted last year, two decisions that really rattled the industry were the closures of Dominion Resources’ Kewaunee plant in Wisconsin and Entergy’s Vermont Yankee – both were operating and licensed to keep operating into the 2030s, but became uneconomic to keep in operation.

The US Energy Information Administration estimated in April 2014 that 10.8 GW of nuclear capacity – around 10% of total US nuclear capacity – could be shut down by the end of the decade.

The most that the US nuclear industry can hope for is stagnation underpinned by new legislative and regulatory measures favouring nuclear power along with multi-billion dollar government handouts.

And in the EU …

In January 2014, the European Commission forecast that EU nuclear generating capacity of 131 GW in 2010 will decline to 97 GW in 2025, mirroring the situation in North America.

The UK is very much a case in point – the nuclear power industry there is scrambling just to stand still, and as noted above, looks increasingly likely to lose its Hinkley C mascot.

France is well known as Europe’s most nuclear country, and that’s likely to be the case for some time. But nuclear’s share of its power generation could be set for a sharp decline.

The country’s lower house of Parliament voted in October 2014 to cut nuclear’s share of electricity generation from 75% to 50% by 2025, to cap nuclear capacity at 63.2 GW, and to pursue a renewables target of 40% by 2030 with various new measures to promote the growth of renewables. The Senate will vote on the legislation early this year.

However there will be many twists and turns in French energy policy. Energy Minister Segolène Royal said on January 13 that France should build a new generation of reactors, and she noted that the October 2014 energy transition bill did not include a 40-year age limit for power reactors as ecologists wanted.

Meanwhile in Germany, the  government is systematically pursuing its policy of phasing out nuclear power by 2023. That said, nothing is certain: the nuclear phase-out policy of the social democrat / greens coalition government in the early 2000s was later overturned by a conservative government.

The Fukushima effect, and ageing reactors

Japan’s 48 operable reactors are all shut down. A reasonable estimate is that three-quarters (36/48) of the reactors will restart in the coming years.

Before the Fukushima disaster, Tokyo planned to add another 15-20 reactors to the fleet of 55 giving a total of 70-75 reactors. Thus Japan’s nuclear power industry will be around half the size it might have been if not for the Fukushima disaster.

Part of Japan’s problem is that of ageing reactors, with many that it will simply be too expensive to bring up to current safety standards. The topic came into global focus in 2014 – and will remain in focus for decades to come with the average age of the world’s power reactors now 29 years and steadily increasing.

Problems with ageing reactors include:

• an increased risk of accidents (and associated problems such as generally inadequate accident liability arrangements);
• an increased rate of unplanned reactors outages (at one point last year, less than half of the UK’s nuclear capacity was available due to multiple outages);
• costly refurbishments;
• debates over appropriate safety standards for reactors designed decades ago; and
• the uncertainties and costs associated with reactor decommissioning and long-term nuclear waste management.

Greenpeace highlighted the problems associated with ageing reactors with the release of a detailed report last year, and emphasised the point by breaking into six ageing European nuclear plants on 5 March 2014.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) said in its World Energy Outlook 2014 report: “A wave of retirements of ageing nuclear reactors is approaching: almost 200 of the 434 reactors operating at the end of 2013 are retired in the period to 2040, with the vast majority in the European Union, the United States, Russia and Japan.”

A growing problem – underfunded nuclear decommissioning

IEA chief economist Fatih Birol said: “Worldwide, we do not have much experience and I am afraid we are not well-prepared in terms of policies and funds which are devoted to decommissioning. A major concern for all of us is how we are going to deal with this massive surge in retirements in nuclear power plants.”

The World Energy Outlook 2014 report estimates the cost of decommissioning reactors to be more than US$100 billion up to 2040. The IEA’s head of power generation analysis, Marco Baroni, said that even excluding waste disposal costs, the final cost could be as much as twice as high as the $100 billion estimate, and that decommissioning costs per reactor can vary by a factor of four.

Baroni said the issue was not the decommissioning cost per reactor but “whether enough funds have been set aside to provide for it.” Evidence of inadequate decommissioning funds is mounting.

To give just one example, Entergy estimates a cost of US$1.24 billion to decommission Vermont Yankee, but the company’s decommissioning trust fund for the plant – US$ 670 million – is barely half that amount. As Michael Mariotte, President of the US Nuclear Information & Resource Service, noted in a recent article:

“Entergy, for example, has only about half the needed money in its decommissioning fund (and even so still found it cheaper to close the reactor than keep it running); repeat that across the country with multiple and larger reactors and the shortfalls could be stunning. Expect heated battles in the coming years as nuclear utilities try to push the costs of the decommissioning fund shortfalls onto ratepayers.”

The nuclear industry has a simple solution to the problem of old reactors: new reactors. But the battles over ageing and decommissioned reactors – and the raiding of taxpayers’ pockets to cover shortfalls – will make it that much more difficult to convince politicians and the public to support new reactors.

This article is reprinted from Nuclear Monitor #797, January 2015, with updates by The Ecologist.

Dr Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and editor of the Nuclear Monitor newsletter. Nuclear Monitor is published 20 times a year. It has been publishing deeply researched, often strongly critical articles on all aspects of the nuclear cycle since 1978. A must-read for all those who work on this issue!

Beavers living in the River Otter in Devon will be allowed to remain in the wild following a historic decision by Natural England to allow their ‘re-introduction’.

Natural England’s Board today confirmed that a licence will be issued to Devon Wildlife Trust (DWT), permitting “the managed release into the wild of beavers currently resident in the River Otter catchment in Devon, on a 5 year trial basis.”

The move is being applauded by local people who want the beavers to remain in the River Otter, landowner Clinton Devon Estates, DWT and Friends of the Earth, which had started legal proceedings over earlier Government plans trap the beavers and hold them in zoo or other secure facility.

According to a statement released by NE, DWT’s licence application was “thoroughly assessed against the internationally recognised guidelines published by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.”

“Under the terms of the licence, by September at the latest, Devon Wildlife Trust must develop a management strategy to deal quickly with any undesirable impacts which the beavers may have on the River Otter during the trial period, as well as a monitoring programme to study their impacts.”

Another conditions stipulate that the beavers must be confirmed as being of are of Eurasian origin, and free of the rare but unpleasant tapeworm Echinococcus multilocularis, which can transfer to other wildlife and to people.

England’s first otters in hundreds of years!

“We are delighted by Natural England’s decision to grant us a licence to give these beavers a long term future on the River Otter”, said Harry Barton, Chief Executive of Devon Wildlife Trust.

“The beavers of the River Otter are the first breeding population in the English countryside for hundreds of years. We believe they can play a positive role in the landscapes of the 21st century through their ability to restore our rivers to their former glories.

“We know from our own research and research done in Europe that beavers are excellent aquatic-engineers improving the flood and drought resilience of our countryside and increasing the water quality of our rivers.  They are incredibly industrious animals and their hard work has benefits for people and wildlife.”

For the last six months DWT has been working with Defra, Natural England, local farmers and the wider community to secure a solution that would see the disease risk addressed and the beavers remain.

“This project will measure the impact that these beavers have on the local environment, on the local economy and on local people”, said Peter Burgess, DWT’s Conservation Manager, who led the licence application.

“The evidence from elsewhere shows that beavers should have an overwhelmingly positive effect, but this is the first time the animals will be living in a well-populated, agriculturally productive English landscape for hundreds of years.”

But he added: “We need to ensure that any negative impacts of beavers are avoided. This will mean working alongside the Environment Agency, local authorities and landowners to manage any problems that may arise over the coming years.”

Clinton Devon Estates, the biggest landowner on the lower River Otter, also welcomes the awarding of the licence. Dr Sam Bridgewater, the estate’s Nature Conservation Manager, says that the focus of the debate needs to be 20 to 30 years from now:

“We need to look at what’s happened on the continent where there were fewer than 2000 beavers at the start of the 20th Century but there are now over 600,000. If their numbers increase, then it is inevitable that they will eventually start to engineer their local environment.

“This will bring all kinds of benefits such as a potential slowing down of flood waters and an increase in the diversity of wildlife habitats, but will also likely cause some grief. I think a key issue for the authorities to address is that mechanisms are put in place to allow any conflicts to be avoided quickly in the future.”

Over 10,000 messages of support for the beavers

There has been overwhelming national and local support for the beavers to remain in the wild. Over 10,000 people sent messages to the Minister for the Natural Environment, and at a recent event in the village of Ottery St. Mary more than 100 people turned up, the vast majority in support of the beavers.

“This is great news for Devon’s beavers”, said Friends of the Earth campaigner Alasdair Cameron – who had earlier led the group’s application for a judicial review of an earlier decision to trap the beavers citing violations of the Habitats Directive.

“Beavers add to Britain’s rich natural heritage and can bring huge benefits to the local environment, such as boosting wildlife and reducing flooding risks. Hopefully we’ll now see renewed efforts to reintroduce beavers to other suitable locations right across the country.”

Natural England’s Chairman Andrew Sells confirmed that future decisions on the release of beavers will “in large part” be informed by the results of this trial, adding: “Reintroduction of a species is a complicated and emotive subject and we have considered this application very carefully.

“Responses to our written consultation and public meetings have been generally positive and we are now satisfied with Devon Wildlife Trust’s plans for managing and monitoring the project, which will allow important evidence to be gathered during the trial on any impacts which the beavers may have.”

But he warned: “The unauthorised release of beavers remains illegal and Natural England does not expect to grant any other licences for beaver release during this trial period.”

Trapping and testing of the animals for the Echinococcus multilocularis tapeworm will be carried out by the Animal and Plant Health Agency under a separate licence that was granted towards the end of 2014.

Support: Devon Wildlife Trust now faces the task of funding the River Otter Beaver Project. An initial call for donations led to £45,000 being raised in just two months. However the cost of the five year monitoring project is estimated to run well above this figure. DWT is now asking supporters of the beavers to donate via its website or by phone on 01392 279244.

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

There is not one square inch of our beautiful land that is desolate. We are all entitled to love the place we live in, and our love for our home and our community is worth just as much whether we live in the north of our country or the south.

Shame on those who say, don’t spoil my back garden – but do whatever you like in places far away, where people count for less!

Now I have a confession to make. I’ve never spoken before at a public rally. I’ve never even been to a public rally, this is my very first time.

But I’m proud to stand with you today because whether we frack for oil and gas up and down our country really matters. Because those with the power to decide are on the verge of dragging us down the wrong path. Because only your voices, our voices, can stop them.

For six years, I was Britain’s diplomatic envoy for climate change. Believe me, you can’t be in favour of fracking in Britain and in favour of dealing with climate change at the same time. It’s an either / or choice. Those who say it’s not are being ignorant, or deceitful, or deceiving themselves. It’s that simple.

Sometimes in politics you come to a crossroads and you have to choose. If you pretend you don’t, that’s a choice too, and not an honourable one, it’s a covert choice to stick with the status quo. This is such a crossroad.

No community in Britain will ever benefit from fracking. If a few individuals or businesses do well, it will be at the expense of their communities. Fracking at scale is intrusive, disruptive, noisy, and unhealthy. It really does turn communities upside down. Look at what’s happened in the United States.

Gold-plated promises – worth their weight in hot air

Let’s hear it for Repower Balcombe, showing the way, and all the other pioneers of community energy up and down Britain.

Fracking on an industrial scale won’t build us a future worth having, it would take us backwards, it would lock us further into fossil dependency. It would also turn our country into a global climate pariah.

Democracy in free fall

And this isn’t just about our climate and our energy. It’s about our democracy. What’s been happening on fracking is not democracy in action. It’s democracy in free fall.

Take the Infrastructure Bill. This odious, antidemocratic Bill would trample on rights and protections, including the ancient law of trespass, woven carefully over centuries into the fabric of our Constitution.

It would put corporate interests above the public interest. Wherever you live it would make your voice the last one to be listened to in any decision about the land and the community around you.

99% of consultees don’t want trespass watered down? I know, let’s ignore them!

An unrestricted right to dump wastes of all kinds under people’s land and houses? That’s not going to be popular! Let’s try and sneak it in at the last minute when nobody’s looking, and if people still object, I know, let’s ignore them!

People say they don’t want profits for developers fracking companies to come before their health and their environment. I know, lets ignore them! Let’s make it a legal requirement to maximize the economic recovery of oil and gas!

When I joined the Civil Service 35 years ago, ministers and officials would have resigned rather than connive at such abuses of our democratic system

In Britain today we have the forms but not the substance of democracy, and what’s happening on fracking is a symptom of that sickness. So a victory in the struggle to stop fracking will also be a victory, a crucial victory in the longer struggle to renew our democracy in Britain.

Suddenly, the tectonic plates are shifting

Most of the time in politics things are stuck. The tectonic plates don’t move very much. You may gain a few inches here and there but progress is incremental. But every now and again the plates start to slip and anything is possible. This is such a moment. It may be the only such moment we get.

The plates are slipping on fracking. Suddenly it is dawning on our representatives that the political cost of forcing it through is going to be higher than they thought.

More and more of them are taking the trouble to listen to their constituents, and to get their heads round what’s involved. They are working out for themselves what a bad idea this really is.

That’s what the members of the Environmental Audit Committee have done with their ‘Environmental risks of fracking‘ report and their call for a fracking moratorium. They have shown real courage, defying their Party machines. Let’s now show them the thanks they deserve!

But too many MPs still think it’s more important to do the bidding of those Party machines and of their corporate friends than it is to listen to the people who put them in our Parliament.

The friends of fracking, in the Coalition parties and the Labour Party, including Tom Greatrex on Twitter, are trying a bit harder to look as if they are listening. But what they are really trying to do is lock the tectonic plates back in place before they slip too far, before they make it impossible for the drilling to start.

We must keep up our fight for a fracking maratorium

So now, just as we finally see some progress, now we must push even harder. And here’s what we should push for.

Let’s stop the headlong rush, with a full moratorium now, as demanded by the Environmental Audit Committee, followed by a proper national debate. No ifs not buts, and no more opportunistic spin from those who aspire to run our energy policy after May.

While we close the front door let’s stop the Bill from forcing open the back door, with its anti-democratic provisions on trespass and householder permission and so-called economic recovery.

And let’s take off the table right now, once and for all, any possibility of self-policing by companies whose main interest is in minimizing red tape not protecting the well being of communities.

David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Ed Miliband, Jenny Mein and the County Council you lead in Preston: please listen: moratorium now, stop the Bill, no more self-policing. Otherwise you will be betraying the people who put you where you are, and they will not easily forgive you.

Friends, over there, in Victoria Tower Gardens, is a statue of Emmeline Pankhurst. Every struggle that has made our country better has been a struggle to make Britain a country for all the people not just a privileged few.

We are struggling to give the people a voice on energy. Mrs Pankhurst struggled to give women a voice in politics. We are following in her footsteps. We can be so proud of that.

So far, those who want to frack our country into an even deeper political stupor have been able to make progress by bullying and stealth. But now at last, thanks to your courage and determination, our opponents have been forced into the open and there is a real democratic choice to be made.

Our representatives will only make the right choice if they can hear our voice. Are we today going to make our voice heard, not just here on the street but inside the thick walls of that Palace over there?

Let’s make the biggest noise, every one of us, let’s make the biggest noise we’ve ever made in our lives.

John Ashton is one of the world’s leading climate diplomats, an independent commentator and adviser on the politics of climate change, and a founder of 3EG. From 2006-12 he served as Special Representative for Climate Change to three successive UK Foreign Secretaries, spanning the current Coalition and the previous Labour Government.

This text is an edited version of a speech given by John Ashton, the UK’s Special Representative for Climate Change between 2006-2012, made on 26 January at a public rally outiside Parliament, Westminster, London. It is based on an edited transcript originally published by Responding to Climate Change.