SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
cop29
Nuclear Propaganda Exposed: The Dirty Truth Behind Government and Industry Claims
The international momentum behind nuclear power reflects a coordinated global effort to promote nuclear as a solution to climate change, despite ongoing concerns about radioactive waste, environmental risks, and the diversion of resources from renewable energy.
Nov 20, 2024
As a physicist and concerned citizen, I find myself outraged every time I scroll through social media and encounter tweets from the Department of Energy, or DOE, and the Office of Nuclear Energy, or ONE, touting nuclear power as “clean, safe, and carbon-free.”
This narrative not only misrepresents the dirty reality of nuclear power but also obscures the significant environmental and health risks associated with its production and waste. It’s infuriating to see government agencies knowingly lie and promote such misleading information, while ignoring the pressing issues faced by communities affected by the toxic reality of the nuclear power industry—propaganda paid for by U.S. taxpayers!
Oh, Canada! Leading the Charge Against Nuclear Greenwashing
Finally, someone is doing something about it—but not in the U.S., where you’d expect it. In Canada, a coalition of seven environmental organizations recently filed a formal complaint with the Competition Bureau against the Canadian Nuclear Association (CNA), accusing it of misleading the public by marketing nuclear power as “clean” and “emissions-free.” Based on Canada’s Competition Act, the complaint challenges the CNA for violating provisions related to false or misleading advertising, similar to greenwashing regulations in other countries, where deceptive environmental claims distort market competition and misinform consumers.
The complaint argues that the CNA omits critical information about the environmental damage and health risks associated with the nuclear fuel cycle, including uranium mining, radioactive waste management, and the impacts on communities near nuclear facilities. By selectively framing nuclear power as a climate solution, the CNA diverts attention and resources away from truly sustainable alternatives like solar and wind energy.
In confronting the extremism of a potential Trump administration, it’s more vital than ever to collaborate with Canada and other nations committed to challenging nuclear misinformation.
In the U.S., similar deceptive practices could be challenged under the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act, which includes the FTC’s Green Guides. These guidelines require that any environmental claims be substantiated, transparent, and not misleading about the overall environmental impact. Yet, organizations like the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and the American Nuclear Society (ANS) continue to promote nuclear power as a “clean” energy solution while conveniently ignoring the lifecycle emissions, radioactive waste, and long-term environmental costs.
Leading the charge in Canada are groups such as the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA), Environmental Defence Canada, and the Sierra Club Canada Foundation. Here in the U.S., organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and the Sierra Club could take similar action against the NEI and ANS by leveraging the FTC’s guidelines to expose deceptive marketing practices in the nuclear sector.
Let’s Be Real: Nuclear Power is Not Clean or Green
Sure, nuclear fission may not produce direct carbon emissions, but the nuclear fuel cycle—including uranium mining, reactor construction, radioactive waste management, and decommissioning—creates significant greenhouse gas emissions. In places like the Navajo Nation, uranium mining has already caused immeasurable harm. Over 523 abandoned uranium mines and mills continue to contaminate the land and water with radioactive waste, leading to severe health problems that affect multiple generations. The DOE’s failure to address these ongoing harms while simultaneously promoting the narrative of “clean, safe, carbon-free” nuclear power is not just unethical—it’s a dangerous distraction from real solutions for our energy needs and the fight against climate change.
Small Modular Reactors: A Costly and Dangerous Gamble
The Biden administration has funneled billions into developing Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), touting them as the future of “clean” energy. This renewed investment includes funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act, which together allocate substantial financial support to accelerate the deployment of next-generation nuclear technologies. The push for SMRs is also bolstered by private sector investments, particularly from tech companies looking to power energy-intensive AI applications.
However, this push for nuclear expansion is not happening in isolation. At the recent COP29 climate summit in Baku, Azerbaijan, a declaration was endorsed by 31 countries—including the U.S.—to triple global nuclear capacity by 2050. The declaration emphasized nuclear energy’s crucial role in achieving net-zero emissions, aligning with the U.S. strategy to secure a low-carbon future. The international momentum behind nuclear power reflects a coordinated global effort to promote nuclear as a solution to climate change, despite ongoing concerns about radioactive waste, environmental risks, and the diversion of resources from renewable energy.
The Peak Uranium Crisis
In addition to the delayed deployment of SMRs, high-grade uranium resources are finite, with estimates suggesting they may only last another 10 to 15 years at current consumption rates. This means that SMRs could face fuel shortages before they even become widespread. As high-grade deposits run dry, the industry may turn to in-situ leaching (ISL) methods, which pose severe environmental risks, particularly groundwater contamination. Furthermore, reprocessing nuclear waste—an extremely hazardous and costly endeavor—is not currently practiced in the U.S. due to its dangers. However, as peak uranium approaches, reprocessing may be reconsidered as a necessary but risky solution.
Better Use of Funds: Investing in Renewables
Instead of funneling billions into new unproven nuclear projects, those funds should be redirected to renewable energy sources that are ready for deployment today to reduce carbon emissions. The $4 billion allocated for SMRs could fund solar panels on rooftops for every house in a city the size of Las Vegas.
- Investments in wind farms and solar plants can achieve far greater reductions in CO2 emissions without the risks of radioactive waste.
- Congress has the power to reprogram funds from nuclear projects to support wind, solar, and energy storage, providing immediate climate benefits.
The Way Forward: Taking Action While We Can
People concerned about the DOE’s misleading promotion of nuclear power and SMRs can take meaningful action by contacting the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to advocate for oversight of nuclear greenwashing. Additionally, individuals can request the reprogramming of funds from SMR development to renewable energy initiatives, and they can file complaints with the DOE Office of Inspector General for industry and government greenwashing. We can also support nonprofit environmental groups and ask that they follow Canada’s lead to try to hold the nuclear industry and government agencies accountable. With the Trump administration poised to make sweeping cuts to federal agencies, reduced public oversight could embolden the nuclear industry to expand greenwashing efforts unchecked. Advocacy is more crucial than ever before.
We don’t need to face this challenge alone. In confronting the extremism of a potential Trump administration, it’s more vital than ever to collaborate with Canada and other nations committed to challenging nuclear misinformation. By working together across borders, we can expose the truth, resist industry propaganda, and push for real, sustainable energy solutions that prioritize our planet over corporate interests.
Action Contact Information
- Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources—Phone: (202) 224-4971 / Website: https://www.energy.senate.gov
- FTC fraud reporting—https://reportfraud.ftc.gov
- Union of Concerned Scientists—Website: https://www.ucsusa.org / Email: ucs@ucsusa.org
- Natural Resources Defense Council—Website: https://www.nrdc.org
- Sierra Club—Website: https://www.sierraclub.org
Keep ReadingShow Less
Climate Change Gives Us the Chance to Truly Decolonize; Will We Take It?
If we are to safeguard our very existence, climate change will challenge us to rethink, review, and reinvent the very notion of civilization and modernity.
Nov 20, 2024
As delegates enter the final days of negotiations in Baku, Azerbaijan for the 29th seating of the Conference of the Parties—COP29—one thing is certain: These discussions happen under circumstances far different from the early 1990s. At that time, it was an absolute novelty that climate activists were highlighting the consequences of a Euro-North American notion of modernity and civilization rooted in extraction and overconsumption. Today, delegates meet within the framework of a global recognition that colonialism exacerbated climate change and that decolonisation is critical in reversing its effects on humankind.
In its 2022 report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made a clear connection between climate change and colonialism, stating that colonialism not only caused climate change but continues to exacerbate the impact of the climate crisis on the most vulnerable around the world. This acknowledgement sent a strong message to the global community and fired up the debate around the need to decolonize our mindsets, economic systems, and definition of modernity and civilization if we are to adequately deal with the climate crisis.
Climate change has inadvertently exposed the inferiority of modern civilization, characterized by a neocolonial economic model rooted in extraction, exploitation, and destruction of nature
2024 has given humanity a foretaste of the apocalypse that awaits us all if we do not rethink our approach to development and make true commitments toward staying below 1.5°C and attaining net-zero carbon dioxide emissions globally by 2050.
With record-high temperatures in several parts of the world this year, the reality of climate change has dawned on even the hardest denialists. Climate change is a lived experience for billions around the world, as floods continue to ravage cities, droughts threaten villages and communities, and wildfires scorch through lives and livelihoods.
Can We Afford to Continue With Business as Usual?
Science tells us we must immediately halt all new investment in fossil fuels. Many countries are making significant strides in the right direction—the U.K. recently announced that it was closing the last of its coal plants following Portugal, Greece, and many others making the switch away from the most polluting fossil fuel. Despite these gains, threats still loom. Trumpism and its “drill baby drill” narrative might have left climate activists feeling despondent, while news reports expose unsettling conversations between the COP29 chair and fossil fuel corporations. The fact of the matter is that no one can truly deny that the world is facing one of its greatest challenges yet and human-made climate change is at the center of it all.
There’s no room for fossil fuels, even though capitalist greed, individualism, and desire for profits over people and the rest of nature still drive the fossil fuel industry. But this industry is well aware of the devastation it has and continues to cause humanity.
COP28 gave a glimpse of hope with terminology to transition away from fossil fuels. COP29 must be more audacious in calling for a full phase out of fossil fuels if we are to reverse the harms of the last 100 years.
Climate Change as a Gift
Unlike many other human-made disasters facing the world—wars, conflicts, economic crises, and political rivalries—climate change has no borders or boundaries. It affects the wealthy and the less privileged, even if the wealthy can adapt better to its damages. The heatwaves, droughts, and the ferocity of the wildfires which science directly link to human activity have cast a dark cloud on the credibility of the Western civilization that has driven global systems in the last 100 years.
this reality calls on every one of us who is confronted with climate change to challenge the Euro-North American notion of a good life, of well-being, of development, of wealth, that has driven us to a climate apocalypse.
Climate change has inadvertently exposed the inferiority of modern civilization, characterised by a neocolonial economic model rooted in extraction, exploitation, and destruction of nature. A civilization that has destroyed the Earth, polarised society, driven individualism and greed, and left our very existence hanging on a thread if we do not act fast to reverse the speed at which the Earth is heating.
Beyond the horrors and misery bestowed on us by extreme weather events, collapsing food systems, and negative health impacts, there may also be a gift in climate change. If we are to safeguard our very existence, climate change will challenge us to rethink, review, and reinvent the very notion of civilization and modernity.
The Imperative of Decolonial Thinking and Decolonisation
Climate talks today should prioritize the need for a decolonial mindset, focusing on an alternative economic model rooted in our relationship with nature, our relationship with self, with each other, and rethinking growth and development.
Wisdom guarded by Indigenous African communities, and other Indigenous communities around the world, shows that it is possible to live great lives, build great empires and kingdoms, while maintaining peace with nature.
Whether world leaders commit to what must be done at COP29 is yet to be seen. However, the reality of a world ravaged by extreme weather events is indisputable. And this reality calls on every one of us who is confronted with climate change to challenge the Euro-North American notion of a good life, of well-being, of development, of wealth, that has driven us to a climate apocalypse.
Whether we like it or not, we will not save ourselves unless we treat the tragedy of climate change as a gift that compels us to do things differently and ultimately to live better lives.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Climate Finance Plan Leaders Won’t Consider at COP29? Tax the Rich
A global 2% annual tax on billionaire wealth could raise $250 billion per year from just the world’s 100 richest families.
Nov 19, 2024
The world desperately needs to pull the plug on fossil fuels. So agree most of the official delegates from nearly 200 nations who have gathered this month by the Caspian Sea for the 29th annual global “Conference of the Parties” on climate change—COP29 for short—in Azerbaijan’s capital city Baku.
But not all the estimated 70,000 attendees at this year’s COP are practicing what they should be preaching. Private jet arrivals at Baku’s international airport, news reports note, have just doubled.
What makes that such a big deal? Practically nothing symbolizes wanton disregard for our Earth’s environment more dramatically than private jet travel. A corporate executive taking a single long-haul private jet flight, points out the Travel Smart Campaign’s Denise Auclair, “will burn more CO2 than several normal people do in an entire year.”
Instead of taxing the world’s wealthiest at higher levels, rich nations want to give their richest more opportunities to become ever richer.
Researchers at Oxfam have just gone through the flight records of 23 global billionaires. Those airborne souls averaged 184 private jet flights each over a recent single year. They each essentially circumnavigated the globe 10 times over. Their flights averaged 2,074 tons of carbon emissions, an outlay an average person globally would take 300 years to emit.
Extravagances like private jets help explain why global carbon emissions last year expanded by 1.3%. To get climate anywhere near under control, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres noted on the eve of this month’s COP29 extravaganza, the world’s nations ought to be reducing carbon emissions by at least 9% a year.
“The world is still underestimating climate risks,” Guterres added. “It’s absolutely essential to reduce emissions drastically now.”
And that reducing will only unfold, the U.N. secretary-general emphasized in his COP29 opening remarks, if the world’s nations address the pivotal contribution to climate catastrophe that our world’s wealthiest are making.
“The rich cause the problem,” as Guterres explained, “the poor pay the highest price.”
Observers have tagged this year’s global environmental gathering the “climate finance COP.” The key question before all the official government delegates gathered in Baku: Who will actually pay the bill for addressing the climate change crisis?
Back in 2009, national delegations to that year’s COP gathering pledged to raise an overall annual $100 billion over the next 15 years. The world’s nations have since then met that target only once. Any new annual target for the next 15 years, most researchers and activists agree, needs to run considerably higher, anywhere from $500 billion to $5 trillion higher.
No one can reasonably expect governments alone, COP principals from rich nations counter, to come up with anywhere near that level of support. These rich-nation COP delegations want to encourage private investors to get more involved in financing new climate initiatives.
In other words, instead of taxing the world’s wealthiest at higher levels, rich nations want to give their richest more opportunities to become ever richer.
Nations rich with fossil fuels most heartily agree. The “onus” for financing moves to counter the climate crisis, COP29 President Mukhtar Babayev from Azerbaijan is arguing, “cannot fall entirely on government purses.”
Our globe’s richest nations would also like to expand the trading of “carbon credits,” transactions that let wealthy developed nations delay making costly emissions cuts at home by underwriting much less costly climate actions in poor nations.
But the offset projects that developed nations underwrite, The Guardiannotes, have regularly overpromised and underdelivered, leaving “wildfires burning through forests that were supposed to be protected and emissions from renewable energy projects being counted on balance books even though they would probably have been built anyway.”
This year’s CO29 conference will wrap up on November 22, and no serious climate change analyst is predicting any consensus that could significantly slow our globe’s ever more perilous progress to climate collapse. Developed nations, Bloomberg’s Mark Gongloff observes, remain “loath to pitch in more than $100 billion a year.”
“Transitioning the world to clean energy alone,” counters Gongloff, could actually cost $215 trillion by 2050.
How could the world make real progress toward those trillions? Guardian environmental editor Fiona Harvey earlier this week ran down some promising options.
Nations could for starters, Harvey notes, put a serious tax bite on the “unprecedented” profit bonanza that fossil fuel companies have enjoyed ever since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. Those companies have pocketed well over a quarter-trillion dollars in profits in the two years since.
Nations could also place new taxes on the jet flights our richest so enjoy or move to end the more than $650 billion spent annually in the developing world on subsidies for fossil fuels and polluting industries. Better yet, in a world where our five richest billionaires have more than doubled their wealth since 2020, we could adopt the 2% annual tax on billionaire wealth that Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has proposed.
A global tax along that line could raise $250 billion per year from just the world’s 100 richest families.
The only sure thing about initiatives like these: No proposals that could make a real climate difference will get any serious attention at COP29, as the prime minister of Albania, Edi Rama, observed in his brief and biting remarks to conference-goers. Rama opened his address to COP29 by noting that he had decided to ditch his prepared remarks after spending some time in the conference’s leaders lounge.
The global notables in that lounge, Rama continued, had all gathered to “eat, drink, meet, and take photos together, while images of voiceless speeches from leaders play on and on and on in the background.”
“To me, this seems exactly like what happens in the real world every day,” he went on to explain. “Life goes on with its old habits, and our speeches, filled with good words about fighting climate change, change nothing.”
Concluded Rama, a former artist and the current chair of his nation’s Socialist Party: “What on Earth are we doing in this gathering, over and over and over, if there is no common political will on the horizon to go beyond words and unite for meaningful action?”
That inaction—in the face of overwhelming global public support for greater pro-climate action—continues to comfort our world’s most fantastically wealthy.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular