Jahr für Jahr nimmt das Plastikrecycling ab, obwohl der Plastikmüll zunimmt

Jahr für Jahr nimmt das Plastikrecycling ab, obwohl der Plastikmüll zunimmt

Papier, Karton, Glas und Metalle werden in hohem Masse recycelt, aber Plastik ist weiterhin Müll. Ein neuer Bericht von Greenpeace USA kommt zu dem Schluss, dass das meiste Plastik einfach nicht recycelt werden kann. Der veröffentlichte Bericht “Circular Claims Fall Flat Again” kommt zu dem Ergebnis, dass die US-Haushalte im Jahr 2021 schätzungsweise 51 Millionen Tonnen Kunststoffabfälle…

View On WordPress

Titled "Circular Claims Fall Flat Again," the study found that of 51 million tons of plastic waste generated by US households in 2021, only 2.4 million tons were recycled, or around five percent.

After peaking in 2014 at 10 percent, the trend has been decreasing, especially since China stopped accepting the West's plastic waste in 2018.

Virgin production – of non-recycled plastic, that is – meanwhile is rapidly rising as the petrochemical industry expands, lowering costs.

[...]

First, plastic waste is generated in vast quantities and is extremely difficult to collect – as becomes clear during what the report called ineffective "volunteer cleanup stunts" funded by nonprofits such as "Keep America Beautiful."

Second, even if it were all collected, mixed plastic waste cannot be recycled together, and it would be "functionally impossible to sort the trillions of pieces of consumer plastic waste produced each year," the report said.

Third, the recycling process itself is environmentally harmful, exposing workers to toxic chemicals and itself generating microplastics.

Fourth, recycled plastic carries toxicity risks through contamination with other plastic types in collection bins, preventing it from becoming food-grade material again.

Fifth and finally, the process of recycling is prohibitively expensive.

"New plastic directly competes with recycled plastic, and it's far cheaper to produce and of higher quality," said the report.

🙁

EN|| Sharks are one of the most endangered animals on planet Earth, it’s estimated that in the last 50 years their population has been reduced by 70%. There’re 17 different species of shark in danger of extinction, like this one in the illustration, the Carcharias Taurus. This problem is especially significant in the Atlantic where fishing fleets can deploy 1,200 km of fishing lines with 28,000 hooks where all kinds of animals are trapped, especially sharks. Furthermore there’s also the indiscriminate fishing of the babys, which, taking into account that most shark species are characterized by having a low reproductive rate, a slow growth rate and late sexual maturation, makes it impossible for sharks to overcome their population decline, making them very susceptible to overfishing. On the other hand, climate change also affects sharks, the water temperature is increasing, the oxygen content of the water is decreasing, especially in coastal areas, and the waters are becoming more acidic. One of the main reasons why protection measures have not been put in place for these species is because the shark meat market has many economic interests, since it’s used for cosmetics, nutrition products and food. Sharks, due to their importance in the food chain, play a fundamental role in the sustainability of marine life and in the ability of these ecosystems to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Protecting them has to be a priority! 🦈 Information from @greenpeace_esp @greenpeace

ES|| Los tiburones son uno de los animales más amenazados del planeta Tierra, se calcula que en los últimos 50 años su población se ha reducido un 70%. Hay 17 especies distintas de tiburón en peligro de extinción, como este de la ilustración, el Carcharias Taurus, también llamado tiburón Toro o “Solraig clapejat” en catalán. Este problema es especialmente significativo en el Atlántico donde la flotas pesqueras pueden llegar a desplegar 1.200 km de líneas de pesca con 28.000 anzuelos donde quedan atrapados todo tipo de animales, sobretodo tiburones. A todo esto se le añade la pesca indiscriminada de crías, que teniendo en cuenta que la mayoría de especies de tiburón se caracterizan por tener una baja reproductividad, una tasa de crecimiento lenta y una maduración sexual tardía, hace imposible que los tiburones se sobrepongan al declive de su población haciéndolos muy susceptibles a la sobrepesca. Por otro lado el cambio climático también afecta a los tiburones, la temperatura del agua esta aumentando, el contenido de oxigeno del agua esta disminuyendo sobretodo en las zonas costeras y las aguas se están acidificando. Uno de los principales motivos por los que no se han creado medidas de protección para estas especies es porque el mercado de la carne de tiburón mueve muchos intereses económicos, ya que se usa para cosméticos, productos de nutrición y para alimentación. Los tiburones, debido a su importancia en la cadena trófica, tienen un papel fundamental en la sostenibilidad de la vida marina y en la capacidad de estos ecosistemas para mitigar y adaptarse al cambio climático. Protegerlos tiene que ser una prioridad!🦈 Información de @greenpeace_esp @greenpeace

Lobbying against climate safety

Climate check: Fossil fuel firms spent millions on US lawmakers who sponsored anti-protest bills

Fossil fuel companies have spent millions of dollars on lobbying and making campaign donations to state lawmakers who sponsored anti-protest laws – which now shield about 60% of US gas and oil operations from protest and civil disobedience, according to a report from Greenpeace USA. Eighteen states, including Montana, Ohio, Georgia, Louisiana, West Virginia and the Dakotas, have enacted sweeping anti-protest laws which boost penalties for trespass near “critical infrastructure”, that make it far riskier for communities to oppose pipelines and other fossil fuel projects that threaten their land, water and the climate.

By Damien Gayle

The Guardian

May 24, 2023

Recycling plastic can make it more toxic and should not be considered a solution to the pollution crisis, Greenpeace has warned before the latest round of negotiations for an international plastics treaty.

“Plastics are inherently incompatible with a circular economy,” the global environmental network said in a report that brings together research showing recycled plastics are more toxic than their virgin constituents.

The report, timed to coincide with the beginning of fresh talks for a potential global plastics treaty, comes as separate research has found breaking down plastics for recycling scatters microplastic pollution into the environment.

Representatives from 173 countries last year agreed to develop a legally binding treaty covering the “full lifecycle” of plastics from production to disposal, to be negotiated over the next two years.

Next week they are due to meet in Paris, for talks that have already been criticized for excluding communities in developing countries harmed by dumping and burning of plastic waste, as well as marginalized waste pickers, who are crucial to recycling.

Without those voices, the fear is that negotiations will be swayed by corporate interests. “The plastics industry – including fossil fuel, petrochemical and consumer goods companies – continues to put forward plastic recycling as the solution to the plastic pollution crisis,” said Graham Forbes, who leads Greenpeace USA’s global plastics campaign.

Read more.

U.S. 

Plastic recycling a "failed concept," study says, with only 5% recycled in U.S. last year as production rises

OCTOBER 24, 2022 / 6:20 AM / AFP

Washington — Plastic recycling rates are declining even as production shoots up, according to a Greenpeace USA report out Monday that blasted industry claims of creating an efficient, circular economy as "fiction."

Titled "Circular Claims Fall Flat Again," the study found that of 51 million tons of plastic waste generated by U.S. households in 2021, only 2.4 million tons were recycled, or around five percent. After peaking in 2014 at 10 percent, the trend has been decreasing, especially since China stopped accepting the West's plastic waste in 2018.

Virgin production — of non-recycled plastic, that is — meanwhile is rapidly rising as the petrochemical industry expands, lowering costs.

Republicans are retaliating against a newly-revived Democratic plan to curb climate change by blocking a bill they previously supported that would provide healthcare to veteran victims of burn pits and Agent Orange, a chemical weapon used during the Vietnam War.

This shocking development, which has sparked the ire of progressives and Democrats, spans back to last week when Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va. torpedoed a Democratic-led bill – dubbed "Inflation Reduction Act of 2022" – that would pour billions into clean energy initiatives aimed at curtailing climate change. Instead, Manchin at the time said he wanted a slimmed-down version of the measure geared more toward lowering the cost of healthcare. "I would not put my staff through this – I would not put myself through this – if I wasn't sincere about trying to find a pathway forward to do something that's good for our country," the centrist Democrat said last week.

But on Thursday, Manchin completely reversed course, striking a reconciliation deal with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., that includes $369 billion in climate and clean energy provisions. The unexpected about-face has shocked Democrats and environmental justice advocates alike and could amount to the biggest climate change legislation the nation has ever seen.

Still, climate advocates have argued that the measure is largely inadequate in addressing the full scope of global warming.

"The few details released this evening suggest this deal will prop up fossil fuels and promote the various false climate solutions beloved by industry," Food & Water Action Executive Director Wenonah Hauter said in a statement. "More subsidies for dirty hydrogen, carbon capture, and nuclear energy are not climate action, they are the opposite."

John Noël, Senior Climate Campaigner at Greenpeace USA, echoed that the measure "fails to address the out-of-control fossil fuel industry causing the climate crisis."

"Millions of people die every year as a result of fossil fuel air pollution, and we cannot afford any fossil fuel expansion if we're going to avoid a climate catastrophe," Noël said. "Marketing a 40% reduction in emissions over 8 years while increasing fossil fuel leasing and a handshake deal to streamline permitting for fossil fuel infrastructure does not add up."

Shortly after Manchin's reversal, Punchbowl News' Jake Sherman reported that Republicans will now whip against a formerly bipartisan bill, dubbed the "CHIPS Act," meant to boost U.S. manufacturing. This is in addition to the GOP's newfound opposition to making servicemembers who contracted dozens of medical conditions overseas eligible for healthcare subsidized by Veterans Affairs. Supporters of the measure have argued that the bill is long overdue, as Roll Call reported.

On Thursday, Republicans officially delayed the veterans' bill with a filibuster, arguing that would allow for profligate fiscal spending that contravenes predetermined budget caps. The GOP's sudden opposition to the law comes after the party widely backed a nearly identical bill that contained a subtle tax provision.

"It's about Congress hiding behind an important veterans care bill a massive unrelated spending binge," said Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Penn.

After the vote, liberals and veterans' advocates immediately condemned congressional Republicans for playing politics at the expense of veterans.

"Congratulations @SenToomey You successfully used the Byzantine Senate rules to keep sick veterans suffering!!!! Kudos!" tweeted comedian Jon Stewart. "I'm sure you'll celebrate by kicking a dog or punching a baby…or whatever terrible people do for fun!!!!!"

Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., likewise called the GOP's move "an eleventh-hour act of cowardice."

"Republicans chose today to rob generations of toxic-exposed veterans across this country of the health care and benefits they've earned and so desperately need," he tweeted. "Make no mistake—the American people are sick and tired of these games."

Republican Senators have been accused of “sentencing veterans to death” after they blocked the passage of a landmark bill that would finally give US service members sick and dying from toxic exposure to burn pits access to the healthcare that they need.

Democratic lawmakers, veterans and advocates including TV host Jon Stewart spoke out in a highly emotional press conference on Thursday morning as the bill that had been expected to become law by the end of the week was suddenly derailed by the Republican party.

“This is total bullshit,” shouted Senator Kristen Gillibrand. “They have just sentenced veterans to death.”

On Wednesday, the SFC Heath Robinson Honoring our PACT Act collapsed in the US Senate when dozens of Republicans who previously backed the bill unexpectedly changed their minds and decided to vote against it.

The bill received just 55 of the needed 60 votes to pass a cloture motion on Wednesday, as just eight Republicans voted to move it forward. A staggering 25 of those who voted against it had voted to pass the same bill just one month earlier.

Back on 16 June, the Senate had overwhelmingly voted to pass the bill, with Senators voting 84 to 14 in favour of expanding healthcare access to thousands of veterans who had served the US overseas.

But now, with the Senate scheduled to go on a month-long recess on 5 August, thousands of veterans in desperate need of healthcare and disability benefits have now been left high and dry for even longer.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer told The Independent on Capitol Hill on Thursday that he is “going to give our Republican friends another opportunity to vote on this Monday night."

Much of the blame for sabotaging the bill’s passage was levelled at Senator Pat Toomey who – ahead of the vote – spoke out against the bill and said that he wanted to add an amendment on provisional spending.

Speaking at Thursday’s press conference, Rosie Torres – cofounder of BurnPits360 and the wife of veteran Le Roy Torres, who has a rare terminal condition caused by burn pits – told the senator that more veterans will die because of him.

“Senator Toomey, how many veterans are going to die because of you?” she asked. “Please explain to us: what is an acceptable amount of deaths?”

Ms. Torres branded the Republican Senators who switched their votes “25 villains” as she said the veteran community “demands answers, we deserve justice."

Mr. Stewart, who has been lobbying the government to pass the bill, slammed the “abject cruelty” of the GOP lawmakers who had voted no and warned them that delaying passing the PACT Act is costing lives. He hit out at the Senators who plan to go on recess next week when the veterans who are sick and dying don’t have time to wait.

“They’re not on Senate time. They’re on human time. They’re on cancer time,” he said. “Don’t you have families? Don’t you have people who are deciding how to live their last moments?” he asked the lawmakers.

Mr. Stewart singled out Senators Toomey, Rick Scott and Mitch McConnell as he pointed out the hypocrisy of the lawmakers who claim they support veterans but voted against the PACT Act.

He read out one particular tweet posted by Mr. Scott on Wednesday where the Florida Republican showcased photos of him giving out care packages to service men and women – the very same day he voted against the bill.

“I was honored to join @the_uso today and make care packages for our brave military members in gratitude of their sacrifice and service to our nation,” read the tweet.

Mr. Stewart mocked the tweet saying “There’s a beautiful picture."

"Did you get the package? I think it has some M&Ms in it and some cookies,” he mocked.

He also impersonated Mr. McConnell’s voice as he revealed that one month earlier he had told veterans “we’ll get it done."

“Mitch McConnell yesterday flipped,” he said, referring to the Senator’s sudden decision to then vote no to the bill.

Mr. Toomey, meanwhile, “won’t sit down” with the veterans he is impacting while he claims that he has the backing of several veterans groups.

“Pat Toomey claims that he has veteran groups behind him,” he said.

“I call bullshit – these are the veteran groups,” he said gesturing around at the multiple veterans and representative from veterans groups who had gathered at the press conference to condemn the bill’s stalling.

“They’re all here. They don’t stand behind you in fact you won’t let them stand in front of you,” he said, branding Mr. Toomey a “fucking coward."

The TV host said that – after he has spent more than a decade lobbying the US government first for 9/11 responders and then for veterans – he is “used to the hypocrisy” and “lies."

“The Senate is where accountability goes to die. They’re never losing their jobs. They’re never losing their healthcare.”

He added: “This is an embarrassment to the Senate, to the country and to the founders and to all that they confess to hold dear. If this is America first then this is America fucked!”

When asked for his reaction to Mr. Stewart’s comments, Mr. Toomey replied: “That’s not worth responding to.” His office directed The Independent to his tweet on Wednesday where he said he was trying to solve a “budget gimmick."

“Tonight, the Senate voted to give us the chance to fix a completely unnecessary budget gimmick in the underlying text of the PACT Act. This gimmick allows $400B in spending completely unrelated to veterans care,” he said.

“We can easily fix this tonight, and there is no reason we cannot do so NOW. This simple fix would not reduce spending on veterans in the underlying bill by a single penny. It’s wrong to use a veterans bill to hide an unrelated slush fund.”

When asked for comment, Mr. McConnell’s office referred The Independent to his comments on the Senate floor where he said that he supports the “substance of the bill” but that lawmakers first need to “fix the underlying accounting issue."

In March, the bill was renamed after the late Sgt. Heath Robinson who died in May 2020 from a rare cancer caused by breathing in toxic fumes from burn pits while serving in Iraq in the Ohio National Guard. He was 39.

His mother-in-law Susan Zeier choked back tears on Thursday as she branded the Senators voting against it “reprehensible” while dresssed in her late son-in-law’s army jacket. Just one month earlier she had symbolically taken off the jacket saying that she no longer needed to “carry” Heath “on her shoulders” after the Senate passed the bill.

The 16 June vote had been celebrated by veterans, their families and advocates who have spent years battling for the US government to take the issue of burn pits seriously – as the passage meant it seemed certain that the bill was weeks away from becoming law.

The bill was sent back to the House for a final vote where it passed with a 342-88 vote on 14 July. Because of a minor technical fix the House made, the Senate was required to vote on it again before it could be sent to President Joe Biden’s desk to be signed into law.

But – between one month and the next – dozens of Republican Senators decided that they no longer supported expanding healthcare and disability access to US servicemembers and decided to change their vote.

Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Jon Tester slammed the move on the Senate floor on Wednesday night. “This eleventh-hour act of cowardice will actively harm this country’s veterans and their families,” he said.

“Republicans chose today to rob generations of toxic-exposed veterans across this country of the health care and benefits they so desperately need. And make no mistake, more veterans will suffer and die as a result.”

Under the legislation, 23 cancers, respiratory illnesses and other conditions will now be presumptively linked to a veterans’ exposure to burn pits while on deployment overseas. This means service men and women who have returned home from serving their country and developed one of these conditions will be given automatic access to healthcare and disability benefits.

It will also fund federal research on the impact of burn pits on the nation’s troops. An estimated 3.5 million servicemembers and veterans are estimated to have been exposed to burn pits and airborne toxins while serving the US overseas, according to the Veterans Affairs (VA).

During America’s post-9/11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, huge open-air pits were used to burn mountains of trash including food packaging, human waste and military equipment on US military bases. Thousands of US service members returned home from deployment and developed health conditions including rare cancers, lung conditions, respiratory illnesses and toxic brain injuries caused by breathing in the toxic fumes from the pits.

But, until now, the burden of proof has always been on veterans to prove their condition is directly caused by this toxic exposure. In September 2020, a senior VA official testified before Congress that almost 80% of disability claims mentioning burn pits were rejected between 2007 and 2020.

In the last six months, the President has made tackling the issue of burn pits a higher priority and repeatedly urged lawmakers in the House and Senate to pass legislation to support veterans. During his State of the Union address in March, said that he believes his son Beau Biden may have died as a result of toxic exposure to burn pits during his deployment to Iraq.

Destruction of Brazil’s forests and Indigenous Peoples’ lands highlighted in New York City ahead of Brazil President’s speech at the UN

Indigenous leaders from Brazil and civil society groups alert world leaders about deforestation and escalating violence at the hands of the current government

The Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil (APIB), Defend Democracy in Brazil Committee (DDB-NY), Greenpeace Brazil and Greenpeace USA projected images of record deforestation, forest burnings, and Indigenous Peoples’ resistance to the assault on their lives in midtown Manhattan on the cusp of the UN General Assembly, Climate Week NYC and Brazil’s presidential election. In the first half of September alone, at least six Indigenous Peoples were killed in the violence in Brazil, with the most recent assassination of Indigenous leader Victorino Sanches of the Guaraní-kaiowá on 13 September 2022. 

The projection calls out Brazil’s Head of State — who is set to open the UN General Assembly on  September 20 — for anti-Indigenous and anti-environmental policies that have led to an explosive increase in deforestation along with violence against Indigenous Peoples and environmental defenders.  

Recent data from Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research (INPE) show that 7,135km2—an area nine times the size of New York City—of the Amazon was deforested from January to August 2022, the highest rate ever recorded for this time period. In August alone, 33,116 illegal fire hotspots were registered in the Amazon, the highest level in 12 years.

Threats to Indigenous Peoples’ lives are an urgent climate issue. Repeated studies have demonstrated that forests and other ecosystems are best protected when Indigenous land rights are respected.

Continue reading.

The future of innovation and efficiency that many governments and private companies dream of runs into ecological and geopolitical limits. But AI does not rely on raw materials only during the construction of its physical infrastructures; it does so throughout its cycle. For instance, data centres and servers need large amounts of water to cool down. According to a study published in Nature in 2021, Google and Microsoft declared using respectively 15.8 billion and 3.6 billion litres of water. We don’t know if these numbers are trustworthy. As a telling example, Microsoft has been involved in a scandal regarding the water expenditure of one of its data centres in the Netherlands. Whereas the technology company declared to the Dutch authorities that the centre consumed between 12 and 20 million litres, it transpired it was actually consuming 84 million. Meanwhile, in August 2022, Thames Water announced reviewing the water expenditure of data centres in London due to the drought scenario the capital faced that summer. While the average annual cooling system consumption of a small data centre in the US is estimated to be 25 500 000 litres, that of a person in Nigeria is 12 410 litres – 2 000 times less. AI is also energy intensive. The more data to be analysed, the higher the energy consumption. More sophisticated algorithms, which need long computational time, consume even more. For example, it is estimated that training an algorithm to automatically produce text uses 190,000 kWh; that is, 120 times more than the average annual consumption of a household in Europe in 2020. To generate this energy, raw materials such as organic matter, uranium, coal or water, among others, are again needed. Although some of the big tech companies claim that their energy is produced sustainably, the data shows another trend. In 2019, Greenpeace published a report about an Amazon Data Centre in Virginia (USA), which is considered to be one of the most important in Amazon’s global infrastructure. Greenpeace warned against the important growth in energy consumption in the region due to this data centre’s activities. Despite Amazon’s pledge to invest in “green” energy for this data centre, the reality is that its investment in fossil fuels has increased shamelessly. In 2021, data centres were estimated to consume 0.9-1.3% of global electricity demand. Given AI’s high energy consumption and the current energy crisis, the techno-optimistic dreams of governments and Silicon Valley’s companies could be dashed by the high price of energy.

STOP THE WILLOW PROJECT

The US Department of the Interior has approved the Willow Project, a disputed hydrocarbon drilling license advanced by ConocoPhillip on Alaska's North Slope. Under the plan approved by the Biden administration, ConocoPhillips will be allowed to develop three wells (it had requested 5), in one of the largest oil and gas projects on federal public lands and could emit about 287 million tons of pollution emissions over the next 30 years, equivalent to reactivating one-third of all coal-fired plants in the United States. The decision comes after that, the day before. the Biden administration had announced new protections for Arctic lands and waters, banning oil and gas drilling on millions of acres of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska and the Arctic Sea. Environmental groups, indigenous communities and several Democratic parliamentarians had opposed the controversial Willow project, a "carbon bomb" that would block US efforts to get out of fossil fuels for decades. Ben Jealous, executive director of the Sierra Club, the largest US environmental association (very close to the Democrats) harshly criticized the decision: «We cannot drill our way towards a sustainable future. We must conserve public lands, not sell them off to polluting corporations. The damaging effects of President Biden's decision cannot be underestimated. By allowing ConocoPhillips to do this, he and his administration have made it nearly impossible to achieve the climate goals they set for public lands. Willow will be one of the largest oil and gas operations on federal public lands in the country, and the carbon pollution it will release into the air will have devastating effects on our communities, wildlife and climate. We will suffer the consequences for decades to come. As we celebrate the administration's unprecedented protections for Alaska's land and waters, the decision to approve Project Willow could very well wipe out many of these climate and ecological benefits. And as you approve one of the largest oil and gas projects on federal public lands, one must ask the question of what the Biden administration has in store for the Arctic Refuge. For People vs. Fossil Fuels, “The Willow Oil Project locks us into decades of fossil fuel pollution at a time when we desperately need to shut down all new fossil fuel projects and quickly begin phasing out existing production. The approval is a denial of climate science and directly contradicts the administration's commitment to protect Alaskan wilderness from resource extraction and Biden's stated climate goals. The coalition of which Greenpeace USA is also part highlights that «Global scientists have been absolutely clear: we must end the expansion of fossil fuels if we are to avoid irreversible climate devastation and immediate damage to frontline communities. The approval of a massive new oil drilling project estimated to release 280 million tons of greenhouse gases when we are already in a climate emergency is shaping our future. Biden's presidential powers allow him to reject all new fossil fuel projects and declare a climate emergency that would ensure the survival of our communities and our planet. Instead, it is choosing to fatten the wallets of oil CEOs by expanding the fossil fuel infrastructure that will push us further into climate chaos. The fight for #StopWillow and all new fossil fuel projects is not over. Our movement to fight fossils continues to grow and we will continue to fight for a livable future aligned with science and justice."

from: green report.it

California, USA — Today, a federal court in California dismissed a seven-year lawsuit brought by Resolute Forest Products against a number of Greenpeace staff members and entities, including Greenpeace International and Greenpeace USA. The Canadian logging company sued the Greenpeace defendants for CA $100 million in an attempt to silence and bankrupt them, after criticism of its unsustainable forestry practices. #greenpeace #movingforward

View on Twitter

(Source)

A műanyag újrahasznosítás csak fing a szélben?

This is a very important video that is just one example of how russian influence has infiltrated European institutions and is actively obstructs their functioning. I implore you to watch this video with automatic translation - the subtitres are fairly decent. For those who want a short version, I have written down some of the key points. 

IAEA is an independent international organization for atomic energy, working under the UN. It was created in 1957 with the purpose of cooperation and control over the peaceful use of nuclear technology. The soviet union used to be a member of IAEA, and russia has inherited its place. They have signed all the international agreements that come with their position and donate yearly contributions to the organization’s budget. 

Despite the war in Ukraine, colossal international sanctions and other types of pressure, russia remains a member of IAEA. This organization still hasn’t recognised russia as an initiator of the aggression and is calling the current war “a situation” or “conflict”.

In August 2013, an explosion occurred near russian arkhangelsk. According to the official data, at least 5 people died immediately, and 2 died later due to acute radiation sickness.  Four more people received extremely high doses of radiation. According to the USA intelligence, the explosion happened during the retrieval of a “Burevestnik” cruise missile carrying a nuclear engine from the seabed. A radiation release happened due to an uncontrolled nuclear reaction. Two barges, probably used for the transportation of the missle remains after the incident, were left on the seashore near the Nyonoksa village for several months. The radiation levels in the place were 14 times higher than the acceptable norm. Despite giving reports about accidents like this being a literal purpose of the IAEA, they did not comment at all about this event.

Despite the fact that IAEA is the organization that is supposed to monitor all peaceful usage of nuclear energetics in the world, they can only inspect one nuclear plant out of 37 (!) present in russia. This means that as far as independent observers, we have no idea how  russian nuclear plants work or if they work at all. For all we know, they could be used for military purposes and we wouldn’t have a clue, because IAEA fails to fulfill the duties it was created for. This is because the presence of IAEA monitoring on nuclear plants can only happen under the consent from the country, which russia doesn’t give. It is true that IAEA has virtually no ways to influence russia, but as we’ll see later, they don’t even bother to use those pressure points they have. 

On March 9, 2022, after the capture of the Chornobyl NPP by the russians, IAEA lost all contact with the monitoring systems installed at the station. The connection was only restored on the 11th of May. We still do not know what happened on the station during those two months. In April, during the occupation of the nuclear plant, IAEA published very limited data, claiming that radiation levels remain normal. After the deoccupation their mission entered the NPP, confirming the previous report. However, Greenpeace conducted its own research and accused IAEA of reporting false data. The Greenpeace investigative group has discovered that radiation levels in the dislocation of russian military forces was at least three times higher than stated in the IAEA report and corresponds to the level of nuclear waste.

Investigating the Chornobyl catastrophe, IAEA has ignored the report of the Commission of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine that concluded that the reason for the explosion was the construction flaw of the nuclear plant. Instead, IAEA followed the official narrative of the soviet union, blaming the nuclear plant personnel.   

Currently, the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Plant remains under russian occupation. They use it as terrorists - to blackmail Ukraine. They interrogate and torture the workers, remove the equipment and launch missles from the territory of the NP. IAEA has made no comment about this.

On May 25th, at the Davos Economic Forum, IAEA general director Rafael Mariano-Grossi stated that Zaporizhzhya NP holds “30 tons of plutonium and 40 tons of enriched uranium, suitable for manufacture of nuclear weapons”. In his statement he repeated word-to-word russian state propaganda, which had previously made the same claim. The Ukrainian side had to debunk this, stating the plutonium and uranium were never stored on the Zaporizhzhya NP. Ex-Minister of Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety Yury Kostenko explained that the plutonium and uranium present on the plant is the fuel waste that is impossible to use for the manufacturing of nuclear weapons. Furthermore, since 1998 it was IAEA that has been responsible for making sure that Ukraine has no nuclear materials suitable for military use, which has been confirmed since then each year in the IAEA annual report. This means that for Mr Grossi’s statement to be true, that would mean that his organization has failed to fulfill its duty for 24 years. According to Mr Kostenko, the amount of fuel that Grossi claims Ukraine has would have been enough to create 4,000 nuclear missiles. 

On March 23th, Grossi called for an urgent IAEA mission on the Ukrainian nuclear plant. The original composition of the group would have had russian citizens and was drafted by Aleksey Likachov (more about him below). On August 30th, the mission of 14 members arrived in Kyiv. No russian members were present, but also no Ukrainians were allowed to participate, as well as Americans and Britains. 

In June IAEA had forbidden a representative of Ukraine to attend the conference with a report about the radiation sources in the war zone. However, russian speakers were widely represented, both as speakers and as leaders of the sections. 

At least three russian politicians have influence over the decisions in the IAEA. Mikhail Chudakov, a former member of National Bolshevik Party of Russia (founded by Eduard Limonov and Oleksandr Dugin) is the Deputy General Director of IAEA and head of its department of Nuclear Energy since 2015. Before that, he worked at Rosatom - russian state corporation for atomic energy - for 20 years. Rostom takes part in the occupation of the Zaporizhzhya nuclear plant, and at least 11 of its members have been to it. Chudakov has access to sensitive information about the state of Ukrainian nuclear plants. It is impossible to know where this information goes and how it is used. Both Poland and Greenpeace have called for IAEA to fire Chudakov and explain his role in the agency. IAEA did no such thing, and limited itself to condemning the action of russian federation in Ukraine - without naming it as aggressor and doing anything of consequence. 

Since January 2018 Mikhail Ulyanov has been a permanent representative of the russian federation at international organizations in Vienna, including IAEA. It was him who tweeted on August 19, “No mercy for ukrainians!”.

Aleksey Likachov is the director of Rosatom. He coordinates with IAEA on behalf of the russian government. On August 24the he met in Istanbul with the director of IAEA, after which released the cynical statement: “We leave the politics out of brackets, and talk only about the cooperation and safety of modern nuclear plants”. In 2018-21 Likachov was the head of the delegation of russian federation at the meetings of the general committee. In March 2022 he confirmed the presence of Rosatom representatives of the occupied Zaporizhzhya NO, and in April Rosatom has additionally sent at least 8 more people who demanded daily reports and confidential data from the Ukrainian workers of the nuclear plant. Another director of Rosatom, Sergey Kiryenko, is the curator of the temporary occupied Ukrainian territories. 

By Jake Johnson

Common Dreams

July 5, 2023

The trillions of dollars in public subsidies that governments around the world hand to the fossil fuel industry each year are facing growing scrutiny from lawmakers and climate campaigners as heatwaves across the planet push global temperatures into uncharted territory.

Environmentalist Annie Leonard, the former executive director of Greenpeace USA, called on members of the U.S. Congress to reject public subsidies for the oil and gas industry in the must-pass annual budget package, a sweeping measure that typically includes billions in tax incentives and other handouts that encourage production and consumption of planet-warming fossil fuels.

"Stop giving our money to the corporations cooking the planet," Leonard wrote on Twitter Tuesday, urging Americans to contact and pressure their representatives.

The International Monetary Fund estimates that world governments dished out nearly $6 trillion in total fossil fuel subsidies in 2020—around $11 million per minute—and that such giveaways are expected to grow in the coming years without significant reforms.

Last year, according to the International Energy Agency, fossil fuel consumption subsidies alone rose to more than $1 trillion worldwide—a surge fueled in part by the energy market chaos caused by Russia's invasion of Ukraine. While such subsidies were aimed at shielding consumers from high gas prices, they had the "adverse effect of keeping fossil fuels artificially competitive with low-emissions alternatives," IEA said.

The same year that subsidies skyrocketed to record levels, the global fossil fuel industry raked in a staggering $4 trillion in profits, the IEA found.

"Big Oil companies are boosting profits and shareholder distribution while our climate suffers," U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said last month.

In late 2021, 197 countries including the U.S. and Canada signed a climate pact that contains a pledge to phase out "inefficient fossil fuel subsidies." But as Emily Atkin and Arielle Samuelson wrote in the HEATED newsletter earlier this year, that promise turned out to be "meaningless" given the subsequent rise in oil and gas subsidies.

"This is why climate promises never come to pass," Atkin and Samuelson argued. "The polluters' pocketbooks are government-lined."

Amid a catastrophic wildfire season that has blanketed large swaths of the U.S. with toxic smoke, the Canadian government is reportedly expected to release a policy this month aimed at cutting off "inefficient fossil fuel subsidies," echoing the language of the Glasgow climate pact.

But advocates raised concerns about how the policy will define "inefficient." As the CBC's Benjamin Shingler reported last week, climate campaigners say "subsidies should only be considered 'efficient'—and therefore an acceptable form of government funding—if they align with Canada's Paris agreement goals."

"That means subsidies shouldn't support new or updated fossil fuel infrastructure, or delay the transition to renewables, according to signatories of the letter to [Canadian Prime Minister Justin] Trudeau last month," Shingler added.

Trudeau and other world leaders will have a major opportunity to finally take concrete, coordinated action to end fossil fuel subsidies at COP28 in late November—but that would mean confronting an industry that will have a significant presence at the critical summit in the United Arab Emirates.

Chido Muzondo, a policy adviser at the International Institute for Sustainable Development, wrote last month that governments at COP28 must do more than pay "lip service to the existing pledges—made in the Paris Agreement Article 2.c.1 and in the Glasgow statement—to stop subsidizing fossil fuels."

"This decade is decisive in our fight against global warming, and time is limited to align our actions with the measures needed to avoid the worst effects of climate change," Muzondo wrote. "Fossil fuel subsidies stand out as some of the most harmful policies hindering our efforts to tackle climate change."

Read more.