LyrArc Article Gist
A nuclear plant in a war zone with repeated shelling? This is taken up in this debate video of 44 minutes in FR24 which you can click on. The world has not seen this since the start of nuclear energy from plants in the 1950's. Calder Hall the first UK nuclear power station and the first in western Europe started in 1956. Eisenhower opened the first US nuclear power station Shippingport on the Ohio river in Pennsylvania, 50 kilometres from Pittsburgh in 1958 as part of the Atoms for Peace Program. The US built 54 nuclear plants that are operating today in 2022 generating 50% of the renewable energy in use today in the US. The question is what does the unthinkable conducted by the Russians and Ukrainians, by weaponizing a nuclear plant do to public perception of the safety of the Atoms for Peace Program initiated by president Eisenhower in 1954? What does this damaging of public safety perceptions after Fukushima do to the Atoms for Peace type of programs in China India, and European Union that are part of the emissions cutting programs in the world? These are serious questions at a time when climate change is not simply a word but means floods, fires, drought, and declining food production all over the world from Spain to Pakistan, from Germany to China. China and India are affected. China has 53 nuclear plants in 2021 with 50 GW and plans to double this by 2030. India has 22 nuclear plants  with 8 GW in 2021 and plans to triple this to 22 GW by 2030. How will climate change be tackled with public safety perceptions affected with another nuclear accident like that in Fukushima arising from shelling of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant. As the president of the UN Security Council Zhang Jun of China clearly stated at the UN SC meeting last week that China opposed use of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant by Russia (or Ukraine) in any way that could lead to damaging nuclear safety leading to an unintended accident. China only gets about 5% of its energy from nuclear, India about 3%, and this will need to increase multiple times to tackle climate change. France gets 70% of its energy from nuclear, the US 20%, by comparison. Nuclear energy safety and clear rules to prevent weaponizing of nuclear plant zones is essential and a solution like that developed for the food grain shipments from Odessa through Black Sea to the Mediterranean has to be arranged quickly. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Yaroslav Trofimov gives his reflections on what the war means for Russia in this Essay in WSJ, and the sense within Russia that the war itself was a mistake. A result of miscalculations and a result that leaves Russia in no way better than it was in 2021 before the conflict. Hard won economic gains achieved by Mr. Putin during the last two decades have in fact been compromised by the conflict. No discussion has even been done on the transition away from fossil fuels that have been accelerated by the conflict. This is particularly relevant for Russia where the question of redundant fossil fuel assets during the rapid transition to renewable energy is a problem that needs to be tackled. The Ukraine diversion in this way affects the Russian economy and acts as a distraction from important economic goals. Global public opinion is also affected in ways that do not look favorable for Russia the longer the war goes on particularly the effect on food insecurity in poor countries, and energy security in Europe for poor households, the senseless destruction of infrastructure in Ukraine and millions of women and children displaced, all creating a sense of overwhelming moral failure. Mr. Modi of India is reported by FR24 to have told Mr. Putin at a meeting on September 15 that "this is no time for war." This is shown on today's pages in Lyrarc. How could it be a time for war when the pandemic has taken lives of over 1 million people in the US, over 2 million in Europe, millions in Asia, Latin America and Africa, and the world is only now coming out of it. The competition is not between countries for major power status but between countries on achieving better lives for its people, stronger economies, and better job, health, infrastructure and services to ordinary people, tackling problems on a common basis such as climate change. In most situations even the advanced countries of North America and Europe are facing the same problems faced by middle income countries such as China,Russia, and developing countries such as India- how to combine market economy with State participation in the economy and government ensuring fairness to all, better distribution of incomes and wealth, ensuring that there is a level playing field for all and opportunities for all. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Von Mark Schieritz of Germany's Zeit Online describes the changes underway following the election campaigns in the U.S., and France, and the Brexit vote in Britain, all signalling the discontent of people left behind by the tech, capitalism, trade and globalization changes of the last two decades. The appeal of one time fringe politicians using racist slogans and divisive rhetoric to appeal to those left behind, appealing to people lacking intergenerational mobility, and without much hope for a better future, is a serious concern. People who are gullible enough, lack college education, or racially isolated so that they are not likely to look carefully at what is being offered in terms of programs and change of competing parties, and likely to overlook the hard and difficult road for corrective course of action, because of anger and pentup fears. Schieritz cites as part of this change the unanimously approved conclusion in its final declaration at the G-20 meeting in Chengdu, China- "The benefits of growth need to be shared more broadly within and among countries to promote inclusiveness." Yet this can be a sort of "too little, too late."  Bankers who are cited in an email going around Wall Street lack credibility with groups on Main Street, to people adversely affected by tech, trade and globalization changes that have been persistently ignored for over a decade, close to two decades. More convincing is the tone of Theresa May, the British prime minister's first statement outside 10 Downing Street- who spoke of the "burning injustices" and her determination to make this a top priority of her government. Still more convincing are the programs to invest $275 billion over 10 years in infrastructure put forward by the leading candidate in the U.S. presidential election of 2016, to provide easier access to public universities and colleges to those left behind, as a sure way to create new jobs and address intergenerational mobility. In fact every leading candidate had made the loss of upward mobility their central plank already in 2015, long before Trump and Sanders started their campaign. The real hope lies in western leaders Merkel, May, and Clinton, all keenly aware students of changes, all women by the way who have sensed the injustice and have the ability to come up with something new and promising for the future, after learning the lessons of the past. ...