Podcasts about Yucca Mountain

Once upon a time, Las Vegas loved all things atomic: In the 1950's, we were the nuclear testing capital of the country, and atomic “tourists” flocked to mushroom cloud vantage points, secret societies held viewing parties with celebrities like Zsa Zsa Gabor, and Miss Atomic Bomb famously posed for a photo wearing nothing but a tiny, poofy mushroom cloud. So when did that all start to change? How did protests, progress, and the controversy over Yucca Mountain change local attitudes about nuclear testing? Co-host Dayvid Figler sits down with Matt Malinowski, Director of Education at the Atomic Museum, to find out. Want to get in touch? Follow us @CityCastVegas on Instagram, or email us at lasvegas@citycast.fm. You can also call or text us at 702-514-0719. For more Las Vegas news, make sure to sign up for our morning newsletter, Hey Las Vegas. Looking to advertise on City Cast Las Vegas? Check out our options for podcast and newsletter ads at citycast.fm/advertise. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Dred Scott DecidedOn March 6, 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its infamous ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford, a decision that deepened national tensions over slavery. The Court held that Dred Scott, an enslaved man who had lived in free territories, was not a U.S. citizen and therefore had no legal standing to sue for his freedom. In a sweeping opinion by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the Court went further, declaring that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in federal territories. This effectively struck down the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had restricted the spread of slavery in certain parts of the country. The ruling was celebrated in the South but outraged abolitionists and many in the North, who saw it as an alarming expansion of pro-slavery power.The Dred Scott decision is widely regarded as one of the worst in Supreme Court history, as it denied citizenship and legal protections to Black Americans. It also emboldened pro-slavery forces while further alienating the growing anti-slavery movement. The backlash contributed to the intensifying sectional divide that would lead to the Civil War just four years later. During the war, President Abraham Lincoln and Congress took steps to undermine the decision, culminating in the passage of the 13th and 14th Amendments. These amendments abolished slavery and established birthright citizenship, directly overturning Dred Scott. Today, the case stands as a stark reminder of how the law has been used to uphold racial injustice—and how later legal reforms can correct such profound wrongs.The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against President Donald Trump's effort to withhold payments from foreign aid organizations for work already completed. The decision upheld an order by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, requiring the government to release nearly $2 billion in funds owed to contractors and grant recipients under USAID and the State Department. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the Court's liberal justices to form the majority, while four conservative justices dissented. The Trump administration had paused all foreign aid on January 20, citing an “America First” agenda, which disrupted humanitarian efforts worldwide. Aid organizations sued, arguing Trump exceeded his authority by defunding programs approved by Congress. The administration contended that enforcing payments without proper review amounted to judicial overreach. Despite Ali's repeated orders, the administration largely kept the funds frozen, prompting legal battles over compliance. Plaintiffs warned that continued delays would cause “extraordinary and irreversible harm” to millions relying on aid. The Supreme Court did not provide a rationale for its order but instructed Ali to clarify compliance obligations. A hearing is scheduled for March 7 to determine the next steps.US Supreme Court won't let Trump withhold payment to foreign aid groups | ReutersDozens of U.S. hospital systems and healthcare providers have filed lawsuits against Blue Cross Blue Shield, alleging the insurer underpaid them by billions. These providers chose to opt out of a $2.8 billion class-action settlement in Alabama, which is awaiting final approval. The new lawsuits, filed in federal courts in California, Illinois, and Pennsylvania, argue that Blue Cross and its affiliates conspired to divide the market, reducing competition and driving down reimbursement rates in violation of antitrust laws. Plaintiffs, including Bon Secours Mercy Health and Temple University Health, believe they could recover more through individual lawsuits than the settlement. Blue Cross has denied wrongdoing and declined to comment. The final approval hearing for the Alabama settlement is scheduled for July 29. This litigation follows a separate $2.7 billion antitrust settlement in 2020 for commercial and individual subscribers, which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld last year. Some large companies also opted out of that settlement to pursue their own claims.Hospitals line up to sue Blue Cross, opting out of $2.8 bln settlement | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has the authority to license temporary nuclear waste storage sites, a case brought by Texas and oil industry interests. The dispute centers on a facility in western Texas, licensed by the NRC in 2021, which opponents argue poses environmental and security risks. Some conservative justices questioned whether "temporary" storage could last indefinitely, undermining efforts to establish a permanent waste site. Liberal justices focused on whether the plaintiffs had legal standing, as they did not initially challenge the NRC's decision through the agency's process. The case follows past failures to establish a permanent nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, despite significant federal investment. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled the NRC lacked authority under the Atomic Energy Act, prompting the Biden administration to appeal—a move continued under Trump. A decision is expected by June.US Supreme Court hears Texas nuclear waste storage dispute | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This week, Ira spoke with John L. Smith, co-author of "My Life in Nevada Politics, The Memoirs of Senator Richard H. Bryan." this episode of “Talk About Las Vegas With Ira,” John talks about getting involved in this book project about a major Nevada figure;; what he learned from working with Senator Bryan (“a master class in retail politics”); why it was a real team effort between memory and research; Senator Bryan's amazing memory for people and stories; hearing the senator's voice in the book; how Las Vegas and Nevada changed over the decades; themes that run through the book; why he decided now to write the memoir (a sense of legacy?); the fight against Yucca Mountain; his great sense of hu-mor; how the senator could carry every county in Nevada, despite the political divide; his approach as friend and neighbor; bringing ethics to the forefront; the contributions of Bon-nie Bryan with her “own kind of magic”; and why small crowds were important. (Also Watch Full Podcast Video)

'Perhaps the most influential climate science contrarian' (Nature). Trump EPA transition. Biostat. Atty. Fund mgr. FOX News contrib. Founder, http://JunkScience.com 00:00 Introduction and Guest Welcome 00:10 Trump Transition and Climate Policy 00:48 EPA and NOAA Appointments 02:13 Red Team-Blue Team Debate 03:21 EV Mandates and Tesla 04:36 IRA Climate Spending 07:12 Paris Agreement Strategy 11:07 Climate Skepticism and Social Media 22:08 Methane and Climate Policies 23:19 Global Climate Agenda 24:28 The War on Farmers and One World Government 25:43 EPA Overreach and Nuclear Power 26:21 Radiation Myths and Junk Science 32:17 Yucca Mountain and Radiation Safety 35:11 The Safety of Glyphosate and Chemicals 38:41 Food Scares and Processed Foods 46:14 Economic Revival and Government Spending 48:29 Energy Policies and Pipelines 50:46 Final Thoughts and Conclusion https://x.com/JunkScience https://junkscience.com/ ======== AI summaries of all of my podcasts: https://tomn.substack.com/p/podcast-summaries My Linktree: https://linktr.ee/tomanelson1 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL89cj_OtPeenLkWMmdwcT8Dt0DGMb8RGR X: https://x.com/TomANelson Substack: https://tomn.substack.com/ About Tom: https://tomn.substack.com/about

Gestation Seven: One Was Black and One Was White by J. Stewart WillisIn this novel, two dead babies are found in a trash dumpster off U. S. 1 south of Alexandria, Virginia. A young reporter and the Alexandria Police follow clues leading to three government scientists who have gone rogue and conducted an experiment to reduce the gestation period of the human race from nine to seven months. The experiment has gone terribly wrong, producing ramifications to all who are involved.J. Stewart Willis is a graduate of the United States Military Academy and the graduate school of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. In the army, he served in Taiwan and later in Vietnam as the signal officer of the 173rd Airborne Brigade. He spent sixteen years of his military career as a Professor of Physics of Physics at the Military Academy. Following retirement from the army, he worked for twelve years with TRW Inc. as a manager on the Department of Energy's Nuclear Waste Project at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. He later served as the Town of Washington, Virginia's elected mayor for nine years. He now lives in Charlottesville, Virginia.https://pageturner.us/bookstore/gestation-seven-one-was-black-and-one-was-whitehttps://jstewartwillisbooks.com/http://www.bluefunkbroadcasting.com/root/twia/6624tbapt.mp3   

This past weekend, the Culinary Union went on strike for the first time in over 20 years. But even if it was just a two-day “mini strike,” will this flex get them a new contract from Virgin? Co-hosts Dayvid Figler and Sarah Lohman are joined by producer Layla Muhammad to discuss this and Culinary's other power move, de-endorsing political candidates. Then, we find out why our state senators are trying to take Yucca Mountain out of the nuclear waste storage conversation, and lastly, we discuss the do's and don'ts of avoiding the Electric Daisy Carnival crowd. Plus, our DJ names and sets, coming to a retirement community near you. We're on social media! Follow us @CityCastVegas on Instagram. You can also call or text us at 702-514-0719. Want some more Las Vegas news? Then make sure to sign up for our morning newsletter here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's a crowded field of Republican candidates in the race for U.S. Senate in Nevada - 12 candidates filed for the chance to take on incumbent Democrat Jacky Rosen in November. This week, we start our Know Your Candidates 2024 series by introducing you to the 3 GOP candidates that, according to a recent internal poll, have the best shot at upsetting Sam Brown, the wounded warrior widely considered to be the frontrunner. (Brown initially signed up for an interview slot but canceled, citing a scheduling conflict. His team did not respond when we offered three other time slots on a different day.) Host Ben Margiott interviews Jim Marchant, Tony Grady and Jeff Gunter about Yucca Mountain, abortion, the Trump hush money trial and more. In fairness to all candidates, we asked a series of similar questions. Stay tuned for extended interviews with several other candidates in the Republican primary in the coming weeks.

As the old Nevada lore goes, Senator Harry Reid rose up in battle and killed the Yucca Mountain beast in faraway DC, leaving it good and dead. Right? Well, not exactly. The contested nuclear waste site, just 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, has recently come up again in a Congressional hearing, putting the Nevada delegation and state nuclear commision officials on red alert. Today, co-host Dayvid Figler talks with Nevada Independent reporter Gabby Birenbaum about what danger these new rumblings pose, how an election year plays into the nuclear politics, and what it would take to put a stake in the heart of Yucca Mountain. We're on social media! Follow us @CityCastVegas on Instagram. You can also call or text us at 702-514-0719. Want some more Las Vegas news? Then make sure to sign up for our morning newsletter here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's mail time at Ballot Battleground: Nevada. We put out a call for listener questions recently and received plenty. News 4-Fox 11 morning show anchor and political expert Chris Murphy joins this week to go through the mailbag with host Ben Margiott. They answered questions about a nonpartisan running in Congressional District 2, Yucca Mountain, abortion on the ballot, whether campaign signs work and much more. Submit your questions for future mailbag episodes by emailing bjmargiott@sbgtv.com or by tagging Ben on social media. LA Times story on Yucca Mountain: Nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain could roil Nevada U.S. Senate race Search Engine podcast on campaign signs: Do political yard signs actually do anything?

This Day in Legal History: Canada CreatedOn March 29, 1867, a pivotal moment in legal and political history unfolded as the British Parliament passed the British North America Act, laying the groundwork for a united and independent Dominion of Canada. This act was a monumental step, not just for the territories involved, but for the concept of nation-building and governance in the 19th century. It provided a structured constitution for Canada, which at the time, united the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and the Canada province (which was subsequently divided into Ontario and Quebec) under a single federal government. This legislative move was pivotal in defining Canada's national identity and sovereignty.The British North America Act, also known as the Constitution Act of 1867, is celebrated for introducing a federal system of government, allocating specific powers to the provinces and others to the federal government, a structure that has endured and evolved. It also established the bicameral legislature comprising the House of Commons and the Senate, adopting a parliamentary system modelled after that of the United Kingdom. This act not only marked the legal birth of Canada but also set a precedent for the peaceful transition of power and the creation of new nations through legislative means.The passage of this act was the culmination of a series of conferences and negotiations among the leaders of the British North American colonies, reflecting a mature and collaborative approach to nationhood. It addressed the pressing need for a united front in the face of external threats and internal discord, particularly the Fenian raids and the threat of American expansionism. When the act took effect on July 1, 1867, it did not merely create a new country; it established a framework for democracy, rights, and governance that Canadians continue to build upon. This legislation stands as a testament to the enduring values of unity, cooperation, and self-governance, marking March 29 as a day of significant legal and historical importance in the creation of the Dominion of Canada.The U.S. is facing a growing legal dispute over nuclear waste storage, likely headed for the Supreme Court, following conflicting appellate court decisions regarding the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) authority to license two proposed storage facilities. The most recent decision from the Fifth Circuit Court vacated a license for Holtec International to store spent nuclear fuel in New Mexico, similar to an earlier ruling against a Texas facility by Interim Storage Partners (ISP). These decisions oppose a prior ruling from the District of Columbia Circuit, which approved the ISP facility's license, highlighting a significant legal split.Holtec and ISP, along with government support, are expected to challenge the Fifth Circuit's decisions, suggesting a Supreme Court review could overturn them. This legal stalemate underscores the challenges of finding a solution for the 86,000 metric tons of nuclear waste stored across 33 states. Efforts to establish a permanent site have been stalled, notably with the withdrawal from the Yucca Mountain project, leading to temporary storage proposals. The Supreme Court's potential involvement could resolve the legal impasse and address the broader issue of nuclear waste management in the U.S.US Efforts to Store Nuclear Waste Poised for High Court ReviewSam Bankman-Fried, the founder of the now-defunct FTX cryptocurrency exchange, was sentenced to 25 years in prison for a fraud involving $8 billion stolen from customers, marking a significant moment in his rapid fall from grace. U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan imposed the sentence after finding Bankman-Fried guilty of seven fraud and conspiracy charges related to FTX's 2022 collapse, rejecting the defense's claims that customers did not lose money and deeming Bankman-Fried unremorseful. Despite apologizing for the impact on customers and colleagues, Bankman-Fried did not admit to criminal actions and plans to appeal both his conviction and sentence.The sentencing reflects the severe consequences of defrauding investors and customers in the financial industry, underscoring the message from U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland about the accountability awaiting those who commit financial crimes. Kaplan highlighted the significant losses incurred by FTX customers, equity investors, and lenders to the Alameda Research hedge fund, founded by Bankman-Fried, totaling over $11 billion in losses. This led to an $11 billion forfeiture order to compensate the victims.Prosecutors had requested a sentence ranging from 40 to 50 years, while Bankman-Fried's defense argued for a significantly shorter term, portraying him as an awkward but non-malicious figure who attempted to recover customer funds post-collapse. Despite efforts to distance Bankman-Fried from infamous fraudsters and emphasize his mathematical decision-making, the court remained focused on the extensive harm caused by his actions.Bankman-Fried's status as a prominent political donor and figure in the cryptocurrency space, known for his commitment to effective altruism and significant contributions to political causes, was also scrutinized. His detention since August 2023, due to concerns over witness tampering, and the judge's recommendation for his incarceration near San Francisco, highlight the gravity of his offenses and the legal system's response to financial malfeasance in the emerging cryptocurrency market.Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years for multi-billion dollar FTX fraud | ReutersTexas Attorney General Ken Paxton has initiated an investigation into Spirit AeroSystems Holdings Inc, a key supplier of parts for Boeing, due to ongoing issues with some of these parts. This inquiry comes in the wake of Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun's announcement of his departure by year's end, following a series of concerns raised by regulators and airline customers, notably after a panel detached from a 737 MAX 9 jet in January.Texas attorney general opens investigation into parts supplier for Boeing | ReutersDetails have emerged regarding Facebook's extensive history of spying on its users' encrypted communications across various apps and services, highlighting a broader issue of online privacy exploitation by numerous entities. In 2018, Facebook was discovered using a "privacy protecting VPN" called Onavo as spyware to monitor user activity on other platforms, an operation that had been sanctioned by CEO Mark Zuckerberg under "Project Ghostbusters." This project aimed to intercept and decrypt encrypted app traffic from users of Snapchat, YouTube, and Amazon, effectively conducting a large-scale "man in the middle attack" to spy on users. The strategy involved developing spyware capable of accessing data before encryption, utilizing the Onavo VPN, acquired by Facebook in 2013 and repurposed for espionage without clear disclosure to users.Internal documents from a lawsuit against Facebook's parent company, Meta, reveal that high-ranking Facebook executives were aware of the ethical and security issues posed by such surveillance but proceeded regardless. This revelation is part of a class action lawsuit filed in 2020, accusing Facebook of spying on users and lying about it. The case underscores the lax consumer privacy protections in the U.S. and the vast, loosely regulated ecosystem of data surveillance that compromises personal information for profit, often under the guise of anonymization. Despite numerous privacy scandals, there has been little meaningful action from Congress to address these concerns, particularly when lobbyists for companies like Facebook aim to eliminate competitors like TikTok. The situation raises alarms about the potential for future scandals that could finally prompt legislative action on privacy.Details Emerge Of Facebook's Long History Of Spying On Encrypted User Communications Across Different Apps And Service | TechdirtJoseph Haydn (1732-1809), was a towering figure in the Classical period of Western music, and holds a foundational place in the history of symphonic and chamber music. Born in Rohrau, Austria, Haydn's musical journey began at a young age, leading him to become a choirboy at St. Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna. Despite a challenging start, Haydn's undeniable talent and relentless work ethic propelled him into the circles of the Esterházy family, one of the most influential patrons of the arts in Austria, where he spent much of his career as a court musician.Haydn's contributions to music are monumental, having composed over 100 symphonies, numerous operas, string quartets, piano sonatas, and two celebrated oratorios, "The Creation" and "The Seasons." His work laid the groundwork for future generations, earning him the titles "Father of the Symphony" and "Father of the String Quartet." Through his innovative structures, development of musical motifs, and the exploration of dynamic contrasts, Haydn shaped the Classical style, influencing contemporaries and successors alike, including Mozart and Beethoven.Haydn's legacy is not just in his compositions but in his approach to music as a vibrant, living art form. His ability to infuse his works with wit, humor, and deep emotion speaks to his profound understanding of the human experience, making his music timeless and universally admired.Featured Piece: Symphony No. 77 in B flat major, IV. Allegro spiritosoThis week, we feature the exhilarating final movement, "Allegro spiritoso," from Joseph Haydn's Symphony No. 77 in B flat major. Composed during the zenith of Haydn's career in the late 18th century, this symphony exemplifies Haydn's mastery in orchestrating dynamic contrasts and his flair for thematic development.The Symphony No. 77 is part of Haydn's middle-period works, where he experimented with form and harmony to expand the expressive capabilities of the symphony. The "Allegro spiritoso" movement, in particular, showcases Haydn's skill in creating engaging musical narratives that are both intellectually satisfying and emotionally compelling. This movement is characterized by its spirited tempo and the lively, joyful themes that dance throughout the piece, providing a fitting conclusion to the symphony.Listeners will appreciate the movement's clever use of dynamics, the interplay between the orchestral sections, and the seamless transitions that propel the music forward. It's a testament to Haydn's ability to compose music that feels fresh and invigorating, demonstrating why he remains a central figure in the classical music canon.As we explore "Allegro spiritoso," let us appreciate the genius of Haydn, whose music continues to inspire and delight audiences around the world. Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Despite its other environmental impacts, including toxic waste that requires centuries or millennia of storage in facilities designed to protect future generations from the genetic and acute effects of radiation, nuclear power is considered by some influential environmentalists an essential component of the post-fossil fuel economy. For example, James Hansen, the NASA scientist who raised the alarm about global warming in Congressional testimony in 1987, advocates expanded nuclear energy generation. Meet Jay Yu, founder, executive chairman, and president of Nano Nuclear Energy Inc., and James Walker, CEO of the company. Nano Nuclear develops smaller, portable nuclear microreactors that can be moved to where electricity is needed on a truck. These microreactors can generate between 1 and 20 megawatts of energy, enough electricity to power as few as 400 homes or up to 20,000 homes, depending on their needs — and that's plenty for many large manufacturing companies to use in a crisis when other sources of power are down. Nano Nuclear is working on two designs, the Zeus and Odin reactors, for different uses. Jay and James offer arguments for considering the role of microreactors in various settings we've discussed on the show. Ocean freight shipping, for example, accounts for 2% of humanity's annual carbon emissions, and a microreactor is about the same size as a diesel engine, so it could easily replace today's engine. Bringing inexpensive electricity to low-income countries could provide power to run water desalination plants and air conditioners as the planet warms and create economic opportunities that have never developed in the fossil fuel era. When you introduce new energy platforms, there is a chance to reorganize society for greater fairness. But there is still the question of what to do with spent nuclear fuel. The United States shut down its Yucca Mountain storage project, the country's only deep geological long-term storage facility, for many reasons, including the well-justified protest by the indigenous communities that live near the site. You can learn more about Nano Nuclear Energy at https://nanonuclearenergy.com/

One day before International Indigenous Peoples Day, President Joe Biden created on August 8th, 2023, a new national monument in Arizona covering close to a million acres of lands surrounding the Grand Canyon important and sacred to nearby Native American nations. The Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni (Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument) is the fifth designated monument by Biden in the past 10 months, and the new monument prohibits new uranium mining claims in the region. The legacy of Nuclear Colonialism, which is includes over a century of uranium mining, and its impacts on Native American nations, peoples, and Mother Earth remains a highly censored in the American mass and digital media. Despite the recent media attention of the film Oppenheimer (2023, dir. Christopher Nolan) released on July 21st, 2023, in the United States and August 6th, 2023, marking the 78th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima wherein 140,000 people died in Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, and 74,000 in Nagasaki three days later, Native Americans and settler colonial violence are absent from these stories and the American public consciousness. Guest: Ian Zabarte (Newe Sogobia [Western Shoshone] Nation), is a long-time Indigenous activist who worked tirelessly to stop the Yucca Mountain high-level nuclear waste repository in Western Shoshone Treaty lands (also known as the state of Nevada). He is also a board member of the Native Community Action Council (NCAC), works on numerous anti-nuclear colonialism projects, and is featured in 2023 documentary Downwind, the story about Mercury, Nevada in heart of the Western Shoshone nation, becoming the testing site of 928 large-scale nuclear weapons from 1951 to 1992. Archived programs can be heard on Soundcloud at: https://soundcloud.com/burntswamp American Indian Airwaves streams on over ten podcasting platforms such as Amazon Music, Apple Podcast, Audible, Backtracks.fm, Gaana, Google Podcast, Fyyd, iHeart Media, Player.fm, Podbay.fm, Podcast Republic, SoundCloud, Spotify, Stitcher, Tunein, YouTube, and more. American Indian Airwaves is an all-volunteer collective and Native American public affairs program that broadcast weekly on KPFK FM 90.7 Los Angeles, CA, Thursdays, from 7:00pm to 8:00pm.

[EPISODE ORIGINALLY RECORDED FEBRUARY 2021]Lisa Grove has been a leading Democratic strategist and pollster for 25+ years, helping elect a President, Senators, Governors, and more. She also developed a reputation for winning tough ballot measures and helped refine messaging to advance the cause of marriage equality. In this conversation (recorded February '21), she talks her roots in Oregon politics and activism, being drawn to polling, her early days in the business, starting her own firm in the mid 90s, and stories & insight from a successful career that has spanned several decades.IN THIS EPISODELisa grows up in Portland, OR inspired by the activism around her...Lisa's early jobs in politics in route to becoming a pollster...Lisa talks learning from famed pollster Nancy Belden...Lisa on her approach to focus groups and her favorite focus group stories...How and why Lisa started her own polling firm in the mid 90s...How Lisa made it work as a pollster living in Hawaii...How Lisa's chalked up a successful record on ballot measures...Lisa's work helping advance the cause of marriage equality...Some of the celebrities Lisa has worked with over the years and her current work with Billie Eilish...AND John Anderson, John Anzalone, Brian Baird, Maggie Baird, Warren Beatty, Nancy Belden, Sergio Bendixen, Anna Bennett, Ami Bera, Brian Bilbray, Graeme Blair, Shirley Chisolm, Tom Daschle, Susan Davis, Peter DeFazio, Barry Diller, Tom Donilon, Mike Dukakis, Matt Erickson, Pablo Escobar, Lily Eskelsen, feather boas, Diane Feldman, Sarah Flowers, Cesar Gaviria, Dick Gephardt, the Golden Rule, Martin Hamburger, Hanford Nuclear Site, Darlene Hooley, Jack Mormons, Ron Kind, Celinda Lake, Ed Lazarus, Norman Lear, Carl Levin, Sandy Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Jeff Liszt, Jon Macks, mai tais, Tom McCall, Mark Mellman, Howard Metzenbaum, Mr. Steak, Ralph Nader, Narcos, Finneas O'Connell, Bob Packwood, Jessica Paulson, paradise guilt, the princess ad, Christy Quirk, Rob Reiner, Barbara Roberts, Michael Robinson, Will Robinson, Rich Schlackman, Barbra Streisand, sustainable furniture, swagger, tattoos, Third Way, tissue paper flowers, Joe Trippi, Univision, Melissa Williams, Ron Wyden, Yucca Mountain & more!

Friday – April 7, 2023. This was the final day of the 2023 Nevada Desert Experience's Sacred Peace Walk – one mile from the Peace Camp to the White Line – entrance to the Nevada Nuclear Test Site and the most bombed part of planet Earth. In the distance – on land once occupied by the Western Shoshone people – over 100 moon-shaped craters litter the desert landscape. On this Friday – under a hot afternoon sun -- over 30 people presented their grievances at the Nevada Nuclear Test Site's While Line. 12 would cross over and be arrested for trespassing on U.S. Government property. The morning began with breakfast at the Peace Camp and then a trip to Yucca Mountain to learn about plans to store all of this country's nuclear waste below this seismically dangerous area which the Shoshone call Snake Mountain. Then onto the statements and arrests at the White Line.This last program of the Sacred Peace Walk series begins with a conversation I had on Saturday -- after the arrests at Mercury -- with Rich Bishop back at the NDE garden. Rich is a poet and his mind works in wondrous ways – and that Saturday morning he said something that helped me – at least partially – answer the question I had been asking from the start of this voyage: Why do these people expose their intellect, psyche, and bodies for an impossible goal – that is -- to end the threat of nuclear annihilation? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Wow, Friday snuck up on us FAST this week — there's just so much going on the news! Today, Vogue, Layla and Dayvid break it all down for us: What's going on with Yucca Mountain (we thought that plan was dead), and why Governor Sisolak's office just proposed that we kill it for once and for all. Plus, how other states vastly underestimated Senator Harry Reid when Yucca Mountain was first proposed back in the 80's. Next up, we revisit the long reach of the Route 91 shootings and how its aftereffects are felt even now: In the debates over exactly how many lives were claimed, what to do about guns, and what we should even call the massacre. And lastly, the team takes on the city's newly-approved cannabis lounges, whether locals will actually go, and what we'd want to see in a cannabis lounge. Oh, and let us not forget: CONGRATULATIONS to the Las Vegas Aces!!! WNBA Champions, bayybeeeee! That's right, Las Vegas just got its first major league sports championship. We love to see it. What would you want to see at Yucca Mountain? What does the weed lounge of your dreams look like? Leave us a voicemail or shoot us a text at 702-514-0719. You can always find us on Twitter too: @CityCastVegas For more news, events, and commentary about the city we love best, get our morning newsletter at lasvegas.citycast.fm/newsletter! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Are you scared of Nuclear Energy? And when you read the title, the first image or thought that came to your mind was Chernobyl, or maybe Fukushima? Well, there is a lot of misinformation out there about the subject of Nuclear Energy. So, today we'll be talking about the misinformation and educating ourselves on the subject with my interview with Nuclear Energy expert Steven Curtis. So, without further ado, let's get into it.   Go to www.thestandard.academy/magazine to become one of the first to get my digital magazine for free that'll help you create a kick-ass life.   Mr. Curtis was a 38-year resident of Nevada with a close association with the spent nuclear fuel issue and a 15-year career with the DOE-NV. He attended his first Yucca Mountain meeting in 1981 and has been associated with the project academically and educationally ever since. As a student employee, Mr. Curtis was employed at the whole-body radiation counter for people at the Environmental Protection Agency campus at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV). He began his tenure at DOE-NV as a project and operations officer for the Soviet Verification Program. After the testing program ended, he was recruited into a nuclear emergency response where he served as a nuclear technical team leader for Nuclear Emergency Support Team (NEST) and Radiological Consequence Management Teams associated with the Federal Radiological Management and Assessment (FRMAC) emergency management interagency nuclear response posture. He concurrently served as a program manager in such programs as NEST Research and Development, the Non-proliferation experiment, the Aerial Measuring System, the National Center for Counter-Terrorism (NCCT), and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) Project Omega deployment to Kazakhstan in support of conventional explosives in the Deglin Mountain Soviet testing tunnels.   Mr. Curtis served in both the active duty Army and the Nevada National Guard for a combined 11 years as an Armor officer and strategic communications expert. He was responsible for all Army communications strategic testing throughout the European and Middle-East major commands. His tactical experience includes a rotation at the National Training Center as an Armor Company Commander and 7 years as a staff officer and company commander in the 1/221 Armor Battalion in Las Vegas.   After departing the DOE, he was engaged in development and integration work at UNLV and Desert Research Institute (DRI) in areas of national security. As proposal manager, he led the successful team in Nevada to secure the FAA designation as an FAA National UAS Test Site. He currently works as a subject matter expert and senior consultant to Readiness Resource Group in areas of training, exercise, counterterrorism, local responder emergency management, nuclear technology, and health physics. He has served as President of the Nevada sections of both the Health Physics Society and the American Nuclear Society and is currently working under a small grant from the American Nuclear Society Operations and Power Division to develop and conduct educational seminars in Nevada for the public and for Government Officials.   He holds a BSEE and a Master's Degree in Health Physics, both from UNLV. Mr. Curtis has been active in STEM activities for schools as a 27-year volunteer coordinator for the High School Science Bowl, Co-founder of Skybot Challenge, an engineering-based competition for students in 3-D robotics (UAS), and a consistent speaker in the Clark County School District classrooms to encourage students to find their passion through continued education.   You can reach Mr. Curtis here: curtis@readinessresource.net https://wastetoenergynow.org +1 702-219-6463   A bit about me (Dr. Orest Komarnyckyj): Dr. Orest Komarnyckyj enjoyed a prestigious career as a periodontal regenerative surgeon moving to a new passion in June 2018. He retired after a 33-year career to pursue new passions. At 69 Dr. Orest has taken on a new role as an Interviewer, Podcaster and government-certified Old Guy. He streams from his new home in Las Vegas, NV. He lives with his wife of 29 years, Oksana. His status as an empty-nesters with two out of college-employed children has left him with time and energy to share decades of successes, failures, and wisdom.   Timestamps: 00:00 Precap 01:24 Intro 02:33 Guest introduction 04:25 Let's deal with big fears people have 08:28 How efficient is nuclear energy in producing energy? 10:16 Can the uranium that has been used in the old-style reactors can be recycled as fuel in the new ones? 11:53 Is there any shortage of spent uranium at this point? 13:31 Countries that rely on nuclear power 14:20 What kind of footprint does a small reactor have in comparison to a nuclear power plant? 16:45 Are there any grid issues that are alleviated because of the number of reactors that are in such close proximity? 20:18 Commercial 20:52 Commercial ends/Small nuclear reactors traveling around the world on Navy ships 23:25 Windmills as the power source 26:10 Challenge with electric cars 28:45 Limitation of solar and windmills 30:52 Biggest challenge to fully embracing nuclear power in the United States 36:45 Getting in touch with Steve 40:00 Closing thoughts 40:55 Outro

J. Stewart Willis J. Stewart Willis graduated from the U.S. Military Academy and went on to pursue a graduate degree from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. He served in Taiwan and later in Vietnam as Signal Officer of the 173rd Airborne Brigade. Afterward, Willis spent the next 16 years of his military career as a Professor of Physics at the Military Academy. In all, he proudly gave 25 years of his life to the U.S. Army. Following his retirement from the military, he spent the next 12 years working for TRW, Inc. as a manager on the Department of Energy's Nuclear Waste Project at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. During his tenure with this company, he worked on three high-value proposals, including managing one worth more than $100 million. This isn't the end of Willis's career journey. He would eventually serve as the mayor of Washington, Virginia—a small town often referred to as "Little Washington." He spent 9 years as mayor for this small town before finally turning to his first passion: writing. Willis still resides in Virginia where he spends his time writing novels inspired by real-life events.

10/09/2013: Dark Matter XM with Art Bell - Dr. Andrew Karam - Fukushima Reactor and Yucca Mountain

Elizabeth Muller is the CEO of Deep Isolation, a Berkeley-based company that seeks to resolve America's nuclear waste challenge by using technology borrowed from the oil and gas business. In this episode, she explains why the waste issue must be solved before the nuclear sector can have a full renaissance, why Deep Isolation must have success overseas before it succeeds here, the advantages of using boreholes instead of a mined repository (think Yucca Mountain), and why, when it comes to nuclear, “the world has shifted over the past six months.” (Recorded June 28, 2022.)

Growing up on the Prairie Island Indian Community reservation, Calais Lone Elk had a plan — a set of steps burned in her mind and logged with her school to help her find her family in the event of an explosion at the nearby nuclear power plant. Tom Baker for MPR News Xcel Energy's Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant is seen from Wakonade Drive in Prairie Island Indian Community in Welch, Minn., on Thursday. “If you went to school and something happened out here, where do you meet your parents? Where do you reconnect with your family? Because you can't come back here,” she said. “Those are things that I don't think are normal.” Lone Elk is 37 now, and still constantly reviewing her escape plan for an emergency at the nearby power plant.   It sits just 700 yards away from her community of 100 homes, its powerlines lining backyards and main thoroughfares.  For Lone Elk and others living in Prairie Island, concerns about the nuclear power plant's safety are a source of low-grade daily stress. Despite official assurances, many people believe it's bad for their health to be living so close. “We all have a plan, whether we voice it or not. We all have an idea of what we have to do or what we need to do. And we all know that we have to go up-wind of that nuclear plant,” Lone Elk said. Related Stories 2019 Environmental nuclear worries force Prairie Island tribe to seek new lands 2001 Prairie Island faces another battle over nuclear waste 2003 A brief history of the Prairie Island plant But it's also a physical reminder of the environmental injustices endured by Native people for generations, said tribal council vice president Shelley Buck. “Since this plant was created, our energy history here has been focused on the power plant and the nuclear waste that is stored right next door to us,” she said. Tom Baker for MPR News Shelley Buck, vice president of Prairie Island Indian Community in Welch, Minn., stands at a potential solar site for the community's net-zero carbon project on June 30. Today, the Prairie Island Community is seeking to disentangle itself from a power plant it never wanted. It's created a $46 million plan to produce net zero carbon emissions within the next decade.  Buck said it's an ambitious step toward being a sovereign nation that's energy sovereign, too.  “To do a big project like net zero really helps us change that narrative into something positive showing how energy can be used as a positive force,” she said. “By offsetting or eliminating the carbon that we produce, it's a positive for everybody.” ‘Why not go big?' Prairie Island members are descendants of the Mdewakanton Band of Eastern Dakota. They made their home in southern Minnesota, but lost that land in 1851 in the Treaty of Traverse des Sioux.  It wasn't until 1934 that the land on the banks of the Mississippi just north of Red Wing became a federally recognized reservation. The Prairie Island power plant was issued its first operating license in 1974, and it was renewed in 2011. Initially, tribal members say the plant was described to them as a steam power plant. It's one of two nuclear power plants, the second in Monticello, that Xcel says are critical to its plans of producing carbon-free electricity by 2050, and is considered safe by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Tom Baker for MPR News A sign outside Xcel Energy's Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant along Wakonade Drive gives directions for visitors at the plant, located within Prairie Island Indian Community in Welch, Minn., seen on June 30. In the early 1990s, Xcel Energy asked the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency permission to store nuclear waste there — at least temporarily until a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain opened, a plan that has since stalled due to local opposition. As a child, Mikhail Childs remembers his father protesting the prospect of storing nuclear waste so close to the reservation.  “Some of the earliest memories I have are of protestors standing in the road, blocking semi-trucks hauling nuclear waste,” he said. “The way [my dad] explained it to me was that all this land we reside on is sacred … We believe that in our creation story, the creation took place just miles down the river.”  Catharine Richert | MPR News Mikhail Childs, Prairie Island Indian Community member, stands on tribal land near the Prairie Island Nuclear Power Plant in southeast Minnesota on July 20. But here's the twist, and it's an important one: Through all these years of living with a nuclear power plant next door, Prairie Island hasn't been powered by the energy generated there, said Buck. The community just recently started getting natural gas from Xcel. It's a logistical detail that she said prevented the tribal community from being eligible for the Renewable Development Fund, a pot of state money financed by Xcel customers for renewable energy projects for Xcel service areas, she said.  Then in 2020, a legislative change allowed Prairie Island to tap $46 million from the fund for the project.  While the tribe had toyed with doing wind power and other renewable projects in the past, a large amount of funding created the opportunity to do more. “Why not go big?” said Buck. One goal, different solutions And by big, Buck is referring to a plan that aims to eliminate 20 million pounds of carbon annually through a raft of renewable energy and efficiency upgrades. Prairie Island's Treasure Island Resort and Casino is the largest energy user on the reservation.  The plan involves multiple ways of achieving that goal, said Andrea Thompson, who has been hired by the tribe as the project's energy program manager.  “Any community that sets a net zero goal gets to decide the pathway to get there. And for many different reasons, some communities choose to purchase carbon credits or find a financial path to achieve net zero while the actual carbon reduction isn't necessarily happening on site,” said Thompson. “What Prairie Island is doing is different,” she said.  Tom Baker for MPR News Andrea Thompson, energy program manager for Prairie Island Indian Community's net-zero carbon project, stands at one of the project's potential solar sites in Welch, Minn., on June 30. Their plan involves constructing a 10-to-15 acre solar array that aims to reduce carbon emissions by more than 550,000 pounds annually, phasing out natural gas in favor of geothermal energy and electrification, and promoting zero-emission and energy efficiency residential upgrades. “One of the reasons why this project is so exciting is because [the tribal council] is not just saying, ‘Let's go gangbusters on solar, and we're gonna call it a day,'” said Shoshana Pena, director of program services for NV5, an technical engineering company hired to work on the project.  It's unlike other municipal or tribal projects she's seeing in the industry because “They're not trying to just do whatever is just meeting the minimum requirements. They're looking at all of these different solutions,” she said.  Tom Baker for MPR News Treasure Island Resort & Casino, owned and operated by Prairie Island Indian Community in Welch, Minn. Net zero in a few years The project is also on a fast-track, said Thompson.  “A lot of communities, when they set net zero goals, they often give themselves 10, 20, 30 years to achieve net zero. And Prairie Island is under a totally different timeline, we're trying to do net zero in a few years, a handful of years,” she said. That ambitious timeline has been setback by COVID-related supply-chain and labor issues, Thompson said. Last year, the tribe asked the Legislature for an extension on phase two of the project, which involves finding the right contractors to build out the plan — a phase that's expected to wrap up early 2023.  Details of the plan continue to be in flux — for instance, where the solar array will be located, and the design of the geothermal wells. Meanwhile, tribal leaders continue to make their case for the plan to residents. By and large, it's been met with support from members, but some are skeptical of how it will be implemented. That includes Selena Childs. She's concerned that the plan focuses too much on technologies that won't stand the test of time. She has questions, for instance, about how long the solar array will last before it needs to be replaced.  Catharine Richert | MPR News Selena Childs, a member of the Prairie Island Indian Community, stands on tribal land near the Prairie Island Nuclear Power Plant in southeast Minnesota on July 20. “Instead we could start building houses that are green, that are economically effective,” said Childs. “We can build our house out of local resources that are still going to be more efficient than these trailer houses that we see put up here … And yet, they want to fill up our fields with solar panels.” And, Childs points out, the plan doesn't change the fact that the community is next door to a nuclear power plant and the nuclear waste stored there. “We don't get our power from the nuclear panel down here. We get it from somewhere else,” she said. Tribal member Nicky Buck said that may be true. But to her, it's about reclaiming the narrative of her community and of their land.  “We want to turn it into a more positive, resilient story, that we, the people, are in control of our lives,” she said. Catharine Richert | MPR News Nicky Buck, a member of the Prairie Island Indian Community, stands on tribal land near the Prairie Island Nuclear Power Plant in southeast Minnesota on July 20.

The aftermath of SL-1 highlighted a problem that we still haven't solved, despite decades of searching for a solution: what to do with the waste. Our plans to store nuclear waste inside Yucca Mountain in Nevada fell through. So now what? Can we safely contain these materials? Should the waste be in one location, or many? How do we warn future generations about the dangers these materials pose? *Become a premium subscriber to Wild Thing! Premium subscribers get each new episode early, and exclusive access to all bonus episodes, not to mention the warm fuzzy feeling that comes from supporting the show. Go to https://wildthing.supportingcast.fm/ to find out more! *Season 3 of Wild Thing is produced by Laura Krantz and Scott Carney. Editing by Alicia Lincoln. Music and mixing by Louis Weeks. *Find us on social media - @wildthingpod - and on our website https://wildthingpodcast.com/

After decades of legal and political battles have pushed Nevada's Yucca Mountain out of discussion as the permanent nuclear waste repository. But that means tribes like the Prairie Island Indian Community and the Yakama Nation in Washington will have to endure waste storage at temporary holding sites nearby.     GUESTS Mike Childs Jr. (Prairie […]

Jody Freeman, the Archibald Cox professor of law and director of the Environmental and Energy Law Program at Harvard University, leads the conversation on global climate policy. FASKIANOS: Welcome to today's session of the Winter/Spring 2022 CFR Academic Webinar Series. I'm Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. Today's discussion is on the record, and the video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org/academic. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We're delighted to have Jody Freeman with us to talk about global climate policy. Professor Freeman is the Archibald Cox professor of law, founding director of the Environmental and Energy Law Program, and a leading scholar of administrative and environmental law at Harvard University. From 2009 to 2010, Professor Freeman served as counselor for energy and climate change in the Obama administration. She is a fellow of the American College of Environmental Lawyers, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, as well as a member of CFR. She also serves as an independent director on the board of ConocoPhillips, which is an oil and gas producer. Professor Freeman has been recognized as the second most-cited scholar in public law in the nation and has written extensively on climate change, environmental regulation, and executive power. So, Professor Freeman, thanks very much for being with us today. We just saw the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, Sixth Assessment Report, that was quite pessimistic about the outlook on the future. Can you talk a little bit about that report and connect it to what we are going to see the effects on climate policy and what we need to be doing to really remediate what's happening in the world? FREEMAN: Well, thank you very much for having me. It couldn't be a more important or interesting moment to be having this conversation, and mostly I look forward to you, students, posing some questions and us having some back and forth. So, Irina, I will be as brief as I can in trying to really encapsulate what's going on now to set the stage for the discussion that I hope we will have. First, as you noted, the IPCC, which of course is the UN-established organization that since 1988 has put out periodic assessments of the science of climate change and their consensus-based assessments written by about six—about two hundred scientists from about sixty countries, so to give you a sense of the authority of the documents they've put out. This assessment was quite bleak, and really—I can read a couple of the top line conclusions to you, but the essential message is that climate change is accelerating. It has already been wreaking havoc and doing significant damage to human health, environment, and ecosystems. It is already causing and will cause increasingly devastating wildfires, historic droughts, landslides, floods, and more intense hurricanes. The long list of things that you all are witnessing around the world—think of the Australian fires, the California fires, the historic flooding we've seen here in the United States. The report basically says this will get worse if we continue without significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions soon, beginning immediately, and cutting them quite drastically. There are many conclusions here about the need to accelerate the pace of our efforts, the need for the governments of the world to do more than they have pledged to do under the Paris Agreement, which we can talk about, which is the international climate agreement that the overwhelming majority of the world's countries have pledged, have made commitments to. And the U.S. has renewed its commitment to the Paris Agreement under the Biden administration saying that it will achieve 50 to 52 percent of emissions reductions here in the United States below 2005-levels by 2030. So a very significant upping of the U.S. commitment recently at the Conference of the Parties last year in Glasgow, Scotland. That agreement is the prevailing international agreement, but this report says it's not enough. Even if the countries of the world were to meet their pledges—and that's an open question—what the report essentially says is we need to do more, and so there's a consensus on the science. I don't think there can be reasonable disagreement about the science of climate change at this point. There is significant evidence that it is already happening, already changing the world's—the patterns that we have seen in, again, weather patterns, storms, floods, droughts, heat waves, and it is already threatening communities. The question now is, how do we close this gap between what the report—what the IPCC report is telling us is happening, the risks that the report is warning us about—how do we close the gap between that and what the governments of the world have agreed to do under the Paris Agreement? And I want to note just two other contextual developments here that make this problem even more challenging. One is what I think you're all very conscious of now, as we all think about daily, the war in Ukraine, and the fact that that is scrambling in the geopolitics of energy. Russia, as one of the world's top three suppliers of oil and gas, produces about 40 percent of Europe's natural gas, and now there are sanctions that the U.S. has imposed, and that other countries have announced they will gradually phase in, against Russian oil and gas supplies. The price of gas, as you may all have noticed the United States, is sky high. That's not just because of the war in Ukraine, but it hasn't helped. And attention has moved to what this war means not just for the devastating human consequences, but also what is it doing to the—how to encapsulate this—to the power relationships among the world's nations that are anchored in oil and gas, and how is it shifting the relative power of the oil-producing countries vis-à-vis each other. That conversation about how we're going to produce enough oil and gas to meet Europe's needs in the absence of or in the presence of sanctions against Russia, where are we going to get the extra supply from? In some sense, that conversation about the short-term need for what is admittedly fossil energy has edged out, has moved out of the main frame of the climate policy discussion temporarily. And the concern among communities, institutions, organizations, people who care deeply about climate change at the moment is, that edging to the side of the climate discussion is the wrong direction to go, is an unhelpful event. And especially in the United States where we now are looking at the dynamics in Congress to see if major climate investments will be part of a legislative package that the Biden administration has been advancing— the Build Back Better package—as the discussion is focused on Ukraine, the short-term need for oil and gas, who will produce and meet the extra demand, that conversation, the worry is it's not helping climate policy move forward in the United States. And as you all know, the Build Back Better bill has essentially been shelved, and there are ongoing discussions about which pieces of it might move forward. As time passes and we get to the United States' midterm elections, which are upon us very soon in the fall, the question is, will anything significant in terms of additional climate investments and climate policy come from the United States Congress? Or are they essentially done with the pieces they put into the big infrastructure bill that, as you know, was passed this past fall? The bipartisan infrastructure bill contained significant investments in things like electric vehicle infrastructure, grid investments, and other things that are beneficial for our climate policy. But as you all know, this is not nearly enough, and nothing regulatory went into the Infrastructure Act, and just to be clear about that, there was nothing in the bill that passed Congress in November that operated—that went through a process called budget reconciliation. This really was passed as a budgeting mechanism. Nothing in there regulates industry greenhouse gas emissions, and that's because regulation can't go in a budget bill. And what this means is, in the United States we are challenged now to put in place the policies necessary for us to meet our commitment to Paris, and the main vehicle left right now, if Congress remains fairly inactive, is using existing law like the Clean Air Act by which the Obama—listen to me, the Obama administration. I'm remembering my time in the Obama—the Biden administration can use existing law to regulate sector by sector by sector the greenhouse gas emissions that come from the power sector, that come from the transportation sector, that come from the oil and gas sector. That's what the Biden administration is right now doing. They're issuing regulations through agencies like the EPA to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the economy on a sectoral and piecemeal basis. And what this all means is that a war is raging in the Ukraine that is refocusing attention on the need for short-term fossil fuels, while a longer-term discussion is happening about how to wean the world off fossil energy, and this dynamic is a very challenging, complicated dynamic in which to have both of those conversations simultaneously. The only thing I'd mention, before now turning to your questions, in addition, is that there is no small irony in the fact that this report that Irina cited, the new installment of the IPCC scientific assessment was issued essentially the day before the Supreme Court of the United States heard argument in a really important climate case in which what's at stake is the EPA—the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to set far-reaching standards to reduce our emissions from the power sector. And by all indications, the Supreme Court is poised to restrict the EPA's ability to set standards that would really force quite forward-leaning change, quite aggressive, ambitious change—speedier, deeper reductions from the electric power sector. It looks like the Court may well constrain the agency, and I can talk more about that for those who are legal eagles and want to know more. But the fact that that argument was heard the day after this report as sort of the juxtaposition of those two things was quite striking. So let me leave it there with these sort of broad observations about what's happening and turn to you all and see if we can dive deeper into some of these dynamics. FASKIANOS: Thanks a lot for that overview. You can all either raise your hand to ask your question, or you can write it in the Q&A box. So I'm going to first go to Babak Salimitari. Q: I had a question regarding the Paris climate accord. This is a non-binding agreement in which it seems like the United States is the only country going above and beyond to limit emissions and pollution and whatnot, but we're also the ones suffering the most. You have, like Germany building coal plants. China and India are extremely dirty, filthy countries, to put it bluntly. They admit they destroy environmental places, not just in their own country, but all over the world. But we're the one paying six bucks for gas. Oil is like a hundred dollars a barrel. FREEMAN: Yeah. Q: Things are getting very expensive and very annoying. So what's the point of this agreement if we're not reaping any benefits from it? FREEMAN: Yeah, I hear the question and—but let me add some perspective here. First of all, the ones suffering the most, it's not us. There are really serious consequences from warming temperatures for countries around the world that are already being inundated because their low-lying coastal populations are at risk. And they're much more vulnerable because we can afford adaptation measures, we can afford to respond to disasters, and we can afford to invest in resilience or adaptation, whereas many parts of the developing world cannot. They will be swamped. There will be massive migrations. There will be flooding, heat wave and tremendous suffering, and there already are some of these effects around the world. So I just add that perspective because I'm not sure it's quite right that we're the only ones or the ones who are suffering the most currently or that we will be in the future. We're actually, in the United States, fairly well-positioned, even if some of the worst risks we anticipate befall us. We're just a rich country compared to the rest of the world. I also would just comment that prices for gasoline are sky high here, and I understand that this is, as you say, annoying and quite difficult for folks who, you know, must purchase gas to get to work or must purchase gas in order to move around, they don't have an option. But I will say that in many parts of the world gas prices are much higher, and they're much higher in places like Europe and Canada and elsewhere because the governments have chosen to reflect in the price of gasoline more of the harms caused by burning fuel. In other words, they're internalizing the cost that otherwise people have to bear in terms of health consequences from burning gas, climate consequences, et cetera. So this is all me just saying gas may seem really high and I understand it, but actually many countries choose to impose high gas prices really as a signal to populations about the cost of being dependent on these fuels. But the point of your question, I think, is what's the value of the Paris Agreement? It's not binding, and why are we bothering to commit to do so much? And I will say we're not the only country to make a significant commitment. The EU countries have made significant commitments, even China. To put it in perspective, China's commitment to level off emissions by a deadline is important. There are very significant pledges that have gone toward this agreement, and the fact that they're nonbinding, I just want to shed a little light on that. You can say, well, it doesn't matter because nobody can force these countries to deliver on their pledges, and there is some truth to that. There's no grand international body presiding over this that comes knocking on the door of the world governments to say, you know, you said you'd pledge to reduce your emissions by X and you're not even close, so we're going to penalize you. There's no such international enforcement system. But it turns out that the format of the Paris Agreement—which is to make a pledge and then to periodically every five years have to do what's called a “stock take,” where the world countries come together and take stock of where they are in the progress—there are mechanisms to hold each other to account, that's the theory of the agreement; and that there are regular meetings of the parties called Conferences of the Parties that are meant to be the vehicle for forcing a kind of truing-up and disclosure of how far countries have come. Now that's an imperfect system, I will concede to you, but it is a big improvement over prior international climate regimes, which purported to be binding. But, for example, the Kyoto Protocol, the prior agreement to the Paris Agreement, only bound the world's developed nations, meaning the rich countries of the world, and the developing world, which was fast overtaking the developed world in the amount of emissions being produced—so think of China, think of India, Brazil, et cetera—they weren't part of the agreement. They had no obligation. So, while Kyoto was binding, it was binding on not the entire world, and it's not the even—who were soon to be the largest emitters, including China. So Paris is an inclusive agreement. China's in it. India's in it. Brazil's in it. Every country that's a significant share of the world's emissions is committed, so the inclusiveness of it is thought to be an important advance. Your question is still important. The proof is in the pudding. Are these countries going to come anywhere close to delivering on their pledges? But I guess what I would suggest is, we need an international vehicle in order to continue to press forward. And if the U.S. is in a leadership position in that international agreement, that's better for our chances than if the U.S. is not. The strongest position to be in is the U.S. and China together. When the Paris Agreement was signed, Obama and Xi combined forces and both supported it. China has now backed off. President Xi did not show up in Glasgow for the meeting personally, whereas the Biden—President Biden did. So now we're seeing a bit of a different approach. It's a very long answer, but that's because how these agreements work—their value, why they're an improvement or not over the prior—is actually quite complicated. FASKIANOS: Now the war in Ukraine and how China's going to align with Putin. FREEMAN: Yeah, I mean, this is really interesting—and I don't know if any of the students have a question about that—but everything is speculative right now. For example—I mean, in terms of how this will come out for China and China's relationship with the other powers of the world. China's in a very delicate position, and it may turn out that its alliance with Russia, depending on how that plays out, will leave it in a position of trying to look for opportunities build back relationships with the rest of the world, and it might turn out that climate policy is an opportunity to re-establish itself. And so we can't see how this will evolve, but a situation that looks at the moment like China's aligned with the bad actor—Russia in this case—may actually open up opportunities in the future for it to readjust its behavior, and climate may be one of those opportunities. Historically, the United States and China, even when tense relationships existed over trade policy and other things, cooperated on climate. It became an opportunity, especially in the Obama years when I was in the White House. We had a lot of good agreements with China around climate policy, both bilaterally and multilaterally. It was sort of an area—it was a bright spot of relations. That may turn back around and come back following this conflict. FASKIANOS: A written question from, let's see, Jackie Vazquez, who's in undergraduate school at Lewis University in Illinois, asking: Is there any possibility for all countries to come together to make a global movement to combat climate change? Would that even make a difference? FREEMAN: I think that the Paris Agreement is meant to be at least an instrument of a global movement to address climate change. But I think if you're talking about a political movement, that is people, not negotiators, representing governments, but populations and communities—I think we're seeing some of that. I mean, I think this generation, your generation, has really given voice to a real need for climate action faster. And I give a lot of credit to young people. I say this—it makes me feel 150 years old when I say this—but I think this generation, at least in the United States, it's taken the form of something called the Sunrise Movement and other youth movements. Of course, Greta Thunberg is the most famous young person putting a face on climate change, insisting that the older generations have let you all down, and I think there's something to that. I can understand your frustration, and I would feel the same way if I were younger that the people with the power have not taken the steps necessary when they should have taken the steps to mitigate a global problem. And I think that we're seeing movements all around the world; youth action all around the world. The problem comes in translating that political enthusiasm and political energy into policy, into laws and rules and requirements and incentives and subsidies and investments and inducements to change the trajectory to require over time—and quicker than—than many in industry want—require reductions faster, to translate it into investments from the private sector, because we need trillions of dollars of investments in low carbon technologies, in innovation. Translating that energy into real political action is the challenge. And I guess the one thing I'd say to you all is you have to vote. You have to put into power the people who support these policies, and you know, the youth vote is tremendously and increasingly important. So, in addition to activism, which is—which is critical, you want to vote in state, local, national elections at every opportunity. FASKIANOS: Earlier on, you talked about how the Supreme Court case is going to restrict the EPA trying to regulate. So there's a question from Nathaniel Lowell, who's at Skidmore College: Could you talk a little bit more about that Supreme Court decision, what that means for the Biden administration efforts to push forward within an act of Congress? You know, and what can be done? Because that's pretty significant, and certainly just putting in executive orders, the next administration could just roll back on those—roll those executive orders back. FREEMAN: Yeah. So here's what I'd say. First of all, I'm speculating a bit when I say the Court seems poised to restrict EPA's authority. I think most observers think that's what we got from oral argument. You know, we watched the oral argument, which is when the counsel for both sides—in this case, it was the government represented by the Solicitor General of the United States—that's how the government is represented in the Supreme Court—and the challengers from the state of West Virginia and about seventeen other states, Republican-led states, along with the coal and mining industry on the other side, arguing this case to the justices. And you know, you can listen to these arguments, by the way. You can go to SupremeCourt.gov and click on the audio portion of these oral arguments. It's fascinating. So I highly recommend and you can read the transcripts. And what we heard from the argument were the questions of the justices, the back and forth as the advocates were stating their positions, and basically, the petitioners in this case—that is, the mining industry, coal industry and the Republican-led states, including West Virginia—are basically saying the Environmental Protection Agency is overreaching. It's stretching its authority under the Clean Air Act too far, and the courts should read the language of the Clean Air Act narrowly and limit what they can do. And the government, the Biden administration, and the power sector petitioners—sorry, the power sector respondents—these are legal terms of art, but this describes who's on what side in the case—the power sector itself, this is the industry being regulated by these standards; this is the coal and natural gas plants across the country. The owners of the utilities that own these plants, they're the ones who are going to be regulated and required to cut their carbon pollution, and yet they are on the side of the Biden administration because they want to preserve EPA's power to set standards. They don't want this to be a free for all in which they get sued in a bunch of different lawsuits. They want a coherent, consistent, implementable, realistic, cost-effective set of standards, and they're prepared to make reductions. They want this done in an orderly fashion, and they don't want the Supreme Court making a mess of things by, for example, restricting the EPA so much that the agency won't take into account the reality of the power sector and how it works and allow them to average emissions—cut average emissions across their fleets; trade where it makes economic sense to trade emissions allowances. The industry wants all these flexibilities, and they're worried that the Court will be on too much of a mission to cut the agency's power, which will make the rules less economically sensible for the industry. So I hope that was an understandable explanation of what's at stake and how unusual it is that the industry being regulated is on the side of the government in this case, supporting the idea that the EPA has the authority to do this, and the consequences of the case here are quite significant. Because if the Court limits EPA, the bottom line is the standards to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from coal and natural gas plants won't be as stringent as they could have been. They won't move as quickly as they could have moved, and the cuts won't be as deep as they could have been. And that's a loss—that's a loss of a tool we would have in our toolbox to cut emissions from the sector in our economy that is the second largest sector in terms of its emissions. So we want a robust program to control those, and Congress didn't pass one. And Congress doesn't look like it's passing one, so this is our second-best strategy. And if the Court crimps EPA so much that it limits the stringency, it's like losing some ability that you thought you had to constrain your domestic emissions, which means it's harder to fulfill our Paris pledge. That's the bottom line. The last thing I'll say—again, kind of a nerdy point, but for those of you who think about law and are interested in law—the Court should never have taken this case. You know, when—when people are unhappy with the decision in a lower court they can appeal to the Supreme Court. They ask the Court to grant review. Our Constitution requires that the Court only take cases where there is demonstrable harm or injury. You can't go to the Supreme Court and say, you know, I'm not injured, but I really care about this, can you—can you help me out? You have to be injured. In this case there is, actually, currently no rule regulating anybody in the power sector, no federal rule, because the prior administration's rule way back in the Obama days never went into effect. It was caught in litigation, and it was challenged in court. It never went into effect. And the Trump administration came in and repealed that and put out its own rule, which was a very minimal rule that did almost nothing to reduce emissions, and that got challenged and struck down by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. So, as a result, the bottom line people, there is no current federal rule regulating the power sector. Why would the Supreme Court take a case from West Virginia and other states and the coal industry complaining about something when nobody is being asked to do anything? There's no harm. So it's very unusual that the Court granted review in a case like that, and that is why many of us think they're eager to do something that will constrain the EPA's authority. I hope that made sense to folks. FASKIANOS: That was really helpful to clarify and give context to what's going on. Thank you for that. So Terron Adlam has written a question, but also has a hand up. So just ask it yourself and give us your university. FREEMAN: You know, I see my former chancellor, Chancellor Carnesale from UCLA where I started my career. I'm just thrilled to see his name there. That's great. Q: Hi there. FREEMAN: Hi. Q: Hi. So my question is, do you see any possibility of change of behavior of humans, especially during the global warfare/pandemic? I mean, ice caps are melting. Greenhouse gases are rising so much that—can we go past the differences, you think? FREEMAN: Yeah, I mean it's very interesting you say that Terron. I do think we talk an awful lot about how we need to require industry to do things and that's, of course, terribly important—you know, the auto makers and the oil and gas companies and the power plants and steel companies and how we do agriculture around the world. But in the end, there's demand for energy and we are the demand. I'm sitting here on Zoom consuming a bunch of electricity. I got professional lights that you can't see that are consuming a bunch of electricity. My phone is charging next to me consuming a bunch of electricity. And you know, I'm probably going to—well, I drive a Tesla—I'm lucky enough to have a Tesla, so I won't be consuming gas later. But my point is just we all pull on energy, and you know, no one of us can transform the situation. We can't accomplish the energy transition all by ourselves. But we can start thinking about the decisions we make, and we can start thinking about those implications and consequences. Your generation—I mean, I have a niece and nephew in their twenties, and I hear a lot about how nobody really wants a car anymore, apparently. I'm shocked at this, but there are generational shifts in how people think about consumption. Do you need your own vehicle or can you do ridesharing? Are we going to see ourselves in a world in the next fifteen, twenty years with autonomous vehicles that are electric vehicles, that we essentially share, at least in concentrated urban settings? These kinds of transformations, I think, are in part being driven by the demand from your generation. Likewise, I think as you build wealth—you guys will build wealth over time, right? You're getting an education, right, and that education is directly connected to your earning power. You will build wealth over time as a result of becoming educated, and when you build wealth, you'll have a decision about where to invest that wealth. And we see increasingly, social action investors, social commitments being made through people's investment decisions, and they say we want to put our wealth into these kinds of stocks, these kinds of companies, these kinds of enterprises and not over here in these other ones. And I think that is another kind of behavior—where you put your capital is going to be another kind of decision that can help spark change. So, from the lowest level, most local decision about what you consume and how you consume it to bigger decisions later in life about where you put your money, I think there's a lot of opportunity for you to make really consequential decisions. But I'm not somebody who believes that all of this will be fine if people just stop consuming energy because we all depend on energy, and we can't stop consuming energy. For some of us, we can make decisions about where we want to get it from. Some of us live in jurisdictions where we can choose, quote/unquote, “to pay a little more” to be assured of getting more renewable energy as the provider. Not all of us can do that, and so, really, you need your governments to act. This is the kind of problem at the kind of scale where all of our individual activity can't possibly be enough. I would say we have to do all of it. FASKIANOS: Well, I am going to go to Al Carnesale, your— FREEMAN: Oh! FASKIANOS: —your former chancellor. FREEMAN: My former chancellor! FASKIANOS: Your former chancellor and a CFR member. So, Al, over to you. Q: So we—since we traded places, I left Harvard to come to UCLA, you left UCLA to come to Harvard. FREEMAN: Yes! Q: Congratulations. So here's my question is about nuclear power. For a number of years environmental groups have been opposed to nuclear power largely because of the waste problem. And then they—in light of climate change, they sort of changed their view and became reluctant supporters. And then came Fukushima and they again opposed nuclear power. Now, as we look ahead with the additional problems you've been talking about that may stymie some of our plans to deal with climate change, where do you think we might be headed on the nuclear problem? FREEMAN: You know, it's interesting—well thank you and it's just delightful to hear from you and see your—see you again. Here's what I'd say. There's a domestic conversation about nuclear and there's a global conversation about nuclear. And of course, as you know, many countries in the world have made a big bet on nuclear. France has always been dependent on nuclear power, for example. China is investing heavily in nuclear power along with every other kind of energy because of their tremendous need as the population grows, and as they, you know, grow into the middle class. So there's a lot of opportunity for nuclear to be built, especially updated sort of smaller more modular reactors, the next generation of reactors all around the world, and I think we're going to see a lot of nuclear deployment. I don't expect to see it in the United States, and the reason I don't think we're going to see it is the legacy you've cited, which is this historical discomfort with nuclear, and the ambivalence that is felt in this country about nuclear and the sort of unwillingness to tolerate the risks that are perceived from nuclear. We haven't solved our long range—our long-term radioactive waste problem. You know, we never decided on Yucca Mountain or anywhere else to put the radioactive waste, so it's being stored on site for—in large measure. And I think there's still kind of a very local NIMBYism, a bad reaction to the idea of nuclear power. The challenge for us in the U.S. is right now nuclear provides about 20 percent of our electricity, and as these facilities are retired, where are we going to get that share of our electricity from? Will it be more renewable energy supported by natural gas for baseload? These are the questions if we lose even this relatively small share of nuclear that we have. The only other comment I'd make—and you may well know far more about this than me—but from my understanding of the cost comparison now, nuclear power, at least in the United States, is just far too expensive to build and not cost-competitive with the alternatives. Natural gas has been cheap because of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. There's sort of abundant natural gas reserves released from shale. It outcompetes coal, and renewables have dropped so much in cost that they are extremely cost-competitive, so I don't think nuclear competes in the American market, at least, this is what the experts have said to me. FASKIANOS: Al, given your expertise in this field, do you want to add anything? Q: It's not to add anything, it's to agree, largely. I think the catch is, how caught up are you in climate change? Because natural gas may be better than coal, but it's not better than nuclear. But it would have to be government-subsidized, which basically in France it's a national security consideration. So it would have to be subsidized as we subsidize many other things. FREEMAN: Right. Q: But I don't see it happening. I think—I was actually on the President's blue-ribbon commission, who tried to come up with a strategy for what to do about the waste. FREEMAN: Yeah. Q: And the strategy said it had to go someplace where the people agreed to take it. FREEMAN: Yeah. Q: And that's not—that's not happening. So I think your conclusion is right, but it is a tension for those of us who are concerned about climate change. FREEMAN: Yeah, it is a tension. And I think you rightly point out the evolution in thinking in the environmental community about this that initially opposed then, sort of, wait a minute, this is a zero-carbon source of energy and we should be for it. And you know, I—this is—for the students, you know, I always say to my students you can't be against everything. You have to be for something. You can't say, well, fossil energy, a disaster; nuclear energy, we're not interested in that, that's too risky et cetera, and all we want is wind and sun, when, at least currently without storage capacity, wind and sun alone without some support—this is in the electricity sector—wind and sun alone without some baseload support to regularly supply the energy when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining, you need something else. And that's what Chancellor Carnesale and I are talking about. What is that baseload? Is it going to be natural gas? Is going to be nuclear, et cetera? So you have to be for something, people, is the upshot of this exchange. FASKIANOS: Thank you. So I'm going to go next—there are two written questions from Kai Corpuz and Natalie Simonian, and they're both undergrads at Lewis University. I think they must either—must be focused at Lewis University or both taking the same course. Really talking about wealthy nations helping developing countries. Developing countries are not equipped with the funds to push for a green future. How are they supposed to participate in this? And you know, what is—what are the wealthy nations' obligation to help assist developing economies in dealing with climate change? FREEMAN: Yes, I mean it's a really good question. And of course, the developed world has an obligation to assist the developing world through technology transfer, with financial support. If the developed world wants other countries that have not had a chance to get as far in developing their economies yet, if they want their cooperation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they're going to have to make a contribution to support these countries in all these ways—financing, tech transfer, help with adaptation and resilience. And that commitment is part of the Paris Agreement, but it is true that the pledges that governments have made so far to produce annually billions of dollars for the developing world have not materialized to the level that was promised. So we are behind on that, and this is a significant problem. There is a very legitimate equity claim being made here, which is that the developed world has enjoyed economic growth. GDP has risen. We've all achieved a level of wealth and middle class. I mean, I'm talking on average for the developed world, obviously not everyone. We have tremendous income inequality in this country and around the world, but relatively speaking, our societies have evolved and become richer because of industrialization. We've already produced all our greenhouse gas emissions to achieve this level of prosperity, and the notion that now countries that haven't gotten there yet should just reduce their emissions to their own economic disbenefit, I think everyone agrees that is not a legitimate position to take without offering assistance and support. So I think the leading countries of the world understand this and agree to this. The question is, how do you operationalize this? How do you best support and help the developing world? Where are the investments best made? How do we make sure the governments of the world are held to their commitments and produce the money they promised to produce? And that is an integral part of the Paris Agreement process. So, you know, I don't want to suggest this is an easy problem, but I do agree the question is absolutely the correct way to think about this, which is we do have to help the countries of the world if we expect for us to achieve our climate mitigation and adaptation goals. FASKIANOS: Thank you, I'm going to go next to a raised hand from Sally Eun Ji Son, I believe at Columbia. Q: Oh, yeah. Hello. My name is Sally. I'm currently at Stanford engineering and an incoming PhD student at Columbia in the Political Science Department. And sort of relevant—related to, like, how different countries are in different stages, what I've noticed, as someone between Gen Z and Millennial—what I've noticed is that I, as an individual, like to take environmentally-conscious decisions. Yet, there's some—there's sort of this, like—a debate going on, like your action will not do anything to the Earth, your action will not do anything to climate change. And when I sort of encounter those debates, how should I navigate myself? Like, should I say it's maybe not a direct environmental effect, but it could be a symbolic effect, political effect? Sort of, like, how do I navigate that individuals could also have power or, like, have a stance or position in shaping climate policy around the world? FREEMAN: Well, first of all, I applaud you for engaging in those debates, and you know, sometimes when we come up against viewpoints that we don't agree with, we run away because we're not interested in engaging. And I would just encourage you all to engage, and I mean in the most respectful way. I'll get to the heart of your question, but it just gives me this opportunity to make this one pitch to you. So allow me—indulge me in making this one pitch to you about engaging in the way you're suggesting. You know, my law students what I ask them to do is in the classroom if they hear something they disagree with, sometimes very strongly, I ask them to put it at its highest—in other words, make it the best version of that argument before you criticize it. So, if somebody didn't make the best version of their argument and it's easy to take them down, actually elevate it and say, I think—I think what you're saying is this, and then what I'm hearing is this and give it the best, most legitimate form you can, and then engage with it on the merits, not them as a person. You don't attack them as a person, but say here's where I think differently. Here's my perspective on these issues. So just the idea that you're prepared to go back and forth on this, I think, is very laudable, and I encourage you to do it in that very respectful way. And you may not convince people of your point of view, but you may give them something to think about. And so what I'd say is—a little bit following on my earlier comment—that individual action can be impactful cumulatively, of course it can. If an entire community makes a decision to compete in their consumption of energy—you know there are these competitions among neighborhoods to be more energy-efficient. You know, you get this little notice in the mail that says your home is good compared to your neighbors, and your home is—in some communities this works. It actually promotes competition. In other communities it annoys them. It really depends on the politics of the community. But the point of this is just to say, communities are just—it's just a cumulative set of individual actions, right? So I do think there's something to changing individual behavior, and if lots of people do that, that makes a difference. So I don't accept the idea that nothing you do matters, so don't do anything. I mean, that argument is a recipe for never doing anything about anything. That is a large problem—because your share is necessarily small, so why should you change, and that, to me, is an excuse for inaction and apathy so that can't be the right argument. But you can accept that individuals alone, even aggregated behavior alone, can't change the world's energy systems, that the scope and scale of that challenge—that's a hundred-year challenge that requires the governments of the world to lead. So you can talk about the individual difference you can make, but that's not enough, right? And all of these things have to be done at the same time, and they fit together. You know, local, national—state level, national, global, this all must be done at the same time. That's the scope and scale of this problem. It's a really—climate is a really hard problem because the world's energy system is important for everything from our economic prosperity to our national security, and you can't transform the world's energy system overnight without affecting—first of all, you can't transform it overnight no matter what you do. But even as we transition, we have to think about national security implications, which is what the Ukraine war makes us do. There are geopolitical implications to how energy moves around the world, and who has energy power around the world. And as we shift to a different energy profile, those the power dynamics will shift, and we need to think about that. You know, we need to make sure that the United States has an energy policy that is strategically in our interest, and you can't think about climate without thinking about that. Likewise, you can't think about climate change without thinking about economic development and—and the flourishing—the ability of societies to flourish. So—and you can't think about it without thinking about equality and equity and justice. So it's a really hard problem, but that's why it's so fascinating to learn about. FASKIANOS: Thank you, the next question is from Chaney Howard, who is a senior honors international business major at Howard University. Going back to the war on Ukraine, how do you feel the argument for infrastructure development can be introduced into this conversation as new strategies and allegiance pledges are emerging? FREEMAN: I'm not sure I fully understand that. Can we have a little bit of clarification? FASIKANOS: All right, Chaney, are you able to unmute yourself to clarify, because I can't divine from the written question. Q: Can you hear me now? FREEMAN: Yes, excellent. Q: OK, perfect. So my question is really surrounding ways that the conversation can be a little bit more direct. So you mentioned how there needs to be a development of infrastructure for overall environmental, like, sustainability, and you were talking about electric cars— FREEMAN: Right. Q: —and just kind of having that conversation with global powers. And so I'm curious how you think—now that we're in this transitional period and some of the nations that are supporting Ukraine are working to develop new strategies and new partnerships, what are ways that we can encourage the government and then the global commerce centers to kind of establish those new strategies for environmental sustainability? FREEMAN: So I'm not a 100 percent sure how Ukraine fits there. But let me talk more generally about this idea of infrastructure and investment because I think what the IPCC report that we were talking about that's projecting climate-related risks and saying what's necessary to do in order to avoid them and what the Paris Agreement represents and what I think the current conversation around what's necessary tells us—the strong message from all of these vehicles and processes and meetings, the strong message is we need massive investment from the private sector and government combined in partnership into what the new energy system of the globe has to look like. Meaning, you have to build the power plants of the future. You have to support commercial-scale renewable power. You have to build the charging infrastructure to electrify the transportation fleet to the extent possible. You have to build a modern grid, not just in this country but all around the world, that is capable of supporting the level of electrification that we need. Because to move sectors like transportation off oil and gas, you're going to need—off oil, rather—transportation is mostly dependent on oil—you're going to need to power them differently, and right now we're thinking of mostly powering cars and many trucks from electricity, which means fortifying the nation's and the globe's grids. All of that is infrastructure. All of that requires investment. And there are massive R&D investments, you can imagine, necessary in the low carbon technology of the future. Hydrogen—eventually producing green hydrogen as a fuel source. There are techniques for removing carbon from—direct air capture. Carbon from the atmosphere, things like direct air capture. Or, you know, other carbon removal technologies, they're controversial but they may be necessary. Carbon capture and sequestration, putting it underground, carbon dioxide underground—again, controversial. But if any of these future low-carbon technologies or remediation techniques are going to succeed, they will require trillions of dollars of investments. So, the kind of level of investment that people are talking about—I'll just give you an example. At the latest COP meeting, the Conference of the Parties, meeting in Glasgow, Scotland, which is—these meetings are part of the international process of updating and checking in on the Paris Agreement. The world's biggest companies and financial institutions came together, and 5,200 businesses pledged to meet net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 and 450 banks, insurers and investors representing $130 trillion in assets. Those are the assets they invest, which is 40 percent of the world's private capital. And I'm giving you all these numbers because I want to impress you with the scale of the commitments you're seeing from the private sector, from banks and lenders, investors and businesses. They committed to making their portfolios climate neutral by 2050. My point is there is a lot of activity in the private sector, both committing to net-zero goals themselves and also committing to investing capital, big money, trillions of dollars—up to $9 trillion annually is what is projected to be needed, that's $105 trillion over thirty years. That's how much money we need to put into the infrastructure you're talking about, the new—next generation energy infrastructure. All of the things I've discussed—the future of power plants, the future of transportation, new breakthrough technologies, new remediation techniques, new resilience—all of this requires massive investment. And the governments of the world and the private sector are nowhere near what they need to do combined to pull off what amounts to a moon-shot kind of level of investment. So this is a long answer, but it's a way of saying the infrastructure we're talking about in a really concrete way is the energy system of the future, and it's going to require a massive level of investment. FASKIANOS: Thank you. We're going to go next to William Naeger, who is a law student at Washburn University. Q: Hi. Yeah, like she said, I'm at Washburn Law School. I'm wondering if your impression is that these kinds of issues will continue to mainly be governed internationally by COP or the Paris Agreement? Or, if over time, as it becomes more and more extreme, whether it will just become one factor in, like, national security and trade agreements and migration issues and kind of just run through everything else that we do already? FREEMAN: Well, I think this is very astute of you, because, in fact, I think climate change as a global challenge has actually come into the mainstream of all of these other fields. I do think that it is part of the discussion around national security. I do think that climate is part of the discussion around trade and that it will become more embedded and more central to these other domains over time. And I think that—people talk a lot about how we could pair climate commitments of countries with trade measures that countries— the trade relationships that countries have with each other. And people talk, for example, about eventually having countries pledge to reduce their emissions, and if they don't reduce them, they may suffer a border tariff on goods that are produced in countries that don't have climate policies, that impose costs for greenhouse gas emissions. So they'll have to—there'll be a tariff or a border tax on goods that are basically being produced and sold cheaper because they're not subject to carbon constraints. That's a merging of climate and trade policy that we may well see over time. Likewise, I think we're learning to talk. We're not there yet entirely, but we're learning to talk about national security and climate together. Climate is really a national security issue. And you saw the Department of Defense and its reports and testimony to Congress from members of the military who are frequently called on to testify about the impact of climate change on the—they will acknowledge that climate change is a threat multiplier for the military and it's a national security issue. Likewise, when we talk about the Ukraine conflict, the war, and we talk about the need to supply the world with oil and gas in times like this when one of the largest suppliers is engaged in very bad action and being sanctioned for it, how do we meet those short-term energy needs but stay on path with our climate goals? That's a very hard thing to do. You have to be able to talk about the short-term, the medium-term, the long-term all at the same time. So I think your question is very smart in the sense that you understand that climate has to become embedded in all of these other fields and conversations, and I think that's already happening. The Biden administration, I think, to its credit has announced what it calls a whole of government approach to climate, and I think it's trying to do basically what you're talking about, which is say the entire federal government that the Biden administration runs, right, say to all the agencies across federal government—from financial regulators like the Securities and Exchange Commission, which makes sure that markets are open and transparent and investors have the right information—even the financial regulators are saying, listen, companies, if you want to trade on this exchange, you better disclose your climate-related risks so investors can make decisions that are appropriate. That's bringing climate into financial regulation. And so the Biden administration has basically said this issue should appear and be relevant to all the things we do. And so I think we're seeing what you're talking about happening to a greater extent, more and more. FASKIANOS: So, Jody, we're at the end of our time. There are a lot of questions that we could not get to, and I apologize for that. Just to sum up, what do you think we all should be doing at the individual level to do our part to affect change and to help with the climate change crisis? FREEMAN: Well, like anybody who's had media training I'm going to not answer your question and say what I want to say anyway, which is— FASKIANOS: Perfect. (Laughs.) FREEMAN: —yeah—because I actually think I've talked a little bit about what we can all do and why it makes sense to take individual action. But what I think I would say, rather, is just I know that there is a lot of reason for pessimism, and I really understand it. And I certainly sometimes feel it myself. I mean, you know, you guys have been through a very, very tough time—a global pandemic, which has been just an awful experience, scary, and disorienting. And you're doing it while you're trying to go to school and live young lives, and that's been hugely disruptive. You now see this war in Ukraine, which is deeply, deeply upsetting, a horrific assault on the Ukrainian population, and you're living at a time when you think climate change is a major challenge that, perhaps, the governments of the world aren't up to. And you see a divided country and, in fact, divisions all around the world and threats to democracy, and restrictions on voting rights. I see what you see, and I can see why you would be upset and worried. But I also want to suggest to you that things are also changing, and there are lots of opportunities for good things to happen. And there's a tremendous amount of innovation and creativity on all kinds of low carbon technologies. There are innovations all the time that open up possibilities. Just look at what's happened with solar power and wind power, renewable power over time. The costs have dropped. The potential for wind and solar has increased exponentially. That's a very hopeful thing. So technology change is very promising. There's a possibility to affect politics in a positive direction. I encourage you to affect politics—this sort of answers your question, Irina. So affect politics in a positive direction, be active, be engaged, because you can effect change by—through activism and through voting. And I also encourage you to pursue professions where you can make a mark. I mean, you can make a difference by engaging with these issues from whatever professional occupation you choose. You can engage with one or another aspect of these challenges of climate, energy, national security. So I have reason for optimism. I think, as frustrating as it is to say, well, the Paris Agreement isn't enough, there's another way to look at it, which is there is an international agreement on climate change. It does have a level of ambition that is an initial step and can be built upon, if we can keep the structure together, if the U.S. continues to lead and look for partners in leading along with the EU. Maybe China will come back to the fold eventually. In other words, things change. Stay tuned, be engaged, and stay optimistic because I, frankly, think there is tremendous opportunity for your generation to engage with these issues in a really constructive and transformative way. And that is where I would leave it. FASKIANOS: Thank you so much, and I'm glad you left it there. It was a perfect way to end this webinar, and thanks to everybody for joining. You should follow Jody Freeman on Twitter at @JodyFreemanHLS, so go there to see what she continues to say. Our next Academic Webinar will be on Wednesday, April 6, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time. We'll focus on China, India, and the narratives of great powers. And in the meantime, I encourage you to follow us at @CFR_academic and, of course, go to CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for research and analysis on global issues. So thank you again, and thank you, Professor Freeman. (END)

After decades of legal and political battles have pushed Nevada's Yucca Mountain out of discussion as the permanent nuclear waste repository. But that means tribes like the Prairie Island Indian Community and the Yakama Nation in Washington will have to endure waste storage at temporary holding sites nearby.     GUESTS Mike Childs Jr. (Prairie […]

No. The Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository is in fact not in Canada or South America, nor is it an edition of macOS. Our cultural literacy is being weighed in the balance. Should it be found wanting, we are committed to recovery. In this game show, Sara and Trish guide Jaran and Reagan through a random selection of entries in E. D. Hirsch's New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy. Visit kingdomoutpost.org to find our friends' podcasts. Find Jaran on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/jaranmiller. Find Reagan on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/reaganschrock This episode contains music from Blue Dot Sessions. "Kirkus" appears at the beginning. Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 is from a public domain recording on Archive.org.

We explore a new proposal for nuclear fuel reprocessing in the United States with Curio CEO Ed McGinnis. For pictures and more info, visit http://www.energy-cast.com/134-curio.html

Join us for the third installment of a multi-part series on the Nuclear West, an exploration of the anti-nuclear movement here in Nevada through its activists and advocates. This time, we'll hear from Tom Polikalas, long-time clean + renewable energy advocate and outspoken opponent of reckless government projects like Yucca Mountain and the MX Missile. Tom has always preferred to zoom in, supporting local initiatives with economic sense over big picture, big rhetoric plans that often ignore the people most affected - those that would have to live next door to deadly weapons or radioactive waste.

Join us for the second installment of a multi-part series on the Nuclear West, an exploration of the anti-nuclear movement here in Nevada through its activists and advocates, on a new Soft Power Radio. We'll be speaking with Judy Treichel, Executive Director of the Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force, to get another perspective on Nevada's nuclear misadventures. Judy has been knee-deep in anti-nuclear organizing for 40 years, involved in everything from direct action to official lobbying and consultation. We'll hear where our strange nuke-ridden state has been and what kind of radioactivity the future may or may not hold.

The Energy Department is looking for a place where it can temporarily and permanently store spent nuclear fuel from reactors. But previous attempts to solve the nuclear waste problem have been stymied by local and state opposition. POLITICO'S Kelsey Tamborrino explains.   Nirmal Mulaikal is a POLITICO audio host-producer.  Kelsey Tamborrino is a reporter covering clean energy for POLITICO.  Raghu Manavalan is the host-producer of the Playbook Daily Briefing and a senior editor for POLITICO audio. Irene Noguchi is the executive producer of POLITICO's audio department.

Ian Zabarte is the Principle Man of the Western Bands of the Shoshone Nation of Indians and works with the Native Community Action Council. He lives in Las Vegas, NV and has worked on nuclear issues for 30+ years. We specifically talk about Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository, which is a proposed deep geological repository storage facility within Yucca Mountain to store spent nuclear fuel, in other terms, nuclear waste and other high-level radioactive waste. The project was approved in 2002 by the 107th United States Congress, but federal funding for the site ended in 2011. With no federal funding it's up to the NRC and DOE but there has not been a final decision on the repository license application. The project has encountered many difficulties and was highly contested by the Western Shoshone peoples and non-local public. As of 2019 the status of the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain remains uncertain. We discuss the significant impacts Yucca Mountain has for the Shoshone people, the significance of land and water for Indiginious people, what a nuclear waste repository is, the relationship between tribal governments and the federal government, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), and then what you can do to take action. Contact and connect with Ian: mrizabarte@gmail.com Learn more about the Native Community Action Council: http://www.nativecommunityactioncouncil.org/index.html Treaty of Ruby Valley: https://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/shoshone/ruby_valley.html Yucca Mountain Resources: https://www.yuccamountain.org/ http://www.nativecommunityactioncouncil.org/Defend-Yucca-Mountain.html https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/03/yucca-mountain-congress-works-revive-dormant-nuclear-waste-dump/664153002/ https://www.nirs.org/radioactive-waste/hlw/ Radiation Exposure Compensation Act: https://www.justice.gov/civil/common/reca https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/947/text HOLTEC: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/06/07/halting-holtec-a-challenge-for-nuclear-safety-advocates/

We discuss a couple of interesting animals, the cupacabra, famed goatsucker of Puerto Rico and Texas.  Is it an alien creature that sucks the blood of farm animals... or ugly coyotes.  I bet you can guess which is more likely.  We also discuss animals of the feline variety, the Ray Cat, genetically created to keep us safe from stored radioactive waste tens of thousands of years in the future.

Gov. Steve Sisolak, other driver cited in Sunday auto crash, here's a look at the proposed redistricting maps in Clark County, a government report recommends amending Yucca Mountain law and more on 7@7 from the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

This Week’s Featured Interviews: Radioactive waste dump connection between Yucca Mountain and West Texas explored and exposed by Ian Zabarte, Principal Man for the Western Bands of the Shoshone Nation.  He rips apart the recent decision by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to approve a high level “interim” nuclear waste dump in West Texas and brings...

Oh it's a Yucca Mountain! This episode we talk of some juicy work gossip, movie scenes and shows, awkward sleepovers, It's a time to be alive! --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

We take a look at some of the zaniest solutions proposed in order to warn future civilizations about nuclear waste.

We begin a two-part episode about the craziest Wikipedia article that we have ever come across for this podcast. In this first part, we begin by discussing Yucca Mountain, a desert peak of Nevada which is a proposed location for the burial of large amounts of nuclear waste.

Good Evening! In Episode 62, we are joined by Special Guest, Scott T!   In a pre-show segment (aka, farting around before we get going), we talk about the weather and broken McDonald's ice cream machines. It's really as good as you think it will be. Scott talks about how he knows John and Phil, some Taco John's culinary adventures, and living in Colorado. Somehow, the Couch Story comes up again.  Colorado booze. Scott gives an extended elevator speech about his past. Scott talks about his music and movie tastes. Star Wars and Phil's initial reaction to Baby Yoda.   The Song:  “Yucca Mountain”

In this episode I interview Dr. James Conca who understands both the science and the politics of nuclear energy and deep geological repositories. Dr. Conca reveals the ultimate solution to storage of spent nuclear fuel, and we discuss the political machinations surrounding Yucca Mountain.   Geochemist and Energy scientist, speaker and author Dr. James Conca is Senior Scientist for UFA Ventures, Inc. in the Tri-Cities, Washington, an Adjunct Professor at Washington State University in the School of the Environment, a Trustee of the Herbert M. Parker Foundation, an Affiliate Scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory and a Science Contributor to Forbes on energy and nuclear issues. Follow me at https://therationalview.podbean.com Come talk to the experts at https://facebook.com/groups/therationalview On Insta @the_rational_view On Twitter @AlScottRational #therationalview #podcast #nuclearenergy #deepgeologicalrepository #cleanenergy #greenenergy #climatechange #netzeroneedsnuclear #nuclearreactor #atomicenergy #nuclearwaste 

Here are your local news headlines for the morning of Wednesday, Mar. 3, 2021.

What You Need to Know is the biggest loser is Joe Biden. New Hampshire has made clear: Joe Biden is done. Bloomberg is done (except for cheap ads he can air). The old guard is losing the Democrat Civil War and getting beaten badly. Also, visit PhyllisSchlafly.com or email me at ed@phyllisschlafly.com to find out about Project Pro America and how you can join a new webinar on Trump and the Constitution I’ll be teaching along with many other amazing resources. ERA is dead — even Ginsburg agrees. Ruth Bader Ginsburg may have just killed the Equal Rights Amendment - Vox. Mark Schneider of Gen IV Nuclear talks about Yucca Mountain and the myths of spent nuclear fuel storage. Wrap up: Deep State attempted executions of Trump allies like Roger Stone and Mike Flynn. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Nuclear Waste Warriors from around the United States gathered in Albuquerque, NM in November to brainstorm, strategize, and coordinate efforts and actions. This Week’s SPECIAL: Nuclear Waste Warriors from around the U.S. came together November 7-11, 2019, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, to brainstorm, strategize, and coordinate work against the nuclear nightmares in their own backyards,...

On Thursday senators tackled the radioactive question of the nation's nuclear waste, this time with a new plan to circumvent the hot-potato politics that doomed Yucca Mountain and other proposals. A combination of new legislation that spreads out the nuclear waste burden and perhaps new technology could offer a new way forward. Everyday, the Department of Energy sends $2.2 million to the nation's electric utilities to store spent nuclear fuel that has nowhere to go.

Please RSVP to expedite check-in A live webcast will be streamed at 2:00 PM EDT at www.eesi.org/livecast (wireless connection permitting) The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) invites you to a briefing on the new era of the U.S. nuclear power industry as its electricity generation winds down and decommissioning of nuclear power plants ramps up. Decommissioning is the process of dismantling a closed plant, securing or removing its radioactive waste, and lowering a site's residual radioactivity. Getting it right is critical to communities' health and safety. Getting it wrong could pose existential threats. The U.S. civilian nuclear fleet is aging out. As civilian reactors approach the end of their operating lives, their economics have been undercut by less expensive natural gas-fired generation. Even though nuclear owners are demanding state subsidies to keep some aging plants open a while longer, it will not stop the coming wave of closures. Six reactors have shut down since 2013. Another 15 are slated to close by 2025. Most of the civilian reactor fleet will inevitably close over the next 20 years. As plants close, previously profitable assets become liabilities owners are eager to offload. Enabled by recent legislative and regulatory changes, private companies (chiefly Holtec International's joint venture with the Canadian firm SNC-Lavalin and NorthStar's joint venture with French subsidiary Orano, formerly Areva) are stepping in to acquire the plants, taking over their licenses, liability, decommissioning funds and waste contracts. Their business model is to decommission as quickly and inexpensively as possible, claiming any remaining decommissioning funds as profit. Economic incentives encourage them to pack highly radioactive spent fuel into thin-walled dry storage canisters not designed for the decades or centuries of storage that may be needed. Absent a geologic repository, the companies plan to ship high-level nuclear waste to Consolidated Interim Storage (CIS) sites – one owned by Orano in Texas and another by Holtec in New Mexico. There is currently little opportunity for meaningful input from citizens, municipalities or states into the companies' decisions on decommissioning, nuclear waste, or use of ratepayer-financed decommissioning funds. Yet more than 80 reactor communities and communities near waste storage sites, plus countless communities along proposed radioactive waste transport routes (which traverse 75 percent of Congressional districts), will be profoundly affected by those decisions. Waste transport, CIS and the emerging privatized model of decommissioning and waste stewardship raise dilemmas and potential safety threats that have yet to be solved, or in some cases adequately studied. Even so, Congress will be called upon this year to decide on legislation and appropriations regarding CIS, Yucca Mountain and other key issues related to decommissioning. Congress has the power to require studies and stronger oversight of decommissioning. To explore these issues, distinguished experts including regulators, independent scientists, NGO advocates, and representatives of affected communities, will speak and answer questions at the briefing.

It's the New Year's Eve episode of a podcast, which means you already know it's going to suck and the hosts will get wasted, HOWEVER COMMA business still gets done, yo. Dok Cosmac is in the studio to join the hosts for the final Is It a Band game of the season, after which an ultimate champ is crowned and the season's statistics are released by Judge Scalpod. After stumbling through the Blind Eye and viewer mail segments, peas apologizes for the episode and 2018 in general. With the final show of the year in the can, Fidd & Faux pack the entire season in a truck and drive it into Yucca Mountain.

Nuclear Trainwreck? – San Onofre high level radioactive wastelurks just above and behind Pacific Ocean high tide mark –and proposed rail transport is a “mobile Chernobyl” disaster just waiting to happen. This Week’s Featured Interview: “Nuclear trainwreck” – Let’s hope that’s a metaphor, not a future reality!  Donna Gilmore is  founder and head of San...

Marker at the Trinity site, where the world’s first nuclear explosion took place. This Week’s Featured Interview: Filmmakers Taylor Dunne and Eric Stewart on their new documentary-in-progress, OFF COUNTRY, which examines lives impacted on-the-ground after the Trinity test, the first nuclear explosion in the world, and at Rocky Flats, the plutonium contaminated former nuclear weapons...

Editor Jon Ralston chats with Michelle Rindels and Riley Snyder about Jacky Rosen's Senate candidacy, pot sales, a constable who shouldn't be a constable and Yucca Mountain. The editor tries to be funny; Riley succeeds in being funny. The post IndyMatters Episode 12: First week of pot sales appeared first on The Nevada Independent.

with Brad Friedman & Desi Doyen

Climate change and the need for clean energy might revive America's nuclear industry but, will it?  High cost and the fear of terrorism are still major issues, and without Nevada's Yucca Mountain, deadly nuclear waste has no place to go. Also, President Obama's big earmark problem, and the UN has been marking time on illegal drugs.