As winter’s rigours descend on Gaza, UN calls on Israel yet again to open crossings

The United Nations and its non-governmental organization (NGO) partners today called yet again on Israel to immediately open crossings into the Gaza Strip to give Palestinians access to desperately needed materials, especially in view of the coming winter and rainy season.

Berlin Wall anniversary is no time for complacency, says UNESCO

World leaders cannot afford to be complacent in the quest for freedom, human rights and diversity, 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the incoming head of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) warned today.

Information and communication technology experts gather at UN event in Beirut

More than 750 policymakers from the world of information and communication technology (ICT) are meeting in Beirut at an event co-hosted by the United Nations telecom agency where they can share experiences and forge common approaches to navigating today’s complex ICT markets.

Berlin Wall anniversary is no time for complacency, says new chief of UNESCO

World leaders cannot afford to be complacent in the quest for freedom, human rights and diversity, 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the incoming head of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) warned today.

Joint UN-African force calls on Sudanese group to stop obstructing its work

The joint African Union-United Nations mission assisting in restoring peace and stability in Darfur has called on one of the major rebel groups in the Sudanese region to stop impeding its work, while deploring the harassment and detention of its personnel.

Dictatorships and double standards - Tough on Fiji, soft on Iran

Why the U.S. Needs Nuclear Power

Other clean energy sources can’t meet the needs of a growing economy.
By ARIS CANDRIS
As America climbs out of one of its worst recessions in decades, we must keep in mind that long-term economic growth requires an abundant, affordable supply of electricity.
By 2030, electricity demand in the U.S. is expected to grow by 21% from its current level, according to the U.S. Energy Administration. To meet our needs we have several options.
One is to increase our dependence on fossil energy sources. Unfortunately, this will only add to the environmental burden caused by burning carbon-based fuels. Another option, the Obama administration’s goal, is to increase the supply of energy sources that reduce the country’s carbon footprint. These sources include solar, wind, hydro, biofuels and geothermal energy, as well as new domestic sources of natural gas, which burns cleaner than oil or coal.
Toward that end, the proposed Senate climate-change bill, sponsored by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) and John Kerry (D., Mass.), provides incentives to electric companies to use energy sources that reduce carbon emissions. The bill also expands federal loan guarantees to support the financing of new nuclear plant projects.
These loan guarantees are crucial for providing the financial security that’s needed to build advanced nuclear energy plants. These new plants will promote energy independence, improve our country’s economic competitiveness, and help provide a cleaner environment for future generations.
To be sure, the U.S needs to embrace all forms of renewable and sustainable energy technologies whenever possible. But the simple, unavoidable truth is that all renewable energy sources produce only a small percentage of our total electricity output. Wind and solar combined, for example, account for less than 5% of the total U.S. electricity supply. It is doubtful that they can be scaled up to a degree that would make a significant impact on rising electricity demand over the short or intermediate term.
Greater energy efficiency and conservation also make good business and environmental sense. But a 21% growth in demand for electric power, compounded by the need to replace aging power plants, is too great to satisfy with energy efficiency and conservation alone.
Nuclear energy, therefore, must play a larger role in our effort to become and remain energy independent, and to reduce carbon emissions. The growth of nuclear power will also have peripheral benefits, as it constitutes an economic stimulus package in and of itself.
To date, the recent growth of the nuclear energy industry has created at least 15,000 jobs, with many more on the horizon. Westinghouse’s work alone in the deployment of four new nuclear plants now under construction in China will create or sustain an additional 5,000 U.S. jobs in 20 states. These jobs are in fields such as engineering and design, and in the manufacturing of fuel rods and assemblies, pumps, motors, circuit breakers, etc.
Beyond that, the American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness (a trade group) estimates the nuclear energy industry will create as many as 350,000 jobs over the next 20 years, many in traditional building trades (welders, pipe-fitters, construction workers) that have been hard hit by both global competition and the current economic downturn.
These projections are grounded in reality. To date, 25 new nuclear power plants have been announced for the U.S., 14 of them by Westinghouse. We expect the first of these new plants to come online about 2016.
Meanwhile, China and India have announced major nuclear power construction programs that will bring as many as 50 new plants online in each country over the next two decades. Nuclear power plants have proven to be the low-cost source of baseload electricity (electricity in large volume that is required all the time, and which is generated essentially only by coal and nuclear fuel). And as countries such as China and India increase the percentage of electricity generated by nuclear energy, American businesses and manufacturing companies will be at a distinct competitive disadvantage if they are forced to rely on electricity generated by comparatively more expensive energy sources.
President Barack Obama has repeatedly stated his belief that nuclear energy must play an important part in America’s energy future, and he supports the Senate climate-change bill. In a town-hall meeting in New Orleans on Oct. 15, the president said: “We need to increase domestic energy production, employ safe nuclear energy like France, but also develop new sources of energy efficiency.”
Mr. Obama’s reference to France is highly relevant to the controversial issue of how to manage used reactor fuel rods. Until very recently, the U.S. government and nuclear energy utilities had planned to place this material in deep storage at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. However, because of political considerations, storage at Yucca Mountain will likely never happen.
Instead, Westinghouse and others in the industry are exploring alternatives such as the recycling of used fuel. This technology, developed in the 1970s, is used in France, which is the world’s most nuclear-dependent and energy-independent country. Used fuel rods contain upwards of 85% of their original energy. Tapping this energy through recycling is environmentally sound and consistent with the goal of energy independence.
With huge new finds of domestic natural gas and a commitment to renewables, the U.S. has never been closer to realizing true energy independence. But to seize this opportunity, nuclear energy and renewable energy sources must be developed in harmony to provide the abundant clean energy that the American economy needs to grow.
Dr. Candris is president and CEO of Westinghouse Electric Co

Some Utilities Push Congress to Act on Carbon Emissions

By REBECCA SMITH and STEPHEN POWER
Utility executives are stepping up calls for legislation to cap greenhouse-gas emissions, fearing that if Congress doesn’t act, the EPA will establish rules that would be costlier and less effective.
The executives’ desire for prompt action is colliding with Washington’s focus on other issues and growing reluctance to tamper with power-industry costs during a weak economy.

Some executives said last week they think intervention by the Environmental Protection Agency would be doomed because, for the most part, all the agency can do is order firms to install “best available control technology.” Most power companies don’t think any effective, affordable technology exists to capture and store carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants.
Most power companies prefer so-called cap-and-trade legislation to EPA regulation because the former is expected to give them greater flexibility on how to comply and thus cost them less than EPA regulation, they say.
Still, plenty in the utility sector continue to oppose legislation to cap carbon emissions.
Under cap-and-trade legislation — which the House has passed but the Senate hasn’t vote on yet — the government would require companies to hold permits to emit greenhouse gases. Over time, the government would issue fewer permits, bringing emissions down gradually while allowing companies to trade the permits among themselves. Companies that find it too expensive to reduce their own emissions could pay other firms to reduce theirs. They could also invest in activities that offset carbon-dioxide emissions, such as planting trees.
The EPA would be “forced to pursue a technology road map that doesn’t exist,” warned Jim Rogers, chief executive of Duke Energy Corp., Charlotte, N.C., who also has lobbied the Hill repeatedly to pass a bill.
John Rowe, head of Exelon Corp., Chicago, said that EPA regulation would be “more arbitrary, more expensive, and more uncertain for investors and the industry than a reasonable, market-based legislative solution like cap and trade.”
The executives said they want legislation — and soon — because utilities need to make billions of dollars of investments in coming years and risk bad choices in a legislative void.
Republicans have largely opposed a Senate bill as economically ruinous, and some have indicated that they won’t be pressured into voting for a bill, even if the EPA moves forward with regulations on power plants.
“The actions the EPA has taken and its plans to regulate greenhouse gases are a serious concern,” said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R., Ga.). “However, EPA’s actions should not scare Congress into passing bad legislation.”
An EPA spokeswoman said Friday, “We agree that we need Congress to step in and enact comprehensive and integrated energy reform as quickly as possible.”
Even some executives who have opposed bills in the House and Senate say they would rather have legislation than EPA oversight. David Ratcliffe, CEO of Southern Co., Atlanta, said Friday that he would prefer legislation because “the EPA process is not designed to deal with this complex an issue.” But, he said, he would still take EPA regulation “over a bad legislative framework.”
The Senate has been consumed recently with health-care legislation, and isn’t expected to pass a climate bill this year. The Democratic party’s moderates — who tend to wield more influence in the Senate than House — are moving to assert more influence over the issue.
Many in the power industry still hope that legislation will be passed that is technologically neutral and would embrace any method of reducing carbon-dioxide emissions — including nuclear power.
Write to Rebecca Smith at rebecca.smith@wsj.com and Stephen Power at stephen.power@wsj.com

Radioactive waste to be put in £18bn hole

Robin Pagnamenta, Energy Editor

Radioactive waste from a new generation of British nuclear power stations will be buried deep underground in a storage facility that could cost up to £18 billion to build, under plans to be announced by the Government today.
Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, will give the formal green light to a plan to construct a “deep geological repository” for permanent disposal of the 200 tonnes of high-level waste produced annually by the ten new reactors planned for Britain.
Each reactor will produce about 20 tonnes of highly radioactive spent fuel per year, which will remain lethal for up to 100,000 years.
The store will also provide a permanent place for the stockpile of about 5,000 canisters of high-level nuclear waste from the country’s past civil and military nuclear programmes, which are housed in a temporary facility at the Sellafield plant in West Cumbria.

The Government’s announcement today that it is satisfied with the arrangements it has created for handling Britain’s nuclear waste stockpile will form part of a series of six National Policy Statements on British energy policy designed to fast-track big energy projects — including nuclear power stations, giant wind farms and clean coal plants — through the planning system.
The projects are all considered essential to maintaining the security of Britain’s energy supply while meeting the Government’s goal of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.
Mr Miliband has said that the planning rules are essential. “We can’t build a 21st-century energy supply with a 20th-century planning system,” he said.
Britain generates 15 per cent of its electricity from nuclear energy but wants to increase this to at least 25 per cent by 2025. An increase of 55 per cent in total energy demand is expected by 2050, and all of this will need to come from low-carbon sources.
The announcement today will also include a list of 11 likely sites for new nuclear power stations — including Hinkley Point in Somerset, Sizewell in Suffolk and Wylfa in Angelsey, as well as possible greenfield sites where plants may be built in future. One proposed site for a new reactor where an existing nuclear station exists, Dungeness in Kent, may be rejected because of its low- lying location, which leaves it under threat from rising sea levels. But a site for the nuclear waste store, which is expected to take decades to build, is unlikely to be chosen for many years.
The Government wants a community to volunteer to host it in exchange for a package of jobs and benefits, but so far only one has expressed an interest — West Cumbria.
The so-called National Policy Statements are part of a strategy to strip local authorities of the power of approving big energy projects. A new organisation — the Infrastructure Planning Commission — will instead take decisions. Its aim is to cut the time required to win planning approval from seven years to one year.
Greenpeace said that the Government “still has no environmentally acceptable solution to the problem of dealing with radioactive wastes”.
Additional policy statements will be made today on fossil fuels, renewables, gas supply and electricity networks.

Tear down this wall! And save the planet - Mikhail Gorbachev

There are urgent parallels between the fall of Communism and the fight to stop climate change
Mikhail Gorbachev

The German people, and the whole world alongside them, are today celebrating a landmark date in history: the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Not many events can claim their place in the collective memory as a watershed that divides two distinct periods. The dismantling of the Berlin Wall — that stark, concrete symbol of a world divided into hostile camps — is such an event. It brought incredible hope and opportunity to people everywhere, and provided the 1980s with a truly jubilant finale. That is something to think about as this decade draws to a close, and the chance for humanity to take another momentous leap forward appears to be slipping away.
The road to the end of the Cold War was certainly not easy, or universally welcomed at the time, but it is for just this reason that its lessons remain relevant. In the 1980s the world was at an historic crossroad. The arms race had created an explosive situation. Nuclear deterrents could have failed at any moment. We were heading for disaster, spending billions on an arms race, rather than investing in creativity and people.
Today another planetary threat has emerged. The climate crisis is the new wall that divides us from our future, and today’s leaders are vastly underestimating the urgency, and potentially catastrophic scale, of the emergency.
People used to joke that we will struggle for peace until there is nothing left on the planet; the threat of climate change makes this prophecy more literal than ever. Comparisons with the period immediately before the Berlin Wall came down are striking.
Like 20 years ago, we face a threat to global security and our very future existence that no one nation can deal with alone. And, again, it is the people who are calling for change. Just as the German people declared their will for unity, world citizens are today demanding that action is taken to tackle climate change and redress the deep injustices that surround it. Twenty years ago key world leaders demonstrated resolve, faced up to opposition and immense pressure, and the Wall came down. It remains to be seen whether today’s leaders will do the same.
Addressing climate change demands a paradigm shift on a scale akin to that required to end the Cold War. But we need a “circuit-breaker” to escape from the business-as-usual that currently dominates the political agenda. It was the transformation brought about by perestroika and glasnost that provided the quantum leap for freedom for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and opened the way for the democratic revolution that saved history. Climate change is complex and closely entwined with a host of other challenges, but a similar breakthrough in our values and priorities is needed.
There is not just one wall to topple, but many. There is the wall between those states which are already industrialised, and those developing countries which do not want to be held back. There is the wall between those who cause climate change, and those who suffer the consequences. There is the wall between those who heed the scientific evidence, and those who pander to vested interests. And there is the wall between the citizens who are changing their own behaviour and want strong global action, and the leaders who are so far letting them down.
In 1989, incredible changes that were deemed impossible just a few years earlier were implemented. But this was no accident. The changes resonated the hopes of the time and leaders responded. We brought down the wall in the belief that future generations would be able to solve challenges together. Today, looking at the cavernous gulf between rich and poor, the irresponsibility that caused the global financial crisis, and the weak and divided responses to climate change, I feel bitter. The opportunity to build a safer, fairer and more united world has been largely squandered.
To echo the demand made of me by my late friend and sparring partner President Reagan: Mr Obama, Mr Hu, Mr Singh, Mr Brown and, back in Berlin, Ms Merkel and her European counterparts: “Tear down this wall!”
For this is Your Wall, your defining moment. You cannot dodge the call of history. I appeal to heads of state and government to personally come to the climate change conference in Copenhagen this December and dismantle the wall. The people of the world expect you to deliver; do not fail them.
Mikhail Gorbachev, former President of the Soviet Union, was awarded the 1990 Nobel Peace Prize for his role in the peaceful conclusion of the Cold War. He is the Founding President of Green Cross International and is heading an international Climate Change Task Force