

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
WECF / Sabine Bock +49 176 2282 7465
(German, English)
IFG / Claire Greensfelder +1 510 917 5468
(English, French, Spanish)
Greenpeace / Jan Van De Putte +32 49 616 1584
(English, Dutch, German, French)
EcoDefense Russia / Vladimir Sliviak + 48 51 732 9054
(English, Russian)
WISE / Peer de Rijk + 31 6 20 000 626
(English, Dutch)
Three dozen environmental leaders from
16 countries braved icy cold weather on Wednesday morning in front of
the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Meeting in
Poznan, Poland where they called nuclear power "a Mickey Mouse
solution" to climate change. The activists were carrying banners and
posters with lively slogans including "Don't Nuke the Climate," "No
Nuclear Power in The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)" and "Nuclear
Power, No Thanks!"
Three dozen environmental leaders from
16 countries braved icy cold weather on Wednesday morning in front of
the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Meeting in
Poznan, Poland where they called nuclear power "a Mickey Mouse
solution" to climate change. The activists were carrying banners and
posters with lively slogans including "Don't Nuke the Climate," "No
Nuclear Power in The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)" and "Nuclear
Power, No Thanks!"
Most were wearing t-shirts with the familiar "Mickey Mouse ears"
emblazoned with the radiation symbol. The activists, representing
non-governmental organizations from nearby European countries and from
as far away as Taiwan, South Korea, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan and
California, announced the release of a global call for the elimination
of proposals to include nuclear power as an approved investment for
greenhouse gas mitigation in the 2nd commitment period of the Kyoto
Protocol of the UNFCCC.
In only one week, over 300 NGOs representing millions of individuals
from 50 countries in every corner of the planet signed on to the public
appeal to keep the nuclear power option out of the climate talks.
Spokespeople from the four organizers of today's action made their case
throughout the morning by talking one-on-one to hundreds of government
delegates and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as they entered the
conference site for morning sessions.
Speaking to the press, Sabine Bock, coordinator of energy and climate
protection for Women in Europe for a Common Future (WECF) said:
"Nuclear energy has proven in the past that it is a threat not only to
our health and the environment, but also to human rights."
"In our work at WECF with local communities," Bock continued, "we have
encountered severe health problems and human rights abuses of
populations due to the harmful effects of nuclear energy and
radiation." Bock added: "We can't understand why governments still
promote this dangerous technology rather than taking the opportunity to
develop safe and sustainable new, renewable, and clean energy
solutions."
Jan Van de Putte, Nuclear Campaign Coordinator for Greenpeace described
nuclear power as an obstacle to effective climate protection saying
that money invested in nuclear power is not nearly as effective as
money invested in wind power, for example."
"Nuclear power is a dangerous and dirty energy source - it provides too
little energy for mitigation at too slow a pace and at too great a
cost." Van de Putte continued, "the cost per Kwh of nuclear power is
double that of wind energy. It just doesn't make sense to pursue this
outdated energy source."
Vladimir Slivyak, Co-Chair of Ecodefense Russia, called upon his
national government as well as other delegations to stop promoting
nuclear power into the Kyoto Protocol via provisions for Joint
Implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism. "78 % of Russians
are opposed to nuclear power," Slivyak said. "We demand that the
Russian delegation stop any plans to develop new nuclear plants." "We
further call on all governments to stop new nuclear development."
Claire Greensfelder, Deputy Director of the International Forum on
Globalization of San Francisco, California, said: "Despite year after
year of rejection by the state parties to the Convention, the nuclear
industry (and a small group of states) continues to promote the
economic and public health disaster of nuclear power." Greensfelder
continued: "We also have grave concerns about the health and
environmental impacts of increased uranium mining, milling and nuclear
waste storage, much of which is on indigenous peoples' lands, many of
whom are opposed to continued nuclear development. Indigenous peoples'
right to free prior and informed consent of development on their lands,
as established by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples, (passed in the UN General Assembly in September 2007), must be
taken into consideration."
Holding a colorful homemade banner proclaiming "No Fishy Nukes!,",
Gloria Hsu, Chair, of the Taiwan Environmental Protection Union (TEPU)
said: "Using nuclear power for CO2 reduction is the same as drinking
some poison to quench your thirst."
"We have managed thus far to keep nuclear power out of the Kyoto
Protocol," said Peer de Rijk, executive director of World Information
Service on Energy (WISE), speaking from Amsterdam. "We will continue to
do whatever we can to achieve the same for a much needed post-Kyoto
agreement. Nuclear energy is a deadlock, blocking real solutions. Don't
nuke the climate!
A copy of the statement can be found on NIRS' website at https://www.nirs.org/climate/background/pa_nuclearaction9dec17h1.pdf
A list of the organizational signers can be found on NIRS' website at https://www.nirs.org/climate/background/nonuclearcdm_signons_10dec08press-pdf.pdf
Nuclear Information and Resource Service is the information and networking center for people and organizations concerned about nuclear power, radioactive waste, radiation, and sustainable energy issues.
The president demanded once again that Iran open the Strait of Hormuz and said that "all Hell will reign down" on the country if officials don't "make a deal."
As the US military's frantic search continued Saturday for an airman who was aboard an F-15E fighter jet when it was downed by Iranian forces a day earlier, and analysts and Iranian media alike suggested the Trump administration has lost control of its war against Iran, President Donald Trump issued his latest threat against the country—once again appearing to threaten tens of millions of Iranians with war crimes.
Renewing his demand that Iran "MAKE A DEAL or OPEN UP THE HORMUZ STRAIT," the president said he was giving the Iranian government "48 hours before all Hell will reign down on them," appearing to confuse the word "reign" with "rain."
"Time is running out," said Trump in a post on his social media platform, Truth Social.
In his post, Trump did not directly address the ongoing search for the airman, who was one of two who ejected from the fighter jet when Iran reportedly used new air defense systems to shoot down the plane. One crew member was found and rescued on Friday.
Iranian officials were also looking for the missing airman on Saturday, raising concerns that the service member could be taken as a hostage and used as leverage.
The president has said little about the ongoing search, but spoke briefly to The Independent in a phone call Saturday about the possibility that Iran could find the service member first.
"We hope that’s not going to happen,” he said.
Trump's comments on social media, meanwhile, appeared to signal "a countdown to massive war crimes," said New York University law professor Ryan Goodman.
The president has also previously warned Iran with an ultimatum, only to delay the threatened action. He said on March 22 that the US would "hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!" if officials did not reopen the strait—prompting critics to condemn him as a "maniacal tyrant."
The March 22 threat was likely a reference to Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, the vicinity of which was struck by a projectile on Saturday, prompting condemnation from the International Atomic Energy Agency. Human rights experts have repeated warnings in recent weeks that striking power plants would constitute war crimes.
At least five people were killed and 170 were injured in airstrikes on a petrochemical hub in Iran's Khuzestan province on Saturday morning, in addition to the Bushehr attack.
After his initial threat, Trump later said direct strikes on energy infrastructure would not be launched until April 6, and demanded that Iran open the key waterway before then.
Despite Trump's increasingly belligerent threats of "hell" and destruction of civilian infrastructure, a number of media critics noted on Saturday that mainstream Western news outlets including The New York Times, The Economist, and Bloomberg described Iran's use of air defense systems to shoot down US war planes involved in the invasion as an "escalation from Iran's leadership."
"Does Iran have a right to defend itself? Does Palestine? Does Lebanon?" asked commentator Hasan Piker, noting that the US and Israel have claimed they launched the invasion of Iran to "defend" themselves against an imminent attack, contrary to US intelligence analysis. "Or is it just Israel and America who get to claim self-defense as they engage in wars of conquest?"
The International Atomic Energy Agency warned of "the paramount importance of adhering to the seven pillars for ensuring nuclear safety and security during a conflict."
The director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency on Saturday demanded "maximum military restraint" from the US and Israel as it confirmed reports that strikes had targeted a location close to Iran's Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, killing at least one person.
In a statement released via social media, the IAEA relayed a message from Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi, who expressed "deep concern about the reported incident."
Grossi warned that nuclear power plants or nearby areas "must never be attacked, noting that auxiliary site buildings may contain vital safety equipment" and stressed "the paramount importance of adhering to the seven pillars for ensuring nuclear safety and security during a conflict."
The IAEA said the attack near the Bushehr plant, Iran's only operational nuclear power facility, was the fourth such attack since Israel and the US began its invasion of Iran on February 28. The plant lies in a city inhabited by about 250,000 people.
A security staff member was killed by a projectile fragment and a building on the Bushehr site was impacted by shockwaves and fragments. Grossi said that no increase in radiation levels was reported.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi also condemned the Bushehr strike and issued a reminder of the "Western outrage about hostilities near Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine" when Russia attacked the site.
"Israel-US have bombed our Bushehr plant four times now. Radioactive fallout will end life in [Gulf Cooperation Council] capitals, not Tehran. Attacks on our petrochemicals also convey real objectives," said Araghchi.
Al Jazeera reported that at least two petrochemical facilities had been hit by the US and Israel in southern Iran’s Khuzestan province, an energy hub in the country. At least five people were injured in those attacks,
Iranian news agency Mehr reported that the state-run Bandar Imam petrochemical complex, which produces liquefied petroleum gas and chemicals as well as other products, sustained damage.
President Donald Trump said late last month that he would delay any attacks on Iran's energy infrastructure until April 6 and said the delay was "subject to the success of the ongoing meetings and discussions.”
He has threatened to destroy Iran's power plants and other civilian infrastructure if Iranian leaders don't end the blockade on the oil export waterway the Strait of Hormuz, which they began in retaliation for the US-Israeli strikes that started more than a month ago and which has fueled skyrocketing global energy prices.
The threat amounted to Trump warning that he could soon commit a war crime, said international law experts.
US President Donald Trump continued his "war on science" on Friday with his budget request for the 2027 fiscal year, which critics have denounced as "grossly irresponsible" for its proposed $1.5 trillion in military spending and "a moral obscenity" because of its cuts to social and scientific programs.
In the lead-up to Trump's request to the Republican-controlled Congress, as he and Israel waged war on Iran, Sean Manning, a Herbert Scoville Jr. Peace Fellow in the Union of Concerned Scientists' Global Security Program, wrote that "if this Bloody New Deal actually passes, it could give unparalleled increases in financial power to defense contractors and support for the political work they already do to influence Congress."
"Sane voices need to act now, building opposition to this unprecedented plan," Manning argued. "Progressives should be unflinching in defining this proposal as a blank check for the same contractors who cannot deliver ships on time, munitions at scale, or clean audits. Pouring funds into a defense sector that has repeatedly failed basic tests of accountability will not miraculously produce innovation."
In addition to railing against the budget for the Pentagon—the world's largest institutional climate polluter—after it was officially released on Friday, progressive voices directed attention to some particular proposed cuts and their consequences.
To fund the Pentagon's massive war-making budget, "the Trump administration is requesting the cancellation of billions of dollars in funds for renewable energy, environmental justice, carbon removal, space science, and climate change education," Emily Gardner reported Friday for Eos, the American Geophysical Union's news magazine.
As Katherine Tsantiris, Ocean Conservancy's director of government relations, pointed out, among the targeted federal agencies is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The proposed cuts, she said, "fly directly in the face of the clear bipartisan support Congress showed earlier this year by protecting funding for this critical agency."
"Slashing NOAA's budget would weaken weather forecasting, disrupt fisheries management, and stall ocean research—putting American lives, livelihoods, and global scientific leadership at risk," Tsantiris continued. "Congress should once again reject these cuts to ensure NOAA has the resources it needs to support our economy, protect our ocean, and keep Americans safe."
Quentin Scott, federal policy director at the Chesapeake Climate Action Network Action Fund, argued that "this proposed budget is exactly what America does NOT need when facing rising energy bills, more frequent extreme weather, and rising insurance rates."
"By gutting funds for climate science and innovation, the budget jeopardizes our ability to understand and respond to the accelerating climate crisis," Scott said. "Defunding climate research at NOAA doesn't make the problem go away—it makes those hazards more dangerous and more expensive. Families across the country are already paying the price through higher utility bills, flooding, and storm damage. This budget would only make those burdens worse."
Big Oil-backed Trump's budget proposal came on the heels of devastating flooding in Hawaii and as high temperatures hit the Western United States. It also followed an annual World Meteorological Organization report on the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency, which last month led UN Secretary-General António Guterres to declare that "every key climate indicator is flashing red."
Devastating.
[image or embed]
— Scott Kardel aka Palomar Skies (@palomarskies.bsky.social) April 3, 2026 at 12:29 PM
Trump also proposed slashing the Environmental Protection Agency's budget—amid calls to oust Administrator Lee Zeldin for "so brazenly" betraying the EPA's core mission to "protect human health and the environment." Trump also proposed cutting the agency's budget. Noting that attack, Climate Action Campaign director Margie Alt described the president's plan as "anything but a serious" one and "a declaration of who this administration is willing to let suffer."
In a nod to some of the rich executives whose campaign cash helped Trump return to power after promising to scrap his predecessor's climate policies and to enact a "drill, baby, drill" agenda, Alt also called it "a reiteration of this president's devotion to fossil fuel interests."
"This budget would slash the EPA budget by 52%, gutting the agency's ability to protect the air our children breathe, the water our families drink, and the communities that already bear the worst of extreme weather and climate change," she said. "It is a deliberately callous choice to remove the protections that keep families safe, healthy, and shielded from the impacts of pollution and climate change."
According to Alt:
This is not just a continuation of last year's rollbacks. It is an escalation of the Trump administration's Polluters First Agenda and their assault on public health safeguards. Since January 2025, among other abuses, this administration has fired 600 National Weather Service staff, proposed eliminating critical climate research institutions, waived mercury pollution standards for 60 dirty power plants, and gutted the Clean Air Act. This budget is the Trump administration's payback for their big oil, coal, and gas friends and contributors. It slashes resources for clean energy, it zeroes out environmental justice, and pushes oil, gas, and coal, at a time when prices for these energy sources are skyrocketing.
Never before have we had an administration that so blatantly treats American lives as expendable, as proven by this budget. Congress must reject this inhumane budget in full. The American people deserve a federal government that protects them, not one that trades their health, their safety, and their futures for big oil, coal, and gas profits.
As Gardner reported, Trump's budget also "proposes consolidating the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act, but did not provide details outside noting the program would be housed at the Department of the Interior," among other changes and cuts.
Chris Westfall, senior government relations legislative counsel at Defenders of Wildlife, said that "the administration is yet again demanding that an overworked and grossly understaffed federal workforce do more with less. The proposed budget recklessly consolidates US Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries without the needed resources to preserve scientific expertise, opens our lands and waters to extractive industries, and hollows out the already strained workforce that provides crucial conservation work."
"This proposed budget pushes us further in the wrong direction—potentially triggering even more staff layoffs and providing less resources for wildlife conservation, which are pivotal to recovering America's imperiled species," Westfall warned. "Our nation's lands and the wildlife that depend on them for habitat deserve better than to be ignored by agencies that are shells of their former selves."
The president's proposed attack on endangered species came just days after the administration's so-called "God Squad" voted unanimously for an exemption allowing fossil fuel operations in the Gulf of Mexico to ignore policies intended to protect them. In response, Andrew Bowman, president and CEO of Defenders of Wildlife, said that "I cannot stress enough how unprecedented and unlawful this action is."