

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.
"Make no mistake, this type of reactor has major safety flaws compared to conventional nuclear reactors that comprise the operating fleet," said one expert.
A leading nuclear safety expert sounded the alarm Tuesday over the Trump administration's expedited safety review of an experimental nuclear reactor in Wyoming designed by a company co-founded by tech billionaire Bill Gates and derided as a "Cowboy Chernobyl."
On Monday, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) announced that it has "completed its final safety evaluation" for Power Station Unit 1 of TerraPower's Natrium reactor in Kemmerer, Wyoming, adding that it found "no safety aspects that would preclude issuing the construction permit."
Co-founded by Microsoft's Gates, TerraPower received a 50-50 cost-share grant for up to $2 billion from the US Department of Energy’s Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program. The 345-megawatt sodium-cooled small modular reactor (SMR) relies upon so-called passive safety features that experts argue could potentially make nuclear accidents worse.
However, federal regulators "are loosening safety and security requirements for SMRs in ways which could cancel out any safety benefits from passive features," according to Union of Concerned Scientists nuclear power safety director Edwin Lyman.
"The only way they could pull this off is by sweeping difficult safety issues under the rug."
The reactor’s construction permit application—which was submitted in March 2024—was originally scheduled for August 2026 completion but was expedited amid political pressure from the Trump administration and Congress in order to comply with an 18-month timeline established in President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14300.
“The NRC’s rush to complete the Kemmerer plant’s safety evaluation to meet the recklessly abbreviated schedule dictated by President Trump represents a complete abandonment of its obligation to protect public health, safety, and the environment from catastrophic nuclear power plant accidents or terrorist attacks," Lyman said in a statement Tuesday.
Lyman continued:
The only way the staff could finish its review on such a short timeline is by sweeping serious unresolved safety issues under the rug or deferring consideration of them until TerraPower applies for an operating license, at which point it may be too late to correct any problems. Make no mistake, this type of reactor has major safety flaws compared to conventional nuclear reactors that comprise the operating fleet. Its liquid sodium coolant can catch fire, and the reactor has inherent instabilities that could lead to a rapid and uncontrolled increase in power, causing damage to the reactor’s hot and highly radioactive nuclear fuel.
Of particular concern, NRC staff has assented to a design that lacks a physical containment structure to reduce the release of radioactive materials into the environment if a core melt occurs. TerraPower argues that the reactor has a so-called "functional" containment that eliminates the need for a real containment structure. But the NRC staff plainly states that it "did not come to a final determination of the adequacy and acceptability of functional containment performance due to the preliminary nature of the design and analysis."
"Even if the NRC determines later that the functional containment is inadequate, it would be utterly impractical to retrofit the design and build a physical containment after construction has begun," Lyman added. "The potential for rapid power excursions and the lack of a real containment make the Kemmerer plant a true ‘Cowboy Chernobyl.’”
The proposed reactor still faces additional hurdles before construction can begin, including a final environmental impact assessment. However, given the Trump administration's dramatic regulatory rollback, approval and construction are highly likely.
Former NRC officials have voiced alarm over the Trump administration's tightened control over the agency, which include compelling it to send proposed reactor safety rules to the White House for review and possible editing.
Allison Macfarlane, who was nominated to head the NRC during the Obama administration, said earlier this year that Trump's approach marks “the end of independence of the agency.”
“If you aren’t independent of political and industry influence, then you are at risk of an accident,” she warned.
“To limit new weapons development in China or Russia, one of the best things the US can do is maintain the taboo on testing and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty," said one expert.
More than a dozen US senators on Wednesday urged President Donald Trump to abort plans for a resumption of nuclear weapons testing, a call that came as Russian President Vladimir Putin directed his senior officials to draft proposals for possible new nuke tests in response.
“We write to you today to express grave reservation about any action to resume nuclear weapons testing," 14 Democratic senators led by Sens. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) and Martin Heinrich (D-NM), ranking member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said in a letter to Trump.
"We request that you personally provide clarification," the lawmakers added. "The decision to resume nuclear weapons testing would be geopolitically dangerous, fiscally irresponsible, and simply unnecessary to ensure the ability of the United States to defend itself."
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.)—who signed the letter—also introduced emergency legislation last week aimed at preventing Trump from resuming nuclear weapons tests.
Although no country is known to have tested a nuclear weapon since North Korea last did so in 2017, Trump last month ordered the Pentagon to prepare for a resumption of reciprocal testing.
“The United States has more Nuclear Weapons than any other country,” Trump falsely wrote on social media. “Because of other countries testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis.”
TASS reported Wednesday that Putin instructed the Russian Foreign Ministry, Defense Ministry, intelligence agencies, and civilian bureaus to submit proposals "on the possibility of preparing for nuclear weapons tests" in the event that other countries resume testing.
Russia has not tested a nuclear weapon in its modern history. The former Soviet Union's final nuclear test took place in 1990 and the successor Russian state has adhered to a moratorium ever since.
Last week, Congresswoman Dina Titus (D-Nev.) introduced a bill to prohibit new US nuclear weapons testing. Titus accused Trump of putting "his own ego and authoritarian ambitions above the health and safety of Nevadans."
Supporting Titus' bill, Tara Drozdenko, director of the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement Wednesday that “there is no good reason for the United States to resume explosive nuclear testing and it would actually make everyone in this country less safe."
"We have so much to lose and so little to gain from resuming testing," she continued. "New explosive testing by the United States would be to make a political statement, with major consequences: It would shatter the global freeze on nuclear testing observed by all but North Korea and give Russia, China, and other nuclear powers the green light to restart their own nuclear testing programs."
“The United States has not conducted a nuclear detonation test since 1992," Drozdenko noted. "Even those advocating for testing acknowledge there is no scientific need to test to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. In fact, Energy Secretary Chris Wright recently said that the updated systems can be tested without conducting full nuclear detonations."
“To limit new weapons development in China or Russia, one of the best things the US can do is maintain the taboo on testing and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty," she added. "This treaty with on-site verification measures would be the best way to ensure that countries are not clandestinely testing nuclear weapons.”
The United States and Soviet Union came dangerously close to nuclear war on multiple occasions during the Cold War, most notably amid the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis and, later, during then-President Ronald Reagan's first administration in the early 1980s.
Weeks after becoming the first country to develop nuclear weapons in 1945, the United States waged the world's only nuclear war, dropping atomic bombs on the defenseless Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and killing hundreds of thousands of people, mostly civilians.
According to the International Campaign for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons, Russia leads the world with 5,449 nuclear warheads in its arsenal, followed by the US with 5,277 warheads, China with around 600, France with 290, and the United Kingdom with 225. Four other nations—India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea—also have nuclear arsenals of between 50-180 warheads each.
"Years of grossly insufficient action from richer nations and continued climate deception and obstruction by fossil fuel interests are directly responsible for bringing us here," one expert said.
A United Nations assessment released Tuesday—less than a week before the UN Climate Change Conference summit in Brazil—warns that countries' latest pledges to cut greenhouse gas emissions under the Paris Agreement could push global temperatures to 2.3-2.5°C above preindustrial levels, up to a full degree beyond the treaty's primary goal.
A decade after that agreement was finalized, only about a third of state parties submitted new plans, officially called Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), for the United Nations Environment Programme's (UNEP) Emissions Gap Report 2025: Off Target.
While the updated NDCs—if fully implemented—would be a slight improvement on the 2.6-2.8°C projection in last year's report, the more ambitious Paris target is to limit global temperature rise this century to 1.5°C. Already, the world is beginning to experience what that looks like: Last year was the hottest on record and the first in which the global average temperature exceeded 1.5°C, relative to preindustrial times.
As with those findings, UNEP's report sparked calls for bold action at COP30 in Belém next week, including from UN Secretary-General António Guterres. He noted that "scientists tell us that a temporary overshoot above 1.5°C is now inevitable—starting, at the latest, in the early 2030s. And the path to a livable future gets steeper by the day."
"1.5°C by the end of the century remains our North Star. And the science is clear: This goal is still within reach."
"But this is no reason to surrender," Guterres argued. "It's a reason to step up and speed up. 1.5°C by the end of the century remains our North Star. And the science is clear: This goal is still within reach. But only if we meaningfully increase our ambition."
UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen also stressed that while inadequate climate policies have created the conditions in which now "we still need unprecedented emissions cuts in an increasingly tight window, with an increasingly challenging geopolitical backdrop," reaching the Paris goal "is still possible—just."
"Proven solutions already exist. From the rapid growth in cheap renewable energy to tackling methane emissions, we know what needs to be done," she said. "Now is the time for countries to go all in and invest in their future with ambitious climate action—action that delivers faster economic growth, better human health, more jobs, energy security, and resilience."
NEW – UNEP: New country climate plans ‘barely move needle’ on expected warming | @ayeshatandon.carbonbrief.org @ceciliakeating.carbonbrief.org @unep.org Read here: buff.ly/U0XaME9
[image or embed]
— Carbon Brief (@carbonbrief.org) November 4, 2025 at 9:03 AM
Climate campaigners responded with similar statements. Savio Carvalho, head of regions at the global advocacy group 350.org, said that "this report confirms what millions already feel in their daily lives: Governments are still failing to deliver on their promises. The window to keep 1.5°C within reach is closing fast, but it is not yet gone."
"All eyes are now on Belém," Carvalho declared. "COP30 must be a turning point, where leaders stop making excuses, phase out fossil fuels, and scale up renewable energy in a way that is fast, fair, and equitable."
Rachel Cleetus, senior policy director for the Climate and Energy Program at the US-based Union of Concerned Scientists, said that "this report's findings, confirming that a crucial science-based benchmark for limiting dangerous climate change is about to be breached, are alarming, enraging, and heartbreaking."
"Years of grossly insufficient action from richer nations and continued climate deception and obstruction by fossil fuel interests are directly responsible for bringing us here," she highlighted. "World leaders still have the power to act decisively to sharply rein in heat-trapping emissions and any other choice would be an unconscionable dereliction of their responsibility to humanity."
Cleetus—a regular attendee of the annual UN climate talks who will be at COP30, unlike President Donald Trump's administration—continued:
Costly and deadly climate impacts are already widespread and will worsen with every fraction of a degree, harming people's health and well-being, as well as the economy. Policymakers must seize the opportunity now to accelerate deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency—solutions that are plentiful, clean, and affordable—and transition away from polluting fossil fuels. Protecting people, livelihoods, and ecosystems by helping them adapt to climate hazards is also critical as higher temperatures unleash rapidly worsening heat, floods, storms, wildfires, drought, and sea-level rise.
Ambitious climate action can cut energy costs, improve public health, and create a myriad of economic opportunities. Richer, high-emitting countries' continued failure to tackle the challenge head-on is undermining the well-being of their own people and is a monumental injustice toward lower-income countries that have contributed the least to this problem yet bear the most acute harms. It’s past time for wealthy countries to heed the latest science and pay up for their role in fueling the climate crisis. With alarms blaring, the upcoming UN climate talks must be a turning point in global climate action. Powerful politicians and billionaires who willfully ignore urgent realities and continue to delay, distract, or lie about climate change will have to answer to our children and grandchildren.
Jean Su, director of the Center for Biological Diversity's Energy Justice Program, also plans to attend COP30.
"This report shows Earth's livable future hanging in the balance while Trump tells climate diplomacy to go to hell," she said. "The US exit from Paris threatens to cancel out any climate gains from other countries. The rise of petro-authoritarianism in the US shouldn't be an excuse for other countries to backpedal on their own commitments. This report sends alarm bells to rich countries with a conscience to exercise real leadership and lead a fossil fuel phaseout to protect us all."
The UNEP report was released on the same day that the German environmental rights group Urgewald published its Global Oil and Gas Exit List, which shows that a green transition is being undercut by fossil fuel extraction and production.
Other publications put out in the lead-up to COP30 include an Oxfam International report showing that the wealthiest people on the planet are disproportionately fueling the climate emergency, as well as a UN Food and Agriculture Organization analysis warning that human-induced land degradation "is undermining agricultural productivity and threatening ecosystem health worldwide."
There have also been mounting demands for specific action, such as Greenpeace and 350.org urging governments to pay for climate action in part by taxing the ultrarich, and an open letter signed by advocacy organizations, activists, policymakers, artists, and experts urging world leaders to prioritize health during discussions in Brazil next week.
As Common Dreams reported earlier Tuesday, COP30 Special Envoy for Health Ethel Maciel said that "this letter sends an unequivocal message that health is an essential component of climate action."