This aid will only be allowed into the south of Gaza. Between food and a ground assault, they'll have the carrot and the stick to push Palestinians out of the north, which they'll then annex "occupy indefinately".
This aid will only be allowed into the south of Gaza. Between food and a ground assault, they'll have the carrot and the stick to push Palestinians out of the north, which they'll then annex "occupy indefinately".
Coal plants require an emission capture to be built into any new plants, which is exactly why nobody wants to build one.
The gas plants should have the same regulations, I agree. The subsidies is a whole different can of worms in the money debate, but my bigger issue there is more about how they were used/implemented.
Personally, I feel as if the government should buy back the nuclear plants after the shutdown and build a new core there for supply safety, and this repeal is a step in that direction. It doesn't happen often, but I think NVA is right in this case
Without going into the Gaza - West Bank schism, Hamas has governed the Gaza strip for nearly 2 decades now and its military is de facto that territory's military forces.
The argument of 'political militia' only holds water if there is a significant opposition party with a relatively equally large military force. I have yet to see evidence of that.
It doesn't help that there isn't a currently valid "constitution of Palestina" which could regulate military force and who controls them.
They are not undoing the phase-out part (actually a cap on the active lifetime of a reactor), but lifting the ban on building any new reactors. There is no deal to maintain the currently active plants any longer than what the previous governments negotiated with Electrabel/Engie over and they are still poised to close qs planned
This change is here because the ban included medical/research reactors, such as the one in Mol that used to provide chemo-therapy products, which we are now buying abroad.
As for the other arguments usually found on this topic:
Belgium lacks the space for a scaling-up of windmills, and with the control-components found in chinese transformers, (who have a 80% market share in solar) it would give the Chinese government the power to literally damage our infrastructure, or cause shutdowns like Spain & Portugal saw. All without leaving evidence behind, btw. So an energy reliance built on Chinese products is as dangerous as building it around a Russian gas pipeline.
Nuclear power has a lower CO2 footprint per GW, lower injury & death toll, and isn't even the top radiation pollution source. (That's actually coal, with Wind a potential second if we had more data on Bayan Obo)
While >90% of solar panels currently in use globally have no pre-determined disposal, Belgium does require a contribution to Recubel on sale, so their waste which can contain stuff like PFAS atleast won't end up in a landfill. There is no national recycling plan for windmills as far as I could find.
The largest cost of nuclear power is safety. Both reactor & waste. The largest gain is a massive amount of reliable electricity. Unfortunately, due to how global energy markets work, the profit has become unreliable (ironically in part due to solar/wind) and large nuclear plants are generally considered an economic loss. That's why Engie doesn't want to keep the nuclear plants open anymore, they make more money from "emergency capacity" subsidies not running gas power plants than actually producing electricity in Doel & Tihange. But if someone figures out a way, why would you stop them from innovating? Not to mention the law also banned any potential 'safe' methodin the future, like Thorium reactors, fission, ...
It's still legal to build a coal plant in Belgium, the government only regulates safety & waste when you do. This law repeal puts nuclear power at the same level as all other sources. It is up to the experts at FANC to define what a safe nuclear plant is, and to investors if the think it's worth the cost, be it financial, PR, or other.
Oh, I agree, but knowing and proving are different ballparks, especially in an international court.
The discussions I had on reddit in 2023 about it was proof of intent, which is needed for acts to be labelled genocide. An official press statement stating that intent is proof. The ICC case has basically just been made.
It's no longer about a suspected landgrab, and if it wasn't for 18 months of Hasbara PR wearing us down, more countries would feel forced to act, as governments should now no longer be allowed to appeal to "benefit of doubt".
I just wanted to point that out that the press communication we all saw coming, is (in regards to calling them a genocidal state) not just a smoking gun, but a video of them pulling the trigger.
I think it's because the Israeli government blatantly said last week it'll take permanent control of parts of Gaza and push all Gaza Palestinians southward.
That hits all the points in the definition of genocide. (Intent, forcing a populous to move,...)
In contrast with the last 18 months, there is no more doubt if it's a campaign against Hamas/freeing the prisoners or actual genocide, they have now delivered proof.
More likely take a page out of the Chinese Firewall's book and flag people looking for immigration rights, trans support or how the 2nd Amendment was meant to be used.
He just cares about making "great television" and boy, did the world watch the last Oval Ambush!