A burned field of wheat in Eton Wick, Windsor, in July. Experts say the UK should regenerative agriculture approaches to increase food resilience. Photograph: Maureen McLean/REX/Shutterstock
Rejecting North Sea drilling licences and protecting nature are just some measures Andy Burnham must implement to ready country
From record-smashing temperatures, wildfires, hosepipe bans and thousands of premature deaths, the climate crisis has left its mark across the summer of 2026.
Tackling the root cause – the burning of fossil fuels – and ending the crisis will take years. So will fixing the UK government’s calamitousfailure to protect lives and livelihoods against the long-predicted affects of global heating.
But the climate emergency is right here, right now, and here are 10 policies that Andy Burnham’s government should consider announcing urgently.
1. Reject drilling licences for the Jackdaw and Rosebank oil and gasfields
This would be a vital and confidence-boosting sign that the UK is committed to putting a rocket-booster under the clean, green and very fast-growing economy of the 21st century, not the fossil-fuelled one of the last. It would also give diplomatic weight to the UK as it works internationally to cut emissions and end the climate crisis.
The supposed benefits of approving the North Sea oil and gasfields are mostly fantasy. They will have no impact on UK energy prices – oil and gas are commodities whose price is set by international markets. As the UK Energy Research Council says: “Assertions that drilling the North Sea will provide energy resilience and affordability in the face of current fuel price shocks are a delusion.”
As for jobs, the licences would support very few – again, unlike the growing green economy. Some also argue North Sea production is less carbon intensive than imports, but that ignores the far cleaner record of our main gas importer, Norway, as well as the methane emissions from LNG, and in any case the differences are small compared with CO2 savings of using renewable energy and storage instead of gas.
2. Increase windfall tax on fossil fuel giants to pay for adaptation measures
…
3. Make grey water reuse mandatory in new buildings and incentivise rainwater harvesting
…
4. Bring the water industry under national control
…
5. Invest in proper equipment for firefighters
…
6. Implement a maximum workplace temperature
…
7. Fund cool spaces in every community
…
8. Launch a national retrofit programme
Homes in the UK are among the draughtiest and least energy-efficient in Europe. This means they are often too hot in summer and too cold in winter, leading to high bills and spiralling carbon emissions.
Efforts to persuade the private sector to take on the challenge of making homes fit for the changing climate have failed. But a report earlier this year suggested councils could take the lead on a retrofitting programme backed by national government. Under the plan, councils would train and employ their own retrofitting workforce and, starting with key public services such as hospitals and care homes, then work through council and social housing before moving on to privately owned homes. The report said it would not only make the country’s homes and public services more climate resilient, but it would also tackle the cost of living, create secure jobs and stimulate growth. They added it would also be a more efficient way of spending the public funds already allocated for insulation.
9. Plant more trees and protect existing nature
…
10. Encourage regenerative agriculture approaches to increase food resilience
Andy Burnham addresses the climate crisis by considering banning disposable barbecues.Nigel Farage urges you to ignore facts and reality and be a climate science denier like him and his Deputy Richard Tice. He says that Reform UK has received £Millions and £Millions from the fossil fuel industry to promote climate denial and destroy the planet.Orcas comment on killer apes destroying the planet by continuing to burn fossil fuels.
dizzy:
11. Make private jets and superyachts history
…
12. Tax the rich so much that they’re not able to destroy the planet
The rich hugely drive climate breakdown. Tax them out of existence.
13. Recognise Carbon Capture and Storage as a false solution and abandon it
…
14. End all fossil fuel subsidies
…
15/8/26 9.50pm
15. Abandon nuclear power
Nuclear is far too expensive, too centralised and takes far too long. Renewables is the way to go and will create far more employment for more people.
This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
US President Donald Trump (2nd L) is welcomed by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud (R) as he arrives at Malik Khalid Airport, for the first leg of his three-country Middle East tour in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on May 13, 2025. [Bandar Al-Jaloud/Saudi Royal Court – Anadolu Agency]
The United States and Saudi Arabia took a step toward nuclear cooperation on 22nd July 22 2026, when U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman signed a Section 123 Agreement. It creates the legal basis for civilian nuclear trade and comes with a bilateral safeguards agreement. Washington presented it as the foundation of a decades-long, multibillion-dollar partnership favouring American companies.
One day later, however, President Donald Trump introduced a condition that was absent from the original announcement: Saudi Arabia must normalize relations with Israel through the Abraham Accords or “the deal is off.”
The ultimatum turns what had looked like a completed nuclear framework into a politically conditional bargain, creating uncertainty for Riyadh, Congress, and prospective U.S. suppliers.
Scope, legal and commercial framework, timeline, and significance
Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act requires nine nonproliferation criteria, including peaceful-use guarantees, safeguards, physical-security requirements, and U.S. consent rights over enrichment, reprocessing, and retransfers of American-origin material. The agreement does not authorize a reactor by itself; it enables licensing, exports, fuel services, training, and technical cooperation. For Saudi Arabia, the agreement opens the door to American reactors, fuel services, training, and regulatory support. For Washington, it promises exports, jobs, and lasting influence. Cooperation could extend to research and peaceful applications beyond electricity generation.
The difficult question is uranium enrichment. Unlike the US–UAE “gold standard,” under which Abu Dhabi renounced enrichment and reprocessing, the Saudi agreement may leave that door open. Washington and Riyadh could study enrichment inside the kingdom, perhaps using tightly controlled American technology or a sealed “black box” system. That might reduce the risk, but enrichment on Saudi soil would still carry serious proliferation implications.
The agreement is expected to last roughly 30 years. Saudi Arabia must choose technology, sites, financing, and suppliers while expanding regulatory capacity. Large reactors require years of licensing and construction, while most small modular designs remain commercially immature. The agreement is an enabling framework, not a construction schedule. Trump’s new condition now makes even that framework uncertain.
Commercially, the agreement strengthens companies such as Westinghouse and emerging small-reactor suppliers. Success will depend on financing, project costs, and whether American vendors can match state-backed competitors.
Benefits for Saudi Arabia and US opportunities
Saudi electricity demand is climbing as its population, industries, cooling needs, desalination plants, and Vision 2030 projects grow. Nuclear plants could provide steady low-carbon power while reducing the oil and gas burned at home, leaving more hydrocarbons for export or higher-value uses.
Desalination strengthens the case. As the world’s largest producer of desalinated water, Saudi Arabia could use nuclear facilities for electricity and process heat with lower direct emissions. Nuclear power could also complement solar after sunset and during peak demand. The Saudi National Atomic Energy Project includes reactors, fuel-cycle capabilities, and applications in industry, medicine, research, and water. A domestic program could create specialized jobs and support engineering and manufacturing, but it should complement cheaper renewable and efficiency options.
Saudi Arabia must still decide where nuclear power belongs within its expanding solar and gas systems. Reactors offer steady output but require large upfront commitments and management of construction risk. A phased program beginning with strong regulation, workforce development, and one carefully selected project would be more practical than announcing a large fleet before local institutions are ready.For the United States, benefits extend to fuel, maintenance, safety systems, and training. Continued involvement provides leverage over standards and safeguards, while Saudi investment could support the American nuclear supply chain.
Principal challenges and risks
Nonproliferation remains the central concern. Saudi Arabia has a comprehensive safeguards agreement with the IAEA but has not adopted the Additional Protocol, which gives inspectors wider access to search for undeclared activity. Riyadh should accept it before receiving sensitive technology or material.
The concern is simple: technology used to produce reactor fuel can also make weapons-grade material. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has said Saudi Arabia would pursue a bomb if Iran acquired one. Even tightly controlled enrichment could give Riyadh a latent capability and weaken the precedent established by the UAE.
The bilateral safeguards agreement, IAEA monitoring, U.S. consent rights, and export licensing can reduce risk, but only with access, transparency, and enforcement. Arrangements must also address spent fuel, reprocessing, waste, cybersecurity, physical protection, and dual-use knowledge.
Cost is another challenge. Large nuclear projects often face delays and overruns, especially in newcomer countries. Saudi Arabia needs an independent regulator with adequate staff, authority, and expertise, alongside credible plans for emergencies, waste, decommissioning, liability, and oversight.
Congress will review the agreement for 90 days of continuous session. Lawmakers will focus on enrichment and safeguards. Supporters will emphasize jobs and influence; critics will reject weaker standards. Israel’s concern is equally direct. It fears Saudi enrichment could encourage an arms race and will likely demand firm limits, tougher inspections, and a clear link between nuclear cooperation and normalization.
Comparison with alternatives and US competitiveness
Without an attractive American offer, Saudi Arabia could select Russia’s Rosatom, China’s CNNC, South Korea’s KEPCO, or French suppliers. Russia and China can offer state financing, integrated fuel services, and fewer political conditions, but choosing them would expand their strategic influence and weaken U.S. visibility into the Saudi program. South Korea and France offer credible commercial and safety records, although some projects may still depend on U.S.-origin technology and approvals.
Washington therefore faces a difficult balance. Terms that are too restrictive could push Riyadh toward suppliers demanding less transparency, while too much flexibility could weaken global nonproliferation standards. A U.S.-operated or technically sealed enrichment facility might offer a compromise, but only with the Additional Protocol, continuous monitoring, clear termination rules, and the removal of sensitive material during a crisis.
Regional context: Iran, Abraham Accords, and stability
The agreement comes amid renewed conflict with Iran and uncertainty over Tehran’s nuclear program. For Riyadh, nuclear cooperation strengthens ties with Washington, reduces dependence on Russian or Chinese technology, and signals continued American investment in the kingdom’s security. Trump’s July 23 ultimatum goes beyond using nuclear cooperation as an incentive. By declaring that “the deal is off” without normalization, he has made the Abraham Accords a condition for implementation. That may give Washington leverage for a wider regional bargain, but it also leaves Riyadh with less room to maneuver. Saudi leaders continue to demand credible progress toward Palestinian statehood and face strong regional opposition to normalization, particularly during the Iran war. A public ultimatum may therefore harden positions instead of bringing an agreement closer.
With strong safeguards, the agreement could show that civilian nuclear energy and regional security can advance together. But if enrichment rules look permissive, Iran may cite the deal to defend its own program, while Egypt, Turkey, and others could demand similar rights. Depending on implementation, the agreement could either reinforce deterrence or accelerate regional nuclear hedging.
Conclusion: Opportunities vs. risks
The agreement offers real benefits: diversified Saudi electricity generation, support for desalination and industry, commercial opportunities for US companies, and stronger bilateral ties. American participation is preferable to withdrawing and leaving the market to suppliers offering less transparency.
But engagement alone will not be enough, and normalization cannot replace nuclear safeguards. Success requires Saudi adoption of the Additional Protocol, enforceable limits on enrichment and reprocessing, congressional oversight, credible waste and security plans, and sustained regional diplomacy. Trump’s ultimatum could produce a broader strategic bargain, but it could also stall an energy agreement Washington had already presented as complete.
Ultimately, the deal’s value will depend on whether the United States can combine nuclear commerce, nonproliferation discipline, and realistic diplomacy without allowing one objective to undermine the others.
Orcas discuss rotting brain, front Orca says he wishes someone would lock him up, small Orca speaks bluntly.Keir Starmer objects to criticism of the IDF. He asks how could anyone object to them starving people to death, forced marches like the Nazis did, bombing Gaza’s hospitals and universities, mass-murdering journalists, healthworkers and starving people queuing for food, killing and raping prisoners and murdering children. He calls for people to stop obstructing his genocide for Israel.
The NAO overall savings for households from the plant could be outstripped by the cost of supporting its construction until almost halfway through its 60-year operational life. Photograph: Chris Radburn/Reuters
National Audit Office says potential benefits are ‘considerable but uncertain’ while risks are ‘immediate and substantial’
The cost of the government’s £38bn nuclear plant in Suffolk is subject to “significant uncertainty” and may outweigh the benefits for UK households until at least 2064, according to the government’s spending watchdog.
The National Audit Office (NAO) has warned that although the potential benefits of the Sizewell C nuclear plant are considerable, they remain uncertain. The risks, however, are “immediate, substantial and borne by the public”.
The government claims the nuclear reactor, expected to generate the equivalent of enough low-carbon electricity to power 6m homes when it begins operations in the late 2030s, could save £2bn a year from the electricity system compared with using other low-carbon technologies.
However, for households the overall savings could be outstripped by the cost of supporting its construction until almost halfway through its 60-year operational life. The project could take even longer to “break even” if there are cost overruns or delays, the NAO warned.
“Sizewell C is a project of exceptional scale, complexity and significance for taxpayers,” said Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, the chair of the public accounts committee, which oversees the work of the NAO. “Experience from comparable nuclear projects in the UK and overseas highlights their vulnerability to delays and cost overruns.”
…
Stop Sizewell C said the risks surrounding the project “could easily turn Sizewell C into a financial disaster” while the funding model meant its investors were “the only ones who can’t lose”.
The NAO has urged the government to mitigate the risk by using “close monitoring, greater transparency to parliament, and by securing value for money from the significant public and private investment”.
A government spokesperson said investing in large-scale nuclear power was the “only way to get our country off the rollercoaster of volatile global gas markets”.
What about big renewable then e.g. generation from tides? We reliably have huge tides.
US President Donald Trump signs an executive order related to nuclear power in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC on May 23, 2025. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
“In its eagerness to short-circuit reactor safeguards, the Trump administration is once again doing what it does best—demonstrating a complete disregard for the law,” said the head of Beyond Nuclear.
A coalition of advocacy groups on Monday took aim at President Donald Trump’s nuclear power plans, including a recently proposed rule that would allow developers using federally approved reactor designs to bypass required safety reviews, which the organizations called “ill-advised and contrary to law.”
“In its eagerness to short-circuit reactor safeguards, the Trump administration is once again doing what it does best—demonstrating a complete disregard for the law,” said Linda Pentz Gunter, executive director of Beyond Nuclear, in a statement.
“But nuclear technology is too inherently dangerous to operate as an outlaw,” she stressed. “Ignoring those dangers will put millions of Americans at risk of another catastrophic nuclear accident.”
Beyond Nuclear and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) have submitted multiple formal comments to the administration, on behalf of overlapping coalitions, blasting its ongoing nuclear policymaking, which has been guided by a series of executive orders signed by the president last May.
The first coalition comments focus on the US Department of Energy allowing firms that build experimental nuclear reactors to seek exemptions from legally required environmental reviews. That filing was submitted in early March, a month after DOE announced the “categorical exclusion for authorization, siting, construction, operation, reauthorization, and decommissioning of advanced nuclear reactors for inclusion in its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing procedures.”
Then, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission last month unveiled a proposed rule to expedite NRC reviews of commercial nuclear power plant applications involving reactor designs already approved by DOE or the Department of Defense (DOD)—which Trump has dubbed the Department of War. That prompted more comments from Beyond Nuclear, NIRS, and allied groups last week.
“Along with the DOE’s environmental ‘free pass’ policy, the whole ‘expedited licensing’ regime the administration is attempting to set up appears to be illegal,” NIRS executive director Tim Judson, who co-authored the recent comments to the NRC, said Monday.
“The White House is trying to create a ‘regulatory tunnel’ around NRC’s safety regulations,” he warned. “That would mean DOE’s biases and obviously false assumptions about the safety of nuclear power plants become the new normal, exposing the public to unacceptable dangers to our health and safety.”
“And while the law allows the DOD to build its own nuclear reactors,” Judson added, “it does not allow the NRC to skip safety reviews for civilian nuclear plants just because they use the same designs. The military routinely exposes its personnel to dangers that civilians are supposed to be protected from.”
The coalition’s latest filing details how the administration’s actions are “inconsistent” with the Administrative Procedure Act, Atomic Energy Act, Energy Reorganization Act, and NEPA, “as well as the constitutional requirement for due process in a democratic society.” It also emphasizes that nothing in Trump’s orders “can excuse” the alleged legal violations.
“Fifty years ago, the Atomic Energy Commission was abolished because they became too much of a promoter and lost the confidence of Congress and the public over safety,” Paul Gunter, director of the reactor oversight project at Beyond Nuclear, explained Monday.
“The NRC was established to provide a regulator that prioritizes safety and is obligated not to take shortcuts for a production agenda,” he continued. “Instead, half a century later, we are on the same dangerous collision course, casting aside the NRC in favor of the DOE, which doesn’t have the experience or the staff to get the industry in line with safety and security. This capitulation to the Trump agenda could lead to the NRC being abolished altogether, because nobody will have confidence in them.”
Climate science denier Donald Trump confirms that he knows nothing about democracy and that more liquid gold is being secured according to his policy of global privateering.Orcas discuss rotting brain, front Orca says disinhibition and swearing are typical and common symptomsDonald Trump sings and dances, says that it’s fun to kill everyone …
This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Tehran, Iran on November 30, 2025. [Ahmet Serdar Eser – Anadolu Agency]
The Iranian foreign minister said Saturday that “radioactive fallout will end life in GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) capitals, not Tehran,” following the US-Israeli airstrikes that hit Iran’s Bushehr nuclear plant, Anadolu reports.
“Remember the Western outrage about hostilities near Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine?
“Israel-U.S. have bombed our Bushehr plant four times now. Radioactive fallout will end life in GCC capitals, not Tehran,” Abbas Araghchi said through US social media company X.
Attacks on Iranian petrochemical facilities also reveal “real objectives,” Araghchi argued.
Earlier in the day, US and Israeli strikes hit Iran’s Bushehr nuclear plant, killing one person.
The attack came as regional tensions have escalated since the US and Israel launched a joint offensive on Iran on Feb. 28, killing over 1,340 people to date, including then-Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
Tehran has retaliated with drone and missile strikes targeting Israel, as well as Jordan, Iraq, and Gulf countries hosting US military assets.
This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Donald Trump calls for help from NATO allies in securing the Straight of Hormuz despite saying on 7 March 2026 that they don’t need people to join wars after they’ve already won. He’s challenged with the claim that he lies as much as the IDF.Keir Starmer explains that UK is actively supporting Israel’s genocidal expansion and repeats his previous quotation that he supports Zionism “without qualification”. Keir Starmer said “I said it loud and clear – and meant it – that I support Zionism without qualification.” here: https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/keir-starmer-interview-i-will-work-to-eradicate-antisemitism-from-day-one/
A view of a civilian vehicle caught fire as people gather around it after the Israeli army, violating the ceasefire, targeted it on Salah al-Din Street in central Gaza Strip, Palestine, on April 04, 2026. [Screengrab – Anadolu Agency]
Around 20 boats preparing to join the Global Sumud Flotilla’s “Spring Mission 2026” are set to depart from the southern port city of Marseille, France, as part of an initiative aimed at delivering humanitarian aid to Gaza and challenging the ongoing Israeli policy, with vessels readied for weeks at L’Estaque Port by the France Campaign coalition, including the Thousand Madleens to Gaza movement and the Freedom Flotilla Coalition, on April 03, 2026. [Esra Taşkın – Anadolu Agency]
