Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Panama Reopens Talks About the Future of a Controversial Copper Mine, but Opposition Remains

News Feed
Friday, March 21, 2025

DONOSO, Panama (AP) — More than a year after Panama’s Supreme Court halted operations at a huge copper mine because its government concession was deemed unconstitutional, the country's new administration is signaling a potential restart.Business groups are lobbying President José Raúl Mulino, who says he’ll start discussing the mine’s future with his team next week. The mine’s owner is conducting media tours and has said it will suspend arbitration, while the coalition of environmental and civic groups that snarled traffic for weeks in 2023 calling for the mine’s closure is preparing to hit the streets again.Mulino has already ordered that the mine’s power plant be restarted and that some $250 million worth of copper concentrate sitting at the mine be sold. And on Thursday, he appeared to signal where he was leaning.Noting the mine’s economic impact — it accounted for nearly 5% of Panama gross domestic product the last year it operated — Mulino said: “On what basis can I say, as president of the republic, ’good-bye, to the mine, there won’t be a mine because five people who don’t pay a payroll don’t want a mine?'”In March 2023, Panama’s Congress reached an agreement with Canadian mining company First Quantum, allowing its local subsidiary Panama Copper to continue operating the mine for at least 20 more years. The open-pit mine was temporarily closed in 2022 when talks between the government and First Quantum broke down over payments the government wanted.The contract, given final approval Oct. 20, 2023, allowed the subsidiary to continue operating the mine in a biodiverse jungle on the Atlantic coast west of the capital for the next 20 years, with the possibility of extending for a further 20 years if the site remained productive.The deal faced opposition from those who believed Panama wasn’t getting as much as it should and from environmentalists and Indigenous groups who raised concerns about the mine’s impact.The dispute led to some of Panama’s most widespread protests in recent years, including a blockade of the mine’s power plant. Protesters also blocked parts of the Pan American highway, including a stretch near the border with Costa Rica.On Nov. 28, 2023, Panama’s Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the 20-year concession was unconstitutional and then-President Laurentino Cortizo announced the start of a process to close the mine.Days before the court’s ruling, the Congress had also passed a moratorium on metal mining in Panama.The road to Cobre Panamá now is peppered with signs calling for its reopening. At its peak, it had employed more than 7,000 people, of which only about 1,000 remain as the company tries to keep the surrounding jungle at bay and the equipment from rusting away.Edgardo Díaz, who sold food to mine workers, said many vendors had to shutter their businesses when the mine stopped operating. He said he was one of five vendors who met with Mulino several weeks ago. “We asked that the mine be reopened.”But not everyone agrees. Abelisario Rodríguez, a resident of Río Caimito near the mine, said that despite the mine’s presence and the money it generated, his community still lacked basic services like electricity, drinking water, a health center and school.He said there had been a lot of promises made about the development the mine would bring, but he didn’t see it reflected in his community and he didn’t want to see it reopened.“We don’t want mines in Panama because we’ve seen the experiences of countries like Chile, Peru, mining countries, communities that have been razed, that have been contaminated with sick populations,” Rodríguez said. “We don’t want that for our future generations.”Manuel Aizpurua, head of Cobre Panamá, said they’ve started bringing people to the mine to show the condition of the equipment and the need to make a decision on the mine’s future.“Nature is attacking these installations and this equipment, taking them to a degree of deterioration where it won’t be possible to restart the mine if we don’t do something urgently,” Aizpurua said.“We understand that an operation like this must generate significant benefits for the country and the surrounding communities, not only for our shareholders and investors,” he said. “We’re prepared to sit down with the national government as soon as possible without preconditions to find a solution to achieve that objective.”Shortly after Mulino made his comments about the mine Thursday, the 40-organization coalition Panama is Worth More without Mining gathered in the capital.Lilian Gonzáles Guevara, executive director of the nongovernmental Environmental Incident Center, pushed back against the economic argument for reopening the mine. She said that while many countries had struggled economically recently, Panama had grown even without the mine operating last year.“We haven’t depended on mining, it’s a fallacy,” she said. The only dialogue the group was open to having was about permanently closing the mine.The coalition has called for a public vigil Sunday to remind authorities of the public’s opposition to the mine.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

More than a year after Panama’s Supreme Court halted operations at a huge copper mine because its government concession was deemed unconstitutional, there’s a fresh push with the new Panamanian president to restart the mine

DONOSO, Panama (AP) — More than a year after Panama’s Supreme Court halted operations at a huge copper mine because its government concession was deemed unconstitutional, the country's new administration is signaling a potential restart.

Business groups are lobbying President José Raúl Mulino, who says he’ll start discussing the mine’s future with his team next week. The mine’s owner is conducting media tours and has said it will suspend arbitration, while the coalition of environmental and civic groups that snarled traffic for weeks in 2023 calling for the mine’s closure is preparing to hit the streets again.

Mulino has already ordered that the mine’s power plant be restarted and that some $250 million worth of copper concentrate sitting at the mine be sold. And on Thursday, he appeared to signal where he was leaning.

Noting the mine’s economic impact — it accounted for nearly 5% of Panama gross domestic product the last year it operated — Mulino said: “On what basis can I say, as president of the republic, ’good-bye, to the mine, there won’t be a mine because five people who don’t pay a payroll don’t want a mine?'”

In March 2023, Panama’s Congress reached an agreement with Canadian mining company First Quantum, allowing its local subsidiary Panama Copper to continue operating the mine for at least 20 more years. The open-pit mine was temporarily closed in 2022 when talks between the government and First Quantum broke down over payments the government wanted.

The contract, given final approval Oct. 20, 2023, allowed the subsidiary to continue operating the mine in a biodiverse jungle on the Atlantic coast west of the capital for the next 20 years, with the possibility of extending for a further 20 years if the site remained productive.

The deal faced opposition from those who believed Panama wasn’t getting as much as it should and from environmentalists and Indigenous groups who raised concerns about the mine’s impact.

The dispute led to some of Panama’s most widespread protests in recent years, including a blockade of the mine’s power plant. Protesters also blocked parts of the Pan American highway, including a stretch near the border with Costa Rica.

On Nov. 28, 2023, Panama’s Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the 20-year concession was unconstitutional and then-President Laurentino Cortizo announced the start of a process to close the mine.

Days before the court’s ruling, the Congress had also passed a moratorium on metal mining in Panama.

The road to Cobre Panamá now is peppered with signs calling for its reopening. At its peak, it had employed more than 7,000 people, of which only about 1,000 remain as the company tries to keep the surrounding jungle at bay and the equipment from rusting away.

Edgardo Díaz, who sold food to mine workers, said many vendors had to shutter their businesses when the mine stopped operating. He said he was one of five vendors who met with Mulino several weeks ago. “We asked that the mine be reopened.”

But not everyone agrees. Abelisario Rodríguez, a resident of Río Caimito near the mine, said that despite the mine’s presence and the money it generated, his community still lacked basic services like electricity, drinking water, a health center and school.

He said there had been a lot of promises made about the development the mine would bring, but he didn’t see it reflected in his community and he didn’t want to see it reopened.

“We don’t want mines in Panama because we’ve seen the experiences of countries like Chile, Peru, mining countries, communities that have been razed, that have been contaminated with sick populations,” Rodríguez said. “We don’t want that for our future generations.”

Manuel Aizpurua, head of Cobre Panamá, said they’ve started bringing people to the mine to show the condition of the equipment and the need to make a decision on the mine’s future.

“Nature is attacking these installations and this equipment, taking them to a degree of deterioration where it won’t be possible to restart the mine if we don’t do something urgently,” Aizpurua said.

“We understand that an operation like this must generate significant benefits for the country and the surrounding communities, not only for our shareholders and investors,” he said. “We’re prepared to sit down with the national government as soon as possible without preconditions to find a solution to achieve that objective.”

Shortly after Mulino made his comments about the mine Thursday, the 40-organization coalition Panama is Worth More without Mining gathered in the capital.

Lilian Gonzáles Guevara, executive director of the nongovernmental Environmental Incident Center, pushed back against the economic argument for reopening the mine. She said that while many countries had struggled economically recently, Panama had grown even without the mine operating last year.

“We haven’t depended on mining, it’s a fallacy,” she said. The only dialogue the group was open to having was about permanently closing the mine.

The coalition has called for a public vigil Sunday to remind authorities of the public’s opposition to the mine.

Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Government reveals taxpayer-funded deal to keep Australia’s largest aluminium smelter open. How long we will pay?

The federal government has done a deal - underwritten by the taxpayer - to keep Australia’s largest aluminum smelter open. What’s the exit strategy if it doesn’t go to plan?

It seemed inevitable – politically at least – that the federal government would step in to save Tomago Aluminium in New South Wales, Australia’s largest aluminium smelter. Rio Tinto, the owners of Tomago, has enjoyed attractively priced electricity for a long time, most recently with AGL. But this contract ends in 2028. Unable to find a replacement at a price it could accept, Rio Tinto warned that Tomago was facing closure. Tomago produces more than one-third of Australia’s aluminium and accounts for 12% of NSW’s energy consumption. On Friday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced a Commonwealth-led deal for electricity supply beyond 2028. This deal will provide the smelter with billions of dollars in subsidised power from the Commonwealth-owned Snowy Hydro through a portfolio of renewables, backed by storage and gas. This follows months of negotiation to avoid the smelter closing and sacking its roughly 1,000 workers. The government has provided funding to support other struggling manufacturers such as the Whyalla steelworks and the Mount Isa copper smelter, and wants to see aluminium production continue in Australia. About 30–40% of the cost of making aluminium is the energy, so it’s a huge input. Electricity from the market would have been considerably more expensive, so the government is subsidising the commercial price. The deal may have been a necessary and immediate solution to a political problem with local economic and social impacts. However, it raises several important questions about the risks involved and the longevity of the plant. Risks and benefits First, to what risk is the federal government exposed? Commodity markets such as aluminium are prone to difficult cycles, and there’s a chance Tomago might not survive at all, in which case the government is off the hook. Not only are we looking to subsidise Tomago’s electricity, but we are looking for Snowy Hydro to invest in renewable energy projects and build more renewable energy in NSW. The history of building renewable energy and its support transmission infrastructure suggests that both cost and time constraints become problematic. The NSW government may have a role in supporting this side of the deal. The Commonwealth’s case for making this deal is presumably underpinned by its Future made in Australia policy. This says we should be supporting industries where there’s a national interest in a low-emissions world. So if, for example, we can see a future where subsidising Tomago’s electricity for five or ten years would mean it can produce low-emission aluminium the world wants to buy, that would be a success. But what happens if, after five or ten years, the world hasn’t sufficiently changed to provide enough renewable energy to make our electricity cost less? What if the rest of the world wants green, low-emissions aluminium, but that’s not what Australia produces? If the risks the government is underwriting crystallise in a bad way, does the government have an exit strategy? We’ve been here before In 1984, under the leadership of John Cain, the Labor government signed a joint venture agreement with Alcoa to build an aluminium smelter at Portland, including a deal to subsidise electricity until 2016. Forty years later, we’re still pay for it. With Tomago, we don’t want Australian taxpayers exposed to something over which we have no control – the global price of aluminium. If the price of aluminium collapses, or Snowy Hydro is permanently uncompetitive or China dominates the world market, the hypothesis that Tomago can be competitive in the long term collapses. Interestingly, this deal is very different to the one the Commonwealth and Queensland governments have done to support Rio Tinto’ Boyne smelter in Gladstone. In October, Rio Tinto announced plans to possibly bring forward the closure of Gladstone Power Station to 2029, six years ahead of the current schedule, and supply the smelter with predominantly renewable electricity. The move was welcomed by environmental groups, as Gladstone is Queensland’s oldest and largest coal-fired station. But some commentators have said closing the plant in four years’ time is unrealistic, and a staged phase-out would be better. The announcement this week, welcomed by the business and its workers, is probably unsurprising. But we haven’t seen the detail. The government may very well have a case for this deal, but the future of the plant and its power supply remain unknowable. The risks with taxpayer funds may have been worth taking, but they should be clearly explained and justified. Tony Wood does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Israel Publishes Draft Law Seeking to Boost State Revenues From Dead Sea Minerals

By Steven ScheerJERUSALEM, Dec 3 (Reuters) - Israel on Wednesday published a draft law that aims to boost state revenues from a concession for...

JERUSALEM, Dec 3 (Reuters) - Israel on Wednesday published a draft law that aims to boost state revenues from a concession for extracting minerals from the Dead Sea as well as tackling its environmental consequences.The Finance Ministry said the proposed law intends to redefine the concession to ensure the public and the state get their rightful share, while ensuring the preservation of nature and environmental values."The law serves as the basis for allocating the concession and the terms of the future tender for resource extraction from the Dead Sea, with an emphasis on promoting optimal competition, lowering entry barriers, and attracting leading international players," it said.Fertiliser maker ICL Group has held the concession, giving it exclusive rights to minerals from the Dead Sea site, for five decades, but its permit is set to expire in 2030.Last month, ICL gave up right of first refusal for its Dead Sea concession under a government plan to open it up for tender, although it would receive some $3 billion if it loses the permit when it expires.ICL, one of the world's largest potash producers, has previously said its Dead Sea assets were worth $6 billion. ICL extracts mainly potash and magnesium from the concession.Under the draft law, which still needs preliminary approval from lawmakers, the state's share of concession profits would ultimately rise to an average of 50% from 35% currently, partly through royalties, the ministry said.The law also aims to tackle negative impacts of resource extraction activities in the Dead Sea, which continues to shrink.ICL plans to participate in the future tender and has said it believes it is the most suitable candidate to operate the future concession.Accountant General Yali Rothenberg said the law places emphasis on fair, efficient, and responsible use of one of Israel’s most important natural resources. It "will ensure that the state maximizes economic value for the public, promotes optimal competition, and protects the unique environment of the Dead Sea region for future generations," he said.(Reporting by Steven Scheer. Editing by Jane Merriman)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

Trump administration puts Fema workers back on administrative leave

Fourteen workers who signed a petition that warned cuts put the US at risk were initially suspended in AugustThe Trump administration is reversing the reinstatement of workers at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) who were placed on administrative leave after writing an open letter of dissent.Fema in August suspended 14 workers who signed a petition warning that cuts to the agency were putting the nation at risk of repeating the mistakes made during the botched response to 2005’s Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. Continue reading...

The Trump administration is reversing the reinstatement of workers at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) who were placed on administrative leave after writing an open letter of dissent.Fema in August suspended 14 workers who signed a petition warning that cuts to the agency were putting the nation at risk of repeating the mistakes made during the botched response to 2005’s Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.Last Wednesday, those 14 workers received notices that they were being reinstated at the beginning of this week. But within hours, Trump officials moved to re-suspend the staffers, after CNN broke the news of their return to work.“When they went in at 8.30 in the morning, the employees’ email accounts were restored and they were given new entry cards,” said David Seide, a lawyer at the non-profit group Government Accountability Project, which helped the Fema employees file complaints challenging their suspensions. “But around midday … they stopped working and then after that, they began to receive notices saying: ‘You’re back on administrative leave again.’”Jeremy Edwards, former deputy of public affairs at Fema who signed the August petition, said the reversal “represents the type of dysfunction and inefficiency that has plagued Fema under this administration”.“Not only have these staffers not been provided any legal justification for being placed on administrative leave, they are being paid their full-time, taxpayer-funded salaries to sit at home and do nothing, when all they want to do is their jobs,” Edwards said.The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees Fema, confirmed the reversal. “CNN reporting revealed that 14 Fema employees previously placed on leave for misconduct were wrongly and without authorization reinstated by bureaucrats acting outside of their authority,” a department spokesperson said.“Once alerted, the unauthorized reinstatement was swiftly corrected by senior leadership. The 14 employees who signed the Katrina declaration have been returned to administrative leave,” the spokesperson continued. “This Administration will not tolerate rogue conduct, unauthorized actions or entrenched bureaucrats resisting change. Federal employees are expected to follow lawful direction, uphold agency standards and serve the American people.”Seide called the reversal “unbelievable” and “appalling”.“I’ve never seen this happen in government operations like this, ever, and I’ve been around 40 years,” Seide said.He said the employees’ suspension was illegal, violating protections for government employees and particularly for whistleblowers.“You can’t retaliate people just because they signed a petition,” he said.Fema’s decision to reinstate the employees seemed to reinforce that argument. “Although the [Report of Investigation] substantiated the employee’s involvement with the so-called Katrina Declaration, FEMA’s legal counsel has advised that the employee’s actions are protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act (5 USC 2302(b)(8)) and the First Amendment of the US Constitution,” said a Fema email to the 14 staffers.“Political appointees reversed that,” said Seide.Called the Katrina declaration, the August petition from workers criticized the Trump administration’s sweeping overhaul of Fema and stated a desire to shift the responsibility for disaster response and preparedness to states. Sent days before the 20th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, it was signed by more than 180 current and former Fema employees, some of whom remained anonymous.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionOne day after the missive was sent, the 14 employees who used their names were informed that they were being placed on indefinite leave, Seide said. One of those 14 workers was then fired in mid-November, but she successfully challenged her termination, he said.Fema staffers coordinated the petition with Stand Up for Science, a non-profit protesting the Trump administration’s attacks on federally funded science research. The group also helped organize a separate June letter from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) workers, which accused the Trump administration of violating the agency’s mission to protect human health and the environment. After receiving that petition, the EPA placed 139 employees on leave, then terminated seven of them.Before it was walked back, Seide’s group celebrated Fema’s decision to reinstate the 14 employees placed on leave, saying it could help build the case for EPA workers to similarly be reinstated.“It would have seemed that reasonable judgments were made and should be followed,” said Seide. “But now I think the message is just the opposite.”The Trump administration has terminated, suspended and pushed out thousands of federal employees since re-entering the White House in January. Fema has been the subject of particularly scrutiny, with the president even floating plans to scrap the agency altogether.A review council set up by Trump is soon expected to issue recommended changes to the agency.

Wood-burning stoves to face partial ban in Labour’s updated environment plan

Exclusive: Pollution targets set out alongside nature recovery projects to allay concerns over housebuildingWood-burning stoves are likely to face tighter restrictions in England under new pollution targets set as part of an updated environmental plan released by ministers on Monday.Speaking to the Guardian before the publication of the updated environmental improvement plan (EIP), the environment secretary, Emma Reynolds, said it would boost nature recovery in a number of areas, replacing an EIP under the last government she said was “not credible”. Continue reading...

Wood-burning stoves are likely to face tighter restrictions in England under new pollution targets set as part of an updated environmental plan released by ministers on Monday.Speaking to the Guardian before the publication of the updated environmental improvement plan (EIP), the environment secretary, Emma Reynolds, said it would boost nature recovery in a number of areas, replacing an EIP under the last government she said was “not credible”.Reynolds said efforts to restore nature would now take place on “a strategic level” rather than a previously piecemeal approach, arguing this meant the government’s push to build housing and infrastructure could still come with a net gain in habitats.One element of the new EIP will see the targets for concentrations of PM2.5 particulate pollutants tightened to match current EU targets, something that was not part of the previous plan, published in 2023 under the Conservatives.According to sources in Reynolds’ department, this will involve a consultation on possible measures to reduce PM2.5 pollution, including those from wood-burning stoves and fireplaces.This could involve pollution limits being tightened in smoke control areas, which already limit what fuels can be burned: for example, setting out that wood can be burned only in approved types of stoves or burners, not in fireplaces.It could mean an effective ban on older appliances and that, in some places, it will not be possible to use a wood-burning stove at all.The current annual PM2.5 limit is 25ug/m3 (micrograms per cubic metre), with an aim to meet 10ug/m3 by 2040. The EU’s standards are stricter, with a new directive passed last year asking member states to meet 10ug/m3 by 2030.The World Health Organization recommends an annual limit of 5ug/m3. It is understood the EIP will bring the UK’s standards in line with the EU, with an aim to eventually meet WHO targets.Exposure to PM2.5s, which bury deep into the lungs, is linked to numerous health conditions including asthma, lung disease, heart disease, cancer and strokes. Domestic combustion accounted for 20% of PM2.5 emissions in 2023 and has been found to produce more pollution than traffic.Elsewhere in the EIP, Reynolds will set out that £500m of existing departmental money is to be allocated to landscape recovery projects, larger-scale attempts to restore landscapes and ecosystems, often working with farmers and other landowners.This will include a specific target to restore or create 250,000 hectares (618,000 acres) of wildlife-rich habitats by 2030.The EIP is required under the Environment Act, with the intention that it should put into action a more general commitment to improve the environment within a generation.For the first time, as part of the new EIP, the government will publish detailed Environment Act target delivery plans, which set out how actions will contribute to its aims and help to measure progress.Such moves, Reynolds argued, should mitigate fears about nature depletion owing to housebuilding and other projects, after fears were raised the government’s planning and infrastructure bill could reduce protections and see green spaces lost.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“What we’re talking about is restoring nature, not house by house, but at a more strategic level. We can be both pro-development and pro-home-ownership and pro-nature,” she said.“The last EIP, under the previous Tory administration, wasn’t credible. I’m confident that our EIP is credible, because it’s got these delivery plans built in. You can’t just set the targets. You’ve got to explain how you’re going to achieve those targets. And that’s exactly what we’ve done.”The new EIP is also expected to include a commitment from the previous plan for every household to be within a 15-minute walk of green space or a waterway.Other measures to be announced on Monday include a new plan for “forever chemicals”, to reduce the amount of PFAS in the environment, and a crackdown on illegal waste dumping.Ruth Chambers, from the Green Alliance thinktank, said the new EIP was “an important milestone and an opportunity to harness the government’s collective clout to deliver better for nature”.She said: “It must now be converted swiftly into the sustained action needed to restore nature, clean up our rivers and air, create a circular economy and help people reconnect with the natural world.”

Simpler regulations spearhead UK taskforce plan to get new nuclear reactors built

Panel’s final report outlines planning and environmental changes to get plants built faster and cheaperA government taskforce has finalised its plans to speed up and lower the cost of rolling out a new generation of nuclear reactors by streamlining UK regulation.The nuclear regulatory taskforce was set up by the prime minister, Keir Starmer, in February after the government promised to rip up “archaic rules” and slash regulations to “get Britain building”. Continue reading...

A government taskforce has finalised its plans to speed up and lower the cost of rolling out a new generation of nuclear reactors by streamlining UK regulation.The nuclear regulatory taskforce was set up by the prime minister, Keir Starmer, in February after the government promised to rip up “archaic rules” and slash regulations to “get Britain building”.It published its interim report in August, which led a coalition of 25 civil society groups to warn of the dangers of cutting nuclear safety regulations. It said the proposals lacked “credibility and rigour”.The taskforce was led by John Fingleton, the former head of the Office of Fair Trading. He said of the final report: “Our solutions are radical, but necessary. By simplifying regulation, we can maintain or enhance safety standards while finally delivering nuclear capacity safely, quickly, and affordably.”The recommendations include restructuring the nuclear industry’s regulatory bodies to create a single commission for nuclear regulation, and changing environmental and planning regimes “to enhance nature and deliver projects quicker”.Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, said the new rules would form a crucial part of delivering the changes needed to drive new nuclear “in a safe, affordable way”.The report was welcomed by Tom Greatrex, the chief executive of the Nuclear Industry Association. He said the report represented an “unprecedented opportunity to make nuclear regulation more coherent, transparent and efficient” that could make projects “faster and less expensive to deliver”.“Too often, costly and bureaucratic processes have stood in the way of our energy security, the fight against the climate crisis, and protecting the natural environment, to which nuclear is essential,” he added.Sam Richards, the chief executive of pro-nuclear campaign group Britain Remade, said it could mark “a watershed moment for cutting the cost of new nuclear in Britain”.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Business TodayGet set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morningPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“The findings of the taskforce lay bare the litany of regulations that make Britain the most expensive place in the world to build nuclear power stations,” Richards said.“At a time when Britain’s electricity bills are among the world’s highest, our regulatory system forced EDF to spend nearly £280,000 per fish protected. This is indefensible. These types of modifications have added years in construction and billions in costs; costs that ultimately get passed on to consumers in higher bills.”Fingleton added: “This is a once in a generation opportunity. The problems are systemic, rooted in unnecessary complexity, and a mindset that favours process over outcome.”

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.