Harsh realities in the world of journalism

Probably the harshest reality is that people all too often do not cut through the cackle of commentary and opinion, and look for the facts.

However, the harsh realities that I’m talking about today are the facts that really do affect those who are busily promoting the nuclear industry, and also the fossil fuel industries. And that includes their hangers-on in politics, academia and the media.

Regarding the fossil fuel industries, well they’ve had to give up on their old doctrine that human-caused global warming does not exist. They’re more subtle about their propaganda now, and work very effectively at agreeing on Climate Change, while subverting any effective action to combat it – by means like taking over the COP (Conference of the Parties) annual global climate negotiations. So, we end up with a sort of public apathy: “the oil companies are helping”, “it’ll be OK, don’t worry”, “it’s too late to do anything”, “nothing to be done really.”

Even extreme events: floods, bushfires, cyclones, freezing days, don’t seem to stir that much action.

So, where I like to find the really compelling realities, is in relation to that good old cliche – money talks. And for climate change, which I prefer to call Global Heating, the one kind of journalist who can, without fear of being labelled a crank or a radical, write about climate change, is the finance writer. After all, for the supporters of fossil fuel industries, it’s really only about the money. Indeed, the finance writer is safely obliged to tell the facts.

The especially vital area is insurance. This week – from Victoria Devine – Australia is nearing an insurance crisis. And it’s only getting worse. She writes:

“… more than 650,000 (roughly one in every 23) homes are already at “high risk” of damage or destruction – due to weather-related disasters like bushfire, flooding or cyclones.

In 2025 alone, Australians paid up to $700 more for home and contents insurance premiums than we did in the previous 12 months.”

Global Warming is getting very expensive. I have previously written about Lloyd’s of London’s insurance news – “Dangerous climate radical, Lloyd’s of London, appears to be threatening the world economy.” It doesn’t matter about the journalists’ politics. Right-wing or left-wing, it’s the money facts that count.

For the mainstream journalist, the obligation to glorify the nuclear industry is gospel. That’s why I wrote last week about the brave journalists who sneak in some disturbing facts, while retailing the nuclear lobby’s handouts. But finance writers are allowed to divulge those facts with impunity. And again, of course including insurance reporters, they are obliged to tell those facts, even sometimes while trying to hype up the nuclear industry.

However, with nuclear power, insurance just doesn’t get mentioned, I think that the Price Anderson Act is still in operation, and explains all:

“First passed in 1957 and currently extended until 2025, Price Anderson limits the liability of nuclear power plant operators for any accident their reactors may cause, and commits the federal government to pay any damages extending beyond that cap.”

The Financial Times (ft.com) is quite sanguine about the ‘diseconomics’ of the current pro-nuclear hype: The cost of America’s nuclear revival:

“None of the more than 50 SMRs under development in the US has proved they are commercially viable yet nor obtained an operating licence from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.”

Felicity Bradstock writes in Oil Price about Japan’s ambitious new plan to redevelop its nuclear energy capacity, aiming for 20 percent of its power from nuclear energy by 2040 to support climate goals. But she cautions about:

“… significant public opposition and safety concerns.

Public confidence in the nuclear sector has been harmed by the 2011 Fukushima disaster and further damaged by recent news of a utility, Chubu Electric Power, fabricating seismic risk data.”

Devesh Kumar writes in INVEZZ about the current much-hyped ‘small nuclear reactor’ project – OKLO – Why this nuclear energy stock could face a meltdown in 2026.

The Motley Fool, a world leading investment advisor, does not hold back on the diseconomics of nuclear power. Brett Schafer cautions on Small Nuclear Reactors:

“NuScale Power is a pre-revenue business burning a ton of cash that will likely stay pre-revenue through 2030. Even though the stock is soaring, smart investors will stay far away from this risky stock.”

Adam Spatacco writes Nuclear energy stocks are flying, but the magnitude of these gains appears overblown:

“In 2026, I think investors will witness sharp corrections across a number of nuclear energy stocks, with Oklo being by far the most vulnerable.”

Maxx Chatsko, certainly no environmentalist, writes; Forget Nuclear Power.

In INVEZZ Devesh Kumar writes about the current much-yped ‘small nuclear reactor’ project – OKLO – Why this nuclear energy stock could face a meltdown in 2026.

So – I must acknowledge these journalists, regardless of whether or not they are supporters of nuclear power. And let’s remember – investors pay attention to them.

Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN

Dear Reader,

Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless voice for truth, giving public interest journalists a platform to hold power to account. From expert analysis on national and global events to uncovering issues that matter to you, we’re here because of your support.

Running an independent site isn’t cheap, and rising costs mean we need you now more than ever. Your donation – big or small – keeps our servers humming, our writers digging, and our stories free for all.

Join our community of truth-seekers. Donate via PayPal or credit card via the button below, or bank transfer [BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969] and help us keep shining a light.

With gratitude, The AIMN Team