Ontario schools need sweeping changes to help children learn to read: Ontario Human Rights Commission

The report concluded that overwhelming scientific evidence on the best way to teach reading has been ignored and Ontario students are suffering the sometimes lifelong consequences.

Author of the article: Jacquie Miller
Publishing date:Mar 01, 2022 • 

\

"If the education system is working as it should, a reading disability can be prevented for almost all students," an Ontario Human Rights Commission report stated. 

PHOTO BY IVAN PANTIC /Getty Images/iStockphoto


Ontario schools are failing to teach many students how to read, says a report from the Ontario Human Rights Commission that recommends sweeping changes to language curriculum and teacher training, and says the youngest children should be screened twice a year to pick up problems early.

The report is the culmination of a public inquiry called Right To Read begun in October 2019 that included public hearings, surveys, briefs and analysis of practices at eight sample school boards, including the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board.

The report concluded that overwhelming scientific evidence on the best way to teach reading has been ignored and Ontario students are suffering the sometimes lifelong consequences.

Students who don’t master the foundational skill of reading words by sight quickly and accurately can be set up for poor academic performance, low self-esteem and mental health problems.

“Consistent with findings in the academic research, many students and parents told the inquiry about depression and anxiety, school avoidance, acting out, being bullied or victimized, self-harming, and thinking about or even attempting suicide,” said the report released Monday.

The inquiry focused on foundational early reading skills.

With the appropriate instruction, 80 to 90 per cent of students won’t need intensive help and students with reading disabilities like dyslexia who are identified early and taught properly can be helped, said the report.

“If the education system is working as it should, a reading disability can be prevented for almost all students.”

However, while there is an “enormous body of settled scientific research on how children learn to read and the most effective way to teach them,” those methods are not used in Ontario, said the report.

It recommended the Ontario Grade 1 to 8 language curriculum be replaced with an “explicit, systematic approach based on reading science” called structured literacy.

Starting in kindergarten, students should learn the sounds letters make, phonics, decoding or “sounding out” words, spelling and also practise reading words in stories to build accuracy and speed, said the report.

By about Grade 2, children should be taught word structures and patterns, like prefixes and suffixes, the report said.

In contrast, Ontario schools employ a “whole language” approach, which suggests that “by immersing children in spoken and written language, they will discover how to read,” said the report.

Following that philosophy, Ontario schools use “cueing”, which encourages students to guess or predict words using clues from the context of what they are reading or their prior knowledge, and a “balanced literacy” approach that has teachers read to students and guide them.

That approach has been discredited in “many studies, expert reviews and reports on teaching” and is ineffective for teaching a significant proportion of students to read words, said the report.

“Students most at risk for reading failure, including students with reading disabilities and many students from other (Human Rights Code)-protected groups, will not develop critical early reading skills when these approaches are used in schools.”

That cueing system should be discontinued, said the report.

“Currently, Ontario teachers are required to deliver a curriculum that is inconsistent with a science-based core curriculum that meets the right to read.”

The report recommends that all students be screened for reading using standardized evidence-based measures twice a year from kindergarten to Grade 2.

“Age four to seven is a critical window of opportunity for teaching children foundational word-reading skills and is when intervention will be most effective.”

The report offers a devastating summary of what happens now. There is no consistency among school boards, screening consists mostly of “non evidence-based” reading assessments, effective intervention typically doesn’t start until Grade 3 or later, or isn’t offered at all.

“Boards’ first response to struggling readers is often to provide more of the same ineffective reading instruction that has already failed the student, but in smaller groups or one-on-one,” said the report.

At the eight boards sampled, there were at least 16 commercial reading intervention programs in use, said the report. Only five of them were evidence-based and two of those were seldom used.

Faculties of education and professional development for teachers place little emphasis on the evidence about how reading develops and the best way to teach it, said the report.

The report recommends changes to faculty of education programs and that the Ministry of Education develop comprehensive professional development programs for teachers.

Ontario Education Minister Stephen Lecce responded to the report Monday by promising changes. The province will revamp the elementary language curriculum as well as Grade 9 English to align with “scientific, evidence-based approaches that emphasize direct, explicit and systematic instruction,” he said in a statement.

Ontario will end the three-cueing system for teaching reading and eliminate “all references to unscientific discover and inquiry-based learning” by September 2023, he said.

Lecce also promised a $25-million investment in reading intervention programs and professional assessments to allow school boards to immediately begin meeting the needs of struggling readers.

There may be some resistance to change, the report noted.

“The inquiry also found another barrier is that some people in the education sector are resistant to change and hold strong beliefs supporting whole language philosophies.”

Faculties of education also tend to emphasize “socio-cultural perspectives and culturally responsive pedagogy,” which are important but not a substitute for preparing teachers to teach foundational reading skills, said the report.

“This lack of a strong focus on scientifically supported early reading instruction may be harmful to many historically marginalized student populations and contradict the goal of promoting equity.”

40 trucks worth of garbage: Ottawa cleans up after the 'Freedom Convoy' clears out

The city estimates the tab for the occupation will cost Ottawa about $30-million

Author of the article: Adam Hussain, Special to National Post

Publishing date: Mar 01, 2022

A pair of boots and a Canadian flag left behind for clean-up after the Ottawa protesters cleared out. 

REUTERS/Lars Hagberg

After three weeks of Freedom Convoy protests and the invoking and revoking of the Emergencies Act, the city of Ottawa has all but returned to normal. Businesses have reopened their doors to the public, and relative peace and quiet has been restored.

The only lingering signs of the occupation in the capital are the abandoned trucks in the impound lots and barriers on the streets.

Alain Gonthier, general manager of transportation, utilities, and public works for the city of Ottawa said that all litter and debris left by the protesters was to be cleared by last weekend.

The last step, he said, “will be to remove the barriers that were used to block off streets and this work will take several days to complete.”

According to a report released by the city, Ottawa workers have cleaned up 40 cement mixer trucks worth of garbage. The trash has been collected in 16 large 25-cubic metre garbage bins. The city did ensure that all food products left behind were not sent to landfills.

All fuel brought to the city by the protestors has been collected and disposed of.

A total of 115 vehicles were towed from the protest area, according to Ottawa Police Services (OPS). Owners had seven days to retrieve them, for a cost of $1,191 for a heavy vehicle, or $516 for a light one.

Additionally, 196 arrests were made, and over 3,700 fines issued. Steve Kanellakos, Ottawa’s city manager, has stated the protests cost the city upwards of $30 million, mostly for increased police and support staff presence.

Lawyer Paul Champ, who is leading a legal team overseeing a class-action lawsuit against protest participants, pegs the total amount of wages and revenue lost because of the occupation at a minimum of $306 million. The lawsuit represents three impacted parties: city residents, Happy Goat Coffee Co. and Union Local 613, and employees who lost wages when their workplaces were shut down.

The lawsuit is targetted at every person involved with the convoy protests. Champ has collected the licence plates of over 400 attendees and hopes to get information on those who donated to the convoy after February 4th.

Smol: Canada ignores Russia’s militarized Arctic at our own risk

Like Ukraine, the region is perceived by Vladimir Putin as an integral part of his country. Several modern Arctic warfare bases house, operate and are testing some of Russia’s most advanced weapons.

Author of the article: Robert Smol
Publishing date:Mar 01, 2022 •

Canadian Rangers participate in the cleanup of a mock oil spill in Resolute, Nunavut in this file photo. They are fine civil defence volunteers but no substitute for the military. 

PHOTO BY ANDRE FORGET /Postmedia


As the war in Ukraine heats up, it may be prudent for Canada to finally take serious strategic stock of Russia’s other major military buildup. It’s a militarized front which, like Ukraine, involves disputed territorial and maritime claims, pitting Vladimir Putin’s Russia against democratic countries within and outside the NATO alliance. Like Ukraine, it is also perceived by Putin as an integral part of Russia. It holds growing strategic importance in trade, defence and resource extraction, and it is a front where Russia has been amassing unprecedented levels of military hardware and personnel.

It is the Arctic in 2022. And we ignore at our own peril this militarized, disputed region around, over and opposite our northern territory and maritime claim.

On the Russian shores of this disputed maritime and land border with Canada, Scandinavia and the United States stand new or expanded and modernized Russian Arctic coastal military bases at Rogachevo, Pechenga, Severomorsk, Tiksi, Zvyozdny, Sredny Ostrov, Nagurskoye, and Temp, to name just a few. These modern Arctic warfare bases house, operate and are testing some of Russia’s most advanced weapons, such as the MIG 31BM fighter jet and the Poseidon 2M39 nuclear stealth torpedo, and TOR-M2DT missiles.

This reality has not been lost to NATO members Denmark and Norway, or allied nations such as Sweden and Finland who, like the U.S., have been upgrading and expanding their military presence in the region with professionally trained combat personnel and newly acquired equipment.

Let us momentarily dispense with the widespread (and I daresay naïve) assumption driving Canada’s defence policy: that the U.S. is at Canada’s beck and call, to expend whatever is necessary in American military resources and American military lives to defend every square kilometre of Canada, at no corresponding cost or effort to Canadians.

Where would we be if our defence were, first and foremost, up to us

The answer is: as prepared and battle-ready as an administrative headquarters in Yellowknife can be alongside a company-sized detachment of part-time Army reservists nearby. As martially worthy of Putin’s awe as 440 Squadron, Canada’s only permanent airforce squadron in the Arctic which mans a “fleet” of four non-combat CC-138 twin-otter utility aircraft. As stern in our willingness to stand our ground as the 55-person (not all military) signals station (CFS Alert) on Ellesmere Island. As worthy a match for the Russian warships and nuclear submarines, with their increasingly sophisticated weapons, as our lumbering constabulary arctic patrol vessels (only one is in operation so far), each designed to tout a single mounted machine gun on their deck.

Yes, we do have about 5,000 local Canadian Rangers in the North — ready to do just about everything but actually go to war for Canada. Professionally, that is a good thing since these non-combat reserve auxiliaries from northern communities sponsored by the Department of National Defence receive almost no military training. They have done yeoman service on occasion when community assistance is needed in operations such as search-and-rescue. And, especially during this pandemic, these temporary augmentees have stepped up to provide needed assistance to beleaguered communities. Canadian Rangers are worthy civil defence volunteers, but in no way are they soldiers.

So let’s not spin them as somehow standing in the forefront of Canada’s alleged determination to assert its sovereignty over the Arctic.

Of course, since we are a member of NATO, any attack on Canada is deemed an attack on all NATO members. Certainly, in a potential maritime-based standoff in the region, Canada can expect some protection and assurance from the U.S. as well as from the better-armed and equipped militaries of Denmark and Norway, not to mention our former colonial masters, France and the United Kingdom.

But should this happen in our current deplorable state of military preparedness, let’s have the honesty and integrity to abstain from clinging to the absurd international “middle power” illusion many Canadians still hold.

Robert Smol is a retired military intelligence officer who served in the Canadian Armed Forces for more than 20 years. He is currently working as a paralegal and security professional while completing a PhD in military history.rmsmol@gmail.com

CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M

PwC Canada fined over one million CDN by US, Canadian regulators

Big Four accounting firm voluntarily disclosed to regulators that its employees shared answers on mandatory internal training courses
Mar 1, 2022 Author: Colin Ellis

TORONTO, March 1, 2022 – The Canadian affiliate of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP has agreed to pay more than one million dollars in penalties after disclosing widespread sharing of answers by its accountants on internal training tests. After discovering the training-related misconduct in January 2020, PwC Canada reported the matter to the Canadian Public Accountability Board, conducted an internal investigation, and began implementing remedial policies and procedures.

The US Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) censured PwC Canada and imposed a civil money penalty of $750,000 USD. CPAB also censured the Big Four accounting firm and imposed a penalty of “up to a maximum of $200,000” CDN. If paid in full and, accounting for exchange rates, PwC Canada would ultimately pay regulators fines amounting to a total of approximately $1.105M CDN.

Widespread test cheating over a period of four years at all firm levels

From at least 2016 until early 2020, more than 1,200 employees at PwC Canada were involved in improper answer sharing — either by providing or receiving answers — in connection with tests for mandatory internal training courses covering topics that included auditing, accounting, and professional independence, according to a seven-page enforcement action by the PCAOB.

More than 1,100 of the auditors were employed in the firm’s Assurance practice. PwC Canada used an online platform to conduct mandatory online courses, including courses containing content regarding professional independence and performing professional responsibilities with integrity, and tailored to the experience level of the employee.

Over the four-year period, firm personnel primarily shared answers through the use of shared drives that employees had created on the firm's computer network, posting the answers and providing supplemental answers. According to the enforcement actions, the shared drives contained answers to at least 46 of the firm’s approximately 55 mandatory assurance tests, and the “improper sharing” of answers occurred at all levels of the firm, from junior staff to partners.

Commenters in the online r/accounting community on Reddit dismissed the size of the monetary penalty as negligible to a Big Four professional services firm; noted the significant disparity between the US and Canadian fines; and complained about the number of mandatory internal courses conducted at large public accounting firms, saying that time and billing pressures encouraged cheating.
PwC Canada disclosed the answer sharing to CPAB

Audit regulators have policies in place that provide credit in circumstances of voluntary disclosure. In ordering sanctions, the regulators took into account the accounting firm’s “extraordinary cooperation” in the matter. PwC Canada voluntarily self-reported the matter and instituted remedial measures (the penalties levied were largely for the lack of internal controls at PwC). “Absent the Firm’s extraordinary cooperation, the civil money penalty imposed would have been significantly larger, and the Board may have imposed additional sanctions.”

During the four-year period when PwC employees were improperly sharing answers on mandatory courses on professional independence and integrity, “the Firm served as the principal auditor for over 55 issuer audit clients. Additionally, at all relevant times, the Firm performed audit work that other PCAOB registered firms, including member firms of PwC Global, used or relied on in issuing audit reports for their issuer clients.”

The PCAOB has the authority to levy penalties against foreign accounting firms that do business on American soil. In 2021, the PCAOB levied penalties against five Canadian accounting firms, including Big Four accounting firm Deloitte Canada. In 2019, the US Securities and Exchange Commission fined KPMG US 50 million dollars for “illicit use of PCAOB data and cheating on training exams,” one year after charging five former KPMG US officials in a case alleging they schemed to interfere with the PCAOB’s ability to detect audit deficiencies at KPMG.

In a statement posted on the PwC Canada website, the firm states: “we are committed to serving our stakeholders to the best of our ability and in accordance with our values and purpose — to build trust in society and solve important problems. When we do not meet the standards we set for ourselves, we acknowledge it and take action to do better.”

Colin Ellis is a contributing editor to Canadian Accountant. Image : PwC Canada, Toronto, Canada (iStock).

Hydro-Québec could lose more than $500M if power export line through Maine is dropped

Social Sharing

• Facebook

• Twitter

• Email

• Reddit

• LinkedIn

Constitutionality of referendum that suspended construction to be challenged

CBC News · Posted: Mar 01, 2022 

All construction for the $10-billion project, known as the New England Clean Energy Corridor, has been on hold since 59 per cent of Maine residents voted against it in a referendum last November. (Paul Chiasson/The Canadian Press)

A new Hydro-Québec report says the utility could lose more than $500 million if its power export project to Massachusetts is abandoned.

All construction for the project, known as the New England Clean Energy Corridor, has been on hold since 59 per cent of Maine residents voted against it in a referendum last November. 

The planned project would carry some 1,200 megawatts of electricity over a new 336-kilometre high-voltage transmission line between Thetford Mines, Que., and Lewiston, Maine.

The electricity would be sent over existing or rebuilt lines to Massachusetts for 20 years, and would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 3.6 million metric tons per year — the equivalent of taking 700,000 cars off the road, according to the Maine Public Utilities Commission.

The project would also generate a projected $10 billion US for Hydro-Québec over 20 years. 

• Maine referendum deals blow to Hydro-Québec project

• Construction halted on $1B Hydro-Québec transmission line project in Maine

But some people in Maine protested against the fact that the project requires cutting down 1,000 trees, even though most of those trees had already been cleared when the project got underway in 2020. Others were opposed to a foreign company — Hydro-Québec — providing power to Americans.

Now, the parent company of Hydro-Québec's U.S. partner, Central Maine Power (CMP), is challenging the constitutionality of the referendum in the Maine Supreme Court.

In a memorandum filed in mid-February, Avangrid argues that the referendum retroactively bans a project that had received executive and judicial approval and had already led to hundreds of millions of dollars in expenditures.

Close to $1B total on the line for Quebec, U.S. 

In its 2021 annual report, the Quebec Crown corporation disclosed it could lose $536 million if the project is dropped. 

Of the estimated $600 million budget, $347 million has already been committed to capital expenditures for construction of the 103-kilometre line on the Quebec side. The other $189 million represents amounts that the company has committed to pay under agreements with CMP. 

The project would cut a new path from the Quebec border through 85 km of Maine's forest, before widening an existing hydro route for another 148 km and connecting to the grid. (Sködt McNalty/CBC)

This sum doesn't include the $20 million spent in recent years on lobbying and advertising for the project. Hydro-Québec also had to write off $46 million in 2019 following the failure of its first project to export power to the U.S. through New Hampshire, which had the same objectives. 

Avangrid has spent $450 million US to date in Maine to clear 86 per cent of the corridor and install 120 structures. This represents 43 per cent of the total cost of the U.S. portion, estimated at $1.04 billion US. 

No plans to abandon project

Despite the suspension of work on the project, Hydro-Québec and Avangrid say they have no intention of letting it go anytime soon.

"We followed the process and the laws in Maine, and that process led to all the permits being obtained," said Hydro-Québec spokesperson Lynn St-Laurent. 

"Once we get the green light, we start working," she said. 

Last December, a Maine judge denied Avangrid's bid to resume construction of the power line, rejecting a preliminary injunction sought by the utility company. In the ongoing lawsuit against Maine's Bureau of Parks and Lands, Avangrid writes that the referendum initiative "would render all development in the state, no matter how big or small, or its advancement, vulnerable to discriminatory legislation passed after the fact."

• Quebec premier 'confident' $10B Hydro-Québec project will go through despite referendum loss

Opponents of the New England Clean Energy Connect — made up of both energy providers such as natural gas and wind as well as environmental and citizens' groups — are expected to file briefs in the coming weeks to present their arguments.

The case will be heard in May.

Based on a report by Radio Canada's Mathieu Dion

Germany Brings Forward Goal of 100% Renewable Power to 2035

Arne Delfs and Vanessa Dezem
Mon., February 28, 2022

(Bloomberg) -- Germany plans to rapidly accelerate the expansion of wind and solar power, bringing forward a target to generate almost all the country’s electricity from renewable sources by 15 years to 2035.

The Economy Ministry, which also oversees energy and climate policy, proposed new legislation on Monday that aims to roughly triple the annual additions from onshore wind and solar facilities. Offshore wind capacity is set to more than double.

Germany is launching a series of measures to diversify its energy sources away from Russia after Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine. Germany relies on Russia for more than half its natural gas, and a decision to phase out nuclear power -- the last three reactors are set to go offline this year -- has left Europe’s largest economy vulnerable to disruption.

To avoid a short-term energy crunch in the future, the ministry also proposed measures that would force operators to maintain minimum levels in gas storage facilities.

The ministry called out Russia’s Gazprom PJSC as having especially low reserves in Germany this winter, when households were hit by soaring heating costs. More than 30% of Germany’s gas reservoirs are controlled by the Russian gas giant.

To bridge the gap until there’s sufficient renewable power capacity, Germany is also getting ready to prolong the use of coal beyond 2030. To create alternatives to Russian gas, Germany is seeking to revive plans to build liquefied natural gas terminals.

In the renewable-energy legislation, onshore wind capacity is set to increase from 3 gigawatts this year to 10 gigawatts annually in 2027. Solar expansion will go from 7 gigawatts to 20 gigawatts a year in 2028.

Offshore wind facilities are also a key part of the plan. The country foresees capacity rising from 30 gigawatts in 2030 to 70 gigawatts in 2045.

Amid an ongoing energy squeeze, a levy to finance the expansion of renewables will be scrapped at the beginning of July as part of the government’s efforts to ease the burden of higher prices on consumers.

The proposed law on a new national gas reserve will require owners of storage facilities to have them 65% filled by August, 80% filled by October, and 90% filled by December.

“This is especially necessary against the background of Russia’s delivery behavior, which has not been reliable,” the government said in the document. “The Russian war of aggression in Ukraine has increased the urgency.”

The laws are still drafts, and details could change before they go into force.

Germany May Extend Coal Use to Replace Russian Gas

Angela Cullen and Birgit Jennen
Mon., February 28, 2022




Germany is getting ready to prolong the use of coal as the country seeks to reduce its reliance on Russian energy in the aftermath of Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.

Coal plants could run beyond 2030 -- when Germany currently targets an end for the fuel -- but the ultimate goal is greater energy independence through renewable power, said Robert Habeck, vice chancellor and minister for economy and energy.

“Energy policy is security policy,” Habeck said on Monday prior to talks with European Union counterparts. “Strengthening our energy sovereignty strengthens our security. Therefore, we must first overcome the high dependence on Russian imports of fossil fuels -- a warmonger is not a reliable partner.”

Germany, which gets more than half of its gas from Russia, has undergone a rapid shift in policy in reaction to the assault on Ukraine. Alongside a massive boost in defense spending, Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced on Sunday plans to build two new liquefied natural gas terminals, signaling a longer term realignment of Germany’s energy sector.

Even before the invasion, Scholz halted the certification process for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline built to bring more Russian gas directly to Germany and bypass transit through Ukraine.

Germany is now looking at short- and long-term measures to safeguard its energy market from any possible abrupt cutoff of Russian gas. Habeck, the former co-leader of the anti-nuclear Green party, even said he wasn’t “ideologically opposed” to extending the use of the country’s last reactors, but safety is a concern.

“There are no taboos,” Habeck said in an interview late Sunday with public broadcaster ARD. “The real path to independence in terms of energy policy is actually to phase out fossil fuels. The sun and the wind don’t belong to anyone.”

The Economy Ministry is proposing that Germany generate all of its electricity from renewable sources by 2035, 15 years earlier than originally planned, according to a tweet from a ministry official.

The energy rethink has broad backing in Germany’s ruling coalition. Finance Minister Christian Lindner -- from the business-friendly Free Democrats -- on Sunday called renewable power “freedom energy” as it would help reduce reliance on Russia and said he supports the efforts to push ahead with an expansion of hydrogen and synthetic fuels.

“I strongly urge that we review our foreign energy policy,” he said in an ARD interview late Sunday. “This is now all the more pressing.”

‘Pick and Choose’

Germany wants to reach a point where it can “pick and choose which countries we want to build energy partnerships with,” Habeck told ARD. “Being able to choose also means that you can become independent from Russian gas, coal or oil.”

While Germany can manage without Russian gas for the coming months, the country would have to expand its purchasing strategy significantly for next winter, he said.

Read More: European Gas Jumps as Sanctions Spur Energy Shortage Concerns

Coal could help offset the use of Russian gas, but relying on the most polluting fossil fuel also has its own security risks, Habeck said.

“Running for longer means a longer dependence on coal, possibly also from Russia. Or we get it somewhere else,” he said. “But it’s another form of dependence.”

Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock -- also a former co-leader of the Greens -- said an extended use of coal is “the price that we all have to pay for this war.”

Nuclear is unlikely to be a short-term fix, since the country’s last three reactors are already in the process of being wound down.

“The preparations for shutting down are at such an advanced stage that the atomic power plants could only be operated for longer under the highest security concerns and possibly with fuel supply that hasn’t yet been secured,” Habeck said. “That’s certainly 

©2022 Bloomberg L.P.

Nuclear, coal, LNG: 'no taboos' in Germany's energy about-face

Christoph Steitz, Riham Alkousaa and Maria Sheahan
Sun., February 27, 2022

FILE PHOTO: Woman cleans inside of exhibit representing natural gas pipeline during final preparations at the Hannover Messe industrial trade fair in Hannover

BERLIN (Reuters) -Germany signalled a U-turn in key energy policies on Sunday, floating the possibility of extending the life-spans of coal and even nuclear plants to cut dependency on Russian gas, part of a broad political rethink following Moscow's invasion of Ukraine.

Europe's top economy has been under pressure from other Western nations to become less dependent on Russian gas, but its plans to phase out coal-fired power plants by 2030 and to shut its nuclear power plants by end-2022 have left it with few options.

In a landmark speech on Sunday, Chancellor Olaf Scholz spelled out a more radical path to ensure Germany will be able to meet rising energy supply and diversify away from Russian gas, which accounts for half of Germany's energy needs.

"The events of the past few days have shown us that responsible, forward-looking energy policy is decisive not only for our economy and the environment. It is also decisive for our security," Scholz told lawmakers in a special Bundestag session called to address the Ukraine crisis.

"We must change course to overcome our dependence on imports from individual energy suppliers," he said.

This will include building two liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals, one in Brunsbuettel and one in Wilhelmshaven, and raising its natural gas reserves.

These plans will likely be a boon for Germany's top utility RWE, which has been backing efforts by German LNG Terminal, a joint venture of Gasunie, Oiltanking GmbH and Vopak LNG Holding, to build an LNG terminal in Brunsbuettel.

Separately, the German government has asked RWE's smaller rival Uniper to revive plans to build an LNG terminal in Wilhelmshaven, Handelsblatt newspaper reported on Sunday, after the company scrapped such plans in late 2020.

Uniper was not immediately available for comment and the Economy Ministry declined to comment.

Earlier this week Germany halted the $11 billion Nord Stream 2 Baltic Sea gas pipeline project, Europe's most divisive energy project after Russia formally recognised two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine.

Russia has since invaded Ukraine, prompting the West to slap further sanctions on Moscow and making the energy supply issue even more pressing.

The revamp of energy priorities comes alongside a paradigm shift in German foreign and defence policy, with Scholz also announcing a dramatic hike in military spending.

'NO TABOOS'

Germany last year embarked on an ambitious shift towards solar and wind power and Greens member Oliver Krischer on Sunday said a draft law to ensure renewables will account for 100% of Germany's power supply by 2035 already was completed.

Germany will also increase the volume of natural gas in its storage facilities by 2 billion cubic metres (bcm) via long-term options and will buy additional natural gas on world markets in coordination with the European Union, Scholz said.

Germany has 24 bcm of underground caverns of gas storage, which are currently around 30% full, according to industry group Gas Infrastructure Europe data.

Germany is also weighing whether to extend the life-span of its remaining nuclear power plants as a way to secure the country's energy supply, the country's economy minister Robert Habeck, a member of the Greens, said.

Asked by German broadcaster ARD whether he could imagine allowing nuclear plants to run longer than planned under Germany's exit plan, which foresees shutting the country's three remaining plants by the end of 2022, he said: "It is part of my ministry's tasks to answer this question ... I would not reject it on ideological grounds."

Isar 2, Emsland and Neckarwestheim 2 are the last remaining nuclear plants producing power in Germany after the country a decade ago decided to phase out the fuel in the wake of Japan's Fukushima disaster.

The three plants are owned by German energy firms E.ON, RWE and EnBW, respectively.

Habeck also said letting coal-fired power plants to run longer than planned was an option, throwing into doubt Germany's ambitious exit from coal, which is planned for 2030.

"There are no taboos on deliberations," Habeck said, adding that it was Germany's goal to ultimately choose which country will supply its energy.

"Being able to choose also means, in case of doubt, saying goodbye to Russian gas, coal or oil. And should Russia wilfully cut off this supply, then the decision has of course been made," Habeck said.

"In that case they will never be rebuilt. I think the Kremlin knows that, too."

(Reporting by Christoph Steitz, Riham Alkousaa and Maria Sheahan; Editing by Sarah Marsh, Jan Harvey, Raissa Kasolowsky and Alison Williams)

Explainer-Could Germany keep its nuclear plants running?

By Christoph Steitz and Markus Wacket

© Reuters/Alex Grimm FILE PHOTO: Security route in front of the generator of a nuclear reactor block

FRANKFURT (Reuters) - German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and economy minister Robert Habeck on Sunday mapped out potentially radical changes to the country's energy system, going as far as floating the possibility to keep nuclear power plants running for longer.

© Reuters/Thilo Schmuelgen FILE PHOTO: E.ON headquarters in Essen

WHY BOTHER?

Germany depends massively on Russian gas but Moscow's invasion of Ukraine has caused a political rethink in Berlin.

Overall, gas accounts for more than a fifth of Germany's energy mix, and Russia supplies 38% of it with Norway ranking second at 35%.

Alternatives are now under consideration, including more solar and wind power, liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals, gas- and coal-fired power plants as well as possibly a return to nuclear power.

WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH GERMANY'S NUCLEAR PLANTS?

Nuclear-fired power plants, which still supplied 12% of Germany's gross electricity generation in 2021, remain controversial in Germany, which decided to shut them down after Japan's Fukushima disaster in 2011.

Of the 17 nuclear power plants Germany had at the time, only three remain in operation now: Isar 2, Emsland and Neckarwestheim 2, which are operated by German energy firms E.ON, RWE and EnBW, respectively.

Under current plans, the plants, with combined capacity of 4,200 gigawatts (GW), will be shut down by the end of 2022.

WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO KEEP THE PLANTS RUNNING?

It's politically tricky given opposition from the rank and file of the ecologist Greens party, but not impossible.

Under current legislation the remaining operators will lose the right to operate the plants beyond Dec. 31, 2022, the effective end-date for the stations.

Should Germany's network regulator, which is part of the Economy Ministry, decide that they are critical to Germany's security of supply it could allow them to run for longer, which they could technically do.

"Yes, you can extend the life-span of the nuclear-fired power plants ... if there's the will and the operators are on board," said Dirk Uwer, partner at law firm Hengeler Mueller.

Achieving this would still be complex and require parliament to change existing laws, most notably a 2017 deal under which the utilities transferred their decommissioning funds to a public trust.

"There are no longer any prohibitions on thinking," said Marc Ruttloff, partner at law firm Gleiss Lutz, who has advised E.ON on various matters related to nuclear energy policy.

Due to the hurdles, however, chances for an extension are rather low, with Germany's minister for nuclear safety - of the Greens party of which Habeck is also a member - saying on Monday such a move was irresponsible and unsafe.

WHAT ARE THE OPERATORS SAYING?

They're not euphoric.

"For years, we have been doing nothing other than preparing both technically and organisationally for the decommissioning of our plants," a spokesperson for E.ON's nuclear division PreussenElektra said.

The group neither has the nuclear fuel nor the staff that would be required to keep plants going, the spokesperson added.

RWE said its Emsland plant was scheduled to be decommissioned at the end of 2022, by which time its fuel will have been used up, adding there would be high hurdles to overcome, both technically and in terms of getting the necessary approvals, to extend the life-span.

EnBW, however, is less opposed.

"If it is necessary for the security of supply, EnBW is of course prepared to examine measures in an open-minded manner and to provide advice to the German government," it said in e-mailed comments.

(Reporting by Christoph Steitz in Frankfurt and Markus Wacket in Berlin; Editing by Emelia Sithole-Matarise)

Western arms supplies for Ukraine: How are they getting there?

In an unprecedented move, the EU is financing the purchase and delivery of arms and weapons to Ukraine. Other Western countries are committing to arms deliveries, too. But how will they get there and how quickly?


The West is increasing its shipments of lethal arms to Ukraine but faces mounting logistical obstacles

The EU has earmarked €450 million ($503 million) for lethal arms, which include air-defense systems, anti-tank weapons, ammunition, and other military equipment for Ukraine's armed forces. A further €50 million will be spent on providing non-lethal supplies such as fuel, protective gear, helmets, and first-aid kits.

As EU treaties do not allow it to tap into its normal budget for military purposes, the bloc is activating a vehicle called the European Peace Facility, which allows it to provide military aid up to a ceiling of €5 billion.

It comes after a paradigm shift in Germany's defense policy, which saw it sign off on providing lethal weapons to Ukraine, including 1,000 anti-tank weapons and 500 "Stinger" class surface-to-air missiles, thereby reversing its ban on supplying lethal weapons to a war zone.

The US is also stepping up its shipments and providing an additional $350 million (€313 million) in military assistance, including Javelin antitank missiles, Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, small arms and ammunition.

That brings the total of US military aid to Ukraine to $1 billion over the past year and to more than $2.5 billion since 2014.

The logistical challenges

While this signals a huge boost for Ukraine in its effort to repel Russian forces, there are concerns about the logistics involved and the potential obstacles. Questions surround the timing and the routes.

So far, military aid from the West has been delivered by land or air, depending on the type of weapon.

But the airspace over Ukraine is now controlled by Russian fighter jets that could intercept the shipments "predominantly by airstrikes and missile strikes. If they know the routes they can take them under surveillance and look for the specific means of transportation," Gustav Gressel, an expert on Eastern Europe and defense policy with the European Council on Foreign Relations think tank, told DW via email.

The prospect of such a disruption puts the spotlight on Poland, which shares a 535-kilometer (332-mile) long border with Ukraine. The US Army, in particular, has a long history of dispatching forces and equipment through Poland.

And the onus on Poland is increasing following Hungary's refusal to allow lethal arms to transit its territory.

Poland's role

"All of this equipment is basically massing on the Polish border at the moment. Even if Slovakia, for example, wanted to, it's not an easy route because of the geography of the mountain ranges that move from Slovakia down through Romania. So there are two routes: One is close to the Belarusian border, then there's one slightly south," Ed Arnold, a research fellow for European Security at the Royal United Services Institute, a London-based think tank, told DW.

Marc Finaud, head of Arms Proliferation at the Geneva Center for Security Policy, notes that the dynamics on the ground could shift very quickly. "If these convoys or transports would be stopped — if Western countries are under attack, whether they are within NATO or already across the border into Ukraine — that could increase the tensions and the escalation," he told DW.

Arnold says the danger of such an escalation is currently holding back the Russians because "you would be targeting Western resupply."

Still, he says he's surprised that they haven't cut it off "because actually that would useful for their strategy if they could take those two routes. The Russians have the option of moving from the south-west of Belarus and interdicting all of this equipment that's coming in."

Time is of the essence

The other crucial factor is time, which is running out fast for reinforcements to get Ukrainian forces in Kyiv and Kharkiv.

This, says Arnold, is particularly problematic for "the Ukrainian forces on the eastern line of contact who are potentially going to be cut off if they don't move to the west of the Dnieper River soon. They will need to resupply because they're doing the heaviest fighting and they are the best Ukrainian troops from the 95th Air Assault Brigade."

So is there any other way to get the western arms systems to the front lines in Ukraine? "The other possibility is that Ukrainian or foreign fighters could pick things up in Poland and then move over the border, but that's not in great numbers," said Arnold.

At this stage the danger of ammunition supplies drying up is critical, says Arnold. "There's maybe five days left of ammo for the heavier systems the Ukrainians have. The other option they have is to capture Russian abandoned weapons, which will sustain them for a little while, but not a huge amount of time."

Ukraine: The risks of war in a nuclear state

The fear that Russia's invasion of Ukraine could escalate to a nuclear war is real. But what happens if any of the country's 15 nuclear power reactors get caught in the crossfire?

An army helicopter tries to help diffuse radiation during the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster. Now the military could threaten a meltdown if nuclear plants are caught up in the Ukraine war

When the Chernobyl nuclear site in Ukraine was captured by Russian forces last week, the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry warned of the possibility of "another ecological disaster."

Normal radiation levels in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone — which includes four closed reactors, one of which melted down in 1986 and spread radioactive waste across Europe — were exceeded according to Ukraine's state nuclear regulator, reportedly because of military activity in the area.

But, beyond the Chernobyl plant, there are concerns that some of Ukraine's 15 active nuclear reactors could be caught in the crossfire.

"It is a unique situation in the history of nuclear power — in fact in history — that we have a situation where a nation is operating 15 nuclear reactors and is in the middle of a full-scale war," Shaun Burnie, nuclear specialist with Greenpeace East Asia, told DW. The plants provide about half of Ukraine's electricity, though right now only nine of the 15 reactors are operating, Burnie said.

"The idea of building in protection in the event of a full-scale war was never part of a nation's planning, at least in terms of commercial nuclear power," he added.


Though some Cold War-era reactors in the Soviet Union were built underground to ward off military threats, the "enormous facilities" in Ukraine were all built above ground, Burnie said.

"A nuclear power plant is one of the most complex and sensitive industrial installations, which require a very complex set of resources in ready state at all times to keep them safe. This cannot be guaranteed in a war," Burnie and Greenpeace East Asia colleague Jan Vande Putte wrote in a briefing to be released Wednesday on the vulnerability of nuclear plants during military conflict.
Disabled cooling systems could spark radiation leaks

Operating reactors are especially vulnerable in the event of a electricity grid shutdown during wartime. If a plant's power supply was incapacitated due to heavy bombardment in the region, this could disable reactor cooling — and the cooling of spent fuel storage that is is contained within relatively light walls.

In a worst-case scenario, this could lead to a Fukushima-like meltdown and "massive releases of radioactivity," Burnie said.

These anxieties are being fueled by increased military activity to the south of the Zaporizhzhia plant — one of the two largest plants in Europe, it has six reactors and a storage facility for high-level nuclear spent fuel. Armed conflict in the region of Zaporizhzhia "raises the specter of major risks," states the briefing.

The site is already vulnerable, the authors say, as some aging reactors were built and designed half a century ago in the 1970s. Roger Spautz, nuclear campaigner at Greenpeace France and Luxembourg says the original 40-year lifespan of these reactors has already been expanded — as is also the case in France.

"The biggest risk is that spent fuels are hit by a missile or can't be cooled due to the disabled energy system," Spautz said. "You need electricity running 24 hours a day," he said, noting that diesel backup generators may not be able to run for several weeks, which may be necessary in wartime.

There is an unlikely chance of a direct attack, Burnie said, but structures built for spent-fuel containment could be "destroyed accidentally" in the crossfire.
'Installations containing dangerous forces'

"Nuclear power plants are defined as 'installations containing dangerous forces' under international humanitarian law and should never be attacked," said Doug Weir, research and policy director of the UK-based Conflict and Environment Observatory, referring to the Geneva Convention.

Burnie believes that Russia, which has more than twice as many reactors as Ukraine, understands the consequences of a direct attack on these facilities — including nuclear contamination of Russia itself if winds blow in a easterly direction.

"We do not expect to see the deliberate targeting of sites like Zaporizhzhia, but the kinds of heavy weapons that Russia is deploying are not particularly precise," Weir said. "Fighting around such sites must be avoided at all costs."

On Monday, Petro Kotin, head of Ukraine's state-run nuclear power plant operator Energoatom, expressed concern to the the International Atomic Energy Agency about Russian columns of military equipment and artillery "moving in the immediate vicinity" of nuclear facilities.

Informing the IAEA of shelling near the Energoatom plants, Kotin said "highly undesirable threats across the planet" could be the consequence.

In response, he called on the IAEA to intervene and support a 30-kilometer (18-mile) nonconflict zone around the nuclear power plants.


Spautz said another concern was that the Russian military could capture a power plant and not have the staff required to properly manage it. "You need several hundred technical staff who know the plant," he said.

The Greenpeace briefing on the vulnerability of nuclear plants in Ukraine notes that staff will be needed in the event of flooding from the Dnieper river, which flows through the vicinity of the Zaporizhzhia plant.

Should the system of Dnieper dams and reservoirs that provide the cooling water for the Zaporizhzhia reactors be damaged and the supply of water limited, nuclear fuel could begin to overheat and release radiation.

"All these facilities need constant monitoring," Burnie said. "They are not passively safe."


DW RECOMMENDS

Opinion: The real cost of nuclear energy for humans and the planet

Nuclear power will soon be classified as environmentally friendly under the new EU taxonomy. But nothing about it is green or safe, says DW's Jeannette Cwienk.

Going nuclear: Should nations unilaterally decide?

As nations like France extend the life of ageing nuclear energy infrastructure, bordering countries that could suffer most from a meltdown have little say.

AUDIOS AND VIDEOS ON THE TOPIC
Germany's phaseout of nuclear power almost done

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for CHERNOBYL