Nuclear Industry Moves to Hijack Obama’s Climate Bill
June 13, 2009 · Print This Article
Republicans in Congress have teamed up with the nuclear industry to create an alternative climate change bill that would double the number of nuclear reactors in the US by 2030. However, saying it’s a ‘climate change’ bill is a bit of an exaggeration: climate change is only mentioned in it one time. The spoiler bill is all about getting the nuclear industry a giant piece of the green economy pie.
From The Guardian:
“If you care about climate change … 100 new nuclear power plants is the place to start,” said Lamar Alexander, a Republican from Tennessee who is the strongest proponent of nuclear power in the Senate.
Another crucial element of the Republicans’ “nuclear renaissance” are two rival proposals for a “clean energy bank” now before Congress. One version, under consideration by the Senate, envisages almost unlimited federal loan guarantees to encourage wind and solar power and, nuclear proponents hope, new reactors.
Ellen Vancko, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said: “The nuclear industry would like to be able to finance the next generation of nuclear reactors using the faith and credit of the US taxpayer to underwrite the expansion. They don’t want to be responsible for any risk of financing these plants and neither do their lenders.”
The cost of each new nuclear plant ranges between $5 billion and $12 billion dollars – no chump change, especially compared to other sources of renewable energy. Another problem is the fact that there’s still no place to permanently store nuclear waste.
Republicans just. Don’t. Get. It.
Link [The Guardian]
Photo credit: Flickr user christian.senger
- Women Can Combat Climate Change
- Science Must Guide U.S. Policies on Nuclear Weapons and Global Warming
- Pollution in Delhi
Related Posts:
McCain Wants 45 New Nuclear Reactors by 2030Climate Bill Will Cost Consumers Way Less than Republicans Claim
Green Meme Killers: Nukes Are Good For You
GOP Politicians Parrot False Climate Bill Talking Points
John McCain Announces Climate Change Tour; America Scratches its Head
TheClean.org has clearly stated why we want this bill changed, but we also acknowledge that some people, including many environmentalists, energy economists, members of Congress, and even some of our own activists, are still conflicted on whether or not they support the legislation.
They wonder if they should support something that takes a few steps in the right direction but also, in so many ways, continues the status quo and, quite frankly, actually confirms and increases coal- and nuclear-based energy.
With the bill passed we have to ask what now? We must also ask them to ask themselves the questions below. There are just 10 things we asked ourselves when determining whether or not to support this bill.
1) Many supporters of ACES have argued “this is the best we can get given the circumstances” or that this bill “is a beginning.” If so, the central question for community organizers is: what is the next step? How will we obtain more meaningful and effective action on energy policy and climate change if we accept that these are the “circumstances”? When or how will we be able to improve the circumstances that are produced by this incomplete Act?
2) Given that the fossil-fuel industry is unwilling to agree to reduce carbon any further than the current legislation, and given that many environmental groups have acquiesced to the industry’s terms in the name of “getting something done”, what is the strategy for getting an energy bill that will reduce carbon enough to actually slow global warming? When will that bill happen? Will it be when the Democrats control Congress, the Senate, and the Presidency? (Hint: they already do.)
3) Since President Obama is likely to sign the bill with great fanfare, what will the public take away from this? Will they see it as a “win”–that the problem is solved? If so, what will that mean for pushing for the needed steps later? How will the public be mobilized to push their Representatives when the official and media message is that this is “landmark” legislation?
4) If this bill is signed, coal’s role in America’s energy mix will be set for the next two decades. What strategies can victims of the coal industry use to convince Washington that the industry is still undertaking destructive and hazardous mining methods such as longwall mining and mountaintop removal coal mining?
5) Why are taxpayers about to ‘invest’ billions in the carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) of coal if Wall Street has taken a pass?
6) If our energy policy is so predicated on the workability of CCS and the inevitability of reliance on coal, what happens if CCS is not workable, or workable in time? Where are the sequestration sites? What are the estimates for storage capacity? What happens to local communities if there is an unexpected slow or sudden large release of CO2? Do the communities know the potential risk they are taking? Why are we giving billions of dollars to an industry without answers to these fundamental questions?
7) If mountaintop removal and the serious impact on water resources in the West are factored in, what is the true cost of coal for our future?
9) What is the execution plan for the regulation of the cap and trade provisions of the bill? How can we ask Americans to accept a new “market” without a clear regulatory process, especially after the lack of a clear regulatory process just caused the collapse of our financial sector?
10) Why are we not meeting the necessary reductions in carbon as put forth by science?
These questions must be answered. The stakes are too high. The American public deserves a bill that represents their long-term energy, economic, and security interests. We deserve better than a bill created by the conversation Washington insiders have amongst themselves. We deserve leadership, not the lowest common denominator. We voted overwhelmingly for these things in 2006 and this bill does not represent that intention.
These aren’t minor uncertainties of a big bill, or things that can be “hammered out later.” In the view of most participants in CLEAN these are fundamental questions that point to deep underlying flaws with the legislation. Flaws that will lead to inevitable failures with serious, if not devastating, human consequences.
We still have time to deal with these critical questions. We must stay organized and keep pushing for debate of these important issues.