National environmental group endorses Barack Obama for president

Obama is an elitist! That's why he's not for a the short term tax relief. A few dollars here and there wouldn't affect his budget, so he sees no point in it. That's all the tax holiday means. We get a little deserved relief while bigger things are worked on. If I can save $10 in tax, then I can buy a gallon of milk, a bread and a dozen of eggs. That's how us working people think. What's wrong with that. I'm for the rebate, the holiday, and anything else they'll give me, because I know that in the long run, they'll ALL be responsible for taking more from me. I'm all for welfare. It's one of the only ways to get money back to our communities from the taxes the federal government steals from us. AND they are going to steal as much as they can from us. They know pretty close to that exact point at how much they can tax us before we actually revolt and they will keep it as close to that point as they possibly can. SO, it is our right and our duty to get back as much as possible. I know I have paid vastly more taxes in my life than I have gotten benefit out of. If the government wants to give me a rebate or a holiday, which I'm sure won't be much of a holiday, then I am for it. Voting with our dollars is where it really counts. If people give a little more thought to their gas guzzling buying ways, the prices would come down, for gas and for the cars that guzzle it.

Mr. Nuclear ethanol man? Not playing poltical games by voting for the Bush Cheney Energy Bill? Clearly they have then not read his policy or all his votes, or watched his FOX interview where he basically stated corporations that pollute should be free to police themselves because of all of the "red tape" involved. But I guess it is hard to pick anyone when none of their plans on climate change really fit the bill. So just go with the one 'leading' so you don't lool like you picked a loser.

It is easy to just splay a derogatory comment on this website. So I'm hoping this doesn't burn too much.
If you look at the facts - Obama seems to be the only one doing so - than you will see the pointlessness of a federal gas tax holiday, except of course for strictly political manipulation of people. Honestly, how does it feel to be a statistic - If X does this "maneuver" that Y number of voters will side with X? But back to the issue, using basic economic theory there is no way to prevent the traditional supply/demand loop from hiking up gas prices this crucial 18 cents so you can save a meager amount of money that you could save yourself by not driving as much, or by slowing down. Besides it has already been highlighted that the oil companies have no qualm squelching as much profit as possible out of the consumers - so don't expect them to allow a price drop in the first place.
Now what do most people really know about nuclear power other than being completely ignorant of it and therefore being irrationally scared. (I have worked in the field for the last 4 years, and believe me, it is so safe it makes my head hurt.) I agree that ethanol is ridiculous for the environment, and that nuclear power in the long run shouldn't be the mainstay of any energy grid (but at least it does not generate carbon or any other warming gas). Though overall, I think Jan, we may have similar concerns about the environment. Though for me, it is pivotal to begin fixing our current national, and worldwide problems by electing a president for Americans. Can you not see that Obama is the only person trying to get into office for the people, not the party or personal prowess?
Another point - Elitism. Who cares? Honestly if you define elitism with money than Hillary's your bag, but overall these are PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES. I hope they are better than me - wealthier, and have higher morals than me.
Lastly to shove some jab about endorsing a candidate because they are in the non-definable "leading" position of the ridiculous democratic primary race is petty. And I have read many of these posts, you make a lot of petty viscous comments Jan.
Please make better arguements in the future. And refrain from regurgitating awful mass media crap.

Thanks for your post Johnny500. I agree that a lot of the posts on this site are just plain bashing (and will admit that I succumb to that urge from time to time) and I also agree with you opinion about the Gas Tax Holiday...simple political pandering (and a really dumb idea) that should tell us a lot about the two candidates who support it.

But I'd like to ask you about something you said in your post. You mentioned that you work in the nuclear industry and that it is "so safe it makes my head hurt." I know all three candidates support nuclear energy in some form and I have to say it worries me. Sounds like you might know something about the subject...can you talk about the safety issues and about waste storage? I'll try to be open minded and not attack your response and maybe others could try to do the same.

Thanks.

krag-

While I'm probably not the most qualified to speak on the subject I do know of some articles that advocate nuclear reactors as the only reasonable energy solution for the immediate future.

An article at discover.com entitled "Is Nuclear Energy Our Best Hope?" talks about environmentalist James Lovelock advocating for nuclear energy. A good place to start.

The gas tax is a sham and ridiculous. I dont think americans are dumb enough to fall for it.

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/may/02-is-nuclear-energy-our-best-hope

Thanks Brad...here's the link. Interesting article.

Hmmm OBAMA wins a cool endorsement. JAN for Gore ATTACKS him for it. This is a pattern.

Nuclear waste, storage, and safety.

Nuclear waste is stored, currently, in temporary storage pools filled with boric acid in most cases. The problem with this spent fuel is that the half-lives are extremely long. Meaning you have a lot of radiation being emitted from useless radioactive material. Soon they plan to use a long term storage facility in the Yucca Mountain (2017).
Interestingly enough there are ways to prevent this build up of useless environmentally hazardous material by reprocessing it, reusing it, and thereby riding it of it's long term, most damaging effects. The referenced article explains why these options have not been explored further. http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed010108d.cfm
For safety. The nuclear community is so hell-bent on ensuring public opinion is satisfied they'll go to nearly any length to ensure zero-errors. Now this doesn't mean errors do not occur, after all human beings still run these facilities, but they are mitigated with so much oversight, administration, problem solving, fact-finding, continuous training that it is a wonder in safety. A padded room theory. Anyways the industry knows if it is to survive a Three Mile Island incident can never reoccur, and if you read any of the technical data on TMI the whole thing was contained.
Besides the added bonus of a nuclear power plant is the nature preserve created indirectly around it because no one wants to be close.

Thanks Johnny...I'll take a look.

goolkasian,
How true, how true.
It's not JanforGore it's JanforHillary

Nuclear reactors may be safe, but getting the fuel to feed them hurts the environment and plagues the people who are near where the fuel is mined. And then there's the waste 'disposal', which basically entails finding some mountain or isolated area to bury them with protective shielding. I wouldn't call it a perfect method of energy production.

I don't think anyone is suggesting it's a perfect method. I'm also not sure what you are referring to about this being a game or a competition, who is suggesting either? When did presenting more than one side of an issue become a bad thing? I am interested in getting more information on this subject (particularly the dangers of uranium mining). Brad's article is about James Lovelock, revered in the green movement for developing the Gaia hypothesis, who is for nuclear energy. Like most issues, it looks like this one isn't as black and white as some people might suggest.

Thanks to everyone for providing information on both sides of this issue. Keep 'em coming.

Isn't it sad that we've come to this point where an environmental group is making an endorsement purely based on a political pander sham. These candidates have not been asked about the environment, they have not talked about the environment, and it's a crime because the environment should be, by far, the most important issue in this election.

After reading through the posts here I decided to educate myself a little. I don't claim to know all there is to know about nuclear power and the risks associated but from what I’ve read nuclear power is currently the only viable option for a better future. It IS far from perfect but it IS a better option at this point than coal or other fossil fuels.

Nuclear power is a very young concept, it will get better. In one of the links I’ve posted it describes new ways in which to “burn” the uranium so that the radioactive residue is instead consumed in the process of the reaction. I won’t pretend to know what exactly that means but it sounds like a step in the right direction. I also noted in one of the links that for the first time viable fusion reactors could be on the horizon.

Here are some links that I found helpful:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/128

http://www.texasep.org/html/wst/wst_6ird_mnng.html

http://www.wise-uranium.org/uwai.html

DON’T read these links and consider yourself fully informed. There is always another perspective out there (for instance, none of the links describe how the uranium is mined in less-developed countries like India.)

Keep an open mind and never, not ask a question ;)

Actually Hillary said she would make the oil companies pay the gas tax instead of the people. That should become a permanent plan.

The annual conference of the Nuclear Energy Institute (i.e. nuclear power industry) is being held at the Fairmont Hotel in Chicago today through Wed. Part of the PR fraud/blitz is to get right-wing military pro-nuclear people to blog on environmental websites touting the wonders of nuclear power. Too bad it's happening on this website. Keep your chin up JanforGore!

futuregen: will do. I know we are on the right side on this.

As I understand the economists take on the gas tax holiday, the concern is that increasing demand without increasing supply would cause an increase in cost. So even if a windfall profit tax somehow made it past Bush (it wouldn't) the oil companies would only get the money back with the increase in cost. With the result being less money and jobs for infrastructure and increased oil consumption. Are the economists wrong? How is this a good policy for the environment?

JanforGore, ObiaMan here. Were you talking to me? Couldn't follow you. I ain't never voted for any republican in my entire life.
It's the retards in our country, the yuppies that think they're going to the top with the rest of elitists, that vote like idiots and get pigs in office. They're all educated, but oh so stupid. Someone promises change and they're sold. I've heard that story from every politician in my life.
The facts of the matter are - We've had a republican president for 7 years now and we had a heavily republican Congress, until recently, for so long I can't even remember any more.
And look where the middle class is now. It is imperative that this country elect a Democrat in the fall and maybe within a few years we can get some of this mess turned around.

Johnny500, good evening.
You talking to me or somebody named Jan?
"If you look at the facts - only Obama seems to be doing ------"
Doing what? What has he done? What has he done?
Talked up a dang good story? What has he done? Where are the people proclaiming all the good things he has worked for? I never heard of Obama before a year or so ago. How about you?
I've been for Hillary from day one. The gas tax holiday is almost a non issue for me.
And nuclear?!?! How much has that cost us over all these years? Think Chernoble. It may be OK as long as those in charge are honorable. But we all know that a crapshoot. Some dang republican is always trying to cut costs, cut jobs, cut pay, cut corners, cut quality.
What's wrong with solar power? What's wrong with wind power? What's wrong with hydroelectric? Or any number of other of nature's gifts? For all the money it's cost all of us, the only reason we don't have cheap, safe, renewable energy is because of the greed of those in power.
Finally, you hope they have higher morals than you?????????? They're all politicians.
I'm going on what I feel.
We bought a piece of property up in Arkansas over 30 years ago. That's when I first heard about Bill and Hillary and everywhere you went in Arkansas, they seemed to be highly regarded and loved for what they did for their state and the working people in it. She is extremely knowledgeable and there's no doubt she would have Bill as an adviser and many other people that was on his team. It's not just her, it's the whole team that would come to power. Who's Obama's advisers??? His preacher man????

Why is the gas tax holiday a non issue? Seems to be one of the major reasons Friends of the Earth endorsed Obama and that's the topic of this post. Under the plan Senators Clinton and McCain propose in order to save $100 over the course of the summer an average driver would have to drive 979 miles a week...each week. Why in the world would we want to encourage that kind of behavior? Why the silence about the impact this obvious pandering would have on the environment?

Obama is right, the oil companies would just increase the price to cover having to pay the tax. It would save about 2.80 tax for a twenty gallon tank, We would lose the combined amount for highway funds and it would cost jobs and needed highway and bridge repair. Common sense dictates we not do this, we don't need anymore bridge collapses.

Forgive me here, but -------
Johnny thinks nuclear is safe. Johnny works for the nuclear industry.
I have a hard time bashing big oil, I live in oil country and have worked in the oil fields and most of my family has also or still does. But they are ripping us off. And they're ripping us here in oil country off more than they're ripping the rest of ya'll off. They're responsible for a lot of the destruction to our wetlands down here in south Louisiana. It's hard even for us down here to comprehend what they're responsible for. Most people have no clue.
But-t-t, when the rest of the nation is in recession, we're usually cruising along, wondering what all the fuss is about.
So, it's all a matter of view point.
I'm sure the poor b*****d coal miners want more coal to be mined and burned because it's the best thing!!!!!
Nothing is any safer than the integrity of those in charge of it and that changes regularly, because someone is always fighting to become in charge for their own personal agenda.

Brad!! Discover.com!!!
Maybe good, maybe not. Maybe truthful, maybe not.
Case in point. I say a show recently. Seems that one of the founders of GreenPeace is now an advocate for the Nuclear industry, preaching all the virtues of the industry. Turns out he's being paid millions to be their spokesman. Is he being truthful or has he just found himself a dang good income because of his involvement over all those years?????? He certainly talks a good story, proclaiming all sorts of good things about nuclear energy.
You always have to look at the source, and how much they're getting paid. Money does talk, loud and clear. And it can really produce some convincing tales.

Like I mentioned in my post above, nuclear energy is not the holy grail of energy production. It has its faults, but when compared to other energy production methods it is simply the best answer we have for the position the world is in today. I completely agree with anyone who says “gee, a world run by solar/tidal/hydro/geothermal/wind power would be great, no emissions!” The fact is that the technology simply doesn’t exist.

Solar panels are great and if everyone supplemented their energy intake by throwing a few on their roof then awesome, but they aren’t efficient enough to fix our energy problem anytime soon.

Tidal power is very inconsistent and difficult to maintain. It’s a no brainier that this source of energy couldn’t even begin to meet our needs.

Hydroelectric energy is one of the few developed “clean” energy sources. Other than the effect on the environment from the initial construction of the dam it’s very promising. However, finding a suitable location to build one is another thing entirely.

Geothermal power is another energy source that relies on “lucky” natural geography. In the future perhaps we’ll be able to safely and efficiently utilize deeper pockets of geothermal power.

Wind power, like ethanol, would take up too much space in its current form. If we found a way to produce more efficient turbines then one day it could play a larger roll in energy production. I read in Krag’s post that to fully utilize wind energy we would need the equivalent of a Texas sized chunk of land where the wind constantly blows. Not really an option.

I realize no one is saying that we have to go with one source as our country’s power source but in any combination no matter how you look at it, the above sources can’t make up for the amount of energy we take in. Yes, it would help but no, we would need a more reliable and developed source of energy. That leaves fossil fuels and nuclear energy.

If you stop and look at all the options nuclear power is the best answer as of now. Future technologies could change that, but we simply don’t have the time to develop them, we need to do something now. The answer will include a greater focus in all renewable power sources but it will include nuclear power to pick up where they leave off.

To be fair...that was brad149's article, I just found the link.