TV Schedule

Nuclear subsidies in Lieberman/Warner bill draw criticism


  3. JanforGore
  4. related topics
The leaders of six national environmental and public interest groups warned today that the impending Lieberman-Warner climate change bill could contain at least $544 billion in taxpayer subsidies for nuclear energy. This would represent the biggest federal handout in history for the nuclear industry, already the most heavily subsidized energy sector over the past 50 years.

The Lieberman-Warner bill is expected to be on the Senate floor in early June. According to an analysis conducted by Friends of the Earth, the bill contains close to half a trillion dollars that can be accessed by the nuclear energy industry under a vaguely entitled category for “zero and low carbon energy technologies.” Nuclear is the only energy industry that could fall under this category that does not have a specific carve elsewhere; funding for renewable energy is identified separately in the bill.

“Although the word ‘nuclear’ has been carefully omitted from the bill, it is clear that this is a covert attempt to bolster a failing nuclear power industry in the name of addressing climate change,” said Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth. “It’s time to focus on real global warming solutions like solar, wind and energy efficiency, not to further fatten the moribund nuclear calf.”

The environmental and public interest group leaders decried the bill’s record-breaking giveaway to nuclear power which would encourage new construction of nuclear plants, the least-effective way of reducing carbon emissions because of their long construction times and high costs.

"After 50 years of unresolved safety and waste disposal issues, it perplexes many Americans why Congress would support massive subsidies for the nuclear industry," said John Passacantando, Executive Director of Greenpeace USA. "Nuclear power is a dirty and dangerous distraction from real global warming solutions," said Passacantando. "When both Wall Street and Warren Buffet think nuclear is a risky investment, Congress should not waste American tax dollars to further subsidize this 1950s technology."
~~~~
So not only does this bill disguised as a climate change bill when it is nothing more than a pork bill to polluters call for investment in CSS systems for the coal industry to allow themmore time to pollute, but the biggest subsidies for the nuclear industry. And this is the best we can do?
JanforGore

16 responses // Nuclear subsidies in Lieberman/Warner bill draw criticism

  • We need to be active against this bill. I am sure there will be action requests coming from the major political groups.

    We have been going on about this in discussions on Current and a lot of people are not happy about the prospects of more nuclear power plants.

    I used to be in favor of them, but since reading much of the information about the continuing safety issues and the potential for disaster. All it would take is one disaster to ruin the nation. Is that really worth it?
    jubal
  • No jubal, it isn't worth it... 544 BILLION dollars in 'taxpayer' subsidies? Where are we going to get the money in the first place? We could take that money and give Americans healthcare instead of giving subsidies to lobbies whose industries are actually making people sick! We could take that money and use it to make solar arrays in the desert that could power thousands of American homes cheaper and safer! What the hell is this Congress thinking? And I also am wary because of Lieberman and those in this Congress who want to go into Iran... I fear this is just an excuse to tie this into nuclear weapons and their nuclear posture review.This money may also go to new weapons, and that is something we can't allow. We are going in the wrong direction on climate policy and peace. And I know I probably sound like a broken record on this, but this is truly a matter of life and death.
    JanforGore
  • http://action.foe.org/content.jsp?content_KEY=3723&t=Li...
    Friends of The Earth: Lieberman/Warner Bill: FIx it or Ditch it.
    JanforGore
  • http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/releases/pr2007-10-...
    Statement from The Sierra Club
    JanforGore
  • http://www.nirs.org/alerts/02-13-2008/1
    Statement from NIRS and how you can contact Senators to demand a Real climate change bill.
    JanforGore
  • http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/05/13/lieberman-war...
    Statement from the Youth Climate Movement. Nice to see some youth give a damn about this planet This is a concise encapsulation of this bill. If you are a young person, this bill should concern you.
    JanforGore
  • The bill will be debated on the Senate floor between June 2-9. It will be interesting to see which Senators still running for President sit this one out or vote and how they vote if it gets that far as is. It will be a true indication of where they really stand regarding addressing climate change instead of just continuing to appease polluters.

    Great to see such participation by so many caring people on this topic that is so important to our future.
    JanforGore
  • JanforGore, you are so right about the development of new weapons. You know they will do just that. They probably already have the designs to build small yield nuclear devices that could vaporize say one building, or a car or a truck. I read this article about the miniaturization of nuclear weapons, I wish I could remember what source it was from.

    It pointed to this kind of technology already existing in test locations. The article talked about energy weapons that discharge plasma energy and electrical and laser blasts. Advances in armor and integrated vision technologies. It was a little frightening to think about.

    This kind of money could easily allow for funds to be diverted into "black" secret operations.

    We need to voice our opinions with facts to the Senators willing to hear. Is there some kind of resource to find out who stands in favor and against the poliferation of nuclear energy?
    jubal
  • I don't trust Lieberman.
    jubal
  • * Besides the inherent problems of carbon trading, the bill gives tradeable carbon permits valued at one trillion dollars to the fossil fuel industry for free.
    * The revenue from the portion of carbon permits that are auction is directed straight back to back to polluters through hundreds of billions of dollars of subsidies to the coal, oil and automobile industries, and nuclear power.
    * According to an aide to Senator Lieberman, the bill “would be the most historic incentive for nuclear in the history of the US“. It is estimated that throughout various incentives in the bill $500 billion could go to nuclear power.
    * Carbon permits are given first - before all other auctions - to NEW coal facilities, giving incentive to new coal construction before other forms of energy.
    * The bills targets are well below what the UN recommends, especially the short term goals: virtually no national reductions in emissions would occur before 2020.
    jubal
  • NIRS is a good source for that.The link is above.And yes, it is even part of their nuclear posture review to not only make smaller bombs but to also eventually militarize space. We have to be very careful about where this money goes, and it looks from other articles I have read as though senators are being told to go with this bill. Nothing has changed in the halls of government here and I don't think it will in the next four years either, especially with a president on both sides that is for nuclear power as a solution to the climate crisis. Very discouraging.

    And thank you Jubal for your conversation here. I at least hope that those who decided not to discuss this here will do so with their Senators, including Obama who seems to get a free ride on this. He actually co-sponsored another bill with Lieberman regarding climate change tied to a cap and trade scheme, so I can assume to know pretty well where he stands on this. So as I stated it will be interesting to see should this come to a vote where he stands on these subsidies and this bill that in total will only call for about 60% reductions in emissions by 2050.This is then a scam for our planet and we need to fight it unless it is changed drastically.
    JanforGore
  • I agree with JanForGore: there is important information about this piece of legislation that people need to know, namely that the original bill, while well-intentioned, was already weak, but now that McCain is jumping on board, it's quicly becoming a disaster. Leiberman and McCain are fighting to put ammendments to the legislation that would cut funding for renewable sources of energy, like solar and wind, in favor of adding huge subsidies for nuclear energy. The environmental crisis is like a house on fire, and instead of running full speed to the nearest fire hyrdrant and hosing down the fire, this administration is standing there with squirt bottles so they can take credit for "doing their part" to protect the environment. This pathetic bill is not the solution.
    LWSheehan
  • LWSheehan, that was a great metaphor for acts like this. I wish I could put my feelings down as well as everyone who has responded to this. I am only 19 and never been that interested in politics. But now that I can vote and it really is in my hands, I am trying to keep myself more informed. I do not know all the facts and details, or really any of them. All I know is that for someone my age trying to come into this game, it is very disheartening to see so much corruption. I always knew that corruption could be found in politics at any given moment, but I just never thought it could go to such an extent. And because I don't know the facts, I am susceptible to being called an idealist and attacked. I don't think idealism is a bad thing at all. For someone like me coming in with no facts or figures, I only address these issues with my heart. It's easy for me to get confused or mislead, as well. Thank you Jan for bringing me to this article because the other one I found praised this bill. It was actually the first I had heard of this bill, so of course the only information I knew was positive. That's the hard thing about me trying to stay involved. It is so easy to be lead astray with "famous-sounding words," You know what I mean? Does anyone have advice for me?
    Sara_Airey
  • Sara: I think you're doing great so far! Just the mere fact that you are aware of the complexities out there, getting involved, and eager to learn is a wonderful sign that you are well on your way toward becoming an informed voter. I agree that there is nothing wrong with idealism. That is what we are lacking so much of in modern politics. Pair up that idealistic optimism with knowledge and you've got a powerful tool of change. I look for that when I'm deciding which candidate to support. For me, I found inspiration in Obama: his confidence that by working together, we can make meaningful changes inspires me. Cynics look at this idealism and see only foolhardy hopes; optimists look at it and see blueprints for a better future.
    LWSheehan
  • Thank you Jan For Everyone! Now you are more than a saint! Call your Senators NOW! Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121.
    futuregen
  • Just doing my part. They will hear me next week.
    JanforGore

Add your response

Login/Registration is required to add a response.