-
-
Who will face up to the climate change crisis?
Obama and McCain both say global warming a problem, but are their proposals enough to make a difference?
The Democratic and Republican presidential hopefuls put forward their respective energy and environmental platforms last week, addressing offshore drilling, coal, nuclear energy and fuel efficiency. Both John McCain and Barack Obama have said that Global warming is a problem and would make it a top priority. But would they go as far as NASA's Dr. James Hansen says is necessary before reaching what he calls the tipping point? The Real News spoke with Ben Wikler of Avaaz.org and Professor Catherine Gautier about the promises and shortfalls of the candidates' plans.
Ben Wikler is a campaign director for Avaaz.org, a global version of MoveOn.org, where he oversees efforts on climate change, global health, and other issues. Previously, he worked as press secretary for Congressman Sherrod Brown's US Senate campaign in Ohio, and was a founding producer of The Al Franken Show on Air America Radio.
Catherine Gautier is involved in educational aspects of climate change science and policy. Originally from Paris, France, Gautier directs the Institute for Computational Earth Systems Science at the University of California Santa Barbara. the book 'Facing Climate Change Together' was compiled and edited by Catherine Gautier and Jean-Louis Fellous. Obama and McCain both say global warming a problem, but are their proposals enough to make a difference? ... more -
McCain pushes destruction of the environment
Sen. John McCain proposed Wednesday to dramatically increase America's commitment to nuclear power, calling for a crash program to build 45 reactors by 2030 and a long-term goal of building 100 such plants across the country.
On the second day of a campaign swing devoted to energy security, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee also committed to spending $2 billion a year for research and development "to make clean coal a reality" in an effort to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil.
McCain has long been a proponent of nuclear power. But his speech here included unabashed support for an energy source and technology that has been suspect in many communities since the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979, the most serious commercial nuclear accident in U.S. history.
No nuclear power plant has been built in America in more than 30 years, and few U.S. companies have invested in the technology to build new plants. The nation draws about 20% of its electricity from 104 working commercial reactors, but many are nearing the end of the operating period allowed by their licenses.
"We will need to recover all the knowledge and skills that have been lost over three stagnant decades in a highly technical field," McCain told a forum at Missouri State University.
Missouri is considered a key battleground in the fall election, and the Arizona senator promised to return often to campaign in coming months. About two dozen antiwar protesters greeted his arrival here, and police escorted one youth from the auditorium after he loudly interrupted the speech.
snip
McCain did not explain how he would dispose of the radioactive waste from the dozens of new reactors he proposed, or how he would deal with the intense political passions the issue generates.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John McCain, just another shill for industries trying to sell us a product as green that is far from it. And the truly frustrating part of all of this is that Barack Obama essentially shares the same viewpoint on nuclear being part of the solution as well as touting "clean coal." Forty five plants by 2030 is a death sentence for this environment. Notice McCain does not mention how long it would take to build these monstrosities or the CO2 and other gases expended in mining the uranium that will poison our land, waterways, and citizens in the process. Just ask Native Americans in New Mexico and Nevada about that.
And he doesn't tell us how he plans to do away with the toxic waste that is radioactive for thousands of years... nor does he tell us the BILLIONS that it would cost to build these monstrosities all while the Arctic and Greenland continue to melt. Nuclear is not the solution. It is simply a way for corporate sponsors of political candidates to keep the status quo and to continue to deflle this planet for profit under the guise of caring about it.
And once these plants were built they would also be mini nuclear bombs just waiting to be hit. No wonder so many agree with McCain in the Congress about this. This is also tied to the nuclear posture review and their attempt to look peaceful while continuing to build nuclear weapons. And it is sad because if the Democratic party actually had a candidate who had courage enough to come out against nuclear and coal they might actually look like a party that wants change. I can't even say I would vote for one over the other on this because they are basically the same. So it is the people who will have to look beyond their political partisanship to see the truth and hold all of their feet to the fire on this. Nuclear and clean coal are scams that need to be outted for what they are, and those politicians touting them regardless of party need to know that people will no longer tolerate business as usual. Sen. John McCain proposed Wednesday to dramatically increase America's commitment to nuclear power, calling for a crash program t... more -
Nuclear subsidies in Lieberman/Warner bill draw criticism
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? The leaders of six national environmental and public interest groups warned today that the impending Lieberman-Warner climate change b... more -
Nuclear energy heats up U.S. Presidential race
John McCain embraces it. Barack Obama wants to address its flaws. Hillary Clinton is cautious but not opposed.
Nuclear power -- controversial in the United States and throughout much of the world -- is on the agenda of all three US presidential candidates as they seek to diversify the country's energy mix and reduce dependence on foreign oil.
Interviews with top policy advisers to the three White House hopefuls reveal a varied approach to the technology that some observers see as a necessary answer to fighting climate change and others view as expensive and dangerous.
McCain, a Republican senator from Arizona who has wrapped up his party's nomination, is by far the most enthusiastic about the carbon-free fuel source, regularly calling for more nuclear power plants at campaign stops throughout the nation.
"I believe we are not going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and become energy independent ... unless we use nuclear power and use it in great abundance," he said in North Carolina on Monday.
McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin said nuclear power faced an "uneven playing field" from years of political opposition.
"Sen. McCain would eliminate the political obstacles that hinder nuclear power, allow it to compete more effectively, and likely increase its share of the US energy portfolio," he said.
Nuclear energy accounts for about 20 percent of US electricity supply, a figure that could rise if regulations on carbon dioxide emissions are imposed, making greenhouse gas emission-free nuclear plants more attractive.
There are 104 operating nuclear reactors nationwide.
Obama, an Illinois senator and the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, shares McCain's belief that nuclear energy is part of the solution to climate change.
But he opposes new federal subsidies and would work to address concerns about safety and waste storage, senior adviser Jason Grumet said.
"Because of the fact that climate change is a species-challenging dilemma, we don't have the luxury to do anything but try to solve those real problems," associated with nuclear technology, he said.
Clinton, a New York senator, prefers using renewable fuels to fight climate change because of nuclear energy's risks.
"Hillary has real concerns about nuclear power because of the issues around safety, waste disposal and proliferation," policy director Neera Tandem said.
"She opposes new subsidies for nuclear power, but would continue research focused on lowering costs and improving safety." John McCain embraces it. Barack Obama wants to address its flaws. Hillary Clinton is cautious but not opposed. ... more -
What nuclear renaissance?
If you listen to the rhetoric, nuclear power is back. Smashing atoms will replace burning carbon-based coal, gas and oil. In the face of a disaster movie-like future of runaway climate change--bringing drought, floods, famine and social breakdown--carbon-free nukes are cast as the deus ex machina to save us at the last minute.
Even a few greens support nuclear power--most famously James Lovelock, father of the Gaia theory. In the popular press, discussion of nuclear energy is dominated by its boosters, thanks in part to sophisticated industry PR.
In an effort to jump-start a "nuclear renaissance," the Bush Administration has pushed one package of subsidies after another. For the past two years a program of federal loan guarantees has sat waiting for utilities to build nukes. Last year's appropriations bill set the total amount on offer at $18.5 billion. And now the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill is gaining momentum and will likely accrue amendments that will offer yet more money.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) expects up to thirty applications to be filed to build atomic plants; five or six of those proposals are moving through the complicated multi-stage process. But no new atomic power stations have been fully licensed or have broken ground. And two newly proposed projects have just been shelved.
The fact is, nuclear power has not recovered from the crisis that hit it three decades ago with the reactor fire at Browns Ferry, Alabama, in 1975 and the meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979. Then came what seemed to be the coup de grâce: Chernobyl in 1986. The last nuclear power plant ordered by a US utility, the TVA's Watts Bar 1, began construction in 1973 and took twenty-three years to complete. Nuclear power has been in steady decline worldwide since 1984, with almost as many plants canceled as completed since then.
All of which raises the question: why is the much-storied "nuclear renaissance" so slow to get rolling? Who is holding up the show? In a nutshell, blame Warren Buffett and the banks--they won't put up the cash.
"Wall street doesn't like nuclear power," says Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. The fundamental fact is that nuclear power is too expensive and risky to attract the necessary commercial investors. Even with vast government subsidies, it is difficult or almost impossible to get proper financing and insurance. The massive federal subsidies on offer will cover up to 80 percent of construction costs of several nuclear power plants in addition to generous production tax credits, as well as risk insurance. But consider this: the average two-reactor nuclear power plant is estimated to cost $10 billion to $18 billion to build. That's before cost overruns, and no US nuclear power plant has ever been delivered on time or on budget.
much more at the link. If you listen to the rhetoric, nuclear power is back. Smashing atoms will replace burning carbon-based coal, gas and oil. In the face ... more
-
related topics
nuclear subsidies
Contributors (47)
nuclear subsidies
