Gregory Boyd's book, The Myth of a Christian Nation, 2007, Zondervan, has proven an embarrassment to Evangelical ministers like Huckabee. It is the biblical case for separation of church and state. But the Religious Right goes ballistic against 'varnmentlists' as if there were an equivalent argument against concern for the environment. So, it is interesting that Huckabee expresses sympathy for some church responsibility for stewardship for the Earth.
See about the leader of the Christian environmental activism, Peter Illyn here: http://www.restoringeden.org/about/staff

Peter's ministry sees war as an ecological disaster expressing the ultimate abomination in God's Creation. Too bad Huckabee cannot make that war connection; to see the significance of God's gift to mankind being desecrated by 'Christian' soldier murderers.

Huckabee needs to be questioned about his attitude toward the consistency of being both pro-life and pro-war. ron Paul is the only candidate who is consistent in being totally pro-life and into non-violence; who's heros are Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

Think about the strategy of a Libertarian President with a Democratically controlled Congress (less the Blue Dogs, hopefully). Where their issues agree are with the anti-war and non-intervention in foreign affairs and anti-corporatism. Here then there would first be change; %55 of the Federal defense budget freed for domestic revitalization and R&D for environmental revolution.

Lets hope Ron Paul can get the Republican nomination and with a little Dem crossover help!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't see how it is green to support nuclear power-Obama supports it and he is so wrong-it is the reason I am supporting Edwards-he gets it-read Walter Russell's "Atomic Suicide" if you want to know how deadly this technology is to the planet-it is so irresponsible of Obama to support nuclear power-it shows either his lack of knowledge about this very important issue, or his compliance with the nuclear lobby-this is why I see him as the status quo candidate, like Hillary-they don't have the courage to stand up to these powerful interests for the good of humanity, the way Edwards will.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Both I and my environmentalist colleagues were appalled when Obama endorsed coal-to-liquids, a process that produces staggering amounts of greenhouse gases. We were somewhat reassured when we were told that he knows he blew it. His later qualification -- that coal-to-liquids must actually result in 20 percent reductions in carbon dioxide -- is somewhat encouraging. I hope he will be more careful about what energy sources he supports in the future. As for Mike Huckabee, he is a raving fruitcake and it doesnt matter what he thinks about global warming.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

..........the environment, but wait until his future corporate sponsors complain. Money trumps genuine concern, for a politician, every time. Hickabilly, who thinks "god," whatever that is, is responsible for his Iowa win, should be subjected to electroshock therapy until his brain, if any, runs out his ears.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Did you know that enough URANIUM goes up the
smokestack or into the cinders of a coal-fired power plant
to Fully fuel a nuclear power plant with the same output?
See:
http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-
34/text/coalmain.html
If breeding of thorium into uranium and using plutonium as
fuel are allowed, enough uranium and thorium go up the
smokestack of one coal-fired power plant to fully fuel 500
nuclear power plants of the same size. That isn't all that
goes up the smokestacks of coal-fired power plants.
Arsenic and lead are also among the 73 elements in coal
smoke, and the quantities are worthy of commercial
production. Did you know that you get 100 times as much
radiation from a coal-fired power plant as from a nuclear
power plant?
Have you ever heard of background radiation? The natural
background radiation that has been there since the
beginning of time is 1000 times what you get from a
nuclear power plant or 10 times what you get from a coal-
fired power plant. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation
or http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2000_1.html
If the safety level of nuclear power plants were
LOWERED to the same level as coal-fired power plants,
the resulting [nuclear] electricity would be very cheap
indeed and nuclear power would be very efficient.
I have NO connection with the nuclear power industry.
It is just that I would rather not go extinct because of global
warming. The Existential Risk that is virtually certain to
happen is the same as the End Permian mass extinction:
Hydrogen Sulfide. It is possible to avoid it, but the power
of wealth must be overcome. Coal is a $100 Billion [US]
industry in the US alone.
download from:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00037A5D-
A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000&sc=I100322
from the October 2006 issue of Scientific American
Article: "Impact from the Deep"
"Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and
sea, not asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass
extinctions. Could the same killer-greenhouse conditions
build once again? "
By Peter D. Ward
The last paragraph of the article says:
"The so-called thermal extinction at the end of the
Paleocene began when atmospheric CO2 was just under
1,000 parts per million (ppm). At the end of the Triassic,
CO2 was just above 1,000 ppm. Today with CO2 around
385 ppm, it seems we are still safe. But with atmospheric
carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm and expected to
accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900 ppm by the
end of the next century, and conditions that bring about the
beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon
after that could there be a new greenhouse extinction? That
is something our society should never find out."
The hydrogen sulfide will finally put an end to the mining of
coal. Nuclear power is the safest available. 32 nations
have nuclear power plants. Only 9 have the bomb. The 3
that burn the most coal, the US, China and India all have
the bomb.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We don't recycle nuclear fuel because it is valuable and people steal it. The
place it went that it wasn't supposed to go to is Israel. This happened in a small
town near Pittsburgh, PA circa 1970. A company called Numec was in the
business of reprocessing nuclear fuel. I almost took a job there, designing a
nuclear battery for a heart pacemaker. [A nuclear battery would have the
advantage of lasting many times as long as any other battery, eliminating many
surgeries to replace batteries.] Numec did NOT have a reactor. Numec "lost"
half a ton of enriched uranium. It wound up in Israel. The Israelis have fueled
both their nuclear power plants and their nuclear weapons by stealing nuclear
"waste." It could work for any other country, such as Iran or the United States.
It is only when you don't have access to nuclear "waste" that you have to do the
difficult process of enriching uranium.
Numec is no longer in business. Terrorists can't compete with Mossad and
Israeli dual citizens who are CEOs of companies like Numec. Israeli nuclear
weapons are exact duplicates of American nuclear weapons. All persons who
were "born of Jewish mothers" are citizens of Israel regardless of any other fact.
Since the US can't and shouldn't discriminate, the reprocessing of nuclear fuel in
the US stopped. That was the only politically possible solution at that time,
given that private corporations did the reprocessing. My solution would be to
reprocess the fuel at a Government Owned Government Operated [GOGO]
facility. At a GOGO plant, bureaucracy and the multiplicity of ethnicity and
religion would disable the transportation of uranium to Israel or to any
unauthorized place. Nothing heavier than a secret would get out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great damage has been done, but we still have 8 years before natural positive
feedbacks lead to our extinction. Sea level will continue to rise even if we
disappear right now, but that is "minor" compared to poison gas bubbling out of
the ocean and killing almost everything including all of the people.
See the chart on page 274 of "Six Degrees" by Mark Lynas. We have until 2015
to BEGIN REDUCING our total CO2 output and we have until 2050 to actually
reduce our CO2 output by 90%. The curve has to start down by 2015, not we
have to think about it by then. The peak of our CO2 production has to happen in
the next 8 years. Sorry, but we can't wait for research, no matter how interesting.
We have to implement what we know right now. The only technology we have
right now to replace coal fired power plants is nuclear power plants. I like solar,
wind, hydro, and geothermal, but all of them together cannot replace the base load
capacity of coal. Sorry, but nuclear is the only option. If we don't follow the
schedule in Six Degrees, we will encounter positive feedbacks which will take the
control of the climate out of our hands. Civilization may fall anyway well before
2050, but we can avoid going extinct by 2100. We have to hold the CO2 level to
400 parts per million to have a 75% chance of avoiding the positive feedbacks.
The natural positive feedbacks are explained in Six Degrees.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please read this book: "Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy", by B. Comby
English edition, 2001, 345 pp. (soft cover), 38 Euros
TNR Editions, 266 avenue Daumesnil, 75012 Paris, France;
ISBN 2-914190-02-6
order from: http://www.comby.org/livres/livresen.htm
Read a review of this book by the American Health Physics Society at:
http://www.comby.org/media/
articles/articles.in.english/
HealthPhysics-NUC-July2002.htm

www.ecolo.org
Association of Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy [EFN]

Fossil fuels such as coal oil, and gas, massively pollute the Earth's atmosphere
(CO, CO2, SOX, NOX...), provoking acid rains and changing the global climate
by increasing the greenhouse effect, while nuclear energy does not participate in
these pollutions and presents well-founded environmental benefits.

Renewable energies (solar, wind) not being able to deliver the amount of energy
required by populations in developing and developed countries, nuclear energy is
in fact the only clean and safe energy available to protect the planet during the XXI
st century.

This book answers essential questions about nuclear safety, the Chernobyl
accident, the public health problems our society has to face, viable solutions for
nuclear waste, the benefits of clean nuclear energy for the environment, and
important information about the future of our planet.

Book Review by the American Health Physics Society:

"Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy", by B. Comby
English edition, 2001, 345 pp. (soft cover), 38 Euros
TNR Editions, 266 avenue Daumesnil, 75012 Paris, France;
ISBN 2-914190-02-6

Reproduced from the journal "Health Physics" with permission from the Health
Physics Society.
Subject book: "Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy", by B. Comby
AT A TIME when most of the media and politicians seem to be brainwashed by
antinuclear cults, it is refreshing to encounter a book that presents the issues
regarding nuclear energy in a clear and dispassionate manner. In plain non-
technical language, the author, a French environmentalist trained as a nuclear
engineer, presents a primer, in large letters, of the essential facts regarding all the
major areas of controversy about nuclear power.

The first half of the book, titled "The Atomic Paradox," describes in layman's
language the risks of nuclear power, its environmental impact, quality and safety
standards, waste management, why a power reactor is not a bomb, energy
alternatives, nuclear weapons, and other major global and environmental problems.
In each case the major conclusions are framed for greater emphasis. Although
examples are taken from the French nuclear power program, the conclusions are
equally valid elsewhere.

The second half of the book is titled "Information on Nuclear Energy and the
Environment" and briefly provides a historical survey, an explanation of the
different types of radiation, radioactivity, dose effects of radiation, Chernobyl,
medical uses of radiation, accident precautions, as well as a glossary of terms and
abbreviations and a bibliography (…)

Its simple language makes the book suitable as a primer for high-school classes,
teacher training courses, or environmental discussion groups.

Despite the slightly provocative title, it is a well-balanced if unapologetic
exposition of the competitive advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy as a
power source. It should appeal to all readers with an interest in the subject who
have not already closed their minds.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Table of Contents
Preface of the English edition by James Lovelock
INTRODUCTION
An environmentalist For Nuclear energy

PART I :

THE ATOMIC PARADOX

CHAPTER 1: Nuclear energy: it's cleaner than you think.

CHAPTER 2: A well-designed nuclear power plant has little effect on the
environment.

CHAPTER 3: The risk of accident is reduced by strict quality and safety standards.

CHAPTER 4: Safe management of nuclear waste.

CHAPTER 5: A nuclear power station is not an atomic bomb.

CHAPTER 6: Managing the planet's energy as best we can.

CHAPTER 7: The economic and strategic advantages of nuclear energy.

CHAPTER 8: The real environmental issues lie elsewhere: starvation, malnutrition,
political unrest in third world countries, drugs, alcohol and cigarette addictions,
destruction of tropical forests, chemical pollution of the environment, urban
wastes, overpopulation…

CHAPTER 9: The example of France, the world's leader in nuclear energy.

CHAPTER 10: Nuclear fusion: an almost unlimited supply of clean energy for the
future?

CHAPTER 11: No to nuclear war: for an end to nuclear weapons and the specter
of nuclear war.

CHAPTER 12: The environmentally friendly solution to transportation problems:
electric vehicles.

CHAPTER 13: Modern, efficient, and intelligent environmental program: pro-
nuclear green movements for tomorrow.

CHAPTER 14: Errors to avoid.

CHAPTER 15: For better information - and against disinformation.


Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy PART II:

IN FAVOR OF BETTER PUBLIC INFORMATION ON NUCLEAR ENERGY

Principal dates in the history of nuclear power. What is an atom? The principle of
nuclear fission. The principle of nuclear fusion. What is radioactivity? What is
radiation? How we can protect ourselves from radioactivity and radiation.
Different types of radiation. The difference between irradiation and radioactive
contamination. The natural disintegration of uranium 235 to lead. The natural
disintegration of uranium 238 to lead. Units of measurement of radioactivity and
irradiation. How do we measure radioactivity? Permitted and lethal doses of
irradiation. The effects of intense irradiation on the human body. Authorized limits
for human irradiation. A few examples of received doses. Natural radioactivity is
considerably different from region to region. Average natural irradiation by region
in France. The Chernobyl accident. International Nuclear Event Scale (INES) -
classification of nuclear accidents and incidents. Irradiation resulting from the
Chernobyl accident. The medical use of radiation. Doses of radiation delivered
during some medical radioisotopic examinations. Comparison of the effect of
nuclear arms, of nuclear medicine and of the nuclear power industry. How a
nuclear power plant operates. Diagram of a PWR nuclear power unit. Nuclear fuel.
Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. How to prevent accidents in a modern nuclear
power plant. Three successive confinement barriers isolate nuclear fuel from the
environment. Countries possessing nuclear arms and the problem of their
proliferation. The half-life of some radioactive substances. The irradiation of food
products. Authorized food irradiation table. What to do in case of a nearby nuclear
accident war (or atomic bomb explosion).

 
CONCLUSION:

LET'S BUILD A BETTER WORLD NOW.

Some useful addresses - Abbreviations - Bibliography.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nuclear power is NOT dangerous. Coal is the most dangerous and radioactive
source of electricity. Nuclear power can save us from extinction. The
comparison has to be with extinction. Do you understand what the word "extinct"
means? If we keep burning FOSSIL fuels containing CARBON, EVERY
PERSON will be DEAD. THERE WILL BE ZERO SURVIVORS.
EXTINCTION means NO MORE HOMO SAPIENS, EVER. NOT EVEN the
worst possible nuclear war, a "general exchange" between the United States and
the old Soviet Union could achieve the extinction of Homo Sapiens. That would
mean exploding 40,000 H bombs all at once in the old days or maybe only 20,000
H bombs now.

The simultaneous deaths of 6,400,000,000 people would not even be noticeable in
the geologic record. Human population would rebound too fast for the dip to be
noticeable in the rocks. But extinction would clearly be noticed by some future
space alien or future intelligent earth species geologist. He would find no more
humans after the extinction event.

Yes, I know something about things nuclear. I am a physicist with experience in
the Army's lead lab for nuclear weapons effects.

Yes, I like wind, solar, hydro and geothermal energy. They are inadequate to
meet our needs with current technology.

PS: To be a "fossil" fuel it has to contain fossils if it is a solid. Coal contains
many fossils, mostly of plants. Oil is a liquid, but oil shale should contain fossils.
Uranium is NOT a fossil fuel. There is no guarantee of finding fossils
anywhere near a uranium mine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is absolutely no long term comparison between Nuclear and any other polluting source of energy. Why? The new Nuclear proponents are only short term thinkers. Can Asteroid miner and Nuke shill Comby take responsibility for the 146,000 year half life of the most virulently carcinogenic, Plutonium? Can the US government, the longest living Republic government in history (only 230 years) that has now come to an end, make any guarantees? They are absurd to ignore the fact that all waste and toxins of radionucleides are absolutely and unavoidably cumulative. They will raise the background radiation levels worldwide. Review the research of epidemiologist, Rosalie Bertells, MD, on effects of low level radiation. Death.

The solution mainly is a social one. Mankind must take responsibility for not confusing wants with needs. Energy use must first be reduced. There simply can be no responsible nuclear use because its side effects, pollution, are of a geological time scale.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]