COMMENTS: 9
Is the Climate Bill Becoming an Excuse to Promote Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power?
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Environment headlines via email.
Is the Climate Bill morphing into an excuse to promote fossil fuels and new nuclear power plants?
Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) recent promotion of a pro-nuke/pro-drilling/pro-coal agenda in the name of Climate Protection has been highlighted in a New York Times op ed co-authored with Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC). The piece brands nuke power "our single largest contributor of emissions-free power." It advocates abolishing "cumbersome regulations" so utilities can "secure financing for more plants." And it wants "serious investment" to "find solutions to our nuclear waste problem."
The Senate Bill as now drafted also includes a "Clean Energy Development Administration" that could deliver virtually unlimited federal cash to build new reactors and fund other mega-polluters.
Also on the table are vastly expanded permits for off-shore drilling. And Kerry/Graham have talked of making the US "the Saudi Arabia of clean coal" while bringing "new financial incentives for companies that develop carbon capture and sequestration technology."
If you think pushing nukes, oil wells and coal mines to "prevent global warming" is counter-intuitive, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
The give-aways are allegedly meant to attract GOP votes. The joint Kerry/Graham op ed is being billed as a "game changer."
But even with provisions pushing a hundred new reactors in the US alone, some GOP stalwarts hint they would NEVER vote for a bill that includes cap-and-trade clauses. So is the GOP set to play the same game with Climate legislation as it has with health care: prolong negotiations, gut the substance of reform, demand---and GET---untold corporate give-aways, and then oppose the bill anyway?
What thin green substance survives could be limited to a few showpiece handouts for renewables and efficiency, with cap-and-trade as the centerpiece. But many environmentalists argue that cap-and-trade could create yet another costly bureaucracy with little real impact on the climate crisis.
To get real about solving this crisis, Congress should demand---and fund---a definitive national transition to energy efficiency and modernized mass transit. We still waste half the energy we consume. There's no source of usable juice cheaper and quicker to install than increased efficiency.
Taxes on carbon and other forms of "ancillary" pollution would help if they assess radioactive emissions (from coal as well as nukes), destruction of our oceans,lakes and rivers, removal of mountain tops, creation of nuclear waste, and so on. Merely axing the subsidies to King CONG (Coal, Oil, Nukes & Gas) and rendering a level playing field for true green energy sources to fairly compete with the old fossil/nukes would take us a long way up the road to Solartopia. A feed-in tariff that rewards renewables for the pollution they avoid would also help.
Stay up to date with the latest Environment headlines via email
COMMENTS ( 9 )
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Paul_C on Oct 21, 2009 4:00 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
- it is by far the most expensive form of energy
- it takes the longest to bring online
- it has the most toxic waste by far that lingers longer than any other toxic substance known to man. Indeed its waste is usually called the most toxic substance in the known universe
- there is no place safe to store the waste we already have, let alone creating huge new stockpiles
- it requires dirty dangerous mines that are a threat to the health of the miners
- it is dangerous to ship nuclear fuel
- every phase of its operation is an open invitation to terrorists
- it promotes nuclear arms development simply by its very existence
- it is one of the largest consumers of water in the United States, especially in arid areas
- being a point source and highly complex it is prone to frequent shutdowns causing stress on the grid
- it has shown to be fault prone, with unanticipated dangers repeatedly threatening nearby regions with massive contamination
- existing plants are constantly venting low level radiation deemed "safe" by industry officials who don't live near the plant
- the Nuclear Regulatory Agency is thoroughly corrupt and was recently shown to be ineffective at regulating the industry
- the corporate culture running nuclear plants is supposed to be a "safety culture" but it was recently shown that it in fact is a "profit culture" placing profit motives before safety every single time
- it has no means for protecting surrounding communities in the event of a breach of the containment facility, which has almost happened several times, which would have resulted in hundreds of thousands of casualties and the loss of large swathes of the country for decades
- it cannot attract private investors or insurers so it would rely on the Treasury to underwrite it to the tune of $50 billion or more
Now, contrast that with wind power:
- lowest cost of common energy sources when secondary costs are figured in
- even without secondary costs accounted for, a large DOE study found that wind power is competitive right now without federal guarantees or long term assistance
- wind power is the fastest growing energy source, without long term federal guarantees
- wind attracts plenty of private funding and most wind farms are private ventures
- it has no secondary costs (health environment security etc) and so it is utterly safe
- it has no toxic byproducts
- it is relatively simple technology
- it is a distributed source so it cannot be knocked out or brought offline
- the U.S. is known as "The Saudi Arabia of Wind" because it has massive amounts of readily available land based wind power
- a massive DOE study found that we could easily provide 20 percent of our energy needs by 2030 for a net of $43 billion above current costs, which is just a drop in the $2 trillion energy bucket
- it has basically zero CO2 emissions, even considering manufacturing contributions
- its footprint is fixed, unlike fossil fuels where you have to constantly tear up new pristine ground
- it does not require mining and all of the toxic byproducts
- it provides farmers a lucrative paycheck (around $8,000 per tower per year rent) meaning that it is easy to site
- the new towers are very large so that the blades turn slowly, posing minimal threat to migrating birds (unlike earlier blades that were shorter and turned at a high speed)
- the Midwest is uniquely prepared to take on the manufacturing requirements of wind power, providing relief for a region devastated by Free Market traitors
I could go on but you get the picture.
peace,
Paul
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Real Facts Are Better Than Green Peace Proaganda - Part 1
Posted by: ChicagoWay
» Truth is better than corporate lies
Posted by: Paul_C
» More fun facts
Posted by: Paul_C
» Real Facts Are Better Than Green Peace Propaganda - Part 2
Posted by: ChicagoWay
» More fun facts
Posted by: Paul_C
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Paul_C on Oct 24, 2009 1:48 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Paul_C on Oct 24, 2009 1:49 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Paul_C on Oct 24, 2009 1:49 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Paul_C on Oct 21, 2009 4:00 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
- it is by far the most expensive form of energy
- it takes the longest to bring online
- it has the most toxic waste by far that lingers longer than any other toxic substance known to man. Indeed its waste is usually called the most toxic substance in the known universe
- there is no place safe to store the waste we already have, let alone creating huge new stockpiles
- it requires dirty dangerous mines that are a threat to the health of the miners
- it is dangerous to ship nuclear fuel
- every phase of its operation is an open invitation to terrorists
- it promotes nuclear arms development simply by its very existence
- it is one of the largest consumers of water in the United States, especially in arid areas
- being a point source and highly complex it is prone to frequent shutdowns causing stress on the grid
- it has shown to be fault prone, with unanticipated dangers repeatedly threatening nearby regions with massive contamination
- existing plants are constantly venting low level radiation deemed "safe" by industry officials who don't live near the plant
- the Nuclear Regulatory Agency is thoroughly corrupt and was recently shown to be ineffective at regulating the industry
- the corporate culture running nuclear plants is supposed to be a "safety culture" but it was recently shown that it in fact is a "profit culture" placing profit motives before safety every single time
- it has no means for protecting surrounding communities in the event of a breach of the containment facility, which has almost happened several times, which would have resulted in hundreds of thousands of casualties and the loss of large swathes of the country for decades
- it cannot attract private investors or insurers so it would rely on the Treasury to underwrite it to the tune of $50 billion or more
Now, contrast that with wind power:
- lowest cost of common energy sources when secondary costs are figured in
- even without secondary costs accounted for, a large DOE study found that wind power is competitive right now without federal guarantees or long term assistance
- wind power is the fastest growing energy source, without long term federal guarantees
- wind attracts plenty of private funding and most wind farms are private ventures
- it has no secondary costs (health environment security etc) and so it is utterly safe
- it has no toxic byproducts
- it is relatively simple technology
- it is a distributed source so it cannot be knocked out or brought offline
- the U.S. is known as "The Saudi Arabia of Wind" because it has massive amounts of readily available land based wind power
- a massive DOE study found that we could easily provide 20 percent of our energy needs by 2030 for a net of $43 billion above current costs, which is just a drop in the $2 trillion energy bucket
- it has basically zero CO2 emissions, even considering manufacturing contributions
- its footprint is fixed, unlike fossil fuels where you have to constantly tear up new pristine ground
- it does not require mining and all of the toxic byproducts
- it provides farmers a lucrative paycheck (around $8,000 per tower per year rent) meaning that it is easy to site
- the new towers are very large so that the blades turn slowly, posing minimal threat to migrating birds (unlike earlier blades that were shorter and turned at a high speed)
- the Midwest is uniquely prepared to take on the manufacturing requirements of wind power, providing relief for a region devastated by Free Market traitors
I could go on but you get the picture.
peace,
Paul
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Real Facts Are Better Than Green Peace Proaganda - Part 1
Posted by: ChicagoWay
» Truth is better than corporate lies
Posted by: Paul_C
» More fun facts
Posted by: Paul_C
» Real Facts Are Better Than Green Peace Propaganda - Part 2
Posted by: ChicagoWay
» More fun facts
Posted by: Paul_C
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Paul_C on Oct 24, 2009 1:48 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Paul_C on Oct 24, 2009 1:49 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Paul_C on Oct 24, 2009 1:49 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
California Carbon Trading Allows Timber Companies to Sell CO2 Credits for Their Worst Logging Practices
How to Answer the Dumb Things Climate Deniers Say
Why Is Obama Trying to Prop Up a Doomed 'Nuclear Renaissance'?
