Major Environmental Leader Speaks Out in Favor of Nuclear on Earth Day

[kristopher]

Thank goodness we have leaders like this to illuminate our path in the global fight against climate change.

Celebrating clean energy’s castoff

You would think that on Earth Day an energy source that is affordable, abundant, reliable and most importantly doesn’t create any emissions would be celebrated. For some reason, though, nuclear power remains a pariah in clean energy circles.
It is likely that one in five of you reading this online right now is doing it on a computer powered by nuclear energy. There are more than 100 reactors in 31 states supplying about 20 percent of our nation’s electricity. Unfortunately that number hasn’t changed much since go-go boots and bell bottoms were all the rage.
The sad fact for both the environment and the job market is that it has been more than 30 years since a new nuclear facility has been constructed in the United States.
On this Earth Day we need to commit to making nuclear power a larger part of our nation’s clean energy future...

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-a-environment/157345-celebrating-clean-energys-castoff

You might remember the author for his relentless grilling of BP CEO Hayward during the House hearings on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill**. His concern for the environment in general, and climate change in particular, is equaled by very few of our political leaders. At last we have the kind of leadership for nuclear power that it deserves in its fight against the insidious coal lobby - Smokin' Joe Barton.
Contributions from Oil Companies

In the 2007-2008 period of the 110th Congress, Joe Barton has accepted $196,040 from oil companies and $135,549 of those dollars were from industry political action committees. In addition to that, he has accepted $834,386 from oil companies between 2000 and 2007. Also, he has accepted $121,050 from the coal industry, and $119,800 of those dollars were from industry PACS. See oil voting record above.

Contributions from Coal Companies

In late October 2010, during the lead up to the Congressional midterm elections, The New York Times reported:
Coal industry spending on campaigns and lobbying is substantial and growing, although it is dwarfed by the far better-financed oil and gas, electric utility, financial services and health care lobbies.
Among the largest recipients of coal money are Republican and Democratic members who have sponsored or voted for measures to block new E.P.A. regulations on climate cahnge pollution from the burning of coal and oil and who are most likely to support efforts to block other new rules.
These members include Representatives Roy Blunt of Missouri and Joe L. Barton of Texas, both Republicans, and Nick J. Rahall II of West Virginia and Rick Boucher of Virginia, both Democrats. Each had received more than $25,000 in contributions as of early October, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks campaign spending...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Joe_Barton

‘Smokey Joe’ Barton: Global Warming ‘Is A Net Benefit To Mankind’
December 15, 2009
Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), nicknamed “Smokey Joe” for his persistent advocacy on behalf of polluters, sat for an interview with C-Span this weekend to discuss a variety of environmental issues.

Barton expressed concern that regulation of carbon dioxide pollution would restrict his “convenient” and “modern lifestyle.” “I don’t want to go back to the 1870s where my great-grandparents lived on a dry land cotton farm in Texas with no running water and no electricity and their power source was their own muscles or animal power,” Barton feared.

He then argued that the warming of the planet is actually a “net benefit” for humans:
"CO2 is odorless, colorless, tasteless – it’s not a threat to human health in terms of being exposed to it. We create it as we talk back and forth. So, and if you go beyond that, on a net basis, there’s ample evidence that warming generically — however it is caused — is a net benefit to mankind."

**Oh, and in case you are worried about holding the fission industry to the high safety standard we've all come to hope will characterize oversight from today forward, this is the grilling that devastated Tony Hayward and possibly prompted Hayward to opine that he "wanted his life back".

“I think it is a tragedy in the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown, in this case a $20 billion shakedown, with the attorney general of the United States, who is legitimately conducting a criminal investigation and has every right to do so to protect the American people, participating in what amounts to a $20 billion slush fund that’s unprecedented in our nation’s history, which has no legal standing, which I think sets a terrible precedent for our nation’s future.”

[truedelphi]

1. It's shenigans like this that have forced me to

Reconsider using the word "environmentalist" to describe myself.

These days, I don't know whether to shudder or to hide under the bed when told by the Media that they have some "leading environmentalist" coming aboard the program after commercial break.

[kristopher]

2. Mea culpa

Although it wouldn't surprise me if they did do it, the label in the header is my doing, not the for profit media.

I am continually struck by how the right-wing argues for nuclear on the basis of climate change while simultaneously denying climate change is real or a problem. They are cynicallyand deliberately trying to greenwash a toxic product.

This is from the presentation "Understanding Public Opinion: A Key to the Nuclear Renaissance" by Dr. Raul A. Deju in Sept. 2009 at conference on growing the nuclear industry. He is the Chief Operating Officer, EnergySolutions, Inc. which according to Wiki is "... one of the world’s largest processors of low level waste (LLW), and is the largest nuclear waste company in the United States..."

I'm sure the "message" is a familiar one to DU/EE readers. This part of the presentation came at the tail end of a dismal assessment of public support for nuclear power. It is a given that by "sensible energy policy" Deju is referring strictly to one that includes nuclear power; because, of course, that will produce the waste his company can profit from. Notice how science is rejected in favor of a strong, unified messaging campaign targeting the public.

...how do we use the results of public opinion to develop a sensible energy policy

• Leadership and unity of message need to be the top priority.

• Acceptable messages need to cover the diversity of group thinking.

• Developing confidence on having a solution to nuclear waste issues and non-proliferation requires leadership messages and social support more than scientific support.

Those "acceptable messages" are in the next slide:

Energy Messages
• Nuclear and renewable energy need to be tied into a combined offering.

• Concerns regarding energy security and energy independence can only be solved through the combination of energy efficiency, renewable standards, and nuclear energy.

That bears repeating. The leaders in the nuclear industry very clearly state that better science and solutions to the known problems associated with nuclear power are not the key to developing their industry; but rather, what is needed is a strong unified messaging campaign where nuclear and renewable energy are "tied into a combined offering" with the message that public concerns "regarding energy security and energy independence can only be solved through the combination of energy efficiency, renewable standards, and nuclear energy".

In fact, if we build nuclear power it *actively* discourages BOTH renewable energy policies and development AND energy efficiency policies and efforts because they undermine of the economics of nuclear power.

It is a real clear economic choice - if you advocate for nuclear power you are undercutting the efforts to build out renewables, if you support renewable energy and energy efficiency, you are denying nuclear power the market share they MUST have to be viable.