Boston Globe: It’s still oil and nuclear power for Obama

[Bluebear]

US sits idly by as other nations heavily invest in renewable power

PRESIDENT OBAMA seems increasingly drained of the juice needed to power up a modern vision on energy.
Contrary to Obama’s adoption of the mantra that nuclear energy is less harmful to the environment, the council said nuclear power is “unsustainable’’ and “indefensible’’ because of its waste and that it is a target for terrorism. That makes Obama’s speech more alarming. Any talk about renewable energy means little until we see a renewal of energy from the president himself.

====

Completely absent from his address this week at Georgetown University was his promise as a candidate to go after windfall profits of oil companies and reinvest the money into wind, solar, and biofuels. Instead, he promised to expedite new shallow and deepwater oil drilling permits, even as top environmentalists say many questions remain after the BP spill disaster.

More than ever, he is wedded to pursuing “clean coal’’ and nuclear power. Meanwhile, radiation from the Japan nuclear disaster was measured thousands of times above safety levels in seawater and groundwater near the plant and in soil 25 miles away, at levels double those found in areas declared inhabitable around Chernobyl.

Most important, there continues to be no direct message to the American people that we are living in an unsustainable fantasy, consuming a quarter of the world’s energy. There was no hint of things that would instantly make Americans rethink consumption, such as a gas tax. For the moment, the road-blocking Republicans are winning the day with an ethos symbolized by Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi, a potential presidential candidate. Last week Barbour told Iowa Republicans, “We need more oil. We need more gas. We need more coal. We need more nuclear. We need more American energy.’’

Obama has yet to say that we need less.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/04/02/its_still_oil_and_nuclear_power_for_obama/

[UrbScotty]

1. False, false, false!

Name another person who has been more outspoken about the need for energy reform than has Obama.

[Gravel Democrat]

2. Ralph Nader

Q: Briefly describe Nader’s position on Energy Policy.

A: Ralph Nader supports “a new clean energy policy that no longer subsidizes entrenched oil, nuclear, electric, and coal mining interests--an energy policy that is efficient, sustainable, and environmentally friendly. We need to invest in a diversified energy policy--including renewable energy like wind and other forms of solar power, more efficient automobiles, homes and businesses--that breaks our addiction to oil, coal, and atomic power.”
Source: Green Party 2008 Presidential Candidate Questionnaire Feb 3, 2008

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Ralph_Nader_Energy_+_Oil.htm

[Marblehead]

8. The government

has been captured by big oil and the nuke industry, he sure talks a good game though.

[Bluebear]

14. That photo is a beautiful sight!

[ixion]

3. lip service only...he's bent over backwards for Big Energy

just like they all do.

[Bluebear]

4. The Boston Globe never really loved him

:cry:

[MBS]

11. writer is Derrick Jackson..a regular Globe columnist, but not

a Globe editor. ALthough I don't agree with him every single time, of the remaining decent Globe columnists (I still grieve for the departure of Tom Oliphant),Jackson is one of the best, and the most thoughtful, and the environment is a special interest of his. I remember Jackson as being very supportive of Obama in 2008 election (I may be wrong, but that's my memory). Jackson happens to be A-A, but the most important thing to know about Jackson vis a vis this column is that he's an ardent environmentalist (he's written columns about backpacking with his family. . ), so is bound to be impatient with the glacial pace of "progress" in this area, quite apart from his support of Obama,

I myself am a strong supporter of Obama, and I have no doubt that he understands intellectually what's at stake vis a vis the environment, but , at the same time, the environment does not feel to me like one of his "gut issues"; I think if it were, he would come out swinging more. I do believe that he does want to move us forward, and he has made some great appointments in this area (Carol Browner, now, alas, departed; Jane Lubchenco, John Holdren, etc etc), and, needless to say, he's light years ahead of W. and all the far-right loonies (what Sen. Kerry has dubbed the "Flat Earth Caucus") in Congress. And Obama was the best of all the major 2008 presidential candidates on this question (though, alas, that wasn't saying much, as none of the major 2008 candidates were great on this issue, and of course all Republicans were downright awful in this department). At this point, I also recall, sadly, that the nuclear power industry was one of Obama's big supporters in his senate race. I like to think that doesn't make a difference, but. .??

In my opinion, the most knowledgeable and committed national Dem politicians on environmental issues are Al Gore, John Kerry, Ed Markey, and Barbara Boxer. Each of them have been fighting hard and passionately on these issues, not just in the last two years or so , but also have shown consistent dedication to these issues over the last 4 decades. All of them completely GET IT, and all of them have walked the walk, against all odds, trying to make things happen, (I reluctantly admit that Lieberman, for all his other faults, is pretty good on this issue, too). Obama does seem to be supportive of all their efforts, but , like Derrick Jackson, I do find myself wishing he could put more emotional energy into it, and that he would make these issues a CLEAR top priority.

[Bluebear]

12. Sorry

I didn't include a sarcasm tag. :)

[MBS]

13. sorry I was so dense! : ) n/t

[Divernan]

6. Words vs. deeds. O makes pretty speeches, but he puts the $$ in nuclear energy

And he takes $$$ from nuclear energy - BIG money.

http://www.citizenvox.org/2011/03/22/in-wake-of-japanese-crisis-obama-should-reject-duke-energys-10-million-loan-for-democratic-convention/

A $10 million line of credit provided to the Democratic National Committee by nuclear power company Duke Energy should be rejected by President Barack Obama. As the administration formulates its response to the Japanese nuclear crisis, it should not be accepting support from nuclear power interests, particularly since this significant corporate loan to the president’s re-election convention committee undermines the president’s recent convention financing cleanup efforts.
Does the $10 million loan by Duke Energy – combined with contributions from the nuclear power industry to Obama’s 2008 presidential run – influence the administration’s pro-nuclear position?

In a time of crisis that threatens Americans, the administration shouldn’t be bending over backwards to soothe investors’ fears about the safety of nuclear power. The president instead should be following the lead of Germany and other nations that have recognized the dangers that nuclear power plants pose to public health and safety.

The administration must put a halt to all nuclear loan guarantees and call on Congress to repeal the Price-Anderson Act, thereby requiring nuclear power companies to obtain their own catastrophic risk insurance. Further, the administration must support an effort empowering state elected officials to determine the future of aging reactors in their states.

[Divernan]

7. Quelle surprise! Duke Energy negotiating with feds to build 4th plant.

Accepting a loan guarantee from Duke Energy, just when that the nation is re-thinking its policy on nuclear energy, creates a loophole in the Obama-DNC reforms – and illustrates precisely why robust reforms are needed. Duke Energy operates three nuclear complexes and is negotiating with federal officials on subsidies to build a fourth in South Carolina. In addition, Duke Energy announced a merger with Progress Energy, which also has three nuclear power facilities and is negotiating with the Obama administration to build a fourth.

[Bluebear]

15. Surprise!

[sendero]

9. Talk is cheap.

.... as comparing Obama's pre-election rhetoric to his post-election actions has starkly confirmed.

Every president since Nixon has talked about energy reform, none has done jack shit and Obama won't either.

Wherever the money is, that is where you will find our great leader and, at the present time, where it ISN'T is in renewables.

[Bluebear]

10. You said it.

[DonCoquixote]

5. It's one thing

to support renewables,

but how would a gas tax hurt anyone but the poor and middle class?