[Sustain] [SFGP-A] Pelosi goes nuclear

Tue Apr 10 12:15:39 PDT 2007

Dear Jim,

   I too read the article that all of the front
runners, Give them Hell Hilary, Senator Obama and John
Edwards and Speaker Pelosi, supports Nuclear Power
plants as a way forward here, to help solve our energy
crisis. This is the height of hypocrisy for these
individuals who will not take any options of the table
with regard to Iran and its generation of power from
nuclear power plants to then turn around and want more
nuclear power plants here.  Nuclear power isn't
"Green" technology.  The Sierra club locally and our
local peace groups need to get involved and visit
Speaker Pelosi on this latest issue.  B. Boxer isn't
endorsing this and I'm not sure what A. Gore is
saying.

    One of the many reasons I remain a Green is this
issue.  Nuclear power isn't a solution to the energy
crisis anymore than continuing the occupation of Iraq
will provide security to the Middle east by the US. 
Greens need to be educating the public locally about
this extremely deadly, dangerous idea.
Nancy Lewis
lcuretiam2000 at yahoo.com   

--- Jim Dorenkott <jimdorenkott2 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Thanks for posting this. The pro-nuclear power
> people are pushing hard. There is legislation in the
> CA hopper to eliminate the 30+ year old ban on new
> nuclear power plants. KGO talk host Dr. Bill
> Wattenburg was ranting and organizing on behalf of
> it Sunday night. Too many callers agreed with him. I
> don't hear the correlative on our progressive
> airwaves.
> 
> We need an overarching coalition or network of
> organizations who can begin responding. Locally here
> we should form a working group or sub-working group
> to connect with Sierra Club and other anti-nuclear
> power forces to coalesce. Part of their strategy
> should be visible visits to Pelosi's office to let
> her know how out of step she is with her
> constitutency on this.
> 
> I think we need to respond quickly to this.
> Thoughts?
> 
> Jim
> 
> pamndave at speakeasy.net wrote: Just in case you were
> wavering in your views of Nancy Pelosi:
> 
> Now nuclear power is "on the table."  Of course,
> impeaching our war crimal president is "off the
> table."
> 
> (From the CommonDreams.org website)
> Published on Monday, April 9, 2007 by Los Angeles
> Times 
> Pelosi, Clinton, Obama Favor More Nuclear Plants
> by Richard Simon
> 
> WASHINGTON - The renewed push for legislation to cut
> greenhouse gas emissions could falter over an old
> debate: whether nuclear power should play a role in
> any federal attack on climate change.Congress, with
> added impetus from a Supreme Court ruling last week,
> appears more likely to pass comprehensive energy
> legislation. But nuclear power sharply divides
> lawmakers who agree on mandatory caps on carbon
> dioxide emissions. And it has pitted some on Capitol
> Hill against their usual allies, environmentalists,
> who largely oppose any expansion of nuclear power. 
> 
> House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Barbara Boxer -
> Bay Area Democrats with similar political views -
> are on opposite sides.
> 
> Pelosi used to be an ardent foe of nuclear power but
> now holds a different view. ?I think it has to be on
> the table,? she said.
> 
> Boxer, head of the Senate committee that will take
> the lead in writing global warming legislation, said
> that turning from fossil fuels to nuclear power was
> ?trading one problem for another.?
> 
> Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Barack Obama (D-Ill.)
> and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) - all
> presidential candidates - support legislation that
> would cap greenhouse gas emissions and provide
> incentives to power companies to build more nuclear
> plants.
> 
> Opponents of nuclear power say that because a
> terrorist attack on a plant could be catastrophic,
> it makes no sense to build more potential targets.
> And radioactive waste still has no permanent burial
> site, they say, despite officials? three decades of
> trying to find one.
> 
> But attitudes toward nuclear power may be shifting
> as a consensus emerges that greenhouse gases are
> causing the world to heat up.
> 
> The Supreme Court added its voice, criticizing the
> Bush administration for not acting to control
> greenhouse gases.
> 
> Max Schulz, a former Energy Department staff member
> who is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a
> conservative think tank, said the ruling could help
> ?spur the revival of nuclear power.?
> 
> And congressional Democratic leaders have made
> passage of global warming legislation a priority.
> 
> ?I?ve never been a fan of nuclear energy,? said Sen.
> Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who has called it
> expensive and risky. ?But reducing emissions from
> the electricity sector presents a major challenge.
> And if we can be assured that new technologies help
> to produce nuclear energy safely and cleanly, then I
> think we have to take a look at it.?
> 
> The public?s attitude toward nuclear power is more
> favorable when such energy is seen as part of an
> effort to fight climate change. Polls over the years
> have shown that a slim majority backs nuclear power,
> but a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg survey last summer
> found that a larger majority, 61%, supported the
> increased use of nuclear energy ?to prevent global
> warming.?
> 
> Legislation introduced recently in California seeks
> to repeal a 1976 ban on new nuclear plants in the
> state.
> 
> ?There?s no question that the attention to climate
> change over the last several years has materially
> changed the public discussion of nuclear power,?
> said Jason Grumet, executive director of the
> National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan
> group of energy experts. Given the threat of global
> warming, he said, ?it?s hard to ignore the principal
> source of noncarbon power generation in the country
> today.?
> 
> One environmental group has tried to keep an open
> mind. ?We don?t think any options should be taken
> off the table when dealing with global warming,?
> said Environmental Defense spokesman Charlie Miller.
> 
> The nuclear power industry in the U.S. has been at a
> virtual standstill because of high construction
> costs, regulatory uncertainties and public
> apprehension after a 1979 accident at Pennsylvania?s
> Three Mile Island.
> 
> A number of plants ordered before the accident went
> into operation. But many more were canceled after
> one of the Three Mile Island reactors suffered a
> partial meltdown and small amounts of radiation were
> released into the atmosphere.
> 
> Reviving the industry has been a priority for
> President Bush, who sees nuclear power as crucial to
> meeting a growing demand for electricity.
> 
> The Nuclear Regulatory Commission expects to receive
> applications for about two dozen new plants in the
> next few years - in part because of provisions in a
> 2005 energy bill designed to promote nuclear power.
> 
> Currently, 103 nuclear plants - including Diablo
> Canyon near San Luis Obispo and San Onofre in
> northern San Diego County - generate about 20% of
> the nation?s electricity.
> 
> The amount of congressional support for nuclear
> power is unclear.
> 
> When McCain and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) added
> subsidies for nuclear power to their 2005 bill to
> cut greenhouse gas emissions, they lost support from
> environmentalists and votes in Congress, including
> Boxer?s.
> 
> McCain said he had no idea whether he would be more
> successful this time. But he said there was ?no way
> that you could ever seriously attack the issue of
> greenhouse gas emissions without nuclear power, and
> anybody who tells you differently is not telling the
> truth.?
> 
> On Capitol Hill last month, former Vice President Al
> Gore, who has become a leading advocate for swift
> action on climate change, said he saw nuclear plants
> as a ?small part? of the strategy.
> 
> ?They?re so expensive, and they take so long to
> build, and at present they only come in one size:
> extra large,? he said.
> 
> ?And people don?t want to make that kind of
> investment in an uncertain market for energy
> demand.?
> 
> The McCain-Lieberman bill, which seeks to reduce
> greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 to a third of 2000
> levels, would provide federal loans or guarantees to
> subsidize as many as three advanced reactor
> projects.
> 
> The U.S. Public Interest Research Group and Public
> Citizen said the bill would authorize more than $3.7
> billion in subsidies for new nuclear plants.
> 
> Sen. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.), a cosponsor of the
> McCain-Lieberman legislation, thinks support for
> nuclear power could bring more votes.
> 
> ?Three or four years ago, if you included nuclear,
> you lost more than you gained,? he said. ?Today ?
> you pick up more than you lose.?
> 
> But nuclear power faces huge political and economic
> obstacles.
> 
=== message truncated ===>
_______________________________________________
> San Francisco Green Party Active Members List
> To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here:
>
https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active
> 