[Sustain] [SFGP-A] Pelosi goes nuclear

Wed Apr 11 02:08:21 PDT 2007

Yes, I met some Green Guerrilla folks the night before; had a conflict couldn't go. What came of it. This legislation is coming fast.
  Does he have the votes?

  Jim

Don Eichelberger <done7777 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
  Jim, et al-

It is good to see this discussion going on. I have been watching 
this pro-nuke crescendo with some alarm since "global warming" began 
to filter in to the lexicon.

Fortunately, there was a regional meeting on April 1 of activists 
from nuclear power and weapons movement going back more than 25 years 
to discuss this. A list serve has been set up to discuss what we 
want to do and how, and I am sure it can be joined. I will be 
distributing some of the thinking points from that meeting on the 
Sustainability and Energy lists for further discussion, and I plan to 
make a report-back on the April 1 meeting at the next Sustainability 
Working Group meeting and discuss ideas for responding.

Don

At 11:12 AM 4/10/2007, Jim Dorenkott 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.
>
>Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) remains opposed to the 
>planned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal site in his state.
>
>And Philip E. Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, 
>said he did not think subsidies could overcome the concerns of 
>potential investors. ?There isn?t enough money in the federal till 
>to change Wall Street?s calculation of the financial risks,? he said.
>
>Even some lawmakers who support nuclear power question whether the 
>industry needs more federal money.
>
>Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), chairman of the Senate Energy and 
>Natural Resources Committee, sees nuclear power as a ?mature 
>industry,? said Bill Wicker, his spokesman. ?Emerging 
>climate-friendly and genuinely renewable technologies like wind and 
>solar and geothermal and biomass could use that [funding] boost,? Wicker said.
>
>Some environmentalists remain steadfastly opposed to nuclear power.
>
>?Investments in energy conservation and renewable energy are 
>quicker, more cost-effective and sustainable ways to reduce global 
>warming emissions,? said Erich Pica of Friends of the Earth, which 
>will oppose McCain?s bill as long as it contains subsidies for nuclear power.
>
>Such environmentalists also note that carbon emissions from nuclear 
>fuel processing are significant. They say the costs and risks of 
>nuclear power are too high and far greater than alternatives, such 
>as solar and wind power.
>
>?Switching from coal to nukes,? said Dan Becker, director of the 
>Sierra Club?s global warming program, ?is like giving up smoking and 
>taking up crack.?
>
>richard.simon at latimes.com
>
>Copyright 2007 Los Angeles Times
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>San Francisco Green Party Active Members List
>To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here:
>https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active
>
>
>
>Don't pick lemons.
>See all the 
>new 
>2007 cars at 
>Yahoo! 
>Autos.
>_______________________________________________
>Sustainability mailing list
>Sustainability at sfgreens.org
>https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability

---------------------------------
Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and 
always stay connected to friends.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.sfgreens.org/pipermail/sustainability/attachments/20070411/3ac2f1b1/attachment-0001.htm 