<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
We can definitely make this an agenda item at the next Sustainability
WG meeting.<br>
<br>
We should definitely discuss what concrete action to take to oppose
nuclear and biofuels, and perhaps also the looming bio-plastics ramp
up, and neo-coal technologies.<br>
<br>
I propose we draft a platform and then ask the GM to incorporate it and
act upon it (for example, with candidate questionairs, perhaps city
energy and container purchasing legislation).<br>
<br>
cheers,<br>
<br>
Eric<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jimdorenkott2@yahoo.com">jimdorenkott2@yahoo.com</a> wrote:
<blockquote cite="midmd5:64756D6D79206D657373616765206964" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type"
content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
I think we need to respond quickly to this. Thoughts?<br>
<br>
Jim<br>
<br>
<b><i><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pamndave@speakeasy.net">pamndave@speakeasy.net</a></i></b> wrote:
<blockquote> Just in case you were wavering in your views of Nancy
Pelosi:<br>
<br>
Now nuclear power is "on the table." Of course, impeaching our war
crimal president is "off the table."<br>
<br>
(From the CommonDreams.org website)<br>
Published on Monday, April 9, 2007 by Los Angeles Times <br>
Pelosi, Clinton, Obama Favor More Nuclear Plants<br>
by Richard Simon<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Barbara Boxer - Bay Area Democrats
with similar political views - are on opposite sides.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
But attitudes toward nuclear power may be shifting as a consensus
emerges that greenhouse gases are causing the world to heat up.<br>
<br>
The Supreme Court added its voice, criticizing the Bush administration
for not acting to control greenhouse gases.<br>
<br>
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.?<br>
<br>
And congressional Democratic leaders have made passage of global
warming legislation a priority.<br>
<br>
?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.?<br>
<br>
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.?<br>
<br>
Legislation introduced recently in California seeks to repeal a 1976
ban on new nuclear plants in the state.<br>
<br>
?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.?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Reviving the industry has been a priority for President Bush, who sees
nuclear power as crucial to meeting a growing demand for electricity.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
The amount of congressional support for nuclear power is unclear.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
?They?re so expensive, and they take so long to build, and at present
they only come in one size: extra large,? he said.<br>
<br>
?And people don?t want to make that kind of investment in an uncertain
market for energy demand.?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Sen. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.), a cosponsor of the McCain-Lieberman
legislation, thinks support for nuclear power could bring more votes.<br>
<br>
?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.?<br>
<br>
But nuclear power faces huge political and economic obstacles.<br>
<br>
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) remains opposed to the
planned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal site in his state.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Even some lawmakers who support nuclear power question whether the
industry needs more federal money.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Some environmentalists remain steadfastly opposed to nuclear power.<br>
<br>
?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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
?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.?<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richard.simon@latimes.com">richard.simon@latimes.com</a><br>
<br>
Copyright 2007 Los Angeles Times<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
San Francisco Green Party Active Members List<br>
To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active">https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active</a><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p> </p>
Don't pick lemons.<br>
See all the <a
href="http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html;_ylc=X3oDMTE0OGRsc3F2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDbmV3Y2Fycw--">new
2007 cars</a> at <a
href="http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html;_ylc=X3oDMTE0OGRsc3F2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDbmV3Y2Fycw--">Yahoo!
Autos.</a>
<pre wrap="">
<hr size="4" width="90%">
_______________________________________________
San Francisco Green Party Active Members List
To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active">https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>