<div>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.</div> <div>Does he have the votes?</div> <div> </div> <div>Jim<BR><BR><B><I>Don Eichelberger <done7777@sbcglobal.net></I></B> wrote:</div> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Jim, et al-<BR><BR>It is good to see this discussion going on. I have been watching <BR>this pro-nuke crescendo with some alarm since "global warming" began <BR>to filter in to the lexicon.<BR><BR>Fortunately, there was a regional meeting on April 1 of activists <BR>from nuclear power and weapons movement going back more than 25 years <BR>to discuss this. A list serve has been set up to discuss what we <BR>want to do and how, and I am sure it can be joined. I will be <BR>distributing some of the thinking points from that meeting on the <BR>Sustainability and Energy lists for further
discussion, and I plan to <BR>make a report-back on the April 1 meeting at the next Sustainability <BR>Working Group meeting and discuss ideas for responding.<BR><BR>Don<BR><BR>At 11:12 AM 4/10/2007, Jim Dorenkott wrote:<BR>>Thanks for posting this. The pro-nuclear power people are pushing <BR>>hard. There is legislation in the CA hopper to eliminate the 30+ <BR>>year old ban on new nuclear power plants. KGO talk host Dr. Bill <BR>>Wattenburg was ranting and organizing on behalf of it Sunday night. <BR>>Too many callers agreed with him. I don't hear the correlative on <BR>>our progressive airwaves.<BR>><BR>>We need an overarching coalition or network of organizations who can <BR>>begin responding. Locally here we should form a working group or <BR>>sub-working group to connect with Sierra Club and other anti-nuclear <BR>>power forces to coalesce. Part of their strategy should be visible <BR>>visits to Pelosi's office to let her know how
out of step she is <BR>>with her constitutency on this.<BR>><BR>>I think we need to respond quickly to this. Thoughts?<BR>><BR>>Jim<BR>><BR>>pamndave@speakeasy.net wrote:<BR>>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 <BR>>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 <BR>>emissions could falter over an old debate: whether nuclear power <BR>>should play a role in any federal attack on climate change.Congress, <BR>>with added impetus from a Supreme Court ruling last week, appears <BR>>more likely to pass comprehensive energy legislation. But nuclear <BR>>power sharply
divides lawmakers who agree on mandatory caps on <BR>>carbon dioxide emissions. And it has pitted some on Capitol Hill <BR>>against their usual allies, environmentalists, who largely oppose <BR>>any expansion of nuclear power.<BR>><BR>>House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Barbara Boxer - Bay Area <BR>>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 <BR>>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 <BR>>writing global warming legislation, said that turning from fossil <BR>>fuels to nuclear power was ?trading one problem for another.?<BR>><BR>>Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary <BR>>Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) - all presidential candidates - support <BR>>legislation that would cap greenhouse gas emissions and provide
<BR>>incentives to power companies to build more nuclear plants.<BR>><BR>>Opponents of nuclear power say that because a terrorist attack on a <BR>>plant could be catastrophic, it makes no sense to build more <BR>>potential targets. And radioactive waste still has no permanent <BR>>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 <BR>>emerges that greenhouse gases are causing the world to heat up.<BR>><BR>>The Supreme Court added its voice, criticizing the Bush <BR>>administration for not acting to control greenhouse gases.<BR>><BR>>Max Schulz, a former Energy Department staff member who is a senior <BR>>fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, said <BR>>the ruling could help ?spur the revival of nuclear power.?<BR>><BR>>And congressional Democratic leaders have made passage of global
<BR>>warming legislation a priority.<BR>><BR>>?I?ve never been a fan of nuclear energy,? said Sen. Dianne <BR>>Feinstein (D-Calif.), who has called it expensive and risky. ?But <BR>>reducing emissions from the electricity sector presents a major <BR>>challenge. And if we can be assured that new technologies help to <BR>>produce nuclear energy safely and cleanly, then I think we have to <BR>>take a look at it.?<BR>><BR>>The public?s attitude toward nuclear power is more favorable when <BR>>such energy is seen as part of an effort to fight climate change. <BR>>Polls over the years have shown that a slim majority backs nuclear <BR>>power, but a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg survey last summer found <BR>>that a larger majority, 61%, supported the increased use of nuclear <BR>>energy ?to prevent global warming.?<BR>><BR>>Legislation introduced recently in California seeks to repeal a 1976 <BR>>ban on new nuclear plants in the
state.<BR>><BR>>?There?s no question that the attention to climate change over the <BR>>last several years has materially changed the public discussion of <BR>>nuclear power,? said Jason Grumet, executive director of the <BR>>National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan group of energy <BR>>experts. Given the threat of global warming, he said, ?it?s hard to <BR>>ignore the principal source of noncarbon power generation in the <BR>>country today.?<BR>><BR>>One environmental group has tried to keep an open mind. ?We don?t <BR>>think any options should be taken off the table when dealing with <BR>>global warming,? said Environmental Defense spokesman Charlie Miller.<BR>><BR>>The nuclear power industry in the U.S. has been at a virtual <BR>>standstill because of high construction costs, regulatory <BR>>uncertainties and public apprehension after a 1979 accident at <BR>>Pennsylvania?s Three Mile Island.<BR>><BR>>A
number of plants ordered before the accident went into operation. <BR>>But many more were canceled after one of the Three Mile Island <BR>>reactors suffered a partial meltdown and small amounts of radiation <BR>>were released into the atmosphere.<BR>><BR>>Reviving the industry has been a priority for President Bush, who <BR>>sees nuclear power as crucial to meeting a growing demand for electricity.<BR>><BR>>The Nuclear Regulatory Commission expects to receive applications <BR>>for about two dozen new plants in the next few years - in part <BR>>because of provisions in a 2005 energy bill designed to promote nuclear power.<BR>><BR>>Currently, 103 nuclear plants - including Diablo Canyon near San <BR>>Luis Obispo and San Onofre in northern San Diego County - generate <BR>>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 <BR>>nuclear power to their 2005 bill to cut greenhouse gas emissions, <BR>>they lost support from environmentalists and votes in Congress, <BR>>including Boxer?s.<BR>><BR>>McCain said he had no idea whether he would be more successful this <BR>>time. But he said there was ?no way that you could ever seriously <BR>>attack the issue of greenhouse gas emissions without nuclear power, <BR>>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 <BR>>become a leading advocate for swift action on climate change, said <BR>>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 <BR>>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 <BR>>uncertain market
for energy demand.?<BR>><BR>>The McCain-Lieberman bill, which seeks to reduce greenhouse gas <BR>>emissions by 2050 to a third of 2000 levels, would provide federal <BR>>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 <BR>>bill would authorize more than $3.7 billion in subsidies for new <BR>>nuclear plants.<BR>><BR>>Sen. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.), a cosponsor of the McCain-Lieberman <BR>>legislation, thinks support for nuclear power could bring more votes.<BR>><BR>>?Three or four years ago, if you included nuclear, you lost more <BR>>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 <BR>>planned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal site in his
state.<BR>><BR>>And Philip E. Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, <BR>>said he did not think subsidies could overcome the concerns of <BR>>potential investors. ?There isn?t enough money in the federal till <BR>>to change Wall Street?s calculation of the financial risks,? he said.<BR>><BR>>Even some lawmakers who support nuclear power question whether the <BR>>industry needs more federal money.<BR>><BR>>Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), chairman of the Senate Energy and <BR>>Natural Resources Committee, sees nuclear power as a ?mature <BR>>industry,? said Bill Wicker, his spokesman. ?Emerging <BR>>climate-friendly and genuinely renewable technologies like wind and <BR>>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 <BR>>quicker,
more cost-effective and sustainable ways to reduce global <BR>>warming emissions,? said Erich Pica of Friends of the Earth, which <BR>>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 <BR>>fuel processing are significant. They say the costs and risks of <BR>>nuclear power are too high and far greater than alternatives, such <BR>>as solar and wind power.<BR>><BR>>?Switching from coal to nukes,? said Dan Becker, director of the <BR>>Sierra Club?s global warming program, ?is like giving up smoking and <BR>>taking up crack.?<BR>><BR>>richard.simon@latimes.com<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>>https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>>Don't pick lemons.<BR>>See all the <BR>><HTTP: new_cars.html;_ylc="X3oDMTE0OGRsc3F2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDbmV3Y2Fycw--" autos.yahoo.com>new <BR>>2007 cars at <BR>><HTTP: new_cars.html;_ylc="X3oDMTE0OGRsc3F2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDbmV3Y2Fycw--" autos.yahoo.com>Yahoo! <BR>>Autos.<BR>>_______________________________________________<BR>>Sustainability mailing list<BR>>Sustainability@sfgreens.org<BR>>https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><p> 
<hr size=1>Don't be flakey. <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=43909/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail">Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile</a> and <br><a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=43909/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail">always stay connected</a> to friends.