Obama’s Support For Nuclear Power Making Some Greens See Red

[quinnox]

Thursday, July 05, 2007

If recent presidential fundraising reports are any indication, Barack Obama is a man on the move. But according to some in the environmental community, he’s moving in the wrong direction.

The blog Dissident Voice takes Obama to task for being in the pocket of the nuclear power industry. The authors of the post also claim that the Clinton Administration was similarly on the take and, while they don’t address the Bush Administration, you can only imagine how they feel about W and Dick Cheney!

Dissident Voice notes that Obama has taken almost $160,000 from nuclear heavyweight Excelon in his previous campaigns and that he committed the unpardonable sin of stating for the record that nuclear power should remain an option under consideration, given its comparably benign CO2 emissions. But Dissident Voice disagrees:

“Sadly for the credibility of the atom lobby, some of their more eye-grabbing numbers don’t check out. For example, as noted in a report by the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuke industry claims that the world’s 447 nuclear plants reduce CO2 emissions by 30 percent. But the true villain behind global warming is carbon. Existing nuclear plants save only about 5 percent of total CO2 emissions, hardly a bargain given the costs and risks associated with nuclear power.”

But there’s no denying that Obama has achieved national credibility and influence (and the campaign bank account that comes with such credibility and influence), so maybe Obama is just the man to move the ball forward on nuclear power.

http://calenergy.blogspot.com/2007/07/obamas-support-for-nuclear-power-making.html


And in one of the debates Obama flatly said he would put nuclear energy on the table as an option for new sources of energy. I remember watching that debate and knowing Obama is supported by the Nuclear lobby I had a feeling his answer would be yes. He didn't disappoint me.

If you want a bunch of new nuclear plants springing up in your states and backyards Obama is your guy.

Personally, I'm with the environmentalists and don't want to see nuclear power expanded except as a last resort.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

1. He is also the Senator from Coal

Obama is probably our worst candidate on the environment.

[quinnox]

2. I beleive that is true unfortunately

Perhaps Obama could learn more about the environment and its fragile state in the world today before cozying up to nuclear and coal lobbyists.

[jsamuel]

3. Edwards is against nuclear.

Gore doesn't like it either.

[corbett]

4. No Nukes!

When Senator Obama speaks about nuclear fission, I think of Governor Romney, who also supports it. I can't help it.

Any candidate who indicates anything but our moving away from nuclear fission must have his/her environmental credentials reexamined.

That's all there is to it.

For the record, I support not only a ban on all new construction of nuclear fission reactors but an accelerated decommissioning of the ones we already have.

Bio, solar and wind are the way to go.

Read more at www.FloridaFlooded.com

_________________________________________________
Political advertisement paid for by Corbett For Congress

[Meldread]

5. The issue isn't as cut and dry as it looks.

Wind and Solar simply cannot meet the demands for energy that the United States and most other developed countries require. Our energy consumption simply continues to grow. Bio fuels have unintended drawbacks. One of them is the rising prices of food products here in the United States, and the importing of foreign food that does not pass health standards.

As we use more of our food, such as corn, for bio fuels, there is less corn for livestock and for other food products, which jacks up the price. To help augment it we import food, and as we have recently learned at least some of that food is deadly to eat. A solution to the problem is using Genetically Modified Crops to increase our ability to produce and grow food, but with that comes risks of its own that we do not fully understand.

Really, it comes down to the fact that we are facing an energy crisis and unless something is done fast we are in big trouble. We shouldn't take any options off the table and should weigh risks verses the benefits of every plan put before us.

[beastieboy]

7. Look what happened recently in Japan, earthquake caused leak of radioactive waste

I don't see widespread nuclear as a reasonable alternative unless they can come up with foolproof plants and can find foolproof ways to get rid of waste.

[ladjf]

6. One nuclear meltdown could kill many millions and leave

a large portion of the U.S. uninhabitable for 150,000 years or more. That kind of risk just isn't worth taking. We must look for safer alternatives.