Leaders in both major parties seem to be coming around to the idea that nuclear power should once again be viewed as viable option to meet America’s energy needs. But the larger concept of “clean energy” that envionmentalists continue to advance is quite questionable as is the science behind man-made global warming. Despite the antagonism green activists quoted here have toward Obama’s proposal, the president remains committed to the idea of green jobs and alternative clean energy sources. The report does nothing to challenge the highly questionable assertions…
Clean energy and green jobs have become the new rationale for costly, “cap and trade” schemes that President Obama continues to push now that “climategate” has complicated the scientific argument. Here is what he said in the State of the Union Speech.
“I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy. I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But here’s the thing — even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future — because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation.”
This New York Times report claims that Obama has “embraced” nuclear energy. But in reality this is most likely a ploy to secure Republican support for anti-industry initiatives. The administration has approved a new loan guarantee for the construction of nuclear power plants in Georgia, according to the article.
Why exactly is it necessary for the U.S. to lead on clean energy technology and where is the evidence? Where are all of the green jobs? Regardless of where one stands on the question of man-made global warming there appears to be a renewed appetite for the use of nuclear energy in both parties. But Obama is not challenged here to explain or account for merits of green technology.
The office of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said in response to an inquiry from The Times that Republicans were receptive to the move but would not suddenly reverse course and approve “cap and trade.”
Nuclear energy currently provides about 20 percent of America’s electricity, with 100 nuclear plants located at 65 sites in 31 states, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. By contrast, 80 percent of France’s energy needs are supplied by nuclear power. Other examples include Belgium, 54 percent; Sweden, 46 percent; Switzerland, 41 percent; and Japan, 34 percent.
These numbers show there is ample room for nuclear energy to become part of a mixed solution. But, at the same time, America’s economy runs very well on fossil fuels that remain under attack from environmentalists. Moreover, new studies show that so-called green jobs are heavily subsidized and subtract from economic performance.
The burden then should be on environmentalists to demonstrate why policymakers should not pursue additional nuclear power plants that can operate in tandem with other existing resources. But The Times, true to form, gives the green pressure groups a free pass here.
Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club is quoted as saying that nuclear power is not the fastest or cheapest way to reduce the greenhouse gases linked to global warming.
“The loan guarantees announced today may ease the politics around comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation, but we do not believe that they are the best policy,” he argues.
But Obama’s own EPA director has already conceded that the cap and trade proposals favored by green groups will not make a meaningful difference where the climate is concerned. Moreover, Pope is not asked to explain how is policy stance squares with the scientific questions that been raised thanks to “climategate.”
Popularity: 1% [?]
