Up until now I have thought there would be little significant differences between the candidates (Edwards, Obama, Clinton)regarding policy goals regarding withdrawal from Iraq, implementation of universal health care, and committment to the environment and that the major difference would amount to stylistic leadership differences and the degree to which they would prioritize the accomplishment of each goal.
I am already a supporter of John Edwards simply because he seems to me to be stronger and more committed to implementing real universal health care, creating a more just society by ending poverty and has a leadership style that is striking a chord in me reminiscent of my heroes RFK and Paul Wellstone.
But that being said, there is an important issue that may be emerging that will distinguish Edwards from Obama and Clinton in more direct ways then just timing and emphasis. That is the recurrent efforts to resurrect the nuclear power industry.
Senate Bill 280 was introduced in January by Senators Liberman and McCain and co-sponsored by Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
In an article promoting the bill published in the
Boston Globe in February, Liberman and McCain include the following sentence.
As the bill reflects, lawmakers must also have the courage to promote safe climate-friendly nuclear energy.
Take out the opinion words courage and climate friendly and you get the problem. The bill, which is generally a good step towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions and fighting global warming it includes more then 3.6 billion dollars in funding and loan guarantees for the construction of nuclear power plants.
Here is how the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) reacted :
From a statement by NRDC President Frances G. Beinecke:
"While the bill’s environmental objectives are a strong advance, one provision remains misguided. Despite the provision of billions of dollars in subsidies to the nuclear industry in the 2005 Energy Policy Act and over $85 billion in historical subsidies, the bill introduced today contains additional nuclear subsidies that NRDC continues to oppose. Additional giveaways to an industry made up of some of the world’s wealthiest firms are neither necessary nor warranted."
By co-sponsoring a bill that specifically includes billions of dollars for the nuclear power industry Clinton and Obama are on record as supporting nuclear power as a viable alternative fuel source.
For me the bottom line on nuclear power comes from the following:
- The nuclear power industry still requires insurance liability goverment from the federal government (the Price Anderson Act initially passed in 1957 and renewed constantly since then)in order to be economically viable. That is because the industry itself knows that it is too dangerous to ensure.
- There is still no feasible plan for the safe disposal of the radioactive waste produced by the plants. After 50 years of the industry promising us that they would come up with a solution eventually, it is insane to continue to allow them to produce more waste until they can get rid of that which they have already created.
- The industry that wants to profit from the construction and operation of nuclear power plants has been lying to the public about the real cost (as well as danger) since it's creation. Originally they promised it would be "too cheap to meter", now they say it is "cost competitive" with other forms of electricty generation. The truth is that if the real cost of ultimately decommissioning the plants and disposal of the waste and insurance were added into the price it would appear astronomically unreasonable.
Nuclear Power remains too dangerous and too expensive to be rational and yet every top Democratic Presidential candidate except for John Edwards is pretending that they don't know that truth.
In a recent article in the New York Sun Josh Gerstein adressed the positions on nuclear power of the major Democratic Candidates.
Here's what Hillary Clinton said:
"I think nuclear power has to be a part of our energy solution," the New York senator said during a town hall meeting in Aiken, S.C., in February.
Here's what Barack Obama's campaign spokesperson Jennifer Psaki said: "Nuclear power represents the majority of non-carbon generated electricity therefore making it unlikely that it will be taken off the table."
The Las Vegas Review Journal reported that during a visit to that city in February, Mr. Edwards declared that atomic energy had no future in America. A spokeswoman for the candidate, Kate Bedingfield, said the report slightly overstated his position, but she added, "He does not advocate building additional nuclear power plants in the U.S."
The debate over whether or not to subsidize the nuclear power industry as an alternative to fossil fuels is a critical policy issue and the distinction between the positions of John Edwards from Obama and Clinton is stark.
In a LA Times article on the topic, Dan Becker, the director of the Sierra Club’s global warming program, summed it up with the following:
"Switching from coal to nukes, is like giving up smoking and taking up crack."