I like Obama fine. I'd vote for Gore/Edwards first, but Obama could certainly shut down the FoxNoise type of machinery-of-fascism and end it, and would be a good president.
I haven't followed candidate diaries: I'm focused on getting Senate legislation on Climate Change before we hit the tipping point causing runaway global climate change: how to ramp-up our majority in the Senate in 2008 so as to get better legislation.
Regardless of which Democrat we elect, (look, none of them are Republicans) it is impossible to make the enormous changes needed in our energy policy without the Senate also on board. Remember it was the Senate that refused to sign Kyoto, back when Clintons panties was all they could think about. So even Al Gore as president will need a rational Democratic Majority in the Senate. Listen to the Senate hearings: you'll realise the vast difference in intelligence beween Democrats and Fossil Fools Republicans.
So I don't understand Senator Obama signing on to the Lieberman nuke-friendly Senate bill, rather than Barbara Boxer's: S.309.
I'm not pulling up anything from searching dailykos "Obama" + "nuclear".
Maybe this does not bother you.
But I would prefer to see Senator Obama move away from the Lieberman/McCain, and towards "The Gold Standard of Climate Legislation"(according to The Union of Concerned Scientists) S.309.
Joy Busey pointed out this weekend that there are nuclear trolls on dailykos now.
So I think this is something that needs to be aired out here. We need to be sure we are not being set apon by the likes of The Economic Hitmanwho was paid to enforce promote the interests of Big Oil overseas and Big Nuclear here at home.
.
.
There is only one Senate bill that meets the requirements to really fix the problem. It is the Sanders Boxer bill S 309 that The Union of Concerned Scientists calls "The Gold Standard of Climate Legislation".
The Lieberman Bill is also endorsed by McCain so chances are good that it will not survive intact, but be watered down where it shouldn't be and wind up being the pro nuke, procoal, pro domestic oil Bill that Republicans would want, getting us off forn oil by creating the fascist nuclear powered country Cheney wants by funneling big bucks into their synfuels program (making coal into fuel)and funding nukes.
Here's what needs to be done according to The Union Of Concerned Scientists:
.
.
...and heres how the various bills compare in effectiveness. As you see the Sanders and Waxman Bills do the trick, while the Lieberman does not. The Lieberman Bill is nuke friendly (see below). The Sanders/Waxman Bills (see below)merely mention nukes by way of excluding them.
.
.
The Lieberman Bill texthas these 9 co-sponsors
Sponsor: Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT]
S.280
Title: A bill to provide for a program to accelerate the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by establishing a market-driven system of greenhouse gas tradeable allowances, to support the deployment of new climate change-related technologies, and to ensure benefits to consumers from the trading in such allowances, and for other purposes.
Sen Carper, Thomas R. [DE]
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]
Sen Collins, Susan M. [ME]
Sen Durbin, Richard [IL]
Sen Lincoln, Blanche L. [AR]
Sen McCain, John [AZ]
Sen Nelson, Bill [FL]
Sen Obama, Barack [IL]
Sen Snowe, Olympia J. [ME]
Heres the nuke part of the bill:
(A) CORPORATION'S SHARE OF COSTS- Costs for the program shall be shared equally between the Corporation and the builder of such first facilities.
(B) NUCLEAR REACTORS- Funding under this section for any nuclear facility--
(i) may not exceed $200,000,000 for an individual project; and
(ii) shall be available for no more than 1 of each of the 3 designs certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(4) REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS- For any subsequently-built facility that uses a design supported by the cost-sharing program under this section, the Secretary of Energy and the Corporation shall specify an amount to be paid to the Corporation in order for the Corporation to receive full reimbursement for costs the Corporation incurred in connection with the design, considering the program's objectives, including the costs of promoting the deployment of cost-effective, economically competitive technologies with no or low net greenhouse gas emissions.
(5) REIMBURSEMENT FOR DELAY- If the construction of such a first facility of a substantially new design is not started within 10 years after the date on which a commitment under the cost-sharing program is made by the Secretary, then the industry partner shall reimburse the Corporation for any costs incurred by the Corporation under the program.
(6) JURISDICTION-
(A) NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION- Nothing in this Act shall affect the jurisdiction of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission over nuclear power plant design approvals or combined construction and operating licenses pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.).
(B) REGULATORY AGENCIES- Nothing in this Act affects the jurisdiction of any Federal, State, or local government regulatory agency.
(d) Demonstration Program-
(1) NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION LICENSING PROCESS- Within 24 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall establish a demonstration program to reduce the first-time regulatory costs of the current Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing process incurred by the first applicant using an advanced reactor design.
(2) Permits; licenses; cost-sharing-
(A) The demonstration program shall--
(i) address the Early Site Permit applications and the combined construction and operating license applications; and
(ii) be jointly funded by the Department of Energy and the applicant.
(B) The Secretary shall work with the applicant to determine the appropriate percentage of costs that the Department and the applicant shall each provide.
(3) REIMBURSEMENT FOR LICENSE TRANSFER- If an applicant decides to transfer a permit granted by the Commission under the program to another entity, the applicant shall reimburse the Department for its costs in obtaining the permit.
So what do nuke plants cost?
"Underestimating costs and charging them to customers helped discredit nuclear power 30 years ago," said Peter Bradford, a commissioner on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission who teaches energy policy at Yale University. "It would be astonishing if North Carolina and Florida regulators allowed it to happen again."
"The question of cost is not academic. The price of any new power plant -- whether it's for coal, natural gas or uranium -- will be passed on to customers via rate increases. Progress Energy's Shearon Harris reactor, completed 20 years ago, resulted in a 16 percent rate increase and a 60-year payment plan for customers.
But the Fortune 500 company and its shareholders will face some risk. If the company's cost estimates are off, it could get stuck with excessive costs it can't justify to state regulators. That is what happened in the 1980s when the Shearon Harris plant came in at nearly $3 billion over budget, in part because of delays that put it a decade behind schedule.
Shearon Harris was among 75 nuclear plants built in this country that blew their budgets to the collective tune of $80 billion, or about $1 billion per reactor on average, according to the Department of Energy.
Adjusted for inflation and expressed in 2005 dollars, the total is $147 billion, or nearly $2 billion per reactor, according to the Department of Energy. Those cost overruns in the 1980s led to the cancellation of more than 40 reactors."
Alan Nogee of the Union of Concerned Scientists: "The nuclear industry has never delivered a project on time and on budget."
The Sanders Bill text has 11 co-sponsors
Sponsor: Sen Sanders, Bernard [VT]
S.309
Title: A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, and for other purposes.
Sen Akaka, Daniel K. [HI]
Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA]
Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT]
Sen Feingold, Russell D. [WI]
Sen Inouye, Daniel K. [HI]
Sen Kennedy, Edward M. [MA]
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ]
Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT]
Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ]
Sen Reed, Jack [RI]
Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI]
I see no nuke subsidy in the Sanders bill: heres the only reference I found: excluding nukes...
TECHNOLOGY-INDEXED STOP PRICE- The term `technology-indexed stop price' means a price per ton of global warming pollution emissions determined annually by the Administrator that is not less than the technology-specific average cost of preventing the emission of 1 ton of global warming pollutants through commercial deployment of any available zero-carbon or low-carbon technologies. With respect to the electricity sector, those technologies shall consist of--
`(aa) wind-generated electricity;
`(bb) photovoltaic-generated electricity;
`(cc) geothermal energy;
`(dd) solar thermally-generated energy;
`(ee) wave-based forms of energy;
`(ff) any fossil fuel-based electric generating technology emitting less than 250 pounds per megawatt hour; and
`(gg) any zero-carbon-emitting electric generating technology that does not generate radioactive waste.
The Waxman Bill text has 39 co-sponsors
Sponsor: Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30] (introduced 3/17/2005)
H.R.1451
Title:To amend the Clean Air Act to reduce emissions from electric powerplants, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30] (introduced 3/17/2005)
Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5]
Rep Allen, Thomas H. [ME-1]
Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2]
Rep Becerra, Xavier [CA-31]
Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-28]
Rep Blumenauer, Earl [OR-3]
Rep Boehlert, Sherwood [NY-24]
Rep Capps, Lois [CA-23]
Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-7]
Rep Doggett, Lloyd [TX-25]
Rep Engel, Eliot L. [NY-17]
Rep Eshoo, Anna G. [CA-14]
Rep Gilchrest, Wayne T. [MD-1]
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7]
Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. [IL-4]
Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12]
Rep Johnson, Nancy L. [CT-5]
Rep Kelly, Sue W. [NY-19]
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10]
Rep Langevin, James R. [RI-2]
Rep Larson, John B. [CT-1]
Rep LoBiondo, Frank A. [NJ-2]
Rep Markey, Edward J. [MA-7]
Rep McHugh, John M. [NY-23]
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8]
Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8]
Rep Reyes, Silvestre [TX-16]
Rep Rothman, Steven R. [NJ-9]
Rep Saxton, Jim [NJ-3]
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9]
Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4]
Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]
Rep Smith, Christopher H. [NJ-4]
Rep Solis, Hilda L. [CA-32]
Rep Thompson, Mike [CA-1]
Rep Walsh, James T. [NY-25]
Rep Wu, David [OR-1]
...and the Sanders bill was originally the Jeffords bill in that illfated congress session. The Waxman Bill in the House and the Sanders Bill in the Senate are very similar.
Because we have a solid majority in the House, I am not worried about the Waxman passing. The Democrats in the House have successfully passed everything Nancy set out before them and overridden the scraggly remainders of the DoNothings of the 109th congress.
While it is great that now that we have the majority we can at least get these real solutions on the table (note Waxmans bill has languished since 2005) it is crucial that we provide a concerted effort to get the narrower majority in the Senate to Step it Up and pass what works.
You could make a difference to this Senate debate to get the legislation gets carbon down 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Find your neighbourhood Step it Up action and join with the rest of us in telling the Senate to Step it Up on Saturday, April 14th.
Please tell Senator Obama he must come over to the right side: Step it Up to The Gold Standard". Write your plea and The Goricle can deliver your message, when he visits the Senate next week to ask, from us, that they Step it Up.
One day we could look back and be amazed that we ever assumed that the only way to power a civilization was to dig our power out of the dirt in the form of coal and oil...
...and that we had to invade every country that had power in their dirt.
.
We are so close to destruction because we just can't let go of that one belief.
There are so many beautiful and clever alternatives for powering both us and the world.
We are a smart race. We invent solutions. We don't have to choose between the frying pan and the fire.