|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Civil & Human Rights : Elections & Legislation : Environment : Health : Nukes : Political-Economy : Regime : Right Wing |
|
Bush’s (and Tim Johnson's) Push for Nuclear Power Would Unfairly Burden Taxpayers Even More |
Current rating: 0 |
by Public Citizen repost of local interest
(No verified email address) |
28 Apr 2005
Modified: 10:37:01 AM |
|
Why should the taxpayers support nuclear power if it isn't a economically viable source of energy? We already know that nuclear power is dangerous to the environment and to health. Now Bush wants to give away billions of dollars of the taxpayers' money to subsidize what is a losing proposition all around. It also needs to be noted that Exelon Corp., which wants to add another reactor at Clinton, greased Tim Johnson's palm with $7,000 in the 2004 campaign and got their payoff when Johnson voted for the Energy Bill approving massive subsidies to the nuke industry. For details, see: http://www.opensecrets.org |
Statement of Wenonah Hauter, Director, Public Citizen’s Energy Program
WASHINGTON -- April 27 -- President Bush’s relentless push for nuclear power is spiraling out of control. Today, Bush is expected to deliver a speech encouraging the use of domestic energy sources. Among his five new proposals, he plans to offer the nuclear industry yet another break; this time in the form of federal “risk insurance,” which would protect the nuclear industry in the event that the regulatory process slows down its plans for building new nuclear reactors.
Taxpayers already have provided the nuclear industry tens of billions in subsidies since its inception 50 years ago. The just-passed energy bill by the U.S. House of Representatives provides an additional $6.1 billion in subsidies and tax breaks to the nuclear industry. Moreover, the nuclear industry is the only industry to have its liability artificially limited – even in cases of intentional misconduct or gross negligence. This is done through the Price-Anderson Act, a law that caps the industry’s liability in the event of a catastrophic accident or attack and calls for the government – that is, the taxpayers – to pay for cleanup above the cap. Apparently, this isn’t enough. The industry is demanding cradle-to-grave subsidies.
The nuclear industry now wants to be 100 percent guaranteed that its license applications will be quickly accepted by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the agency responsible for issuing nuclear reactor licenses. Rushing these licenses is foolhardy. It will shortchange the public of its opportunity to participate in the process and could jeopardize public safety.
As the leader of the so-called fiscal conservative party in this country, Bush is making a gigantic miscalculation by offering even more money to the nuclear industry at the expense of taxpayers. If the nuclear industry thought that building new reactors was profitable, then it would foot the bill to build new reactors. Instead, the nuclear industry wants the public to take all the risks, while it reaps the profits. Nuclear power is risky – and those risks should be borne by the industry, not the public.
Nuclear power is not the answer to our energy problems. It’s expensive and dangerous. Too many of our taxpayer dollars have already been wasted on this polluting energy source. Enough is enough. |
See also:
http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1933
|
Related stories on this site:
IMC Radio News April 25, 2005
|
This work is in the public domain |
|
Re: Bush’s (and Tim Johnson's) Push for Nuclear Power Would Unfairly Burden Taxpayers Even More |
by Solution?
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
28 Apr 2005
|
|
So do we need more coal-fire plants? Natural gas "peakers"? There isn't enough land to put all the windmills you would need to replace the power of one nuclear plant. |
|
None of the Above |
by don't radiate me
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
28 Apr 2005
|
First of all, putting more CO2 into the air is just a dumb idea. We need an energy bill that looks to the future, not to lining the pockets of past campaign contributors. We need clean energy, not dirty energy.
There was an interesting discussion on WILL AM580's Focus 580 this morning during the 11am hour that offers some real workable alternatives in energy policy, instead of more of what we do not need. Here's the description of the program:
" Energy at the Crossroads: Oil Resources, James MacKenzie, Senior Associate at the World Resources Institute and Professorial Lecturer in the School of Advanced International Studies of the John Hopkins University"
Here the Real audio link:
http://rms01.cites.uiuc.edu/ramgen/WILL/archives/focus050428b.rm
Here's the MP3 link:
http://www.will.uiuc.edu/willmp3/focus050428b.mp3 |
|
Re: Bush’s (and Tim Johnson's) Push for Nuclear Power Would Unfairly Burden Taxpayers Even More |
by Glenn
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
28 Apr 2005
|
|
Why are you bushing Johnson? He voted with the left 10 out of 17 amendments. He even voted for no drilling in ANWR and higher fuel mileage. That was the biggest thing the Democrats wanted to pass. Next the only reason Johnson voted to the energy bill was because of the RFS that meant 5 billion gallons of ethanol would be used by 2012. You got to think the 15TH district has a ton of farmer in it. He would have had every farmer in the 15TH on him if he didn’t vote yes on this bill. He had to vote for the energy bill. You can see with the votes on the amendments he didn’t like everything that was in the bill. Most of you here should give him a little credit for voting against Bush on more than half the amendments. |
|
The Ethanol Scam: ADM Giveaway Disguised as Aid to Farmers |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
28 Apr 2005
|
Sorry, Glenn, but voting for ethanol subsidies is yet another waste of the taxpayers' money. I'll repeat what I wrote a couple of days ago as a comment to another article on the site:
"I am a big supporter of the family farm. I've worked on the farms of relatives and am pretty familiar with the farm economy. And all the ethanol craze is in my opinion, along with the billions of tax dollars sent to politico-palm-greasing outfits like Archer-Daniels-Midland in Decatur, is a crop support program that is well-padded with subsidies to big corporations. I have never seen it documented that the energy production from ethanol exceeds the energy input, much of it from imported oil.
"And there would seem to be some significant problems with net CO2 production in the ethanol issue, which worsens and accelerates global climate change, based on the fact that the planting, plowing, transportation, and fermentation are involved in the chain of production. They all add CO2 at nearly very step of the way, even before the ethanol produced is burned for energy and gives another big dose of CO2 to the atmosphere.
"I say, give the crop subsidy, if needed, directly to farmers, and spend the savings on cutting out the slush fund to ADM, etc, on starting to retire some of George Bush's war debt."
Apparently, money, as well as the ignorance of well-meaning but naive ethanol supporters, is greasing the wheels of Tim's vote on ethanol. According to the Open Secrets website cited above, Tim raked in $43,665 in the 2004 election cycle from agribusiness, with $39,665 coming from industry PACs and only $4,000 in individual contributions.
There is also a great deal of talk of cutting farm subsidies in Bush's proposed ag budget. Farmers should ask themselves when they are confronted with such cuts whether or not ADM and the other agribusines piggies got their ethanol subsidy cut -- or not? My guess is the answer is no, ADM is doing fine with Bush and Timmy's help, but farmers will take yet another hit. Farmers who are kneejerk supporters of anything with an elephant attached to it ought to start thinking for themselves, instead of buying more Republican hogwash. |
|
Re: Bush’s (and Tim Johnson's) Push for Nuclear Power Would Unfairly Burden Taxpayers Even More |
by Joe Futrelle
futrelle (nospam) shout.net (verified) |
Current rating: 0
28 Apr 2005
|
At some point, renewable energy sources will become the only economically viable option. In the meantime, the question is how much environmental and public health degradation we are willing to tolerate in order to continue enjoying cheap energy.
The adminstration's current push to solve our energy problems with "technology" should indicate how far the administration is from addressing the real issue. |
