Group items tagged

Nuclear power plants are being pushed as part of climate-change legislation. But the focus should be on renewable power sources, which are getting cheaper and don't produce radioactive waste. As the Senate debates climate legislation that could reinvent the country's energy infrastructure, it is richly ironic that lawmakers who consider themselves rock-ribbed fiscal conservatives are among the strongest backers of nuclear plants -- a vastly expensive, inefficient and dangerous source of energy that requires massive taxpayer bailouts. Senate Republicans and many moderate Democrats are seeking to lard up prospective climate and energy bills with billions of dollars in loan guarantees and other subsidies for nuclear power, even though it makes no sense as a solution to climate change and is a terrible option from an economic, environmental and national-security standpoint. Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), whose bipartisan effort to restructure the cap-and-trade climate bill (which Republicans like to deride as "cap and tax") offers its only hope of passage in the Senate this year, signaled their intent to add more nuclear pork to the bill in a recent Op-Ed article. Meanwhile, Sens. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) recently introduced their own alternative climate bill calling for up to $100 billion in clean-energy loan guarantees, most of which would end up going to nuclear plants.

Nuclear power plants are being pushed as part of climate-change legislation. But the focus should be on renewable power sources, which are getting cheaper and don't produce radioactive waste. As the Senate debates climate legislation that could reinvent the country's energy infrastructure, it is richly ironic that lawmakers who consider themselves rock-ribbed fiscal conservatives are among the strongest backers of nuclear plants -- a vastly expensive, inefficient and dangerous source of energy that requires massive taxpayer bailouts. Senate Republicans and many moderate Democrats are seeking to lard up prospective climate and energy bills with billions of dollars in loan guarantees and other subsidies for nuclear power, even though it makes no sense as a solution to climate change and is a terrible option from an economic, environmental and national-security standpoint. Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), whose bipartisan effort to restructure the cap-and-trade climate bill (which Republicans like to deride as "cap and tax") offers its only hope of passage in the Senate this year, signaled their intent to add more nuclear pork to the bill in a recent Op-Ed article. Meanwhile, Sens. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) recently introduced their own alternative climate bill calling for up to $100 billion in clean-energy loan guarantees, most of which would end up going to nuclear plants.

Big firms drop support for US climate bill * BP America, Caterpillar and Conoco end support * Opponents claim climate law is dead in the water Barack Obama suffered a setback to his green energy agenda as three firms drop out of a coalition that had been pressing for climate change laws. Photograph: Brian Kersey/Getty Images Barack Obama suffered a setback to his green energy agendatoday when three major corporations - including BP America - dropped out of a coalition of business groups and environmental organisations that had been pressing Congress to pass climate change legislation. The defections by ConocoPhillips, America's third largest oil company, Caterpillar, which makes heavy equipment, and BP rob the US Climate Action Partnership of three powerful voices for lobbying Congress to pass climate change law. They also undercut Obama's efforts to cast his climate and energy agenda as a pro-business, job-creation plan."

oday I have had the opportunity to meet with Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission Dr. Montek Singh Ahluwalia and other distinguished Indian leaders. We had productive discussions about the opportunities for partnerships between our two countries on clean energy technologies. Meeting the climate and clean energy challenge is a top priority for President Obama. In the past ten months, the United States has demonstrated its renewed commitment to these goals both by supporting domestic policies that advance clean energy, climate security, and economic recovery; and by vigorously vigorously re-engaging the international community through bi-lateral relationships, the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, the G20, and the UN negotiations. The U.S. will continue to work hard toward combating climate change and reaching a strong international agreement that puts the world on a pathway to a clean energy future. Working together, we can meet the clean energy and climate challenge in a way that will drive sustainable, low-carbon economic growth in the 21st century.

oday I have had the opportunity to meet with Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission Dr. Montek Singh Ahluwalia and other distinguished Indian leaders. We had productive discussions about the opportunities for partnerships between our two countries on clean energy technologies. Meeting the climate and clean energy challenge is a top priority for President Obama. In the past ten months, the United States has demonstrated its renewed commitment to these goals both by supporting domestic policies that advance clean energy, climate security, and economic recovery; and by vigorously vigorously re-engaging the international community through bi-lateral relationships, the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, the G20, and the UN negotiations. The U.S. will continue to work hard toward combating climate change and reaching a strong international agreement that puts the world on a pathway to a clean energy future. Working together, we can meet the clean energy and climate challenge in a way that will drive sustainable, low-carbon economic growth in the 21st century.

Dr. Helen Caldicott, the pioneering Australian antinuclear activist and pediatrician who spearheaded the global nuclear freeze movement of the 1980s and co-founded Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), has joined with left-leaning environmental groups here in an uphill fight to halt nuclear power as a "solution" to the global warming crisis. "Global warming is the greatest gift the nuclear industry has ever received," Dr. Caldicott told Truthout. The growing rush to nuclear power was only enhanced, experts say, by the weak climate deal at the Copenhagen 15 climate conference. The prospects for passage of a climate bill in Congress - virtually all versions are pro-nuclear - were enhanced, most analysts say, because it offered the promise that China might voluntarily agree to verify its carbon reductions and it could reassure senators worried about American manufacturers being undermined by polluters overseas. But at the two-week international confab that didn't produce any binding agreements to do anything, Caldicott and environmental activist groups were marginalized or, in the case of the delegates from Friends of the Earth, evicted from the main hall.

Dr. Helen Caldicott, the pioneering Australian antinuclear activist and pediatrician who spearheaded the global nuclear freeze movement of the 1980s and co-founded Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), has joined with left-leaning environmental groups here in an uphill fight to halt nuclear power as a "solution" to the global warming crisis. "Global warming is the greatest gift the nuclear industry has ever received," Dr. Caldicott told Truthout. The growing rush to nuclear power was only enhanced, experts say, by the weak climate deal at the Copenhagen 15 climate conference. The prospects for passage of a climate bill in Congress - virtually all versions are pro-nuclear - were enhanced, most analysts say, because it offered the promise that China might voluntarily agree to verify its carbon reductions and it could reassure senators worried about American manufacturers being undermined by polluters overseas. But at the two-week international confab that didn't produce any binding agreements to do anything, Caldicott and environmental activist groups were marginalized or, in the case of the delegates from Friends of the Earth, evicted from the main hall.

Senators trying to craft bipartisan climate legislation offered a revised proposal Thursday that would add incentives for building nuclear power plants and open the way for expanded oil and gas drilling off the nation's coastlines in hopes of attracting wider support. The new framework for a Senate climate bill would ease back requirements for early reductions of greenhouse gases. It calls for cuts in the range of 17 percent by 2020, instead of 20 percent, similar to reductions already approved by the House and what Obama will call for at an international climate conference in Copenhagen. "We would like to underscore the fact that the framework we are releasing today is a starting point for our negotiations going forward," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

Senators trying to craft bipartisan climate legislation offered a revised proposal Thursday that would add incentives for building nuclear power plants and open the way for expanded oil and gas drilling off the nation's coastlines in hopes of attracting wider support. The new framework for a Senate climate bill would ease back requirements for early reductions of greenhouse gases. It calls for cuts in the range of 17 percent by 2020, instead of 20 percent, similar to reductions already approved by the House and what Obama will call for at an international climate conference in Copenhagen. "We would like to underscore the fact that the framework we are releasing today is a starting point for our negotiations going forward," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

200 environmental, peace, consumer, religious organizations and small businesses today joined together to blast the Kerry-Lieberman "climate" proposal as a taxpayer bailout of the nuclear power industry and other dirty energy interests that would be ineffective at addressing the climate crisis. The groups pledged to oppose the Kerry- Lieberman bill unless substantial changes are made, including removing all support for nuclear power. "This bill is just business-as-usual: taxpayer giveaways to giant nuclear and other energy corporations wrapped in the guise of doing something about our climate crisis. To call this a climate bill is greenwashing in the extreme. We need to direct our resources to the fastest, cheapest, cleanest and safest means of reducing carbon emissions-this bill does just the opposite," said Michael Mariotte, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, a national organization based in Takoma Park, MD, which coordinated this statement.

The once-demonized nuclear industry got its biggest boost in years Thursday. A bipartisan coalition of US senators put forward a "framework" for climate legislation that aims to dramatically increase off-shore oil drilling, ensure a "future for coal" and, above all, ramp up subsidies for the financially risky nuclear power industry. The announcement was timed, in part, to send a signal to negotiators at the climate conference in Copenhagen that the US Senate is supposedly serious about climate reform. Sen. John Kerry, Lindsey Graham and Joseph Lieberman are taking the lead in pushing an industry-friendly package that aims to bring down carbon emissions 17 percent from 2005 levels - a modest goal shared by House-passed legislation and President Obama. As The Hill reported: "White House press secretary Robert Gibbs called the framework a 'significant step' and said Obama believes it shows movement toward reaching a bipartisan Senate agreement."

The once-demonized nuclear industry got its biggest boost in years Thursday. A bipartisan coalition of US senators put forward a "framework" for climate legislation that aims to dramatically increase off-shore oil drilling, ensure a "future for coal" and, above all, ramp up subsidies for the financially risky nuclear power industry. The announcement was timed, in part, to send a signal to negotiators at the climate conference in Copenhagen that the US Senate is supposedly serious about climate reform. Sen. John Kerry, Lindsey Graham and Joseph Lieberman are taking the lead in pushing an industry-friendly package that aims to bring down carbon emissions 17 percent from 2005 levels - a modest goal shared by House-passed legislation and President Obama. As The Hill reported: "White House press secretary Robert Gibbs called the framework a 'significant step' and said Obama believes it shows movement toward reaching a bipartisan Senate agreement."

Dr Dominique Raynaud is an expert at climatic change issues. Along with other researchers from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore he received the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2007. Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth is partially based namely on the research of Raynaud. Dr. Raynaud was on a visit to Sofia where he delivered a lecture on the preparation of the conference on climate change in Copenhagen. - Mr. Raynaud, how real is the threat of global warming? - Generally the stakes are rather high. Take Africa for example. This continent is already in a very dangerous situation. The sea level will rise by 50 or 80 cm or even more by the end of the century. This means there will be a lot of problems in many coastal countries. In Bangladesh, for instance, thousands of people will have to be evacuated. Millions of people will have to immigrate, increase of conflicts is very possible etc? - You believe the future of the Earth is to an extent in the hands of the people. Do you think that they, though, can really be motivated to change the status quo? - People should be educated, things should be explained to them. This issue should not be abandoned; people should be persuaded without being compelled. We are talking of a threat, of a possibility, not about something that will for sure happen. I also hope we are wrong. But even if we are right, this will happen for good because we will have to change our lifestyle. - What do you think of nuclear energy? A lot of discussions are currently being held in Bulgaria on the necessity of constructing a second NPP?

Dr Dominique Raynaud is an expert at climatic change issues. Along with other researchers from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore he received the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2007. Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth is partially based namely on the research of Raynaud. Dr. Raynaud was on a visit to Sofia where he delivered a lecture on the preparation of the conference on climate change in Copenhagen. - Mr. Raynaud, how real is the threat of global warming? - Generally the stakes are rather high. Take Africa for example. This continent is already in a very dangerous situation. The sea level will rise by 50 or 80 cm or even more by the end of the century. This means there will be a lot of problems in many coastal countries. In Bangladesh, for instance, thousands of people will have to be evacuated. Millions of people will have to immigrate, increase of conflicts is very possible etc? - You believe the future of the Earth is to an extent in the hands of the people. Do you think that they, though, can really be motivated to change the status quo? - People should be educated, things should be explained to them. This issue should not be abandoned; people should be persuaded without being compelled. We are talking of a threat, of a possibility, not about something that will for sure happen. I also hope we are wrong. But even if we are right, this will happen for good because we will have to change our lifestyle. - What do you think of nuclear energy? A lot of discussions are currently being held in Bulgaria on the necessity of constructing a second NPP?

Government plans to fast-track major projects pose a real threat to their action plan on global warming (UK's nuclear future is mapped out as race to tackle climate change hots up, 10 November). Reports on the government's national policy statements have predictably focussed on the controversial issue of new nuclear reactors, but a fundamental flaw in the proposals, which has gone largely unreported, threatens to undermine UK targets for tackling climate change. Under the Climate Change Act, the UK has been set legally binding "carbon budgets", setting limits on how much carbon the UK can emit, over five-year budget periods, for the next 15 years. Some of the projects covered by the national policy statements, such as new coal and gas-fired power stations, are likely to have a significant impact on UK emissions - but bizarrely the effect that these developments would have on UK carbon budgets is missing from the proposals, and this issue won't be considered by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC).

Government plans to fast-track major projects pose a real threat to their action plan on global warming (UK's nuclear future is mapped out as race to tackle climate change hots up, 10 November). Reports on the government's national policy statements have predictably focussed on the controversial issue of new nuclear reactors, but a fundamental flaw in the proposals, which has gone largely unreported, threatens to undermine UK targets for tackling climate change. Under the Climate Change Act, the UK has been set legally binding "carbon budgets", setting limits on how much carbon the UK can emit, over five-year budget periods, for the next 15 years. Some of the projects covered by the national policy statements, such as new coal and gas-fired power stations, are likely to have a significant impact on UK emissions - but bizarrely the effect that these developments would have on UK carbon budgets is missing from the proposals, and this issue won't be considered by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC).

China promised to slow its carbon emissions, saying it would nearly halve the ratio of pollution to GDP over the next decade - a major move by the world's largest emitter, whose cooperation is crucial to any deal as a global climate summit approaches. Beijing's voluntary pledge Thursday came a day after President Barack Obama promised the U.S. would lay out plans at the summit to substantially cut its own greenhouse gas emissions. Together, the announcements are building momentum for next month's meeting in Copenhagen. "Governments from all over the world are delivering before the climate conference," Denmark's Climate Minister Connie Hedegaard said. "U.S. and China have come forward. All across the globe, things are moving. This is good news."

China promised to slow its carbon emissions, saying it would nearly halve the ratio of pollution to GDP over the next decade - a major move by the world's largest emitter, whose cooperation is crucial to any deal as a global climate summit approaches. Beijing's voluntary pledge Thursday came a day after President Barack Obama promised the U.S. would lay out plans at the summit to substantially cut its own greenhouse gas emissions. Together, the announcements are building momentum for next month's meeting in Copenhagen. "Governments from all over the world are delivering before the climate conference," Denmark's Climate Minister Connie Hedegaard said. "U.S. and China have come forward. All across the globe, things are moving. This is good news."

The following essay by Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, was distributed by the McClatchy-Tribune News Service to newspapers across the country. Thanks to documents recently uncovered by a lawsuit, we now know that a major industry trade group was told by its science advisers in 1995 that it was spreading false information about climate change. But that didn't matter to the Global Climate Coalition, which included the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and a number of oil and auto companies. The coalition, which disbanded in 2002, simply continued to deny the consensus of the world's climate scientists.

In his letter (Expensive questions, December 1), Mike Deats questions the nuclear Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) but suggests SA should go ahead with nuclear power as soon as possible to mitigate climate change even without the PBMR technology. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency , which exists to spread the peaceful use of the atom, revealed in a report a few years ago that power generation through nuclear fission could not grow fast enough over the next decades to slow climate change - even under the most favourable circumstances. The cost of developing nuclear energy is rising exponentially. In the US uranium now costs 60 for 450g, compared with 10 for 450g nine years ago. There is still no safe repository for nuclear waste anywhere in the world, and Yucca Mountain where the US hopes to store its nuclear waste had an estimated cost of 58bn in 2001, which has now escalated to an estimated 96bn. Last year there were 250 incidents of nuclear material being lost or stolen. In the worst-case scenario of a Chernobyl-type accident, the costs could be as high as 700bn, roughly the size of the current US fiscal bail-out.

In his letter (Expensive questions, December 1), Mike Deats questions the nuclear Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) but suggests SA should go ahead with nuclear power as soon as possible to mitigate climate change even without the PBMR technology. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency , which exists to spread the peaceful use of the atom, revealed in a report a few years ago that power generation through nuclear fission could not grow fast enough over the next decades to slow climate change - even under the most favourable circumstances. The cost of developing nuclear energy is rising exponentially. In the US uranium now costs 60 for 450g, compared with 10 for 450g nine years ago. There is still no safe repository for nuclear waste anywhere in the world, and Yucca Mountain where the US hopes to store its nuclear waste had an estimated cost of 58bn in 2001, which has now escalated to an estimated 96bn. Last year there were 250 incidents of nuclear material being lost or stolen. In the worst-case scenario of a Chernobyl-type accident, the costs could be as high as 700bn, roughly the size of the current US fiscal bail-out.

In his letter (Expensive questions, December 1), Mike Deats questions the nuclear Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) but suggests SA should go ahead with nuclear power as soon as possible to mitigate climate change even without the PBMR technology. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency , which exists to spread the peaceful use of the atom, revealed in a report a few years ago that power generation through nuclear fission could not grow fast enough over the next decades to slow climate change - even under the most favourable circumstances. The cost of developing nuclear energy is rising exponentially. In the US uranium now costs 60 for 450g, compared with 10 for 450g nine years ago. There is still no safe repository for nuclear waste anywhere in the world, and Yucca Mountain where the US hopes to store its nuclear waste had an estimated cost of 58bn in 2001, which has now escalated to an estimated 96bn. Last year there were 250 incidents of nuclear material being lost or stolen. In the worst-case scenario of a Chernobyl-type accident, the costs could be as high as 700bn, roughly the size of the current US fiscal bail-out.

Beyond ecological imperialism Climate change isn't just a battle between rich and poor - it shows how an obsession with economic growth is a dead end o guardian.co.uk, Monday 21 December 2009 12.30 GMT So the Copenhagen summit did not deliver any hope of substantive change, or even any indication that the world's leaders are sufficiently aware of the vastness and urgency of the problem. But is that such a surprise? Nothing in the much-hyped runup to the summit suggested that the organisers and participants had genuine ambitions to change course and stop or reverse a process of clearly unsustainable growth. Part of the problem is that the issue of climate change is increasingly portrayed as that of competing interests between countries. Thus, the summit has been interpreted variously as a fight between the "two largest culprits" - the US and China - or between a small group of developed countries and a small group of newly emerging countries (the group of four - China, India, Brazil and South Africa), or at best between rich and poor countries. The historical legacy of past growth in the rich countries that has a current adverse impact is certainly keenly felt in the developing world. It is not just the past: current per capita greenhouse gas emissions in the developed world are still many multiples of that in any developing country, including China. So the attempts by northern commentators to lay blame on some countries for derailing the result by pointing to this discrepancy are seen in most developing countries as further evidence of an essentially colonial outlook. But describing this as a fight between countries misses the essential point: that the issue is really linked to an economic system - capitalism - that is crucially dependent upon rapid growth as its driving force, even if this "growth" does not deliver better lives for the people. So there is no questioning of the supposition that rich countries with declining populations mu

Beyond ecological imperialism Climate change isn't just a battle between rich and poor - it shows how an obsession with economic growth is a dead end o guardian.co.uk, Monday 21 December 2009 12.30 GMT So the Copenhagen summit did not deliver any hope of substantive change, or even any indication that the world's leaders are sufficiently aware of the vastness and urgency of the problem. But is that such a surprise? Nothing in the much-hyped runup to the summit suggested that the organisers and participants had genuine ambitions to change course and stop or reverse a process of clearly unsustainable growth. Part of the problem is that the issue of climate change is increasingly portrayed as that of competing interests between countries. Thus, the summit has been interpreted variously as a fight between the "two largest culprits" - the US and China - or between a small group of developed countries and a small group of newly emerging countries (the group of four - China, India, Brazil and South Africa), or at best between rich and poor countries. The historical legacy of past growth in the rich countries that has a current adverse impact is certainly keenly felt in the developing world. It is not just the past: current per capita greenhouse gas emissions in the developed world are still many multiples of that in any developing country, including China. So the attempts by northern commentators to lay blame on some countries for derailing the result by pointing to this discrepancy are seen in most developing countries as further evidence of an essentially colonial outlook. But describing this as a fight between countries misses the essential point: that the issue is really linked to an economic system - capitalism - that is crucially dependent upon rapid growth as its driving force, even if this "growth" does not deliver better lives for the people. So there is no questioning of the supposition that rich countries with declining populations mu

With the Indo-US civilian nuclear energy initiative back on track after the recent trust vote in Parliament, government's key negotiator on Climate Change Shyam Saran on Saturday pinned hope that "clean energy" would help tackle climate change threats. Speaking at a seminar on "Climate change: Will India's Growth story confront new constraints?" he said, "We may look forward to a major expansion in nuclear power generation in the period upto 2030-31," to meet growing energy needs.

Calling climate change one of the greatest challenges ever faced by the human race, some former opponents of nuclear power have recently become its advocates, if cautious advocates. Our purpose here is not to debate climate change, but rather "Is nuclear power essential to addressing climate change and energy independence?"

A "discussion draft" (pdf) for climate and energy legislation released today by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.) sets the stage for the federal government to rapidly adopt a comprehensive approach to energy and climate policy, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). House members will use the discussion draft as a starting point for crafting legislation. Waxman, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Markey, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, have pledged to move a bill out of the Energy and Commerce committee by Memorial Day, Monday, May 25. The discussion draft release comes on the heels of President Obama reaffirming his pledge to move rapidly on comprehensive climate and energy legislation during a March 24 press conference.

"For weeks following Predident Barack Obama's State of the Union address, in which he more or less put at arms length or overturned some of the brighter climate promises he had made only a year before, his administration is spreading itself thin to come up with climate and energy legislation that will pass the Senate. Charles Digges, 23/02-2010 So scattered have become the problems of placating partisan interests that the climate legislation submitted to the Senate in October after its landmark passage by the House of Representatives is now being referred to wryly by some observers and American media as the "hybrid" energy bill. "

As the threat of nuclear weapons looms large over the very existence of life on earth, Dr Sue Wareham, International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear weapons' (ICAN) Australian board member, is calling for a speedy abolition of these weapons and the rejection of nuclear power as a solution to climate change. Speaking at the sessions on nuclear abolition and disarmament at the 2009 Parliament of the World's Religions here, Wareham said the power of religion should be harnessed to bring peace in the world through disarmament, abolition of nuclear weapons, eradication of poverty and action on climate change. The six-day Parliament, which ends on Dec 9, is a gathering of religious and spiritual communities from different parts of the world to discuss issues relating to peace, diversity and sustainability.

As the threat of nuclear weapons looms large over the very existence of life on earth, Dr Sue Wareham, International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear weapons' (ICAN) Australian board member, is calling for a speedy abolition of these weapons and the rejection of nuclear power as a solution to climate change. Speaking at the sessions on nuclear abolition and disarmament at the 2009 Parliament of the World's Religions here, Wareham said the power of religion should be harnessed to bring peace in the world through disarmament, abolition of nuclear weapons, eradication of poverty and action on climate change. The six-day Parliament, which ends on Dec 9, is a gathering of religious and spiritual communities from different parts of the world to discuss issues relating to peace, diversity and sustainability.

Is the Climate Bill morphing into an excuse to promote fossil fuels and new nuclear power plants? Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) recent promotion of a pro-nuke/pro-drilling/pro-coal agenda in the name of Climate Protection has been highlighted in a New York Times op ed co-authored with Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC). The piece brands nuke power "our single largest contributor of emissions-free power." It advocates abolishing "cumbersome regulations" so utilities can "secure financing for more plants." And it wants "serious investment" to "find solutions to our nuclear waste problem."

Is the Climate Bill morphing into an excuse to promote fossil fuels and new nuclear power plants? Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) recent promotion of a pro-nuke/pro-drilling/pro-coal agenda in the name of Climate Protection has been highlighted in a New York Times op ed co-authored with Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC). The piece brands nuke power "our single largest contributor of emissions-free power." It advocates abolishing "cumbersome regulations" so utilities can "secure financing for more plants." And it wants "serious investment" to "find solutions to our nuclear waste problem."

There are three main problems with the nuclear "solution" to climate change - it is a blunt instrument, a dangerous one, and it is unnecessary. First, nuclear power could at most make a modest contribution to climate change abatement. The main limitation is that it is used almost exclusively for electricity generation, which accounts for about one-quarter of global greenhouse emissions. Doubling global nuclear power output by mid-century at the expense of coal would reduce greenhouse emissions by about 5%.

There are three main problems with the nuclear "solution" to climate change - it is a blunt instrument, a dangerous one, and it is unnecessary. First, nuclear power could at most make a modest contribution to climate change abatement. The main limitation is that it is used almost exclusively for electricity generation, which accounts for about one-quarter of global greenhouse emissions. Doubling global nuclear power output by mid-century at the expense of coal would reduce greenhouse emissions by about 5%.