Group items tagged

If you've wondered how life would be different if John McCain had won the 2008 presidential election, here's one example of McCain supporting a policy that Barack Obama opposes. At the urging of President Obama, members of the U.S. Senate are trying to craft a plan that would require utility companies to generate 15% of their power from renewable energy sources by 2021. During debate this week over what a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) would encompass, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) tried to push through an amendment that would classify nuclear power as a renewable energy. "Reduced greenhouse gas emissions, have cleaner sources of energy and diversity: I certainly think nuclear power meets all of those definitions," McCain told his colleagues, who rejected his proposal.

When Sen. John McCain of Arizona ran last year as the Republican presidential nominee, he made no secret of his desire to turn Yucca Mountain - 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas - into the nation's dump site for high-level nuclear waste. That was one of the reasons he was pummeled in Nevada's November general election by Democrat Barack Obama, who now occupies the White House. Since his defeat, McCain has continued to assume a lead role as a tool of the nuclear power industry. This was evident Thursday when he grilled Energy Secretary Steven Chu at a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on support for scientific research.

"Published reports indicate that the Obama Administration will announce on Tuesday, February 16, approval of a "conditional" taxpayer loan guarantee to the Southern Company for construction of two new nuclear reactors at its Vogtle site in Georgia. "If the reports are correct, this would be a repudiation of Obama's own campaign statements against subsidies for nuclear power, and the implementation of the worst energy policy excesses of the Bush Administration and failed presidential candidate Sen. John McCain," said Michael Mariotte, executive director of Nuclear Information and Resource Service, a national organization based in Takoma Park, Maryland. NIRS pointed to a video of then-candidate Obama telling voters on December 30, 2007 that he opposed taxpayer subsidies for nuclear power: www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R52J2D5QQU. During the election campaign, McCain called for construction of 45 new reactors in the U.S. by 2030. "Last time I checked," Mariotte said, "McCain lost the election. It's astonishing that his misguided and rejected energy policies live on. It is safe to say that no one voted for Obama in order to give taxpayer money to wealthy nuclear corporations." The Department of Energy's loan guarantee program for reactor construction was established by Congress at the urging of the Bush administration in 2005. In 2007, Congress authorized the program to provide $18.5 Billion in loan guarantees for new reactors. In late January, President Obama proposed nearly tripling the program to $54 Billion. "Few realize that the DOE's program extends beyond simple guarantees. In some cases at least, the loans will come directly from the taxpayers through the little-known Federal Financing Bank (FFB). Thus the taxpayers will be put in the awkward and highly risky position of both providing billions of dollars in loans to giant nuclear corporations and promising to repay the loans if the companies default," explained Mariotte. "With the Congressional Budget Office pre

John McCain raised the specter of nuclear war as he struggled to overcome rival Barack Obama's widening lead in the polls with just 14 days left in the epic race to the White House. Warning voters that the United States faces "many challenges here at home, and many enemies abroad in this dangerous world," McCain returned to the attack line that Obama has poor judgment and is not ready to lead the United States.

As Friends of the Earth and Grist have pointed out, The Wall Street Journal's comparison of the presidential candidates' energy policies reaches an incomplete conclusion. The WSJ's Stephen Power argues that Sen. Obama supports a big government role while Sen. McCain supports a more hands-off approach. But that's not really the case when it comes to McCain and nuclear energy.

What better way to take your mind off the huge hole the American economy is stuck in these days than to visit the biggest hole in the nation? President Obama and his family will take a trip the Grand Canyon Sunday, just days ahead of a congressional junket to the site led by Obama's GOP opponent for the White House last year, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. McCain will be joined by current Colorado Sen. Mark Udall and former Colorado senator and now Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, both Democrats, in the tour next week. Salazar recently called a timeout on new uranium mining claims on public lands near Grand Canyon National Park while the administration weighs withdrawing up to 1 million acres of national forest from potential uranium mining and Congress considers revamping the 1872 mining law to provide hard-rock mining royalties and create a fund for mine pollution cleanups.

"When one lusts for the bottom line of financial windfalls or political benefits, compassion always falls by the wayside. Only a lust for the bottom line of compassion itself will not leave any soul un-nurtured. :::::::: When late last month U.S. Senator John McCain was asked by a woman at a Springerville, Arizona, town hall meeting what he was doing about getting Mohave County, Arizona, added to the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (or RECA, a 1990 law that compensates radiation victims of U.S. nuclear weapons activities including fallout victims called "downwinders'), his answer: "We are still doing everything we can to see that happens" - must have sounded to those in the audience like a hollow assurance. It sure did to me. The group Mohave Downwinders, led by Eleanore Fanire until her passing last November, and that group's allies, had feverishly lamented the cold shoulder given to them by their longtime Senator, Mr. McCain. But it must be April Fools day all this month because McCain actually followed through on his word and formally stated on April 28th his intention in a press release to introduce legislation to add Mohave County "to the list for counties eligible for downwinder compensation under RECA." "

Obama TV spot is second on nuclear waste repository Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama began airing a new television ad in Las Vegas on Thursday that criticizes Republican John McCain for supporting the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. The ad, "Dangerous," states, "If you don't want nuclear waste here, you don't want John McCain here."

While Nevada officials were about to rally Tuesday in Las Vegas against plans for licensing a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Republican presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain was in Colorado saying such a facility might not be necessary. "I would seek to establish an international repository for spent nuclear fuel that could collect and safely store materials overseas that might otherwise be reprocessed to acquire bomb-grade materials," McCain, R-Ariz., said in a speech on international nuclear security at the University of Denver.

The nearly $2 billion in stimulus money being spent on environmental cleanup at the Hanford nuclear reservation made a list of questionable spending released Tuesday by Republican Sen. John McCain. "Hanford nuclear site gets billions for failed cleanup effort," said the stimulus checklist that the former presidential candidate prepared with fellow Republican Sen. Tom Coburn. The list included 100 projects, with Hanford at No. 10, which the senators said represented "billions of dollars of stimulus funding that have been wasted, mismanaged or directed toward silly and shortsighted projects." But Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who fought to get the money for Hanford, dismissed McCain's list as "political posturing of the worst kind."

The nearly $2 billion in stimulus money being spent on environmental cleanup at the Hanford nuclear reservation made a list of questionable spending released Tuesday by Republican Sen. John McCain. "Hanford nuclear site gets billions for failed cleanup effort," said the stimulus checklist that the former presidential candidate prepared with fellow Republican Sen. Tom Coburn. The list included 100 projects, with Hanford at No. 10, which the senators said represented "billions of dollars of stimulus funding that have been wasted, mismanaged or directed toward silly and shortsighted projects." But Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who fought to get the money for Hanford, dismissed McCain's list as "political posturing of the worst kind."

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who found it odd that GOP presidential hopeful John McCain, in recalling Democrat Barack Obama's position on nuclear energy, as: It has to be safe. Environment. Blah, blah, blah. After this remark, the crowd in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, went wild. Blah, blah, blah? I write it almost every day as a placeholder when I'm setting up a blog post. But coming from a presidential candidate? And getting applause? This is great oratory?

It's all energy, all the time for Barack Obama and John McCain, who lately have talked about little else than their respective energy plans. Unfortunately, both blueprints could use some work. Obama is so eager to pander to voters angry about high gas prices that he has abandoned his own green principles by opening the door to more offshore drilling and calling for more oil production from domestic shale. Yet that's nothing compared with McCain, whose plan to boost nuclear power is an insult to voters' intelligence.

CNN yesterday released a fact check report proving another John MCain lie about Barack Obama. In this case, McCain claimed in a Michigan stump speech that he favors nuclear power while Obama is against it. In reality, CNN reported, the Obama-Biden New Energy for America Plan includes a section entitled "safe and secure nuclear energy." If you visit Obama's website, as did CNN, you'll find in the plan this statement: "Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non-carbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option."

"A nuke in every garage" is the GOP nominee's energy and climate plan. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) made a stunning statement on the radio show of climate change denier Glenn Beck this week:

he hearing Sen. Mark Udall and Sen. John McCain conducted in Estes Park concerning climate change, Rocky Mountain National Park, and our other national parks was reported by some as a "proof" for global warming. Having attended the hearing myself, I found that to not be the case. Throughout the hearing, it was obvious that both senators assumed anthropogenic carbon dioxide is the primary reason for any changes that occur to our local climate. That assumption, however, was never substantiated or allowed to be challenged. Sen. Udall stated at the beginning of the meeting that they were not going to discuss or debate any of the merits of the global warming argument.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, it was Sen. John McCain, not then Sen. Barack Obama, who touted nuclear power. Obama, for the most part, was noncommittal on the subject. But in the year since being elected, President Obama and congressional Democrats increasingly appear to be embracing nuclear power. Democrats' support has not been entirely rock solid. Obama's decision, last spring, to scrap a decades-old plan to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada was interpreted by some critics as an early sign of an antinuke stance within the administration. But many less high-profile moves, especially in recent weeks, suggest that Democrats in the White House and on Capitol Hill, far from turning their backs on nuclear power, now see it as a way of advancing their goals on energy and climate policy.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, it was Sen. John McCain, not then Sen. Barack Obama, who touted nuclear power. Obama, for the most part, was noncommittal on the subject. But in the year since being elected, President Obama and congressional Democrats increasingly appear to be embracing nuclear power. Democrats' support has not been entirely rock solid. Obama's decision, last spring, to scrap a decades-old plan to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada was interpreted by some critics as an early sign of an antinuke stance within the administration. But many less high-profile moves, especially in recent weeks, suggest that Democrats in the White House and on Capitol Hill, far from turning their backs on nuclear power, now see it as a way of advancing their goals on energy and climate policy.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, it was Sen. John McCain, not then Sen. Barack Obama, who touted nuclear power. Obama, for the most part, was noncommittal on the subject. But in the year since being elected, President Obama and congressional Democrats increasingly appear to be embracing nuclear power. Democrats' support has not been entirely rock solid. Obama's decision, last spring, to scrap a decades-old plan to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada was interpreted by some critics as an early sign of an antinuke stance within the administration. But many less high-profile moves, especially in recent weeks, suggest that Democrats in the White House and on Capitol Hill, far from turning their backs on nuclear power, now see it as a way of advancing their goals on energy and climate policy.

Environment America today released a new report looking at the environmental implications of John McCain's plan to build 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030, and 100 over time. Their report concludes that McCain's plan would be "an economic and environmental disaster." Environment America, which has endorsed Democrat Barack Obama in the presidential election, found that the 45 reactors would cost taxpayers $315 billion, because most of the funding would have to come from taxpayer-backed federal loans. They also found that expanding the nuclear industry would create less than a quarter of the 700,000 jobs that McCain promised in the first presidential debate. And since the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's trade association, estimates that it takes about 10 years to bring a new nuclear power plant online, it would do little for short-term energy concerns. Nuclear power is also resource-intensive -- 45 nuclear power plants would use between 200 billion to 350 billion gallons of water per year. And, of course, there are the outstanding concerns about safety, storage, and disposal.

TODAY, nuclear power is being heavily touted as an answer to global warming, not only by the nuclear industry but by some political candidates, most notably John McCain, who advocates building 100 nuclear plants in the U.S., 45 in the next 22 years.

John McCain gave a speech on nuclear security this morning at the University of Denver, and given his abiding love of nuclear power as the solution to climate change, that came up too. Where there's "civilian" nuclear energy, there's the possibility for nuclear weapons -- and if he's promoting the former, that leads to plenty of questions about how to prevent the latter. And of course, all that spent nuclear fuel has to go somewhere. His remarks:

SPRINGFIELD, Mo., June 18 (Reuters) - Republican John McCain promised on Wednesday to put the United States on course to build 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030 if elected president as part of a plan to move the country toward energy independence.