Recently, we've been hearing about 'the death of environmentalism' because - allegedly - the world's corporations now understand ecology and will solve our problems with investment, innovation, and gung-ho optimism.
Of course, what the investors want to create with all that optimism and ingenuity are profits, not real sustainability.
Critics regularly accuse environmentalists of being 'doom and gloom' prognosticators who complain of endless problems, but offer 'no solutions'. However, if we check the record, we'll discover that serious ecologists have been offering solutions for centuries.
Real economic solutions
Economist John Stuart Mill realised the limits of nature 160 years ago, as he witnessed British factories multiplying across the landscape, spoiling woodlands, mowing down hedgerows and turning rivers into sewers.
Mill proposed that nations achieve a 'stationary state', at which point economic growth would stabilise for the sake of environmental preservation. "If the Earth must lose that great portion of its pleasantness," Mill wrote in 1848, "I sincerely hope, for the sake of posterity, that they will be content to be stationary long before necessity compels them to it."
Mill's solution did not imply that we cease developing qualitatively. "A stationary condition of capital and population," he insisted, "implies no stationary state of human improvement." He understood that we might improve the quality of life, even as we reduce our destruction of the Earth.
In the 1920s, as securities traders like Goldman-Sachs engineered a stock bubble that resulted in a decade of mass poverty, Nobel laureate Frederick Soddy proposed an economics rooted in physical reality. He pointed out that a perpetually growing economy pursuing infinite wealth was doomed to fail. Debt - an intangible claim on future wealth - could approach infinite size, he noted, but real wealth had limits. This systemic flaw, said Soddy, would result in financial scams, defaults, and crashes. His solution - 'Stop creating money from nothing'.
In the 1960s and 1970s, others - Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, Howard Odum, Hazel Henderson, Donnella Meadows, Herman Daly - described realistic economic models based on living systems, accounting for energy transfer and physical limits. "Biology, not mechanics, is our Mecca," said Georgescu-Roegen. Daly's 'Steady State Economics' described realistic solutions that would allow for qualitative development without economic growth.
Systemic, 'steady state', or 'biophysical' economic models recognise that all growth in ecological systems eventually stops. The economic visionaries offered realistic solutions, but their realism limited the accumulation of phony 'wealth', so they were ignored or even mocked by conventional voices.
Plans B, C, D...
Our modern ecological crisis - global warming, species loss, water shortages, soil depletion - are all symptoms of a larger problem: Human overshoot. When a species overshoots its habitat, there are only two results - (1) crash and perish, or (2). stabilise consumption and discover ecological balance with the environment. Growing bigger is not a solution; it's the problem.
Ecologists, environmentalists and planners have offered thousands of solutions. Visionaries such as Jon Todd, Janine Benyus, and Wes Jackson have shown how 'biomimicry' and ecological resource harvesting can create genuinely sustainable systems. Benyus writes in Nature's Operating Instructions: "... we are nature. ... life's adaptations spell out a pattern language for survival. ... the hummingbird manages to pollinate its energy source, ensuring that there will be nectar next year. .. These organisms have had about 400 million years of R&D." Copying natural systems provides real solutions, but it doesn't necessarily create billionaires.
Bill Rees at the University of British Columbia and Mathis Wackernagle with Earth Council in Costa Rica developed the 'Ecological Footprint' analysis to help nations, regions, and cities properly account for their consumption. Rees concludes that humanity's resource consumption is now about 30 per cent beyond the Earth's capacity to replenish. Typical cities require somewhere between 300 and 3000 times their area to supply the resources they consume.
Rees has proposed real solutions that take advantage of dense urban population: full accounting, urban and rural unification, public transport, electricity co-generation, closed circuit industry, and reduced per capita demand for materials and energy. In Linkoping, Sweden, the city powers its industry and buildings by burning its waste, rather than creating landfills.
Richard Register's EcoCities proposals offer similar solutions. In Managing without Growth, Peter Victor offers sound policies - shortened workweeks, cap on resource extraction - to improve public welfare without consuming more of the planet. Harvey Wasserman in Solartopia and Lester Brown in Plan B (now in version 3.0), Jeffrey Sachs in Common Wealth, and hundreds of other research papers, books and practical projects have outlined sensible solutions to human overshoot. Most urban and regional plans, however, want to grow their populations and consumption, the exact antithesis of genuine sustainability.
A Good Solution
In 1980, farmer and author Wendell Berry wrote a short essay, Solving for Pattern, which outlined the features of 'a good solution'. He showed that many problems we face today are the consequences of previous 'solutions' that failed to think beyond an isolated short-term gain. Toxic pollution, dying rivers and nuclear waste provide examples. Other alleged solutions, such as an arms race or a 'war on drugs', make the problems worse.
Berry demonstrated, using farming examples, how a good solution preserves the 'integrity of pattern', improves balance and symmetry, and addresses the health of the whole system rather than treats symptoms. All problems are parts of a whole, and all systems are contained in larger systems. A good solution maintains the integrity of the larger systems.
In this way, a good solution solves multiple problems and avoids 'magic bullet' solutions that fail to account for their full impact. For example, a nuclear 'solution' to an energy need creates new problems: radioactive fuel transport, public health, waste, security, decommissioning, accidents, insurance costs, evacuation plans, radiation exposure, and so forth. "In a biological pattern," Berry writes, "the exploitive means and motives of industrial economics are immediately destructive and ultimately suicidal." A genuine solution does not pollute or destroy a watershed, for example, to mine gold or generate power.
Real, integrated solutions tend to localise, accept limits and use resources at hand. However, genuine solutions exist only in actual proof and cannot to be expected from absentee owners and absentee experts. People who will benefit from success or suffer the consequences of failure should guide local solutions with real work that fits the scale of their communities, and in a specific place, with local knowledge. A solution, says Berry, "should not enrich one person by the distress or impoverishment of another." The scale of a solution proves critical. Solutions that require massive, expensive, imported infrastructure often cause more problems than they solve.
Healthy, integrated solutions distinguish biophysical order from mechanical order. A mechanistic plan often works 'on paper' by ignoring related systems. In crafting solutions, consider wisdom, not just calculation. Well-designed solutions maintain natural, organic pattern. Human communities exist only within large-scale layers of organic systems, with natural cycles and laws of material and energy exchange.
Systemic solutions satisfy multiple criteria and consider form as well as function; they are healthy and pleasant to live around. Large-scale industrial solutions have a history of addressing only one criteria - profits for shareholders - without considering toxic waste, full energy costs, habitat disruption, carbon emissions, or depressing work environments.
Rather than 'going for broke' with a single large-scale plan that serves business interests, good solutions consider many diverse, small-scale applications that may scale up and down and prove out over time. Small-scale solutions are easier to replace when something doesn't work as planned, and easier to multiply when they do work well.
A good solution does not assume 'more is better'. The growth solutions that do make this assumption destroy communities, families, cultures, and environments. Large-scale centralised solutions allow wealth to be concentrated but do not necessarily achieve optimum, systemic health. "The illusion can be maintained," Berry points out, "only so long as the consequences can be ignored." Thus, a series of village-scale power systems that can be operated by village skills is more stable and more sustainable than a massive corporate industrial power system with invasive environmental disruption and long transmission lines that cut through wilderness ecosystems.
Human solutions do not endure without human input, energy, organisation, maintenance and so forth. Wendell Barry points out that the integrity of human artifacts depends on human virtues: accurate memory, rigorous observation, insight, inventiveness, reverence, devotion, fidelity and restraint. Here Berry emphasised 'restraint above all'. We must learn to resist the temptation to 'solve' problems by accepting 'trade-offs' and bequeathing those to posterity. A good solution, Barry wrote three decades ago, is "in harmony with good character, cultural value, and moral law."
So yes - ecologists, farmers, environmentalists, workers and simple people in common communities have all proffered thousands of realistic solutions. Ecologists are not 'doom and gloom' pessimists. They are realists.
Integrated, healthy solutions may present opportunities for business, jobs, and community enterprise, but since the human community has already overshot the sustainable productive capacity of the planet, genuine ecological solutions demand less consumption, not more. And since over a billion people remain hungry and in need of water, and since our soils and forests are in decline, the wealthy nations will have to share the Earth's resources. Less consumption and sharing aren't going to make anyone fabulously wealthy, but it may provide us with a viable future.
- Rex Weyler
You can respond to "Deep Green" columns at my Ecolog, where I post portions of this column and dialogue with readers.

OPPOSE POSSIBLE APPOINTMENT OF WILLIAM MAGWOOD

July 28, 2009

Dear Friends,

The New York Times website this week reported that President Obama is considering nominating William Magwood, former head of the Department of Energy's nuclear program, as a Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner.

This would be a bad appointment. Many of you already have signed a letter to Obama urging the appointment of independent, critical thinkers to the NRC. Magwood does not meet those criteria. Our colleagues at Beyond Nuclear have prepared a follow-up letter to reinforce that call, and to explicitly oppose a Magwood appointment. We hope you will sign on to this letter; the text is below.

We are trying to turn this letter around quickly. Organization sign-ons only please.

Thanks for your help!

Michael Mariotte
Executive Director
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
[email protected]
www.nirs.org



July 31, 2009

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Obama,

We write to you with deep concern regarding recent media reports that you are considering nominating William Magwood to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Mr. Magwood's
background, experience, and apparent key interests are in the realm of nuclear power's promotion, not its regulation to protect public health, safety and the environment. We urge you to instead nominate a strong regulator to the NRC Commission who has demonstrated a commitment to public safety, rather than to nuclear power industry promotional and financial
interests.

In the 1970s, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was abolished due to the inherently
contradictory nature of its mandate, to both promote atomic energy and regulate its safety. The
AEC was replaced by a promotional agency (first the Energy Research and Development
Administration, and ultimately the Department of Energy, DOE), as well as by a separate safety
regulatory agency, the NRC.

NRC's supposed mandate, reflected in its oft repeated slogan "Protecting People and the
Environment," is to protect public health, safety and the environment from the radiological risks
of commercial atomic reactors and related uranium fuel chain activities. As concerned citizen
groups and community organizers watch-dogging nuclear power facilities know all too well,
NRC often fails to live up to its mission statement. In fact, there are numerous examples of
agency foot dragging and "enforcement discretion" extended over decades for widespread noncompliance on critical reactor safety issues, including fire protection and emergency core cooling systems. All too often, NRC rubberstamps nuclear applications after inadequate safety and security reviews, thus serving more as a lax facilitator for, rather than a watchdog on, the
industry it is supposed to regulate.

NRC's own inspector general concluded that such prioritization of industry financial interests
over public safety by NRC led to a near disaster at the Davis-Besse nuclear reactor near Toledo
in 2002, due to a massive corrosion hole in the reactor's lid that nearly breached the pressure
vessel and risked a loss of reactor coolant accident. Similarly, the rupture of a steam generator
tube at the Indian Point nuclear power plant near New York City in 2000 risked a cascade of
ruptured tubes and loss of reactor coolant accident. As reactors deteriorate with age, such breakdown phase accident risks increase requiring increased vigilance and enforcement. In addition, proposed new reactors would come with inherent increased break-in phase accident risks, due to bugs that have yet to be worked out. Due to such increased risks, the NRC needs strong safety regulators, not industry promoters.

Mr. Magwood served for seven years as the head of the Office of Nuclear Energy at DOE. In that
position, he was one of the chief proponents for nuclear power. Mr. Magwood helped lead the
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, Nuclear Power 2010, and the Generation IV Nuclear Energy
Systems Initiative. He also served as the first chairman of the Generation IV International Forum
and as chair of the Steering Committee on Nuclear Energy Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation. The role of an NRC Commissioner is supposed to be quite different from such nuclear power proponent activities.

At DOE, and as recently as May 2009, Mr. Magwood has been promoting the Yucca Mountain
dumpsite proposal. Referring to foreign counterparts he took to Yucca Mountain for tours during
his DOE tenure, Mr. Magwood was quoted in the ClimateWire as saying "They had an
experience similar to what I have. You go to the top of the mountain, and you realize that you're
really in the middle of nowhere. They all wished they had some kind of desolate area like this
and wonder why we're having this argument." Of course, Nevadans living along transportation
routes and close to Yucca Mountain do not consider their state a wasteland, suitable for
radioactive waste dumping.

Both during your presidential campaign and after assuming office, you have clearly stated that
Yucca Mountain is not an option for high-level radioactive waste disposal. We thank you for
your wise decision. Thus, we are deeply concerned that as an NRC Commissioner, Mr.
Magwood would support this Yucca dump proposal in contradiction to your stated policy.

We are also concerned about Mr. Magwood's support for the Bush administration's Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), and its proposed revival of commercial radioactive waste
reprocessing. We thank you for terminating the GNEP programmatic environmental impact
statement last month. As recently as this year, Mr. Magwood has been promoting commercial
radioactive waste reprocessing. We are concerned that he would continue to promote
reprocessing, which would be highly inappropriate as an NRC Commissioner.

The current open seats on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission present you with a vital
opportunity to steer NRC back to its mandated mission to protect public safety, security, health
and the environment. We urge you in the strongest possible terms to nominate persons devoted to
nuclear safety, rather than to the nuclear industry's expansion.

Sincerely,

 

******* 

For Individuals:

Beyond Nuclear Bulletin
July 28, 2009

Top Stories
Sign grassroots letter to President Obama
opposing William Magwood nomination to NRC

Background: Last week, the New York Times reported that President Obama would soon nominate William Magwood to fill an open seat on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Mr. Magwood served for seven years as head of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy. While there, he was a chief proponent for the expansion of atomic energy, helping lead the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (radioactive waste reprocessing), Nuclear Power 2010 program, and the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative. Also while at DOE, and as recently as this year, Mr. Magwood has expressed support for commercial radioactive waste reprocessing, as well as the Yucca Mountain, Nevada high-level radioactive waste dumpsite proposal. If nominated by President Obama and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Mr. Magwood would serve a five year term as one of five NRC Commissioners, with the possibility that he serve additional five year terms after that.

Our View: President Obama should nominate strong regulators to the NRC Commission, persons who have demonstrated a commitment to public safety, rather than to nuclear power industry promotional and financial interests. The current open seats on the NRC present President Obama with a vital opportunity to steer NRC back to its mandated mission to protect public safety, security, health and the environment. Mr. Magwood's background, experience, and apparent key interests are in the realm of nuclear power's promotion, not its regulation. Mr. Magwood's support for the Yucca dump is in clear contradiction to President Obama's clear policy statement that Nevada is no longer an option for high-level radioactive waste disposal. And Mr. Magwood's support for reviving commercial radioactive waste reprocessing in the U.S. for the first time in nearly four decades would be an inappropriate policy position for an NRC Commissioner. For this reason, he should not be nominated, nor confirmed, to co-lead the NRC.

What You Can Do: Sign onto a group letter urging President Obama to nominate a strong regulator, rather than an industry promoter, to the NRC. To sign on, [email protected] with your name, organization, city and state. Given the imminence of Mr. Magwood's nomination, this letter will be sent to the White House the following day. In addition, please phone the White House comment line at (202) 456-1111, to urge President Obama to nominate a strong safety regulator, rather than a nuclear industry promoter like Mr. Magwood. Also, phone U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's office at (202) 224-3542, and U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer's office at (202) 224-8832, and urge that Mr. Magwood's nomination be blocked due to his support for the dangerous Yucca Mountain dumpsite proposal.

NO CLIMATE BILL WITH NUKES
ACT NOW!

July 21, 2009
Dear Friends,
Look, we understand. You're either at the beach or wish you were. You're in the mountains or huddled up in air conditioning. You're at your job, or wish you had a job.
It's mid-summer, and the last thing most of us want to think about is the prospect of 50 or 100 new nuclear reactors being built across the U.S.
But that's what could happen if we don't all act now.
When we sent our Alert out about new nuclear reactors and the Senate climate bill last week, we said it was essential that we all take action, and that we expand and grow, because even all of us isn't enough.
But while the numbers sound pretty impressive--more than 2750 letters to the Senate so far (and thank you to everyone who has responded!)--it's a small percentage of our list, and it isn't enough.
We need the rest of you too--and then your friends and colleagues and acquaintances and co-workers and relatives and everyone else you can think of. This is going to take a truly massive effort on all our part.
We need veteran activists, we need people writing their Senators for the first time, and everybody in between.
We've made it as easy as possible to send a letter to your Senators, all you have to do is click here.
That's the first step.
Second step is to forward this link (http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5502/t/5846/campaign.jsp?campaign_KE...) to anyone and everyone you can think of, to every mailing list possible. We need to DELUGE the Senate with letters if we're going to win this one--this is the biggest and hardest fight we've had in years. And we need to do it now, while decisions are being made and positions being taken behind-the-scenes.
Third step is, if you can afford it at all, to donate some money to help us place some blog ads and take other steps to do even more outreach. We're living by a shoestring ourselves, just as many of you are, and we just can't afford to do the necessary outreach without your help.
Some in the Senate really want 100 new reactors in the U.S. over the next 20 years. That's the mentality we're fighting. Unfortunately, others seem willing to "compromise" with only 25 or 50 reactors and once again, $50 billion in new taxpayer loan guarantees for new reactor construction. We say, as I know you say, NO DEAL. No more reactors, no more taxpayer dollars for nuclear power, no more radioactive waste, no more nuclear proliferation. Enough is enough, and we've had enough.
We're fighting an opponent with massive resources. The Southern Company alone has more lobbyists working on the climate bill than the combined resources of all anti-nuclear Washington groups. And they're outspending us about 5,000 to 1.
Don't assume you're in a state with "safe" Senators--we must pressure our allies not to compromise. If they don't hear from us, they'll assume they can compromise.
And don't stay silent if you're in a state with hostile Senators--we need to embarrass them, protest against them, expose their support for nuclear power interests.
In short, we need to raise the stakes--a lot.
So, write your Senators now--it's the first and easiest thing you can do.
Then, spread the word, as far and as fast as you can.
Then, if you can, please contribute. If you can't, we understand. But if you can spare even $5, it helps a lot in spreading our message.
Finally, make plans now to meet and greet your Senators during their August recess. Especially those of you in active organizations, we need to have visible protests against those plying the nuclear industry line, and we need to have meetings with those on the fence and even those normally with us. We need to make sure there is no compromise: there must be no nuclear power in the climate bill, or there must be no climate bill. So start calling your Senators' district offices (contact NIRS if you need phone numbers, [email protected]) and start arranging for meetings and planning protests.
Let's get a visible protest outside every single Senator's office who has expressed support for nuclear power in the climate bill (if you don't know where your Senators stand, contact us). Local media is important, but NIRS will also help you publicize these protests to help gain attention across the country.
Again, we all need to act and act now. I know none of us wants to sit there in five years and say "if only we had acted...."
The good news is we CAN win this! Against tremendous odds, we've already defeated two efforts this year to add $50 billion in taxpayer loan guarantees for new reactors. We can stop more loan guarantees and more taxpayer support for nuclear power again.
As always, thanks for all you do; but this time, we all need to do a little more.....

Michael Mariotte
Executive Director
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
[email protected]
www.nirs.org

ACT NOW!
NO CLIMATE BILL WITH NUKES

http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5502/t/5846/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=1864
July 16, 2009

Dear Friends,

The Senate Environment Committee is delaying work on its climate bill until September. But there is plenty going on now--both publicly and behind-the-scenes. And the news isn't good.

Some Republicans are pushing for their own climate and energy plan. It calls for $50 billion more in taxpayer loan guarantees for new reactor construction; a doubling of taxpayer spending on dangerous reprocessing technologies, and a formal Congressional intent to build 100 new reactors in the next 20 years!

This would make the bailout of the auto industry seem like penny-ante poker. Indeed, a recent study by an economic analyst at the University of Vermont finds that building 100 new reactors would cost from $1.9 to $4.1 trillion more than getting our electricity from clean renewable energy sources.

The Republican plan won't pass; yet too many Democrats seem willing to compromise on nuclear power in order to get a climate bill passed.

We need to act now, while decisions are being made in private. Please write your Senators here, and tell them that a climate bill that provides taxpayer subsidies to nuclear power would not only be ineffective at reducing carbon emissions, it would be unacceptable.

But that's not going to be enough. We all need to ramp up our outreach, get the word to all of our mailing lists, e-mail lists, blogs, social networking sites, radio talk shows, letters-to-the-editor and so forth. Please do everything you can to spread the news that the Senate climate bill is in danger of being hijacked by the nuclear power industry.
And please support our campaign with your most generous donation so we can do the kind of outreach and mobilization needed.

We've won twice this year already--defeating efforts to give the nuclear industry another $50 billion in loan guarantees. But this is going to be our biggest challenge yet.

Many of those supporting nuclear expansion say they won't support any kind of climate bill anyway! So why should those in favor of taking necessary steps to reduce carbon emissions even think of compromising on nuclear power?

They shouldn't, and if they hear from enough of us, they won't. But they have to hear from every one of us--and then a lot more.

Don't forget that the Senate energy bill--which is slated to be folded in to the climate bill this Fall--sets up a new "Clean Energy Development Administration (CEDA)," with the power to give unlimited taxpayer loan guarantees for new reactors. That bill was sponsored by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)--and it's just as unacceptable as the Republican plan. This provision, along with reprocessing funding, must not become part of the climate bill.
Here is a link to a new fact sheet from Physicians for Social Responsibility comparing the CEDA provisions in the Senate energy bill and the recently-passed House climate bill.

We need to build our strength and show our strength, now and throughout the summer and fall.

*The first step is to write your Senators here.

*The next step is to support us financially if at all possible.

*The third step is--if you haven't already--send a letter to President Obama urging him to stand firm against Senate efforts to spend taxpayer money on nuclear power. You can do so here.

*Next, if you haven't yet signed the Simple Statement on Nuclear Power and Climate, do so here. If your friends haven't signed, ask them to. More than 10,000 people already have signed--but it will be a lot more effective if we can greatly increase that number!

*Now, forward this alert to everyone and anyone who might be interested. With all of us working and mobilizing together, we can stop this nuclear nonsense and begin building an energy policy for our future, one that is nuclear-free and carbon-free. Our lives, our children and our planet are at stake.
Here's one more quick link: to a Science Daily article about a new Swedish study that finds nuclear power's contribution to global warming has been signficantly underestimated--not because of nuclear's carbon emissions, but because of its heat emissions. There is really no choice: we can have nuclear power, or we can fight climate change. We can't do both. So we must act now.
We will keep you informed throughout the summer and fall about developments on the climate bill and proposals for new nuclear subsidies. Watch for our blogs on DailyKos and other sites. We'll send new Alerts when you can take new, effective action. We'll also be doing sample letters-to-the-editor, talking points for the next national call-in day, and more.
But please feel free to contact us any time if you'd like more information. You can e-mail us at [email protected], or call us at 301-270-6477.
Thanks for all you do,
Michael Mariotte
Executive Director
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
[email protected]
www.nirs.org
P.S. We'll end on a very positive note! Bonnie Raitt and Taj Mahal are teaming up for a nationwide tour this summer. $1 of every ticket sold will be donated to progressive organizations, including NIRS. You can find out more about the tour, and--importantly--vote for which category of organization should receive this money, by going here.

The House passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) on June 26, 2009. Following the vote, President Obama stressed that he wants the Senate to send him climate change legislation to sign before year's end and that he is willing to add nuclear subsidies to get votes. But at what cost? A Senate bill full of nuclear and coal subsidies will not bring us any closer to addressing the public health crisis that is global climate change. A bill that further subsidizes the nuclear industry is a step in the wrong direction.
By putting a cap on carbon, which ACES does, the nuclear industry already stands to profit nearly $1 billion dollars a year, according to their own calculations. Exelon CEO John Rowe recently told a gathering of investors and senior executives that the energy bill "will add $700 to $750 million to Exelon's annual revenues for every $10 per metric ton (MT) increase in the price of CO2 allowances."
The House climate bill makes additional concessions to the nuclear industry. Under the nuclear title of ACES, the Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA) allows loan guarantees backed by the full faith and credit of U.S. taxpayers to be made for the construction of new reactors. The Senate version of the proposed bill, however, providesunlimited guarantee authority without further congressional approval and fails to prioritize energy projects that reduce greenhouse gases faster and cheaper.
But some Senators are saying that isn't enough. Requiring radioactive waste reprocessing, categorizing nuclear as a "renewable" energy, and subsidizing 100 new nuclear plants (which would cost $1.9 trillion to $4.4 trillion more than generating the same electricity from renewable and efficiency measures) are all being mentioned as ways to prop up this chronically uncompetitive industry.
Please contact President Obama today and tell him no more subsidies for the nuclear industry. It is essential that we address climate change by pursuing the fastest, cheapest, and cleanest alternatives first. Nuclear power does not meet these criteria. A bill with more giveaways for the nuclear industry is no solution to climate change.

Background: The Guardian reports that President Obama is considering a compromise on US energy policy and climate change legislation with the endorsement of a massive build up of new nuclear power plants. Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu recently led the President's energy negotiations on Capitol Hill for global warming legislation that also included secretaries of Interior, Agriculture and the head of Environmental Protection Agency. "Quite frankly, we want to recapture the lead on industrial nuclear power. We have lost that lead as we have lost the lead in many energy technologies and we want to get it back," Secretary Chu said in a statement before the Senate. At the same time, Senate Appropriators are yet againseeking up to $50 billion in taxpayer-backed nuclear loan guarantees for new reactor and uranium enrichment facility construction.

Our View: This would be a deeply disappointing and dangerous misstep, however calculated, on the part of the Obama White House. It significantly risks a rerun of the failed and dangerously polluting energy policy of the 20th Century. It would not come as a complete surprise, however. The Obama Administration features prominent nuclear power trailblazers like Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, a principle in the founding of the Chicago-based atomic giant Exelon Nuclear; and White House senior advisor, David Axelrod, a powerful lobbyist for the same nuclear company. John Rowe is another close Obama associate, Exelon CEO and the Nuclear Energy Institute's former Board chair. Rowe recently announced he would have tocancel construction of two new reactors for the lack of more taxpayer-backed subsidies.

By making such a compromise President Obama would have to ignore the many clearly marked warning signs around the nuclear industry and divert massive amounts of resources and precious little time from a truly clean and sustainable energy policy at a critical moment in the fate of the Earth.

What You Can Do: Please contact the White House and your Senators now to express your vehement disapproval of including more nuclear power in climate change legislation.

 July 1, 2009

Dear Friends,

Below is the text of a letter we intend to send to President Obama and other officials encouraging the speedy appointment of independent NRC Commissioners who value public participation and critical examination of nuclear issues.

I'm sure I don't have to convince you that the NRC is in drastic need of reform and that the agency is at a crossroads. It could continue down its current path of hostility to the public or it could become a real regulatory agency. President Obama's next appointments will decide which path it takes.

Please sign on by 3 pm (Eastern time), Monday, July 6, 2009, by sending your name, organization, city and state to [email protected]. Organizational sign-ons only for this letter. We are seeking sign-ons from all national, regional and local groups concerned about the NRC-hopefully that's all of us!

Thanks!

Michael Mariotte
Executive Director
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
[email protected]

-----------------------------------------------------------------
July 6, 2009

Hon. Barack Obama
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Obama:

As you know, there are currently two vacancies on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). We are writing to urge you to appoint qualified individuals to the NRC who are independent of the regulated industry, who value public participation and involvement in decision-making, and who welcome debate and listen to dissenting and critical viewpoints.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has lost public confidence and trust. For far too long, the NRC has been dominated by the industry it is chartered to regulate. Too many Commissioners have seen their positions as temporary stints leading to a revolving door from the political arena to the nuclear industry.

The result is an agency in which dissent, critical examination and transparency are discouraged rather than welcomed. Public participation in crucial decisions that may affect millions of people is greeted with a hostile attitude. Public intervenors in reactor licensing cases are routinely met with outright opposition from the NRC, rather than as legitimately concerned people who are exercising their civic right and responsibility to advocate safety and environmental protection in the licensing of nuclear facilities, and who offer valuable perspectives that may not have been addressed by the NRC. NRC Commissioners should encourage effective participation by citizen intervenors as an essential measure for ensuring the rigor of the licensing process, not a hindrance to be reflexively obstructed.

As our reactor fleet grows older, and thus requires more oversight, the NRC too often appears content to accept the status quo and bland utility assurances of safety. And the NRC has catered to the industry's demand for fast action on a raft of applications for new reactor licenses and designs by accelerating the licensing process in a manner that flouts the plain language and the intent of its own licensing regulations, undermines the effectiveness of the agency's safety and environmental review processes, and frustrates meaningful public participation in the decision-making process.

How the NRC handles the licensing of new nuclear reactors and other fundamental matters, such as radioactive waste disposal and reprocessing, will determine the safety of our nuclear facilities and the soundness of our nation's nuclear policies for many years to come.

We believe it is essential that the open Commissioner positions are filled quickly. The NRC needs a full complement of Commissioners, especially new Commissioners, if it is to successfully handle the myriad of issues on its plate, and do so in a manner that may achieve public confidence.

We would welcome the opportunity to meet with your staff to discuss these issues further and to recommend some individuals who meet the above requirements.

Sincerely,



Cc: Hon. Carol Browner, Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change
Hon. Nancy Sutley, Chair, Council on Environmental Quality
Hon. Steven Chu, Secretary, Department of Energy

 

June 30, 2009

Dear Friends,

Now that the House has finished its version of the climate bill, it's time to turn our attention back to the Senate-and to the White House.

President Obama issued a statement praising passage of the House bill that said, in part, "The energy bill that passed the House will finally create a set of incentives that will spark a clean energy transformation in our economy. It will spur the development of low carbon sources of energy - everything from wind, solar, and geothermal power to safer nuclear energy and cleaner coal."

But there was nothing in the bill that would make nuclear power any "safer," and "clean coal" remains an oxymoron.

*We need to tell President Obama not to let the climate bill get hijacked by the nuclear power and coal industries. You can do so here.

*Please pass this Alert on to your friends and colleagues, post it everywhere you can, spread the word. And please make a small contribution so we can expand this campaign and spread the word farther too!

Background
The Senate Energy Committee already has passed an absolutely unacceptable energy bill, one that allows a nine-member unelected Board to give unlimited taxpayer loan guarantees for new reactor construction and "clean coal" plants, supports nuclear as a "clean and secure domestic energy for the US," and provides new support for dangerous, proliferation-prone reprocessing technologies.

The game plan in the Senate appears to be this: Sen. Barbara Boxer's Environment and Public Works Committee will soon begin public work on their version of the cap-and-trade climate legislation. The Senate energy bill, or a version of it, will be incorporated into the climate bill and brought to the floor for a vote.

We need to make sure that the nuclear subsidies in the Senate energy bill do not become part of the Senate climate bill and that additional subsidies for nuclear power are not added. And a good first step (and there will be many more steps in the near future...) is to tell President Obama to get this outrageous support for the nuclear industry out of the climate bill.

We need to explain, simply and firmly, that we will oppose any climate bill that provides more taxpayer subsidies for nuclear power or that supports reprocessing (even before Obama's own waste commission has even been formed to begin its re-evaluation of radioactive waste policy!).

The House climate bill must be strengthened in the Senate, not become worse. President Obama wants a climate bill. That's a vast improvement over his predecessor. But he needs to act so that the final climate bill is one that environmentalists and clean energy advocates can support, not one we have to end up defeating.
*Please write President Obama here.
*Please contribute to this campaign here. The nuclear industry is spending millions to get its way in Congress this session. Every small contribution helps us reach more people and counter their actions!
Thanks for all you do!
Michael Mariotte
Executive Director
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
[email protected]
www.nirs.org

 

Jun 19, 2009 --
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCUMENTS AND PUBLICATIONS/ContentWorks

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold a public meeting  June 30 in Monroe, Mich., to discuss the proposed license termination
> plan for the Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 1.
>
> The meeting will be held from 7 -- 10 p.m. at the Monroe County
> Board of Commissioners, 125 E. Second St., in Monroe.
>
> DTE Energy, the licensee, submitted its proposed license
> termination plan and an application for license amendment on March 25.
> The proposed plan is to demonstrate compliance with NRC criteria for
> unrestricted release of the property, although the facility will
> remain DTE property. There is no Fermi 1 spent nuclear fuel remaining
> onsite.
>
> Fermi 1 was a sodium-cooled fast-breeder reactor that operated
> from
> 1963 until it was permanently shut down in 1972. Much of the
> decommissioning for Fermi 1 was completed in 1975. Fermi 2, a
> boiling-water reactor, is still in operation at the same location in
> Newport, in Monroe County, on the shore of Lake Erie about 25 miles
> northeast of Toledo, Ohio.
>
> At the June 30 meeting, members of the NRC staff will discuss the
> proposed license termination plan and NRC's technical review of the
> plan.
>
> Information about Fermi 1 is available on the NRC Web site at
> this
> address: http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/power-reactor/
> enrico-fermi-atomic-power-plant-unit-1.html. The proposed license
> termination plan is available in the NRC's online document library,
> ADAMS, at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html, by
> entering access number ML090970803 in the search window. Comments or
> questions regarding the proposed license termination plan, license
> amendment application or the public meeting may be addressed to Mr.
> Theodore B. Smith, by telephone at
> (301) 415-6721, or via e-mail [email protected].
>
>

Please phone your U.S. Senator as soon as possible on Monday and urge her/him to vote against a "Sense of the Senate" resolution that would build support for expanding nuclear power, especially if your Senator serves on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Particular attention is being paid to Sen. Jean Shaheen of New Hampshire.

Urge support for an expansion of energy efficiency and renewable sources of electricity, such as wind, solar, and geothermal.

Call the central Congressional office office at (202) 224-3121.

This "Sense of the Senate" vote on nuclear power is scheduled for Tuesday, June 16th in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, so make your calls right away on Monday. See below for ideas on additional "talking points" as well as further background on the issues.
Thanks for taking action at this critical juncture - your phone call could make a significant difference in diverting future U.S. energy policy away from dirty, dangerous and expensive atomic power, towards clean, safe, and affordable energy efficiency and renewable sources.
If you have any questions, contact Kevin Kamps at Beyond Nuclear, (240) 462-3216 or [email protected]. For more information on the outrageous subsidies that the nuclear power industry already enjoys at taxpayer and ratepayer expense, see http://www.beyondnuclear.org/nuclear-subsidies.html.
Sincerely,
Paul Gunter and Kevin Kamps, Beyond Nuclear

 

Additional Talking Points and Background Information:

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, whose father, former Sen. Frank Murkowski, unsuccessfully led the pro-Yucca dump push for many years, is herself now proposing a "Sense of the Senate" resolution in favor of expanding nuclear power in the United States. The news article breaking the story, and Sen. Murkowski's "Sense of the Senate" resolution proposal, are pasted in at the very bottom of this email.

This pro-nuclear power amendment will likely be voted on at next Tuesday's mark up session of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. This pro-nuclear amendment would be attached to the Senate energy bill, and would build momentum to further taxpayer subsidies for a nuclear power relapse, such as the building of a new atomic reactor at Nine Mile Point in Upstate New York.

Regarding water impacts of nuclear power plants, almost every single operating atomic reactor has leaked radioactive tritium into groundwater, sometimes in massive amounts. When not leaking into groundwater, nuclear power plants have permission from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to "routinely release" tritium and other toxic and radioactive pollutants into the nearby river, lake, or ocean.

The Northeast hosts some of the oldest reactors in the U.S. - Vermont Yankee in Brattleboro and Pilgrim in Plymouth, MA as just two examples - which are at risk of age-related accidents. The security risks at Indian Point, NY impact not only the New York City metro region, but the entire Northeast, depending on the direction the wind is blowing. And high-level radioactive wastes remain at permanently shut down and decommissioned reactors like Connecticut Yankee, Yankee Rowe, and Maine Yankee, while wastes continue to mount at still operating reactors like Seabrook, with no safe, sound permanent solution in site. In fact, Northeast sites such as Hillsboro NH and Sebago Lake ME are back on the target list for a national high-level radioactive waste dump, now that President Obama has indicated he will cancel the geologically unsuitable Yucca Mountain, Nevada proposal.
Your Senator should be pushing for hearings on the potential for energy efficiency and renewable energy real solutions to the climate crisis, as well as the energy crisis and the unemployment crisis. Why doesn't your Senator lead an effort to pass a "Sense of the Senate" resolution in favor of efficiency and renewables such as wind, solar and geothermal instead of voting for one supporting an expansion of nuclear power?

Regarding jobs, dollar-for-dollar invested, the choice of renewables and efficiency over nuclear power is clear. If the United States chooses taxpayer investment in nuclear power, it will be denying workers safe, good-paying jobs in favor of a dirty, dangerous, expensive and failed technology. A $150 billion investment in renewable energy would yield 1.3 million direct impact jobs while the same investment in nuclear power would yield, at best, only 59,000 jobs, 50,000 of which are temporary construction jobs, disappearing after several years. For every $1 million invested in energy efficiency, 21.5 jobs are created while the same investment in nuclear power leads to less than one job. In fact, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's own trade association and lobbying firm, admits that a single permanent job at a nuclear power plant will cost at least $1.5 million to create. Fewer people would qualify for jobs at nuclear reactors because of the specific technical and educational requirements whereas jobs in renewable energy and efficiency can adapt many backgrounds and specialties with little extra education, making them available to more people. Your Senator should be leading the call for efficiency and renewable jobs in your state, not wasteful taxpayer subsidies for new reactors as at Nine Mile Point, NY.

Please urge your Senator to lead the opposition against any resolutions in favor of nuclear power, as well as any further taxpayer subsidies for a nuclear power relapse. Urge Senate support for energy efficiency and renewable sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal, real solutions for the climate, energy, and economic crises. And please get your friends, family, and neighbors to call your Senator.

Thank you for all you can do.
Prepared on June 13, 2009 by
Kevin Kamps
Radioactive Waste Watchdog
Beyond Nuclear
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 400
Takoma Park, Maryland 20912
Office: (301) 270-2209 ext. 1
Cell: (240) 462-3216
Fax: (301) 270-4000
[email protected]
www.beyondnuclear.org

 

The US Congress now faces an apparently unending series of bills aimed at providing new taxpayer funding and regulatory aid to the atomic power industry.

Please stay in touch with your Senators and Representatives for up-to- the-minute postings, and to continually express your opposition to atomic power---and your support for true green renewables---at this unusually critical time.

The central Congressional phone number is: (202)224-3121. Each office should give you an individual e-address if you want it.

We're at a critical juncture in the fight to cut global warming pollution and defuse the climate crisis.

I urge you to make your own voice heard right now in support of strong pollution controls.

As you know, the Obama Administration took a huge leap forward in April by recognizing that carbon pollution leads to killer heat waves, stronger hurricanes and many other threats to human health and the environment.

At that time, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson proposed an "endangerment determination" under the Clean Air Act -- a finding that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping air pollutants "may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare."

Then, last month, President Obama ordered EPA to follow up this proposal with tough standards to reduce global warming pollutants from new cars and trucks - standards that will save consumers billions of dollars at the pump even as they protect the planet.

But before that can happen, EPA must adopt its proposed "endangerment determination." Powerful lobbies like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are trying to stop EPA from acting.

That's why Administrator Jackson needs to hear from concerned Americans like you right now.

Tell her to adopt the proposed "endangerment" finding -- and to follow up with tough standards for global warming pollution from vehicles and power plants.

We already have the technology to cut global warming pollution by making and using energy more efficiently, and by using renewable and cleaner energy sources. This energy technology revolution will help our economy recover, create millions of green jobs, save consumers billions of dollars and cut our dangerous dependence on foreign oil.

Please call on Administrator Jackson to slash global warming pollution and begin the clean energy revolution now!

http://www.nrdconline.org/campaign/reduce_global_warming 

Sincerely,

Frances Beinecke
President
NRDC Action Fund

Jun 4
- McClatchy-Tribune Regional News - Jack Z. Smith Fort Worth
Star-Telegram, Texas
> A fight over whether to build two generating units at the
> Comanche Peak nuclear power plant near Glen Rose will be centered in
> the Hood County seat of Granbury six days from now.
>
> A panel of the federal Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will
> hear oral arguments beginning at 9 a.m. Wednesday on a request by
> opponents of the plant's expansion that they be granted intervener
> status. If they are successful, a public hearing would be held
> regarding their opposition to Luminant Generation's application to the
> Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to operate the two units.
>
> The arguments will be heard in the jury selection room of the
> Hood County Justice Center, 1200 Pearl St. If necessary, the hearing
> will continue the next morning.
>
> The arguments will be open to the general public, but only as
> observers. Participation will be limited to the opposition coalition,
> NRC staff and Luminant, the Dallas-based power generator that operates
> Comanche Peak and is a unit of Energy Future Holdings, the former TXU
> Corp.
> Early
> arrival is urged to allow for security screening, the NRC said, adding
> that its policy "prohibits signs, banners, posters or displays in the
> hearing room."
>
> The opposition coalition includes the Sustainable Energy and
> Economic Development Coalition, Public Citizen, True Cost of Nukes,
> Democratic state Rep. Lon Burnam of Fort Worth and individuals from
> Fort Worth, Weatherford and Everman.
>
> Comanche Peak is 45 miles southwest of Fort Worth. The coalition
> contends in its petition for intervener status that if the two units
> were built, an accident "could result in radiological releases and
> environmental contamination that would adversely affect the health" of
> persons living within 50 miles.
>
> "The reality of a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant
> cannot be discounted," the coalition also said in the petition filed
> by attorney Robert Eye of Topeka, Kan. Therefore, "methods to prevent
> an aircraft attack" on the two units must be considered, the petition
> said.
>
> It also questions whether sufficient capacity exists to absorb
> high-level nuclear waste from the two units, given that plans to
> establish a repository in Nevada appear to have been killed by
> political opposition.
>
> In addition, coalition members have cited concerns about "vast
> water consumption" and financial risks imposed by the two new units,
> which Luminant proposes to build in conjunction with reactor designer
> Mitsubishi Heavy Industries of Japan.
>
> Luminant has estimated that it would cost $15 billion to build
> two 1,700-megawatt units and that a license might be secured by
> December 2012.
> Construction could take four years, the company said.
>
> In a report prepared for Public Citizen, former Texas utility
> regulatory official Clarence Johnson estimated that two new units
> could cost anywhere from $23.8 billion to $27.6 billion, thus raising
> concerns about the cost of new nuclear facilities and a potential
> escalation in electric rates.
>
> JACK Z. SMITH, 817-390-7724
>
>

Thanks to those of you who have contacted your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators to oppose further taxpayer subsidies for new reactors and other nuclear facilities such as uranium enrichment plants. Please continue to do so regularly by calling the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 to be patched through to your Members of Congress. Or, better yet, contact your Representative's and Senators' in-state district offices to request a meeting with the Member or their staff during their visit home during the Memorial Day Recess, to make your point face to face.
Some good news: the House Energy and Commerce Committee this week voted to limit nuclear industry subsidies to at most 30% of the new "Clean Energy Bank" fund, as well as to require continued Congressional oversight and authorization for future nuclear power loan guarantees, rather than allow the U.S. Department of Energy the ability to write blank checks for unlimited loans and loan guarantees to its favorite industry -nuclear power. The Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee's version of the "Clean Energy Bank" has no such safeguards. While it is outrageous that Congress is even considering nuclear power "clean" and allowing up to 30% of energy bank subsidies to go to the nuclear industry, it's vital that we urge House and Senate Members to cap how much of the fund the nuclear industry can access, as well as to require continued congressional oversight.
To learn more about the similarities and differences between the U.S. House and Senate versions of the so-called "Clean Energy Bank" proposals, see the following analysis by Michele Boyd of Physicians for Social Responsibility.

Please help us by encouraging Congress to strengthen this bill.

Currently the United States Congress, under the leadership of Chairman Henry Waxman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and Chairman Edward Markey of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, is working on the details of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES). ACES is promoted as a comprehensive approach to America's energy policy. It charts a course towards a clean energy economy. The American Solar Energy Society (ASES) commends the committees' work. Unfortunately, the bill as rewritten misses the mark.
In compromising with competing interests and industries, the committees have lowered their carbon-emission targets. They've responded to interests that don't appreciate the crisis nature of climate change. At this point, the partial solutions proposed will not sufficiently mitigate atmospheric carbon nor establish significant drivers for the clean energy economy. The bill coming out of committee is too weak and has structural defects that require it be revisited.
ASES Policy Recommendations

The ASES Policy Committee spent months working through a series of recommendations for the 111th Congress. (www.ases.org/policy2009).

We focused on:

• Energy efficiency for buildings;
• Renewable energy for buildings;
• Renewable electricity production;
• Transportation efficiency;
• Smart grid and green transmission;
• Green economy and workforce development;
• Federal leadership; and
• Carbon.

There are three areas where the American Solar Energy Society suggests the bar needs to be raised:

1. In ACES, Waxman and Markey allocate 85% of the emission permits free, mostly to carbon intensive industries, rather than including them in an auction system. This give-away provides windfall profits to the very polluters whom we want to rein in, and gives them a competitive advantage over companies that have already cleaned up their act. We want to encourage change, not provide an economic reward for old business practices. If only 15% of permits are auctioned, only 15% of the expected revenue is available to grow the green economy and aggressively develop low-carbon solutions to replace high-carbon sources.

2. By 2020, ACES proposes to reduce CO2 17% below the 2005 level. ASES policy recommendations target a 30% reduction by 2020. The difference has real consequences for the climate. We need the more ambitious target.

3. ACES proposes a 20% renewable energy standard (RES) by 2020 with provision of up to 5% coming from efficiency. ASES suggests that this is not ambitious enough. We call for 28% RES (with no efficiency offset) and a 3% solar set-aside by 2020.

Cap-and-trade is meant to be a market-based system. To be effective, its targets must be set high enough to move the market. Time is of the essence. We must act now and we must act boldly. ACES, as now written, is not ambitious enough to move markets. Indeed, giving emissions allocations away for free simply delays the price signal, and thus the action of market forces, by some years - years we don't have.

The American Solar Energy Society takes the position that all permits must be auctioned. They must be auctioned upstream, where carbon first enters the economy. That sends a direct price signals on carbon, and produces offsetting revenue to help consumers, businesses and local governments to choose sustainable energy strategies.

Action

The bar must be high to make a difference. We absolutely need to send the right market signal from day one. Progress toward a sustainable energy economy requires consistently ambitious action. The time for visionary leadership, using 21st century technologies, is now. If you agree with us, please let your member of Congress know how you feel.

Simply call the Washington switchboard at (202) 225-3121 and ask to speak with your Representative or click here for the online directory: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt

Thank you for adding your voice to this important legislation. Your call makes a difference. And together, we're speeding the transition to a sustainable energy economy.

With sincere thanks,

Brad Collins
Executive Director,
American Solar Energy Society

 

 

 

Contact your Members of Congress and urge them to support a 25% Renewable Electricity Standard by 2025. Take Action!

A renewable electricity standard (RES) is a policy to ensure that a growing percentage of electricity is produced from renewable sources, like wind power. To create a long-term commitment to renewable energy, the U.S. needs to adopt a national RES that calls for 25% of our electricity to come from renewable resources, such as wind and solar power, by the year 2025. This policy would foster a sound investment climate for renewable energy manufacturers to invest billions of dollars in new facilities and employ hundreds of thousands of Americans in high-quality jobs.

The Senate and House of Representatives are currently considering energy legislation that includes a national RES. Draft bills are currently calling for only half of the 25% by 2025 level - not strong enough to demonstrate a true national commitment to renewables. NOW is the time to let your Members of Congress know that you support a meaningful RES.

Please take a moment to contact your Senators and Representative and express your support for a national 25% renewable electricity by 2025 policy. Click here to contact your Senators and Representative to express your support for a national RES.

 

THIS IS IT FOLKS!

EITHER WE STOP THE "CLEAN ENERGY" BANK OR WE GET DOZENS OF NEW NUCLEAR REACTORS

WE CAN WIN THIS ONE: ACT NOW!

We're asking you to take the most important action of the year.

Write your House member and Speaker Nancy Pelosi now. And then forward this message to everyone you can think of.

Write your House member here. -

http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5502/t/5846/campaign.jsp?campaign_KE...
46

Write Speaker Nancy Pelosi here. -

http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5502/t/5846/campaign.jsp?campaign_KE...
50

The "Clean Energy Bank"
legislation sponsored by Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman and Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) includes UNLIMITED taxpayer loan guarantees for construction of new nuclear reactors. Not $50 Billion, or $100 Billion.
UNLIMITED!

In other words, under the guise of a clean energy program, the nuclear power industry could get taxpayer money to build as many reactors as they wanted, regardless of their cost, regardless of their projected default rate.

That's just unacceptable.

We need to act on this as loudly and clearly as possible.

Write your House member and Speaker Nancy Pelosi now. And then forward this message to everyone you can think of.

Write your House member here.

Write Speaker Nancy Pelosi here.

PLEASE forward this Alert
to everyone you can think of. In 24 hours, we generated more than 3,000 letters in opposition to the pro-nuclear Murkowski amendment to the Senate energy bill. That's pretty good for one day, and we thank everyone who wrote (the Murkowski amendment has not yet been considered, it will likely come up next week). But we need to generate at least 10,000 letters to Pelosi and House members to stop this fake "clean energy" bank. Please help everyone you can think of to send letters now by forwarding this Alert. Phone calls to House members would be very effective
too: 202-224-3121.

A NIRS blog posting on the "clean energy" bank is available here. It provides a lot more background info on this issue. You have our permission to re-post this everywhere and anywhere you want. Please do so. - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/14/731338/-Could-A-Clean-Energy-Ban...
eck-the-Economy-Well,-yes......

This really is it folks. The effectiveness of our actions now will determine our energy--and quite possibly our economic--future. There is just no reason for inaction; let's all do everything we can.

Pass the word; send an e-mail to your friends, forward this Alert everywhere. Put in on Facebook and MySpace. Twitter it. Blog it. Print this and take it to meetings. Do whatever you can. We can't let this stand.

We need thousands and thousands of people responding to this Alert;
please
act, please do everything you can to20expand our reach.

Thanks for all you do,

Michael Mariotte

Executive Director

Nuclear Information and Resource Service

[email protected]

www.nirs.org

 

May 14, 2009
Dear friends,
We've asked a lot of you this past
several months. As the Obama administration has moved into power, the
pace of activity has increased; we know that.

So we don't waste your time asking
you to take actions that aren't meaningful.
And right now, we're asking you to
take the most important action of the year.
Write your House member and Speaker
Nancy Pelosi now. And then forward this message to everyone you can
think of.
Write your House member here.

Write Speaker Nancy Pelosi here.
We should have figured it out
earlier, but we didn't. The section in the bill was so obscure we all
missed it. But the "Clean Energy Bank" legislation sponsored by Senate
Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman and Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA)
includes UNLIMITED taxpayer loan guarantees for construction of new
nuclear reactors. Not $50 Billion, or $100 Billion. UNLIMITED!
In other words, under the guise of
a clean energy program, the nuclear power industry could get taxpayer
money to build as many reactors as they wanted, regardless of their
cost, regardless of their projected default rate.

That's just unacceptable.
We need to act on this as loudly
and clearly as possible.
Write your House member and Speaker
Nancy Pelosi now. And then forward this message to everyone you can
think of.
Write your House member here.

Write Speaker Nancy Pelosi here.
PLEASE forward this Alert to
everyone you can think of. In 24 hours, we generated more than 3,000
letters in opposition to the pro-nuclear Murkowski amendment to the
Senate energy bill. That's pretty good for one day, and we thank
everyone who wrote (the Murkowski amendment has not yet been
considered, it will likely come up next week). But we need to generate
at least 10,000 letters to Pelosi and House members to stop this fake
"clean energy" bank. Please help everyone you can think of to send
letters now by forwarding this Alert. Phone calls to House members
would be very effective too: 202-224-3121.
A NIRS blog posting on the "clean

energy" bank is available here. It provides a lot more background info
on this issue. You have our permission to re-post this everywhere and
anywhere you want. Please do so.
This really is it folks. The
effectiveness of our actions now will determine our energy--and quite
possibly our economic--future. There is just no reason for inaction;
let's all do everything we can.
Pass the word; send an e-mail to
your friends, forward this Alert everywhere. Put in on Facebook and
MySpace. Twitter it. Blog it. Print this and take it to meetings. Do
whatever you can. We can't let this stand.
And please send a few dollars our
way. Every tax-deductible contribution you make enables us to reach
more people, to expand our efforts, to build on what you already are
doing. We simply can't do this without your support, so please
contribute here.
We need thousands and thousands of
people responding to this Alert; please act, please do everything you
can to expand our reach.
Thanks for all you do,

Michael Mariotte
Executive Director
Nuclear Information and Resource
Service
[email protected]
www.nirs.org

 

IT'S YET ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO ADD TAXPAYER SUBSIDIES FOR NEW REACTORS AND ENCOURAGE REPROCESSING
ACTING TOGETHER, QUICKLY, WE CAN DEFEAT IT!
May 12, 2009
Dear Friends,
Like father, like daughter....Sen. Lisa Murkowski (daughter of former Sen. Energy Comm. Chairman and avowed nuclear supporter Frank Murkowski) intends to submit an amendment to the Senate Energy Bill today--Wednesday, May 13--before the Senate Energy Committee. This amendment is yet another nuclear industry attempt to increase taxpayer subsidies for new nuclear reactor construction and to institute reprocessing of radioactive waste before the Obama administration can conduct its re-evaluation of our nation's failed radioactive waste policies.
This amendment is unnecessary and dangerous, and must be defeated.
And we believe it can be defeated--with your help. Please send a letter in opposition to the Murkowski Amendment to your Senators here.
Then, quickly ask your friends and colleagues to send letters too and help spread the word across the country!
And, if you get a second, call your Senators as well, at 202-224-3121.
While not every Senator is on the Energy Committee of course, and thus won't be voting on the amendment at this time, we're targeting every Senator with our message as part of our broader and ongoing campaign to educate the Senate and stop taxpayer subsidies for the nuclear industry.
Thank you for acting (yet again!--and it won't be the last time this year....).
Brief update: Last week, the Senate Energy Committee voted 18-5 against Sen. Bernie Sanders' entirely sensible amendment to limit the Clean Energy Bank from using more than 20% of its money on any single energy technology. This is a clear indication that this "Clean Energy Bank" is intended to fund primarily expensive dirty energy projects like nuclear power and "clean" coal. We will keep you posted when this reaches the Senate floor and there is another opportunity to make your views known.
Thanks for all you do,
Michael Mariotte
Executive Director
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
[email protected]
www.nirs.org

Sunday, May 17, 3 pm, Beacon, NY

HARVEY WASSERMAN
[ author, activist, journalist who coined "No Nukes" ]

STOPPING NUKE POWER
-- including Indian Point--

& WINNING SOLARTOPIA
(our green-powered Earth)
Musical Performances by Dar Williams & David Bernz
(State Assemblyman Richard Brodsky invited)
Sponsored by
Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition (IPSEC)
Mid Hudson Progressive Alliance
Philipstown for Democracy
River Pool at Beacon
Beacon Sloop Club
Hudson River Clearwater
at
Beacon Institute for Rivers & Estuaries
199 Main Street, Beacon, NY
SEATING is LIMITED the PROGRAM is FREE
Background at http://harveywasserman.com
Contact [ [email protected] | 845-228-8894]