U.S. Leadership Stumbles Again: Obama Says New Energy Policy Unfeasible [Video]

[Nathanael]

And the midterm election "shellacking" continues:



A day after his party endured a "shellacking" in midterm elections, U.S. President Barack Obama said passing new comprehensive energy policy was no longer a short-term possibility.

Standing humbled as he addressed a packed-room of reporters, President Obama said Tuesday night's election results illustrated that the American people want to see Republicans and Democrats working together to move the country forward; this is something he vowed to do on all issues, including energy.

Link: http://www.energyboom.com/policy/us-leadership-stumbles-again-obama-says-new-energy-policy-unfeasible

[FiveGoodMen]

1. His only purpose in office seems to be convincing the Democrats that the pukes should really get

their way.

[arcane1]

2. Tuesday night's election results illustrated what????

:shrug:

[bananas]

3. fuck nuclear power

it won't make a dent in global warming and it hasn't been endorsed by any environmental organization as a solution to global warming.

[txlibdem]

4. Yup. Nobody. Except the energy ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, UK, USA

When you're right, you're right, sir. (and when you're wrong...)

Although nuclear was still an add-on after more fashionable power sources, it was able to gain a seat at the top table of climate mitigation technologies: the G8's proposed low-carbon technology platform should "focus on a limited group of key technologies during the starting phase of the platform such as solar and wind energy, smart electrical grids, low-carbon vehicles, modernization of coal-fired power stations and carbon capture and storage (CCS) and, considering the interest of a growing number of countries, nuclear power."

Using similar wording, the ministers noted that, "in the opinion of a growing number of countries, the use of nuclear power can diversify the energy mix, contribute to energy security while reducing greenhouse gas emissions." They added that safety and cooperation internationally and with the International Atomic Energy Agency should be top priorities.

The meeting also saw the participation of the energy ministers of Algeria, Australia, Brazil, China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, South Korea, Libya, Mexico, Nigeria, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Turkey. EU Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs was also present. Its conclusions will be submitted to the Summit of Heads of State and Government Leaders that is scheduled to be held in L'Aquila, Italy, in July.

A joint statement issued during the meeting by the G8 energy ministers and the EU Energy Commissioner said that they would work to create a common low-carbon technology platform as solutions to climate change and a lack of secure energy supplies.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ENF_G8_energy_ministers_endorse_nuclear_power_2605095.html

We can all look forward to the truth winning out, nuclear power is by rights one of the key technologies in our fight against global climate change, our fight against the entrenched interests of Big Coal and Big Oil that are destroying our economy and our national security, and will be a vital part of a stable, safe, secure energy future.

[txlibdem]

5. and

"Environmentalist Blue Planet Prize Winner Lovelock Endorsed Nuclear Power"

http://www.artdiamondblog.com/archives/2010/09/_for_the_full_r_5.html

[bananas]

7. He's not an environmental organization.

Sierra club, UCS, NRDC, etc.

[bananas]

6. Those aren't environmental organizations

Nice try.
Sierra club, UCS, NRDC, etc.

[txlibdem]

8. Neither are they libraries nor bookends nor fishing lures. So what?

These organizations have a lot more power in guiding our energy future than those you cite.

UCS, feh. When the UCS (Union of "Concerned" Scientists) came out AGAINST electric vehicles they lost all credibility as an environmental organization. NRDC... Who cares about what they say? They've come out against solar and wind projects as well.

[bananas]

9. In post #3 I said environmental organizations

And you attempted to refute me by listing non-environmental organizations - so you didn't refute my point.
My point is that the organizations which are most concerned with environmental issues such as global warming do not endorse nuclear energy as a solution.
And the attacks on UCS are part of the Republican war on science, and frankly it's disgusting to see them repeated here.

[txlibdem]

10. And I disputed your requirement as meaningless

You set arbitrary rules for the discussion that the rest of the world (look at the list of nations in my earlier post) refuses to follow.

Now answer my criticism of the UCS and NRDC as failed organizations that have done actual HARM to the advancement of cleaner energy and cleaner transportation.