Will Congress Plunge Us (Again) into the Nuke Power Abyss?

[flashl]

Congress stands at the brink of the global-warmed nuclear powered abyss. Again.

In a victory for green power, a massive grassroots/internet campaign forced removal from the national Energy Bill of blank check loan guarantees to build atomic reactors.

But as you read this, House and Senate Democrats and Republicans are negotiating the 2008 Omnibus Appropriations Bill.

Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) has slipped in $25 billion in taxpayer-guaranteed loans for new nukes. The nuke reactor guarantees are bundled with $10 billion for renewable energy, $10 billion to turn coal into liquid vehicle fuel, $2 billion to turn coal into natural gas and another $2 billion to build a uranium enrichment plant.

Safe energy supporters are demanding (see www.nirs.org ) that American taxpayers not be forced to pay for another fifty years of radioactive failure.

At an October press conference (http://nukefree.freevolt.org/ ), a coalition of virtually all the nation’s major environmental organizations, along with musicians Bonnie Raitt, Jackson Browne and Graham Nash, submitted more than 120,000 signatures to Congress.

Read Full Text

Where else are we being lead for a "quick" alternative energy solution?

[dbt]

1. Of course they will.

Ye of little faith!

:rofl:

[flashl]

4. You got that right. The next growth industry will be consumer geiger counters.

[Toots]

2. Both Green Peace and Sierra Club have changed their positions on Nuclear Power

They now believe they are the best alternative at the moment to save the planet from Global Warming..

[spanone]

3. they are so wrong

[bananas]

6. They haven't changed their positions - the poster is deceived.

Edit to add:
PR Watch webpage on Nuclear Industry propaganda: http://www.prwatch.org/node/5833
Sierra Club webpage on nuclear power: http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/nuc-power.asp
Greenpeace webpage on nuclear power: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/nuclear

[bananas]

5. Bullshit.

Where did you hear this propaganda?

[Toots]

7. There was an article in Newsweek about eight or nine months ago on it

It was considered a major switch in attitude as they had been adamant opponents. They never said it was desirable only that the times warranted it because of how severe the crisis would become. They are still opponents of nuclear power though. They want more alternatives but in the immediate times we live in they will settle for nuclear for the short term..Maybe they have changed back since then I haven't heard but it was an interesting read..

[bananas]

8. Nope - it's corporate propaganda

Read this PR Watch article on Nuclear Industry propaganda: http://www.prwatch.org/node/5833
Here's the Sierra Club webpage on nuclear power - nothing has changed: http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/nuc-power.asp
Here's the Greenpeace webpage on nuclear power - still anti-nuke: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/nuclear

[flashl]

9. Is this the article?

Greenpeace co-founder changes mind

Thomas Lifson

Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, pens an op-ed in the New York Post endorsing the use of nuclear power, an enemy that the greenies fought tooth and nail for decades.

AS co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace, I once opposed nuclear energy. But times have changed, and new facts of compelling importance have emerged - and so my views have changed as well, as have those of a growing number of respected, independent environmentalists around the world.

There are few places where nuclear power makes as much sense or is as important as in New York. Indeed, the state is a microcosm of the challenges America and the world face to have ample, clean and reasonably priced electricity. As such, I strongly support renewal of the license for the Indian Point nuclear plants in Westchester, which provides 30 percent or so of the electricity used in the New York metro area.

[bananas]

10. He's not a co-founder of Greenpeace.

http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/7/2007/1502

<snip>

In "Greenpeace: How a Group of Ecologists, Journalists, and Visionaries Changed the World," author Rex Weyler writes "Greenpeace was founded by Quakers Dorothy and Irving Stowe, Marie and Jim Bohlen, and journalists Ben Metcalfe, Dorothy Metcalfe, and Bob Hunter. This group organized the first campaign to sail a boat into the U.S. nuclear test zone on Amchitka Island in the Bering Sea.

"Canadian ecologist and carpenter Bill Darnell coined the name "Greenpeace" in February 1970. A year later, Moore wrote to the organization, applying for a crew position on the boat and was accepted."

Moore wrote his letter on March 16, 1971, two years after the group was founded, describing himself as a graduate student "in the field of resource ecology." Clearly, then, Moore was not a founder of Greenpeace. Founders don't write letters applying to join. After the Stowes, Metcalfes and Bob Hunter left the organization, Moore briefly served as president, from 1977 to 1979. Former members recall that his bullyism nearly scuttled Greenpeace. He launched an internal lawsuit against his rivals in other Greenpeace offices, was replaced as president in 1979, and eventually drummed out of the organization as a troublemaker.

<snip>

Moore says he is the "head scientist" of his public relations firm, but has never published a peer-reviewed scientific study. Moore exaggerates his role in Greenpeace and his credentials as a scientist to serve as a public relations hack for hire.

Moore now gets big money defending the indefensible, posing as a reformed environmentalist who has seen the light ... any light he is paid to see. He has hyped genetically modified crops, PVCs, and brominated flame retardants. He has soft-pedaled dioxins and toxic mine tailings dumped by Newmont mines into Indonesia bays.

<snip>

[flashl]

12. Moore got the 'Winston Smith' treatment in the wikipedia

Patrick Moore

[slipslidingaway]

11. K&R thanks n/t