No New Nukes?

Sometime this afternoon the Senate will vote on the McCain/Lieberman plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. When this was the Climate Stewardship act, it was by far the best plan yet proposed for this purpose. This amendment proposed mandatory reduction of emissions to 2000 level by the year 2010. Most enviros had endorsed this plan, and some are still doing so. However, the nuclear provisions added to the plan this spring to spur new power plant production have lost the plan the support of several senators and some environmental groups. There are doubts that the proposal will be able to get the necessary votes to become part of the Senate Energy Bill. Both Bush and the House plan favor "voluntary" reductions, as does a plan put forth by Chuck Hagel, and passed in yesterday's vote. In other words, letting the fox continue to guard the henhouse.

Building more nuclear reactors for power production is a very unattractive option as far as I am concerned. This country has seen no new nukes built for at least thirty years for good reason. They have proved themselves unsafe, as well as uneconomical. Debate is going on as we speak over how to dispose of the waste from reactors built forty and fifty years ago. Why build new problems for future generations to deal with? This statement from Friends of the Earth puts the argument against new nukes quite clearly and plainly. It's a dilemma that I wish McCain and Lieberman hadn't created for us. The only decent emissions-capping plan on the table - but with a nuclear proviso tagging along.

Later the same day - Nope, it didn't pass. It got fewer votes this time than it did a year and a half ago. It's both bad news and good news, I guess.

| +Save/Share | |