Skip to main content

Environmental Activism or Just a Job?

Image
By Janice
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), a native Alaskan and member of the Senate Subcommittee on Energy, writes in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner about her encounter with a U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG) representative who was going door to door, urging opposition to the Energy Policy Act.
I began to engage the young man on the merits of the president's and Congress's energy plans beyond oil production, like conservation, renewables and efficiency standards. He rejected nuclear power as too dangerous, assuring me wind power was the way to go, regardless of the amount of land needed to generate enough power, the number of birds that would be killed or the viewshed issues. I brought up ocean energy, but he was concerned about its impact on fish. He conceded the merits of natural gas but insisted it should come from foreign sources--never mind that most nations' environmental standards are nowhere near America's.

We had been discussing energy issues almost 20 minutes with me challenging him point for point when he broke down. "Ma'am," he said, "this is just a job." He continued, "I don't really believe that we shouldn't drill in the Arctic. I've never been to Alaska. If we drill for oil anywhere, we ought to drill up there--that state is huge. I agree about wind and nuclear energy. It bugs me what they [PIRG] tell us to say." He confessed he wasn't interested in energy issues but was using talking points for his summer job.

... He explained he was doing this for leadership skills as he was a team leader for four others canvassing the neighborhood that night. I informed him what he was doing wasn't leadership--leadership is about advocating for issues he truly cared about, regardless of financial reward. While I was certainly concerned about his actions, Alaskans should be even more concerned about the motivation of opponents to opening ANWR and their willingness to mislead and deceive the public in the process.

Rather than focus on the distortions and fundraising tactics of U.S. PIRG, Alaskans should recognize how committed the forces that want to stop us from responsible energy development truly are. Alaskans must become equally passionate about increased energy production in this country and why the perfect site is a tiny portion of the Arctic coastal plain.

This young man was just a disingenuous salesperson. Americans, however, need to become ardent hawkers of a sound energy policy that combines renewable energy, conservation and new technology with a balanced willingness to produce more energy domestically. Congress took giant steps forward with the newly signed energy bill, and we will go even further when we take up ANWR again this fall.

Alaskans need to team the passion of our opponents with a love for the truth. That is how we will emerge victorious in our battle to open ANWR to responsible oil development.
And the same goes for nuclear energy. As we've seen before, U.S. PIRG isn't all its cracked up to be.

Technorati tags:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more