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

Wednesday Update

By
From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...
Post a Comment
Read more

Fluor Invests in NuScale

By
You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...
1 comment
Read more

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