Skip to main content

Dueling Editorials: The USA-India Agreement

deliv01 The New York Times and the Washington Post have both put up editorials on the pending agreement to allow the India and the United States to share nuclear technologies. The Times doesn't like it:

The nuclear agreement was a bad idea from the start. Mr. Bush and his team were so eager for a foreign policy success that they gave away the store. They extracted no promise from India to stop producing bomb-making material. No promise not to expand its arsenal. And no promise not to resume nuclear testing.

The Post is all in:

For all its flaws, the agreement would create more international supervision of India's nuclear fuel cycle than there would be without it. If Congress backs out now, the only victims will be American nuclear suppliers, who would have to stand aside while French and Russian companies expand India's nuclear power system.

Although we agree more with the Post, we find its arguments a rather weakish tea. American nuclear suppliers can take care of themselves without this deal, and, as we've seen over numerous posts, the U.S. has been all over the globe making partnerships with various European and Asian countries. France and Russia will be in India competing even if the treaty passes, so there's no guarantee America would see tremendous amounts of business (although we actually think it would.)

But the Times, even with stronger arguments, approaches this with an ideological purity that ignores the nature of the players in this deal - this isn't, say, a Russia-Iran hair raiser - and the practical effects of the treaty, which are fairly benign. We grant that the elements the U.S. is skirting here are important, but have to agree with the Post that a rigid adherence to rules intended to rein in rogue nations shouldn't trip up this deal.

Chances are good for this one. Sens. McCain and Obama are both in support and House Speaker Pelosi wants to move it along and will waive a rule that would have hurt its chances. There's very little downside politically.

Now, the Russia-US nuclear deal, on the other hand - whoof!

Billy Redden in Deliverance. Dueling Banjos, of course, was the moment where the city men found a way to bond with the mountain men, followed of course by misunderstanding, murder and various horrific events. A unique novel and film about the masculine imperative gone mad. Redden was a high-school boy from the Georgia area where Deliverance was filmed; he reappeared briefly in Big Fish (2003) - playing the banjo.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …