Skip to main content

The End of Seasons

AkinTodd We’ve turned the spotlight on some politicians who really seem to have done their homework on climate change, cap-and-trade, nuclear energy and the other topics that will be important as the climate change and energy bills work their way through Congress.

We did that because, first, they deserve a little attention for doing their jobs well – we’ve spotlighted Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), but there are plenty of others who have done the home work and shared what they’ve learned. That they mostly support nuclear energy – well, surely the mark of advanced intelligence, no?

And second, because all this good work can get drowned out when you run into comments like this:

This whole thing strikes me [as] if it weren’t so serious as being a comedy, you know? I mean, we just went from winter to spring. In Missouri, when we go from winter to spring, that’s a good climate change. I don’t want to stop that climate change, you know? Who in the world want to put politicians in charge of the weather anyway? What a dumb idea.

At least this seems an intentional joke:

Some of the models said that we’re going to have surf at the front steps of the Capitol pretty soon. I was really looking forward to that.

That’s Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) on the floor of the House. Leaving aside the confusion about weather and climate, this does not seem responsive to the legislation or to the needs of policy. While we grant that deriding policy you don’t like is a grand old tradition, and that supporting wrong-headed legislation is never a good idea, we’re not sure presenting this as an argument on the House floor is particularly useful.

Viewing Rep. Akin’s homepage, we find he is intensely interested in a shortfall of Navy fighter planes. We’d love to hear more from him on that subject.

Rep. Todd Akin. He serves on the House Energy and Environment subcommittee, which passed the climate change (cap-and-trade) bill; we bet his questions of witnesses there aren’t all that bad.

Comments

Colin said…
Lighten up! Geez. It’s not usual for members of Congress or other leaders to use satire, humor or other devices to make a point about an issue, particularly one as contentious as climate change. I’m sure that Rep. Akin isn’t waxing up his long board anticipating the day that the Capitol is underwater.
MD said…
Humor aside, climate change is a serious issue that has many dimensions. It should be considered fully and with all due consideration to the environmental and economic impact on all Americans.

Given the political and regional differences associated not only with climate change policy, but also with energy policy, there will be a great many differences among members of Congress and their constituents as this debate ensues. Many support cap-and-trade scheme; others a carbon tax. There is the question of allocations and how they should be distributed.

Reducing greenhouse gases while meeting future electricity demand is as serious an issue as Congress as debated in some time. Sure, there are strong feelings on both sides. There also are many members of Congress who are devoted to striking a legislative balance that enhances our environment without putting an undue economic burden on consumers.

Electricity bills will increase in the years to come as our high-tech conveniences suck more power from the grid. Add to that the cost of power plants and a smart grid to maintain the electric system reliability we enjoy today, and it’s easy to see why Congress must support cost-effective carbon reductions
donb said…
Climate change is the issue in vogue right now with regards to reducing CO2 emissions via nuclear energy. The unfortunate results is this one issue tends to become THE reason to promote nuclear energy. However, there so are many known bad affects from burning fossil fuels (especially coal) that even climate change agnostics (such as myself) who look carefully at energy issues can easily conclude the nuclear is the way to go. Making known this long list of bad affects is how to promote nuclear energy. If you also want to put climate change on the list, be my guest.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

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 …