We highlighted the Washington Post’s response to the Yucca Mountain situation because the paper carries some weight and helps set the agenda for the news media. But other editorials can drop the responsible judicious pose and just let ‘er rip:
President Obama's decision to abandon the national nuclear waste disposal site at Yucca Mountain, Nev., is a breathtakingly irresponsible dismissal of a vital project on which billions already have been spent. It extends a security risk at dozens of temporary waste disposal sites around the nation and threatens to cripple the future nuclear development needed to advance national energy independence.
So there! We don’t really agree that maintaining the fuel at sites is a massive security threat – it’s an issue plants wrestled to the ground a long time ago, with a lot of extra attention paid to it after 9/11/01. And the developing attitude seems to be that leaving nuclear out of the energy mix is a non-starter.
But heck, they do know how to rock the outrage down in South Carolina:
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., describes the administration's decision as a repudiation of candidate Obama's stated environmental and energy goals, and as a nod to the far left. "It is disingenuous to say you are going to do something about solving the climate change problem and energy independence without nuclear energy," the senator told us Friday.
We’ve watched enough Fox News to know that “far left” merely means “not conservative,” but we agree with Sen. Graham otherwise. We also would note that there are plenty on the far left, er, left who agree with him – Sen. Graham would be well-advised to tip-toe over to that side of the aisle and see who’s who.
Great editorial, though – fiery and injudicious, not always facing facts squarely, but leaving lots of room for quarrelling.