Skip to main content

Sen. Lieberman Wants More Nuclear

lieberman Sen. Joe Lieberman [I-Conn.] wants you to know:

“I don’t think we’re going to [pass a bill] without bipartisan support,” Lieberman told POLITICO last week. “And without a nuclear title that’s stronger than in the House climate change legislation, we’re not going to be able to get enough votes to pass climate change.”

This being Washington, putting in such a title may sway some while putting off others and itself may not “be able to get enough votes.”

In an effort to resuscitate some version of the House climate change bill in the Senate, the Connecticut independent is trying to get Republicans and moderate Democrats on board by adding money for coal power and nuclear plants — changes that would infuriate many of the bill’s liberal supporters.

Lieberman calls his effort bi-partisan – Lieberman caucuses with the Democrats – but all the other Senators named as supporters in the article are Republicans. In any event, neither the story nor Lieberman’s Web site say exactly what the Senator has in mind for nuclear and coal – more of it certainly, but through loan guarantees, direct subsidies, mandates, what? We don’t know yet. Nuclear has done pretty well so far, so it’d be interesting to see where Lieberman wants to take it.

The only responses we’ve seen so far is a fairly blistering rebuke from Wonkette and a dismissive one from Think Progress – you can find those yourselves, but neither provides detail, just a blanket disapproval of anything Lieberman might do.

Without knowing details, we agree with Lieberman that a coalition of Republicans and Center/Right Democrats can get a bill together and passed (through Conference Committee and the White House are different matters), but bipartisanship has not been the order of the day so far. If he can swing it, that would be something, but let’s see what he really has in mind. File this under developing.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, pointing. We’re getting quite a collection of pointing politicians on this site.

Comments

There's no logical reason to burn more coal on this world but every logical reason to start building more and more nuclear reactors to start to undue the damage that coal has done to this planet!
gunter said…
What's logic got to do with Senator Lieberman looking to garner more nuclear PAC money?

The contingency of his support is based on a cash payoff.
DocForesight said…
@gunter - Why do you automatically assert nefarious motives and being a shill for "X" industry? Is it perhaps because you have no other intelligent substantive facts to debate so you fire your lone bullet - the ad hominem attack?

You are an example of why fewer and fewer Americans are taking your position seriously.
Brian Mays said…
Too funny, Gunter. Ever consider doing stand-up?

There are a lot easier ways to earn PAC money, you know. If grabbing special-interest money is your game, then nuclear companies should be way down on your prioritized list of groups to favor.

Looking at the list of top contributors in the past decade, which was compiled by opensecrets.org, I notice that, by and large, the nuclear companies are absent. Sure, there's General Electric (a part-time nuclear vendor) at number 35, but judging from GE's most recent advertising campaigns, I'm willing to bet that this PAC money has been spent promoting publicly funded wind turbines and smart grids and other nonsense that makes NIRS go weak in the knees, rather than new nuclear plants.

If Liberman wants PAC money, he'd be much better off kissing up to teachers and teamsters and auto workers, not the nuclear industry.
David Walters said…
Brian is spot on with this comment. The "nuclear lobby" is so weak and divided it's hardly effective considering the many countervailing positions on energy. "Big Nuclear" often turns out to be "Big Solar" and "Big Wind". It's rediculous.

For those you who want some real anti-nuclear fun, check out Harvey Wasserman's latest bomb. Truly his funniest (hint: he charges French nuclear is "unpopular").

Ah! Hey, Charles..you GOT to read this. It's so much fun. It's a Wasserman special delight. Really, you'll love it. You'll thank me:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/22/1489/52952
gunter said…
Lieberman is the epitome of hypocrisy.

It is no surprise that his
effort to also insert big coal back into the climate bill is motivated by greed.

Like his cheerleading for new nukes, this effort has absolutely nothing to do with addressing climate change and everything about stuffing his coffers with PAC money for his political ambitions.
Mark Flanagan said…
Gunter -

This confuses people more than you think. After all, it behooves an industry - and advocates, too - to support candidates that back their positions. Lieberman's interest in nuclear (and coal) isn't new, so any support from Big Nuclear or King Coal roots from that.

You're on firmer ground when there appears to be a quid pro quo involved. That's where it starts getting nefarious - and a fair few Congress people end up in the clink for that. That's corruption under the current system.

But if you think the whole system of financing elections is a sewer of special interests - and many do - then virtually every politician is in someone's pocket and it's all equally hateful. Work to clean up the sewer, but don't then pick which pipes are bad - coal, nuclear - and which are good - wind, hydro - based on an arbitrary selection. That leads to hypocrisy.

Mark

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 …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…