Skip to main content

Early Responses to Kerry-Boxer

clip_image001Just in case you thought we’d have to wait a bit for some comment on the Kerry-Boxer climate change bill introduced yesterday, think again. Here’s Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska):

“We’ve got to be honest with ourselves if we are truly going to decrease emissions,” Murkowski said.  “Nuclear energy must be a part of our energy mix if we are going to do so.”

We guess some of our readers consider that Republican boilerplate, but remember that the bill itself is very friendly in its preamble to nuclear energy. Since Murkowski is on a committee that gets a crack at this – Energy and Natural Resources - look to her (among others, of course) to push for the nuclear imperative.

---

And she’s not the only one. Here’s Sen. John McCain (R—Ariz.):

The bill introduced Wednesday by Sens. John Kerry, [D-Mass.], and Barbara Boxer, [D-Calif.], has "nothing about nuclear power," McCain complained in the interview, which was part of the "First Draft of History" forum sponsored by The Atlantic and the Aspen Institute. "It's the left-wing environmental organizations that are not allowing us to move forward with nuclear power."

The second part of his quote is somewhat curious, since all kinds of organizations had meetings on the Hill about this bill. Clearly, the legislation is, by design, like a Christmas tree waiting for its ornaments; McCain will probably be hanging some of those when he gets the chance. And like Murkowski, we expect he’ll be looking at the nuclear portion very carefully.

---

And Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.):

“These are fancy, complicated words for high-cost energy that sends jobs overseas looking for cheap energy. Instead, we should take practical steps to produce low-cost, clean, carbon-free energy and create jobs. Specifically, we should build 100 new nuclear plants, electrify half our cars and trucks, expand exploration offshore for American natural gas and oil, and double funding for energy research and development.”

We’ve always liked Alexander’s thinking about energy – for the obvious reasons, of course – but also because, as seen here, he thinks very broadly and has a good grasp of the complexities of energy policy. He thinks big and captures the breadth of the subject..

Here’s a little more:

We need to commit to building new reactors. Even Energy Secretary Steven Chu has said that he supports using nuclear energy to solve the energy crisis.”

So there you go.

Sens. Kerry and Boxer

Comments

DocForesight said…
I read Sen. Murkowski's complete reaction to the "Pollution Reduction" bill. I don't know where you find it being "Republican boilerplate". It seems pretty well-reasoned and devoid of partisan "bickering".

Coming from a Senator representing one of our more vital energy producing states - and that being liquid fuel, not nuclear fuel - I think her support for nuclear power stations is laudable and worthy of approbation.

Popular posts from this blog

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

A Design Team Pictures the Future of Nuclear Energy

For more than 100 years, the shape and location of human settlements has been defined in large part by energy and water. Cities grew up near natural resources like hydropower, and near water for agricultural, industrial and household use.

So what would the world look like with a new generation of small nuclear reactors that could provide abundant, clean energy for electricity, water pumping and desalination and industrial processes?

Hard to say with precision, but Third Way, the non-partisan think tank, asked the design team at the Washington, D.C. office of Gensler & Associates, an architecture and interior design firm that specializes in sustainable projects like a complex that houses the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys. The talented designers saw a blooming desert and a cozy arctic village, an old urban mill re-purposed as an energy producer, a data center that integrates solar panels on its sprawling flat roofs, a naval base and a humming transit hub.

In the converted mill, high temperat…

Seeing the Light on Nuclear Energy

If you think that there is plenty of electricity, that the air is clean enough and that nuclear power is a just one among many options for meeting human needs, then you are probably over-focused on the United States or Western Europe. Even then, you’d be wrong.

That’s the idea at the heart of a new book, “Seeing the Light: The Case for Nuclear Power in the 21st Century,” by Scott L. Montgomery, a geoscientist and energy expert, and Thomas Graham Jr., a retired ambassador and arms control expert.


Billions of people live in energy poverty, they write, and even those who don’t, those who live in places where there is always an electric outlet or a light switch handy, we need to unmake the last 200 years of energy history, and move to non-carbon sources. Energy is integral to our lives but the authors cite a World Health Organization estimate that more than 6.5 million people die each year from air pollution.  In addition, they say, the global climate is heading for ruinous instability. E…