Nuke of Earl

To John McCain, the future is nuclear. Should he win election, in November, the Arizona senator has another vision, for America , besides keeping U.S. forces in Iraq for the next hundred years. McCain plans to increase existing domestic nuclear reactors by 50%, or add another 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030.

What is the Republican presidential nominee's rationale for such a radical expansion of our nuclear waistline? He claims to be striving for energy independence. Surely, there are other options beside one that is so riddled with hazard. What about solar power? What about exploring more cost-effective use of electricity, or other planet-friendly natural resources that don't come with the baggage of nuclear exposure?

Apart from the obvious risk of expanding nuclear power, a threat that both Bush and McCain see in Iran, and North Korea, this proposal raises some serious questions about the soundness of John McCain's environmentally-friendly stance. Just ask the folks who live on Yucca Mountain, less than a two hour drive from Las Vegas, how they feel about becoming a national nuclear waste dump.

Consider, too, the irony of this proposal to increase the number of domestic nuclear reactors from about 100 to 145 given that it comes from then candidate McCain who, just months ago, told Foreign Affairs Magazine that the idea that "nuclear technology can spread without nuclear weapons" is a "mistaken assumption" that works counter to nonproliferation treaties.

On his web site, McCain promises to "increase funding for nonproliferation efforts." So, if we understand him correctly, the Republican who wants to be the next president plans both to increase funding for nuclear nonproliferation and, at the same time, develop 45 more nuclear reactors which, by his own admission, threaten nonproliferation -- talk about pissing up a tree.

The site also says that Iran is "marching toward the same goal" as North Korea and Syria who pose a threat by developing nuclear weapons programs, but India , Israel , and the U.S. don't pose a threat? By what kind of inverted logic does the senator arrive at this conclusion? After all, doesn't Ahmadinejad contend that he's developing his nuclear program for peaceful use only?

Moreover, a quick visit to McCain.com reveals his pledge for "a long term commitment to a world free of nuclear weapons." Does he plan to accomplish this by building nearly 50 more nuclear reactors in his own country? And, dare we consider this long term commitment back to back with his statement that he could foresee American forces in Iraq for another 100 years?

In John McCain, we have a prospective leader of the free world who says he's conscious of the environment while giving a big thumbs up to drilling in the Alaska nature wildlife refuge, one who would grow reactors thereby increasing hazardous nuclear waste, and who has the unmitigated chutzpah to say he's aiming for nuclear nonproliferation,a dherence to international treaties while, at the same time, setting the infrastructure in place for doing exactly what he accuses the "axis of evil" countries of doing. If it sounds like doubletalk to you, that's because it is.

Yes, Sen.McCain would also throw a couple of billion a year to research other alternatives like clean coal, but think about how many billions more will go to building dozens of nuclear reactors, virtually one for every state in the union. Better still, think about the hypocrisy of threatening "terrorist" countries with military strikes for pursuing the same programs that the Republican nominee-in-waiting plans to put in place.

Unless the Arizona senator thinks that a nuclear reactor doesn't fit under the umbrella of "nuclear technology," he is now working at cross-purposes with himself by embracing a program of national nuclear reactor proliferation. Can we afford a president who works at cross-purposes with himself, and yet another chief executive who, when faced with it, will claim immunity from U.N. inspections, as well as nonproliferation treaties, and then call North Korea, Syria, and Iran "terrorist" states? How many more seismic position shifts may we expect in the coming months, and how many more still if he were to be elected?

Make no mistake, when it comes to the military, John McCain is George W. Bush on steroids.

And, in light of his latest scheme, the senator won't mind if, instead of "Duke of Earl," his campaign's theme song is "Nuke of Earl," especially given all the fun he had with his version of another song, "Bomb Iran."

Follow Jayne Lyn Stahl on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jaynelynstahl

Comments

[jayne]

Mike is right --- we need alternative forms of energy, as well as to conserve power, but consider this administration's stance towards Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea who can make the same claims of developing nuclear energy for peaceful means.

More importantly, remember that it was JOHN McCAIN who said, last December, that those who think that nuclear technology can spread without nuclear weapons are operating under what he called "a mistaken assumption." It is John McCain who is confusing developing nuclear power as a means to enhance conservation with nuclear warfare----this is HIS assumption as it is that of President George W. Bush, so let's be clear here, please, on who it is who is confusing positive uses of nuclear energy with destructive uses---it is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee who is doing that, and his predecessor.

Moreover, what kind of arrogance does it take to say that we get to decide who can use nuclear technology as an alternative to existing power generation, and who doesn't --- the U.S., India, Israel, okay. All the industrialized countries recognize that it is now the U.S. that poses the greatest threat to the survival of the planet.

That nuclear waste will result from these reactors is only a fraction of the damage that will be done. This national narcissism America suffers from is a pathology that doesn't even acknowledge the adverse impact our actions have, and will continue to have, on the entire world.

[mpkirby]

"Moreover, a quick visit to McCain.com reveals his pledge for "a long term commitment to a world free of nuclear weapons." Does he plan to accomplish this by building nearly 50 more nuclear reactors in his own country? And, dare we consider this long term commitment back to back with his statement that he could foresee American forces in Iraq for another 100 years?"

You are now acting all republican-like. Taking unrelated points and mixing them.

- Nuclear power is not the same as nuclear weapons.
- The U.S. Already has lots of nuclear power plants. By your logic should we shut them down?
- Iran has no nuclear capability, and is unwilling to submit to international inspection regimes.
- The Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty is, by definition, a treaty that seeks to allow nuclear states to maintain their nuclear position and prevent the transfer of nuclear technologies to non-nuclear states.

Be honest in your arguements. We democrats shouldn't have to sink to this kind of bait and switch argument in order to point out that McCain's foreign policy (and indeed, even his energy policy) are fragile shells that break when even the slightest pressure is applied. I would gladly trade a nuclear plant for a coal plant. I'd prefer neither, but the technology to do that and maintain our standard of living does not exist.

Mike

[Michale32086]

Well said..

Michale....

[Michale32086]

I am constantly amazed at the Left's ability to be a PROPONENT of the laughable myth that is Human Caused Global Warming, yet decry the ONE THING that could make it all go away, even if it really existed in the first place..

How anyone can rationalize being against the problem ***AND*** the solution is beyond me..

Michale.....

[mpkirby]

You are correct.

Being a member of "the left," I can tell you that the left is far from a unified block of political power.

There are those in the left who are anti-nuclear and those that are pro.

Just like the right, there are those that are rational, and those that are not.

Ultimately the path to success lies with those of us willing to look at facts, and draw reasonable inferences, even if it goes against our philosophical points of view.

I can be rationally anti-nuclear, but I've got to be willing to propose something that allows society to continue to prosper.

Mike

[sarge]

Michale: Not being a climatologist, as you apparently are (albeit in the small minority that deny human causes of global warming), trading one future environmental catastrophe for another isn't much of a solution. Nuclear waste, which we've never figured out what to do with, lasts forever, which is to say it outlasts anything you can put it in. It cannot be indefinitely contained. Of course the human race will probably be extinct before our radioactive excrement starts destroying life on earth in swaths, but just in case, it would be polite of us to not go out of our way to kill future generations of humans (not to mention plants & animals), assuming they managed to avoid or survive a seemingly inevitable nuclear holocaust.

There are plenty of "solutions" to our ever growing and increasingly insatiable appetite for energy, and, far from creating economic malaise, they can actually be a net positive for our economy.

[Michale32086]

Can you name me some of these solutions??

None of the ones you can name are technologically or economically ready to be deployed on a large scale. None of the ones you can name will meet the needs that coal plants and nuke plants can meet NOW..

Not even a combination of these solutions can be deployed or can meet the needs.

Do you know that over 50+ BILLION (yes, with a B) dollars has been spent to STUDY Global Warming. Not to do anything about it, mind you. Just STUDY it...

Now, imagine if you took all that money and created programs to help people with alternative energy.

A HYBRID TRADE IN PROGRAM
This would be a program whereas drivers who have working and running gas vehicles can trade them in for a hybrid.

SOLAR POWER PROGRAM
This would be a program where homeowners can receive Solar Power systems to install on their homes to power.

Both of these programs would go a LOT further to curb pollution and decrease the USA's energy needs..

But you won't see these programs.. Because A> they are logical and rational approaches to the REAL problems of pollution and energy dependence (but they won't do diddley squat for Climate Change, because nothing CAN be done about Climate Change) and 2> these programs do not put money in Al Gore's pocket..

THAT is why you won't see these types of logical and rational approaches..

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

For the record, I am NOT a climatologist.

I am just a guy who has a lot of common sense and tries to look at things logically and rationally instead of hysterically.

Here is what makes me seriously doubt Human Caused Global Warming.

1. The hysterical nature of the claims

2. The fact that so much money can be had by just jumping on the HCGW bandwagon. Over 50 BILLION just to STUDY the problem...

3. The fact that the HCGW crowd puts out grandiose and hysterical "facts" that turn out to be complete BS...

4. The fact that Al Gore simply REFUSES to debate the issue, despite having castigated the lack of debate in the run up to the Iraq War...

5. The earth's climate has been changing for BILLIONS of years. Mankind's existence on earth is a mere mote of a speck of that time... It's simply inconceivable that something as robust as the earth's climate can be affected in that mere speck of time. See my "Man pissing in the Atlantic" analogy.

6. Professionals cannot accurately predict the weather in the coming 24 hours. Are we to believe that weather can accurately be predicted in the coming 10 years?? 20 years?? 50 years??? Doubtful..

CONT

[Michale32086]

CONT

7. The "do as I say, not as I do" attitude of nearly ALL HCGW proponents.. Al Gore and his 17,000+ K/w per month house is one. John Travolta and his private airplanes and airfield is another..

8. Al Gore owns the "carbon credit" industry.. Isn't that coincidental?? He creates the emergency and then profits from the alleged "cure"...

And so many MANY other reasons...

It's not a question of anyone misleading me..

It's simply a matter of the fact that the hysterical claims of the HCGW crowd simply defies belief..

Michale.....

[mpkirby]

"Apart from the obvious risk of expanding nuclear power, a threat that both Bush and McCain see in Iran, and North Korea..."

Consider the risk of not expanding nuclear power.

(a) We need the power -- SO we expand coal (more people die from coal-related issues (respiratory or mining accidents -- more environmental damage from coal mining)

(b) We need the power (alternative energy) -- While continuing to invest in alternative energy makes sense, the vast amount of power we need isn't amenable to immediate deployment of alternative energy. Consequently a "stop using coal/nuclear start using alternative" would result in a significant spike in energy prices. This has impacts on industry (jobs), poverty (health), and quality of life (isn't that the point of living?)

(c) Conserve -- Our best chance, but what to do with the aging nuclear power plant fleet. Add 45 nuclear reactors, you are still decomissioning many as they age. In all likelihood most of the 45 new reactors would likely replace existing power generation (whether coal or nuclear). So we not only have to conserve our way to growth, but also to replace existing base-load power.

Mike

[Thorn]

McCain is against drilling in ANWR. How is that "a big thumbs-up"?

[Thorn]

Nobody? Yeah. I thought not.