SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Take Nuclear Provisions Out of Clean Energy Jobs Act
Feb 12, 2010
Would a truly "clean energy" source produce "one of the nation's most hazardous substances"? Of course not.
So why include provisions on nuclear reactors in the state's Clean Energy Jobs Act, recently introduced in the state Legislature? Nuclear reactors generate high-level radioactive waste, which is "one of the nation's most hazardous substances," according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
In a November 2009 report, the respected nonpartisan agency found there were no good options for dealing with the radioactive waste. As the federal government continues its decades-long struggle to find a solution to this public safety, environmental and political problem, the costs to taxpayers and ratepayers will skyrocket.
In the meantime, radioactive waste is piling up at 80 sites in 35 states, including three sites in Wisconsin.
The GAO report should be mandatory reading for anyone contemplating weakening Wisconsin's safeguards on new nuclear reactors. For 25 years, state law has required that there be a federally licensed repository for high-level nuclear waste, before new reactors can be built here. This condition is needed to ensure that more of our communities don't become dumping grounds for "one of the nation's most hazardous substances."
Unfortunately, one of the most important environmental measures ever to come before our state Legislature -- the Clean Energy Jobs Bill -- contains a provision that would weaken our nuclear safeguards.
The provision would completely remove the requirement for a nuclear waste repository. Instead, it would allow new nuclear reactors to be built in the state, if the plan to deal with the radioactive waste is deemed "economic, reasonable, stringent and in the public interest."
Although that language may sound strong, it's how the nuclear industry describes its practice of keeping the radioactive waste at reactor sites indefinitely -- which the GAO report warns about.
There is no effective way to deal with radioactive nuclear waste, short of avoiding its production in the first place. No country in the world has been able to build what scientists consider the safest long-term storage option for radioactive nuclear waste: a deep geologic repository.
Why does the Clean Energy Jobs Act include problematic nuclear provisions, among its many commendable measures to address global warming and strengthen Wisconsin's economy by increasing energy efficiency and supporting renewable energy?
Simply put, it's spin- and lobbying-driven politics. Over the past year, nuclear industry lobbyists have been active in Madison, and some state legislators have bought their arguments. As a result, pro-nuclear provisions were included in the Clean Energy Jobs Act, in a bid to increase support for a complex bill sure to be contentious.
The nuclear provisions in the Clean Energy Jobs Act give serious pause to residents who understand that their state must mount a robust response to global warming, but don't more nuclear reactors - and more radioactive waste stockpiles - in Wisconsin.
Nuclear reactors do not produce clean energy; they create "one of the nation's most hazardous substances." Therefore, legislators must take the pro-nuclear provisions out of the Clean Energy Jobs Act.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Would a truly "clean energy" source produce "one of the nation's most hazardous substances"? Of course not.
So why include provisions on nuclear reactors in the state's Clean Energy Jobs Act, recently introduced in the state Legislature? Nuclear reactors generate high-level radioactive waste, which is "one of the nation's most hazardous substances," according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
In a November 2009 report, the respected nonpartisan agency found there were no good options for dealing with the radioactive waste. As the federal government continues its decades-long struggle to find a solution to this public safety, environmental and political problem, the costs to taxpayers and ratepayers will skyrocket.
In the meantime, radioactive waste is piling up at 80 sites in 35 states, including three sites in Wisconsin.
The GAO report should be mandatory reading for anyone contemplating weakening Wisconsin's safeguards on new nuclear reactors. For 25 years, state law has required that there be a federally licensed repository for high-level nuclear waste, before new reactors can be built here. This condition is needed to ensure that more of our communities don't become dumping grounds for "one of the nation's most hazardous substances."
Unfortunately, one of the most important environmental measures ever to come before our state Legislature -- the Clean Energy Jobs Bill -- contains a provision that would weaken our nuclear safeguards.
The provision would completely remove the requirement for a nuclear waste repository. Instead, it would allow new nuclear reactors to be built in the state, if the plan to deal with the radioactive waste is deemed "economic, reasonable, stringent and in the public interest."
Although that language may sound strong, it's how the nuclear industry describes its practice of keeping the radioactive waste at reactor sites indefinitely -- which the GAO report warns about.
There is no effective way to deal with radioactive nuclear waste, short of avoiding its production in the first place. No country in the world has been able to build what scientists consider the safest long-term storage option for radioactive nuclear waste: a deep geologic repository.
Why does the Clean Energy Jobs Act include problematic nuclear provisions, among its many commendable measures to address global warming and strengthen Wisconsin's economy by increasing energy efficiency and supporting renewable energy?
Simply put, it's spin- and lobbying-driven politics. Over the past year, nuclear industry lobbyists have been active in Madison, and some state legislators have bought their arguments. As a result, pro-nuclear provisions were included in the Clean Energy Jobs Act, in a bid to increase support for a complex bill sure to be contentious.
The nuclear provisions in the Clean Energy Jobs Act give serious pause to residents who understand that their state must mount a robust response to global warming, but don't more nuclear reactors - and more radioactive waste stockpiles - in Wisconsin.
Nuclear reactors do not produce clean energy; they create "one of the nation's most hazardous substances." Therefore, legislators must take the pro-nuclear provisions out of the Clean Energy Jobs Act.
Would a truly "clean energy" source produce "one of the nation's most hazardous substances"? Of course not.
So why include provisions on nuclear reactors in the state's Clean Energy Jobs Act, recently introduced in the state Legislature? Nuclear reactors generate high-level radioactive waste, which is "one of the nation's most hazardous substances," according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
In a November 2009 report, the respected nonpartisan agency found there were no good options for dealing with the radioactive waste. As the federal government continues its decades-long struggle to find a solution to this public safety, environmental and political problem, the costs to taxpayers and ratepayers will skyrocket.
In the meantime, radioactive waste is piling up at 80 sites in 35 states, including three sites in Wisconsin.
The GAO report should be mandatory reading for anyone contemplating weakening Wisconsin's safeguards on new nuclear reactors. For 25 years, state law has required that there be a federally licensed repository for high-level nuclear waste, before new reactors can be built here. This condition is needed to ensure that more of our communities don't become dumping grounds for "one of the nation's most hazardous substances."
Unfortunately, one of the most important environmental measures ever to come before our state Legislature -- the Clean Energy Jobs Bill -- contains a provision that would weaken our nuclear safeguards.
The provision would completely remove the requirement for a nuclear waste repository. Instead, it would allow new nuclear reactors to be built in the state, if the plan to deal with the radioactive waste is deemed "economic, reasonable, stringent and in the public interest."
Although that language may sound strong, it's how the nuclear industry describes its practice of keeping the radioactive waste at reactor sites indefinitely -- which the GAO report warns about.
There is no effective way to deal with radioactive nuclear waste, short of avoiding its production in the first place. No country in the world has been able to build what scientists consider the safest long-term storage option for radioactive nuclear waste: a deep geologic repository.
Why does the Clean Energy Jobs Act include problematic nuclear provisions, among its many commendable measures to address global warming and strengthen Wisconsin's economy by increasing energy efficiency and supporting renewable energy?
Simply put, it's spin- and lobbying-driven politics. Over the past year, nuclear industry lobbyists have been active in Madison, and some state legislators have bought their arguments. As a result, pro-nuclear provisions were included in the Clean Energy Jobs Act, in a bid to increase support for a complex bill sure to be contentious.
The nuclear provisions in the Clean Energy Jobs Act give serious pause to residents who understand that their state must mount a robust response to global warming, but don't more nuclear reactors - and more radioactive waste stockpiles - in Wisconsin.
Nuclear reactors do not produce clean energy; they create "one of the nation's most hazardous substances." Therefore, legislators must take the pro-nuclear provisions out of the Clean Energy Jobs Act.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.