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
While Sanders Rejects It, Clinton Embraces Nuclear as Part of 'Clean-Energy' Vision
The two candidates battling for the Democratic presidential nomination are divided as to whether nuclear power qualifies as "clean energy"
Mar 21, 2016
Bernie Sanders has made climate change a central pillar of his campaign for the Democratic nomination for president, and he is adamant that nuclear power has no place in his vision of the nation's cleaner future.
Hillary Clinton, to the contrary, believes "nuclear energy has an important role to play in our clean-energy future," Jake Sullivan, Clinton's policy director, told the local Idaho news source Magicvalley.com on Monday.
Sanders argues for "a moratorium on nuclear power plant license renewals in the United States," on his campaign site.
"Bernie believes that solar, wind, geothermal power and energy efficiency are proven and more cost-effective than nuclear--even without tax incentives," his platform goes on, "and that the toxic waste byproducts of nuclear plants are not worth the risks of the technology's benefit."
When it comes to the candidates' climate proposals, Magicvalley.com observed that Sanders' "biggest contrast with Clinton is on nuclear energy."
Clinton has switched her answer several times on the question of nuclear power. She was pro-nuclear power in 2007, when she began her first campaign for the Democratic nomination, changed her mind in the midst of that campaign in 2008 and stated that she was against it--"I have a comprehensive energy plan that does not rely on nuclear power," she declared that year.
Clinton continued to argue against nuclear power until this most recent election season. As of February 2016, her campaign platform states that she is once again in favor of it.
The Democratic presidential hopefuls are currently focusing campaign efforts in Western states such as Idaho, which holds its Democratic caucus on Tuesday. The state is also home to the Idaho National Laboratory, a federal research facility that focuses on nuclear energy, which employs "thousands of Idahoans," as Magicvalley.com noted.
Sullivan told Magicvalley.com, "The Idaho National Laboratory would be an important institution to promote our clean-energy policy."
Clinton's renewed pro-nuke stance may meet resistance from voters nationwide, who are against nuclear power in greater numbers than ever before. Indeed, a new poll shows that a majority of Americans now oppose nuclear energy, Common Dreams reported last week.
And nuclear power is not the only energy issue on which Clinton's stance has recently pivoted. Just last week, she walked back statements she made arguing against coal at a Democratic town hall. In a "head-spinning reversal," Grist reported, only a day after the town hall the Clinton campaign "released a statement saying, 'Coal will remain a part of the energy mix for years to come.'"
Sanders has long been against both coal and nuclear power, and has often critiqued the nuclear power industry. He has harshly condemned the U.S. government's subsidies of nuclear energy companies as well as the nation's failure to maintain its dangerously aging nuclear reactors.
As a U.S. senator, Sanders also battled federal regulators for the right of his home state of Vermont to determine its own energy future in its struggle to shut down the problem-plagued Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) "has no right to tell us what kind of future we will have," Sanders proclaimed on the floor of the Senate back in 2011. "The people of Vermont believe, and I agree, that our future lies with energy efficiency and sustainable energy."
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.
Bernie Sanders has made climate change a central pillar of his campaign for the Democratic nomination for president, and he is adamant that nuclear power has no place in his vision of the nation's cleaner future.
Hillary Clinton, to the contrary, believes "nuclear energy has an important role to play in our clean-energy future," Jake Sullivan, Clinton's policy director, told the local Idaho news source Magicvalley.com on Monday.
Sanders argues for "a moratorium on nuclear power plant license renewals in the United States," on his campaign site.
"Bernie believes that solar, wind, geothermal power and energy efficiency are proven and more cost-effective than nuclear--even without tax incentives," his platform goes on, "and that the toxic waste byproducts of nuclear plants are not worth the risks of the technology's benefit."
When it comes to the candidates' climate proposals, Magicvalley.com observed that Sanders' "biggest contrast with Clinton is on nuclear energy."
Clinton has switched her answer several times on the question of nuclear power. She was pro-nuclear power in 2007, when she began her first campaign for the Democratic nomination, changed her mind in the midst of that campaign in 2008 and stated that she was against it--"I have a comprehensive energy plan that does not rely on nuclear power," she declared that year.
Clinton continued to argue against nuclear power until this most recent election season. As of February 2016, her campaign platform states that she is once again in favor of it.
The Democratic presidential hopefuls are currently focusing campaign efforts in Western states such as Idaho, which holds its Democratic caucus on Tuesday. The state is also home to the Idaho National Laboratory, a federal research facility that focuses on nuclear energy, which employs "thousands of Idahoans," as Magicvalley.com noted.
Sullivan told Magicvalley.com, "The Idaho National Laboratory would be an important institution to promote our clean-energy policy."
Clinton's renewed pro-nuke stance may meet resistance from voters nationwide, who are against nuclear power in greater numbers than ever before. Indeed, a new poll shows that a majority of Americans now oppose nuclear energy, Common Dreams reported last week.
And nuclear power is not the only energy issue on which Clinton's stance has recently pivoted. Just last week, she walked back statements she made arguing against coal at a Democratic town hall. In a "head-spinning reversal," Grist reported, only a day after the town hall the Clinton campaign "released a statement saying, 'Coal will remain a part of the energy mix for years to come.'"
Sanders has long been against both coal and nuclear power, and has often critiqued the nuclear power industry. He has harshly condemned the U.S. government's subsidies of nuclear energy companies as well as the nation's failure to maintain its dangerously aging nuclear reactors.
As a U.S. senator, Sanders also battled federal regulators for the right of his home state of Vermont to determine its own energy future in its struggle to shut down the problem-plagued Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) "has no right to tell us what kind of future we will have," Sanders proclaimed on the floor of the Senate back in 2011. "The people of Vermont believe, and I agree, that our future lies with energy efficiency and sustainable energy."
Bernie Sanders has made climate change a central pillar of his campaign for the Democratic nomination for president, and he is adamant that nuclear power has no place in his vision of the nation's cleaner future.
Hillary Clinton, to the contrary, believes "nuclear energy has an important role to play in our clean-energy future," Jake Sullivan, Clinton's policy director, told the local Idaho news source Magicvalley.com on Monday.
Sanders argues for "a moratorium on nuclear power plant license renewals in the United States," on his campaign site.
"Bernie believes that solar, wind, geothermal power and energy efficiency are proven and more cost-effective than nuclear--even without tax incentives," his platform goes on, "and that the toxic waste byproducts of nuclear plants are not worth the risks of the technology's benefit."
When it comes to the candidates' climate proposals, Magicvalley.com observed that Sanders' "biggest contrast with Clinton is on nuclear energy."
Clinton has switched her answer several times on the question of nuclear power. She was pro-nuclear power in 2007, when she began her first campaign for the Democratic nomination, changed her mind in the midst of that campaign in 2008 and stated that she was against it--"I have a comprehensive energy plan that does not rely on nuclear power," she declared that year.
Clinton continued to argue against nuclear power until this most recent election season. As of February 2016, her campaign platform states that she is once again in favor of it.
The Democratic presidential hopefuls are currently focusing campaign efforts in Western states such as Idaho, which holds its Democratic caucus on Tuesday. The state is also home to the Idaho National Laboratory, a federal research facility that focuses on nuclear energy, which employs "thousands of Idahoans," as Magicvalley.com noted.
Sullivan told Magicvalley.com, "The Idaho National Laboratory would be an important institution to promote our clean-energy policy."
Clinton's renewed pro-nuke stance may meet resistance from voters nationwide, who are against nuclear power in greater numbers than ever before. Indeed, a new poll shows that a majority of Americans now oppose nuclear energy, Common Dreams reported last week.
And nuclear power is not the only energy issue on which Clinton's stance has recently pivoted. Just last week, she walked back statements she made arguing against coal at a Democratic town hall. In a "head-spinning reversal," Grist reported, only a day after the town hall the Clinton campaign "released a statement saying, 'Coal will remain a part of the energy mix for years to come.'"
Sanders has long been against both coal and nuclear power, and has often critiqued the nuclear power industry. He has harshly condemned the U.S. government's subsidies of nuclear energy companies as well as the nation's failure to maintain its dangerously aging nuclear reactors.
As a U.S. senator, Sanders also battled federal regulators for the right of his home state of Vermont to determine its own energy future in its struggle to shut down the problem-plagued Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) "has no right to tell us what kind of future we will have," Sanders proclaimed on the floor of the Senate back in 2011. "The people of Vermont believe, and I agree, that our future lies with energy efficiency and sustainable energy."
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.