The Wonk Room

Is There Anything Palin Doesn’t Like ‘Tapping Into’?»

Yesterday, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) gave a speech on energy policy at a solar energy company, in her words, “in a manner with much substance.” She repeatedly went off the script of her prepared remarks (as Jed Lewison and Ana Marie Cox have noted), using many of her favorite locutions. One of her most common rogue phrases was a call for tapping into various sources of, well, just about anything. Her approach exposes the conservative ideology that all forms of energy are created equal; that details like cost, pollution, and long-term consequences are immaterial.

Watch it:

For those watching at home, here’s the list:

Of that list, only natural gas is a resource that can be literally “tapped into.” Palin’s use of an oil industry metaphor to describe all forms of energy and innovation is consistent with the mindset of supply-side exploitation, a dangerously simplistic approach to energy policy that only considers the short-term profit interests of energy corporations. Some of her off-script “tapping” remarks had some policy “meat,” such as her attack on solar energy:

We have many many alternative sources that have not yet been tapped into and allowed to become economic and reliable. That’s the key, of course, is the reliability of these alternative sources.

This false attack on the unreliability of renewable energy is one both she and McCain have made before.

Lying About Energy Security, NAM Wants Virginia To Risk Flood Of Nuclear Waste»

The Wonk Room recently pointed out that Sen. John McCain’s plan to achieve energy independence by doubling our use of nuclear power is a pipe dream, since the U.S. nuclear industry must import over 90% of its uranium. The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) shot back on its Shopfloor blog, writing about the promise of southwest Virginia’s Pittsylvania uranium deposits:

How so, with a resource like the Pittsylvania ore available? Unless, of course, you expect environmentalists to block mining and nuclear power as they have in the past, in the process guaranteeing continued energy insecurity.

NAM quotes their friends Jack Spencer and Nicolas Loris at the conservative Heritage Foundation, who claims the Pittsylvania site has “110 million pounds of uranium,” enough to “supply all 104 nuclear reactors in the United States, which provide 20 percent of the nation’s electricity, for two years.” While NAM attacks “environmentalists,” Heritage prefers blaming “government bureaucrats” for preventing access to a “safe, affordable, clean energy source” – the language right-wing wordmeister Frank Luntz constructed to describe a dangerously toxic energy source.

In fact:

NAM’s Nuclear Obsession Guarantees ‘Energy Insecurity.’ The U.S. consumes one quarter of the world oil supply, but has only two percent of global reserves. The U.S. uranium position is eerily similar: “The U.S. has about 3 percent-4 percent of the world’s known uranium and produces about 4.3 percent of the world’s supply despite operating about one-quarter of the world’s commercial power reactors.” [EIA 1/29/07, 6/9/08] [Heritage Foundation, 3/25/08]

The Threat Of Uranium Mining In Virginia Is Real. “Enormous quantities of radioactive waste are generated by uranium mining and milling, with only 2 to 4 pounds of concentrated uranium oxide yellow cake obtained from each ton of ore taken out of the ground.” “Most domestic uranium mining occurs in the arid waste, where the radioactive waste is less likely to contaminate runoff. But the Virginia uranium mining would occur in a place with four times the annual rainfall of the west – 40-60 inches annually. This rainfall dramatically increases the risk of radioactive runoff contaminating drinking water.” [Piedmont Environmental Council]

Why are NAM and Heritage promoting Pittsylvania uranium as a “safe” solution to “energy security” despite the facts? Could it be because there’s a huge pile of money at stake? The Pittsylvania deposits are worth upwards of $10 billion for Virginia Uranium, the private company that owns the mining rights — and is selling the project with an army of lobbyists as a “safe” solution for “energy independence.”

UPDATE: Jack Spencer writes in: More »

McCain’s Opposition To Energy Independence»

Our guest blogger is Daniel J. Weiss, a Senior Fellow and the Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

In the third and final presidential debate on October 15, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said one of his goals is that “we become energy independent and we will create millions of jobs in America.”

However, he conclusively demonstrated that he advocates policies that will achieve neither “energy independence” nor “millions of jobs.”

Plank #1: Nukes, Baby, Nukes

Sen. McCain said that to achieve “energy independence…. We have to have nuclear power.”

Building 100 new nuclear plants, as he has proposed, will do nothing to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Nuclear power generates approximately 20% of U.S. electricity, while oil produces less than 2%, and only 2% of oil use goes to producing electricity.

Nuclear power will not lead to energy independence because the U.S. must import over 90% of its uranium, with nearly one-third coming from Russia. If we double the number of nuclear plants, as McCain has called for, we would become even more dependent on countries that, in McCain’s words, “don’t like us very much.” More »

With McCain’s Tacit Approval, Bush Rushes To Open Grand Canyon To Toxic Uranium Mining»

The Bush Administration is rushing forward with plans to mine the Grand Canyon for uranium, ignoring a command from Congress to cease such operations. Since 2003, mining interests have staked out over 800 uranium claims within five miles of Grand Canyon National Park. As Mineweb reports, “The Bureau of Land Management has published a proposed rule which rejects the House Natural Resources Emergency House Resolution enacted in June that bans uranium mining and exploration near the Grand Canyon National Park.” The Arizona Republic explains what’s at stake:

Never mind that the drinking water of more than 25 million people, served by the Colorado River, is at risk.

Or that Arizona Game and Fish warns about the impact on wildlife.

Or that Grand Canyon National Park is still dealing with the toxic mess from past mines.

The proposed BLM rule would not only reject the House’s emergency withdrawal of over one million acres of federal land near Grand Canyon National Park from new uranium mining, but also eliminate the provisions that allow Congress to make such withdrawals in the future. The proposed rule, published on Friday, has a remarkably short comment period, closing in less than two weeks on October 27. House Parks Subcommittee Chairman Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) blasted BLM’s action, saying, “This last-minute move by this ‘see if we can get it under the clock‘ administration is cowardly.”

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has been strangely silent on this issue, despite his claimed commitment to protecting the Grand Canyon from drilling:

But McCain’s claim to Roosevelt-style environmentalism has been badly bruised by his silence on uranium mining near the park and on the Navajo Nation.

“McCain gave us hope that he might be a Teddy Roosevelt type of Republican,” said Roger Clark, air and water director for The Grand Canyon Trust, a Flagstaff, Ariz., environmental group. “Since the beginning of his run for president, including 2000, that has kind of crumbled.”

The Arizona Republic’s editorial concludes that it’s “legacy time at the administration”:

Surely President Bush doesn’t want his to include tainted water and a contaminated landscape. We must keep the temporary ban on uranium mining near Grand Canyon.

Written comments should be submitted online or sent to Director (630), Bureau of Land Management, 1620 L St., NW, Room 401, Washington, DC 20036, Attention: RIN 1004-AEO5.

McCain: ‘Nuclear Power Is Safe’ Because The Navy Uses It»

Our guest blogger is Andrew Light, an Energy and Environmental Policy senior fellow at the Center for American American Progress Action Fund.

Word on the street is that Tuesday’s presidential debate was a giant yawner, a snooze fest, nothing to write home about. But as Joe Romm noted on Climate Progress it was at least remarkable in having the most extensive discussion of climate and energy issues in the history of presidential debates.

Perhaps equally remarkable, though, were McCain’s reasons for some of the positions taken. Consider this part of his response to Ingrid Jackon’s question on how to promote green jobs and solve climate change:

Now, how — what’s — what’s the best way of fixing it? Nuclear power. Sen. Obama says that it has to be safe or disposable or something like that.
Look, I — I was on Navy ships that had nuclear power plants. Nuclear power is safe, and it’s clean, and it creates hundreds of thousands of jobs.
And — and I know that we can reprocess the spent nuclear fuel. The Japanese, the British, the French do it. And we can do it, too. Sen. Obama has opposed that.

Brad Johnson has already taken on McCain’s oft-cited and deeply flawed claim that building 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 will create 700,000 new jobs. Worse is McCain’s suggestion that his personal experience of being on a nuclear-powered Navy ship is somehow sufficient proof of the general safety of nuclear power. Couldn’t he have just gotten lucky?

In July 2008, Errol Lewis described the abundant evidence of accidents involving American nuclear powered vessels.

Further, how does a claim about the safety of nuclear naval vessels have anything whatsoever to teach us about the key problem of nuclear power — toxic nuclear waste? Solving this problem is absolutely necessary to continue, let alone ramp up, American nuclear capacity. Reprocessing fuel, as McCain suggests, would increase the threat of nuclear proliferation but wouldn’t eliminate the need for storage of nuclear waste. McCain has no clear answer what to do with 56,000 metric tons of spent fuel from military and commercial plants currently in temporary unstable storage at over 72 sites. And yet he’s calling for the construction of 100 new nuclear plants, double the current fleet.

UPDATE 10/13:The Stump’s Michael Crowley notes that Sen. McCain raised the ante on his advocacy for nuclear power on the stump on Monday:

By the way, the next time Senator Obama tells you that nuclear power has got to be made safe and environmental and all that, take him over to see one of our Navy ships with nuclear power plants on it, my friends. And ask the men and women who serve proudly on those nuclear powered ships defending freedom all over the world.

Palin, McCain’s Energy Czar: ‘Weaning Ourselves’ Off Of Oil By Using More»

Written with Daniel J. Weiss, a Senior Fellow and Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has handed to Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK), his running mate, the responsibility of handling his “energy independence” agenda — much as George Bush did with Dick Cheney. On NPR this morning, McCain expressed his devotion to her, saying, “I’ve already turned to Governor Palin particularly on energy issues.” In an interview last night with Katie Couric of CBS, Palin — who McCain claims “understands the energy issues better than anybody I know in Washington, D.C.” — outlined her plan for America’s energy future. What she says she wants to do is inarguable:

We need to make sure that our nation’s taking those steps to become energy independent. . . I support all that we can do to reduce emissions and to clean up this planet.

However, the steps McCain-Palin would take to “become energy independent” and “reduce emissions” would in fact achieve the exact opposite.

PALIN PLAN #1. ‘Weaning Ourselves Off The Hydrocarbons’ By Drilling For More.

And it’s why we should have started ten years ago tapping into domestic supplies that America is so rich in. Alaska has billions of barrels of oil and hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of clean, green natural gas onshore and offshore. . . Of course ramping up supplies domestically is a key to that. But so is weaning ourselves off the hydrocarbons.

FACT: Oil and natural gas are hydrocarbons. Weaning ourselves off them, by definition, means using less, not more.

PALIN PLAN #2. Energy Independence By ‘Tapping Into The Nuclear.’

Also tapping into the nuclear, the clean coal, to biomass, geothermal, tides, waves, all those things that we have as alternative energy sources, it’s gotta be an all-of-the-above approach to energy independence.

FACTS: The U.S. imports over 90 percent of the uranium used in nuclear plants. Russia is the number one uranium supplier to the U.S. And key components for new plants are only built overseas. More »

McCain’s Nuke Here, Nuke Now Plan Is Terrible At Job Creation»

In the presidential debate, John McCain promoted his nuclear obsession as a job-creation boon, claiming, “We can create 700,000 jobs by building 45 nuclear plants by 2030.” But McCain’s “nuke here, nuke now” would in fact send money to foreign nations and to giant corporations. The price tag for his nuclear boondoggle is estimated at “$315 billion, with taxpayers bearing much of the financial risk.” That ties our energy future to a toxic and deadly fuel that is mined in nations like Kazakhstan, Russia, Niger, and Uzbekistan.

The Center for American Progress has outlined a rational green recovery plan that invests $100 billion in renewable energy and energy efficiency, and would create 2 million new jobs in two years by spending on the American people. Three Ten times the jobs at one-third the cost, ten times as fast. That’s what real job creation would — and should look like.

UPDATE: The New York Times contacted Patrick Moore, head of Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, a nuclear industry front group, who said McCain’s promises were wildly off:

[E]ach reactor project would generate between 3,000 and 4,000 jobs during the construction phase and up to 800 permanent jobs once in operation. Asked to provide a ballpark figure on employment if all 45 reactors were to be built, he responded “225,000 good union jobs that you can support a family on.”

UPDATE II: Gristmill’s David Roberts has the breakdown of John McCain’s 700,000-job claim.

‘Honest’ McCain To Iowans: Guess What, I Lied About Subsidies»

Today, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) unveiled the marketing slogan for his incoherent energy policy — the “Lexington Project.” Seven months ago, he promised he would unveil an energy strategy that “won’t be another grab bag of handouts to this or that industry and a full employment act for lobbyists.” With a campaign run by lobbyists, McCain now has broken that promise.

On November 5, 2007, on the campaign trail in Iowa before the presidential primaries, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) had to come up with an explanation to justify his vigorous opposition to federal subsidies for corn ethanol. He presented himself as ideologically opposed to government spending, saying that he was “proud of the conservative tradition that the government can sometimes best serve the interests of the American people by knowing when to stay out of their way.”

Praising himself for “straight talk” and “being honest,” McCain said he would eventually unveil an “energy strategy” that would break “our reliance on petro-dictators”:

– “I oppose subsidies.”

– “That strategy won’t be another grab bag of handouts to this or that industry and a full employment act for lobbyists.”

– “But it also means no rifle-shot tax breaks for big oil.”

– “It means no line items for hydrogen, no mandates for other renewable fuels, and no big-government debacles like the Dakotas Synfuels plant.”

– “I know that you have heard before that subsidies to oil will be eliminated, only to experience another disappointment.”

Seven months later, the Republican nomination sewn up, McCain has maintained his uncompromising opposition to corn ethanol — but nothing else. In the past few weeks, McCain has unveiled proposals that belie his “straight talk” about energy subsidies, mandates, big-government debacles, tax breaks, and industry handouts.

McCain’s energy plan now calls for a complex array of federal subsidies for nuclear power, coal, offshore oil drilling, low-emission vehicles, wind, hydro and solar power — a sorry parody of progressive policies. The plan calls for government-subsidized experimental coal plants, fuel mandates, and special tax breaks. The plan calls for massive new federal spending initiatives and new commissions to allocate emissions permits worth billions of dollars. In short, it’s exactly the kind of plan he told the voters of Ames, Iowa he would never, ever propose — and exactly the kind of plan he has no record of ever having worked to craft in his twenty-six years in Congress.

Contradicting McCain, Holtz-Eakin Says Wind Industry Needs Subsidies»

On Monday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) gave a major address on global warming policy at the North American headquarters of the Danish wind-turbine manufacturer Vestas, a location criticized as “hypocritical” for his longstanding and active opposition to federal support for the domestic wind industry. In 2004, he introduced legislation that would have eliminated the renewable energy production tax credit, and his continued opposition prevented renewal of the tax credit in 2007 and 2008. He has also vigorously opposed any form of a federal renewable electricity standard.

When asked by Grist magazine in October on his position on subsidies for green technologies like wind and solar, McCain responded:

I’m not one who believes that we need to subsidize things. The wind industry is doing fine, the solar industry is doing fine. In the ’70s, we gave too many subsidies and too much help, and we had substandard products sold to the American people, which then made them disenchanted with solar for a long time.

But in a press telebriefing Monday following McCain’s address, top adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin said:

When you look at wind and the production tax credit and you look at some of the other alternatives, they cannot given the current market conditions totally be successful without existing production tax credits.

Pressed by Living on Earth’s Jeff Young whether McCain supported the renewable energy production tax credit, Holtz-Eakin said, “He would want to make sure that we did not at this point in time stop the wind and solar from progressing.”

As each day goes by, it’s becoming more difficult for Holtz-Eakin, who made sure to tell reporters on the call that he is a “PhD economist,” to keep track of McCain’s incoherent policies and inconsistent promises.

UPDATE: Gristmill’s Kate Sheppard pressed McCain yesterday on his opposition to renewable energy subsidies but his support for nuclear industry subsidies. McCain did not address the contradiction, but did say: “I am unashamed and unembarrassed by my advocacy for nuclear power.” Also at Gristmill, Charles Komanoff finds:

Over the past 25 years, the entire federal subsidy for wind power [$3.75 billion] has been no greater than the subsidy bestowed on nukes each year from the fifties through the eighties [total $154 billion].

Transcript of Press Briefing: More »

McCain Seemingly Agrees With Glenn Beck That Solutions To Climate Change Can Be Delayed»

On his radio show this week, climate change denier Glenn Beck asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) if “a new peer reviewed study,” which he says shows that global warming “looks like it’s going to be on hold for ten years,” gives America “time to not spend the money on global warming and maybe concentrate on things like Social Security.” “Yes,” replied McCain:

BECK: You know, there’s a new peer reviewed study out today that says global warming now looks like it’s going to be on hold for ten years. Does that buy us any time to not spend the money on global warming and maybe concentrate on things like Social Security and fix some of those things that are right around the corner?

SENATOR McCAIN: Yes, Glenn, but where we may have a disagreement, I believe that the development of green technologies such as General Electric, the world’s largest corporation, has dedicated to the development of nuclear energy as the French are able to generate 80% of their electricity with nuclear power. There’s no reason why America shouldn’t.

Listen here:

UPDATE: As Joe Romm explains at Climate Progress, Glenn Beck is misinterpreting a new paper in Nature that modeled the effects of interdecadal oceanic cycles on global surface temperature. In one sentence, the authors used the phrase “next decade” to refer to the period from 2005-2015 versus 2000-2010, instead of the common-sense definition of 2010-2020. The study in fact provides evidence to support that the next decade — 2010-2020 — will be the warmest on record and “is poised to see faster temperature rise than any decade since the authors’ calculations began in 1960.”

UPDATE II: Joe Romm also calculates what McCain’s nuclear goal means:

To satisfy McCain’s odd desire to be like the French and get 80% of our electricity from nuclear power in the coming decades would require building more than 700 (GW-sized) nuclear power plants by midcentury — more than one a month.

Dreier Says Nukes ‘Cleanest, Safest, Most Cost Effective Energy Source Known To Man’»

Interviewed on Dennis Miller’s radio show today, Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) discussed the House GOP “commonsense” attack on Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) over skyrocketing gas prices. He then went off into the following non sequitur on nuclear power:

And frankly, whatever you want to say, you know, eighty percent of the French energy comes from nuclear power and it’s the cleanest, safest, most cost effective energy source known to man. And they have a very unique way of disposing of it. We should look at coal to liquification. We should be looking at all kinds of alternative sources and what is it that they have done? They refuse to allow us to even have votes on that.

Listen:

Dreier is mimicking talking points from the nuclear lobby. In a recent column in the Washington Times, Spencer Abraham of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition claimed nuclear power is the “most environmentally friendly source of all clean-air electricity options.” Dreier is spinning an utter fantasy:

– “…cleanest, safest, most cost effective energy source known to man…” Nuclear power requires dangerous mining, produces permanently deadly toxic waste, and may abet the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear power is only “cost effective” to the degree these costs are ignored.

– “…they have a very unique way of disposing of it…” The truth is that France, like the United States, still has no solution for safely managing nuclear waste. [Forbes, 3/22/06]

– “…We should look at coal to liquification…” Liquid coal is a climate killer. The energy required to convert coal to liquid fuel doubles the amount of carbon dioxide released compared to petroleum-based gasoline, producing a “ton of carbon dioxide for each barrel of liquid fuel.” [NRDC, 2/07]

–“…We should be looking at all kinds of alternative sources…” Energy sources that are cleaner and safer than nuclear power include: energy efficiency, co-generation, wind power, solar power (photovoltaic and thermal), geothermal power, and tidal power — to name a few.

–“…They refuse to allow us to even have votes on that.” Rep. Dreier has voted against the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008, both of which would have taken tax subsidies away from oil companies to invest in renewable energy. He was one of only 31 people to fail to vote on the Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and Development Act.

The truth of the matter is that this Congress has raised fuel economy standards, increased investment in renewable energy, and repeatedly attempted to reduce subsidies for oil companies. And they’ve been opposed at every step of the way by Rep. Dreier.

TRANSCRIPT: More »

If McCain Likes A Subsidy, It’s Not ‘A Special-Interest Thing’»

On the campaign trail, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has claimed, “I oppose subsidies. Not just ethanol subsidies. Subsidies.” However, McCain also says he will not support climate change legislation without a “dramatically increased role for nuclear power.” In an interview today on Gristmill, top McCain economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin attempts to square the circle:

And if there’s a genuine national interest in using nuclear power as an available, feasible, zero-emissions technology, I don’t think he would argue that that’s a special-interest thing. It’s something the nation needs to do as a priority, and if that means a subsidy, then we need to make the agreement we’re going to do that for those reasons. I think that’s an appropriate role for government, in his view.

Holtz-Eakin went on to claim that nuclear subsidies are needed because of “powerful political obstacles” to nuclear power:

He views this as leveling, not subsidizing.

McCain may frequently praise himself for using “straight talk” to oppose all subsidies — but will change his tune for the nuclear industry, perhaps because Arizona is home to the nation’s largest nuclear power plant.

But home-state pride can’t fully explain McCain’s obsession with a dangerous and permanently toxic energy source. Arizona’s deserts offer the highest solar power potential of any state in the country. Yet McCain thinks the nascent industry “is doing fine” — and he’s backed up this talk by repeatedly killing incentives for solar power.