Nuclear power: Industry's rabbit in the hat

The Bush administration's refusal to deal with global warming seems inexplicable. Rising oceans and temperatures, after all, do not selectively spare Republicans, Texans, or oil executives.

But they are not baffled, puzzled, or stymied. They are simply keeping quiet about their plans. These originate in the 2001 President's Task Force on Energy (the one whose records Cheney still hasn't released to Congress). Proposed legislation that implements the task force's recommendations is strongly pro-nuclear.

The task force recommendations became the Energy Policy Act of 2003 (EPA03), which passed the House but was defeated by two votes in the Senate. (EPA03 has been resurrected in the current Congress as the Energy Policy Act of 2005, EPA05).

EPA05, which is still a 'discussion draft,' perpetuates a fossil-fuel-based economy. Proposed federal subsidies go 31 percent to oil and gas, 22 percent to nuclear, 15 percent to coal, 12 percent to renewables, and 20 percent to efficiency.

Obviously, the renewables commitment in this bill is far short of what is needed to make a transition to a clean-energy economy. The White House's global warming plan consists of funding research and development on 'clean' coal and nuclear while we continue to run our economy on oil and gas.

Fast-forward 20 years. The climate continues to warm. Then-a major disaster. Maybe New York City is inundated (at least up to Wall Street). Or California becomes too hot to serve as the fruit basket of the country. Or the Great Plains can't grow wheat any more and our trade balance gets even worse.

The policymakers (and a Democratic administration will be no different) will be locked into decisions made today. They will tell us we have two fuels that can quickly replace oil: coal and nuclear power. (Whether or not hydrogen is used as an energy-delivery system is irrelevant). The public will loudly reject coal, no matter how 'clean' it is claimed to be. Having lost 20 years critical to building a renewable-energy infrastructure, the country will have no choice but to accept widespread nuclearization-or further global warming.

Navin Nayak of U.S. PIRG, who wrote a recent report on the economic and consumer benefits of clean-energy policies, also says that the Administration wants more nukes. 'EPA05 has a production tax credit for nukes-$1 billion per plant for up to 6 plants, loan guarantees, and purchase plans for nuclear energy by the federal government,' he said. And Senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), Chair of the Energy Committee, is a 'huge proponent' of nuclear power.

On Jan. 31, reporter John Dizard wrote in the Financial Times, 'The source [for the hydrogen economy] the government, energy industry, and the automotive industry has in mind is nuclear power.' According to Dizard, even using a new, relatively efficient nuclear technology would require 4,000 new, mostly smaller plants in 2025 just to displace the amount of fuel we import that year.

To avoid this scenario, we environmentalists have to do three things simultaneously and urgently. The first is to oppose EPA05. The second is to work for a renewables-based economy. The third is to work culturally to legitimize a lifestyle based on renewables and living happily within our means. We have to produce cultural artifacts and provide cultural spaces as propagation centers of this lower-impact way of life. Or when the politicians pull the nuclear rabbit out of the hat, they will successfully bamboozle a terrified populace that will pay any price to avoid the unknown-because we haven't shown it to them.

Danila Oder is a writer and activist and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of the Southern Sierran.