Politics of Energy

This page is under construction. We have heaps of materials on how political outlooks have delayed the safe utilization of Nuclear Power but need to organize it before including it here. It looks like our material will break down into two major categories with some blending of both.

The first is the pure political, Republicans versus Democrats, environmentalists verses whatever. Below, we have linked to a Speed-Draw from the Union of Concerned Scientists that urges political unity.

The second category is ownership structure. Power generation and distribution is controlled by a variety of entities. Examples in Washington State include Puget Sound Energy (private), Seattle City Light and Tacoma Power (city owned), Snohomish PUD (Public Utility District), Energy Northwest (a Joint Operation Agency which includes nearly every public owned power utility in the state), and the Bonneville Power Administration (federal). We have a limited discussion of this issue in our What’s Next page under Public vs Private Power. Blending of the two occurs when politicians align themselves with some energy provider group.  

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is becoming more active in the effort to reduce Global Warming. Two of their scientists, Dr. Kerry Emanual, from M.I.T. and Peter Frumhoff, from U.C.S. have expressed their views of the need for bipartisan action with this excellent Speed-Drawing video. (We could not have said it better.)

Extreme heat, drought, storms, and other weather disasters are increasingly fueled by climate change and affect everyone regardless of political affiliation. Now two scientists — one who has usually voted for Republicans, the other for Democrats — have come together to urge leaders of both parties to find bipartisan solutions to human-caused climate change.

After watching the above video, you would think that The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and their page on Global Warming would present the use of nuclear power with a scientifically balanced approach. But they don’t.  When they discuss clean energies they mention nuclear but the first thing out of their mouth is that nuclear is dangerous and cite Fukushima as an example. It was the tsunami that killed 20,000 Japanese and destroyed four reactors but the radiation from the reactors did not kill anyone. The UCS neglects to talk about the dangers associated with other energy sources. For example, there is no mention of the July 19, 2013 train of oil tankers that exploded in Lac-Megantic, Quebec killing 47. That is only about 10 less than died at the world’s worst nuclear accident, Chernobyl.

Check out out page on Nuclear Politics by John McCarthy.