Tag Archives: Nuclear

University of California: Stop Contributing to Nuclear Weapons

The University of California (UC) has managed the two oldest and largest nuclear weapons labs since their creation nearly 60 years ago. Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) have been at the forefront of the research and design of all nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal. University employees even created the bombs that dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Over the last five years, the UC has partnered with such multi-national corporations as Bechtel Group and BWXT to continue managing the labs as a limited liability corporation.

As classes are starting up again on UC campuses across California, the movement for a nuclear free UC is also starting up again. A new avenue to demand accountability from the university is emerging – students & alumni pledging to withhold post-graduate support through an online campaign, until the UC takes action:

http://www.thepoint.com/campai…

Five reasons the UC should sever ties to the labs:

– The UC is implicitly endorsing non-compliance with the UN Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty by participating in the creation of new nuclear weapon technologies.

– The nuclear industry is notorious for its devastating environmental and health impacts.

– Nuclear weapons testing and waste disposal from the labs is a major factor in the ongoing genocide of Native American peoples today. The Nevada Test Site and the proposed waste disposal site at Yucca Mountain are both on Western Shoshone land.

– Bechtel Group, UC’s lab-management partner, has a long history of irresponsible environmental practices and human rights violations. Currently, they are one of the largest profiteers of the Iraq War.

– UC holds no real control over research directions or policy at the labs nor does the funding they receive from the Department of Energy go towards anything but the labs themselves. Their management is in name only and simply acts as a stamp of legitimacy for the nuclear weapons, military-industrial complex.

Calling all UC students & alumni – take a stand now against nuclear development and corporatization at your school. Show the UC how you feel about being complicit in the nuclear industry by joining the “No Nukes at the UC” campaign:

http://www.thepoint.com/campai…

Asm. Levine and Environmental Groups Send Governor a Letter Saying No to Nuclear

SACRAMENTO – Assemblymember Lloyd Levine (D-Woodland Hills), the Sierra Club California, Environment California, Coalition for Clean Air and Clean Power Campaign today delivered the following letter to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger stating why they oppose giving nuclear power a second chance. The Governor earlier said nuclear power has a great future because it has no greenhouse gas emissions and it’s clean.

Edit by Brian: See the flip for the letter.

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:

We are very concerned you are pushing the idea of giving nuclear power a second look as an answer to global warming when California has made a commitment to supporting other alternative energy solutions like wind, solar and geothermal technologies for the past four years.

Nuclear power comes with a vicious pollution cycle. The production process of mining uranium to fuel nuclear plants requires massive diesel powered machinery that grossly pollutes the air. The mined uranium would then have to be shipped to the United States in large, diesel powered ships and reprocessed into nuclear fuel in pollution producing coke ovens.

Nuclear power is expensive. It costs $10 billion dollars or more to construct a single nuclear power plant. Construction is so expensive that no utility is willing to undertake the endeavor without massive subsidies.  Additionally, nuclear power plants are so risky that for the last 50 years the federal government has had to provide liability protection for plant operators to cover potential disasters. That does not inspire confidence in a state like California. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, California is filled with thousands of identified and unidentified earthquake faults capable of causing a 7.0 magnitude earthquake.

The California Legislature enacted nuclear power plant safety laws in 1976. These laws have served us well. Before new nuclear plants could be built in California, we would need to repeal those laws and give up the protection they provide. One of those laws prohibits construction of new nuclear plants until there is a proven means for safe dispose of the highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel the plants produce. In the 28 years since those safety laws were enacted, we have come no nearer to a solution to the nuclear waste disposal problem today than we were then. And remember, that spent fuel has a lethal half life of 500,000 years.

Today there is highly radioactive waste stored at four nuclear plants in California including two that were shut down more than two decades ago. That’s because the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission still hasn’t provided a disposal facility for the toxic waste at Sacramento’s Rancho Seco plant and PG & E’s Humboldt Bay plant. On California’s pristine coast nuclear material is being stored on-site at San Onofre and Diablo Canyon nuclear plants.

If Californians give nuclear power a second chance we will be moving in the wrong direction and relying on false promises. Today, even during a housing and economic slump, homeowners and businesses are turning to affordable, safe, clean and dependable energy in huge numbers.

In fact, the renewable energy legislation you have signed into law has given California the greenest, most environmentally friendly portfolio in the country. With inflation factored in, retail electricity prices have decreased by 10.7 percent while California made an aggressive commitment toward renewable energy and other clean sources of electricity.

California’s new renewable energy market has broad economic value and it is cost effective. It allows renewable companies to compete keeping the economy robust and creating thousands of jobs just like the technology industry in the Silicon Valley. With economic indicators pointing toward a dismal year, the jobs created by clean energy can help counter the downturn in the housing and financial sectors.

As the solar industry is proving, renewable energy costs less with time and improvements as opposed to nuclear power that has only become more expensive over the years.

Nuclear power has no future in California’s new energy era. It is dirty, dangerous, too expensive and cannot exist without massive taxpayer subsidies.

We agree with the recent Los Angeles Times editorial asking you to fully employ the safer, quicker, cheaper and cleaner alternatives such as solar and wind power.

Sincerely,

Assemblymember Lloyd Levine (D-Woodland Hills)

Chair, Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee    

Jim P. Metropulos

Senior Advocate

Sierra Club California

Bernadette Del Chiaro                                                  

Clean Energy Advocate                                                

Environment California                                      

Tim Carmichael

Senior Director of Policy

Coalition for Clean Air

V. John White

Executive Director

Clean Power Campaign

 

Interview with Friends of the Earth Action President Blackwelder Re Edwards Endorsement

Interview by Tom P, and cross-posted from Daily Kos with his permission.

Last week, Friends of the Earth Action (“FOE Action”) endorsed John Edwards.  This week, I interviewed Brent Blackwelder, President of Friends of the Earth and of Friends of the Earth Action, about FOE Action’s endorsement of John Edwards.

Part I of the interview is in this diary. 

Here’s a little about FOE Action for those unfamiliar with it:

Founded by David Brower in 1967, Friends of the Earth Action has established a 35-year record of not only fighting the tough battles, but winning them too. FoE Action provides extra political muscle on legislative battles here in the U.S. for to our sister organization, Friends of the Earth, which is part of a network of affiliates in over 70 nations around the world. 

snip

FoE Action looks beyond the symptoms of environmental degredation, to the systemic causes.

FOE Action

Come around after the fold to hear a real hero of the struggle to save our planet.

Mr. Blackwelder is a long-time advocate for the planet and the people on it.  He has worked in Washington DC for over 30 years fighting for clean air, clean water, and a healthy planet.  He has testified before Congress on environmental issues more than 100 times. 

Mr. Blackwelder was founder and first chairman of the board of American Rivers, our nation’s leading river-saving organization. He also founded the Environmental Policy Institute, which merged with Friends of the Earth in 1989.  In 1994 he became president of Friends of the Earth and FOE Action. 

More on Mr. Blackwelder here: Friends of the Earth

On October 14, FOE Action became the first major environmental organization to endorse a candidate for president, and they endorsed John Edwards:

WASHINGTON, DC — Friends of the Earth Action (FOE Action), one of the longest-standing, national environmental organizations in the country, today announced its endorsement of Senator John Edwards for President, citing his leadership on real solutions to combat global warming and his unequivocal position against dangerous and expensive nuclear power.

“Friends of the Earth Action enthusiastically endorses John Edwards for President,” said Brent Blackwelder, president of FOE Action.

Friends of the Earth Action Endorses John Edwards

Mr. Blackwelder answered 10 questions that I sent him via email.  Here is Part I of the Interview.  I will publish the remaining questions and answers in Part II tomorrow.

Q:  What most differentiates John Edwards from the other Democratic presidential candidates with respect to environmental issues?

A:  Of the leading Democratic candidates for president, John Edwards is most committed, and best prepared, to halt global warming and promote a healthy, livable planet for our families and our future. Friends of the Earth Action feels John Edwards has set the paces among all of the Democratic candidates by putting forth a plan that provides real action to combat global warming. 

We encourage people to visit our web site,  www.foeaction.org . to learn more about why we endorsed Edwards and facts about his environmental record.

Q:  John Edwards has proposed a global warming plan that will reduce greenhouse pollution by 20 percent by 2020, and reduce it by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050.  What in this plan do you feel will be most effective in achieving this reduction?

A:  John Edwards plans to share America’s clean energy technology with other nations in exchange for binding greenhouse reduction commitments. If necessary, he will insist that strong labor and environmental standards in our trade deals include commitments on climate change. This new deal will require global participation, promote shared responsibility, and let American workers and businesses compete on a level playing field.  In addition, Edwards’ plan will lead America to a new energy economy by investing in clean, renewable energy and creating a million new jobs. 

Q:  Polluters often attempt to present a false choice between environmental degradation and jobs.  In fact, clean, green technologies can mean more jobs for Americans, and good paying jobs.  Edwards proposes creating at least 1 million “green collar jobs” by investing in clean energy and energy efficient technologies.  Can you explain the relationship of economic growth, including good paying jobs, and using clean, green technologies?

A: Edwards really gets it: green does not have to mean fewer jobs.  If our nation makes  serious and smart investments in clean energy technologies, such as wind, solar and geothermal, we can create good-paying jobs, expand markets for the renewable energy industry and secure our country’s energy future. 

Renewables are secure and viable alternatives to dirty, fossil fuels and costly and dangerous nuclear power. They can be scaled up relatively quickly, which means jobs and economic growth for states and local communities in the U.S., particularly in rural areas that have been hardest hit by economic downturns but have the space for these technologies to be constructed and brought online.

Q:  What can FoE Action do to help John Edwards be nominated and then elected?  I understand you plan to set up an independent campaign on Edwards’ behalf in New Hampshire.  How will that work?  How can people inside and outside New Hampshire help you ?

A:  We plan to be especially active in New Hampshire, establishing an independent campaign and organization to carry the message about John Edwards’ global warming plan and his vision for a healthy environment. There is a powerful, untapped environmental constituency out there that is up for grabs in this country and we are here to lend our voice to push that constituency toward Edwards.  We believe he has the right vision and record to tap that constituency. 

In New Hampshire, there are a lot of Democratic primary voters who care deeply about the quality of their environment and cite it as a top concern when choosing a nominee for president. In particular, voters in the Granite State are looking for real action to combat global warming. We plan to spend the next 3 months letting these voters know that John Edwards is the candidate best qualified and most committed to help achieve this big and bold goal. 

Please visit the FoE Action website to find out how you can get involved in our campaign to elect John Edwards as president: www.foeaction.org.


 

I’d like to thank Brent Blackwelder for granting me this interview and Jenna Moran for facilitating it.  I will publish Part II of the interview tomorrow.

I also want to thank Mr. Blackwelder for his years of service to people and our planet in fighting corporate polluters and a corrupt government.

And like he says:  Please visit the FoE Action website to find out how you can get involved in our campaign to elect John Edwards as president: www.foeaction.org.

A Nuclear Thaw

Just when you thought that California was going in the right direction on something… global warming for example… you get a couple of Pombo wannabes who try and sneak a new bill (AB 719) that would removed the current prohibition on new nuclear power plants in California, all in the name of “zero emissions.” 

I posted on this today at California Greening and even got a quick reply from the Assemblyman himself.. or some staffer pretending to be him.

We have a lot of stuff to keep a watch on and this should be near the top of the list.