A one-sentence provision buried in the Senate’s recently passed energy bill, inserted without debate at the urging of the nuclear power industry, could make builders of new nuclear plants eligible for tens of billions of dollars in government loan guarantees.
| Comment: 
| Tools: 
Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.
There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.
Although all public relations professionals are bound by a duty to not knowingly mislead the public, some have executed comprehensive campaigns of misinformation on behalf of industry clients on issues ranging from tobacco and asbestos to seat belts.
Lately, these fringe players have turned their efforts to creating confusion about climate change. This PR campaign could not be accomplished without the compliance of media as well as the assent and participation of leaders in government and business.
Like what you read here? Get our top five stories in your inbox every week. » here's a preview
Enter your email and subscribe now!
Typical congressional/senatorial behaviour. At least it isn't from Big Coal, though.
great post... i wrote about green politics a bit on my blog. check it out.
What's your site??
Why exactly does this story matter in a blog that intends to focus on misinformation around climate science? This entry seems off topic and conspiratorial. Honest people can probably all agree that bills in the US Congress are hardly produced in a sensible way, but there seems to me to be lots of room for legitimate debate around nuclear energy, whatever one's environmentalist gut might say. And, hell, if the Americans want to waste zillions of dollars on it, it's still a damned sight better than subsidizing something that will emit oceans more greenhouse gases. Yes, the non-braindead can also all agree that it would be better to spend this money on conservation or efficiency technologies, but nuclear may well not be the worst option.
This story seems senseless. Why is it in here?
JTKerr
uOttawa
Thanks for the comments.
I would argue that sneaking rider provisions through on a bill and such stealth tactics by politicians would fit in our scope. It's not misinformation per se, it is a lack of any informed debate that makes it interesting to Ross (correct me if I'm wrong Ross).
I am a regular reader of your article. And I am very impress with your blog upon Global Warming. Now I am also write a blog upon effects and causes of Global Warming. This blog is collection of news & reviews like the study found that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays. Some researchers had also suggested that the latter might influence global warming because the rays trigger cloud formation.
http://www.lifeofearth.blogspot.com
I would think that folks who are concerned about anthropogenic global warming would ber happy to know that Congress is encouraging the replacement of coal fired electricity generating plants with CO2 free nuclear generated electricity.
What makes you think nuclear energy is CO2 free? What about all the energy that is used just setting up a nuclear plant?
There's a large problem with how to store the waste from a nuclear power plant, but they are cleaner than coal plants in that once set up, they emit little, if any, CO2 or other greenhouse gases. So, while I am wary of nuclear plants due to waste disposal issues, I'd welcome them to be used to supplement our energy needs which are not quite filled up by wind, solar, hydro, or other cleaner power generation sources.
There's also the energy used to mine, transport and extract, enrich and otherwise process uranium. The total energy used needs to be taken into account. I'm getting this from a comment at Rabett Run: http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/08/you-say-tomato-i-say-tomahto-brian.html
about 2/3 down the page. Most of the discussion is about carbon capture.
Thanks for the referral, VJ. My thoughts on it have changed somewhat as a result.
Just ran across this 2003 article about the heat wave in France affecting the functioning of its nuclear plants:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0813-05.htm
Demand for electricity has soared as the population turns up air conditioning and fridges, but nuclear power stations, which generate around 75% of France's electricity, have been operating at a much reduced capacity and several reactors have stopped working entirely.
In some regions, river water levels have dropped so low that the vital cooling process has become impossible, while elsewhere the water temperatures after the cooling process have exceeded environmental safety levels.
So if it's hotter and there is less water available, how would we keep nuclear plants cool enough to work properly?