(Rep) Hall then and now: Former nuclear critic still an activist in changing times

[Statistical]

Rep. John Hall, D-Dover Plains, a pioneer of the 1970s anti-nuclear movement as a rock star, and harsh critic of the Indian Point nuclear power plant as congressman, has voted for legislation that includes $7.5 billion for clean energy — including nuclear power.

Hall was, long before he got elected in 2006 to represent New York state's 19th Congressional District, a rock 'n' roll singer, songwriter and guitarist with the hugely successful Woodstock-based band Orleans. In 1979, Hall, along with fellow rockers Jackson Browne, Graham Nash and Bonnie Raitt, founded the organization MUSE — Musicians United for Safe Energy. The group staged the famous No Nukes concerts, five nights of music at Madison Square Garden in September 1979. The concert raised more than $1 million.

Three decades later, the longtime opponent of nuclear power voted in favor of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which, according to a spokeswoman for the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee, "establishes a self-sustaining Clean Energy Deployment Administration to promote the domestic development and deployment of clean energy technologies. (The administration) would be empowered to provide direct loans, loan guarantees, and other financial support to clean energy technologies that might otherwise be unable to secure financing, including nuclear power." A companion bill to the House legislation is working its way through the Senate.

"It's much easier being on the outside and being a protester than being on the inside and having to decide whether your vote goes yes or no," Hall said during a telephone interview with the Journal.

...

During a news conference captured in the film "No Nukes," Hall spoke about his 5-week-old daughter. "We're very concerned," Hall said, "that she not be one of those pictures in the paper that you saw after ... the Three Mile Island accident, where the mother was holding a blanket over the child to protect it from radiation."

...

A March 2009 Gallup Poll, three months before Hall voted to support the energy bill, found supporters of nuclear power as one means of generating electricity in the United States outnumbered opponents by nearly 2 to 1.

http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20100315/NEWS01/3150325

Hall isn't pro nuclear but he is a realist. Realists tend to not be as cool as purists but they get the job done. The bill is a compromise and combats the true enemy GHG & fossil fuels by providing broad support to solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear.

I guess he is just another in the growing list of "nuclear shills" like President Obama, Patrick Moore, Stewart Brand, the IPCC, the Department of Energy, MIT, 52% of Democrats, etc.

[mdmc]

1. Hall will be re-elected without the left

Hall knows that Indian Point is not safe, or secure, or vital. But Entergy has deep pockets, and why not take their money?

Hall will be re-elected AND get to rake in huge corporate donations. God bless..

[Statistical]

2. Support for nuclear energy is now bipartisan.

[mdmc]

4. Agreed, but within NYSCD 19, there is opposition to Entergy / Indian Point

This opposition is from across the board (nimby types), plus there is still strong activism on the left to close Indian Point.

There are lot of folk in NYSCD 19 that think having a nuke reactor (run by slimy Entergy) a couple miles outside NYC is insane. Many think that it is not worth the security risk..

Like I said, Hall will be re-elected. No one will beat him this year..

[LynneSin]

3. My stepfather's daugher walked home from school in Middletown (home of TMI) the day of the accident

30 years later she's still fine.

[kristopher]

5. Drill baby drill, more coal plants, more nuclear - same values

That Gallup poll is not representative of the results achieved by the vast body of polling. This is:

Americans are more divided on whether the government should promote the increased use of nuclear power (45% favor while 48% oppose). These numbers are similar to February of 2008 when 44% favored this policy but down slightly from the 50% in September of 2008 who favored the increased use of nuclear power. More than half of Republicans (57%) and half of independents favor expanding nuclear power, compared with only 35% of Democrats. Increasing taxes on gasoline to encourage conservation receives the lowest levels of support with only 24% favoring this policy, similar to last time it was asked in February 2008. About a third of Democrats (34%) favor this policy compared with only 22% of independents and 16% of Republicans.
http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1524

We already had this discussion yesterday. Underlying the numbers we see that the group that supports increased drilling and coal mining are the same people who support nuclear power. They value energy security over the environmental consequences of their energy choice.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=236175&mesg_id=236175

Associated Press/Stanford University Poll conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media. Nov. 17-29, 2009. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"In general, would you favor or oppose building more nuclear power plants at this time?"
Favor 49 Oppose 48 Unsure 3

***********************************************************************

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009. N=1,038 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?” (Half Sample)

"Increase coal mining"
Support 52, Oppose 45, Unsure 3

"Build more nuclear power plants"
Support 52, Oppose 46, Unsure 2

"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1

"Increase oil and gas drilling"
Support 64, Oppose 33, Unsure 3


"Develop electric car technology"
Support 82, Oppose 17, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by businesses and industries"
Support 78, Oppose 20, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by consumers like yourself"
Support 73, Oppose 25, Unsure 3

"Require car manufacturers to improve the fuel-efficiency of vehicles sold in this country"
Support 85, Oppose 14, Unsure 1

Asked of those who support building more nuclear power plants:
"Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?"
Favor 66, Oppose 33

[Statistical]

7. Sounds like the bill reflects the views of American people.

Majority of Americans support renewables
AND
Majority of Americans support nuclear energy

Roughly half of Americans support building MORE nuclear power plants.
Roughly half of Americans support increased federal support of nuclear energy.

So it is utterly bizarre that an energy bill would include support for renewables and nuclear energy. Oh wait.

[kristopher]

8. By that logic we should do nothing on climate change and stop teaching evolution

The fact that the nuclear industry is very well funded, they spent $86 million in first 9 months of 09 lobbying Congress, to say nothing of what they spend organizing astroturf support).

The renewable lobby has nothing to compare so the real testament to the soundness of the idea is that renewables haven't been able to be excluded like single payer was.

Buying votes and misinforming people doesn't make a corporate grab for the public purse strings a good thing.

[bananas]

6. John Hall is still anti-nuclear, he voted for the renewables in the bill

From the article:

Hall, who faces re-election in November, said wind and solar power, along with other sources of renewable energy, "have been grossly underfunded. ... I could not justify voting against the overwhelming number of really important, positive , environmentally friendly renewable sources of power that are funded under this bill, just to vote against the one that I don't think belongs in there."

Unfortunately, the only way to get the renewable legislation passed is to compromise with the Republicans who don't believe in global warming, they just want unsafe dirty nuclear energy.

You are mischaracterizing his position when you try to put him in the same category as Patrick Moore and the others.

Patrick Moore is a paid shill, he's said he doesn't believe in global warming and that if it's true it's a good thing, he runs a green-washing PR firm "GreenSpirit", he's paid to promote nuclear energy by the Nuclear Energy Institute.

Stewart Brand is extremely misinformed on nuclear energy, he's fallen for the happy talk:

http://www.laweekly.com/2005-11-10/news/green-to-the-core-part-2/2

If there’s a lot Brand hasn’t worked out — he didn’t, for instance, know the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor produced so much waste — no matter; Brand has enormous faith in future engineering and human invention. “It may well be true about the pebble bed and waste,” he allows. “But then, okay, back to the old drawing board!

Well, it is back to the old drawing board, the PBMR was being developed by South Africa and they finally gave up on it because it had so many problems.

The IPCC and MIT used unrealistically low cost estimates for nuclear and concluded that nuclear would maintain about the share of total energy that it has now (an increase because total energy will also increase). In 2009 MIT acknowledged that it's 2003 estimate was absurdly low, but they are still using an unrealistically low estimate.

[Kolesar]

9. In his "gayer" days

[NNadir]

10. Well, I'm not sure about the "realist" part.

Solar and wind do almost nothing to fight climate change, so claiming them as "realistic" is not very satisfying.

Hydro is a mixed bag. It is clearly not sustainable, nor is it scalable, since almost all of the world's major rivers are no longer free rivers, but are dammed and damned.

Many of the world's major rivers are in fact dying. Salt intrusions are increasingly the rule.

The only scalable form of climate change gas free energy is nuclear energy. If solar and wind were realistic, they would have become real forms of energy when Jackson Browne, Bonnie Raitt, Hall and Graham Nash were singing loudly - and highly amplified - about them in 1979.

It is 30 years later and everybody is still singing praises to solar and wind to real consequence.