Jim Webb joins Lamar Alexander on a bill that would double nuclear power

[karynnj]

over the next TWO decades. He is against Kerry/Boxer as written now. The fact that he wants to do this, when the waste problem is not solved and with a 20 year horizon is not promising.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29582.html

This is the most recent in bad votes and positions by Jim Webb. I hope Kerry and Graham can get him back on the fence at least. I never saw why he was a DU favorite.

Some of the other sources are less negative - and suggest that he is still speaking with Democrats. The fact is that nuclear alone can not be the solution and there is still the problem of waste. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gGEsohiTbcA_8e9bhBZr0Y2iS8JQ

[Statistical]

1. Doubling nuclear power especially with GenIII+ plants is something I can like with.

Wish we was both pro C&T and pro nuclear power.

C&T can only help nuclear power by including the true carbon cost in coal & natural gas power generation.

Bad news is higher energy bills for consumers but we need to accept that atmosphere is no a giant dumping ground for carbon.

[karynnj]

2. I added some other links and edited the OP as Politico was out of line with other sources

[OHdem10]

3. His stand on Social Justice (Concern for Working People and Poor)

could make him attractive to some.

Since there will be Nuclear Plants included, perhaps he
prefers to have Democratic Input in shaping an amendment.

Just a thought.

[karynnj]

5. That might be true from the APF article - but he still says he is against C&T

which is needed to put a tax on carbon. I can think of many Senators with better track records of voting for and speaking of social justice, including Kerry, Brown, Harkin, Lautenberg, and Reed - just to name 5.

[OHdem10]

10. Not to quibble how many of them have supported many of Bush,

Reagan Economic expecially Trade Policies.

[karynnj]

11. While it is true that some voted for some trade bills, that does not

change that they were also there writing and voting for bills that helped the poor - with healthcare, housing, and various programs designed to help under privileged people.

The fact is the problem is not just free trade bills, but the very fact that there is a global economy where companies can find labor anywhere. The fact is that it may be that ONLY fair trade agreements can prevent the race to the bottom - something that the no trade bills won't do. The real problem is economics. There, it was Kerry who wrote and AFL/CIO endorsed amendment that forced countries to insure some workers rights and environmental standards - it was defeated 10 to 10 in the Republican Congress of 2005/2006 - he had tried to get it on CAFTA, which he voted against.

[mitchtv]

4. but the Dems are better

we need them or Sara Palin will be in charge. They still have nowhere to put the waste

[rmann]

6. Jim Webb joins Lamar Alexander on a bill that would double nuclear power

Hmmm... this should happened decades ago, the power of lobbyists in Washington is undermining the will of the people.

[mitchtv]

22. and the waste stored in TX

!

[Spider Jerusalem]

7. So maintaining present levels of electrical power generation from coal-fired plants...

is preferable, somehow? Especially in light of climate change and rising levels of atmospheric CO²?

Carbon footprint comparisons:

(As a point of reference, the UK average is 8.33 metric tons per year per person, and the EU average is 11 million.)

[karynnj]

12. Why not join Kerry and Graham then -

The fact is Alexander is also for increasing coal. What they are against is Cap and Trade or any other mechanism to place a tax on carbon in the attempt to lower it.

[Spider Jerusalem]

13. Cap and trade alone isn't enough, anyway

significant changes in the lifestyle of the average American citizen are needed. And very possibly gasoline prices at about $4-5 per gallon as a demand destructor to encourage development of alternatives. Change won't come until people in general alter their behaviour and learn to consume less; until the economics of energy FORCE people to drive more fuel-efficient cars, to use less electricity. Without that anything like cap-and-trade is going to be pointless, especially since the majority of politicians aren't going to have the spine to do anything that might cost them votes (and telling people that their lifestyles are unsustainable would certainly do that).

[C_Lawyer09]

14. You hit the nail on the head brother

The oil industry akin to the insurance industry is close to omnipowerful. They will advertise until more than half of Americans are convinced that global warming is a fallacy. It will have to be economic pressure that drives pursuit of alternatives, nothing else will.

[karynnj]

19. Kerry's bill is far more than "just cap and trade"

There is plenty to encourage efficiency and alternative fuels.

I agree that economics though will push people to conserve - it did in the late 1970s. The point of cap & trade that is only on the top 2% of polluters, which create 70% of the carbon, is to put a cost on carbon which will make lower carbon options look better than they do now.

[TomCADem]

8. Is The Choice Nuclear Power versus Global Warming?

Or, is there a reasonable third way?

[Spider Jerusalem]

9. Well, Americans COULD learn to significantly cut their energy use by a third or more.

Do you think that's going to happen? Because I really don't. And nuclear is the only energy source that can realistically replace fossil fuels.

[immoderate]

15. I disagree.

Nuclear is also the only energy source that can sterilize the planet. The problems have not been solved.

I think we can ultimately do better with a combination of solar, wind, tidal, hydro, and geothermal.

--imm

[glitch]

16. and improved efficiency, good old conservation and co-generation.

Not as glamorous, but already being achieved at huge cost-SAVINGS.

[hunter]

18. Fossil fuels are going to end this civilization.

Billions of people are going to be dislocated and die as a direct consequence of our reliance on fossil fuels. Millions of complex plant and animal species will become extinct.

So how is nuclear power worse?

A rational civilization would outlaw fossil fuels. Maybe they'd go with nuclear power, maybe not. But humans are irrational creatures. We drive dangerous automobiles, we smoke, we eat unhealthy foods, and we burn fossil fuels, even when we know they are killing us. We follow our gut instincts and superstitions even when the hard numbers of reality contradict us.

[immoderate]

20. How much worse does it have to be?

:shrug:

--imm

[glitch]

17. We can if we achieve the same or better gdp with improved efficiency

which would provide the equivalent of cutting energy use by a third or more.

We don't have to cut quality of life by a third (as implied by your post). In fact the reduced waste/extraction/pollution provided by the improved efficiency will add to our quality of life.

[Raine]

21. Some "Democrats"

make me :puke: