You get the opinion you pay for

BusinessWeek allows Whitman to lobby for nukes under the guise of an op-ed

Posted by David Roberts at 1:38 PM on 12 Sep 2007

Read more about: energy | nuclear power

Here's yet another op-ed from Christie Whitman cheerleading for nuclear power. To get a sense of the bad faith that infuses the whole thing, check out this paragraph:

Of course, we could buy energy-saving appliances or drive fuel-efficient cars. We can recycle cans, bottles, and newspapers. We can even plant carbon-absorbing trees. But, no matter how much we may wish they would, these acts by themselves won't satisfy our energy demands. To do that, we need a diverse energy mix that takes a practical, rather than emotional, approach.

Enter nuclear energy.

Barf.

More to the point, though, you have to really squint to see this, tucked down under the comments:

Christine Todd Whitman, former Environmental Protection Agency chief, is co-chair of the pronuclear CASEnergy Coalition.

That's a rather opaque way of putting it. This would be more honest:

Christie Todd Whitman gets paid to shill for the nuclear industry.

For story: You get the opinion you pay for
16 Comments | Post a Comment

I wouldn't knock nuke so hard

It is difficult to envision significant carbon reductions that don't include a prominent role for nuclear. This is not to say that we should subsidize nuclear beyond it's benefit, but we also shouldn't reject it as a carbon control measure, because the alternative is almost certainly unpleasant so long as electricity demand keeps rising. (And before we say "why must electric demand rise?", let's at least acknowledge that unless we can guarantee it won't, we shouldn't go down a path that only works if it does - because otherwise, blocking nuke = installing gas/coal to serve that load and driving up carbon. In an ideal future we do renewables, but in the near term, someone is going to have to build big plants to serve load, and that's not going to be solar.)

This isn't to say anything about Whitman's bias - simply to express frustration with any carbon-control plan that doesn't include a place for responsible nuclear. Yes, there is a disposal problem. But the time horizon on that problem is a lot farther off than the time horizon on global warming, suggesting more urgency on the latter.

by Sean Casten at 2:32 PM on 12 Sep 2007

Wiscidea

Would you quit doing that?
It's just becoming childish.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0203-02.htm

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 3:58 PM on 12 Sep 2007

Grey,

I agree. It's been deleted.

grist.org

by David Roberts at 5:00 PM on 12 Sep 2007

n

Do you have any criticisms of the content of the editorial, David?

by Nucbuddy at 5:12 AM on 13 Sep 2007

Whitman couldn't endorse nuclear energy ...

while heading the EPA, despite its environmental cleanliness, because as a government employee she would have been harming her employer's natural gas income prospects. Uranium is currently 7.2 percent as costly per unit of heat as is natural gas.

--- G. R. L. Cowan, boron car fan
How shall the car gain nuclear cachet?

by GRLCowan at 5:52 AM on 13 Sep 2007

Too bad

I believe Ms. Whitman was the governor who got renewable energy credit value assigned to homeowners and instituted 2/3 of the subsidies for home solar installations as well.

Why would she sell out on nuclear power? and why did she apparently flub the air quality check after 911? Very sad, I thought we finally had a staunch GOP GHG fighter.

Where does she stand on cape wind and "clean" coal? I guess her pro-nukery tells that tale.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 6:26 AM on 13 Sep 2007

Please allow me to rephrase that...

I fail to see how David Roberts' post adds to the discussion of whether nuclear power might be a means of confronting the challenge of global warming.

While he present's a snipet of Christie Whitman's views, surely deserving an intelligent rebuttal, David Robert's response is "barf". And GreyFlcn refers to MY behavior as childish?

Come on, Dave! You can really do better than "barf". I sincerely respect your ability to respond to right-wing shills. But you did not display that ability here. How about some sincere fact-based criticism of Christie Whitman? Or is "barf" all environmentalists have to say?

Furthermore, Christie Whitman wrote an op-ed piece, not a scientific paper. Why are we surprised that it is filled with opinion? And why are we surprised that the writer works with the nuclear power industry? Okay... she's biased. Let us know. But why do you have to call her a "shill"?

So... can't trust a nuclear power industry "shill". How about an environmentalist? Can we trust an environmentalist to provide an honest assessment of nuclear power? Apparently not. Because any environmentalist who supports nuclear power must have sold-out, lost his way, not to be trusted... even a former leader of Greenpeace.

I read your various posts, and the accompanying threads, about Christie Whitman's colleague. I did not know about any of it. Thank you for the information. You seem to assume the each person seeing your op-ed -- above -- should already know that Christie Whitman and her colleague are being shunned by the environmental commmunity. It makes a big difference. What at first appear to be a pointless opportunity to use the words "barf" and "shill" starts to makes sense. It is clear that you really hate these people.

Focusing on the former leader of Greenpeace -- you deleted my earlier remark and I do not recall his name -- condemnation of him raises a very serious issue. Can't trust nuclear power industry reps to tell us about whether it is viable. And can't trust environmentalists who support nuclear power -- obviously insane and working with the man. So who can we trust?

This is why I brought up the analogy of organic farming. I truly value what I've learned about organic farming here. However, why should I trust the organic farmers that have contributed numerous informative articles to the Grist website? Their income depends on organic farming. Are they all automatically "shills" as well?

Obviously, identifiying the writer of an op-ed piece as "shill" in order to condemn their arguments is not very productive. Sure, let us know that they are biased. But then you have to tell us WHY their opinions lack substance or are outright lies.

Would you like to comment on the substance of what Christie Whitman said?

I'm listening.

by wiscidea at 7:17 AM on 13 Sep 2007

Put it this way

Both Moore and Whitman have officially set up shop as lobbyists / apologists.

They are literally professional apologists for industry.
http://www.whitmanstrategygroup.com/
http://www.greenspiritstrategies.com/

That said Moore's scenario, his actions speak louder than credentials from 20 years ago.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.03/moore.html

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 7:50 AM on 13 Sep 2007
[ Parent ]

PG&E supports Whitman's Pro-Nuke Work

Last week there was a post here re how green PG&E was.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/6/161455/1255

I don't think the company highlights in its promotion of itself as a green-minded company that it also is a member of Whitman's pro-nuclear coalition.

http://www.cleansafeenergy.org/AbouttheCoalition/MemberLi ...

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

by NonprofitWatch at 1:37 PM on 13 Sep 2007

That makes you?

"...is "barf" all environmentalists have to say?"

A genetic engineer opposed to environmentalists? Thanks for admitting it ....finally. Now go join the jabbering one and buddy in the hall of trolls where you belong.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 6:44 AM on 14 Sep 2007

Dr. X...

Sometimes you are amazing, but not in a positive way.

I am not opposed to environmentalism. That would be absurd. I care very much about the protection and restoration of natural habitat. I'm concerned about global climate change. I want clean air and water. I want to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuel. I want our species to move toward a sustainable economy. I want to end abuse of animals, wild and domestic. Et cetera. I also want to find a way to preserve some aspects of our culture that are very important to many people. I believe the goals are compatible. I wish I could proudly refer to myself as an environmentalist.

However, I also believe that the environmental movement is turning into a faith-based religion that demands people toe the party line or get out. And because of this, it has become a hazard to refer to oneself as an "environmentalist". Environmentalists APPEAR to generally oppose nuclear power, oppose GMOs, oppose consumption of meat, would like to see everyone riding bicycles, would like to see everyone living in urban areas, et cetera.

When I express concern for the environment around conservative people, they immediately assume I hold a variety of other views that I really have not made a decision about. And if I mention that work with GMOs around vocal environmentalists, they immediate appear uncomfortable and assume I must hold a variety of offensive right-wing views. You appear to be an example of this.

So... I am not "a genetic engineer opposed to environmentists". I am a genetic engineer who wishes there was a place at the environmentalism table for rational discussion nuclear power, GMOs, other technologies, and other cultural values. I must give Dave Roberts much praise for permitting me to raise this subject on the Grist website about a year ago. Thank you.

That said...

by wiscidea at 7:16 AM on 14 Sep 2007
[ Parent ]

Censorship

In a nutshell...

I recall reading an article about how malls have become the new town square. Unfortunately, this has permitted the owners of the malls to control our right to free speech... the malls are private property. Yet this is where everyone congregates. Thus, there are efforts to overcome this problem and restrict the rights of the owners of mall to suppresss free speech.

I believe the same is true of the internent. People congregate online at privately owned websites rather than going down to the local pub to discuss politics or even gather in their homes where they can say whatever they want. It is the direction our culture is moving. And along with ownership of the websites, there is also the responsibility to ensure free speech.

I do not believe the comment Dave Roberts deleted was offensive, violent, or disruptive. Each similar remark was tied to the current topic. Conversation continued to flow around each similar remark. It was my own crude way to express my concern. There is also a history of such use of "satire" -- if that is what it is called -- in our nation to communicate views.

Dr. X has clearly demonstrated that "environmentalism" is becoming a faith-based religion.

So...

by wiscidea at 7:27 AM on 14 Sep 2007

Please Stop Attacking Fellow Environmentalists

I am appalled by the bashing of fellow environmentalists going on here, especially responding to an op-ed by using the term "barf" or refering to Christine Whitman as a "shill" rather responding to her actual opinions. By the way, you are talking about an op-ed piece, not a scientific paper. Perhaps I should start ignoring all of the information presented by organic farmers on the Grist website... how can I possibly trust someone who works in the industry to present accurate information about the hazards of other agricultural practices?

A few environmentalists, including former leader of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, are trying to work with industry and you insist attacking them. Sure there are a few bugs to work out as far as nuclear power is concerned, but in a world where 99.99% of people don't give a damn, at least they are trying. How about being more supportive? You are only discouraging efforts of environmentalists and industry to work together to provide a safer product.

Apparently, if an environmentalist decides a technology is not so bad or that an industry has actually addressed safety and environmental concerns, they are subject to shunning or demonization by those who continue to adhere to the party
line. Nice way to gain support for your cause!

So the new Church of Environmentalism not only wishes to sell indulgences, they are now assuming the power to excommunicate those who do not stricty follow the High Priest's teachings. Welcome to the new Green Inquisition.

Very sad. Very very sad.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/4/123247/9991/#40 ...

by wiscidea at 7:30 AM on 14 Sep 2007

Bye bye.

And I wish you luck in your future endeavors.

Peace.

by wiscidea at 7:31 AM on 14 Sep 2007

Silly statements

"Yes, there is a disposal problem. But the time horizon on that problem is a lot farther off than the time horizon on global warming, suggesting more urgency on the latter."

*It is? Can you say Yucca Mountain? Can you say mountains of waste from mining blowing around? Can you say Rio Puerco? Chernobyl? I know - Chernobyl and the Rio Puerco "events" were "accidents" and "accidents" don't happen because they unplanned and also because they don't exist - they're "events," after all!7 The difference between global warming and nuclear power in terms of their "time horizon" is that nuke waste is longer lived!

"A few environmentalists, including former leader of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, are trying to work with industry and you insist attacking them."

*Quite a few neo-cons were once leftists. Are they still leftists? No. They have changed and are now something else. SImilarly, Patrick Moore is not now an environmentalist. And he isn't "trying to work with industry." He is working FOR industry for direct financial compensation. This isn't in any way fuzzy. He is not on the Board of a group that gets grants from industry controlled foundations. He gets paid directly by polluting industries, including the chemical (i.e. PBDEs) and nuclear industries.

Steve E. Whidbey Environmental Action Network

by paintbrush at 12:53 PM on 14 Sep 2007

n

Paintbrush wrote: Patrick Moore [...] gets paid directly by polluting industries, including the chemical (i.e. PBDEs) and nuclear industries.

How is the nuclear industry a polluting industry?

by Nucbuddy at 8:56 PM on 18 Sep 2007
[ Parent ]

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.