It's nukes to me

Climate-bill sponsors talk about nukes and wooing McCain

Posted by Kate Sheppard at 5:20 PM on 02 Jun 2008

Muckraker: Grist on Politics Before this evening's cloture vote on the motion to proceed, the sponsors of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act held a press conference, mostly repeating things we've already heard from them. Two interesting topics came up, though: McCain and nukes. And, of course, McCain on nukes.

John Warner (R-Va.) took the opportunity to tout nuclear power and the amendment he and Lieberman have put together that would insert explicit support for the industry into the bill. "There is no solution to our energy problems without enhanced nuclear participation," said Warner.

Now, it's well-known that Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) says she'll pull the bill if nuclear subsidies are added. She says she is amenable to support for safety measures at nuclear plants and worker training, but Warner and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) seem to want more. Warner said he doesn't think Boxer will oppose the bill even if support for nukes is added, which is probably a bit of wishful thinking on his part.

"I look forward to seeing how this amendment goes," said Boxer, adding that they're all "looking for that sweet spot for legislation."

The other hot question was about McCain: Is Lieberman mad that his friend hasn't explicitly supported the bill, and says he's not coming back for the debate? Especially since their nuke amendment is intended, at least in part, to attract McCain's support?

Said Lieberman, "I think that Sen. McCain will support this bill in the end." He added that just this morning he was at a meeting with McCain, and "he went into a riff about how important this climate change legislation is."

The next logical question might be why, if McCain was in D.C. hanging out with Lieberman this morning, he couldn't bother to come to the Senate to vote for cloture on the bill, or for the rest of the debate. But Lieberman didn't go there at the press conference.

He did, however, express optimism about his bill: "We've got a fight ahead of us, but it's an important one, and we're going to win it."

For story: It's nukes to me
3 Comments | Post a Comment

Insert

It would be a good time to substitute the "compromise" for the Lie-berman (sic) amendment.

At least it would introduce the idea of throwing a relatively safe and inexpensive bone to the nuke-you-ler pit bull. Before it bites US again, in another subsidized buildout of platinum plated contamination and pork.

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

by amazingdrx at 4:41 AM on 03 Jun 2008

Poison Pill

If Boxer were to support a bill that included nuke subsidies, she'd probably be voted out of office. Nuclear power is wildly unpopular in California, and the only reason we still have two nuclear power plants is that they're privately owned. The one nuke plant owned by a public utility was torn down and replaced with a solar power plant. (This is an excellent reason that all power utilities should be publicly owned.) While I'm currently on the fence about this bill due to its weaknesses, I'd strongly and unequivocally oppose it if it were to contain more subsidies for nuclear power.

by Wolverine at 2:22 PM on 03 Jun 2008

Public Utiities

With the Rancho Seco conversion to solar, the utility reduced the electrical production to one half of one percent of what it was - reduced electrical generation by a factor of 200. Somehow that doesn't give me a warm feeling about all utilities being publicly owned.

by KenG at 5:40 PM on 03 Jun 2008

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.