Greens Blast Move to Repeal IL Nuclear Moratorium

h/t to my co-blogger, Ian Wilder, who published this story at www.onthewilderside.com

Green Party blasts legislative move to repeal Nuclear Moratorium; Calls attempt an effort to undermine Renewable Energy

Green Party leaders condemned legislative attempts to repeal the Illinois moratorium against new nuclear production.  House Bill 875 and Senate Bill 2162 would delete the provision in state law prohibiting the construction of new nuclear facilities until the nuclear waste storage issue is resolved.

Nuclear power is bad for the economy, bad for the environment, and bad for the people of Illinois. We need to be phasing out nuclear production.  It is completely irresponsible for legislators to champion it.”

The Illinois Green Party pointed out that the expansion of nuclear production would undermine the 2007 Renewable Energy Portfolio standard law requiring that Illinois electric utilities produce 25% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025 – and in the process, would be bad for job growth in Illinois.

“Renewable energy production and energy efficiency efforts create more jobs than nuclear production,” said William Edgar, DuPage County Green Party Chair.  “And nuclear is more expensive to produce than wind or geothermal.  Nuclear power is bad for workers and bad for consumers.” 

Greens also pointed to the effort to repeal the nuclear moratorium as further evidence of the pernicious influence of Pay to Play in Illinois politics.  The Illinois State Board of Elections Campaign Disclosure site shows over 30 variations of the name Exelon having contributed over $2,500,000 to candidates in Illinois since 2001. Many of these legislators are now sponsoring the moratorium repeal legislation.

“Illinois needs to ban corporate contributions immediately,” said Mark Mallon, Green candidate for Urbana City Council (Ward 2).  “Are we going to get real reform out of Springfield this year, or more of the same?”

The Illinois Green Party recommends the expertise of the Nuclear Energy Information Service (NEIS) for more information on the perils of nuclear power.  NEIS is online at www.neis.org.

45 thoughts on “Greens Blast Move to Repeal IL Nuclear Moratorium

  1. Ross Levin

    I waver back and forth on nuclear, but for now I’m against it. I just think that the ~$10 billion government subsidy per plant could be better spent elsewhere (or not spent at all). And if it has to be spent on energy, conservation and promoting renewables would be much better.

  2. Mike Theodore

    Illinois has had a huge on again/off again flip with nuclear power. All my life, and I still don’t have an opinion. I’ve always feared them (mostly from stories my brother would tell me about nukes while we fished next to the old Zion Plant), but it seems rather sensible.

  3. Kimberly Wilder

    Nuclear Energy:

    Who likes radiation?

    Could everyone just agree that “human beings being exposed to radiation is a bad thing.”? If so, then why would anyone want to force workers to mine uranium, and then enrich it, and then allow companies (who in our country, feed money to the government) to put a strong bunch of radiation in one spot, where it is precarious, and might cause a disaster?

    Who trusts the government and nuclear industry, when they were clearly able to suppress information about nuclear disaster for 30 years and going?

    People should reflect on Three Mile Island. The history was recently reviewed on Democracy Now! Thirty years after the disaster at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, the lawsuits were never allowed to proceed. That’s because then facts about radiation exposure would get out.

    If you know enough to distrust “big government”, why should you trust “big government” to keep you safe from “big energy”?

    If people are afraid of our ineffective, incompetent, corporate-controlled government? If our government is a systemic problem of secrets and bloated budgets and bloated and corrupt decision making…then how could you trust them and the corporations that funnel money to them to do nuclear safely, anyway?

    Nuclear is big energy, in the same, horrifying way that our government is big government.

    Nuclear energy is unnecessarily dangerous. And, more so if left in the hands of our corporatist, duopolist government.

    Some of the wiser folks in my town would make energy discussions more deep and comprehensive. Not just that we should reject nuclear. We should encourage smaller, spread out energy projects. Such as towns having their own generating plants, and people being allowed to have windmills and solar panels and selling the energy back to the grid if they like.

    When there were the huge power outages around the country in 2003, in Long Island, one of the big winners was the Town of Freeport, Long Island. They had their own, separate energy. And, they took better care, and were not networked in to the federal-government corrupted grid, Freeport avoided the blackout.

    Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:

    -Almost the entire state of New York lost power. Exceptions include Freeport and Rockville Centre on Long Island, which relied on localized power plants; the Capital District, where power dipped briefly but returned, the southernmost areas of the Southern Tier of Upstate New York, which relied on power from Pennsylvania; the city of Plattsburgh; Starrett City, Brooklyn, which has auxiliary power; most of the city of Buffalo; and pockets of Amherst in the Buffalo area, running off university power. There were also some small pockets of power in the suburbs of Rochester, as a few smaller power companies operating in those areas were able to keep running…-

  4. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Could everyone just agree that ‘human beings being exposed to radiation is a bad thing.’?”

    Er … no. If human beings weren’t constantly exposed to radiation, human beings wouldn’t be alive.

    Then again, I don’t really have to reach that question to oppose the construction of industrial fission reactors. Show me one that’s built and operated without government subsidy and we’ll talk. Until then, no dice.

  5. Michael Cavlan

    Kimberley

    In Minnesota the attempt to end the Moratorium of Building Nuclear power plants was defeated in Committee, by a vote of 12 to 7.

    One of the groups involved in pressuring this was one of the groups that came out of the evil, evil Nader groups.

    So obviously the Green party watch site will not mention it.

    I tried to post this on the GP Watch site but nope.

    I am banned from posting there.

    LOLOL

    Greens again having problems with disent, Grassroots Democracy, Free Speech and Respect for Diversity.

    LOLOL

    As an aside, I did post some of the basics about the Brent McMillian and Elaine Brown debacle on the post on GP In fighting again.

    Kimberley, I have heard that the greens are cheering the “cancer” of the Nader supporters being removed.

    Un-Fucking-believable.

    Sorry Greens, this site does NOT practice censorship. People are leaving in droves. We tried to warn you all this would happen but, oh well.

  6. paulie

    If you know enough to distrust “big government”, why should you trust “big government” to keep you safe from “big energy”?

    Exactly.

    The solution isn’t to use big government to ban big business, it’s to stop big government from propping up big business.

    In this case: stop government ownership of nuclear (or other) power plants.

    Stop corporate welfare subsidies.

    Stop limiting their liability through government guarantees.

    Stop shielding their corporate officers and investors from personal liability.

    As Tom pointed out, none of the nuclear power plants in existence are in a real free market.

    At the same time, putting big government in charge of protecting the environment is a bad idea. They are the biggest polluters themselves; it’s like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop. Countries where industry has been nationalized have a horrible environmental record.

    Big government and corporations are two sides of the same coin. You can’t give one more power to fight the other; all you are doing when you do that is helping both.

    And if you have government take over all the corporations, all you’ve done is create the world’s biggest monopoly.

  7. Gregg Jocoy

    Michael,

    Free speech does not mean that you have a right to come into my house and piss in my corn flakes. Free speech means that you have a right to buy and set up your own website and try to persuade people to visit it.

    Ron invested his own money in setting up Green Party Watch. I invested my own time, as have close to a dozen others, to make GPW a site others want to go to for information about the Green Party.

    If you are so hell bent on not getting over your personal hurt that you feel a need to vent online, feel free to do it here, so long as the owners of this website are willing to let you do so, but be under no illusions. If they wanted to do so, and I don’t for a moment believe they want to, they could also keep your bile from publication here.

    Now, I’ve gone an extra step just for you. The following domain names are available:

    http://www.TheGreenPartySucks.com
    http://www.TheGreenPartySux.com
    http://www.CommitteeOfTheDamned.com

    Now all you have to do is register a domain name, set up a website, generate content, promote the site, and invest time each day to give your visitors a reason to come back.

    If you’re not willing to get off your fat ass and do so, STFU.

  8. Kimberly Wilder

    Wow! Gregg,

    It hurts to see how angry you are. I respect both sides of this argument.

    I will say, that it is a dangerous thing to tell Mike Cavlan to set up his own anti-green web-site. Because I fear he might.

    But, anyway, if anyone wants to critique the CURRENT STRUCTURE of what goes as GP-US right now, seems like this side and wilderside are nearly as good a place to go as the other.

    Peace and struggle,
    Kimberly Wilder
    former Green Party member
    upholding Green Values
    proud member, Committee of the Damned (and exiled, and censored, and abused, and banished from various parts of GP-US)

  9. Kimberly Wilder

    Also, and I say this with respect, getting off one’s ass could also mean helping people that the mean people in GP-US abuse. If you have not spent any time this month interviewing people who left in disgust, or advocating for people who get kicked off committees or list-serves, than maybe you are not working hard enough for the integrity of the national Green Party such as it is.

  10. Michael Cavlan

    Kimberley and All

    I have no desire to piss in anybody’s cornflakes or set up any anti-green party website. Quite frankly, as those of us banned and censored Committee of the Damned pointed out, the GP shall drive out the activists from the GP.

    However, what I did do today was sit on a panel on how to build an effective organized electoral opposition to the two wings of the war machine.

    Sitting on the panel was myself, former green candidate for US Senate and Ken Pentel former green party candidate for Governor. Also present was Pam Ellison former independence party candidate for governor in Minnesota. Also present was a lot of other activists.

    It was a wonderful, happy and productive meeting. I put forward the proposal of starting up a chapter of the Peace and Freedom party.

    When asked why we were no longer working with the GP, we told the people there the truth.

    I will do a full report on this meeting very soon.

    Teep your eyes on Minnesota people. The third party movement is very alive and well here.

    Remember Minneapolis will have IRV in the next election 2009 and St paul has IRV on the ballot here.

  11. Libertarian Joseph

    Ross Levin // Apr 3, 2009 at 11:38 pm

    I waver back and forth on nuclear, but for now I’m against it.

    When will you waiver against socialism? You support it until you’re soundly squashed by GE. Do ya learn? No. You go back to repeating your stupidity.

  12. Trent Hill

    “If so, then why would anyone want to force workers to mine uranium, and then enrich it, and then allow companies (who in our country, feed money to the government) to put a strong bunch of radiation in one spot, where it is precarious, and might cause a disaster?”

    Force? Who is forcing workers to mine uranium? I know of no slave-quarters where they force their slaves to mine uranium, Kimberly. I only know of people who voluntarily decide to work with uranium in exchange for high pay. Please point to an example of a worker who is FORCED to mine and enrich uranium.

    Your solution is completely backwards. Tom and Paulie are right, that we should remove subsidies and government support for these nuclear plants–but that doesnt mean we should ban them. If they can collect the money and build a business on their own–they ought to be able to run it. If they have an industrial accident, they may goto jail or owe alot of people alot of money–but in truth they likely would not exist right now without subsidies.

  13. Thomas L. Knapp

    Trent,

    Actually, uranium mining has been extensively associated with slave labor.

    Look up Belgium’s Katanga mining operations, from which much of the Manhattan Project’s material apparently came. The locals had the choice of working in the mines or being murdered, dismembered and put on public display to encourage others not to say “no.”

  14. Kimberly Wilder

    –Force? Who is forcing workers to mine uranium? I know of no slave-quarters where they force their slaves to mine uranium–

    Trent, if we could follow through on this discussion meaningfully, we might find a point of agreement.

    People may not be “forced” to put themselves in danger by mining uranium.

    But, what I propose probably happens is:

    -As most folks here believe, our government and corporations are in a conspiracy together. Including corporations paying politicians large sums of money for their election campaigns.

    -People in our country are “trained” at public schools to “believe” that the government is protecting them: That if the EPA says the air is safe, it is safe. That if the government signs off on an elevator certificate, the elevator will work, etc. That if OSHA let’s a workplace operate, it is fairly safe.

    -So, our government proclaims that radiation is safe. Our government (and corporations, and universities funded by government and corporations) release studies that suggest radiation is not immediately toxic.

    -Then, laborers, trusting that the government has deemed a project is safe, and laborers who have read studies that suggest more mild effects of radiation than our true, go to work in the mines. The mines that profit the politicians, government and corporations in their symbiotic relationships.

    So…the problem is not if someone holds a gun to a laborer head and says, “Mine.” The underlying problem is merely that the principles of CAPITALISM have been violated.

    Capitalist is actually people with equal information and equal power trading in a free market.

    When the government colludes with corporations and gives FALSE INFORMATION, then people are at least tricked, and sometimes forced to act against their own interests.

    I truly believe, especially from recent conversations here, that there is a place where Libertarians and environmentalists/Greens would both agree that nuclear power enacted and propped up by the US Government is ineffective, untenable and dangerous.

    And, if the Libertarians would stop demanding to only focus on a small set of principles in arguing that the government must be “laissez faire” about types of energy, and instead look at what is happening, and fix and critique any part of it that genuinely violates Libertarian principles, that we could get somewhere.

    It is frustrating when two groups agree, but get so caught up in pockets of conflicting dogma, that the bad guys get away with continuing nuclear power – through measures neither of the two groups actually approve of – ie: lies, government subsidies of an unsafe industry, etc.

    On many issues, including this one, I think if Libertarians STOPPED talking and arguing fine points, and TOOK ANY ACTION to alleviated suffering based on any of their principles, the world would be a better place. It would be awesome if there was a true campaign among Libertarians to END government subsidies of nuclear energy.

    But, I fear, if it was suggested, Libertarians would start saying, “all government subsidies should be stopped” and therefore do nothing. As people die of radiation poisoning and cancer…

    I think that environmentalists and Green Party members are often dogmatic, but somehow manage to once in awhile go down the path of trying to make the world a better place.

  15. Trent Hill

    “Actually, uranium mining has been extensively associated with slave labor. ”

    Perhaps in the past, but I doubt that our current nuclear facilities are supplied by slave-labor uranium.

  16. Trent Hill

    “So…the problem is not if someone holds a gun to a laborer head and says, “Mine.””

    So, in effect, no one is forcing them. Thanks for the clarification.

    “The underlying problem is merely that the principles of CAPITALISM have been violated”

    This we can agree on. Because of government, information is not being reliably disseminated.

    “Capitalist is actually people with equal information and equal power trading in a free market.”

    Equal information? Equal power? How do you define these terms exactly?

  17. Trent Hill

    “There is a lot of modern slavery. I wouldn’t doubt that some uranium mines are operated by slaves.”

    I think “a lot” is an unfair useage. Historically, there is less slavery now than at any point in human history. But still far more than there should be (namely, none).
    Also, it was Kimberly’s contention that all uranium miners were “forced” to work in a mine. And this was her arguement against American nuclear power plants, which likely buy uranium from European and American sources (as those are cheapest and reliable).

  18. Ross Levin

    I have actually heard that now there are more slaves than at any other point in human history (might be less of a percentage of the population, though). Not sure how they were counting, but the lowest estimate I’ve seen is 27 million slaves in the world right now.

  19. Trent Hill

    “I truly believe, especially from recent conversations here, that there is a place where Libertarians and environmentalists/Greens would both agree that nuclear power enacted and propped up by the US Government is ineffective, untenable and dangerous.”

    Of course it is. But Greens believe that only THIS subsidiy is dangerous, while Libertarians agree ALL subsidies are dangerous. So the middle ground is to try to eliminate the subsidies that they agree should be eliminated (As in the case of Nuclear Power).

  20. Trent Hill

    “According to Anti-Slavery International, the world’s oldest human rights organization, there are currently over 20 million people in bondage.”

    The HIGHEST estimate, by a reputable source, that iv seen is 27 million.
    That may be the largest number of slaves in history. But percentage is the real question, not total number. But I doubt even in raw numbers if 27 million is the most the world has seen. Slavery existed in all portions of the world in 1750-1820 or so. In the US that population was at least 3 million by itself.

  21. Rachel H

    Drop nuclear because it sets back the development of renewable energy?

    This whole argument by GP-US ignores the FACT that nuclear fission IS renewable energy.

    And without the ridiculous gov’t regulations that require the products of fission (which is usable fuel) to be stored in some big hole in a state that we don’t like, nuclear energy would be cheaper.

    Probably 90:/: of stored nuke “waste” could be re-processed and not stored.

    Per scientists and electrical engineers.

  22. Gregg Jocoy

    I am not sure if this will work or not, but if you want to know about human enslavement in the United States, click my name. If it does work, watch the video. It’s about 35 minutes long.

  23. Kimberly Wilder

    Trent said:

    –Also, it was Kimberly’s contention that all uranium miners were “forced” to work in a mine. —

    As I argued points with Trent, I kind of talked myself out of my original argument, which I think Trent summarizes correctly above.

    I was trying to show how “force” could be part trickery.

    But, I would like to go back to my original premise.

    Anyone mining uranium is “forced” to. Because, really, who wakes up in the morning and says, “I would like to mine urnanium?” Or, what child says, “I would like to grow up to be a uranium miner.

    Force can also mean economic pressure. And, force can be that situations conspire, and people in power -whether in industry, government, or certain classes – withhold information or impoverish folks so much that they have to say yes when money is offered.

    So, I will stick with disagreeing with Trent.

    And, I will say that anyone mining uranium is by definition FORCED to mine uranium.

    -Kimberly

  24. Anton

    “Who likes radiation?”

    I DO! (nuclear)radiation is the direct conversion of matter into energy. Think of radioactivity from a scientific standpoint: Free energy for us to — USE and some isotopes give off this free energy for thousands, even millions of years. Nuclear Power is the only form of energy production that results in waste products which can themselves be used to create more energy! Nuclear Power is great for the economy and by far the most efficient means of producing electricity.

    Its time to STOP all the anti-nuclear hype which is based not in scientific fact but *green* pseudoscience fueled by left-wing hysteria that starting in the 60s and continuing to this day.
    Uranium mining is done in open pits and isnt NEARLY as deadly as coal mining so long as miners wear the proper protective gear. “Nuclear” has become a bad word thanks to movies like China Syndrome which was used as libtard propaganda.

  25. Anton

    Suuuuuuuuuuuurrrre! I belive ya….(>_>)

    Your initial reply is MEANINGLESS, bub and you’re just making up excuses.

  26. paulie

    It’s what your stilted propaganda deserved. And I don’t give a mouse turd what you believe.

    If you wrote something that deserved a more detailed response, I would have provided one. In the meantime, I have better things to do.

  27. Anton

    I find this laughable coming from a libertian of all people. But its quite clear from reading up on your background that you dont know jack shit about the science behind nuclear power.

    If you did you would understand what radioactivity REALLY is and that the energy that can be extracted from unstable nuclei FAR exceeds that which can be extracted from sunlight, molecular motion(as in Wind), and chemical bonds.

  28. paulie

    But its quite clear from reading up on your background that you dont know jack shit about the science behind nuclear power.

    Oh? How would that be clear from reading a small blurb?

    If you did you would understand what radioactivity REALLY is and that the energy that can be extracted from unstable nuclei FAR exceeds that which can be extracted from sunlight, molecular motion(as in Wind), and chemical bonds.

    Thanks, I knew all that. Completely besides the point, though.

  29. Anton

    Besides the point? Do you even HAVE a point???
    All you’re doing is trying in vain to invalidate what I said for the sake of being contrary…

  30. Anton

    ^Thats BULLSHIT paulie. It cracks me up how plebians like yourself try to invalidate people when you obviously dont know what the hell they’re talking about.

  31. Anton

    And thanks to YOU for proving that you’re sarcastic bullshit is a just a sorry excuse for having nothing to say.

  32. Mik Robertson

    @15 “I truly believe, especially from recent conversations here, that there is a place where Libertarians and environmentalists/Greens would both agree that nuclear power enacted and propped up by the US Government is ineffective, untenable and dangerous.”

    I suspect there is probably also a place where Libertarians/ Greens would both agree that getting out of bed in the morning is ineffective, untenable and dangerous.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *