John Tierney Goes Nuclear

John Tierney of the Times looks at green energy alternatives and subtly tilts toward McCain:

Today about 20 percent of electricity in America is generated by nuclear power, which is about 20 times the contribution from solar and wind power. Nuclear power also costs less, according to Gilbert Metcalf, an economist at Tufts University. After estimating the costs and factoring out the hefty tax breaks for different forms of low-carbon energy, he estimates that new nuclear plants could produce electricity more cheaply than windmills, solar power or “clean coal” plants.

The outlook could change, of course, if new nuclear plants turn out to be more expensive than expected, or if engineers make breakthroughs in other technologies. (To debate these possibilities, go to www.nytimes.com/tierneylab.) Given the uncertainties, Dr. Metcalf cautions, it would be risky to bet everything on nuclear power as the answer to global warming.

But it seems even riskier to bet on just the soft path, as so many greens are doing, either by flatly opposing nuclear power or by setting so many conditions that no plants could be built for decades, if ever. (Mr. Obama says nuclear power is necessary but should not be expanded until security and safety issues are addressed.)

Obama is lost on Yucca mountain.

Comments

[Extraneus]

I question the sincerity of any green who isn't for nuclear power, and I doubt their belief in global warming or that carbon is a pollutant.

Additonally -- and Palin made this point in the debate last week -- our failure to drill here means that less ecologically sensitive countries have to drill it for us, waste fuel shipping it here, etc. So I also question how sincere drilling opponents are about global warming.

[clarice]

Our failure to use domestic resources also means that we have less capital to bring new technologies which are mosre environmentally friendly to market.

[clarice]

Elliott, your name should soon be in the bright lights at AT.

[Cecil Turner]

Bottom line is that environmentalists are effectively in charge of Democrat energy policy. That's not even a good way to look after the environment, let alone ensure adequate energy supply. We desperately need a rational national energy policy (and have had a pretty good plan in the wings since 2001, but all the Dems want to do is investigate who went to meetings on it) . . . and Congressional inaction is the problem. Fire 'em all.

[Jor]

IF there is one trait about Obama that no one denies its his pragmatism. I don't think people argue that certain chemical plants and nuclear plants are unsecure. If we need nuclear energy to cut emissions -- then I'm sure Obama will move quickly and provide incentives to properly secure nuclear plants so they can be built in a reasonable fashion. As much as everyone loves to imagine Obama as a communist -- anyone who has read his books realizes he is at heart a pragmatist, very capable of seeing both sides of the issue.

[PeterUK]

"Given the uncertainties, Dr. Metcalf cautions, it would be risky to bet everything on nuclear power as the answer to global warming."

If "global warming" is indeed the question.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

I question the sincerity of any green who isn't for nuclear power, and I doubt their belief in global warming or that carbon is a pollutant.

I don't think that's quite fair. I think they're perfectly sincere; I just suspect they see the ideal as being austerity for the good of our souls. They're Puritans.

[David]

(Mr. Obama says nuclear power is necessary but should not be expanded until security and safety issues are addressed.)

In other words, it should not be expanded ever, according to Sen. Obama.

[Sue-Jane]

If "global warming" is indeed the question.

The earth is cooling. For how long even Kim doesn't know.

[PeterUK]

"As much as everyone loves to imagine Obama as a communist -- anyone who has read his books realizes he is at heart a pragmatist, very capable of seeing both sides of the issue."

If he understand the issue.You have to realise Jor,that politics is theater,politician simply speak the lines,the world is far too complex for any one individual to comprehend.
Bottom line, you haven't got a Messiah.

[MayBee]

IF there is one trait about Obama that no one denies its his pragmatism.

I deny it.

anyone who has read his books realizes he is at heart a pragmatist, very capable of seeing both sides of the issue.

Being able to see both sides of an issue does not make him pragmatic, and certainly offering both sides of an issue as some sort of solution precludes him from being called pragmatic.

[Cecil Turner]

IF there is one trait about Obama that no one denies its his pragmatism.

Right. I can blow that little fantasy away all by myself: I deny Obama's pragmatism. And that "If we need nuclear energy to cut emissions . . ." silliness is only about 30 years past due. Hey, might make a good slogan . . . "Obama: leadership that's only 30 years late . . . and counting."

[Cecil Turner]

I hate when that happens! (No offense, MayBee.)

[MayBee]

I hate it when I say something and you say it better, Cecil (which is pretty much always).

[Cecil Turner]

First is good. Maybe better. Cheers.

[Sue-Jane]

anyone who has read his books realizes he is at heart a pragmatist, very capable of seeing both sides of the issue.

Hell yeah, and vote "present" with the best of them. Woot woot!

[Rick Ballard]

His defense of baby killers was very pragmatic. He does have that going for him.

I would also note that his pushing of legislation which allowed Tony Rezko to stay in business was also very pragmatic.

The earmark he made which resulted in a $200K raise for Bulldoggy was even more pragmatic.

So - there you go - three fine examples of his pragmatism found without any effort.

[bgates]

Rick - and he's been pragmatically downplaying his relationship with Tim McVeigh wannabe Bill Ayers since the moment it became a liability - while pragmatically not completely disowning him, to signal admirers of the two of them like Jor that he hasn't sold out.

[Extraneus]

Wasn't Stalin pragmatic?

[Rick Ballard]

bgates,

That's true. How do you think we should score his tossing his racist pastor under the bus? I see the act of his rejection of his spiritual mentor of 20 years as very pragmatic. He has never rejected the racist teachings of his 'church' - just the foul mouthed cretin in the pulpit.

Very pragmatic.

[Barney Frank]

Wasn't Stalin pragmatic?

Absolutely. And like Barry he could see both sides of an issue.

'Leon, we can kill you here or track you down to Mexico.'

'Adolph, why not meet somehwere in the middle of Poland rather than fight over it?'

Barry would merely be one in a long line of pragmatic, thoughtful leaders who see both sides of an issue.

[PeterUK]

"Wasn't Stalin pragmatic?"
Oh very,just like Mao,Hitler,Pol Pot,the Great Khans.First World War was full of pragmatic Generals.
Pragmatism killed more people than the Bomb.

[PeterUK]

"I just love the smell of pragmatism in the morning".

[Jim Ryan]

Jonah's Liberal Fascism shows the link between the pragmatists (Dewey et al) and early 20th Century American liberal fascism.

Don't read the passages about Woodrow Wison in the book. It will depress you about the past and the future.

[Pofarmer]

The earmark he made which resulted in a $200K raise for Bulldoggy was even more pragmatic.

Man I wish McCain or Palin would hit him on that. How does Barack Hussein answer to that?? It's a matter of record. Kinda blows "McCain voted against tax cuts 475, no make that 673 times" a non-issue.

[Pagar]

"very capable of seeing both sides of the issue."
And chosen on the wrong side of every one of them.

[qrstuv]

"very capable of seeing both sides of the issue."

... and calling the people he disagrees with "bitter" and "clinging."

Saying that disagreeing with him "can't be a reason not to vote for me."

Yep. That's a guy who really understands people.

[matt]

The London Telegraph reported this morning that Paul Newman was quietly supporting nuclear power for some time....

As to Obama, his voting record is hardly pragmatic....dogmatic, perhaps?

[PeterUK]

Lieberman- Obama Naive. Pragmatically and dangerously naive.

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

Sara'cuda scores again!

Fail: Washington Post Writer Mocks Palin For Getting Name Of Iraqi Politician Right

I love it when some a$$hole demonstrates his a$$holeness. And E.J. Dionne is an A$$hole.

[matt]

yes, Sara, he is.....

the problem is that we are dealing with an absolutely irrational phenomenon. The libs hate Bush and blame the republicans for AIDS, the economy, 9-11, Iraq, Katrina, the Dec 26 tsunami and everything else bad that has happened in this world in the past 50 years.

A good friend on mine's wife is typical. She has a PhD in economics and is a Orthodox Jew. She was a hard core Hillary supporter, Connecticut hard core liberal. She hated Obama up until the moment he was the nominee. Now she is going to Ohio to canvass for him. Liberals believe with the heart, not the mind.

Logically, Palin should be every woman's dream candidate. She's done more in a shorter period of time than almost anyone I know of and she's moral, honest, and smart. The kind of person, regardless of party, whom we need desperately in this country. Instead she's vilified beyond reason. It's almost like a Stalinist or Nazi reduction of one's opponent to the untermensch.

An awful lot of this is deeply rooted in the psyche, and an awful lot of it is the direct result of leftist educational policies in play at the universities. We ceded the schools to this crap 40 years ago, and since then, the grown ups have been retiring and their little influence disappearing.

The philosopher Michael Novak made a very interesting
point that without a grounding in the Judeo-Christian ethical structure, relativism eventually descends into chaos, and relativism is what has been taught in our schools at the expense of any religion based ethical education.

In the Catholic faith, apologetics was taught until @ 40 years ago. This was the the examination and argument for the existence and superiority of that faith, often versus other religions, which is one reason it fell out of favor.

However, what it did do was to argue for the tenets of faith as truths which are the fundamental bases for the human relationship with God.

I believe the non-Left(since I can't say I'm a conservative in many ways), does not make its case well enough. Perhaps arguing for a political theory of apologetics might improve the ability to make the case for a conservative/common sense agenda. WF Buckley was the master, and there are few worthy successors.