[NukeNet] [No New Coal Plants] Environmental Defense Supporting Nukes in TXU Buyout

[Roger Herried]

Here's a few more reasons to be concerned about NRDC.

1. In the late 1980's NRDC played a key role in killing the grassroots 
led renewable energy movement in California by siding with Pacific Gas & 
Electric's counter plans, which were organized to fund the company's  
version of energy efficiency and renewables... (The original Energy Net 
in California was a statewide grassroots campaign to develop renewables 
and conservation)..

2. Where was NRDC when PG&E and SoCal Edison killed off California's 
innovative renewable energy development program (PURPA) in 1994?

3. NRDC, along with the Energy Foundation  played a major role in 
promoting the electric deregulation disaster in California. The 
Greenwashing that took place left the state raped when PUHCA free Enron, 
Bush and allies robbed over $10 billion from the state's ratepayers.  
The media used NRDC's  role in promoting deregulation, in claiming that 
everyone was to blame, including environmentalists for the disasterous 
2001 energy crisis.

4. In California, where the media love to interview NRDC spokespeople, 
like Kavanagh or Cochran, all other opposition voices dissappear.  These 
anti-nuclear experts appeared on PBS and ABC radio talk shows in 
Northern California as the attempt to reopen nuclear power came up 
legislatively (it was killed). The media has been using this tactic for 
decades to make sure nobody ever hears from a real local antinuclear 
group. A great way to keep the public from knowing who we were, or 
supporting us.

NRDC is currently pushing their corporate argument that we should stop 
subsidizing all energy sources and let the market sort things out.  They 
did this as their primary thesis in both radio shows here in the bay 
area! LET THE MARKET SOLVE OUR ENERGY PROBLEM!!!!  The rest of their 
presentation seemed quite reasonable, in terms of opposing nuclear power.

Everything except for the market idea, which they were allowed to focuss 
on, without the usual pressure from the commentator to shift away onto 
some other nuclear frame.

 So what is this argument about letting all power sources live on their 
own economic grounds??  Hmm... Do you think for a minute America's 
politicians are going to all of a sudden not give another penny of 
subsidy to oil, coal, nuclear etc?   This is so laughable, if not a 
completely disgustingly insidious way to kill probably the most 
important economic argument against nuclear power we have! Does anyone 
remember Forbes magazine calling nuclear power the greatest economic 
disaster in U.S. history back in 1985? Would you buy a car (nuclear 
power) from George Bush after the greate deal we got with his Iraqi 
invasion sale? Apparently the public wants to or are we about the most 
stupid bunch of idiots advertisers can buy?

Why would this country that has been the home of political pork for over 
a century ban energy subsidies? Could it work at the state level? 
Possibly. But the real issue behind this fake argument how we actually 
fund  energy. In one of the most important articles to appear on energy 
policy to ever appear, at the peak of California's energy crisis, a 
reporter documented the private utility company's (PG&E and SoCal 
Edison) hatred and organized opposition to renewables and conservation.  
You can still see the article here. 
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/02/12/MN54462.DTL>.. 


The people who sell us electricity in this country could have changed 
the way we use energy but have done everything in their power to kill 
these programs.!  Read the article! How much you wanna bet this is the 
same agenda across the U.S. energy industry?

Nuclear power received most of its funding from govenment prior to the 
1980's, the date when the Energy Information Agency starts covering 
subidies.  How would the socalled "tech savy" youngsters who are buying 
this new pitch for nuclear be able to find out the full story of 
government support for nuclear power? 

It should be clear that we are being set up across the country and the 
NRDC are playing a key role in how the media is framing the issue to the 
public.  First we're being told that environmentalists like the founder 
of Greenpeace has come out for nuclear, then we get corporate friendly 
ecowashing groups like NRDC to soften our side of debate or what we 
really want to focus on. 

Now why was only NRDC people given the slot to oppose nuclear power here 
in the SF bay area? The ultra savy media establishment here has never, 
ever allowed a real antinuclear power spokesperson ever go live here. Why?

Would it be, that in the area of the country that first started opposing 
nuclear power in 1958, that we now have generations of scandals to chose 
from, almost all of which magically don't exist to most americans, or 
local residents, thanks to the strategic tactics of the media?

California's nuclear industry, the home of General Electric's nuclear 
division wanted to build over 60 reactors and activists stopped all but 
Diablo Canyon, which was only saved when Reagan gave PG&E $2.5 billion 
in EPA funds to rebuild it in 1981 after discovering they had built its 
seismic supports backwards. No, activists didn't stop Diablo in what was 
a 25 year battle.  But we scared the shit out of them!

r




Mike Ewall wrote:

>NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet at energyjustice.net)
>
>
>In response to Lou and others who think I'm being too harsh on NRDC, 
>because they were quoted opposing nukes in the Living on Earth 
>program and because they also do some good anti-nuke work, here's 
>some history...
>
>* NRDC cut a deal with the Carter administration not to oppose his 
>light water reactor program in exchange for political appointments.
>* NRDC was a lead supporter of NAFTA, bragging that they "broke the 
>back of the environmental opposition to NAFTA" for Clinton.  NAFTA 
>paved the way for GATT and other trade agreements which benefit the 
>nuclear industry, among it's many other problems.
>* NRDC has supported the multi-billion dollar bailouts of the nuclear 
>utility industry's stranded costs.
>* NRDC has advocating sending nuclear waste to Russia.
>* NRDC has held onto close ties to Enron, even after the scandal, 
>testifying in favor of their acquisition of Portland General 
>Electric, Oregon's largest public utility
>* NRDC supported federal research funding for new nuclear reactors.
>* NRDC is currently involved with a deal with the TXU merger, to 
>greenwash the building of (supposedly fewer) new coal power plants as 
>a major environmental victory
>* NRDC signed on in support of the COMPETE Coalition, a new industry 
>coalition promoting electric utility deregulation, which is the 
>driver for running nukes harder and making their operation riskier.
>* NRDC also recently played a leading role in the pro-nuke, pro-coal 
>corporate coalition on global warming (US-CAP)
>* NRDC was sitting at the table with TXU folks when nuclear options 
>were "on the table" according to the recent interview, which stated 
>the following: "But TXU's plan for more nukes was the elephant in the 
>room.... Nuclear power has always been on the table."
>
>So yes... NRDC does some good work against coal and nukes.  They also 
>do some very shady, compromised stuff on these issues.
>
>Mike Ewall
>Energy Justice Network
>215-743-4884
>catalyst at actionpa.org
>http://www.energyjustice.net
>
>
>
>At 12:35 PM 4/20/2007, Louis Zeller wrote:
>  
>
>>Environmental Defense spokeman Marson certainly has stepped in it 
>>saying nuclear power should be considered as a solution to climate 
>>change.  He, of course, is wrong.  However, the statement of Geoff 
>>Fettus of NRDC is explicitly opposed to nuclear.  Here's what Living 
>>on Earth reported:
>>
>>LOE: But Geoff Fettus of the NRDC isn't buying it. And, he says just 
>>because his group endorsed the TXU
>>buyout, doesn't mean it's giving the company a pass on nuclear power.
>>
>>FETTUS: There are cheaper, cleaner and faster ways to go about
>>reducing global warming pollution rather than provide significant
>>subsidies to a mature industry like nuclear power.
>>
>>I don't think it's fair to tar NRDC with the pro-nuke brush. NRDC is 
>>squarely behind efforts to stop nuclear pollution in many places; 
>>e.g. Savannah River, SC.
>>
>>Lou Zeller
>>    
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
>Change your settings or access the archives at:
>http://mail.energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
>
>
>  
>