« | »

Obama Lies About Nukes For Cap/Trade

From his partners in duplicity, the Associated Press:

Obama pushes nuclear energy to boost climate bill

By Dina Cappiello And Matthew Daly, Associated Press Writers

January 31, 2010

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is endorsing nuclear energy like never before, trying to win over Republicans and moderate Democrats on climate and energy legislation.

Obama singled out nuclear power in his State of the Union address, and his spending plan for the next budget year is expected to include billions of more dollars in federal guarantees for new nuclear reactors. This emphasis reflects both the political difficulties of passing a climate bill in an election year and a shift from his once cautious embrace of nuclear energy.

He’s now calling for a new generation of nuclear power plants.

During the campaign, Obama said he would support nuclear power with caveats. He was concerned about how to deal with radioactive waste and how much federal money was needed to support construction costs. Those concerns remain; some say they’ve gotten worse.

Radioactive waste can be recycled and re-used, just like it is all over the oh so progressive Europe.

As for the cost, hundreds of ‘breeder’ reactors could have been built for the money squandered in Mr. Obama’s stimulus bill.

And it would have created long term highly skilled jobs – as well as green energy. Indeed, the only green energy that is currently viable.

His administration has pledged to close Yucca Mountain, the planned multibillion-dollar burial ground in the Nevada desert for high-level radioactive waste. Energy Secretary Steven Chu has been criticized for his slow rollout of $18.5 billion in loan guarantees to spur investment in new nuclear power plants, and the administration killed a Bush-era proposal to reprocess nuclear fuel.

So we see just how much Mr. Obama wants to expand nuclear energy.

What has changed is the outlook for climate and energy legislation, a White House priority. The House passed a bill in June that would limit emissions of heat-trapping gases for the first time. But the legislation led to a Republican revolt in the Senate, where the recent election of Republican Scott Brown from Massachusetts has made the measure even more of a long shot.

Obama reaffirmed his commitment to a bill in his State of the Union speech as a way to create more clean-energy jobs, but added that "means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country."

To back that up, he is expected to seek $54 billion in additional loan guarantees for nuclear power in his 2011 budget request to Congress on Monday, according to an administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the request has not been made public.

White House officials say Obama’s actions reflect his long support of nuclear power. But lawmakers from both parties say the speech reflected a new urgency and willingness to reach out to Republicans who have criticized Obama for not talking more about the role nuclear energy can play in slowing global warming…

No, what this reflects is Mr. Obama’s realization that ‘Cap and Trade,’ the largest tax increase in US history, is dead unless Mr. Obama can get some Republican votes.

And he is hoping to fool enough of the more weak minded Republicans (and the fabled Blue Dog Democrats) with this new ploy to put him over the top.

The 104 nuclear reactors in operation in 31 states provide only 20 percent of the nation’s electricity. But they are responsible for 70 percent of the power from pollution-free sources, including wind, solar and hydroelectric dams

Note how the AP says “only 20 percent of the nation’s electricity.” Their darling ‘solar energy’ only provides a fraction of a percent of the nation’s electricity– if that.

By the way, the oh so enlightened Europe Union has (at least) 195 nuclear power plants currently in operation. And they have plans to build many more — even in Sweden.

But of course all of this is completely moot.

Mr. Obama and Democrats will never allow this country to build more nuclear power plants, anymore than they will allow more off-shore drilling.

This was just another one of Mr. Obama’s token sops to the Republicans in his State Of The Union speech.

He is just trying to peel off some of the dimmer Republicans so that he can claim bi-partisan support for a ‘climate change’ bill that will finish the Democrats’ destruction of our economy.

This article was posted by Steve on Sunday, January 31st, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

11 Responses to “Obama Lies About Nukes For Cap/Trade”

  1. Rusty Shackleford says:

    Obama buys climate bill votes with fake support for nuke power

    An environmentally conscious AP reports:

    Obama pushes nuclear energy to boost climate bill

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100131/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_nuclear

    By DINA CAPPIELLO and MATTHEW DALY, Associated Press Writers Dina Cappiello And Matthew Daly, Associated Press Writers – 1 hr 41 mins ago

    WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is endorsing nuclear energy like never before, trying to win over Republicans and moderate Democrats on climate and energy legislation.

    Obama singled out nuclear power in his State of the Union address, and his spending plan for the next budget year is expected to include billions of more dollars in federal guarantees for new nuclear reactors. This emphasis reflects both the political difficulties of passing a climate bill in an election year and a shift from his once cautious embrace of nuclear energy.

    He’s now calling for a new generation of nuclear power plants.

    Using “billions of more dollars in federal guarantees”. Heh, where does that money emanate from? The “Obama stash”? Not to mention how funny it will be to see the greenies come out of the woodwork who adamantly oppose nuke power a la 1960’s/70’s style that killed it in the first place. Doesn’t matter about the real issues (safe/clean/efficient) he will yet again cause a polarizing wave through the nation. But he cares not. It’s his agenda that matters 24/7/365, not what the American people want.

    During the campaign, Obama said he would support nuclear power with caveats. He was concerned about how to deal with radioactive waste and how much federal money was needed to support construction costs. Those concerns remain; some say they’ve gotten worse.

    His administration has pledged to close Yucca Mountain, the planned multibillion-dollar burial ground in the Nevada desert for high-level radioactive waste. Energy Secretary Steven Chu has been criticized for his slow rollout of $18.5 billion in loan guarantees to spur investment in new nuclear power plants, and the administration killed a Bush-era proposal to reprocess nuclear fuel.

    So, the anti-Bush argument remains as well as a contradictory approach to nuke power. His motto appears to be “All of the benefits, none of the pitfalls”. In other words, he is going to sell it to us that way. Again, the greenies will wipe the floor with him this time, and tea partiers may just not have to lift a finger.

    End result? A pissed off American public. Barry, make a note: You’re doing a heckuva job, dude.

    And, as a side note. Does this mean he’s bored with healthcare now? Cuz, it’s no fun anymore since he can’t cram it down our throats?

    And further down:

    “I see an evolving attitude on energy by the president,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander, who has called for 100 plants to be built in the next 20 years. Alexander, R-Tenn., said Obama’s mention of nuclear energy in the address Wednesday night was the most important statement that the president has made on nuclear power.

    “Up until now, the administration has been pursuing a national windmill policy instead of a national energy policy, which is the military equivalent of going to war in sailboats,” he said.

    Well before the speech, three senators cobbling together a Senate energy and climate bill — Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry, Connecticut independent Joe Lieberman and South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham — were pledging to include more in the bill for nuclear energy and offshore drilling to secure the necessary 60 votes to overcome a likely filibuster from opponents.

    So, does this mean if nuke energy is a “go” then the response for crap and tax will be a “go” as well as a result of “negotiations”?

    Honestly, you have to read between the lines and watch this guy ALL THE TIME. He’ll spit in your coffee every single time.

    • JohnMG says:

      ……”Does this mean he’s bored with healthcare now?…….”

      Nope. Just another diversionary tactic. His whole approach to legislation is to put so many balls in the air that it’s not possible to keep the eye on all of them. This allows him to sneak something he really wants through while everyone is distracted.

      It’s all sleight of hand.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      You’re right, John. My guess is that he’ll sign a bill to build more nuke plants and then when he gets his desired legislation shoved through, he’ll pull it back under “executive order” just like Lucy and the football. Then, he’ll whine at republicans who bawk at new bills and tell them, “Hey, I came to the table with nuke power…..why are you guys so stubborn?”.

      Then he has ammo for when he goes public and needs someone to blame.

      Yup, this stuff practically writes itself.

    • JohnMG says:

      We’ve got to remember, Rusty, that he rescinded Bush’s order to allow off-shore oil exploration, so long as the states involved approved, only after it became apparent that some of the states were actually going ahead with the plan. Also, what he can’t achieve through legislation he intends to regulate through different agencies….EPA being only the most visible, at present. Also, his “czars” figure promiinently into this scheme.

      With the US having the greatest oil reserves in the world, it’s pointless not to explore and produce our own carbon-based energy. But this doesn’t fit his plans. Just imagine how the balance of trade would look if imported oil were taken from that equation. Plus, billions of dollars would stay at home fueling (pun intended) a jobs market and all the atendant economic growth.

      Even if co2 emissions was a valid component of climate change, (it’s not), for whom are we saving the planet? Snail darters?

      This moron doesn’t want to save the world, he wants to RULE the world. As if he were smart enough.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Yup, and what it amounts to is a guy who’s not really all that sharp, or patently ignorant, trying to forward an agenda based on that very ignorance. We see these people every day on “America’s Funniest Home Videos”, trying to duct tape the house together, etc. Only, when it comes to national politics and issues, it’s not so funny.

      I truly believe that he does NOT know what’s in the healthcare bill, nor does he care. He may actually believe that it’s “for the good of the people” based, again, on his naivte’ that “everything he does is good”. After all, momma done told him so. And besides, the details and finery work of being a legislator bore him, as he has admitted. (See “Game Change” – Heilemann/Halperin)

      And as it appears to me, he is now scheming up a plan, like Ralph Kramden, on how to slip the energy bill past the watchful eyes of the public, without all that pesky interference from the legislative process. In other words, he wants to back-door the whole thing. But the “energy” bill is no more about energy than the healthcare bill is about healthcare. This much he does seem to be aware of.

      I wonder where he sees himself in his mind’s eye. Is he standing on a high hill, with robes and a crown….lauded as the savior of the American people? Does he actually think he’s as smart as they say he is? Based on his arrogance alone, I should say he does.

  2. proreason says:

    There will never be a nuclear plant built while the boy king is the emperor.

    They all have to go through the regulatory process.

    Despite his deep commitment and heroic efforts, it just won’t be possible to get through the hurdles that tie the colussus down.

    Washington is his enemy. He just can’t get anything done with Congress, the Supreme Court and bureaucrats blocking him at every juncture.

    Now, if he had just a wee bit more power, he could really take the people’s fight to the powers-that-be.

    Stay tuned.

    • JohnMG says:

      ….”There will never be a nuclear plant built while the boy king is the emperor……”

      Very much to the point, Pro. He doesn’t CARE if a new nuclear plant gets built or not…..only that he can be quoted as saying he’s made the proposal, you know, that he favors that tack. Again, he’s lying through his teeth but will never be held accountable for it because he can always deny that was his intent, and neither you nor I can prove otherwise. And as you say, all those pesky regulatory hurdles that keep getting in the way…….well, what can he do, right? He’s devious to a fault, but he sees that trait as a virtue. A guy like that will never be redeemed….nor does he want to be. Everything with him is an illusion as long as he can use it to achieve his end goal. Power is his intoxicant, his aphrodesiac, his end-all, be-all–the ultimate narcotic.

      And Rusty, I just finished that book “Game Change”, and was somewhat disappointed in it. Those two are almost as in love with the Moron as is Chris Matthews. I told Mrs. MG that I’d like to write a letter telling them they could have written a good book if they’d pulled their nose out of his ass long enough to do so. They wasted a lot of ink glossing over what most of us saw at the outset of the campaign. Obama’s ego gets in the way of anything noble he may propound doing. They knew, or at least know now, that he’s a phony, but they just couldn’t bring themselves to say it. (My opinion, anyway)

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Yessir, they are.

      You’re correct on all points. But if some obama-slobs can recognize that he’s a phony…and the stink starts spreading from that latrine that is the oval office, sooner or later, someone’s got to notice. I bought the book strictly for the passages that condemn him. I haven’t gotten to it yet as I’m still reading Palin’s book. There are many in the stack and I get to them slowly. Looks like all the passages I really want to read are already well-documented. I happened to find the one I referenced whilst thumbing through it casually. I kind of figured the majority of it was an homage to his holiness. I bought it anyway since it was cheap on Amazon.com.

  3. proreason says:

    “He is just trying to peel off some of the dimmer Republicans so that he can claim bi-partisan support for a ‘climate change’ bill that will finish the Democrats’ destruction of our economy.”

    And the dimmer Republicans gladly acted as his toady’s Thursday as they remained mute while he lied for the 75% of the air time he was granted in the so-called “discussion” with the opposition.

    Why they didn’t jump up as soon as he uttered each of the dozens of lies he spewed out is beyond me.

    Nothing makes a lie stick like saying it in the presence of people who know the truth.

    Since most of the country doesn’t have time to pay close enough attention, when he spews his garbage in the presence of Republicans without being challenged, it is the most powerful propaganda of all.

  4. Rusty Shackleford says:

    There was something over on AT about the windmills in the upper midwest freezing up. The hydraulic fluid they use couldn’t withstand the extreme cold. Dang, there goes the grid.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »