[Peace-discuss] Atomic Obama

[C. G. Estabrook]

	Another Automaton of the Atomic Lobby:
	Barack Obama's Nuclear Ambitions
	By JEFFREY ST. CLAIR
	and JOSHUA FRANK

It is fast becoming one of the most important issues of the 2008 
presidential campaign. Oil prices are expected to rise to even higher 
levels as the United States dependence on foreign crude is becoming 
increasingly unstable. And the perceived threat of global warming is 
making even the most skeptical of politicians nervous. The future of 
planet Earth, they claim, is more perilous than ever. Al Gore has made 
an impact.

But the Gore effect is like a bad hangover: all headache no buzz. The 
purported solution to the imminent warming crisis, nuclear technology, 
is just as hazardous as our current methods of energy procurement. Al 
Gore, who wrote of the potential green virtues of nuclear power in his 
book Earth in the Balance, earned his stripes as a congressman 
protecting the interests of two of the nuclear industry's most 
problematic enterprises, the TVA and the Oak Ridge Labs. And, of course, 
Bill Clinton backed the Entergy Corporation's outrageous plan to soak 
Arkansas ratepayers with the cost overruns on the company's Grand Gulf 
reactor which provided power to electricity consumers in Louisiana.

The Clinton years indeed saw an all-out expansion of nuclear power, not 
only in the US, but all over the globe. First came the deal to begin 
selling nuclear reactors to China, announced during Jiang Zemin's 1997 
visit Washington, even though Zemin brazenly vowed at the time not to 
abide by the so-called "full scope safeguards" spelled out in the 
International Atomic Energy Act. The move was apparently made over the 
objections of Clinton's National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, who 
cited repeated exports by China of "dual use" technologies to Iran, 
Pakistan and Iraq. The CIA also weighed in against the deal, pointing 
out in a report to the President that "China was the single most import 
supplier of equipment and technology for weapons of mass destruction" 
worldwide. In a press conference on the deal, Mike McCurry said these 
nuclear reactors will be "a lot better for the planet than a bunch of 
dirty coal-fired plants" and will be "a great opportunity for American 
vendors" -- that is, Westinghouse.

A day later Clinton signed an agreement to begin selling nuclear 
technology to Brazil and Argentina for the first time since 1978, when 
Jimmy Carter canceled a previous deal after repeated violations of 
safety guidelines and nonproliferation agreements.

In a letter to congress, Clinton vouched for the South American 
countries, saying they had made "a definitive break with earlier 
ambivalent nuclear policies." Deputy National Security Advisor Jim 
Steinberg justified the nuclear pact with Brazil and Argentina as "a 
partnership in developing clean and reliable energy supplies for the 
future." Steinberg noted that both countries had opposed binding limits 
on greenhouse emissions and that new nuclear plants would be one way "to 
take advantage of the fact that today we have technologies available for 
energy use which were not available at the time that the United States 
and other developed countries were going through their periods of 
development."

The atom lobby during the 1990s had a stranglehold on the Clinton 
administration and now they seem to have the same suffocating grip 
around the neck of the brightest star in the Democratic field today: 
Barack Obama.

Barack, for the second quarter in a row, has surpassed the fundraising 
prowess of Hillary Clinton. To be sure small online donations have 
propelled the young senator to the top, but so too have his connections 
to big industry. The Obama campaign, as of late March 2007, has accepted 
$159,800 from executives and employees of Exelon, the nation's largest 
nuclear power plant operator.

The Illinois-based company also helped Obama's 2004 senatorial campaign. 
As Ken Silverstein reported in the November 2006 issue of Harper's, 
"[Exelon] is Obama's fourth largest patron, having donated a total of 
$74,350 to his campaigns. During debate on the 2005 energy bill, Obama 
helped to vote down an amendment that would have killed vast loan 
guarantees for power-plant operators to develop new energy projects the 
public will not only pay millions of dollars in loan costs but will risk 
losing billions of dollars if the companies default."

"Senator Obama has all the necessary leadership skills required to be 
president," says Frank M. Clark, chairman of Exelon's Commonwealth 
Edison utility.

These gracious accolades come from one of Exelon's top executives, 
despite the fact that Obama proposed legislation in 2006 that would 
require nuclear plant operators to report any hazardous leaks. While 
introducing the legislation Obama noted the failure of Exelon to report 
a leak of radioactive tritium into groundwater near one of their 
Illinois plants. But the senator's criticism of nuclear power goes only 
so far.

During a Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works hearing in 2005, 
Obama, who serves on the committee, asserted that since Congress was 
debating the negative impact of CO2 emissions "on the global ecosystem, 
it is reasonable -- and realistic -- for nuclear power to remain on the 
table for consideration." Shortly thereafter, Nuclear Notes, the 
industry's top trade publication, praised the senator. "Back during his 
campaign for the U.S. Senate in 2004, [Obama] said that he rejected both 
liberal and conservative labels in favor of 'common sense solutions.' 
And when it comes to nuclear energy, it seems like the Senator is 
keeping an open mind."

Sadly for the credibility of the atom lobby, some of their more 
eye-grabbing numbers don't check out. For example, as noted in a report 
by the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuke industry claims that the 
world's 447 nuclear plants reduce CO2 emissions by 30 percent. But the 
true villain behind global warming is carbon. Existing nuclear plants 
save only about 5 percent of total CO2 emissions, hardly a bargain given 
the costs and risks associated with nuclear power. Moreover, the nuclear 
lobby likes to compare its record to coal-fired plants, rather than 
renewables such as solar, wind, and geothermal. Even when compared to 
coal, atomic power fails the test if investments are made to increase 
the efficient use of the existing energy supply. One recent study by the 
Rocky Mountain Institute found that "even under the most optimistic cost 
projections for future nuclear electricity, efficiency is found to be 
2.5 to 10 times more cost effective for CO2-abatement. Thus, to the 
extent that investments in nuclear power divert funds away from 
efficiency, the pursuit of a nuclear response to global warming would 
effectively exacerbate the problem."

Clearly Senator Obama recognizes the inherent dangers of nuclear 
technology and knows of the disastrous failures that plagued Chernobyl, 
Mayak and Three Mile Island. Yet, despite his attempts to alert the 
public of future toxic nuclear leaks, Obama still considers atomic power 
a viable alternative to coal-fired plants. The atom lobby must certainly 
be pleased.

Jeffrey St. Clair is the author of Been Brown So Long It Looked Like 
Green to Me: the Politics of Nature and Grand Theft Pentagon. His newest 
book is End Times: the Death of the Fourth Estate, co-written with 
Alexander Cockburn. St. Clair's new book on the environment, Born Under 
a Bad Sky, will be published in December.

Joshua Frank is co-editor of Dissident Voice and author of Left Out! How 
Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush (Common Courage Press, 2005), and 
along with Jeffrey St. Clair, the editor of the forthcoming Red State 
Rebels, to be published by AK Press in March 2008.

They can be reached at: sitka at comcast.net

	###