Wednesday, January 7
ADVERTISEMENT
NEWS
Shapattack
you are viewing all posts tagged:

barack obama

The Million Year Bargain

The Environmental Protection Agency Tuesday published standards for protecting health and the environment at the proposed nuclear waste storage site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, where the nation may bury radioactive waste from its fleet of 100+ nuclear power plants, and from Defense Department nuclear weapons sites.

nuclear radioactive symbol

The details -- how many millirem of radiation can safely leak out -- would be meaningless to most people, who don't often think about their daily dose of radiation.

The bottom line on that, according to EPA as quoted by the Las Vegas Sun, is that the standards are in line with international radioactive waste management guidelines. Nevada's senators and other opponents of the Yucca Mountain storage plan vociferously objected to the rules, calling them dangerous and based on flawed science.

For argument's sake, assume that the millirem limit is safe. What still gives skeptics pause about a central waste storage site, and nuclear power in general, is the time scale it must remain secure.

The EPA set a low leak limit for the first 10,000 years, and then set a standard more than six times higher for the next million years (though still less than one-third the average annual dose of radiation that Americans receive from the sun and other sources today).

A million years.

That's how long radioactive waste from nuclear power plants remains dangerous, how long it must be safely stored, how long people must be wary about coming into contact with too many millirem of radiation.

It may well be, however, that global warming can't be solved without making this bargain with future generations. ...



Both Ways on Coal? Where Do Obama and McCain Stand?

smokestack

In a story, fittingly, featured in the Charleston Gazette, in West Virginia's coal country, about people are puzzling over how John McCain and Barack Obama really feel about coal.

They both say they support "clean coal" -- a code word for yet-to-be-developed technology that would either turn coal to gas before burning, or else bury the carbon emissions deep underground after burning. It's a way for politicians to embrace an abundant domestic fuel source that employs blue-collar workers, without embracing the pollution that comes along with it.

About 50 % of U.S. electricity comes from burning coal, and it's a leading source of greenhouse gas emissions, as well as pollution of toxic mercury, acid rain gases, smog and soot. In a word: dirty.

Coal is, along with oil, the central figure in our energy picture. Yet, the candidates focus energy talking about it. ...



The Pollsters Aren't Asking the Right Question

Going into Tuesday's Democratic primaries in North Carolina and Indiana, it looked like Hillary Clinton's (and Republican John McCain's) proposed summer gas tax holiday was going to be a big issue.

After all, the price of gas is rising, and likely to rise further as oil keeps trading at close to $120 a barrel, and as the economy has sagged it has become the top issue in the campaign. The two candidates fighting for the Democratic nomination had a clear difference of opinion: Clinton vigorously for, Obama dismissively against.

But it's not at all clear whether it was on the minds of voters, who opted decisively for Barack Obama in North Carolina, and marginally for Clinton in Indiana. Obama has attacked the gas tax holiday as a bit of political pandering, and apparently every economist worth his oil shale agrees. Obama instead suggested investments in new trains, and alternative fuel development – long-term strategies that score low on the pandering scale, but high in measurements of reality. It won him the endorsement of the Friends of Earth Action, which until then had presumedly been unable to distinguish much difference between the two candidates on environmental issues.

The 18-cent federal tax wouldn't mean much money for American drivers, would hardly budge gas prices and would only encourage more burning of fossil fuels. In short, it would help squander a natural resource that is in increasingly short supply while pumping carbon dioxide into an atmosphere we've already saturated with greenhouse gases. It would starve the federal government of money it uses to repair and rebuild highways and bridges at a time when the nation's infrastructure is aging. It's not the policy we're looking for. ...






ADVERTISEMENT
about this blog
Shapattack covers environmental issues that run below the surface, ignored by major media... read more.
about the authors
Dan Shapley

Dan Shapley

Dan Shapley is the The Daily Green's news editor ... read full bio.

visit the site

Get the news at The Daily Green.
recent posts most popular
archive

The 10 Most Fuel Efficient 2008 Vehicles
10 Tips: Save 20% on Gas Everyday
9 Toxin-Free Baby Bottles
Calculate Your Impact
Search for a location:
Enter your city or zip code to get your local temperature and air quality and find local green food and recycling resources near you.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Hearst Digital Media