The plot thickens:
White House aides Monday were mum about what would happen to the Office of Energy and Climate Change except to declare that Browner, a former Senate staffer to Al Gore, believed energy issues would remain front and center for the president.
One wonders now if Obama will even mention climate during the State of the Union Address Tuesday night. With jobs and economy taking front and center and Browner’s announcement right before SOTUA, government climate initiatives may be relegated to the back-burner. We’ll have to wait and see.
And it gets stranger, Haunting the Library writes:
Andy Revkin of the New York Times reported that Hansen was not happy with the current Obama administration, as despite offering his services “I never heard back anything from the White House”. This “lame” approach, he said could be seen in past Democrat administrations:
Nowhere is the lame middle-of-the-road go-slow compromise approach clearer than in the case of nuclear power. The [Obama] Administration has been reluctant to admit that the Carter and Clinton/Gore administrations made a huge mistake in pulling the U.S. back from development of advanced nuclear technology.
That is the way to make nuclear power safer (nuclear power already has the best safety record of any major industry in the United States) and resistant to weapons proliferation
New York Times. Dot Earth. NASA’s Hansen Pushes Obama for a Carbon Cost and a Nuclear Push.
Hansen also slammed President Obama for buckling to advocacy groups who impede progress on nuclear power, rather than being a “responsible leader” and authorizing a major new programme of building new nuclear power stations:
Nevertheless, the easiest thing that he could do, and perhaps the best that we can hope for, is for him to give a strong boost to nuclear power.
Unfortunately, he seems to fall prey to Democratic politics on this, rather than being a responsible leader.
New York Times. Dot Earth. NASA’s Hansen Pushes Obama for a Carbon Cost and a Nuclear Push.
Hansen’s comments may well be a dig at blogger Joe Romm (Climate Progress), formerly Acting Assistant Secretary at the Department of Energy for the Clinton administration. Despite frequently proclaiming global warming to be an existential threat to humanity, Romm has hindered the move to low emissions energy by waging a campaign against nuclear power, which – as Hansen notes – has “the best safety record of any major industry”. Why is Romm ignoring the advice of the scientists he himself champions? Is it science, or is it politics?
============================================================
Ouch, that’s gonna leave a mark.
Seems like the climate/green energy movement is self destructing on the eve of the SOTUA.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hansen must’ve went to a different set of meds…
Glad to see both a pro Nuke statement and the Departure of Browner.
Next!…
With the CEO of green energy giant GE as the new czar of jobs, combined with the announcement of ‘changing all regulations to better coordinate the goals of …environmental justice’, the White House doesn’t need Browner. Crony green capitalism still reigns, since GE spent $67 million in lobbying, and received $120 billion in bailout funds. ‘The costs of energy will necessarily skyrocket’ is the president’s promise and nothing changes except the faces of the czars. That promise fits with nuclear over coal and natural gas plants.
Here in the UK we’re not usually given to praising our arch-enemies, the French – but we have grudging admiration for their energy policies which mean that they generate 80% of their electricity from nuclear.
They even sell us some of it, via the under-Channel feeder – well, its got to come from somewhere, since our much-vaunted ‘renewables’ (that’s wind farms to you and me) regularly produce less than 1% of demand… On the coldest night of the winter (7th December 2010) – demand exceeded 60000MW for the first time – coincidental with a nice static anticyclone. Contribution to said demand from wind..? 0.1%….
Perhaps if all our politicians blew at once – hang on, though, that would produce more CO2….
Hum, Hansen or Obama, which do I admire the least……nothing from nothing is nothing. Fire both of them.
kim [January 25, 2011 at 4:06 am]
No kim, it’s not ‘local’ politics…For those of us who follow this stuff, Browner is a very toxic character with an incredibly questionable past.
She was the key figure in opening up the Alamogordo Weapons Lab to espionage, thus the PRC gaining god-knows how much of our nuclear weapon designs and associated energy research.
For the Left, she is the very definition of a ‘good little soldier’; meaning she will do *whatever* is asked of her, neither balking, nor ‘talking’.
No, with power (and oversight) coming into the hands of the House-side Repubs, watch as Dear Leader continues to shed his more toxic assets, while preparing to defend others (you named a few of them).
And no, Browner won’t ‘going away’, there’s too many Soros shell organizations her in ‘disappear’ into until she’s needed again. That woman has too many connections, and dirt, to ever be completely removed (short of an ‘aspirin overdose’…).
And get any idea that Obama will be ‘rethinking’ his policy positions out of your head. Pronouncements without meaningful follow-thru is his M.O. Calling for ‘action’ while allowing his Leftist allies to block, or subvert, said actions is his other M.O.
He’s not going to abandon the ‘Green Movement’ because that would halt the money flow to his allies, that’s the long and the short of it. And, since his ‘friends’ have control of the main-stream info flow, the truth about Green Energy being a ineffective alternative to our current (and future) needs will not see the light of day until it’s too late (cedarhill did a wonderful summation of where *that* path ends up at…).
And as for Hansen, all he does is show that he’s not in the ‘anti-human’ faction of the green movement, nothing more. I still wouldn’t trust him as far as I could toss my Pontiac G5.
1 year ago Joe Romm in full rant and attack against nuclear claimed we had no nuclear come on line for many years. It was dangerous and totally abandoned for great purpose. It was dangerous for workers and residents. I mentioned the newest aircraft carrier commisioned just weeks before Obama’s innaguration and crowning. How could they explain its safety , over and 3,000 sailors living in at most a few hundred feet from a reactor?
The comment was blasted off faster than a nuclear explosion.
Obama, please don’t take the navy back to sailing ships.
Ed Mertin says:
January 25, 2011 at 1:40 am
Quoth John Kerry…
“I’m hoping that reason can take hold here, that we can find a critical mass here in the House and Senate that can recognize truth,” the Massachusetts Democrat said.
“The president will put some proposals on the table tomorrow. Let’s see how the Republicans receive it,” he added. “I will use every power I have — every breath I have — to fight against that partisanship and unreasonableness.”
—
It’s high time to Downsize the Government-Funded Climate Industry…
Hansen is right on the money with this one. Nuclear sub-sized, and ship-sized power plants should be dotting our landscape near larger population centers. Leave hydro and coal power to rural areas. Return whirlygigs to the hands and delighted squeals of children.
Whos Next?
Someone shoot me, I agree with Hansen on something (nuclear power development).
Buddenbrook says:
January 25, 2011 at 4:26 am
Well, personally I don’t mind Obama, ……….
=======================================================
Obviously, because he isn’t leading your country.
50 bucks says he’ll be asking for more spending in tonight’s state of the union address. Infrastructure spending, code word for payola for cronies.
That’s not her at a *Socialist International lectern it is?
/rhetorical Q
* Socialist International -PROGRESSIVE POLITICS for a fairer world
.
Leaving DC before she can get taken to task by the Republicans… Coward.
Want to know of a crazy energy policy? Ontario residents are paying the US to take our energy.
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/926452–ontario-s-power-users-zapped-in-export-deals
We paid the US and Quebec to take our energy on Jan. 1 because temperatures reached 11 degrees C. Meanwhile, our electricity (‘hydro’) rates are skyrocketing while time-of-use smart metering is causing citizens to pay way more for using much less electricity. Thanks to Dalton McGuinty, our teflon premier, we’re suffering for his “Green” vision. We certainly challenge California for energy policy idiocy. Our surplus energy is partly because our high tax and energy rates have driven manufacturing out of the province, partly because our wind turbines keep running even when the energy demand is not there, as the producers of wind energy want their subsidies.
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110124/ontario-pays-to-rid-power-110124/20110124/?hub=TorontoNewHome
Oh, and Obama’s loan guarantees for Nukes are a total farce. His direct decision effectively closed Yucca mountain before it had even begun operations, and after taxpayers paid all that money to create it/defend it. The loss of that new storage facility means that new nuclear is dead in America for the time being. How does a local government answer the environmental protestors when they say all waste has to be stored in their backyard? Without meaningful storage at the national level, nuclear will continue to die off in the U.S.
Smokey says:
January 25, 2011 at 5:32 am
Carol Browner pic
=======================================================
Now there’s a shocker.
I’m bemused that the majority owner of Westinghouse Electric Company is Toshiba.
Go nuke, lots of nuke fuel rocks on the native American lands.
Pay back time.
Hansen found a reasonable thought and somewhere in Georgia a blind hog found an acorn. What are the odds?
If memory serves, Jimmy Carter killed off the Nuclear Energy Industry with an executive order banning the recycling of spent nuclear fuel rods. The “fear” was that these rods in mass could create a runaway reaction and cause a meltdown. Thanks to Three Mile island and a Jane Fonda movie, The China Syndrome, the enviro’s had the wind at their back and scored a decicive victory for their movement. How short sighted.
Perhaps we should have the new Republican Congress look into reversing that Executive order and pass legislation overturning it. From what I understand, Nuclear fuel rods can be repeatedly recycled and eventually you only end up with a small amount of highly radioactive waste.
As I am not a nuclear expert, would someone with more knowledge weigh in and correct me if I am wrong here?
Regards,
Matt
Obama is confused. He is funding Future gen coal and opposes coal. Was Carol the one that got coal mining shut down last week for surface mining permits?
I here I was thinking Obozo didn’t have anymore space under his bus to throw people who no longer were useful to him and his agenda.
Foolish me, I guess he’s compacting his garbage now before throwing it out.
I don’t share Hansen’s fear of co2 but at least he supported energy sources that could make a real difference. Hansen supports LFTR, the “green” nuclear.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/09/finding-an-energy-common-ground-between-%E2%80%9Cwarmers%E2%80%9D-and-%E2%80%9Cskeptics%E2%80%9D/
“Cory says:
January 25, 2011 at 12:33 am
I’m kinda sad to say that I actually agree with Mr Hansen on this one. We should have more nuclear plants. The only problem most of the population has very little understanding of how the plants are built, or the basic concepts of what makes a reactor work.”
That is easy to solve. France had the same problem. So they opened up many nuclear facilities for tours by the public so the public could see with their own two eyes what is going on in them. And they answered all questions honestly and openly. In general, in France, communities fight to get nuclear plants built near them, rather than fight to keep them away. They want the jobs and benefits. The same can happen here. It’s all a matter of how the public is treated.
“Jeremy says:
January 25, 2011 at 7:13 am
Oh, and Obama’s loan guarantees for Nukes are a total farce. His direct decision effectively closed Yucca mountain before it had even begun operations, and after taxpayers paid all that money to create it/defend it. The loss of that new storage facility means that new nuclear is dead in America for the time being. How does a local government answer the environmental protestors when they say all waste has to be stored in their backyard? Without meaningful storage at the national level, nuclear will continue to die off in the U.S.”
Once again, the French have learned this lesson. Nuclear ‘waste’ problems disappear with reprocessing. Nuclear ‘waste’ is not waste at all. The very quality that makes it ‘toxic’ by virtue of ‘radiation’ makes it very valuable. That ‘radiation’ is free energy.
The French re-process all nuclear waste to extract every bit energy in it. As a result, their entire current ‘waste’ product per home for 30 years electrical supply is only about the size of a US silver dollar. And they do not even store that permanently. The entire ‘waste’ for France for the past 30 years is temporarily stored in a single location underneath an area the size of basketball court. And it is temporary storage because they intend to wring every bit of energy out of it. When all the energy is removed, it is no longer radioactive.
The US has a problem with ‘waste’ only because of the short-sightedness of Jimmy Carter. He banned re-processing by executive order. So, industry could not proceed like the French. That executive order was finally scrapped by George W. Bush, I believe.
France has solved a lot of the problems. The US needs only to study their methods.