Nuclear power, off-shore drilling? Is this the Obama you voted for?

Nuclear power, off-shore drilling? Is this the Obama you voted for? Early on in his presidency, Obama looked like the anti-Bush when it comes to green issues. He pushed tougher vehicle emissions standards through and was hitting hard on climate change legislation.

Then reality struck. The health care debate slowed green negotiations and now Obama is tripling federal loan guarantees for nuclear reactors to $54 billion, while opening the door to off-shore drilling and more coal plants.

From the looks of things, his next move will be to buy a big ranch in Texas.

As you might expect, the reaction to Obama’s change of heart has been harsh from the environmental community that thought Bush’s replacement would turn the country toward renewable energies at a much faster pace.

“President Obama needs to remember what Candidate Obama promised: no more taxpayer subsidies for nuclear power,” said Michael Mariotte, executive director of Nuclear Information and Resource Service. “Renewables and energy efficiency provide both greater carbon emissions reductions and more jobs per dollar spent than nuclear. Unlike nuclear power, they are relatively quick to install, and are actually safe and clean.”

Obama sure hasn’t had an easy go of it so far during his presidency. He couldn’t make a global climate treaty happen in Copenhagen. His health care plan has taken all kinds of time, still with no result. He even got snubbed by the Olympic Committee.

And to be fair, Obama isn’t turning a 180 when it comes to nuclear energy. He was pro-nuclear during his campaign, and now he’s just following up with action. Don’t believe me? According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Exelon – one of the largest nuclear energy companies in the nation – has given Obama more than $330,000 over his career. A company like that doesn’t give away money for the fun of it.

This fact still hasn’t stopped some of Obama’s former green supporters to change they’re tune.

Here’s how Bill Snape from the Center for Biological Diversity puts it: “I think we all had higher hopes,” he said Bill Snape. “We expected a lot in the first year, and everyone agrees they didn’t quite live up to it. But there is recognition that he and the whole administration will get another stab at it.”

Comments

Not sure I follow the greenies on this one. Nuclear power for all it's issues is much better alternative than using fossil fuel sources such as coal and gas. The issue is the left over waste which still has as much as 95% power left in it, but there are already companies researching how to squeeze the rest out, so we could have mutlipel type of more efficient nuclear power plants in the future so the waste may not be an issue at all.

We all have diverse views and to me it is better not to built nuclear plants. Every responsible citizen who is worried about global warming or world peace will not encourage nuclear plants. If only every country diverted from nuclear and invested the money on something else the results would have been people's welfare. Being a layman I just want to live peaceful, motives beneficial to the countrymen should be launched instead of developing destructive things.