Is Nuclear Energy Enough Incentive To Get On Board With Cap And Trade?
For years now conservatives have been making the case for nuclear energy in the face of opposition from environmentalists and other liberal activists. Technological innovations over the years have made nuclear energy safe, clean and cheap but despite that there’s been little movement in clearing the regulatory path to allow nuclear power development in the United States. Mostly, again, due to opposition from liberal groups.
But now, desperate to get cap and trade passed, liberals are offering nuclear power to Republicans as an olive branch. The question is: Is nuclear power worth cap and trade?
WASHINGTON (AP) — Nuclear energy, once vilified by environmentalists and facing a dim future, has become a pivotal bargaining chip as Senate Democrats hunt for Republican votes to pass climate legislation. …
Democratic sponsors of the climate bill are far short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a GOP filibuster. They hope a compromises could bring along uncommitted centrist Democrats and some Republicans. Along with talk of opening more waters to oil drilling, support for nuclear energy is seen as the carrot that might attract Republicans.
The prospects of such a compromise appeared to brighten recently when Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., the climate bill’s principle sponsor, and Graham collaborated on a new bid to build consensus.
“Nuclear power needs to be a core component of electricity generation if we are to meet our emission reduction targets,” they wrote. They called for ending “cumbersome regulations that have stalled” new reactors, measures to help utilities secure financing and expanded research to resolve the waste problem.
They outlined a framework that other Republicans might follow. GOP senators such as McCain, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Conn., have shown an interest in climate legislation — if nuclear energy plays a greater part.
I would love to see nuclear power allowed to compete in the energy market with other energy suppliers. I’m not interested in seeing nuclear power backed and subsidized by the government any more than I am interested in seeing the government back and subsidize energy sources like wind power and solar power (I think the various power sources should be viable without subsidy), but I think it would be enough for nuclear for the government to simply get out of the way.
And if that is indeed what Democrats are promising, is it enough for cap and trade?
The answer, overwhelmingly I think, is no. Cap and trade will amount to more than just a pervasive tax on everything in our economy (given that everything we do produces carbon) but also a government control on all national production. If we cannot produce anything without first emitting carbon, and if producers must essentially buy permission from the government or through some government-backed exchange to emit carbon, then the government controls production.
And what kind of government controls production? Certainly not the sort of government our founders intended to establish.
