John McCain makes a simple case for nuclear energy
It’s probably unfair to expect high-flown rhetoric and complex ideas from a presidential candidate’s speech. They’re designed to get the candidate’s ideas and policies across to potential voters in the most simple and shortest way.
That said, you can take the simplicity too far. Take John McCain criticising Barack Obama’s stance on nuclear power…
You know, the other night in a debate I said his eloquence is admirable but pay attention to his words […] We talked about nuclear power. Well, it has to be safe, environment, blah blah blah. […] Nuclear power is safe. We ought to do it now.
Pay attention to Obama’s words, says McCain. What about McCain’s words? Blah, blah, blah? Is that an ‘admirable eloquence’? Sure, the arguments around nuclear power and safety can be complex. They often need to be simplified so that people who aren’t nuclear scientist can understand then, but blah, blah, blah? Do the workers cleaning up at Hanford, the most radioactive place in America regard nuclear safety as blah, blah, blah, do you think? John McCain is 72, as if we needed reminding, not 7.
And ‘nuclear power is safe’, says McCain. Really? If it’s so safe why is McCain on the record as saying he would not want nuclear waste being transported through his home state of Arizona? Is it safe or is it not, Senator? If it’s as safe as you say, let’s see you call for nuclear waste to be trucked through Arizona. Let’s have a straight answer and make it a little less simple than blah, blah, blah. We’re intelligent enough to understand.
(Originally published at Nuclear Reaction.)
---------------------------
Tweet | Share on Tumblr |
Justin McKeating is an occasional contributor to Liberal Conspiracy. He is a Brighton-based writer and blogger who can also be found at Chicken Yoghurt and Nuclear Reaction.
· Other posts by Justin McKeating
Story Filed Under: Blog ,Environment ,United States
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Reader comments
Indeed.
I suppose, over the past few months, we have gotten used to McCain constructing his policy in step with his goals.
In one breath he’s the most stringent supporter of W (when courting the GOP nomination), and in the next (when trying to capture the hearts of America en masse) he’s emphasising his differences with Bush 43.
—
On the wider issue, I’m unsure about nuclear power. If it really was the super-safe panacea to all our energy needs, why does the nuclear industry spend so much trying to mislead us?
I’m unsure about nuclear power. If it really was the super-safe panacea to all our energy needs, why does the nuclear industry spend so much trying to mislead us?
It seems to me that the nuclear industry and the anti-nuclear industry are more concerned about what furthers their respective agendas than our energy needs.
The problem is that if nothing is done we will lose 30% of today’s electricity generating capacity within 15 years. The difference between the two sides is that the nuclear industry has an answer.
In what sense? If none of the next generation of nuclear plants are going to be up and running before 2023-ish (with a complete replacement of current capacity not being possible before the second half of the 2020s), how is building them going to help the shortfall which will exist “within 15 years”?
Reactions: Twitter, blogs
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
You can read articles through the front page, via Twitter or RSS feed. You can also get them by email and through our Facebook group.
LATEST COMMENT PIECES
» Will support for the Monarchy fall after Queen Elizabeth?
» Why the Wisconsin defeat isn’t an omen for Obama
» Housing for asylum seekers – a multi-million pound privatised nightmare
» How the hell do we get out of this mess?
» Raising awareness of the impact of inequality, and you can help
» Why the European Union is doomed in its current form anyway (says George Soros)
» Spain is also on the verge of a socio-economic catastrophe
» Who still wants a Monarchy? Er, most of us
» Are welfare-to-work schemes getting away with fraud?
» Even the BCC has abandoned Osborne on austerity
» Is Sinn Fein really a party of the left?
12 Comments 63 Comments 49 Comments 30 Comments 214 Comments 280 Comments 29 Comments 42 Comments 148 Comments 20 Comments |
LATEST COMMENTS » Just Visiting posted on London Mosque investigated for terrorism » thoughtful posted on Why the Wisconsin defeat isn't an omen for Obama » steveb posted on Housing for asylum seekers - a multi-million pound privatised nightmare » damon posted on Ed Miliband starts to embrace Englishness » streaky posted on How the hell do we get out of this mess? » ukliberty posted on Tory MPs 'outraged' Labour not worshipping the Queen enough » steveb posted on Will support for the Monarchy fall after Queen Elizabeth? » damon posted on Housing for asylum seekers - a multi-million pound privatised nightmare » Raibert posted on Housing for asylum seekers - a multi-million pound privatised nightmare » Raibert posted on Housing for asylum seekers - a multi-million pound privatised nightmare » ukliberty posted on Will support for the Monarchy fall after Queen Elizabeth? » Raibert posted on Housing for asylum seekers - a multi-million pound privatised nightmare » » Alleged Extremism at Leyton Mosque Highlighted Bartholomew’s Notes on Religion posted on London Mosque investigated for terrorism » Shatterface posted on Will support for the Monarchy fall after Queen Elizabeth? » Dick the Prick posted on Will support for the Monarchy fall after Queen Elizabeth? |