R&D isn’t t violates Energy production it’s pre-production

Obama’s cut nuclear loan guarantee funding---proves our link

Download 153.9 Kb.
Size153.9 Kb.
1   ...   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45

Obama’s cut nuclear loan guarantee funding---proves our link

Bendery 12 Jennifer is a writer for the Huffington Post. “Obama's Budget Nixes New Money For Program That Funded Solyndra,” 2/14, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/14/obama-budget-solyndra-program_n_1276605.html

In a quiet shift from the past two years, President Barack Obama's 2013 budget includes no new money for the Department of Energy loan guarantee program, the same program that House Republicans have scrutinized for losing more than $500 million in taxpayer dollars to the now-defunct solar power company, Solyndra. Obama has regularly included huge increases to the program's loan guarantee authority in his budget, though Congress has not approved his proposals. He provided a $36 billion increase for nuclear reactors in his 2011 budget, and again in his 2012 budget. He also included $200 million in credit subsidies for renewable and energy efficiency projects in his 2012 budget. This year, he provided nothing. Meg Reilly, a spokeswoman for the Office of Management and Budget, said in an email that Obama opted not to put new money toward the loan guarantee program this time because the administration is waiting on the results of an evaluation of the Energy Department's loan portfolio. Reilly also said the program still has "a significant amount of remaining resources" from prior years and that the focus will be on putting those funds to use. There's about $10 billion in its reserves. The Energy Department "continues to conduct due diligence and is in active negotiations with a number of additional project sponsors," Reilly said. "It's important to point out here that, as of January 2012, over $24 billion in direct loans and loan guarantees have closed to support a diverse range of over 30 wind, solar, electric vehicles and other clean energy projects projected to fund more than 50,000 jobs." But some environmental groups say Obama's budgetary shift is hugely significant because it means no new money for building nuclear power plants -- and they speculate that, at least in part, they have Solyndra to thank for the shift. "The entire loan program has fallen into some disrepute on Capitol Hill ... because of Solyndra and some of the other renewable programs getting in trouble," said Michael Mariotte, executive director of Nuclear Information and Resource Service, an information hub for organizations concerned with nuclear power. The administration "may have decided to cut their losses" and stop providing new funds to the program altogether.

The plan’s explosive with the public---Fukushima had a chilling effect

CSI 12 Civil Society Institute. “SURVEY: AMERICANS NOT WARMING UP TO NUCLEAR POWER ONE YEAR AFTER FUKUSHIMA,” 3/7, http://www.civilsocietyinstitute.org/media/030712release.cfm

Contrary to Industry Predictions, Reactor Disaster Seen As Having a "Lasting Chill" on Perceptions; It's Not All Fukushima: 3 in 5 Americans Less Supportive Due to Woes of U.S. Nuclear Industry in Last Year. WASHINGTON, D.C.///March 7, 2012///One year after the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear reactors in Japan, Americans continue to want to keep the brakes on more nuclear power in the United States, according to a major new ORC International survey conducted for the nonprofit and nonpartisan Civil Society Institute (CSI).¶ To gauge any shift in public attitudes, the new survey was benchmarked to an earlier poll carried out by ORC International in March 2011 for CSI. Conducted February 23-26 2012, the new survey of 1,032 Americans shows that:¶ • Nearly six in 10 Americans (57 percent) are less supportive of expanding nuclear power in the United States than they were before the Japanese reactor crisis, a nearly identical finding to the 58 percent who responded the same way when asked the same question one year ago. This contrasts sharply with pre-Fukushima surveys by Gallup and other organizations showing a 60 percent support level for nuclear power.¶ • More than three out of four Americans (77 percent) say they are now more supportive than they were a year ago "to using clean renewable energy resources - such as wind and solar - and increased energy efficiency as an alternative to more nuclear power in the United States." This finding edged up from the 2011 survey level of 76 percent.¶ • More than three out of four Americans (77 percent) would support "a shift of federal loan-guarantee support for energy away from nuclear reactors" in favor of wind and solar power. This level of support was up from the 74 percent finding in the 2011 survey.¶ • In response to a new question in the 2012 survey, more than six in 10 Americans (61 percent) said they were less supportive of nuclear power as a result of reports in the U.S. during 2011 and so far in 2012 of nuclear reactors that had to be shut down due such factors as natural disasters, equipment failure and radioactive leaks.¶ • About two thirds (65 percent) of Americans now say they would oppose "the construction of a new nuclear reactor within 50 miles of [their] home." This figure was roughly the same as the 67 percent opposition level in the March 2011 survey.¶ Pam Solo, founder and president, Civil Society Institute, said: "It is clear that Fukushima left an indelible
impression on the thinking of Americans about nuclear power. The U.S. public clearly favors a conservative approach to energy that insists on it being safe in all senses of the word - including the risk to local communities and citizens. These poll findings support the need for a renewed national debate about the energy choices that America makes."¶ Peter Bradford, former member of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, former chair of the New York and Maine utility regulatory commissions, and currently adjunct professor at Vermont Law School on "Nuclear Power and Public Policy, said: "This survey is another piece of bad news for new nuclear construction in the U.S. For an industry completely dependent on political support in order to gain access to the taxpayers' wallets (through loan guarantees and other federal subsidies) and the consumers' wallets (through rate guarantees to cover even canceled plants and cost overruns), public skepticism of this magnitude is a near fatal flaw. The nuclear industry has spent millions on polls telling the public how much the public longs for nuclear power. Such polls never ask real world questions linking new reactors to rate increases or to accident risk. Fukushima has made the links to risk much clearer in the public mind. This poll makes the consequences of that linkage clear."¶ Pollster Graham Hueber, senior researcher, ORC International, said: "I would summarize these findings as follows: We see here a lasting chill in how the public perceives nuclear power. The passage of one year since the Fukushima nuclear reactor crisis in Japan has neither dimmed concerns in the U.S. about nuclear power nor has it made Americans more inclined to support an expanded federal focus on promoting more nuclear reactors in the U.S." Robert Alvarez, senior scholar, Institute for Policy Studies, where he is currently focused on nuclear disarmament and environmental and energy policies, and former senior policy advisor, U.S. Secretary of Energy, where he coordinated the effort to enact nuclear worker compensation legislation, said: "Nuclear power remains expensive, dangerous, and too radioactive for Wall Street. This survey shows why the industry has no future unless the U.S. government props it up and forces the public to bear the risks."¶ OTHER KEY SURVEY FINDINGS¶ • 72 percent of Americans do not "think taxpayers should take on the risk for the construction of new nuclear power reactors in the United States through billions of dollars in new federal loan guarantees for new reactors." This level of opposition was nearly identical to the 73 percent opposition level reported in the March 2011 survey.¶ • Nearly four out of five Americans (78 percent) would favor Congress reviewing a 1957 law indemnifying nuclear power companies from most disaster clean-up costs. Instead, Americans would hold the companies "liable for all damages resulting from a nuclear meltdown or other accident." This figure is up 5 percentage points from the 73 percent support level seen in 2011.¶ • Over half (52 percent) of Americans living within 50 miles of a nuclear reactor do not know "what to do in the event of nuclear reactor emergency," such as "the evacuation route and what other steps to take." (That figure is unchanged from the 2011 survey findings.) The 2012 poll indicates that nearly one in five (18 percent) of Americans say they live within 50 miles of a nuclear power reactor.¶ • Over half (51 percent) of Americans would now support "a moratorium on new nuclear reactor construction in the United States," if "increased energy efficiency and off the shelf renewable technologies such as wind and solar could meet our energy demands for the near term." This support level was little changed from the 53 percent level seen in the March 2011 survey.

The plan’s massively unpopular, especially with the Democratic base and environmentalists

Directory: download -> Northwestern
Northwestern -> 1ac – Heg Advantage
Northwestern -> I emphasize this point because
Northwestern -> 1nc Off-Case *Off
Northwestern -> China da 1NC
Northwestern -> Congressional oversight is necessary for a pragmatic, flexible approach to threats executive discretion results in knee-jerk policy failure
Northwestern -> A. Interpretation and violation the affirmative should defend topical action grounded in the resolution
Northwestern -> Advantage 1 is accountability
Northwestern -> Contention 1: internment the Internment Cases have not been analyzed by modern courts yet
Northwestern -> “Armed Forces” means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard
Northwestern -> Security is a psychological construct—the aff’s scenarios for conflict are products of paranoia that project our violent impulses onto the other

Download 153.9 Kb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45

The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2022
send message

    Main page