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 |
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
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.
» Why Quantitative Easing doesn’t make common sense
» Barclays was also bailed out – Diamond doesn’t deserve a bonus
» Ten myths about private rented housing
» Even on the left, morality has its limits
» The NHS bill could be a Waterloo moment for the govt
» Ken Livingstone and gay rights – it just isn’t an issue
» Abu Qatada deportation: what about our principles?
» New study shows a Robinhood tax would boost growth
» In defence of Sky News’ re-Tweeting ban
» Another reason to continue banker bashing
» An attack on the wind industry is an attack on UK jobs
|
14 Comments 17 Comments 26 Comments 42 Comments 21 Comments 13 Comments 49 Comments 11 Comments 78 Comments 5 Comments |
LATEST COMMENTS » Robin Levett posted on An attack on the wind industry is an attack on UK jobs » kernowjim posted on High pay - in football and banking - shouldn't be about morality » ROFLMFAO posted on Fabians change policy on unpaid internships » Cherub posted on High pay - in football and banking - shouldn't be about morality » jojo posted on Venables journo has manslaughter conviction » Sun journos nicked in hack enquiry shocker « andrew henley posted on Venables journo has manslaughter conviction » Daniel Factor posted on High pay - in football and banking - shouldn't be about morality » UKFI Not FFP posted on High pay - in football and banking - shouldn't be about morality » Frances_coppola posted on Why Quantitative Easing doesn't make common sense » Spike1138 posted on Abu Qatada deportation: what about our principles? » Bren Cook posted on New study shows a Robinhood tax would boost growth » Frances_coppola posted on Why Quantitative Easing doesn't make common sense » Tricia McDaid posted on Venables journo has manslaughter conviction » Edward Buxton posted on Venables journo has manslaughter conviction » Rich posted on Venables journo has manslaughter conviction |









