Ah Grist, my steadfast eco-informant, thank you for reminding me that not only is Global Warming still a distant thunder as far as the presidential debates are concerned, but that not a single environmental question sprung up during this most recent Dem debate.
Still Hillary stuck her nose into it, focusing on economic ramifications of sound energy choices, so-called green tech jobs.
“I want to put money into clean-energy jobs, green-collar jobs,” said Clinton, borrowing talking points from environmental-justice leader Van Jones (we’re betting he didn’t mind). “We could put hundreds and hundreds of young people to work right now, putting solar panels in, insulating homes,” she continued. Edwards and Obama echoed those points. No word on how that message resonated with Americans for Balanced Energy Choices, a coal industry lobbying group that sponsored the Monday matchup as well as previous debates.
For South Texas, the promise of a massive investment in green energy and energy efficiency would be a titan of employment, but costly nuke investments, lack of Public Utility definitions on metering home solar systems, and a general timidity have us hobbled yet. Perhaps, as policymakers find their way to A&M’s publication of the South Texas Climate, 1900-2100 (in print finally!), they’ll start seeing the need for a rapid shift toward decentralization of our utilities.
For those of you who agree with me that our energy future cannot ride a nuke revival while also achieving the rapid greening we require on our path to ‘energy independence,’ it’s worth noting that both Obama and Clinton are into the nuke industry for big bills. So what a heartache to turnaround and see the stage shrunken to only three candidates in South Carolina. Shouldn’t of blinked, I guess.
So this is what we’re left with…
Washington Post writer Mathew Mosk blogged from the campaign trail that:
Clinton has also made the topic a key point of attack against rival Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, putting out a radio ad that refers to Obama as being “hip deep in financial ties” to Chicago-based energy giant Exelon Corp., a nuclear plant operator that supports the Yucca waste site.
While Obama called the ad misleading during a campaign stop Thursday, his financial ties to Exelon appear to be inescapable. A cursory search of his campaign finance report shows 158 contributions from people who identify themselves as Exelon employees, totaling more than $150,000.
But Obama’s not the only candidate wading deep in a pool of contributions from the nuclear energy industry.
Clinton has received $68,650 in 34 contributions from NRG Energy, and the company’s chief executive, David Crane, is listed as one of her Hillraisers — meaning he has brought more than $100,000 in contributions into the campaign. The Clintons’ ties to the New Jersey-based power giant run deeper than that, though. The company committed $5 million to the Clinton Global Initiative in 2007, according to the web site of the charity run by former president Bill Clinton. The company’s six-year commitment is $175 million.
The commitments are not donations to the former president’s charity, but promises made by the company to the Global Initiative to spend the money on projects that will “help increase the benefits and reduce the burdens of global interdependence, make a world of more partners and fewer enemies, and give more people the tools they need to build a better future.”
Remember that Excellon and NRG both have South Texas in their crosshairs. And both are deep in dialogue with San Antonio’s city-owned CPS.
All the more reason to turn out and speak out. And don’t forget to check out Scientific American’s revolutionary solar endorsement for a liberated sunpower nation!
See you in Goliad.