Another headline we would not be seeing if President Al Gore had served his 8 years in office.

[BrklynLiberal]

This would all have been far behind us. No nuclear plants have been built in the US in thirty years...


http://www.bellona.org/articles/articles_2010/obama_nuke_budget

Obama budget proposes federal funding infusion into US nuclear power

The increase in cash and loan guarantees for the nuclear industry were seen largely by analysts as a tactic to get more opponents of the languishing climate bill on board so real legislation can finally be passed by Congress. But the new policy represents a major shift in President Obama's attitude to nuclear power. His stimulus package, which passed Congress shortly after Obama had taken office, provided lush support for renewable energy and provided scant resources and loan subsidies for new nuclear power.

A year later, however, the proposal of building more nuclear power plants was greeting by rousing applause from the Republican side of the aisle during Obama’s State of the Union address at the end of last month.

It is thought by many observers that Obama’s treasured climate bill, which has been foundering in the Senate since autumn, faces little to no chance of being passed this year unless large concessions on renewable energies are made, and Republicans – who no longer face the Democratic supermajority – are not thrown a substantial bone.

<snip>

[ashling]

1. "if President Al Gore had served his 8 years in office"?

How exactly did you come to the conclusion that Al Gore was entitled to 8 years in office.?

Even using the arguement that AG was elected in 2000, I believe that was for a 4 year term.

[NNadir]

2. Do you know who negotiated the 1998 treaty to dismantle Soviet nuclear weapons and put them

in US reactors?

Guess?

Did you ever read Al Gore's speech at Chernobyl? He made one.

Unless you are Al Gore - and I don't think he lived at any time in Brooklyn - you are a little presumptious.

In fact, without making the same speech Obama made, Al Gore would have failed to address climate change.

I don't speak for Al Gore, but if he opposed or opposes the world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas free primary energy, his concern for climate change cannot be taken seriously.

[sandnsea]

3. Quote: "I'm not anti-nuclear"

" France is unique. It's a special case. We have a lot of nuclear plants in the U.S., and … I'm not anti-nuclear...

"..Yes, I myself, I don't think of that as a bar to nuclear power, because there are a lot of things that are potential targets, and we need to equip ourselves … to protect them. It's one of the problems, for sure, the nuclear waste storage issue is one of the problems. But I think the bigger problems are the cost, the long time for construction, and also the problem that if other countries make a massive commitment to it, we make the problem of nuclear weapons proliferation worse."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/17/eveningnews/main4270123.shtml