Week #4, Item #1, Nearing the Election

Most of the topics that McCain and Obama have discussed regarding their platforms on energy security and independence has remained unchanged since the beginning of this blog. The election is nearing and the only major change that has been heard from the candidates regarding their energy policies has been McCains recent mention about renewable, sustainable and environmentally friendly energy sources, such as solar and wind power.

Until the fourth and last debate McCain had made no mention of solar and wind power. It has become quite apparent that McCain realizes these types of energy are those being discussed by Obama - who happens to be leading in the poles, and therefore McCain has suddenly decided to include them as a part of his energy platform. But, does the fact that McCain quite suddenly mentions solar and wind power as viable energy alternatives now makes him a more credible candidate?

I don't believe that McCain's recent adoption of renewable and sustainable forms of energy is genuine. I thik that the threat posed by Obama has forced McCain to adopt a policy that he feels will make him more electable to the American public. Obama has a history of being an environmentally friendly candidate. McCain, on the other hand, has a history of voting against environmental policy.

There have been numerous skeptics in regard to nuclear energy from many fronts - myself included. However, if nuclear power can be safe from threat of terrorism and maintain, if not improve environmental conditions, there is no reason that we cannot implement nuclear power as a means of sustaining our own energy needs, but also as a means to export surpluss energy to countries in need. If it is safe and secure, then it may be of economic benefit to the United States to utilize more nuclear energy in the future, but this is not to rule out safer alternative forms of energy. So, recognition should go to both candidates who support safe nuclear energy.

Fiona Bowie

Week #3, Item #2, Powell Does Not Endorse McCain

It came as little suprise to me that former Secretary of State Colin Powell has decided to endorse Senator Obama for President. Powell, who is a Republican, divulged his choice for President on NBC's "Meet the Press." His views on the presidential candidates are so strong that he has decided to break away from the Republican Party to support a Democratic candidate.

It may be some people's view that Powell can identify with Obama based on issues such as race and socieo-economic background - Powell made it quite clear that Obama's "ability to inspire" and his inclusive campaign were some of the reasons why he has decided to endorse Obama. It is unlikely however, that he does not see Obama's political platform as one he can stand behind. Despite Powell and Obama's difference in their previous political party affiliations it is evident that Powell feels more political common ground with Obama than McCain.

One might think Powell, who has a strong military background, would be a strong supporter of McCain, but he is not. It just goes to show that military experience is not a fundamental requisite for a good presidential candidate. Military experience aside, one has to think that Powell views Obama's platform as an overall better platform than McCains.

Powell questions McCain's judgement, especially in regard to McCains's choice of running mate Palin. Powell also sees that McCain's campaign has become somewhat negative overall and dislikes McCain and Palin's claims that Obama has close ties to Bill Ayers - a former 1960's radical and accused terrorist. Powell believes that linking Obama with the "washed up terrorist" Ayers only puts the United States in a bad light internationally.

Though Powell did not address McCain and Obama's energy plans directly, this endorsement of Obama from Powell seemed especially important and interesting. Maybe Powell with give us more insight into Obama's energy platform versus McCain's plan at some point in the future.

Fiona Bowie

Why not nuclear power, anyway?

Nuclear power is complicated, dangerous, and definitely not the answer By Steven Cohen Grist Soapbox 08 Aug 2006

The author of the above article has some great points about why not. One of the most practical is that it isn't politically viable in the end, because history has shown that it is one thing to get a citizenry to accept the idea of nuclear energy, but quite another to accept an actual facility in THEIR community.

The author also touches upon the terrorist issue, on which Wednesday's lecture also shed some light. Being a non-state actor, and subsequent "placelessness" is fundamental to the definition of terrorist action, thereby rendering the threat of retaliation as a deterrent completely useless. Since states don't have that comfort zone, we don't really have to worry so much that they will launch an offensive nuclear attack. The real threat of nuclear attack comes from terrorists. This logically leads to the conclusion that in order to prevent nuclear devastation on this planet earth, what we really need to do is keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists.

It does not take a great leap to see that more nuclear power plants create more opportunities for terrorists to hijack a facility and subsequently wreak havoc in some way, as the author points out. As the lecture revealed, the science behind nuclear power and nuclear weaponry is essentially the same, which means that there is a much greater risk than just that from increased hijacking opportunities. If Russia comes into Iran and puts a nuclear power plant, how are we going to really monitor how long the uranium has been in the centrifuges? What if they put another one? And another? And if this is mirrored globally, will it really be possible to know whether every plant is enriching uranium to 20% vs. 80%? How will the fact that the technology will become more readily available improve terrorists' ability to illicitly obtain 20% enriched uranium and cultivate it to 80% enrichment? Will we be somehow more savvy than the Japanese were in the Aum Shrynko nerve gas attacks, and determine who is planning to attack us and how they are preparing, and more savvy than our own country was before 9/11, and determine when they will attack, before the attack takes place?

From the liberal or realist perspective, nuclear energy is a bad idea. Nuclear energy threatens security, and carries with it risks that can't be moderated by diplomacy. Not to mention the more commonly cited potential environmental impact of nuclear waste, and human risks like those that were realized at Chernobyl.

When it comes to this issue, here's what Barack Obama's official line is (copied from http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf ) :

• Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy. Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our noncarbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power is considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. Barack Obama introduced legislation in the U.S. Senate to establish
guidelines for tracking, controlling and accounting for spent fuel at nuclear power plants. To prevent international nuclear material from falling into terrorist hands abroad, Obama worked closely with Sen. Dick Lugar (R‐IN) to strengthen international efforts to identify and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction. As president, Obama will make safeguarding nuclear
material both abroad and in the U.S. a top anti‐terrorism priority. In terms of waste storage, Barack Obama and Joe Biden do not believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable site. They will lead federal efforts to look for safe, long‐term disposal solutions based on objective, scientific analysis. In the meantime, they will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry‐cask storage technology available.

And here is John McCain's official line on this issue (copied from http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm ) :

>John McCain Will Put His Administration On Track To Construct 45 New Nuclear Power Plants By 2030 With The Ultimate Goal Of Eventually Constructing 100 New Plants. Nuclear power is a proven, zero-emission source of energy, and it is time we recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power. Currently, nuclear power produces 20% of our power, but the U.S. has not started construction on a new nuclear power plant in over 30 years. China, India and Russia have goals of building a combined total of over 100 new plants and we should be able to do the same. It is also critical that the U.S. be able to build the components for these plants and reactors within our country so that we are not dependent on foreign suppliers with long wait times to move forward with our nuclear plans.

Barack Obama seems to think about the issue as much more complex than does McCain, who seems to view the issue simply from the realist perspective of "other big players have it, we must have it to compete as a state"... Barack Obama seems to take a critical theory approach, acknowledging the aims of the realist as valid, but considering other factors such as security, environmental factors, safety factors, etc., as well. He seems much more alert to the risks that are associated with nuclear energy than does McCain, and much more prepared to create a safe context for nuclear energy than does McCain.

However, neither one of them addresses the issue of "Not in MY backyard" that the above commentator points to, that will create real barriers to either candidate's immediate or eventual plans to open new nuclear power plants.

-Heather Wegan

Week #3, Item #1 Latest Presidential Debate

Presidential hopeful John McCain seems to have changed his tune regarding his plans for energy security and independence in the latest and last debate before the election. He decided to include solar and wind power in his answer to the energy crisis during the dabate. With McCain's focus on the energy issue being off-shore drilling and nuclear power he has evidently given some additional thought to what viable answers to the energy crisis might be.

McCain must certainly be feeling the pressure now that Obama is ahead in the polls. Therefore, it is no suprise that he has suddenly adopted an energy policy more in line with Obama's. Unfortunately, he still views off shore drilling as an acceptable means to sustain the countries energy needs.

Obama seems to have a better long term energy plan than McCain because Obama's focus is on sustainable, renewable resources. McCain's main interests remain in off-shore drilling and nuclear energy. It is not likely that his plans will truly include other sustainable alternative forms of energy. McCain is only now discussing the alternative forms of energy that Obama is supporting because he hopes it will get him elected.

Fiona Bowie

Week #2, Item #2 Energy Security & "The Dirty Energy Dilemma"

The exerpt from "The Dirty Energy Dilemma" by Benjamin K. Savacool provides us with some excellent reason as to why we need renewable, sustainable and clean energy sources. Savacool also gives us a reasonable explaination as to why the United States has failed to become a world leader in clean energy production.

The security of the United States relies heavily on the nation's vulnerabilities. If we were to use clean, renewable sources of energy that were stable, and not viewed as potential targets for terrorism the nation would be safer than we are now. McCain's plans for energy independence and security include off-shore drilling and nuclear energy. Neither of these are safe or cost effective methods of providing the country with energy.

Savacool makes the point that as a nation we have the technology to employ environmentally friendly, safer and cheaper forms of energy, but that due to organizational conservatism - largely based on our current administration we are unable to implement the changes necessary to modernize ourselves in the world energy market.

In regard to the energy crisis, it is apparent that the current administration has not attempted to change the country's situation. Based on McCain's solutions to the energy crisis it appears unlikely that McCain has any intention of altering the staus quo.

The Dirty Energy Dilemma: What's Blocking Clean Power in the United States

'The American electric utility system is quietly falling apart. Once taken for granted, the industry has become increasingly unstable, fragmented, unreliable, insecure, inefficient, expensive, and harmful to our environment and public health. According to Sovacool, the fix for this ugly array of problems lies not in nuclear power or clean coal, but in renewable energy systems that produce few harmful byproducts, relieve congestion on the transmission grid, require less maintenance, are not subject to price volatility, and enhance the security of the national energy system from natural catastrophe, terrorist attack, and dependence on supply from hostile and unstable regions of the world. Here arises The Dirty Energy Dilemma: If renewable energy systems deliver such impressive benefits, why are they languishing at the margins of the American energy portfolio? And why does the United States lag so far behind Europe, where conversion to renewable energy systems has already taken off in a big way?
Corporate media parrot industry PR that renewable technologies just aren't ready for prime time. But Sovacool marshals extensive field research to show that the only barrier blocking the conversion of a significant proportion of the U.S. energy portfolio to renewables is not technological--the technology is there--but institutional. Public utility commissioners, utility managers, system operators, business owners, and ordinary consumers are hobbled by organizational conservatism, technical incompatibility, legal inertia, weak and inconsistent political incentives, ill-founded prejudices, and apathy. The author argues that significant conversion to technologically proven clean energy systems can happen only if we adopt and implement a whole new set of policies that will target and dismantle the insidious social barriers that are presently blocking decisions that would so obviously benefit society.'

- Summary Description of The Dirty Energy Dilemma: What's Blocking Clean Power in the United States, by Benjamin K. Sovacool (See Author Info below). Link to book at http://www.greenwood.com/catalog/C35540.aspx -- Available 10/30/08

About the Author:

BENJAMIN K. SOVACOOL is Research Fellow in the Energy Governance Program at the Centre on Asia and Globalization in the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore. He is Adjunct Assistant Professor in the Government and International Affairs Program at Virginia Polytechnic Institute. He investigated the social impediments to renewable energy systems for the NSF Electric Power Networks Efficiency and Security Program. He has worked in advisory and research capacities at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research, and the U.S. Department of Energy's Climate Change Technology Program. He is the co-editor with Marilyn A. Brown of Energy and American Society: Thirteen Myths (2007) and a frequent contributor to such journals as Electricity Journal, Energy Policy, Stanford Environmental Law Journal, and Daedalus.
______________________________

______________________________

______________________________

The above book looks to be a well-informed analysis of the troubled state of domestic energy infrastructure and policy, that appears from the description to be written from a combination of the liberal/identity perspectives: Liberal, in that the author seems to feel that success is about cooperation, but also identity, in that he speaks to the values, belief and norms of the actors as what is hindering this cooperation. A domestic level of analysis is employed: The author feels firmly that it is the breakdown of domestic-level institutional relationships that has perpetuated our failing energy policy, and stifled progressive action.

While I don’t know that the author does, one could further argue that an individual level of analysis could be fairly employed in this issue, since the President and his Secretary of Energy are the spokespeople for and promoters of energy policy. The lack of progress we have made in energy policy could be argued to be the product of their failed leadership.

If employing these perspectives and levels of analysis (especially the identity perspective and individual level of analysis), it seems clear that Obama would be the best candidate for effecting change in energy policy, because he is clearly committed to centering energy policy around the promotion of renewable energy sources. McCain, with his energy policy centered around non-renewable oil and questionably safe nuclear energy, simply can't make the claim that he will foster institutional changes towards progress.

--Heather Wegan

Week #2, Item #2 The Rising Cost of Energy

According to the Energy Department, Americans are expected to have to pay at least 15%, or more on average to heat their homes this Winter. Consumers who rely on natural gas will pay approximately 18% more for their heating costs. With the economy in decline, the higher cost of energy is going to cause additional strain on the budgets of lower and middle-class consumers.

Low income families can receive subsidies through the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. For middle class Americans there are no subsidy programs to assist them as energy costs continue to rise. American consumers need some immediate relief from the increasing cost of energy, but it is not realistic for the government to continue to provide funding indefinately to assist only low income consumers who need help. All of America needs a realistic long-term plan to reduce energy costs, increase clean and sustainable energy production to become energy self-sufficient and produce surplus energy to export.

During the latest presidential debate held on Tuesday, October 7, it was again clear to see that McCain's plans concerning the energy crisis involve nuclear power and increasing off-shore drilling of gas and oil. On the other hand, Senator Obama sees energy conservation and alternative energy sources, like wind and solar power as viable short and long-term solutions to the energy crisis.

McCain's plans for drilling are not helpful in the short-term, as it will take almost a decade after drilling begins to produce any oil. In the long-term the gas burned as fuel in American vehicles will damage the environment. And can nuclear energy really ever be "safe"?

Fiona Bowie

Week #1, Item #2 Palin on Energy in the Vice Presidential Debate

I was very interested to watch the Vice Presidential debates that took place on Friday October 3rd so that I could hear what Vice Presidential hopeful Sara Palin had to say about her (and McCain's) stance on American energy security and independence.

There were several points that Palin and Biden differed on regarding energy security and independence, but the fundamental difference between the two became apparent when Palin stated that "we" did not know what caused the global greenhouse affect and climate changes. Biden was firm in his response that if we don't know what is causing the problem, then we have no means of fixing it. He emphasized that the changes we are experiencing globally are man made, and gave some examples to solidify his point.

As Biden stated, some countries like China are building dirty coal burning plants every week. This may be an example of what not to do to cause further damage to the environment, but there are many other countries, the United States included that add to global pollution. We continue to damage to the environment by driving gas powered vehicles and allowing industry to pollute our waters and atmosphere. The fact that we have the ability to use alternate forms of energy, but neglect to do so in many cases makes us as culpable as any other industrialized nation in adding to global warming.

Biden clearly understands what needs to be done to slow the effects of global warming. Palin, who states she does not know what causes global warming cannot provide a solution to the problem because she does not understand the problem.

Palin fails to address alternative forms of energy. She feels that "safe, environmentally-friendly" off-shore drilling is the answer to energy independence. How is off-shore drilling safe for the environment when the product and by-products of what is drilled will continue to damage the environment? Oil will not sustain the country indefinitely because it is a fossil fuel that will eventually run out. Biden also points out that McCain has voted numerous times against funding for alternative energy sources. The Republican's stance is further punctuated by Palin's advocacy for off-shore drilling.

After watching the debate it became evident to me that Palin not only lacks the experience to understand the issues surrounding energy security and independence, but lacks the vision to see to the future. Biden clearly has a greater understanding of what America needs to do to facilitate the right kind of change to promote environmentally friendly and safe energy security and independence in this country.

Fiona Bowie