Barack Obama's Nuclear Ambitions

Another Automaton of the Atomic Lobby

Barack
Obama's Nuclear Ambitions

By JEFFREY ST. CLAIR

and JOSHUA FRANK

It is fast becoming one of the most
important issues of the 2008 presidential campaign. Oil prices
are expected to rise to even higher levels as the United States
dependence on foreign crude is becoming increasingly unstable.
And the perceived threat of global warming is making even the
most skeptical of politicians nervous. The future of planet Earth,
they claim, is more perilous than ever. Al Gore has made an impact.

But the Gore effect is like
a bad hangover: all headache no buzz. The purported solution
to the imminent warming crisis, nuclear technology, is just as
hazardous as our current methods of energy procurement. Al Gore,
who wrote of the potential green virtues of nuclear power in
his book Earth in the Balance, earned his stripes as a
congressman protecting the interests of two of the nuclear industry's
most problematic enterprises, the TVA and the Oak Ridge Labs.
And, of course, Bill Clinton backed the Entergy Corporation's
outrageous plan to soak Arkansas ratepayers with the cost overruns
on the company's Grand Gulf reactor which provided power to electricity
consumers in Louisiana.

The Clinton years indeed saw
an all-out expansion of nuclear power, not only in the US, but
all over the globe. First came the deal to begin selling nuclear
reactors to China, announced during Jiang Zemin's 1997 visit
Washington, even though Zemin brazenly vowed at the time not
to abide by the so-called "full scope safeguards" spelled
out in the International Atomic Energy Act. The move was apparently
made over the objections of Clinton's National Security Advisor
Sandy Berger, who cited repeated exports by China of "dual
use" technologies to Iran, Pakistan and Iraq. The CIA also
weighed in against the deal, pointing out in a report to the
President that "China was the single most import supplier
of equipment and technology for weapons of mass destruction"
worldwide. In a press conference on the deal, Mike McCurry said
these nuclear reactors will be "a lot better for the planet
than a bunch of dirty coal-fired plants" and will be "a
great opportunity for American vendors" -- that is, Westinghouse.

A day later Clinton signed
an agreement to begin selling nuclear technology to Brazil and
Argentina for the first time since 1978, when Jimmy Carter canceled
a previous deal after repeated violations of safety guidelines
and nonproliferation agreements.

In a letter to congress, Clinton
vouched for the South American countries, saying they had made
"a definitive break with earlier ambivalent nuclear policies."
Deputy National Security Advisor Jim Steinberg justified the
nuclear pact with Brazil and Argentina as "a partnership
in developing clean and reliable energy supplies for the future."
Steinberg noted that both countries had opposed binding limits
on greenhouse emissions and that new nuclear plants would be
one way "to take advantage of the fact that today we have
technologies available for energy use which were not available
at the time that the United States and other developed countries
were going through their periods of development."

The atom lobby during the 1990s
had a stranglehold on the Clinton administration and now they
seem to have the same suffocating grip around the neck of the
brightest star in the Democratic field today: Barack Obama.

Barack, for the second quarter
in a row, has surpassed the fundraising prowess of Hillary Clinton.
To be sure small online donations have propelled the young senator
to the top, but so too have his connections to big industry.
The Obama campaign, as of late March 2007, has accepted $159,800
from executives and employees of Exelon, the nation's largest
nuclear power plant operator.

The Illinois-based company
also helped Obama's 2004 senatorial campaign. As Ken Silverstein
reported in the November 2006 issue of Harper's, "[Exelon]
is Obama's fourth largest patron, having donated a total of $74,350
to his campaigns. During debate on the 2005 energy bill, Obama
helped to vote down an amendment that would have killed vast
loan guarantees for power-plant operators to develop new energy
projects the public will not only pay millions of dollars in
loan costs but will risk losing billions of dollars if the companies
default."

"Senator Obama has all
the necessary leadership skills required to be president,'' says
Frank M. Clark, chairman of Exelon's Commonwealth Edison utility.

These gracious accolades come
from one of Exelon's top executives, despite the fact that Obama
proposed legislation in 2006 that would require nuclear plant
operators to report any hazardous leaks. While introducing the
legislation Obama noted the failure of Exelon to report a leak
of radioactive tritium into groundwater near one of their Illinois
plants. But the senator's criticism of nuclear power goes only
so far.

During a Senate Committee on
Environment & Public Works hearing in 2005, Obama, who serves
on the committee, asserted that since Congress was debating the
negative impact of CO2 emissions "on the global ecosystem,
it is reasonable -- and realistic -- for nuclear power to remain
on the table for consideration." Shortly thereafter, Nuclear
Notes, the industry's top trade publication, praised the
senator. "Back during his campaign for the U.S. Senate in
2004, [Obama] said that he rejected both liberal and conservative
labels in favor of 'common sense solutions.' And when it comes
to nuclear energy, it seems like the Senator is keeping an open
mind."

Sadly for the credibility of
the atom lobby, some of their more eye-grabbing numbers don't
check out. For example, as noted in a report by the Nuclear Energy
Institute, the nuke industry claims that the world's 447 nuclear
plants reduce CO2 emissions by 30 percent. But the true villain
behind global warming is carbon. Existing nuclear plants save
only about 5 percent of total CO2 emissions, hardly a bargain
given the costs and risks associated with nuclear power. Moreover,
the nuclear lobby likes to compare its record to coal-fired plants,
rather than renewables such as solar, wind, and geothermal. Even
when compared to coal, atomic power fails the test if investments
are made to increase the efficient use of the existing energy
supply. One recent study by the Rocky Mountain Institute found
that "even under the most optimistic cost projections for
future nuclear electricity, efficiency is found to be 2.5 to
10 times more cost effective for CO2-abatement. Thus, to the
extent that investments in nuclear power divert funds away from
efficiency, the pursuit of a nuclear response to global warming
would effectively exacerbate the problem."

Clearly Senator Obama recognizes
the inherent dangers of nuclear technology and knows of the disastrous
failures that plagued Chernobyl, Mayak and Three Mile Island.
Yet, despite his attempts to alert the public of future toxic
nuclear leaks, Obama still considers atomic power a viable alternative
to coal-fired plants. The atom lobby must certainly be pleased.

Jeffrey St. Clair is the author of Been
Brown So Long It Looked Like Green to Me: the Politics of Nature
and Grand
Theft Pentagon. His newest book is End
Times: the Death of the Fourth Estate, co-written with Alexander
Cockburn. St. Clair's new book on the environment, Born
Under a Bad Sky, will be published in December.

Joshua Frank is co-editor of Dissident Voice and
author of Left
Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush (Common Courage
Press, 2005), and along with Jeffrey St. Clair, the editor of
the forthcoming Red State Rebels, to be published by AK Press
in March 2008.

They can be reached at: sitka@comcast.net