Third Way Perspectives

Subscribe via RSS

Drawing the Right Lessons from Fukushima

January 27th, 2012

by Matt Bennett

This piece first appeared in The Huffington Post.

As we approach the March 11th anniversary of the T?hoku earthquake and tsunami in Japan, one focus in this country has been the impact of the disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant and its implications for nuclear energy facilities in the United States. Watching the coverage of the tsunami’s impact on the Fukushima plant was undeniably frightening, and some now have concluded that nuclear energy is just too risky for use in the United States. We believe that the opposite is true: that it is far too risky for the U.S. not to keep nuclear energy as a significant part of our electric power mix.

No one disputes that the damage inflicted on Fukushima by the combined power of an earthquake and a 50-foot tsunami raised legitimate questions about safety and regulatory oversight, not just in Japan, but around the world. Those questions must be addressed, and that process is well underway in the United States. We must make sure that the lessons learned from Fukushima are applied to make other nuclear plants even more secure against extreme events.

But the fact is that nuclear energy has been proven to be safe, and it has posed far less of a threat to public health than coal, the primary energy source for producing electricity throughout the world. In choosing sources for electricity production, at least until renewables like wind and solar reach the scale and reliability of baseload power sources like coal, nuclear and natural gas (which will take decades), the most important question is relative risk. And the relative risk of nuclear energy is very low.

Let’s start with the most extreme measure of risk — fatalities. Here nuclear’s number is pretty easy to remember: zero. That is the death toll from the worst American nuclear energy accident in history, at the Three Mile Island plant in 1979 (where the injury total was also zero), as well as every other radiological incident at American nuclear plants in the entire history of our civilian nuclear energy program. No one has ever been killed by a radiation release from a nuclear plant in an OECD country. So far, no one has died from the nuclear accident at Fukushima. (The only fatal nuclear energy accident in history was at Chernobyl in 1986, but that was a direct result of the shoddy Soviet plant design, bad training, and extreme human error.)

By contrast, last year alone, 21 American coal miners died extracting coal to produce electricity — and that was a good year for the industry. Nearly 50 coal miners died in 2010. And of course, coal’s toll goes well beyond the risk to miners. The negative health effects on all Americans, especially children, from emissions from coal-fired energy plants have been well documented. Pollution from such plants kills an estimated 13,000 Americans every year.

Another element of risk is global warming. Here as well, nuclear energy’s number is the same memorable zero; nuclear emits no greenhouse gases. By contrast, coal is the most greenhouse gas-intensive of the major electricity generation sources in the U.S. We believe it’s vital that we switch away from coal to lower carbon emitting baseload sources, including nuclear.

Finally, we must consider the risk to our economic future. America’s electricity needs are forecast to grow 24 percent by 2035. Electricity demand is growing everywhere, and it is exploding in places like China and India. The U.S. developed the world’s first nuclear energy technology, and we could dominate this newly emerging global market once again, but only if we act now to rebuild our nuclear infrastructure.

And yet today, the U.S. industry is at a crossroads.

Some signs are hopeful. As the Nuclear Regulatory Commission works through its regulatory response to Fukushima, the agency is poised to approve the construction of four new reactors — two each in South Carolina and Georgia. That decision could come as soon as this month.

And while no one talks much about it, President Obama and his Republican challengers generally agree that nuclear energy, which supplies about 20 percent of the electricity used by Americans, should continue to play a major role in the U.S. energy portfolio.

But the “nuclear renaissance,” a large-scale effort to construct dozens of new plants, has slowed in the last few years. Competing power sources, especially natural gas, have dropped in price recently, and government loan guarantees, which are vital for the construction of new plants, have been slow to materialize.

To get the renaissance fully back on track, the nuclear industry must have clear, stable and long-term government policies to tap the full potential of nuclear energy. That means that as we think about nuclear energy on the anniversary of Fukushima, we make sure that we are thinking about risk accurately and fully. If we do, we think a consensus can emerge behind a national energy policy that actively encourages the use of nuclear energy to provide safe, emissions-free electricity that helps drive economic growth.

Obama rallies his troops in SOTU

January 25th, 2012

by Bill Schneider

This piece originally appeared in Politico.

A speech about fairness is bound to be divisive. Mitt Romney figured that out. In a “prebuttal” delivered hours before President Barack Obama’s  spoke on Tuesday night, Romney said, “It is shameful for a President to use the State of the Union to divide our nation.”

There was only one problem. He didn’t. The president did talk about fairness. He even demanded that millionaires pay higher taxes. But he found a way to do it that wasn’t divisive. He used the image of all Americans fighting together as a team.

“Those of us who’ve been sent here to serve can learn from the service of our troops,” the President said to a bitterly divided Congress. “When you put on that uniform, it doesn’t matter if you’re black or white; Asian or Latino; conservative or liberal; rich or poor; gay or straight.”

It’s an image from those old war movies that featured fastidiously balanced fighter squadrons — one Italian-American, one Jew, one Latino, one Southern good ole boy, one fast-talking New Yorker, one Midwestern farm boy and, if the director was especially bold, one African-American Think “Destination Tokyo,” (1943) or “Battleground,” (1949).

The president used the example of the SEAL team raid that killed Osama bin Laden: “The mission only succeeded,” Obama said, “because every member of that unit trusted each other — because you can’t charge up those stairs. into darkness and danger, unless you know that there’s someone behind you, watching your back. . . . We get each other’s backs.”

O.K., we get it. We fight as a team. But what are we fighting for?  Answer: We’re fighting for fairness – “an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share and everyone plays by the same set of rules.”

O.K., but who  are we fighting?  It only works if there’s an enemy. The enemy was clear enough in World War II. The president praised what we now call “the greatest generation” that “triumphed over a depression and fascism.”  Interesting — a domestic enemy and a foreign enemy.

After World War II, the country pulled together to fight the Cold War. The enemy?  Communism. That’s over. We won. Obama mentioned Russia only once in his speech. Not as an enemy. As a new market for American-made goods.

Now we’re supposed to be fighting a war on terror. But this administration doesn’t use that phrase. In his State of the Union speech, the president depicted Islamic radicalism as a diminishing threat: “For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country. Most of Al Qaeda’s top lieutenants have been defeated. The Taliban’s momentum has been broken.”  We’re winning!

So who’s the enemy we’re fighting now?  Answer: Those who don’t play by the rules. The president called out two adversaries who don’t play fair — one foreign and one domestic.

“I will not stand by while our competitors don’t play by the rules,” Obama said. “We’ve brought trade cases against China at nearly twice the rate as the last administration.”  He announced the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit “that will be charged with investigating unfair trade practices in countries like China.”

What constitutes a victory in a fight for fairness?  Jobs!  “Over a thousand Americans,” Obama said, “are working today because we stopped a surge in Chinese tires.”

And the domestic enemy?  “I will not go back to the days when Wall Street was allowed to play by its own set of rules.”  Same weapon: “I am asking my attorney general to create a special unit of federal prosecutors and leading state attorneys-general. . . . This new unit will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans.”  We’re comin’ after you, evil-doers!

The president was addressing a room full of people who were ready to fight. But the enemy they want to fight is each other. It’s an election year, after all.

The president’s message was, let’s fight them, not each other. Our real adversaries are foreign countries and special interests who don’t play by the rules. China and Wall Street.

Is that divisive?  The president waved that charge away. “You can call this class warfare all you want,” Obama said. “But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes?  Most Americans would call that common sense.”

Now who exactly has been accused of taking irresponsible risks with American workers’ jobs, and gaming the tax system to hide profits and pay a lower rate, and shipping jobs to China?  Romney, whose team are you on?

Mr. President, an idea on immigration

January 24th, 2012

by Lanae Erickson

This piece currently appears on CNN.

Count on it. President Obama will devote three sentences to immigration reform in the State of the Union.

Two dozen lawmakers will jump to their feet and applaud. One-third of the audience will give an obligatory clap. The rest will sit silently, stifling a yawn.

Five years ago, comprehensive immigration reform legislation seemed possible and deeply bipartisan. Now it seems as unlikely and distant as President Bush’s mission to Mars. And as for bipartisan? In the last go around, a Republican president led the charge. Today, no serious GOP presidential aspirant has the guts to support reform—evidenced again last night as both front-runners promised in the Florida debate to veto even the initially-Republican authored DREAM Act, and Romney grasped for straws by suggesting “self-deportation.”

Can immigration reform be saved?

To read the rest of the piece, click here.

Newt Gingrich – Mr. Electability?

January 23rd, 2012

by Bill Schneider

This piece first appeared in The Huffington Post.

They say Democrats fall in love and Republicans fall in line. Not in South Carolina, they didn’t.

Newt Gingrich insisted that his victory in the South Carolina primary was an act of defiance of the nation’s elites. In his victory speech, Gingrich called it a victory for those “who feel that the elites in Washington and New York have no understanding, no care, no concern, no reliability, and in fact do not represent them at all.”

Gingrich?  An anti-establishment outsider?  He’s the ultimate Washington insider – a career politician who rose to become Speaker of the House. Later, he grew rich on his Washington connections.

Gingrich was right in one sense. He did defy the Republican Party establishment. Mitt Romney’s their man. Nearly the whole GOP establishment has endorsed Romney, including the governor of South Carolina. On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Gingrich called Romney an “establishment candidate,” while he described himself as a “Reagan populist conservative.”

South Carolina is the Republican base. It has always voted for the establishment candidate – Bob Dole over Pat Buchanan in 1996, George W. Bush over John McCain in 2000. What this year’s South Carolina Republican primary proves is that the GOP’s conservative base is in revolt. They refuse to have Romney pushed down their throats. In South Carolina, the Tea Party found its voice in the presidential campaign.

Gingrich’s big breakthrough was to make himself look electable to South Carolina Republicans. Gingrich?  Electable?  He sure doesn’t look electable to the party establishment.

Nearly half the voters in the South Carolina primary said they wanted a candidate who could beat President Obama. Electability was a bigger factor in South Carolina than in Iowa or New Hampshire. In Iowa and New Hampshire, Republican voters looking for a winner went strongly for Romney. In South Carolina, a majority of them voted for Gingrich.

That was Gingrich’s big breakthrough. In Iowa, only 20% of those looking for someone to beat Obama voted for Gingrich. In New Hampshire, 12%. In South Carolina, a whopping 51%!

What made Gingrich suddenly look electable in South Carolina?  Two things:

First, Gingrich showed fight. That happened in the debates. According to the exit poll, the more the debates mattered, the more you voted for Gingrich. “What they saw in the debate from Newt was that he was willing to take on the media. That gives us a sense that he might be willing to take on the Washington establishment,” Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), the patron saint of the Tea Party movement, said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Primaries are dominated by partisans. Partisans are fans. Fans want a fighter who stands up to his opponent. Gingrich called his South Carolina victory “an opportunity to nominate a genuine conservative who can debate and who can take it to Barack Obama.”  As Howard Dean once said, “Yeeeaaah!”

Romney did not show fight in the debates. When challenged to release his tax returns, he mumbled and fumbled and searched for an excuse, as some in the audience booed. Gingrich didn’t even try to explain his callous behavior toward his former wife. He knew the best defense is a good offense. He used the question as a pretext to launch an attack on the news media, the hereditary enemy of conservatives.

That was the second reason why Gingrich came out looking more electable. Romney suddenly looked vulnerable. Romney’s wealth, his business practices and his evasiveness about them made him look like an easy target for Democrats. The whole argument for Romney’s campaign is electability. Conservatives may not like or trust Romney, but they were told at least he can beat Obama. Now they’re not so sure.

The 2012 Republican race is likely to turn into a marathon. Will that harm the party’s chances?  The 2008 Democratic marathon between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton didn’t seem to do much damage. It made Obama look stronger. He defeated the fearsome Clinton machine.

But there’s one big difference between the Democrats in 2008 and the Republicans in 2012. In ’08, Democrats liked both candidates and would have happily voted for either one. This year, establishment Republicans don’t like or trust Gingrich and the conservative base doesn’t like or trust Romney. It’s a split that may not be so quick to heal.

Take Action: State of the Union Seating Campaign

January 23rd, 2012

by Kristen Kiewiet de Jonge

“The dialogue in Washington isn’t working for anyone—not Congress, not Americans, and not America. We urge the leaders of both houses of Congress to permanently retire partisan seating at the State of the Union.”

– Jon Cowan, President, Third Way

If you support YOUR Congress sitting together at the State of the Union – please contact your members of Congress to let them know where you stand (and they should sit) in 2012.

Last year, with the leadership of Senators Mark Udall and Lisa Murkowski, we helped to end more than a century of tradition and had members of Congress sit together during the President’s State of the Union address. After another year of partisan heartburn, we are renewing and expanding this request:

1) Sit together during the State of the Union and make mixed seating permanent. The spectacle of one side of the room leaping to its feet and the other sitting glumly on its hands is just that – a spectacle. Let’s end this running joke once and for all.

2) Agree to a 24-hour ceasefire. In the 24 hours leading up to the State of the Union, we ask that politicians and their campaigns speak only about the merits of their ideas, not the demerits of the opposing party’s ideas.the other sitting glumly on its hands is just that – a spectacle. Let’s end this running joke once and for all.

3) Spend a weekend together. We ask that Congress set aside one weekend each year to gather together and spend time getting to know each other.

In short, we’re asking for Congress to sit together, not apart. Talk to each other, don’t yell. Know each other, don’t be strangers.

Here are some of the ways that you can help:

1. Tweet

Tweet your members of Congress using the hashtags #SitTogether and #24hrcivility. Call out egregious cases of incivility using the hashtag #24hrcivility.

2. Post

Ask your friends to support the #SitTogether campaign on your Facebook page. Link the letter to Congress and post the video or #SitTogether graphic on your page.

3. Tell the Story

Write a blog post about why civility in Congress matters and send us the link to your work. We’ll compile posts and add your entry on our Storify page. Check out our interactive Sit Together Tumblr and encourage others to play on Facebook and Twitter.

 

Examining Newt’s Victory in South Carolina

January 23rd, 2012

by Bill Schneider

The early exit poll results reveal two crucial factors behind Newt Gingrich’s victory in South Carolina:

                (1) The Base

Gingrich consolidated the far-right base of the Republican Party. In South Carolina, 36% of Republican voters described their views as “very conservative.” Their support for Gingrich (47%) was greater than their support for Santorum (24%) and Romney (19%) combined.

Two thirds of South Carolina voters were evangelical Christians. That’s three times as many evangelicals as in New Hampshire and even more than in Iowa. Gingrich consolidated the evangelical vote in South Carolina. He got 44% of evangelicals, more than Santorum and Romney combined (21% each).

Bottom line?  South Carolina has made Gingrich the principal conservative alternative to Romney.

                (2) Electability

Gingrich?  Electable?  He looks that way to South Carolina Republicans.

Nearly half the voters said they wanted a candidate who could beat Obama (more than in Iowa and New Hampshire). In Iowa and New Hampshire, Republican voters looking for a winner went strongly for Romney. In South Carolina, a majority of them voted for Gingrich.

That was Gingrich’s big breakthrough. In Iowa, only 20% of those looking for someone to beat Obama voted for Gingrich. In New Hampshire, 12%. In South Carolina, a whopping 51%!

What made Gingrich suddenly look like a winner in South Carolina?  Two things: (1) He showed fight. That happened in the debates. The more the debates mattered, the more you voted for Gingrich. (2) Romney suddenly looked vulnerable. Again, the debates. The tax return issue is damaging the perception of Romney as electable.

To repeat: Gingrich?  Electable?  Remember what Barney Frank said the day he announced his retirement: “I do not think I have lived a good enough life to see the Republicans nominate Newt Gingrich.”