"Sen. Dole (R-NC): Delaying action costly, B-L-W is the ‘right way’ but ignores ‘low-cost’ nukes"
Elizabeth’s Dole’s Senate Statement on the Climate Security Act is here. Some highlights:
I understand this bill is viewed by most as an environmental bill–which it is–but it is also essential to our national security….
Retired General and former Army Chief of Staff Gordon Sullivan said, “People are saying they want to be perfectly convinced about climate science projections, but speaking as a soldier, we never have 100 percent certainty. If you wait until you have 100 percent certainty, something bad is going to happen on the battlefield”….
This is not a perfect bill, and a perfect bill likely does not exist. However, the fundamental approach of this bill–providing a market driven system–is the right way to address climate change.
I am disappointed that this bill fails to consider the need for more nuclear energy in the United States.…
In order to meet all of the projected models for reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, we need a nuclear renaissance in this country, and this bill must be the vehicle by which we advance that renaissance. Nuclear energy, after decades of dormancy, must be given an opportunity to be an affordable and reliable energy choice for consumers. Wind and solar will play a role in our low-carbon energy needs, but as of now they are not reliable, and cannot provide the base load electricity generation that is needed, and that which nuclear energy, can provide. Nuclear is safe, reliable, low-cost energy and those who oppose it will find themselves in the precarious position of being unable to seriously confront climate change.
We have a solution to low-cost electricity generation in nuclear energy, and we also have a solution to high fuel costs–the answer is more domestic exploration here at home….
[She is of course quite mistaken about nuclear being low-cost, and it is hard to reconcile her support for dramatically reducing US fossil fuel consumption and drilling for more oil at home.]
In keeping our economy the envy of the world, it is important to note that not addressing climate change is a costly course of action. The Stern Review, the leading analysis of the economic aspects of climate change conducted by Sir Nicholas Stern, former chief economist at the World Bank, estimates that the monetary cost of inaction is equivalent to losing at least 5 percent, or $2.4 trillion, of global gross domestic product each year.
Indeed, delaying action comes at a cost! Paul Volcker, former Federal Reserve Chairman under President Ronald Reagan stated, “If we don’t take action on climate change, you can be sure that our economies will go down the drain in the next 30 years.”
The National Academy of Sciences stated this year that global warming threatens roads, rail lines, ports, and airports. America’s global competitiveness is also at stake on this issue.
We used to be the leader in wind, solar, nuclear, and other low-carbon energy.