In the presidential debate, John McCain promoted his nuclear obsession as a job-creation boon, claiming, “We can create 700,000 jobs by building 45 nuclear plants by 2030.” But McCain’s “nuke here, nuke now” would in fact send money to foreign nations and to giant corporations. The price tag for his nuclear boondoggle is estimated at “$315 billion, with taxpayers bearing much of the financial risk.” That ties our energy future to a toxic and deadly fuel that is mined in nations like Kazakhstan, Russia, Niger, and Uzbekistan.

The Center for American Progress has outlined a rational green recovery plan that invests $100 billion in renewable energy and energy efficiency, and would create 2 million new jobs in two years by spending on the American people. Three Ten times the jobs at one-third the cost, ten times as fast. That’s what real job creation would — and should look like.

UPDATE: The New York Times contacted Patrick Moore, head of Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, a nuclear industry front group, who said McCain’s promises were wildly off:

[E]ach reactor project would generate between 3,000 and 4,000 jobs during the construction phase and up to 800 permanent jobs once in operation. Asked to provide a ballpark figure on employment if all 45 reactors were to be built, he responded “225,000 good union jobs that you can support a family on.”

UPDATE II: Gristmill’s David Roberts has the breakdown of John McCain’s 700,000-job claim.

Sure looks that way. I wasn’t entirely thrilled with everything in the Senate bill. But given how dreadful congressional Democrats and environmentalists are at messaging, it is surely the best anybody could hope for.

The House Dems threw out elements of the tax package that were crucial to get the support of Senate Republicans and the White — and that apparently is going to kill the tax credits for the year. If so, shame on them.

Here is the Greenwire story:

Read more

There is no final deal on the financial bailout, which been a precondition for the GOP nominee showing up in Mississippi tonight. But in the real world of presidential politics, he never had a choice.

I have been blogging elsewhere on how one applies rhetoric to winning one-on-one debates. Next week I will convert some of those posts into a discussion of how rhetoric can apply to winning one-on-one debates on climate and energy. But for those who are interested, here are my pre-debate thoughts:

• Why Smart Talkers Lose Debates
• A Can’t-Lose Debate Strategy

I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a question on energy tonight. But there simply may not be time, given that this is a foreign-policy debate with a bunch of economy and bail out questions thrown in. Still, I will try to blog tonight on anything energy or climate related that comes up.

The Wonk Room has previously explained how the push for oil shale is like drilling for a trillion tons of tater tots. At the Global Clinton Initiative on Wednesday, Gore offered a stark criticism of the House of Representatives vote to eliminate the moratorium on oil shale development in the continuing resolution for the 2009 budget:

Now, one final point. Today, today, the US Congress is dealing with energy. They are without debate and without a single hearing preparing to lift the moratorium on the development of oil shale, which would vastly multiply the amount of CO2 from every gallon of gasoline.

This is utter insanity.

And it demonstrates the wealth and power of the entrenched carbon lobby to twist policy and to put out illusory impressions about this, is overwhelming free debate. So, we need to stop this. You know, each year, we have a great discussion here, and there’s progress made. But it’s not enough. It’s not enough.

We, the human species, have to solve this crisis.

Watch it:

Yesterday, Sen. Reid (D-NV) and Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) unveiled an economic stimulus bill (S. 3604) which would continue the oil shale moratorium, includes $500 million to support weatherization of low-income homes, $7.5 billion for loans to auto companies to manufacture advanced, more energy-efficient vehicles, $2 billion for public transit, $350 million for Amtrak, $300 million for advanced battery research, $300 million to help local governments improve energy efficiency, $750 million for environmental clean up, and $800 million for urban and rural clean water systems.

The Center for American Progress Action Fund supports the passage of this green economic recovery plan, which is coming up for a vote right now.

UPDATE: The bill was filibustered 52-42. Senators Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Evan Bayh (D-IN) joined forty Republicans to vote against the bill. Sens. Biden (D-DE), Graham (R-SC), Kennedy (D-MA), McCain (R-AZ), Obama (D-IL), and Stevens (R-AK) did not vote.

UPDATE II: Eric Kleiman, Bayh spokesman, explains Bayh’s vote against the stimulus bill:

The package included billions of dollars in deficit-financed spending of questionable stimulative value, including $925 million for a U.S. polar icebreaker and $250 million for the next generation NASA spacecraft.

Iceland has long been touted as a hydrogen economy pioneer. So it is quite shocking that electric vehicles — both plug-in hybrids and pure battery electric cars — crowded out hydrogen at a recent Reykjav­k conference.

Read more

[Climate Progress has covered the Pickens Plan many times since Memo to T. Boone Pickens: Your energy plan is half-brilliant, half-dumb. Here Earl Killian makes a strong analytical case that the "half-dumb" part of the plan is in fact a wasteful, wildly impractical -- if not outright absurd -- distraction.]

Thomas Boone Pickens is a billionaire who made his money in oil and corporate takeovers. He began investing in natural gas in 1997, and in wind power in 2007. In 2008, he went public with the Pickens Plan via a website and a well funded advertising campaign. Here we analyze the Pickens Plan, as presented here, which begins by correctly observing:

America is addicted to foreign oil. It’s an addiction that threatens our economy, our environment and our national security.

The Pickens Plan as presented consists of two parts:

1. Take the natural gas that we currently use to generate electricity in the U.S., and use it to fuel transportation instead, and
2. Build wind power to produce the electricity lost in step 1.

The Plan As Presented — CNG vs. Electricity

Read more