On the campaign trail, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has claimed, “I oppose subsidies. Not just ethanol subsidies. Subsidies.” However, McCain also says he will not support climate change legislation without a “dramatically increased role for nuclear power.” In an interview today on Gristmill, top McCain economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin attempts to square the circle:
And if there’s a genuine national interest in using nuclear power as an available, feasible, zero-emissions technology, I don’t think he would argue that that’s a special-interest thing. It’s something the nation needs to do as a priority, and if that means a subsidy, then we need to make the agreement we’re going to do that for those reasons. I think that’s an appropriate role for government, in his view.
Holtz-Eakin went on to claim that nuclear subsidies are needed because of “powerful political obstacles” to nuclear power:
He views this as leveling, not subsidizing.
McCain may frequently praise himself for using “straight talk” to oppose all subsidies — but will change his tune for the nuclear industry, perhaps because Arizona is home to the nation’s largest nuclear power plant.
But home-state pride can’t fully explain McCain’s obsession with a dangerous and permanently toxic energy source. Arizona’s deserts offer the highest solar power potential of any state in the country. Yet McCain thinks the nascent industry “is doing fine” — and he’s backed up this talk by repeatedly killing incentives for solar power.
You must be logged in to post a comment.


The nuclear power industry depends on government subsidies for building nuclear power plants because they cannot find private investors who are willing to shoulder the huge liability risks and the very long payback times to fund nuclear power plant construction. I say, if normal investors are not willing to shoulder such risks, why ask America’s taxpayers to?
April 21st, 2008 at 10:22 pmAn excellent question.
April 22nd, 2008 at 5:24 pm