June 4, 2008
4:32 PM
CONTACT: Environmental, Science and Public Health Groups
Clean Water Action: Lynn Thorp, 202-395-0820
Environment America: Ben Schreiber, 202-683-1250
Environmental Working Group: Sandra Schubert, 202-667-6982
Greenpeace: Jim Riccio, 202-319-2487
Natural Resources Defense Council: Geoff Fettus, 202-289-2371
Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Michael Mariotte, 301-270-6477
Nuclear Policy Research Institute/Beyond Nuclear: Kevin Kamps, 240-462-3216
Physicians for Social Responsibility: Will Callaway, 202-667-4260, x224
Public Citizen, Tyson Slocum, 202-256-3152
Sierra Club: David Hamilton, 202-547-1141
Union of Concerned Scientists: Aaron Huertas, 202-331-5458

Environment Groups to Senate:
Reject Amendments Promoting More Subsidies for Nuclear Power in Proposed Climate Bill

WASHINGTON, DC - June 4 - Environmental, science and public health groups today commended the Senate for beginning debate on the most comprehensive legislation to date addressing climate change and urged lawmakers to reject adding nuclear power subsidies to the bill.

According to the organizations, the Climate Security Act of 2008 (S. 3036) — sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Ct.) and John Warner (R-Va.) — potentially offers an opportunity to put our nation on the path to avoid the worst consequences of global warming. But they voiced concerns that some senators will attempt to attach amendments to the bill that would give the nuclear power industry billions of dollars in unwarranted taxpayer subsidies at the expense of conservation, efficiency and renewable energy sources that could be deployed much more quickly. (See below for a list of the organizations and contact information.)

The groups pointed out that the nuclear industry already has benefited from more than $100 billion in taxpayer subsidies over the past half century, billions more in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (more than $13 billion), and even more in the Omnibus Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (more than $18 billion in federal loan guarantees). Despite this support, just this week Moody's Investor Service stated that a utility's credit rating could be undermined by building a new nuclear power plant due to the skyrocketing cost of new reactors. The price tag for just one reactor could exceed $7,000 a kilowatt, far more than many preferable low-carbon options.

Studies indicate that the United States can dramatically cut global warming emissions without expanding nuclear power capacity, the groups said. In 2007, for example, researchers from U.S. national laboratories and other institutions found that by ramping up investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy technology available today, the United States could reduce its global warming emissions enough by 2030 so that it would be on the path to reductions of 60 to 80 percent below 2005 levels by mid-century.

The Climate Security Act would create a cap-and-trade regime that would provide a significant market advantage to all low-carbon technologies, including nuclear power. Regardless, the nuclear industry is trying to obtain more taxpayer subsidies, which could lead to less investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies that are cleaner, safer and cheaper, and could be implemented more quickly.

At the same time, nuclear power is beset by serious problems that the industry and federal government have failed to address. These include lax federal oversight of reactor safety, inadequate security against terrorist attacks, no viable site for the long-term storage of nuclear waste, significant environmental threats from the entire fuel cycle, and a federal policy that does not require new reactor designs to be safer or more secure against sabotage and attack than those currently in operation.

Because of concerns about nuclear power's cost, its radioactive waste, its safety, security and proliferation risks, adding subsidies for nuclear power will jeopardize momentum on the bill, the organizations said. They called on senators to oppose any amendments that would provide the nuclear power industry with more taxpayer subsidies.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 – present, website developer and writer. 2015 – present, insurance broker.

    Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration.

    Volunteerism: 2007 – present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.

    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.