Dale Klein, Commissioner and former chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) challenged the premise on which President Obama based his move to withdraw the application to permit the geologic repository at Yucca Mountain. At a conference in Bethesda, Maryland yesterday Commissioner Klein emphasized that it was politics, not science, which led to this decision. Klein said,
Frankly, I would have preferred the White House to plainly say that it was implementing a policy change. The president has the right and responsibility to set policy, and clearly, an issue of national importance and complexity such as this needs to be periodically revisited. However, in my opinion, the administration’s stated rationale for changing course does not seem to rest on factual findings and thus does not bolster the credibility of our government to handle this matter competently.”
Those who would distort the science of Yucca Mountain for political purposes should be reminded that it was a year ago today that the president issued his memorandum on scientific integrity, in which he stated that ‘The public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions.’
I honestly cannot say if Yucca Mountain could ever meet the stringent tests that would allow it to be licensed. But I do know that, under the law, that licensing determination — and the technical evaluation of the science — is the NRC’s responsibility.”
In a testimony last week, Energy Secretary Steven Chu asserted, “As these things go on, you are beginning to think, ‘Are you pouring good money after bad?
That may be the case but we’ll never know if the NRC is unable to fill its obligations to determine Yucca’s viability. No scientific or technological justification was given for pulling Yucca off the table as a possible solution. In fact, a 2006 U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works report argues just the opposite: the repository is safe and technologically sound. Secretary Chu’s Blue Ribbon Commission to answer the question of what to do with America’s waste should not exclude Yucca Mountain as a potential solution.
It’s certainly possible Yucca Mountain is not the answer, but that decision should be left to the NRC, not President Obama and the Department of Energy. Research Fellow Jack Spencer points out that “Nothing in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act authorizes the President or the Secretary of Energy to stop this process. Besides, given that a geologic repository will eventually be needed, the application process will provide the NRC, DOE, and the nuclear industry valuable information to inform future decision-making.”
President Obama’s decision on Yucca Mountain could have long-standing implications for the future of nuclear energy in the United States. Commissioner Klein should be applauded for stated what many believe to be true. Those who like to portray themselves as pro-nuclear should follow his lead and demand that the Administration allow the NRC to continue its review of the Yucca application so that the science can be settled once and for all.
Last month, The Washington Post reported that President Barack Obama had asked senior officials for a province-by-province analysis of Afghanistan “to help determine which regions are being managed effectively by local leaders and which require international help.” He supposedly wanted “the clearest possible understanding of what the challenges are to our forces and what is required to meet the challenge.”
But now two weeks later the Associated Press reports that President Obama has rejected all of the options presented by his national security team and is now asking for “revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government.” The White House continues to assert that Obama just needs more time to properly calibrate how to communicate to the Afghan government that it “must improve in a reasonable period of time.” But Obama has been President for ten months now, and his rhetoric during the campaign would tend to suggest that he has been aware for sometime of our struggles in Afghanistan. The truth is the Pentagon has been scrutinizing the failures of our AfPak strategy for over two years and the new administration has benefited from all the work done before it took the White House. The argument that we need more study, or that half measures will do, is wearing pretty thin. All this news makes it look like the president is shopping for a rationale to justify a commitment that is “politically” acceptable in Washington.
In fact, the ongoing public debate about Afghanistan has already cost the U.S. credibility with its NATO allies and is confusing our regional partners who are starting to hedge their bets and plan for a decreased U.S. commitment to the region. As well-known Pakistan expert Ahmed Rashid commented on October 27th in an article in the National Interest, “Every sign of the United States or NATO dithering over strategy only convinces the Pakistani military about keeping its Taliban option open.”
Yes, the recent flawed Afghan election was a setback to international efforts to stabilize Afghanistan, but as Heritage senior research fellow Lisa Curtis notes: “Part of the reason Karzai’s reputation has suffered is the deteriorating security situation — so it stands to reason that providing additional U.S. troops to reverse Taliban momentum, as Gen. Stanley McChrystal has requested, would also increase the credibility of the Afghan regime. While the Obama administration is right to demand cleaner rule from Karzai, it also must be realistic about the security situation and acknowledge that stemming Taliban advances is vital to U.S. national security interests.”
The Obama administration used to believe that defeating the Taliban was a vital national security interest. It was just this past August when President Obama said: “This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is a — this is fundamental to the defense of our people.”
We need a decision from President Obama, and pretty compelling rationale to support it, soon. Obama’s Afghan strategy should provide U.S. military commanders on the ground with the resources they need to fight a successful counterinsurgency campaign against the Taliban. Depriving our commanders of the resources they require is a recipe for failure.
Quick Hits:
- According to Pew, two-thirds of the public is dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country. Fully nine-in-ten say that national economic conditions are only fair or poor, and a plurality continues to oppose the health care reform proposals in Congress.
- After bailing out Chrysler with $12.5 billion in taxpayer money on the promise that Fiat would build electric cars here in America, Fiat has now announced that they are disbanding the project.
- The Roman Catholic bishop of Providence, Rhode Island, Thomas Tobin accused Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) of “false advertising” for describing himself as a Catholic and saying he should not receive Holy Communion because he supports using taxpayer money for abortions.
- According to a complaint filed last Friday, a California union is accusing the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) of threatening workers with deportation and tampering with secret ballots to narrowly win a pivotal election last summer in Fresno, California.
- According to Rasmussen Reports, most adults (53%) say being able to buy whatever kind of TV they want is more important than conserving energy.