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.
“The science behind climate change is settled, and human activity is responsible for global warming. That conclusion is not a partisan one.” – Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson.
Forget being partisan or not. That conclusion of settled science isn’t existent. It hasn’t been for a long time, but they are especially bold words in light of the climate scandal involving the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and the flaws uncovered in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. Yesterday, the Senate Minority Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) released a new report that scrutinizes the climate scandal and CRU and its connection with the IPCC and U.S. government policy.
The report delves into the email trail, the IPCC consensus of “unequivocal warming”, the legal and policy issues of Climategate and the EPA’s reliance on the IPCC to make regulatory decisions in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA’s endangerment finding, which took effect January 14, gives the EPA authority under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs). Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, said:
“So this administration has said, “All right. We couldn’t go it legislatively so we’re going to do it on our own. We’re going to do the damage, inflict the economic damage to this country that would have come under cap and trade the same as if we had been able to pass it.” Now, I think that’s interesting. I would like to say this one thing. The chairman made the statement that the Supreme Court’s mandating this stuff. They’re not mandating a thing. The Supreme Court said you have three choices. You can either, well, either find an endangerment finding or do not find it, or you can say that the science is uncertain.
And I think what we’re going to be asking you to do, during the question and answer time is to find that it’s not certain. You can have an endangerment finding. That can change because you didn’t know at the time that you were basing this on the IPCC flawed science, that the science was flawed. You didn’t believe that, but nonetheless that’s where we are today. We’re going to be making the request, Madam Chairman, that we go back, relook at this and also that — that — and the EPA have their I.G. (Inspector General)looking into this just the same as all the other nations are doing at this time all throughout Europe.”
You can find the full report here. What’s most interesting is that it’s the politicians arguing that the science is settled while the climatologists suggest otherwise. Even Phil Jones, former director of the East Anglia’s CRU admitted, “I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.”
The EPA needs to reevaluate the science before it moves forward on a long road of expensive and expansive environmental regulations.