But besides that I guess that though of course we should try to improve on the institutions we have we still got to risk it with what little we have.

I agree that the consequence of unmitigated climate change is even worse, far worse, than that of a nuclear power plant/storage facility disaster. I also happen to agree that more nuclear power generation would be one of the best solutions to our carbon overuse. I was trying to make the point that we are blocked from implementing that solution because we cannot trust our social institutions with the responsibility for managing it.

Also, I have no idea of the answer but may I ask where would we have been climate-change wise today had the world not risked it with the nuclear power plants it already has? And of course, no one wants a nuclear plant in his backyard, so the question might then be… how much you would anyone be willing to pay to have it someone else’s backyard?

But please let’s move this discussion to a greener valley before they throw us out.

My concern with nuclear power is we cannot trust “engineered” safeguards to back stop disaster.

Consider the AAA-bond ratings that the “best and brightest” of financial engineers using sophisticated computer modeling assured, risk could be spread safely. (As much as 1:157 leverage you say.) Common sense dictates that engineered safeguards to prevent a nuclear power disaster would prove equally as untrustworthy.

I also don’t agree that nuclear power is the only solution to global warming.

Here in British Columbia, where I live, the public will not accept the large hydro-electric dams that were built in the 50s and 60s. So our “radical middle” is promoting wind power and run-of-river power. There are also moratoriums on uranium exploration, and offshore oil and gas exploration. While our right-of-centre government has started to privatize our very-profitable public power utility.

You reside in Maryland. Would your neighbours accept a nuclear power plant in Maryland? Most likely, nuclear power plants only get built in countries where citizens do not get to vote on such matters.

Baselines: Do people have the right to decide if they want a nuclear power plant in the region where you live? Should power be a public utility?

Many of these comments point to the idea that this problem is sooooo… much bigger than simply financial corporations. It is actually about why corporations/businesses of all strips own our Congress. Yes, THEY OWN OUR CONGRESS! Maybe the story you are looking for is an historical novel about the corporation, capitalism, colonialism, materialism, energy, global warming and ??? Maybe it begins 150+ years ago and tells of the vote buying of the 19th century. Maybe it goes back 250 years and tells the story of why corporations became a symbol of freedom and the American way when in fact corporations have enslaved the American people. Maybe it goes all the way back to the formation of the Dutch East India Company in 1607 with great emphasis on the British Economic Empire the fore runner to the American Economic Empire. The point is the American people have become slaves to the corporation and it did not happen overnight. It would be a story about corporations and government and how governments have come to be the pawns of corporations instead of being the voice of the people.

So rather than nuclear reactors in California or Nevada, why not an infrastructure project. A pilot project to — retrofit — every roof top in a small town with solar panel roof tops that feed excess energy back into the grid. If this worked it would create (1) more work in the housing sector, (2) a clean alternative energy source.

Best case scenario. California and Nevada could have so many solar roof panels they would become net exporters of energy and thus improve their “balance sheets”.

You are right but, if you think that the consequences of unmitigated climate change is even worse, you have to risk going nuclear and do all you can to diminish the possibilities of disaster. Now if you do not think climate change is a major problem then go ahead and enjoy the green toys and the green placebos.

There is certainly promotion for nuclear power as “clean energy”. But CBS makes good points.

Furthermore, we are transporting food from all over the world (China, India, Africa, South America) by container ship across oceans and then by railcars, to supply big box grocery stores in North America. In sum, our food is subsidized by cheap energy. We are not paying for the real cost of food.

We need to support our local farmers. Here is the Klipper farm in the Okanagan. The Klippers sells at my local farmer’s market. I admire them tremendously.

Thanks Kcar for telling your story.

1. Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve, for lowering short term interest rates.

2. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

3. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and some other affordable housing programs, which are repeatedly alleged to have forced the banks to make loans to unqualified poor minority home buyers, causing the crisis.

In addition to these “Big Three” scapegoats, there are a range of lesser government scapegoats ranging from Elliot Spitzer’s investigation of AIG to the supposed sponsorship of the rating agencies by government investment and lending regulations.

Of course, Alan Greenspan and the Fed did not force the banks to make or acquire bad loans. Whatever may have gone wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the banks such as Goldman Sachs, JPMorganChase, and Citigroup that are in trouble are “private” banks. Amongst other obvious objections, the Boards of Directors and senior executives of the banks were conspicuously silent about CRA from 2001 to 2007 when the Bush Administration was presumably using CRA to force them to make or acquire bad home loans to poor minority homebuyers.

In fact, there is a long history of conservative, libertarian, and business sources aggressively blaming business failures and economic problems on the government, especially when those problems occur after the adoption of policies billed as “free market” or “pro-business”. The late Milton Friedman made a career out of blaming the government, specifically the Federal Reserve, for the Great Depression. Conservative, libertarian, and business sources aggressively blamed the Savings and Loan fiasco of the 1980’s (which followed the putative deregulation of the Savings and Loans in 1982) on the government. Conservative author and stock picker George Gilder blamed the failure of his high tech investment advice on … Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve as well as obscure regulations that he somehow missed when recommending such winners as Global Crossing. Conservative, libertarian, and business sources aggressively blamed the failure of California’s electricity market deregulation in 2000 on … environmental regulations.

Liberals and progressives often find these arguments utterly absurd, particularly when they follow the apparent failure of policies billed as “deregulation”, and do not counter them well (if they even try). Many conservatives, libertarians, and business people are so enamored of free market and anti-government ideas that they will accept even the most lame excuses wrapped in anti-government rhetoric.

I have written more about this in:

“It’s All About Alan”
http://www.jmcgowan.com/alan.pdf

“The Silence of the Banks”
http://www.jmcgowan.com/silence.pdf

“Mommy! The Government Made Me Do It! (V)”
http://www.jmcgowan.com/Mommy5.pdf

“Mommy! The Government Made Me Do It! (IV)”
http://www.jmcgowan.com/Mommy4.pdf

Sincerely,

John