Update: After suddenly loosing the support of an influential Republican senator, the administration is temporarily withdrawing the Senate climate bill from consideration. The move by Lindsey Graham (R-SC) appeared to be a protest of Senate Majority Leader Reid's decision to move an immigration bill ahead of the climate legislation on the Senate's agenda. Graham had reached agreement with Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on a bipartisan immigration bill, but objected to the Democrats using a bipartisan bill for political advantage. The Democrats are facing increased pressure from Hispanic voters to pass legislation providing a path to legitimacy for undocumented workers. Democrats are working to smooth Lindsey's ruffled feathers, but the politics are complicated: Senator Henry Reid (D-NV) is facing a tough re-election campaign and needs Hispanic support to retain his seat.
{4.23.10}The Senate will introduce its climate bill on Monday April 26th. In a transparent government, the bill would honestly be titled "the nuclear industry subsidy bill" because that is exactly what it does: subsidize expensive new nuclear power generation as a solution to the climate crisis. The day is significant for another reason. April 26th is the 24th anniversary of the Chernobyl catastrophe. We now know that tens of thousands of people died as a result of the Chernobyl explosions and aftermath. Many more will become ill and die[1] as the effects of long lived nuclear decay (Cesium 137, Strontium 90) takes its toll on the lives of eastern Europeans. Two reports, one commission by European Greens and another commissioned by Greenpeace document the effects of the environmental disaster that effectively halted new nuclear power construction in this country. But that was twenty four years ago. Now, the Senate is proposing to spend $54 billion of taxpayer funds to encourage a moribund industry to expand capacity in the name of achieving an inadequate reduction in carbon emissions of 17% by 2020. Many climate scientists think that is not nearly enough to keep global temperatures from rising 2℃ above pre-industrial times. Other industry friendly proposals to be put forward include prohibiting EPA from regulating CO₂ as a pollutant, expanding offshore domestic oil and gas production in Alaska, and on the east coast[2], and funds for research on clean coal burning.
[1]the basic conclusion of the World Health Organization/IAEA contained in a 2005 report of the "Chernobyl Forum" is that 4,000 to 9,000 people died or will die of exposure to radioactivity. But both reports linked here conclude that the long term effects of radioactive contamination were ignored or minimized by international bodies. More than 50% of the fallout affected 13 European countries outside of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine that were dangerously contaminated by radionuclides. More than half the Cesium 137 emitted was carried in the atmosphere to these countries. The most recent published figures in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine alone indicate that the accident killed an estimated 200,000 additional people between 1990 and 2004.
[2] A Louisiana oil rig explodes, burns and sinks killing all aboard the platform in the Gulf of Mexico. Now that the rig has sunk, it could be spilling as much as 8,000 barrels of crude a day into the Gulf.
[photo, right: the radioactive wreckage after the persistent graphite fires were "liquidated", courtesy Soviet government. A new book on the disaster from the New York Academy of Sciences says that of the 830,000 involved in fire extinguishing, containment and clean up between 112,000 and 125,00 died by 2005. This figure is based upon previously untranslated, published slavic language studies and articles. It contrasts sharply with the initial WHO/IAEA estimate of only 31]