Pay homage to the atom and denounce nuclear power.

This woman has a lot of good things to say.

Mark took me to see Ani last night at the Capitol Center in Concord. We were supposed to see her on January 21, but a bout of laryngitis was all it took to cancel the show and a good chunk of her tour. This was the make up show.

I'm not bringing all this up to pine over Ms. Difranco- I'm bringing this up because she had one song in particular that had me choking back a tear or two. She mentioned it was new and I had yet to hear it myself. The basis was the reverence of the most basic element of human life, the atom. The song went through this great poetry about the simplicity of this divine science and how we all depend on it. The latter half of the song touched on nuclear power and nuclear weapons- how both are blasphemous in the name of the holy atom. I nearly wept where I sat.

I know, I know ... it must seem a bit silly for some girl to be brought to tears by an alt-folk rock song about the trees and atoms and people killing each other for no good reason. But, if any of you readers really know me and my passion for the natural world- this isn't that surprising.

So, before this wonderful song, Ani mentioned a bit of her political standing with the current race. Keep in mind, I'm paraphrasing here.

"I don't care which Democrat is in office ... They both say they want to listen to us ... So they might help us get some things done. This is a song that I would sing to both of them in a fireside setting ... They both approve nuclear power as a sufficient form of energy." She went on to say more, but that last part is what really sparked the idea for this blog post.

I'll explain.

I make mention of the web site Grist.Org fairly often. They're a fantastic, Slate-like, electronic news magazine based around environmental news and humor- right up my ally.

So, the fine folks at Grist have this wonderful resource describing where each political candidate stands on global warming and renewable energy. Let's examine the top three, shall we?

Here's a link to the Grist Political Chart which outlines the candidate's positions on the environment, based on their conversations with Grist reporters and the information that can be found on their own web sites.

I've used this information in previous posts, but I really think this is important to stress. John Edwards had the best environmental policy by far, but he's out- so it's time to move on.



Let's start with Senator Obama.

And by starting with Senator Obama, we also have to bring in Senator Clinton.



Why, you ask? Because their positions on the environment are practically identical. This is a good AND a bad thing. At least some apposing viewpoints would point the Democratic party in the right direction. Debate could create an open playing field for environmental policy to develop. Here's what we know about their campaigns that is similar:

1) They both support a cap-and-trade agreement. It's a good start, but it's common sense.

2) They want to raise emissions standards. Clinton wants to get us up to 55 mpg by 2050 (a bit slow on the upkeep if you ask me) and Obama wants to get us to 40 mpg by 2020. This is really nice, guys, but how about investments in clean technologies? Ones that don't depend on a fuel source that comes from oil or ethanol. They're all bad, no matter how "little" of them we use.

3) They want 25% of US energy to come from renewable sources by 2025. Fair enough, but do you think we could shoot higher?

4) They both support "Clean Coal." Did someone forget to tell them that coal isn't clean, whether it's in a liquid form or not? Me'thinks this position is fueled by the coal companies themselves. Candidates, are those other people's hands in your pockets, or are you just happy to see me?

5) They "demand" 60 billion gallons of home grown (that's in the US) biofuels EACH YEAR, by the year 2030. Wh a a a a? And ruin the produce we eat to survive? Ethanol corn isn't as great as everyone thinks it is, but I'll talk about that later.

6) Now, on to nuclear power. When I first glanced at this chart months ago, they were both overwhelmingly in favor of nuclear power. Since then, Clinton and Obama have become "agnostic" and skeptical respectively. I'll be sure to keep you up to date on their positions as time goes on.

So, that's the Democrats. Now, on to the G.O.P.



Senator John McCain has done great things for environmental legislation in the past few years. He's a believer in conservation and preserving our environment for the generations to come, or so he says. If you look at his stand on renewables, well- he has no stand. He claims that the environment is part of his platform, but the only clear points he's made is refusing subsidies for ethanol producers and he's a firm believer that nuclear power will help us gain energy independence.

Did he not see the film The Hills Have Eyes? Granted, that slasher movie is a far cry from the actual effects of nuclear waste (as far as we know) but still, the radiation and mutations that can result from nuclear waste are no solution to global warming.

Why can't we invest more in these beautiful structures?


Gosh, they just take my breath away.

I've been long winded enough for now. I'll be sure to update over the course of this weekend, since I plan on having some down time with a computer in my lap.

Wishing you all the best, guys.
Thanks for reading.
Hug your leafy neighbors.
Love,
Say