Menu Content/Inhalt
Home

Login

RSS Feed

Who's Online

We have 3 members online

Events

ANA DC Lobby Days -- Sat, Mar 13th, 2010, @8:00am- 5:00pm
ANA DC Lobby Days -- Sun, Mar 14th, 2010, @8:00am- 5:00pm
ANA DC Lobby Days -- Mon, Mar 15th, 2010, @8:00am- 5:00pm
ANA DC Lobby Days -- Tue, Mar 16th, 2010, @8:00am- 5:00pm
ANA DC Lobby Days -- Wed, Mar 17th, 2010, @8:00am- 5:00pm
Comedy for a Cause Takes on Nukes -- Sun, Apr 11th, 2010, @4:00pm- 6:00pm
Support the NPT Review Conference in NYC -- Sun, May 2nd, 2010, @8:00am- 5:00pm

Did You Know

 What country is three times the size of Texas and has more than 300 days of blazing sun a year? What country has the world's largest oil reserves resting below miles upon miles of sand? And what country is being given nuclear power, not solar, by President George W. Bush, even when the mere assumption of nuclear possession in its region has been known to provoke pre-emptive air strikes, even wars? If you answered Saudi Arabia to all of these questions, you're right.

Wall Street Journal 10th June 2008

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121305642257659301.html?mod=Letters

 
Degette on Nuke Energy Subsidies

Dear Robin:

Thank you for contacting me regarding issues related to nuclear power in the United States.  I am pleased to learn your views on this issue and I appreciate the opportunity to share my own.

Nuclear energy currently provides 20 percent of America's electricity.  Producing nuclear energy impacts the environment, as does energy from coal, and it presents numerous concerns.  Some may overlook nuclear power's vulnerability to terrorism and accidents, but I believe the threat of an attack or the potential for another event like Three Mile Island cannot be ignored.  Improved security procedures may make accidents less likely, unfortunately even one small adverse event at a nuclear power plant could carry tremendous repercussions.  In addition, the permanence of radioactive waste that these plants produce is a serious and unresolved issue.  Remaining hazardous for thousands of years, such waste would interfere with the lives of our grandchildren, and carry out lasting harm to any area where it is stored.

Due to these concerns, I voted against the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which would have provided hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies to the nuclear industry.  While I understand the role nuclear energy continues to play in our national energy strategy, I believe we should look forward and do more to develop safe, renewable energy.  Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have sponsored legislation that would increase the use of safe, renewable energy in electricity generation, such as wind, solar, and biofuels. That is one reason I voted for H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, which promotes the use of renewable energy sources in order to protect the environment. 

Once again, I thank you for contacting me on this issue.  As a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, I assure you that I will continue keeping your views in mind.  Also, please feel free to visit my website at www.house.gov/degette.  There you can sign up for my e-newsletter to stay up-to-date on current events on Capitol Hill.  I look forward to our continued communication.


Sincerely,

Diana DeGette
Member of Congress

 
Kansas City government votes to continue producing WMD's

City Council OKs Plan for New Nuke Parts Plant

The National Nuclear Security Administration could continue to operate the existing Nuclear Weapons Plant in Kansas City and not lose a single job and not spend half a billion building a new plant when the US is supposed to be committed to eliminating, not building, new nuclear weapons.  But it has blackmailed KC by suggesting they intend to close the current plant and build "somewhere else".

The City Council of Kansas City overwhelmingly approved the development plan for the new Kansas City Plant on Feb. 4. The facility, currently part of the Bannister Federal Complex, will move eight miles south to Botts Road and Mo. Hwy. 150, where it will continue producing non-nuclear parts for nuclear weapons.

 Councilman Ed Ford the only No Vote, explained why he would vote no on the new plant. “We (in Kansas City) are in the business of making components of weapons of mass destruction,” Ford pointed out. “If you think of the 2,500-or-so nuclear weapons (on active status) that we have, and just one of them goes off, the suffering in Haiti will seem insignificant.”

Read more...
 
Pincus Frames Obama Nuke budget

The Washington Post' Walter Pincus is good at ignoring the larger picture and ambiguities in reporting on the NNSA budget.  Nowhere in the below article is a mention of the 1990's "deal" of a similar nature that the Senate would not support the CTBT unless new nuke capabilities were created(modernized)!  Nowhere is mentioned the obligations of the US under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  Nowhere does he include the outrage of other folks in the "Arms Control Community".  Thus his presentation of the situation strengthens the Kyl/neocon narratives about "realities"  both political and strategic. He presentrs them as rational!  Yikes!   Intentionally? 

Obama budget seeks 13.4 percent increase for National Nuclear Security Administration
 
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 3, 2010

President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget blueprint calls for an increase in funding of more than 13 percent for the agency that oversees the U.S. nuclear weapons complex, a greater percentage increase than for any other government agency.
Read more...
 
More...
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Results 1 - 4 of 88