If you were to look out to the horizon of the clean energy field right now, you would see the hazy outlines of nuclear reactors. President Barack Obama announced this week that two new nuclear plants will go up in Georgia, built on the promise that the federal government will guarantee $8.3 billion in loans-nearly the entire estimated cost of the project.
"It is a slap in the face to environmentalists," says Matthew Rothschild at The Progressive. "Though these will be the first nuclear reactors constructed in more than three decades, Obama still labeled them, somehow, as part of the "technologies of tomorrow.""
The president's announcement wasn't the only environmental downer this week. Expectations for the next international climate negotiations, to be held in Mexico at the end of 2010, are already low, and yesterday Yvo de Boer, the United Nations' top climate negotiator, said he would step down this summer and join the private sector. To top it all off, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) now faces sixteen lawsuits that would block its ability to decrease carbon emissions, including one backed by Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R).
A nuclear error
Although the Georgia reactors would be the first new nuclear construction in the country in decades, they mark the beginning of what the Obama administration hopes will be a shift towards nuclear energy. In the 2011 budget, President Obama proposed an expansion of the loan guarantee program that funds projects like these from $18.5 billion to $54.5 billion.
These nuclear projects deserve close scrutiny. At AlterNet, Harvey Wasserman details the problems with the Georgia reactors. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) already rejected the initial designs for the plant. That means the estimated cost could well exceed the projected $8.5 billion, which Wasserman says, was low at the start.
"Over the past several years the estimated price tag for proposed new reactors has jumped from $2-3 billion each, in some cases to more than $12 billion today," he explains.
Risky business
In the past, energy firms like The Southern Company, the Atlanta-based group that is building the plants, could only imagine securing funding for new nuclear projects. These projects have a high risk of failure, and private investors do not dream of touching them.
Inter Press Service's Julio Godoy reviewed several European studies on the feasibility of financing nuclear plants. One study from Citibank concluded that "the risks faced by developers ... are so large and variable that individually they could each bring even the largest utility company to its knees financially," Godoy reports. These risks include uncontrollable construction costs, long delays, and the possibility of low power prices that would not support that plants' operation.
That's one reason that green advocates disapprove of nuclear energy: The money could be better spent elsewhere. "People tend to think that environmentalists have some sort of allergic reaction to nuclear because they're scared of radioactive waste and unsecured nuclear materials," writes Aaron Wiener at The Washington Independent. "But when it comes down to it...It's simply a bad investment to pour billions of taxpayer dollars into a nuclear sinkhole when proven technologies such as wind and solar would provide guaranteed benefits."
Wind to fly on
While the administration lavishes attention on nuclear, other clean energy industries are trying to move forward. In Wisconsin, a Spanish company is opening up a plant to build wind turbine components, which will bring much-needed jobs to the Milwaukee area, as Kari Lydersen reports for Working In These Times.
There's always the threat, however, that gains like this will be rolled back by competition from China. Clean energy jobs can still be sent overseas, Lydersen points out. She argues that the United State could be providing a boost to the solar and wind industry in order to keep jobs here.
"Manufacturing in the United States could be driven both with incentives to the actual producers - like the tax break to Ingeteam [the Spanish company building the Wisconsin plant] and support for renewable energy through renewable energy portfolio (RPS) standards and other incentives," she writes.
China as competition
From a purely environmental perspective, China's headway into green technology is not a problem. Mother Jones' Kevin Drum reminds us that the whole world can benefit from advances in clean energy, wherever they happen. Climate change is, after all, a global crisis. But Drum concedes that fear of Chinese competition does serve some purpose:
"I've lately become more receptive to the idea that, for better or worse, the only way to get Americans to take this stuff seriously is to kick it old school and start hauling out that old time Cold War evangelism," he says. "Frame green tech as a matter of vital economic and national security superiority over the Reds and quit worrying overmuch about whether that's really technically accurate. Just figure that it's close enough, it's language everyone understands, and it'll do a better job of motivating development than a couple hundred more PowerPoints about receding glaciers."
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
ATLANTA, Oct. 14 (UPI) -- Georgia will stop posting signs along highway construction projects funded by economic stimulus funds, because the signs cost too much money, officials said.
The signs were first considered a nice indication that stimulus funds were putting Georgians to work but they became a target for ridicule and criticism once it was determined that they cost $1,200 apiece, The New York Times reported Tuesday.
Twenty innocent men spent almost 170 years in prison in Georgia for crimes they did not commit. What does eight years mean to you? For these twenty innocent Georgians, eight years is the average length of time each spent behind bars for a crime they did not commit. Just as it is true in exonerations nationwide, mistaken eyewitness identification is the leading cause of Georgia's wrongful convictions.
Clearly, mistaken eyewitness identification is problem in Georgia. Eyewitness evidence, much like physical evidence, is highly subject to contamination and must be collected carefully according to scientific protocols. Without clear, written policies and procedures that instruct law enforcement agencies on the best practices for photo and live lineups, mistakes will continue to be made. And lives will continue to be destroyed.
Although there are other election reforms - good and bad - that deserve the spotlight, voter ID remains a hot button issue for legislators and the media, primarily in Southern states. These battles are drawing as much attention for their political divisiveness as for the unfair burden they put on voters.
A lawsuit filed Tuesday ... in Elbert County Superior Court, says hundreds of defendants unable to afford their own lawyers are not being provided representation as required under law. If lawyers for the defendants are not provided, their cases should be dismissed, the suit says.
This situation isn't entirely remedied even if the defendants eventually obtain legal representation.
James E. Coleman Jr., an expert in criminal law at Duke Law School, who is not involved in the suit, said the absence of a defense lawyer for any period of time created an unfair advantage for prosecutors. Defense investigations should begin immediately after a suspect's arrest, Professor Coleman said, so witnesses' memories do not fade and evidence does not disappear.
The good news is that if criminal defendants get out on bail, it's easy to flee the state.
Former Sheriff's Deputy Derrick Yancey is charged with murdering his wife and a Guatemalan day laborer, 20-year-old Marcial Cax Puluc, in DeKalb County, Georgia. Yancey was under house arrest with an ankle monitor awaiting trial, but when he removed the monitor and fled, it took more than 12 hours for the Sheriff's Department to find out that he was on the run.
With this kind of head-start, Mr. Yancey could have driven the 600 miles from Atlanta to Detroit and crossed the Canadian border before anyone knew he was missing.
Like all other public services in Georgia, both the DeKalb County Sheriff's Department and the system to monitor house arrest are seriously underfunded, but the ridiculous inadequacy of all aspects of criminal "justice" in Georgia isn't usually on display with high-profile defendants like Yancey.
It's also worth mentioning that if the Elbert County defendants who have remained unrepresented for as long as eight months somehow managed to escape to a blue state (Go north, boys!), they are already provided with an affirmative defense against charges of flight to avoid prosecution, as well as a basis for resisting extradition, since Elbert County is manifestly unable to offer them a fair trial.
(In Japan, which has much lower crime rates, much less recidivism, there's an emphasis on doing whatever possible to reintegrate convicted criminals into society after incarceration. Depriving ex-cons of the right to vote is INTENTIONALLY taking the exact opposite approach, insisting that they are NOT part of society, and that they are right to feel alienated, hostile, and at war with society. Hopefully, this diary reports on continuing progress in changing these counter-productive practices. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
by Erin Ferns and Donald Wine II
For the past few years, there has been a push by voting rights advocates to expand and balance the electorate in the United States. Finally, measures to help enfranchise some of the nation's least represented Americans are moving forward in several states. This past week, five states advanced bills to restore the voting rights of citizens convicted of felonies, while four states moved bills designed to facilitate voter participation among young citizens. This trend in election reform is a step in the right direction, which more states should take notice of and consider in the near future.
Cross-Posted at Project Vote's Voting Matter's Blog Weekly Voting Rights News Update
by Erin Ferns
Last week we wrote about how partisan-fueled voter fraud rumors are leading election reform debates, potentially changing the way many Americans vote in future elections. With at least one state swiftly moving a bill to require all voter applicants to present proof of citizenship before registering to vote, and another strongly supporting the passage of voter ID, the threat of voter disenfranchisement looms ahead.
(With so many other big, crisis-related issues staring us in the face, we should not lose sight of the crucial importance of protecting and enhancing voter rights, as this diary highlights the ever-growing threat. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
Nationwide, budget concerns seem to be rendering most of this year's threatening election reform proposals impassable. However, that does not prevent these measures from perpetuating the irrational distrust in elections (and voters) that come with restrictive voter ID and voter registration proposals. Instead of focusing on resolutions that would create more transparency in election administration without disenfranchising voters, lawmakers in Oklahoma, Minnesota, Mississippi and Texas made headlines for their battles to move voter ID laws last week, while two more states are discussing bills that would negatively impact young voters.
If you wanted to register to vote today, would you be able to provide a copy of a birth certificate, U.S. passport or naturalization papers? Would those documents reflect your current name?
Cross-Posted at Project Vote's Voting Matter's Blog Weekly Voting Rights News Update
by Erin Ferns
Election Day Registration has been the subject of election reform debates for decades and the year following one of the most historic presidential elections makes no exception. As lawmakers in at least 16 states hope to expand access to voter registration and effectively increase voter participation, skeptics of such reforms raise the fear of voter fraud. Today, 10 states successfully practice Same-Day Registration (either on Election Day or during an early voting period), with above-average turnout rates and no reported problems with voter fraud. For those states considering EDR, the decision to efficiently expand access to democracy should be clear.
(We certainly shouldn't only pay attention to voting rights issues in election years. This one was a blow out, but conservatives know there will be future close calls where disenfranchising a few hundred thousand more voters will turn the tide. What Obama can do is get some good people nominated to the bench quickly so more of these court cases have a chance of being decided in favour of letting people vote. - promoted by Daniel De Groot)
Cross-Posted at Project Vote's Voting Matter's Blog Weekly Voting Rights News Update
by Erin Ferns
As we predicted last December, legislation designed to prevent so-called voter fraud has dominated election law debates in several states this year. Last week alone, Georgia's controversial voter ID law was upheld by a federal appeals panel, the Texas Senate "sparked deep partisan tensions" by eliminating the majority rule in order to aid the passage of a voter ID law, and nine more states introduced numerous voter ID bills.
The 2008 presidential election was an inspiration for many citizens to take part in the American democratic process, including first-time voter and convicted felon Eric Stephen Willems of Minnesota. Unfortunately, that vote cost Willems, who was on probation, a trip back to jail, according to the Associated Press last week.
Well it's official. Though Jim Martin is a Better Democrat, Chris and I have been pretty much AWOL on this race. That was not by design, we just sort of didn't feel it. Personally, my belief was that Obama wasn't willing to risk his political capital for Martin despite Martin's request, the Senate Democrats had just betrayed on Lieberman, so there was limited upside for progressives. I like Martin a great deal, but Georgia is Georgia, and I couldn't in good conscience ask people to support someone ardently under these conditions. God bless those who can get up for every race where a Democrat is running, and God bless the organizers who went to Georgia to push for Martin, but I've never believed in the 60 vote threshold argument, and I go back and forth on whether to take risks simply to further establishment Democratic power when the existing establishment Democratic power base refuses to take risks themselves.
If there's some lesson from Georgia, the relatively low turnout despite great organizing work suggests whatever changes occurred to the map in November, 2004 have not really shifted voter allegiances in any firm ideological sense yet. While the Democrats as a whole have changed the conversation somewhat, McCain nationally still got 46% of the vote, and that's only 4 points from a majority, or 1 in 25 Americans. And Georgia is still Georgia.
... Martin also was behind in nine consecutive polls. That was a big factor as well. I couldn't ask people to plunk down cash in this economy for such a long-shot.
Better Democrat Jim Martin is up against Saxby Chambliss in Georgia today, and it's pretty clear, sitting in DC, that there just is not that much enthusiasm for this race on the Democrati side. The last nine polls are showing Chambliss ahead. The dynamic here is set by Republicans throwing everything they have into the race, including surrogates like John McCain, Sarah Palin, and Mitt Romney in there, whereas Democrats have put Al Gore and Bill Clinton to surrogate for Martin, but not Obama. Obama has cut a radio ad and some robocalls, but the high voltage press and field jolt that would be possible - especially among African-Americans - in a low turn out run off is missing. That choice seems to have contributed to a corresponding enthusiasm drop across the party for Martin, as it should. Obama has put his organizers in the battle, but not his own prestige. I have seen the number of mentions of '60 votes in the Senate' drop substantially, ironically even as that goal is quite possible should Franken win and Martin take the seat. If nothing else, this should suggest that the 60 vote goal was always something of a chimera.
From what I understand, Chambliss is a weak candidate, failing to do good constituent services or really endear himself to Georgians on a local basis. This will come down to turnout, but it seems unlikely that Chambliss has been framed well enough to lose him that slender margin he's always carried. People just aren't that interested in the race. Sean Quinn down in Georgia suggests that Obama field organizers are finally seeing GOTV numbers they are happy with. That's a hopeful sign.
We're about to finish the 2008 election cycle with the conclusion of two elections for the United States Senate, a recount in Minnesota and a runoff in Georgia. It's hard to imagine a better illustration of America's oddball and potentially disastrous election process.
The Senate election in Minnesota is being recounted in what most consider, ballot challenges aside, an admirably scrupulous process. In Minnesota, every voter votes on a paper ballot read by optical scanners, and ballot-marking devices are available in every polling place to serve voters who cannot use a pen to mark a ballot due to vision, dexterity or other disabilities. Recounts are done by hand. If there is doubt about the intent of the voter, the ballots can be examined, and standards for evaluating intent applied. Part of the reason there are so many unresolved ballot challenges in Minnesota is simply because there is independent evidence of voter intent to evaluate.
In the last two weeks voter registration and early voting has shown that voters are geared up and ready to take part in what has been called a "historical event" on November 4.
Through last night a quarter of all registered voters in Georgia had already cast their ballots. The state has just under 5.6 million registered voters and so far about 1.4 million have voted.
In 2004, a year which saw much higher turnout nationally than in recent decades, about 3.3 million Georgia residents voted. It's hard to say if overall turnout will be significantly higher because, while we know African American turnout will be huge, Republican voters may be less enthusiastic than they were in 2004. Let's say turnout this year hits 3.4 million. With three days of early voting left, including today, it seems reasonable to predict that half or slightly more than half (1.7 million?) of all voters who will cast ballots will have done so before November 4.
Of the 1.4 million early voters, African Americans comprise 35 percent. This is impressive since the group makes up only 19 29 percent of the electorate.
Another way to look at it: 30 percent of African American registered voters have already voted while about 23.6 percent of White registered voters have voted early. These figures include mail-in absentee ballots.
Yesterday Sen. John McCain boosted his TV advertising units in seven key swing states - Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, closing the gap between his advertising and Sen. Barack Obama's.
Missouri, Colorado, and Virginia are bad enough, but Georgia? There are going to be a lot of Democrats in Congress who are suddenly representing much bluer districts than they are used to. It's gonna get weird.
So last week I asked whether we should endorse Jim Martin, candidate for Senate in Georgia. Most people said yes, but I wanted to do an interview with him to make sure he's a Better Democrat. After five days of hard campaigning, he was finally able to get back to me this series of thoughtful answers. I don't think you'll agree with everything here, but there's plenty to like.
After reading through the interview, let me know whether you think we should add him to the Better Democrats page.
Question: Most people wrote off this Georgia Senate race months ago. What changed? Why are the polls closing?
Survey USA is starting to report crosstabs for early voters in many of their recent state polls. In every state where they have such crosstabs, Obama is ahead by shocking margins. First, Georgia:
Early and absentee voting began in Georgia on 09/22/08. Among the 18% of Georgia voters who tell SurveyUSA they have already voted, Obama leads by 6 points; among those who have not yet voted, McCain leads by 11.
With 18% of the vote in, this crosstab is effectively an "exit poll" showing that Obama is literally winning in Georgia right now. Similarly surprising pro-Obama margins can be seen in several other states, like Iowa:
Among the 14% of Iowa voters who say they have already cast their ballot, Obama leads by a 2:1 margin.
Of the 12% of respondents who tell SurveyUSA they have already voted, Obama leads by 18.
None of the other Survey USA polls released this month included early voting subsets. Still, these numbers are enough to indicate that Obama is clearly over-performing among early voters compared to his standing among all voters. This means that the Obama field campaign is obviously superior to McCain's, and that even if McCain tightens the campaign later on, Obama will already have banked a substantial lead. Early voting is also an excellent protection against the voter suppression tactics Republicans regularly employ.
Obama is winning big across the board right now. Best of all, this lead is not just in polls, but in actual votes.
Update: Survey USA also reports that Jim Martin leads by 4% in the Georgia Senate campaign, among early voters.
Update 2: Also, I should note that I share skepticism of those who think this all sounds like 2004, and as such is too good to be true. However, keep in mind that during the early voting phase in 2004, Kerry never actually led Bush. During early voting in 2008, we all know that Obama is well ahead right now. That, combined with a less than effective McCain ground game (Bush's was excellent, McCain's isn't) makes things very different from 2004.
Update 3: It should be noted that these subsets have very high margins of error. However, that Obama is outperforming his overall numbers in every single one of these subsets makes it highly unlikely that this is just "statistical noise." If it were truly random, than the early voting numbers would be pro-McCain in at least one of the five states listed here. Instead, Obama outperforms in all five.
Update 4: If Obama is ahead by 30% in Iowa with 14% reporting, should we already call the state for Obama? I'm tempted.
