Where’s the Commonsense Energy Agenda?

On his blog, former state senate leader Mark Hillman lays out the illogical and harmful energy policy coming from the Democrat Congress in Washington, including this hard-hitting morsel:

Congress is so sanctimonious that they would rather we pay billions more to Hugo Chavez and the Saudis than to sensibly and strategically drill in a frozen swamp less than one-tenth the size of Denver International Airport.

Washington also struck out on promoting the most practical, reliable source of clean energy – nuclear power.

So when it comes to nuclear power, what are we waiting for?

As David Harsanyi wrote in this weekend’s Denver Post perspective section, even the founder of Greenpeace gets the need for more nuclear power:

Proponents of nuclear energy also say that reactors currently operating in the United States prevent emissions of 682 million tons of carbon dioxide every year. As [Greenpeace founder Patrick] Moore recently explained, the “104 nuclear plants that are operating across the United States are the equivalent of taking 100 million cars off the road.” Nuclear energy, in other words, blows away any other alternative source of energy as viable and environmentally friendly.

Now, for those less concerned about the environment and more worried about our habit of obtaining oil from countries ruled by religious radicals, dictators and Norwegians, uranium can be found in the United States — as well as other semi-civilized places like Australia and Canada.

So what are we waiting for?

Oh yeah, there’s that Chernobyl thing. And Three Mile Island. Chernobyl, of course, is the result of a glorious Third World socialist energy policy. Studies showed that Chernobyl’s design was terribly unsound. Many experts also believe in the “flawed operators theory” which means that operators blew the place up by accident. New reactors everywhere in the world are remarkably safer. Last year, for instance, after a massive earthquake near one of the world’s largest power plants in Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, Japan, the place was hardly worse for wear.

Three Mile Island, Moore contends, was a success story: “The concrete containment structure did just what it was designed to do: prevent radiation from escaping into the environment. And although the reactor itself was crippled, there was no injury or death among nuclear workers or nearby residents.”

Three Mile Island, in fact, is the only serious accident in the history of nuclear energy in this country. No one died. Yet, every year, hundreds perish in accidents working with other energy sources. Moreover, a single, relatively isolated accident should not scare a nation, literally, senseless.

Senseless. That’s a great word to describe our nation’s energy policy.

So what is the answer to why we don’t have a sensible energy policy? At least in part: If the Democrats and the radical environmentalist groups who enable them were to push forward clean and safe nuclear energy, they would deprive themselves of a whole host of scare tactics that have made them a powerful sect.

This country really needs to ask and answer the serious questions that will lead to a commonsense energy policy, rather than to prostrate itself to the Eco-High Priest Algore.

If you realize that polar bears are thriving like never before, contrary to the silly alarmist tales of climate change activists, then maybe drilling for oil in ANWR would be a great way to save money for American families without anywhere near the environmental impact that is touted by the Left. But even if you are on the Eco-Bandwagon, doesn’t nuclear energy just make common sense?