Oh California, my California...

It’s that time of the year again—when televised car chases get interrupted by commercials for Proposition X, Y, and Z. The Golden State has a long history of ballot initiatives (over 1,000 in less than a hundred years), and this election cycle is no different.

Personally, I hate ballot initiatives. We elect legislators to consider and weigh the various pieces of legislation in Sacramento, hopefully making informed decisions. At the very least, state legislators have a great deal more information and resources at their disposal, and are better equipped to assess the impact, feasibility, cost, and gain of various bills. This is, I admit, a somewhat rosy view of state politics, especially in a state as dysfunctional as California. However, the alternative is no better. This couldn’t be more obvious with Prop 7.
Prop 7 is a 42 page initiative that sets out to require California to procure 50% of its power from renewable sources by 2020, with benchmarks of 40% in 2015 and 20% by 2010. It fast tracks state investment into renewable energy plant construction, sets fines for power companies who do not comply, and prohibits the companies from passing on increased costs to consumers. Proponents contend that aside from the obvious environmental benefits, it will create 370,000 living wage jobs.

Great, huh? Well, perhaps not. A large number of people and groups (from the left and right) oppose Prop 7. Apparently, some consider the bill so poorly designed that it will hurt the cause of renewable energy by tying up various constituent parts of the bill in lawsuit hell for years. Part of Prop 7 is forcing energy retailers into 20 year contracts, and many people are uncomfortable with long term energy contracts after the way Enron screwed over California some years ago. Ballot initiatives are hard to undo; they require a 2/3 majority vote to reverse in the state legislature.

So who is against Prop 7? Well, the Republican Party of California. And the Democratic Party of California. And the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the California League of Conservation Voters, and the California Labor Federation. But wait—the biggest donors to the anti-Prop 7 group are PG & E, California Edison, and Sempra—the biggest energy companies with operations in California. Kind of a red flag for me.

Supporters of Prop 7 include the Progressive Democrats of California, Dr. Ernst von Weizsaker (Dean of the School of Environmental Science at the University of California Santa Barbara), and the Mendocino County Progressive Democrats. The chief financial backer of the initiative is Peter Sperling, (son of the founder of the University of Phoenix).

What’s a guy to do? Do I go with my gut and join up with the Mendocino County Progressive Democrats? Or are they just smoking that good organic weed? Maybe I should listen to the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Natural Resources Defense Council? But they are on the same side as the Big Energy companies…

Brazil Resuming Nuclear Reactor Construction

Lula has authorized resuming the establishment of a third reactor, which had sat idle for 22 years at Brazil's Angra dos Reis nuclear power plant, in southwestern Rio de Janeiro state. The power plant was originally decreed in the 1970s as part of the military dictatorship's demonstration of how Brazil was finally attaining the levels of "development" it required to assume it's rightful place in the world (in what I would call Brazil's historical "order and progress" complex). The idea of the power plant was borne equally out of the fact that many members of the military brass saw nuclear power as the next necessary step to achieve progress in Brazil, as well as being influenced by broader geopolitical factors, including Argentina gaining nuclear power. Interestingly, the public met such plans with an at-best lukewarm response in Brazil when they first came up, but after Jimmy Carter heavily pushed Brazil not to turn to nuclear power, it attained a level of popular nationalism the military government itself could never have achieved on its own, thereby giving the project far greater popular legitimacy as well. Brazil ultimately gained its nuclear technology and capabilities via help from West Germany, and began working on two reactors. The third, begun in 1986, was quickly abandoned as Brazil entered inflation rates in the hundreds and even thousands in the late-1980s and 1990s. Now, with a booming economy and a growing need for energy, Lula has authorized resuming construction of the third reactor.

I am really ambivalent about this. Many Brazilians argue that if there is any country in the world that does not have the right to tell countries whether they can or cannot use nuclear power, it's the United States, given its arsenal and the fact that it's the only country that has used a nuclear weapon against an enemy. While I'm not sure that the latter part is fully germane to the issue at hand, I generally agree that any nation that has already attained nuclear power and has an absurd amount of nuclear capabilities, particularly in the military area, they really do not have a very strong base upon which they can tell other countries not to use the power they have enjoyed for decades.

Additionally, while nuclear power may not be the best options, I think it's demonstrated that, if done correctly, it can be safe. Yes, there are risks; there always were, always are, and always will be. Yet the fact that Brazil is looking to improve its energy system by moving beyond hydroelectric power. I'd still really like to see Brazil further explore wind power, which it's showing no sign of doing (though things can change). That said, I suppose if Brazil wants to turn to nuclear power in order to not have to dam up so much of the rivers in the Amazon and elsewhere, I'm ok with that.

However, this is where my ambivalence enters. While hydroelectric dams are definitely damaging to the environment, the disaster that could happen with the nuclear plant is infinitely worse. And again, that doesn't mean things will happen, but the sheer risk makes me antsy. Additionally, I've travelled around Angra dos Reis, and the location of the nuclear power plant is one of the most beautiful places I've ever seen, with amazing beaches in the region and thick forest butting up against small mountains; even the historical legacy of the area is great, as Paraty, an old colonial town that has been for the most part preserved, is less than an hour away from the plant. And there's no question that the plant could have amazingly awful damage, given that it rests directly on the oceanfront. Certainly, nuclear meltdown is nuclear meltdown; nonetheless, I have no doubt that there could be many places in Brazil that could host a nuclear power plant, and why the military government picked one of the most beautiful parts of the country (only 3 hours from Rio de Janeiro) is beyond me. In this sense, then, I'm really hesitant about Lula's decision. I don't presume to tell Brazilians where their power should come from. Still, the location of the plant makes me uneasy, and again, I just don't understand why the government doesn't investigate and invest in wind power more, especially given the amount of coastline that Brazil has.

All this is pretty much a long way to say I'm just not sure about Lula's decision today. I hope to god it works out well, and it probably will; France hasn't had any accidents, and it's drawing 78% of its power from nuclear power, and while accusations of corruption often fly in Brazilian politics, I'm fairly certain that nobody (even Brazilian politicians) is so stupid as to try to employ corruption when it comes to nuclear engineering and technology. I guess at the end of the day, I have the same unease about nuclear power as I do everywhere, that equal combination of "it will probably be fine" but with that vague "but what if..." and fleeting thoughts of Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl, all combined with a knowledge of the physical location of the plant that makes me sad and confused as to why anybody would put nuclear energy there.

Renewable Energy and the Democratic Leadership

Adam Browning shows us that the Democratic Party is still not taking environmental issues seriously. I talked yesterday about Obama's support of the mining industry. The Congressional leadership isn't much better. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have committed a total of $0 for renewable energy in the big energy bill passing through Congress. Specifically, they have decided not to include production tax credits or the federal renewable portfolio standard from the bill. Not a dime for wind, for solar, nothing.

Despite what the American people say they want and despite record high oil prices, Democratic leaders have decided that renewable energy is not worth the time and effort. Meanwhile, climate change gets worse and the U.S. remains as petroleum-dependent as ever. Pathetic.