Sanford is right and Obama is wrong (about Yucca Mountain)

Occasionally, Mark Sanford is right. And frequently, Barack Obama is wrong. But it doesn’t often happen simultaneously, on the same issue.

I’ve spent the last few minutes trying to find an actual justification for the administration’s decision to shut down the nation’s one and only solution for nuclear waste — that is, a justification more legitimate and compelling than “Harry Reid has promised the NIMBY home folks to close it.” But I haven’t found it. If you have such a link, please share it.

In the meantime, read this New York Times editorial that explains how the Obama administration is doing just what it so often criticized the Bush administration for doing: Ignoring science for political reasons. An excerpt:

The administration’s budget for the Energy Department raises a disturbing question. Is President Obama, who has pledged to restore science to its rightful place in decision making, now prepared to curtail the scientific analyses needed to determine whether a proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada would be safe to build?

It’s particularly ironic that the administration is doing this just as Obama — who has been sadly ambivalent on nuclear power (one reason why he didn’t get the Energy Party nomination) — announces that the government will provide loan guarantees for two plants in Georgia. So he’s going to back building the plants (a good thing), while pulling away the nation’s one and only solution for dealing with the waste they will produce.

So it is that, in opposing the administration on this, Mark Sanford is on the right side of an issue. It’s been awhile, so make note of this day.

6 thoughts on “Sanford is right and Obama is wrong (about Yucca Mountain)

  1. Kathryn Fenner

    You’re right, as is Sanford. Maybe if our Republican guys in Washington tried a little harder to work and play well with others, Lindsey G. aside, Obama might be inclined to listen.

  2. Bill

    A good bit of research has been done seeking safe ways to dispose of nuclear waste. Options include both geological land areas which are known to have been stable for perhaps millions of years. Some of these have no water or air circulation. There are areas in the deep ocean where there is no circulation. Yucca Mountain may fall into the land category.

  3. Pat

    A safe way to dispose of nuclear waste is just about equal to safe sex. That being said, I would opt for the land a Yucca Mountain before I would shoot for the world’s water supply.

Comments are closed.