Hillary Clinton selects pro nuclear advocate Tim Kaine as running mate
GOP. 22 July 16 “………Kaine Supported Nuclear Power As A Solution To Meeting Virginia’s Energy Needs. “In Virginia last week, a panel on reducing climate change appointed by Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) considered adding nuclear power to its menu of recommendations. The governor’s energy plan also supports nuclear power as one solution to meeting the state’s energy needs, which are expected to grow by the equivalent of a million homes in the next decade.” (Lisa Rein and Christy Goodman, “Little Outcry On Nuclear Reactor Proposal,” The Washington Post, 8/4/08)…..https://gop.com/meet-tim-kaine/
USA economy’s climate threat if Donald Trump’s energy plan adopted
Trump’s energy plan poses climate threat to U.S. economy, Skeptical Science, 6 July 2016 by  Robert Kopp, Rutgers University Last December in Paris, the nations of the world agreed to an ambitious goal forgreenhouse gas emissions: to bring net emissions to zero in the second half of this century. Their objective: to limit global warming to 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius (2.7 to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial temperatures, or equivalently about 0.5 to 1.0°C (0.9 to 1.8°F) above the current global average temperature.The Paris Agreement set up a process by which countries commit to emissions targets and then, every five years, report on their progress and make increasingly stringent new commitments. Current national commitments, which lay out targets for the 2025-2030 time frame, aren’t enough to get us to the long-term goal. But the current commitments and the new process constitute a major step toward breaking the dangerous fossil fuel addiction of the last two centuries.
Market forces and public policy in the U.S. and around the world are already helping push the world away from carbon-intensive fuels and toward renewable energy. U.S. carbon dioxide emissions peaked in 2007, and it’s possible that Chinese emissions peaked in 2014. This market-led, policy-accelerated shift is making reduction goals more attainable than they seemed a decade ago. Donald Trump’s “America First” energy plan, outlined in May and focused on expanding fossil-fuel production, would reverse these advances. Trump has promised to “cancel” the Paris climate agreement and pledged to reopen coal mines – a pledge which, given the unfavorable economics of coal mining, he could fulfill only through a massive expansion of corporate welfare for coal companies. Backing out of the Paris Agreement would undermine U.S. leadership and stallgreenhouse gas reduction efforts around the world. And expanding production of coal could return us to the pathway of rapidly rising emissions that characterized the 2000s. The climate consequences of such a great leap backwards would be severe. Far from placing America first, they would threaten the health of Americans and of the American economy – not to mention people and economies throughout the world……….http://www.skepticalscience.com/trump-energy-plan-threat-us-economy.html |
Donald Trump’s real estate empire already suffering from climate change
Water world: rising tides close in on Trump, the climate change denier Climate change has barely registered as a 2016 campaign issue, but in Florida, the state which usually decides the presidential election, the waters are lapping at the doors of Donald Trump’s real estate empire, Guardian. Suzanne Goldenberg, 6 July 16, On a hot and lazy afternoon in Palm Beach, the only sign of movement is the water gently lapping at the grounds of Mar-a-Lago, the private club that is the prize of Donald Trump’s real estate acquisitions in Florida.
Trump currently dismisses climate change as a hoax invented by China, though he has quietly sought to shield real estate investments in Ireland from its effects.
But at the Republican presidential contender’s Palm Beach estate and the other properties that bear his name in south Florida, the water is already creeping up bridges and advancing on access roads, lawns and beaches because of sea-level rise, according to a risk analysis prepared for the Guardian.
In 30 years, the grounds of Mar-a-Lago could be under at least a foot of water for 210 days a year because of tidal flooding along the intracoastal water way, with the water rising past some of the cottages and bungalows, the analysis by Coastal Risk Consulting found.
Trump’s insouciance in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change – even lapping up on his own doorstep – makes him something of an outlier in south Florida, where mayors are actively preparing for a future under climate change.
Trump, who backed climate action in 2009 but now describes climate change as “bullshit”, is also out of step with the US and other governments’ efforts to turn emissions-cutting pledges into concrete actions in the wake of the Paris climate agreement. Trump has threatened to pull the US out of the agreement.
And the presidential contender’s posturing about climate denial may further alienate the Republican candidate from younger voters and minority voters in this election who see climate change as a gathering danger.
When Guardian US asked its readers about their most urgent concern in these elections as part of our Voices of America series, the single issue looming on their minds was climate change.
Real estate professionals, with perhaps an extra dash of self-interest, hold similar views. In a survey published in the Miami Herald last month, two-thirds of high-end Miami realtors were concerned sea-level rise and climate change could hurt local property values, up from 56% of them last year.
So too for mayors in south Florida. About a third of the civic leaders in south Florida’s compact of mayors are working on strategies to protect their towns from rising seas – and lobbying Florida’s governor and fellow Republicans in Congress to acknowledge the gathering threat.
Elected officials in those same Florida towns say they are already spending heavily to rebuild disappearing beaches and pump out water-logged streets.
Republicans in coastal districts can’t afford to play politics with climate change, said Steve Abrams, a Republican and mayor of Palm Beach County.
“We don’t have the luxury at the local level to engage in these lofty policy debates,” said Abrams. “I have been in knee-deep water in many parts of my district during King Tide.”……..
modelling suggests Trump’s Hollywood condos could be turned into islands for up to 140 days a year by 2045, cut off from the low-lying A1A coastal road because of tidal flooding and storm surges. Under a category two storm, a storm surge could wash right up to the front gate.
Further south, the Trump Grande in Sunny Isles also faces a soggy future, according to the projections. In 30 years, the boundaries of the property could face tidal flooding and storm surges for 97 days a year, cutting off access to the A1A road. The beaches could also be scoured away by erosion……….https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/06/donald-trump-climate-change-florida-resort
Donald Trump will not overturn Iran nuclear agreement
Report: Donald Trump Will Not Overhaul Iran Nuclear Accord, Washington Free Beacon, BY: Natalie Johnson, 5 July 16 Donald Trump will not upend the Iran nuclear deal should he clinch the White House this November, according to a top foreign policy adviser for the presumptive Republican nominee.
“[Trump is] not going to get rid of an agreement that has the institutional signature of the United States,” Walid Phares said in an interview with the Daily Caller published July 4. “He is a man of institutions, but he’s going to look back on it the institutional way.”
Trump has been outspoken against the landmark diplomatic agreement, calling it “disastrous” and vowing to renegotiate the nuclear accord between the U.S., Iran, and five other world powers if he assumes the presidency.
Phares said that while Trump opposes the Iran deal and feels it was poorly negotiated, he would seek the input of Congress for improvements rather than fully dismantling it…….http://freebeacon.com/national-security/report-donald-trump-will-not-overhaul-iran-nuclear-accord/
USA media keeps the issue of climate change off the political agenda
Climate change: the missing issue of the 2016 campaign, Guardian 5 July 16
Guardian US survey reveals anger of voters as election year debate fails to deal with concerns over the gathering global disaster by Ed Pilkington and Mona Chalabi The race for the White House is failing to grapple with the key issues of the day, especially the urgent need to combat climate change before atmospheric changes become irreversible, a slice of the American electorate believes.
As the primary election season turns toward a head-to-head between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, there is increasing anger and frustration over the nature of the contest. A Guardian call-out to online readers in the US asking them to reflect on the race so far was met by a barrage of criticism on the tone and substance of the world’s most important election – with the two main parties, individual candidates and the media all coming under heavy fire.
The Guardian asked readers to identify the “one issue that affects your life you wish the presidential candidates were discussing more”. Resoundingly, the largest group of participants pointed to climate change………
The concerns of voters came to light as part of the Guardian’s Voices of America series which aims to highlight the way key issues have been ignored or under-played during a primary season when trivial personal attacks seemed to take precedence over substantial debate of issues that matter.
The Guardian call-out was not a poll, and as such was not a controlled survey of opinion. But it does illuminate a largely hidden depth of concern, particularly among liberal Americans, about a gathering global disaster that has tended to be discussed, if at all, at the fringes of the presidential debate…….
The climatologist Michael Mann, who is director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, said he did believe that Clinton and Sanders had engaged in meaningful dialogue about climate change, and pointed the finger of blame at the media for failing fully to reflect that. He added that as the general election gets underway he hoped there would be more focus on “substantive and critical differences in the views of the candidates, and less focus on frivolous and prurient matters that serve as little more than distraction and misdirection”.
Mann said: “The American people could not have a starker choice before them between a presumptive candidate of one of the two parties who recognizes the risk posted by human-caused climate change and articulates solutions, and the presumptive candidate of the other party, who denies that climate change is even real.”……..https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/05/climate-change-voters-2016-election-issues?CMP=twt_a-environment_b-gdneco
Senator Mark Rubio showing a little anxiety about who will carry the nuclear codes
Rubio: I hope I can trust whoever wins with the nuclear codes, The Hill By Rebecca Savransky, 26 June 16 Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) on Sunday avoided directly saying whether he’d trust presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton with the nuclear codes.
“Once you assume the office, no matter who holds that office, I think that the reality and the gravity of it always weighs on these people,” Rubio said on CBS’s “Face The Nation.”
“It’s a very difficult issue to face. So I would hope that I can trust no matter who wins with the nuclear codes.”
The Florida senator has said previously he doesn’t think presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump could be trusted with the nuclear codes……..http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/284944-rubio-i-hope-i-can-trust-whoever-wins-with-the-nuclear-codes
Donald Trump’s dangerous posturing increases risk of nuclear terrorism
Trump’s “program” for defeating ISIS in Syria and Iraq, combining torture with mass bombings which would decimate civilians — not to mention his musings about using nuclear weapons against ISIS or in a European ground war. The net effect is a mushroom cloud of radioactive ignorance from a man incapable of better.
Given the gravity of nuclear proliferation and the menace of nuclear terrorism, this dangerous posturing underscores the seriousness of the job he seeks. In any area, but particularly this one, the presidency must be reserved for those who are knowledgeable and stable.
This captures the fatal contradiction between the Republicans’ report on national security and their nominee
No Time For Trump, Part Two: Nuclear Proliferation, ISIS And The Threat Of Nuclear Terrorism, Huffington Post, Richard North Patterson 06/21/2016 Twelve days ago, Paul Ryan and the House Republicans introduced a report on national security harshly critical of President Obama. “America,” they warned, “faces the highest terror threat level since 9/11.”
Let’s take them at their word. And so, a question. Of all the threats we face, what fear most haunts our national security community?
It is not massacres like those in Orlando or San Bernardino, as monstrous as they are. It is a threat which, while more remote, would be infinitely more devastating: a nuclear attack — including by terrorists like ISIS and Al Qaeda.
This existential danger drives America’s efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons, and to keep our country safe from a nuclear holocaust. And here lies the irony in the Republicans’ warning. For it is yet another compelling reason that a man as ignorant, irresponsible, unstable and unprepared as Donald Trump should never become president.
True, Trump’s nativist scapegoating of all Muslims — including millions of loyal Americans, many of whom have served our military — increases the danger of more mass slaughters like Orlando, breeding alienation while attacking those whose vigilance could help prevent such horrors. But his xenophobia and lack of basic knowledge also enhances the most terrible prospect of all — nuclear terrorism.
While the nuclear threat is horrifying to contemplate, its greatest dangers are little understood, or even discussed in public. In recent years, the public’s worry about nuclear proliferation has focused most particularly on Iran — a frequent subject of Trump’s crude and self-preening attacks on Obama’s supposed “weakness” in confronting threats to America. But it is unlikely that Iran would start a nuclear war: however aggressive, its regime has a return address, and a reprisal could annihilate Tehran.
That is why nuclear terrorism by non-state actors is America’s ultimate nuclear nightmare.
As debilitating as the mass slaughters we have suffered can be, only terrorism by nuclear means has the potential to destroy our economy, our security, our system of civil liberties, our commitment to democratic ideals, and our very trust in each other. In short those things which, at our best, make us who we are.
This is why countries which could spawn nuclear terrorism are the greatest threats to our way of life. It is why Pakistan — not Iran — is the most dangerous place on earth. It is why our next president must have sound judgment, a stable temperament, and a sophisticated understanding of the of nuclear threat posed by Al Qaeda and, more recently, ISIS. It is why that president cannot — must not — be Donald Trump.
The facts which make this so are as little-known as they are sobering.
To start, Al Qaeda has long been obsessed with acquiring nuclear weapons, and Pakistan has always been its focus. Just before 9/11, bin Laden met in Afghanistan with a Pakistani nuclear scientist and an engineer, drawing up specifications for an Al Qaeda bomb. And after 9/11, bin Laden announced Al Qaeda’s intention to kill 4 million Americans in reprisal for the Muslim deaths he attributed to the United States and Israel, and issued a fatwa calling for the use of nuclear arms against the West.
Bin Laden is dead. Al Qaeda is not. And a new force has emerged with the same apocalyptic desires — ISIS.
Granted, perpetuating nuclear terrorism would require a high degree of organizational and logistical sophistication. But intelligence officials believe that ISIS is scouring Iraq for nuclear and radioactive materials for use outside the country. Indeed, it is known that they have already seized lower-grade nuclear materials from Mosul University. And the tragic attacks in France and Belgium have a disturbing nuclear coda…….
Trump’s “program” for defeating ISIS in Syria and Iraq, combining torture with mass bombings which would decimate civilians — not to mention his musings about using nuclear weapons against ISIS or in a European ground war. The net effect is a mushroom cloud of radioactive ignorance from a man incapable of better.
Given the gravity of nuclear proliferation and the menace of nuclear terrorism, this dangerous posturing underscores the seriousness of the job he seeks. In any area, but particularly this one, the presidency must be reserved for those who are knowledgeable and stable.
This captures the fatal contradiction between the Republicans’ report on national security and their nominee…….http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-north-patterson/no-time-for-trump-part-tw_b_9625282.html
Donald Trump, Orlando massacre, and nuclear weapons policy
Trump’s Gun And Nuclear Arms Race: Both Wedge Issues Clinton Could Use To Peel Away Moderate Republicans, Huffington Post, Dave R. Jacobson Co-Authored by Maclen Zilber, 15 June 16 “……Just imagine how the world would be if, on January 20, 2017, billionaire Donald Trump raised his right hand, took the oath of office at his inauguration, and was sworn in as America’s 45th President.
Now visualize how Trump would respond, as President, to a horrific tragedy as the one we witnessed this past weekend at Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida……
Given his past comments, Trump’s answer would probably be more guns, bigger guns, “the classiest guns you’ve ever seen.”
Rather than enacting tougher laws to make it more difficult for terrorists, like Mateen, to purchase guns through additional background checks, Trump has made it clear he would like less oversight, not more, on gun purchases. He says the current background checks on the books are sufficient and also supports the use and sale of military grade weaponry, the type of weapons that are necessary to carry out such a large-scale mass shooting.
Trump sees nuclear weapons the same way he sees guns. For both, he believes more is better.
In Trump’s mind, giving more people guns will prevent further acts of carnage. At least that’s what he said after the terror attacks in Paris. Likewise, Trump believes nuclear proliferation is inevitable, and that’s why he’d prefer that more of America’s allies have nukes, rather than not. Giving them these capabilities, Trump suggests, will help to minimize the risk of nuclear war……..
Perhaps what Trump fundamentally misunderstands, is that by allowing more nations to stockpile nuclear arsenals, he will help to spur a domino effect where bordering countries of those nuclear armed nations will feel compelled to build up their own cache of nukes, thus creating a world-wide ripple effect.
……. When it comes to who voters trust to oversee America’s nuclear arsenal, according to a recent May FOX News poll, 49% of registered voters trust Clinton to do a better job of making decisions about using nuclear weapons, compared to 38% for Trump. Some of the nation’s top national security experts, such as Republican and former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, have criticized Trump’s calls for more nukes around the globe……..
Trump’s failure in response to the Orlando catastrophe coupled with his spine-chilling approach to nukes are both wedge issues that can start to peel away some of the very traits that give him strength, and Hillary Clinton has every moral and political justification to begin hammering away at them. Who knows, Trump is so impulsive and rash that if he begins feeling the heat over these issues, he may well switch his position on them (one could only hope!).http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-r-jacobson/trumps-gun–nuclear-arms_b_10457068.html
USA Congress Republicans denounce a carbon tax
13 June 2016 by dana1981On Friday, the US House of Representatives voted on a Resolution condemning a carbon tax. As The Hill reported:
The oil industry is scared of a carbon taxExxonMobil officially supports a carbon tax, but the company did not comment on the House Resolution prior to the vote. Meanwhile, the American Petroleum Institute, which is a key lobbying group of the oil industry, including ExxonMobil, publicly supported the anti-carbon tax resolution, as did Koch Companies Public Sector, LLC. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) suspects that the Resolution itself originated from the oil industry:
Since 2009, ExxonMobil has contributed at least $1.7 million to members of Congress who voted in favor of the resolution, according to an analysis by ClimateTruth.org. There are some indications that GOP leadership pressured House Republicans to vote for the Resolution. They certainly succeeded: of the 8 Republicans who are members of the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus, whose purpose is to craft optimal climate changepolicies, 7 voted for the Resolution. Only Rep. David Jolly (R-FL) withstood the pressure, voting “Present.” Ultimately, 231 of the 246 Republican members of the House (94%) expressed their unwillingness to consider a carbon tax by voting for the Resolution. Why the House Republicans are wrongIt’s odd that not a single House Republican voted against the Resolution, because as long as the revenue is returned to taxpayers (also known as “revenue neutrality”), many conservatives support a carbon tax. This concept is supported by free market, libertarian, and conservative think tanks like the R Street Institute, the Niskanen Center, and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). AEI resident scholar Aparna Mathur said of the vote:
Polls show that about half of Republican voters support a carbon tax if revenues are rebated to taxpayers. It’s also supported by the non-partisan grassroots organization Citizens’ Climate Lobby (CCL), whose advisory board includes Ronald Reagan’s former Secretary of State, George Shultz. CCL issued a point-by-point response to the carbon tax “pitfalls” listed in the House resolution……..http://www.skepticalscience.com/grand-oil-party-republicans-denounce-carbon-tax.html |
Donald Trump’s strange nuclear negotiating ideas
The Trump Files: Donald’s Nuclear Negotiating Fantasy http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/trump-files-donald-trumps-nuclear-negotiating-fantasy
The billionaire was once convinced he could cut a magnificent nuclear weapons deal with the Soviet Union.
MAX J. ROSENTHAL, JUN. 10, 2016 In the 1980s, Donald Trump became a global symbol of wealth and success who wasplanning to build the tallest skyscraper in the world. But the one deal he reallywanted to cut was an arms reduction treaty with the Soviet Union that would take nuclear missiles off the Cold War’s battlefield. It’s now clear that Trump knowsquite literally nothing about nuclear weapons, but then he fantasized going toe-to-toe with the Russkies at the nuclear bargaining table.
“It’s something that somebody should do that knows how to negotiate and not the kind of representatives that I have seen in the past,” he told the Washington Post in 1984. “It would take an hour-and-a-half to learn everything there is to learn about missiles…I think I know most of it anyway.”
Three years later, growing even more alarmed about Libya and other rogue nations getting the bomb, he told author Ron Rosenbaum that he was indeed working with the Reagan White House on nukes. “I’m dealing at a very high level on this,” he said.
Trump was frightened about the spread of nuclear technology—he seemed at one point during the interview to suggest the United States should bomb France to keep it from selling nuclear know-how—and worried about the deal-making skills of American officials. “They have no smiles, no warmth; there’s no sense of them as people,” Trump complained. “Who the hell wants to talk to them? They don’t have the ability to go into a room and sell a deal. They’re not sellers in the positive sense.”
In the 1980s, Donald Trump became a global symbol of wealth and success who wasplanning to build the tallest skyscraper in the world. But the one deal he reallywanted to cut was an arms reduction treaty with the Soviet Union that would take nuclear missiles off the Cold War’s battlefield. It’s now clear that Trump knowsquite literally nothing about nuclear weapons, but then he fantasized going toe-to-toe with the Russkies at the nuclear bargaining table.
“It’s something that somebody should do that knows how to negotiate and not the kind of representatives that I have seen in the past,” he told the Washington Post in 1984. “It would take an hour-and-a-half to learn everything there is to learn about missiles…I think I know most of it anyway.”
Three years later, growing even more alarmed about Libya and other rogue nations getting the bomb, he told author Ron Rosenbaum that he was indeed working with the Reagan White House on nukes. “I’m dealing at a very high level on this,” he said.
Trump was frightened about the spread of nuclear technology—he seemed at one point during the interview to suggest the United States should bomb France to keep it from selling nuclear know-how—and worried about the deal-making skills of American officials. “They have no smiles, no warmth; there’s no sense of them as people,” Trump complained. “Who the hell wants to talk to them? They don’t have the ability to go into a room and sell a deal. They’re not sellers in the positive sense.”
“I used to laugh when I thought back on Trump and me in [the 21 Club] talking nukes,” Rosenbaum wrote for Slate this year. “I’m not laughing anymore.”
Donald Trump Can’t Be Trusted with America’s Nuclear Weapons Codes
Rubio: I Still Believe Trump Can’t Be Trusted with America’s Nuclear Weapons Codes, Weekly Standard JUN 09, 2016 | By JOHN MCCORMACK
During the campaign, Rubio said that Trump was “dangerous” and that we must not hand “the nuclear codes of the United States to an erratic individual.”
Rubio’s comment Thursday afternoon came as Trump’s character and temperament faced a new round of scrutiny following Trump’s racial attack on a federal judge. Rubio condemned Trump’s remarks but did not withdraw his support from the GOP nominee.
Asked if his support for Trump is now unconditional or if it’s possible Trump could do something to lose Rubio’s vote, Rubio declined to discuss the matter. “I don’t have anything new to add from what I’ve already said. I’ve talked about it all week long,” he said…….http://www.weeklystandard.com/rubio-i-still-believe-trump-cant-be-trusted-with-americas-nuclear-weapons-codes/article/2002759
USA Senate race, and assault weapons for nuclear guards
Nuclear power and assault weapons collide in Calif. Senate race http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nuclear-power-assault-weapons-collide-in-calif.-senate-race/article/2593457 By JOHN SICILIANO • 6/9/16 What do nuclear power plants, a 2016 Senate race and assault weapons have in common? A lot, actually.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the federal watchdog overseeing all things nuclear, was forced to step in Wednesday to issue a special exemption for guards to wield assault weapons to keep nuclear power plants secure, after the Democratic nominee in the 2016 California Senate race apparently got in the way.
The Los Angeles Times reports that the commission stepped in after California Attorney General Kamala Harris refused to extend the assault weapons exemption when taking over from her predecessor.
Harris is running for the open California spot in the U.S. Senate, taking over from environmental stalwart Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is retiring at the end of the year.
The plants affected by the order would include two in California owned by Southern California Edison, one of which has been closed and the other the last operating plant in the Golden State. The commission also allowed special weapons to be used at plants in New York.
“The lack of a written exemption from the current California Attorney General prevents the licensee’s security personnel from having access to firearms and devices needed to implement the licensee’s protective strategy at [the power plants], since firearms dealers are not willing to honor the [previous AG’s] 2004 exemption letter,” the Nuclear Regulatory Commission stated in its order.
The assault weapons exemption is required to protect the closed plant, specifically because of all the radioactive waste being stored there. The waste cannot be moved because of a lack of a centralized nuclear waste repository.
The Times said a spokesman for Harris did not immediately respond to questions about why the attorney general was unwilling to extend the 2004 firearms exemption.
Harris won the California primary on Tuesday, beating out her Democratic challengers. Boxer, who Harris would replace if she wins in the November general election, is the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Commmittee that oversees the NRC and the nuclear power plant fleet.
Boxer has been opposed to keeping nuclear power plants open in the wake of the 2011 disaster in Fukushima, Japan, and succeeded in shutting down the San Onofre power plant in her state
Trump is too dangerous and unstable to have the nuclear codes – says Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton: Trump is too dangerous and unstable to have the nuclear codes
Democratic frontrunner attacks Trump’s ‘personal feuds and outright lies’ in blistering speech that questions GOP candidate’s suitability for the White House, Guardian, 2 June 16, Rory Carroll Hillary Clinton has lacerated Donald Trump’s fitness to lead the United States in a tour-de-force assault on his record and temperament, branding him too dangerous and unstable to be entrusted with nuclear codes and warning of economic crisis if he were to reach the White House.
The Democratic frontrunner and former secretary of state made the sobering yet blistering assault in a speech in San Diego on Thursday which sought, in effect, to disqualify the Republican presumptive nominee as a valid candidate.
“Donald Trump’s ideas aren’t just different, they’re dangerously incoherent. They’re not even really ideas, just a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds and outright lies,” she said. “He is not just unprepared. He is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility.”
He is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility
Flanked by US flags for the widely trailed address, Clinton said a Trump presidency could lead to catastrophe. “He should not have the nuclear codes because it’s very easy to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because someone got under his very thin skin. We cannot let him roll the dice with America.”
Speaking on the eve of primary elections that are expected to push Clinton past the threshold of delegates needed to secure the Democratic nomination, signalling the official start of the general election, Clinton made a tacit plea to independents and moderate Republicans, saying Trump denigrated US power even when Ronald Reagan was president…….http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/02/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-speech-foreign-policy-security
Donald Trump will pull the US out of the UN global climate accord, push coal, oil
Trump to undo climate agenda, push coal, THE AUSTRALIAN BY VALERIE VOLCOVICI AND EMILY STEPHENSON AAP MAY 27, 2016
Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has promised to roll back some of America’s most ambitious environmental policies, actions that he said would revive the ailing US oil and coal industries and bolster national security.
Among the proposals, Trump said he would pull the US out of the UN global climate accord, approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada, and rescind measures by President Barack Obama to cut US emissions and protect waterways from industrial pollution……..
It was Trump’s first speech detailing the energy policies he would advance if elected president. He received loud applause from the crowd of oil executives.
The comments painted a stark contrast between the New York billionaire and his Democratic rivals for the White House, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, who advocate a sharp turn away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy technologies to combat climate change.
Trump slammed both rivals in his speech, saying their policies would kill jobs and force the US “to be begging for oil again” from Middle East producers.
Trump’s comments drew quick criticism from environmental advocates, who called his proposals “frightening”.
“Trump’s energy policies would accelerate climate change, protect corporate polluters who profit from poisoning our air and water, and block the transition to clean energy that is necessary to strengthen our economy and protect our climate and health,” said Tom Steyer, a billionaire environmental activist.
But industry executives cheered the stance……..
Until Thursday, Trump had been short on details of his energy policy. He has said he believes global warming is a hoax, that his administration would revive the US coal industry, and that he supports hydraulic fracturing – an environmentally controversial drilling technique that has triggered a boom in US production……http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/trump-would-approve-keystone-pipeline/news-story/3ad66f7f374ab34cddf3d1a48fd14a56
Sanders and Clinton split on future of Indian Point nuclear station
New York nuclear plant’s future further divides Sanders and Clinton Sanders says Indian Point facility is ‘a catastrophe waiting to happen’, but former New York senator says he’s late to the issue and site simply needs more oversight, Guardian, Alan Yuhas 8 Apr 16, The Indian Point Energy Center, a controversial and ageing nuclear plant near New York City, has split the Democratic presidential candidates .
As campaigning continued before the New York primary on 19 April, Bernie Sanders called the facility “a catastrophe waiting to happen”. Hillary Clinton said only that it needed more oversight.
A senior member of the Union of Concerned Scientists told the Guardian “the whole New York metropolitan area is potentially imperiled by an accident at Indian Point”.
Last week, the company that runs Indian Point revealed that 227 bolts holding the interior of a nuclear reactor at the site have “degraded” or gone missing. In February, the plant reported that a radioactive material, tritium, had leaked into groundwater.
The plant, about 40 miles north of midtown Manhattan on the eastern bank of the Hudson river, has a 40-year history of accidents, fires and complaints. Governor Andrew Cuomo ordered an investigation into February’s “unacceptable” leak. He has called for the plant to close.
“In my view, we cannot sit idly by and hope that the unthinkable will never happen,” Sanders said in a statement. “It makes no sense to me to continue to operate a decaying nuclear reactor within 25 miles of New York City where nearly 10 million people live.”
The Vermont senator elaborated on his stance, calling for the US to phase out nuclear plants along with more polluting resources such as fossil fuels.
“Nuclear power is and always has been a dangerous idea because there is no good way to store nuclear waste,” he said…….
The disagreement between Sanders and Clinton mirrors their stances on fracking for natural gas. The senator has called for a ban, citinggrowing evidence that drilling causes earthquakes. The former secretary of state has called for intense regulation of the industry.
“I want the federal government to regulate much more toughly than we have in the past,” she said on Monday.
In 2014 Cuomo signed a law that banned fracking in New York. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/07/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-indian-point-nuclear-plant
1 This Month
31st January – Challenging the War Machine – a DECLASSIFIED UK SUMMIT
Website of the Week
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (227)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 