Should the U.S. go nuclear?

Arjun Makhijani, President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, said that using more nuclear power plants to advance U.S. energy would be “inherently proliferation prone.” Patrick Moore, Co-Chairman of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition and Co-Founder of Greenpeace, countered saying nuclear power was “one of the safest technologies ever invented” and “You’d have to take over the United States of America to steal this stuff.”

At a debate today, Moore claimed that nuclear energy is clean and does not emit greenhouse gases. He also stated that “nuclear waste” is 95 percent reusable which can lead to recycling potential energy. He remarked that nuclear energy is the only type of alternative power that can “effectively replace fossil fuels.” Makhijani believed that using other forms of energy like wind and solar would allow the U.S. to be free of energy carbon emissions in 40 years.

Moore said that wind and solar energy are “inherently intermittent” and these types of energy can disappear “three or four days at a time” while nuclear energy is “reliable.” Makhijani stated he would rectify this problem by allowing for “some storage” of these types of energy so people could use it whenever they wanted. Makhijani also questioned Moore’s statements about power and cleanliness of nuclear power saying that if they were true, Wall Street “would be lining up” to build nuclear power plants. Makhijani joked that Wall Street thought it was okay to give out subprime mortgages, but they felt nuclear power was “too risky.”

Makhijani felt that using wind energy would be cheaper than nuclear energy, and one must take that into account in this economic crisis. He also said that the U.S. has the capacity to do it within its borders. Moore submitted that it would cost more presently but nuclear power eventually “pays for itself” and Moore added that solar energy presently would cost five times what nuclear energy costs.

Albright says American image has dipped

In a hearing today, Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said that the Bush administration has cost the United States "moral authority" in the eyes of the international community. Albright said that while America is still "the world's mightiest power," America needs to reestablish respect from abroad.

Albright said that the first thing the next president should do is withdraw troops from Iraq. She said that having troops in Iraq has contributed to a negative view of America globally. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) disagreed and said "Our work has elevated our reputation." Albright said a withdrawal would look favorable internationally because the United States can "steer credit to responsible Iraqi leaders." She emphasized that the military has been brilliant, but the problem in Iraq is political. Albright said that this admistration has had an "overemphasis on military aspects of missions."

Energy policy has not been addressed by the United States enough, according to Albright. She said that our future energy policies should focus on innovation and finding alternative sources. Albright said that offshore drilling is not a solution. Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) said that our energy policy is a "vital component of our grand strategy."

Albright specified the five major issues for the next president would be nuclear non-proliferation, fighting terrorism without creating more terrorists, promoting democracy without forcing it on other nations, the growing gap between the poor and wealthy, and establishing new energy policy. Albright that she hoped that the next president would work closely with Congress and advocate bipartisanship.

US and IAEA lagging on nuclear proliferators

The Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade Subcommittee held a hearing this afternoon on the future of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and global nuclear energy as a whole. The treaty, which aims to eliminate the spread of nuclear weapons, has gained increasing attention in light of North Korea's test of a nuclear weapon and Iran's nuclear program.

Pierre Goldschmidt, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said that examples of non-compliance that have been identified by the Board of Governors within the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) need to be acknowledged immediately. In particular, Goldschmidt pointed to North Korea and Egypt as gross violators of the agency's regulations.

Professor Orde Kitrie of the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State said that the US needs to enforce stricter sanctions against nations who violate international nuclear agreements. He also said that any nation found to be in violation of these rules should be cut off from US exports indefinitely.

Jack Spencer, Research Fellow in the Thomas Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation suggested that the US create an international fuel supply program to reduce international desire for a nuclear program to provide necessary power. He believes this program would reduce some of the workload for the IAEA, allowing the organization to focus on more dangerous proliferators.

Iran: The spark that ignites the Middle East

Jackie Davis of the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis said that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear capabilities has substantial implications for the U.S. and its allies in the Middle East. She said that in the past economic sanctions have been vital in deterring Iran from creating nuclear weapons. The major problem with the sanctions, she said, is that because Iran has so many natural resources that are in high demand, many countries are dependent on Iran and therefore less willing to enforce sanctions.

Davis said that from a U.S. perspective if Iran obtained nuclear capabilities it would “open the flood gates” for other countries to begin trying to acquire nuclear weapons. She said that the need for diplomacy between Russia and the U.S. is paramount. The relationship the Russians have with the Iranians and the military power they have put them in a position to have considerable influence over Iran.

She also said that without greater insight into the Iranian government, it is impossible to determine how they would actually use their nuclear weapons. She said that if Iran were to gain nuclear capabilities it could act as a catalyst and ignite the whole region.