David J. Swift / Meet The Press
Gov. Bill Ritter on Sunday's Meet the Press
Would the late Tim Russert have let Gov. Bill Ritter ignore a direct question as complacently as Tom Brokaw did Sunday on Meet the Press? Not likely.
Brokaw: "Gov. Ritter, would you take a nuclear power plant in Colorado?"
Ritter: "Well, I think that [Wyoming] Gov. [Dave] Freudenthal's right. It's going to be part of our future as a country. It already provides about 20 percent of the energy to this country. But I think the thing that we both are saying is we have to have a national energy policy, and it has to be a combination of how we produce traditional resources and how we do it in a clean way. . . . "
Ritter continued to dance away from the question and Brokaw let him. Russert, I suspect, would have tried one more time. "You say nuclear will be part of this country's future. So you'd welcome a nuclear plant in Colorado? Is that what you're saying, governor?"
Ritter could have ducked that one, too, of course, but at least his tactic would have been more obvious to viewers. A politician who paints himself as green as Ritter does while pushing command-style state directives regarding energy production shouldn't be encouraged to invoke platitudes when the topic strays from wind, solar and biofuels.
Ritter's 31-page Climate Action Plan last year devoted exactly one paragraph to nuclear power, portraying it as an apparently risky option worth keeping an eye on "as new technologies unfold in this area." So even the governor's admission that it's "going to be part of our future" amounts to progress of a sort, I suppose.
In his next sentence on Meet the Press, Ritter said, "We should load up on research and development for clean coal" - a technology far more untested and problematic than nuclear, and with more serious implications for the environment.
As William Tucker wrote recently in The Weekly Standard magazine, "A 1,000-megawatt coal plant must be fed by a 110-car train loaded with 16,000 tons of coal arriving every day. Meanwhile, a nuclear reactor of the same size is fed by a single flatbed truck that arrives with a new set of fuel rods once every 18 months. The energy stored in the nucleus of the atom is almost incomprehensibly larger than the energy stored in fossil fuels or the kinetic activity of wind, wave, or water."
With no greenhouse gases, governor.
Pitchwoman for tents
Denver City Councilwoman Carla Madison seems to have taken a shine to the activists planning to attract up to 20,000 protesters to a Tent State University in City Park during the Democratic National Convention.
"This is a nice group of people who are looking for a peaceful, quiet place to make a statement," Madison told the Rocky. "So, I think that helps that it's not an angry mob."
Let's hope she is right. The Tent City group is, as she suggests, officially committed to nonviolence - a definite plus given some of the inflammatory rhetoric from the Re-create 68 crowd. But the idea that anger doesn't at some level fuel the Tent City movement may be naive.
Consider this statement from Tent City's "organizing model," published last year: "When faced with overwhelming violence and oppression everyday, we feel a psychological need to rebel, to negate it, to insist that it must end, and to create a mass democratic revolution NOW."
"Overwhelming violence and oppression every day"? The activists who wrote that seem to have confused the United States with Zimbabwe. If they're that divorced from reality, who knows how upset they'll become with the "overwhelming oppression" they're sure to encounter in Denver - you know, the sort of hurt feelings that occur when police break the news to someone that it's illegal to camp overnight in the parks.
Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
July 1, 2008
12:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
daRock writes:
I hope the Tent State group is forced to put up a multi-million dollar liability insurance policy, just like any other tenant using a private or public venue.
July 1, 2008
5:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
arby writes:
Ummm
Has anyone including the Gov. lived here long enough to remember St. Vrain? It's no big deal we already have the plans.
July 1, 2008
6:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
ItsJustme writes:
To be fair, I heard the audio of this exchange and it seemed to me that Brokaw did recognize the "dance of the NAMBY politician." He spoke over the governor, who ignored the redirect and continued his talking points. Let's face it. Most politicians, Democrats or Republicans, try to avoid any sort of stand. But any of them who will not seriously consider all strategies to get us out of this energy mess do not have the best interests of our country at heart. This includes nuclear, drilling, conservation, oil shale, coal, and the "renewables." Get them all going.
July 1, 2008
8:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
The reason he is doing so poorly (he/his advisers probably think otherwise of course) is that he can't help himself by ducking and dodging.
Labor and business both have major issues with him. To that point Amendment 47 - Right to Work.
In November when he handed over state employees to the Unions he gave the employees the Right to Work. Oh boy, no strike and Right to Work just hacks off the Union.
Then when asked to support Right to Work for the rest of Colorado he denies equal rights. Of course the Denver Chamber of Compromise is riding shotgun with him saying "can't we all just get along". This purported chamber refuses to awknowledge that he Unionized 50,00 or 80,000 state employees - handed them over to the Union.
Well he did, but he gave them the Right to Work. Shouldn't all Coloradans enjoy the right to choose and protect their paycheck. The Right to Work for all Coloradans is just and fair.
Waffling, just like this nuclear thing.
July 1, 2008
8:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Joe_Lunchbucket writes:
Yeah, I saw the show, too. Ritter failed to say anything original or thoughtful; instead, he stuck to the predictable wind-is-good, oil-is-bad, nuclear-is-just-confusing mantra. I've wathced Gov's Love, Vanderhoof, Lamm, Romer and Owens and I've never seen anyone so ill prepared to govern as Bill Ritter. And another thing, Gov, you're not homeless or camping; you're staying in fancy, schmancy Jackson Hole and going on national television: WEAR A TIE!
July 1, 2008
8:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
rjnova writes:
You are right Vince, the media let Ritter off the hook like they do all Democrats and liberals---especially Obama. With no viable alternative they do their Chicken Little routine about nuclear energy.
Talking near term, like 30 yrs, there is no better alternative to coal fire power plants. Solar and wind are a feel good sop to environmentalist but hardly a serious source of power for the majority of this country.
I am completely for research for alternative and clean power but screaming CO2 and radioactive waste is silly. The first is dubious and probably not human caused the other will be resolved by recycling when the time arrives.
July 1, 2008
8:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
BetterEducated writes:
Joe -- you are so right.
Never have I been so embarrassed or discouraged to have spent a lifetime in Colorado.
Ritter has no clue what to do at this point and our past governors (even the weakest of them) all make him look as weak as he really is.
And yes .... please .... wear a tie. The days are long gone for folks to pretend we all wear cowboy boots and prairie bonnets. There is nothing charming about being a bloated Cow Town with crappy schools, failed social programs and poverty-stricken youngsters.
July 1, 2008
9:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
jestbill writes:
Any governor who speaks favorably about a nuclear facility in his state will be giving up any leverage he might have when it comes to the transport of nuclear waste through his state.
Are you guys really sure you want radioactive material on I70/I25 through Denver?
Send it to the sun??!! Has there ever been a launch failure?
There is some different technology that the Chinese have used to build nuclear plants. From what I've read, it's not as dangerous as our 1940's versions and might have a chance.
Still, it just blows my mind that people pretend that the waste really can be stored safely for longer than civilization has lasted so far.
July 1, 2008
10:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
suburbdweller writes:
Others have already said it here, but it's worth repeating:
Nuclear power plants in their present form, unlike what the author would lead you to believe, are not problem-free energy alternatives. They're expensive to build and maintain, and they impose tremendous risks for environmental catastrophe in the delivery of the fuel, the disposal of nuclear waste, and the very real possibility of a devastating plant failure (remember Three Mile Island? Chernobyl?).
July 1, 2008
10:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
bxwatso writes:
While I was not a huge Russert fan, his best trait, IMO, was that he would ask his question 3 times until he got an answer or until it was very clear the politician was being evasive.
Russert was persistent until just before it looked like he was badgering. A nice trait.
Also, he cut his teeth working for Pat Moynihan, my favorite liberal (seriously, I liked him).
P.S. Nuclear is the ONLY viable option to replace coal as a source of electricity.
July 1, 2008
10:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
get_a_grip writes:
non-violent my a**! When Tent State speaks of revolution what do you think they have in mind, putting daisies in the barrels of guns. Boot these thugs from the park. Keep in mind, if you let these wanna be hippies sleep in the park, you have to let the anarchist crowd in Recreate 68 do the same. Too much of a compromise in my book.
No wonder the pot smoking Carla Madison likes this group, probably her drug connection.
July 1, 2008
10:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Overwhelming violence and oppression. Words that fall so grandly from the tongue, a heroic utterance that lifts the speaker from the boring placidity of 2008 America and gives transcendant meaning to post adolescent angst.
Nevermind that the moderation of American public life remains the gold standard for a world that struggles daily with political violence and oppression.
Forget the usual suspects, the Cubas, North Koreas and Irans.
How about our neighbor Mexico? It is open season on journalists, who are targeted by the government and the drug cartels alike. Despite a decade of Subcomandante Marcos and the zapatistas, Mexico's indigenous population remains impoverished and oppressed.
Oh, that's right right, we all know about *those people ...*
How about our social betters in Europe. Well, in Italy the current enthusiasm is fire bombing Gypsy-Rom encampments. Danish cartoon artists are in hiding because of naughty portrayals of the prophet. Despite the rejection by the people every time the EU draft constitution is put to a vote, European bureaucrats are putting a plan in place to enact it anyway.
Back in America, well, just about the only pattern of oppression that I can see is against religious non-conformists. Somehow, I just don't think that the urgent call for "Democratic revolution - NOW!" is on behalf of the Branch Davidians ...
July 1, 2008
11:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
VVVV writes:
Invoking platitudes is the only solution we can expect from any politician. Those ignorant fools who fight for renewable energy to replace base load generation (though economically and physically impossible) only quote those same idiotic statements when defending their house of cards. Provide any fact that threatens to collapse the rickety structure of their fantasies and they go on the offense, barking about warming denial and 'the right thing to do'. What is conveniently left out is the implied "at any cost".
The populace is being led by the nose through the power industry chanting words they don't understand fed to them by politicians who hide the truth. Then they have the gall to blame the energy corporations that are hamstrung by equally idiotic legislation, forcing costs higher, for having prices that continue to be pushed skyward by political market manipulation. Wake up. They are not your savior. They are only after your money and will continue to blow smoke until you are broke, or you pop like a balloon.
If it weren't the national pasttime to argue about topics you don't understand, we may have energy policies that could both improve the environment and cost us less. Instead people filled with good intentions are paving the road to ruin with gold.
July 1, 2008
12:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
pak writes:
We import 96% of our nuclear fuel from foreign countries. With Nukes, we would be trading one source of foreign energy for another. The answer is USA coal!
July 1, 2008
12:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
stuckiniowa writes:
Froward -- There is no need to dispose of the plutonium, or store it for 20k years in some mountain. It too can be used -- for even MORE power. They use both Uranium 235, and its resultant Plutonium for energy generation. Talk about recycling. I believe Japan is also actively using this plan, though I can not verify.
July 1, 2008
3:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
vague nationalistic ranting aside...i'm all for evaluating modern nuclear power opportunities. france and japan are lightyears ahead of us on this front and could really help us leap frog a couple of decades of bad technology and its ramifications.
i personally thought that russert would have pressed ritter a little harder. but as someone mentioned earlier...being open to nuclear power means being open to storing the waste. until we get that part sorted out, i'd prefer our gov (who is overwhelmingly popular despite the efforts of the loyal footsoldiers:) kept his cards close to the vest too.