Comments Off

By Marc, February 23, 2010 8:41 pm

Over the next week or so, I will be comparing the positions of Krystal Ball and Scott Robinson on a myriad of important issues. Krystal and Scott are both seeking the democratic nomination in the First Congressional District this year and they both appeared at a candidate forum hosted by the Stafford Democratic Committee this past Saturday.

The first issue that we will delve into is the environment. Both candidates were asked to talk about their environmental priorities and whether they support Cap and Trade.

Both candidates agreed that the preservation and protection of the Chesapeake Bay should be a top environmental priority; however, as opposed to Scott, Krystal displayed a much more thorough understanding of the issue at hand. At times it seems that Scott was just memorizing things and simply trying to recite them from memory. Not once did he mention anything about the effect climate change is actually having on the bay.

Krystal strongly believes that the

current regulatory regime for controlling nonpoint source pollution is just broken. We’ve got to fix it, we’ve got to get the EPA more involved in controlling nonpoint source pollution.

She also understands that in order to get the bay under control that we need to directly address, and in Wittman’s case acknowledge, the effects that climate change is having on the bay. Krystal goes on to say that

we can do everything right with the bay in terms of controlling pollution and it would all be for not, if we do not get climate change under control. It contributes to the algae blooms that create the dead zones that cause all the problems.

Krystal goes on to explain that

We are home to the second most vulnerable coastline to climate change. Second, only to New Orleans. So, this is an area that will quite frankly be under water, if we don’t get this under control. And Rob Wittman has voted time and time again against renewable energy. He voted against Cap and Trade. We’ve got to get serious about controlling climate change or else the bay is in big trouble.

Krystal also spent quite a bit of time advocating for renewable energy. She noted the huge potential of wind power off the coast of Norfolk. It has some of the highest sustained winds in the country and the shallow depth makes it very cost effective. She also noted the potential for solar power throughout the district.

The candidates differed substantially on Cap and Trade. Scott does not support it and Krystal does. Scott didn’t offer any reasons on why he opposed it.

Krystal on her support for Cap and Trade:

it is exactly the sort of market-based energy reform that, again, a responsible Republican should support. It uses market mechanisms to set the price, so it is as little government intervention as possible. And it is a policy that has been proven to work. Helped us to reduce acid rain under the Clean Air Act, so we know that it works.

Another issue that arose was nuclear power. Scott is a big supporter of nuclear power plants and Krystal is not ideologically opposed to it.  Krystal thinks that wind and solar power are better ways to go. Her big issues with nuclear power plants are how to deal with the waste that they generate and the incredible construction costs to build one. Krystal noted that

construction costs on nuclear plants have gone up from an estimated $3 billion per plant 5 years ago to now an estimated $9 billion dollars.

She brought everyone’s attention to the fact that the President has decided to commit taxpayer dollars to backing loans for nuclear power plants, which she strongly opposes.  She explains that the reason why the government had to get involved

was because no one in the market thought that this was a good deal. 50% of nuclear power plants do not make good on their loans.

It simply does not make fiscal sense and unnecessarily puts taxpayer dollars at risk.

Perhaps the biggest bombshell (perhaps quite literally) was Scott’s explanation on what he would do with the nuclear waste generated. He seemed to imply that nuclear waste would not be an issue with breeder reactors, something he strongly supports. When I first heard that I was speechless and it further reinforced the fact that he doesn’t do his homework.

The one advantage of a breeder reactor is a limitless supply of fuel; however, the disadvantages seriously outweigh any benefit. The waste produced by the breeder reactor must still be reprocessed, so that the ²³⁹Pu byproduct can be filtered out and reused by the reactor as fuel. ²³⁹Pu is also incredibly dangerous. It is so dangerous that the nuclear industry puts limits on how much of it an individual can handle over a lifetime. The fuel that this reactor uses and produces can also be used in a nuclear bomb. The security concerns are enormous and puts this country at a huge security risk, as these reactors would be present a huge target for terrorist organizations. If all of that isn’t enough to scare you, the costs for these reactors are very high.

I’m shocked that Scott would strongly endorse using breeder reactors, especially based on his background in the military. His biography indicates that he managed policy development regarding weapons of mass destruction as his final assignment at the Pentagon. You would think that with all of his “experience” that he wouldn’t be proposing something that has the potential to endanger the security of this nation.

It is clear to me that Krystal has a way better grasp on environmental issues and, most importantly, does her homework before making policy decisions. This is just the sort of person that this district needs.

UPDATE: For an excellent further analysis of these issues, see Blue Virginia.

Comments Off

By Marc, December 15, 2009 8:39 pm

Krystal Ball, a Democratic candidate for Congress in Virginia’s 1^st Congressional District, penned an op-ed late last week that laid out the need for the US to take the lead in confronting the reality of weather climate change. She went on to say that this isn’t only an environmental issue, but rather a national security and economic imperative.

Krystal’s Op-Ed:

I was born and raised in an area of Virginia surrounded by the Chesapeake Bay.  The bay is a priceless treasure and the largest estuary in the United States.  It is second only to New Orleans in its vulnerability to climate-change induced flooding.  I believe that man-made climate change is a scientific fact and confronting the reality of greenhouse gas emissions a critical moral and environmental imperative. Our failure to rise to this challenge would be a betrayal of our children and future generations.   Right now, the world’s attention is focused on the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen.   My attention is also focused on Copenhagen.  But not because I am an environmentalist, rather it is my patriotism, my experience as a small business owner and my study of economics that focus me on Copenhagen.

Eliminating our dependence on imported oil is a national security imperative.  Our consumption of foreign oil bought from petro-dictators is the financial engine of worldwide terrorism.  When I think about our men and women in uniform killed in Iraq and Afghanistan by improvised explosive devices and road-side bombs, as I marvel at their heroism, I can’t help but think about where the money came from to buy the explosives and the nails and ball bearings launched at them by jihadi cowards.  Our purchase of foreign oil funds the regimes who fund the terrorists.  It’s as simple as that. It doesn’t matter whether you want to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels because of global warming or because you want to cut off funds to the terrorists…the patriotic thing to do and the environmental thing to do are the same.  The US has 3% of the world’s proven oil reserves.  Osama Bin Laden’s birthplace of Saudi Arabia has 25%.  “Drill baby drill” may be the Saudi energy strategy, but it is no strategy for the US.

Cutting out our reliance on fossil fuels isn’t just about national security, it’s also about jobs.  That’s why I think about the Copenhagen Summit as the jobs summit.  Our car companies went bankrupt because we ignored world-wide demand for more fuel efficient cars and focused on higher short-term profits from SUVs and trucks.  China leads the world in manufacturing, not just in the manufacture of the household goods that used to be made in America, but in solar power production and electric vehicle production.  Our universities, our scientists, our venture capitalists are the best in the world by far.  We have the largest consumer market in the world and are the world’s largest consumers of energy.  The US is the natural choice to lead the world in energy-efficient, green technology and alternative and renewable energy.  India, China, Japan and Europe are all aggressively promoting green technology as part of their economic growth strategy.

We work longer hours and have more productive workers than India or China.  We are the best positioned in the world to lead in green technology  and if we invest in that leadership, the entire world will buy green technology produced in America by American workers.

In the US, a fierce political debate rages about whether climate change is real.  In the rest of the world, there is no such debate.  The rest of the world accepts the reality of climate change and they are gearing up industry, research investment and regulation to make their economies more energy efficient, less reliant on fossil fuels, to turn their buildings green, to develop electric cars and affordable solar power in order to confront the reality of climate change.   Those focused on events in Copenhagen are derided by “global warming skeptics” as tree-hugging internationalists who care more about world opinion than the economic reality of job creation in the United States.  They deride climate change legislation as “Cap and Tax” and sound alarm bells about the economic consequences of higher energy costs that come with controlling greenhouse gas emissions.   I say, for the cleanliness of our air, the purity of our water, the diversity of our wildlife, the national security of our homeland and the job creation of the 21st century, we need to heed the warning of Copenhagen and take the lead in the world-wide reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.  And in the process, if we just happen to avoid a civilization ending climatic catastrophe, we can call that a bonus.