What would the resolution do?

The resolution calls upon representatives to acknowledge the grave dangers which climate change poses to our children, future generations, and our Earth, and to commit to actions that would prevent and reduce these dangers. It is a non-binding statement that sets out a framework that will need to be followed up with detailed legislative prescriptions. Read the full text of the resolution.

Why is this resolution necessary and helpful to move congressional action on addressing climate change forward?

This resolution is a necessary and important first step towards rekindling acknowledgement and awareness of the climate crisis because, currently, little discussion, much less the urgency to act, is occurring in Congress on the gravity of global climate disruption. Yet the emission of global greenhouse gases due to human activities - the primary driver of climate change - continues largely unabated.

The document provides representatives in the current House with the opportunity to express a formal commitment to acknowledge and address the climate crisis. Discussions with congressional offices about this resolution can help re-open a dialogue within Congress about how to solve together the challenge before us all, in our shared aspiration for a healthy future for our children and future generations.

More specifically, the resolution can create interest in discussions, briefings and hearings within the Halls of Congress regarding the threats climate change poses now and in the future, and in turn, legislative strategies that respond in ways commensurate with the threats.

How else can this resolution be effective in creating change?

Discussions about the resolution provide a way to raise the awareness of people in the United States and the national media of the import of the risks and correspondingly, the urgency of implementing solutions on the national and international levels.

If candidates running for Congress and other public offices are asked about this resolution, it provides those candidates with an opportunity to declare an acknowledgement of the climate crisis and resolve to address it if elected.

What can you do?

FCNL requests your endorsement of this resolution and that you consider urging your member of the House of Representatives to become a co-sponsor.

If you are able to attend candidate forums, town hall meetings, or other public events, consider asking your candidates if they would support this resolution if elected.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESMr. MORAN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to theCommittee on____________

RESOLUTIONExpressing the sense of the House of Representatives thatthe energy, environmental, and foreign policies of theUnited States should reflect appropriate understandingand sensitivity concerning issues related to climatechange, as documented by credible scientific findings andas evidenced by the extreme weather events of recentyears.

Whereas an overwhelming majority of credentialed scientists,in the United States and abroad, support the findingsthat climate change is happening and that human activitiesare a key contributor to it;

Whereas the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) has concluded that human emissions of greenhousegases, particularly carbon dioxide, are responsiblefor global warming;

Whereas the average surface temperature of the Earth is predictedto increase by 3.2°F to 7.2°F by the end of the21st century relative to the temperatures experienced inthe 1980 to 1990 timeframe;

Whereas the average rate of warming over each inhabitedcontinent is very likely to be at least twice as large asthat experienced during the 20th century;

Whereas an increase in temperature will have major adverseimpacts on both the natural and man-made environmentsand cause significant human suffering due to heat waves,prolonged droughts, water scarcity, food insecurity, risingsea-levels, intensification and frequency of extremeweather events, and extinction of some species;

Whereas greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide trap radiationfrom the sun and warm the planet’s surface;

Whereas as concentrations of these gases increase, morewarming occurs than would happen naturally;

Whereas in the United States, fossil fuel use accounted for95 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in 2010;

Whereas the United States was responsible for 18 percent ofthe estimated 30,313 Teragrams (Tg) of carbon dioxideadded to the atmosphere through the global combustionof fossil fuels in 2009 alone;

Whereas the United States relies on electricity to meet a significantportion of its energy demands;

Whereas United States electricity generation from fossil fuelsemitted 42 percent of the carbon dioxide from fossil fuelcombustion in 2010;

Whereas in order to stabilize the Earth’s climate and preventcatastrophic global climate change, the levels of worldwidecarbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissionsneed to be reduced;

Whereas many religious faiths in the United States andabroad have issued proclamations about the moral obligationto be good stewards of the Earth and about themoral imperative for action on climate change;

Whereas economists in the United States and abroad recognizethe great potential for job creation in renewable energy,energy efficiency, and other innovative practices;

Whereas United States national security experts recognizethat climate change acts as an accelerant of instabilityand conflict;

Whereas public health experts have documented the healthimpacts of rising temperatures, the expansion of vectorborne infectious diseases, risks to worldwide food supplies,as well as the direct physical effects of more frequentand extreme weather events; and

Whereas a growing number of political, scientific, business,and religious leaders believe steps must be taken to avoidcatastrophic effects of climate change: Now, therefore, beit:

1 acknowledges that human activities are a primary cause of climate change;
2 recognizes that climate change poses unacceptable risks to the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the United States;
3 accepts its responsibility to safeguard the welfare of the people of the United States;
4 acknowledges that the welfare of the people of the United States is best protected by policies that—
(A) reduce energy consumption and in12crease energy efficiency;
(B) shift power supply strategy from oil, coal and natural gas to wind, solar, geothermal, and other renewable energy sources to reduce dependence on fossil fuels;
(C) capture and store carbon by planting and greening of urban landscapes and improving land and forest management practices; and
(D) help people of the United States and abroad prepare for and withstand the significant impacts of climate change that are already occurring and that are likely to accelerate in years ahead; and pledges to promptly introduce and enact legislation to achieve these goals.

We encourage you to read the resolution and our introduction to it, below, and show your or your organization’s support for the resolution by endorsing it with your name, state, and organization name if applicable. Public support is a key component of this effort. Congress needs to see that there is a real and growing understanding of the problems posed by anthroprogenic climate change, which has manifested as a set of real-world problems. The American people, indeed all people,  need real world solutions. Please write your representative and encourage him or her to support this resolution.

Please urge your representative to support this resolution today!

On Thursday, Representative Keith Ellison and Senator Bernie Sanders introduced the “End Polluter Welfare Act,” bicameral legislation that would do away with tax breaks, financial assistance, royalty relief, and other loopholes that benefit the fossil fuel industry. Human civilization is dependent upon the adoption of clean, renewable energy resources, and the re-allocation of federal fossil fuel money would be a great place to start. Currently, more than $113 billion in federal subsidies would go to oil, coal and gas industries in the coming decade. Is this where you want your money going?

Read the full bill text here, as well as Senator Sanders comments and Representative Ellison’s comments.

Contact your congressional representatives and urge them to cosponsor S. 3080, the “End Polluter Welfare Act.”

Find out more.

On behalf of our millions of members and supporters, we urge you to oppose the “Surface Transportation Extension Act, Part II” and to take up and pass the bipartisan Senate transportation bill, H.R. 14, without adding divisive changes.

Instead of investing in America’s transportation infrastructure and creating a modern transportation system, the Surface Transportation Extension Act would kick the can down the road by extending the current transportation bill for another 3 months. Further, the bill seeks to tie a poison pill to a bipartisan transportation bill – though the automatic permitting of the dirty and dangerous Keystone XL pipeline. As construction season begins, this bill makes it clear that House leaders are more concerned with building Big Oil’s profits than providing cities and states with the certainty needed to build a safe, modern transportation system.

The Senate’s bipartisan transportation bill, S. 1813, would protect 3 million American jobs and make significant improvements in our nation’s infrastructure. This bill, which passed the Senate earlier this year with an overwhelmingly bipartisan majority of 74-22, would take critical steps to reduce our dependence on oil and move our transportation system into the 21st century.

Rising gas prices have made our dependence on oil painfully clear. At the same time, our roads, bridges and transit systems are in dire need of repair. It is critical that Congress show real leadership by investing in our nation’s transportation system – both repairing our current infrastructure and expanding access to clean, convenient transportation options such as transit, biking and walking. Tacking on controversial provisions like an approval of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline do nothing to address our nation’s transportation needs and cater only to the profits of Big Oil, threatening the passage of any transportation legislation, all while 3 million American jobs hang in the balance.

For these reasons, we urge you to reject the Surface Transportation Extension Act, to take up HR 14, the bipartisan transportation bill already overwhelmingly passed by the U.S. Senate.

Sincerely,

Bold Nebraska
Center for Biological Diversity
Chesapeake Climate Action Network Clean Water Action
Ecology Center
Environment America
Friends Committee on National Legislation
League of Conservation Voters
Natural Resources Defense Council
Safe Climate Campaign
Sierra Club
Southern Environmental Law Center
US Climate Action Network
Western Nebraska Resources Council
Western Organization of Resource Councils
350.org

As communities of faith, we are called to ensure justice for the most vulnerable among us and to serve as stewards of God’s great Creation. In keeping with these teachings, we urge you to oppose any attempt to overturn the recently finalized Utility MACT rule – a rule that would reduce mercury pollution and other air toxics, including arsenic, chromium, nickel, and acid gases, from power plants around the United States. The air toxics addressed in this rule have been shown to have harmful impacts on people, communities, and all Creation.

For more than twenty years, communities of faith around the country have sought stronger emissions standards for harmful air pollutants, particularly for emissions from coal-fired power plants. Many newer coal-burning power plants already meet the stricter emissions standards in the Utility MACT rule—according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), nearly 60 percent of coal burning power plants already have the equipment needed to comply with the new rule.

Many of the plants that do not meet the new standards are older, some of them more than fifty years old, and have been polluting the air, land, and water in our communities with mercury and other toxics for decades. Coal-burning power plants were the largest anthropogenic source of mercury emissions to the air in the U.S., accounting in 2005 for 51 percent of all domestic anthropogenic mercury emissions that year. As a result, many of the fish in our country’s lakes, rivers, and streams are not safe to eat in large quantities, and pregnant women and children are routinely warned not to eat them. This poses a particularly high risk to low-income and subsistence communities that depend on fishing in local lakes, rivers and streams to feed their families.

Other toxics that will be regulated by the new rule include arsenic, acid gas, nickel, selenium, and cyanide, all of which have significant impacts on public health. The EPA estimates that, in total, the rules could prevent as many as 11,000 premature deaths, 4,700 heart attacks and 130,000 asthma attacks every year and help to avoid $37 billion to $90 billion each year in health care costs.

Coal-fired power plants are frequently located in low-income neighborhoods or communities of color, and toxic emissions from their smokestacks disproportionately impact those vulnerable populations. For example, 17 percent of African American children suffer from asthma compared to the national average of 8.5 percent.

Our energy choices should not sacrifice the long-term health and well-being of our communities, our families and the whole of Creation. The Utility MACT rule promises a better, cleaner world to come, and a renewed creation: cleaner rivers, lakes, and streams flowing through healthier communities. We urge you to oppose any attempt to undermine or eliminate the Utility MACT rule, including Senator Inhofe’s Resolution of Disapproval as filed under the Congressional Review Act.

Sincerely,
Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life
The Episcopal Church
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Franciscan Action Network
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Jewish Council on Public Affairs
Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns
Mennonite Central Committee US Washington Office
Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate, Justice, Peace/Integrity of Creation Office
National Council of Churches USA
Presbyterian Church (USA) Office of Public Witness
Union for Reform Judaism
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
United Church of Christ – Justice and Witness Ministries
The United Methodist Church – General Board of Church and Society

As you know, climate change already poses one of the greatest challenges for development and conservation in the 21st century. The USAID climate strategy illustrates the Agency's clear commitment to addressing the consequences and some of the key causes of a changing climate in developing countries. Moreover, the strategy creates a strong framework for building on and expanding effective climate programs to bolster resilience to the impacts of climate change and promote low emissions development through forest and ecosystem protection and the adoption of clean energy technologies.

We are especially pleased with the strategy's emphasis on integrating climate change efforts throughout the Agency's programs, including food security, health, biodiversity, and water. Climate change cannot be viewed or addressed in isolation from other development priorities, and the strategy firmly recognizes this reality.

The strategy's focus on country-driven strategies and engagement with key stakeholders - particularly civil society and affected communities and populations, including women - is essential to achieving success. To ensure robust stakeholder engagement in each stage of design, implementation and evaluation of the strategies, US support for capacity building for that engagement will be critical for both developing country governments and civil society at all levels.

The strategy's focus on country-driven strategies and engagement with key stakeholders - particularly civil society and affected communities and populations, including women - is essential to achieving success. To ensure robust stakeholder engagement in each stage of design, implementation and evaluation of the strategies, US support for capacity building for that engagement will be critical for both developing country governments and civil society at all levels.

Thank you for advancing the USAID climate strategy and for your commitment to tackling the significant challenge of climate change. We look forward to working with you and the entire USAID staff during implementation of the strategy to assure its success.

Sincerely,
Action Against Hunger | ACF International
Nan Dale, Chief Executive Officer
Africare, Darius Mans, President
CARE USA, Helene D. Gayle, MD, MPH, President and CEO
Church World Service, Rev. John L. McCullough, Executive Director and CEO
Friends Committee on National Legislation, Diane Randall, Executive Secretary
Heifer International, Pierre Ferrari, CEO
National Wildlife Federation, Larry Schweiger, President and CEO
Oxfam America, Raymond C. Offenheiser, President
Pact, Mark Viso, President and CEO
Population Action International, Suzanne Ehlers, President and CEO
Relief International, Dr. Farshad Rastegar, President and CEO
US Climate Action Networkk, Peter Bahouth, Executive Director
World Wildlife Fund, Carter Roberts, President and CEO

Dear Mr. Nides,As the State Department considers its allocations of the Economic Support Fund (ESF) for Fiscal Year 2012, we write to ask that you direct the $200 million authorized for “Multilateral Assistance, International Financial Institutions” to critical climate and food security accounts. In addition to our support for this transfer of funds, we also want to take this opportunity to urge that the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) and the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF), also funded out of the ESF, be funded at FY10 levels.

As you know, in the Conference Report on the Consolidated Appropriations Act of Fiscal Year 2012 bill, $200 million was authorized under ESF to be allocated upon agreement between the administration and Congress. While we recognize that there are many competing priorities for ESF funds, the additional financing for the following funds, in combination with funding for the LDCF and SCCF, will make a significant difference in serving vital U.S. interests and helping to deliver on two of the President’s top global initiatives – Food Security and Climate Change.

$115.37m Clean Technology Fund (to a total of $300m)The CTF aims to mitigate carbon pollution in emerging economies through the deployment and transfer of low-carbon technologies. Clean energy investment in developing countries is expected to reach $20 trillion over the next 25 years. The potential for the U.S. to be a global leader in this sector has real implications for a new generation of jobs.

$50.1m Strategic Climate Fund (to a total of $100m)The SCF is comprised of three targeted funds for poor countries that incentivize the scaling-up of actions that integrate climate resilience into national development plans, reduce deforestation, and increase energy access through renewable sources. SCF funded projects are now in critical stages of implementation.

$15m Global Agriculture and Food Security Program, Public Sector Window (to total $150m)The GAFSP is a multi-donor trust fund for country and regional food security programs. Its Public Sector Window invests in activities to improve food security and livelihoods, such as linking farmers to markets, increasing productivity, technical assistance, and reducing risks. To date, U.S. investments have helped mobilize funding from seven other donors.

$10.2m Global Environment Facility (to a total of $100m)The GEF unites 182 countries and combines the ingenuity of U.S. corporations, international institutions, NGOs and governments to address global environmental issues. Recent reforms have made it even more effective. U.S. contributions receive a high rate of return: for every U.S. dollar invested in the GEF, $30 to $50 is mobilized from other sources of co-financing.

Separately, as mentioned, we also want to express our support for the LDCF and SCCF and urge those accounts to be funded at FY10 enacted levels, which is consistent with the President’s FY12 budget request of $49 million (combined). The LDCF and SCCF are doing critical work in the world’s poorest countries and achieve the broadest support across the NGO community of any international climate funds in existence today.Assisting developing countries to bolster economic growth, build resilience to the impacts of a changing climate, adopt clean energy technologies, protect tropical forests and biodiversity, and increase food security serves U.S. economic, security, and development objectives.

Robust investments in these accounts promote national security and reduce global instability caused by migration and conflicts over ever-scarcer resources. Before leaving his post as Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen noted that climate impacts “could generate conditions that could lead to failed states and make populations more vulnerable to radicalization.” They also ensure significant U.S. cost savings. According to the World Bank and the U.S. Geological Survey, for every $1 spent on disaster preparedness $7 can be saved in disaster response.

We appreciate the support the administration has provided to these important accounts to date and believe that continued strong funding of these accounts is essential to getting the U.S. closer to its goals and international commitments.

Sincerely,
Africare
CARE USA
Center for International Environmental Law
Church World Service
Climate Solutions
Congressional Hunger Center
EcoEquity
Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI)
Fabretto Children’s Foundation
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Interfaith Power & Light
Lutheran World Relief
National Wildlife Federation
Natural Resources Defense Council
Oxfam America
Refugees International
RegioDev Africa (RDA)
Sierra Club
Union of Concerned Scientists
Washington Office on Latin America
Wildlife Conservation Society
World Wildlife Fund

"It would go a long way to caution and direct people in their use of the world, that they were better studied and knowing in the Creation of it. For how could [they] find the confidence to abuse it, while they should see the Great Creator stare them in the face, in all and every part thereof?"
-William Penn, Some Fruits of Solitude, 1693

Guided by Spirit, our Quaker Meeting has long had a deep concern about moving more strongly into right relationship with Earth and toward a more ecologically sustainable society. We firmly believe that Spirit intends that we should be good trustees of Earth, preserving and conserving all that is here. We have already taken steps as individuals and as a Meeting to take responsibility for that concern. We have started a Dime-A-Gallon program, which includes a self-tax and a grants fund, and we have written a new Quaker testimony on care of the Earth. Now we feel called to urge you, our elected officials at the national level, to take immediate action to stem the growing crisis of climate change.

Legislation that authorizes new programs to create green jobs and develop alternative energy sources here at home will pay for itself. It will increase employment, income, and energy efficiency. It will also generate new tax revenue, and foster innovation, which is the key to a vibrant economy. Laws that end perverse taxpayer-funded subsidies to carbon-based energy producers will help level the energy playing field. Firm regulation of CO2 emitters will spur new developments in emissions reduction technology. We also need measures that remove red tape and other barriers to all of our citizens moving swiftly toward a sustainable energy economy. The incalculable costs of doing nothing far exceed the costs of taking smart preventive action now. We must also take these steps in order to reduce the sources of climate conflict: drought, food scarcity, heat waves, sea level rise, increasingly devastating storms and floods, new epidemics, refugee surges, and the most dreadful prospect of all, growing global climate chaos.

In short, there are no legitimate economic, political or spiritually honest arguments to be made in favor of further delay. The moment for action is now. We ask you to hear and act on our request.

Approved 2.12.2012

March 13, 2012

Afghanistan: Massacre Demonstrates Failure of War;  24 Senators Call for End to U.S. Combat Operations;  Lobby for an End to the War at Spring Lobby Weekend;   Iran: Finally, Positive Legislation;   What's New: UN Quiz;  Helen Thorpe at FCNL;  Keystone XL Pipeline; Pentagon Waste Fact Sheet;  Your Letters;  Recent FCNL Statements;   Environment: Join Us April 22-26 for Interfaith Action on Climate Change;  War is Not the Answer Photo of the Week: Des Moines, Iowa

We're testing out a new format, so please send us feedback by using our contact us form.

Afghanistan

Massacre Demonstrates Failure of War

Sixteen civilians are dead at the hands of a U.S. Army staff sergeant who had previously suffered a traumatic brain injury but was declared still "fit for duty." These events are a case study in what is wrong with the continued U.S. military occupation in Afghanistan, writes Matt Southworth. While the U.S. can't abandon Afghanistan, the continued suffering and violence of the Afghan people can only be lessened by political solutions to the conflict - which can only happen in the absence of foreign troops. Read more about the growing support for this idea in the U.S.

24 Senators Call for End to U.S. Combat Operations

"It is time to bring our troops home from Afghanistan." That's the message of a recent bipartisan letter to President Obama signed by nearly a quarter of the Senate. FCNL helped organize the letter and encouraged offices to sign on. Did your senators sign the letter?

Lobby for an End to the War at Spring Lobby Weekend

This weekend, people from around the country will be converging on Washington, DC to lobby for a responsible end to the U.S. war in Afghanistan and cuts in the Pentagon budget. Participants will hear from Afghanistan whistleblower Lieutenant Colonel Daniel L Davis and other knowledgeable speakers, learn to lobby, and meet with their members of Congress. Here's how you can be involved:

• Come for the weekend: it's not too late to register.
• Come for a day or an afternoon: If you're in the area and want to come to part of the lobby weekend, please email Kathy Zager at kathy@fcnl.org.  See the schedule.
• Follow the action on Facebook or follow @springlobby2012 on Twitter.

Iran: Finally, Positive Legislation

Congressional offices received more than 3,500 phone calls from people like you last week urging them to oppose legislation to encourage the president to abandon diplomacy, and press toward war with Iran. Even as this legislation seems headed for a vote in both the Senate and House, FCNL's Kate Gould sees that your calls are making a difference.

Even as the drumbeat for war with Iran grows louder, a new House bill calls for robust, sustained, and comprehensive diplomacy with Iran to prevent war and to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. Please urge your representative to cosponsor California Rep. Barbara Lee's legislation, H.R. 4173.

What's New

How Much Do You Know About the UN? Take this quiz to find out.

Helen Thorpe; immigrant rights advocate, Denver's "first lady" and the author of Just Like Us, stopped by FCNL to talk.

What's wrong with the Keystone XL Pipeline proposal? Program Assistant Bergin Park looks at the facts and photos of what it could do the environment.

How Much Money Does the Pentagon Waste? Find out with this new fact sheet.

Your letters to the editor on Pentagon spending cuts: Voices for peace are reverberating in your communities. See letters to the editor published recently by FCNL supporters in Pittsburgh, Delaware, and Florida.

Recent FCNL Letters and Statements

• To Rep. Gwen Moore (WI): Thank you for legislation to expand the social safety net.
• 28 groups urge Congress to fully fund conflict prevention and civilian protection.

See more letters and statements.

Join Us April 22-26 for Interfaith Action on Climate Change

During Earth Week, people of many different faiths will gather in Washington and elsewhere across the country to lobby, pray, and advocate for congressional action to address climate change. FCNL is working with the Interfaith Moral Action on Climate Change to organize these activities. See a schedule of events, and mark your calendars now!

New Date for Conference Call with Jose Aguto: Find out more about these activities by joining our lobbyist Jose Aguto for a conference call. The call will take place on Thursday March 29 (not this coming Thursday) at 8 p.m. Eastern. We apologize for needing to reschedule the date and hope you will still be able to join us.  You will be able to join by calling 213-342-3000 and dialing participant code 283096. Please contact Bergin Parks at bergin@fcnl.org with any questions and to let us know if you will be able to take part in the call.

War Is Not the Answer Photo of the Week: Des Moines, Iowa

On a snowy Saturday morning in Des Moines, a group of peace activists from Iowans for Diplomacy with Iran and Occupy Des Moines gathered to deliver a message: War is not the Answer with Iran.

Order your own War Is Not the Answer sign and see where this movement is showing up across the country. Find out how to submit your photo.

Together, we are hosting a conference, vigils, services, a procession, and providing support and training for visits with Congressional representatives.

If you are interested in participating in any of these activities, especially visits with Congressional representatives, please e-mail Bergin Parks at bergin@fcnl.org.

Monday, April 23rd

Tuesday, April 24th

IMAC is organizing an interfaith service and a religious/spiritual procession from the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial to the U.S. Capitol.

Wednesday, April 25th

Thursday, April 26th

Join FCNL's new Legislative Secretary for Sustainable Energy and the Environment, Jose Aguto, for a conference call on Thursday March 29 from 8-8:55 p.m. Eastern time. Jose and other FCNL representatives would like to share and discuss with you the work that we see ahead, both in the long and short term, with a focus on the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enable vulnerable communities and ecosystems to adapt to climate change.

The call will also be a chance for you to find out about FCNL's work with Interfaith Moral Action on Climate Change (IMAC) and the slate of interfaith activities that will occur in Washington, DC during Earth Week (April 21-27). We encourage you to consider endorsing IMAC's statement and participating in the planned activities. For more information, see IMAC’s website, and ask questions on the phone call.

To join the call, please call 1-213-342-3000 on Thursday March 29 at 8 p.m. Eastern time. The participant code for the call is 283096.

If you plan to join this call, please let us know by emailing Bergin Parks (bergin@fcnl.org).

For nearly 100 years, the U.S. government has provided tax breaks and other subsidies to encourage the production of coal, oil and gas. These subsidies cost U.S. taxpayers a lot of money and encourage the production and use of energy sources that pollute the environment.

These two reports provide more details about the cost of subsidies that encourage pollution and how much money the U.S. could save by eliminating these kinds of supports.

The Keystone XL Pipeline would permit the Alberta Tarsands mining project, an enormous environmental disaster, to continue. The Tarsands project extracts dispersed globules of bituminous petroleum laden with heavy metals. Every step of the process is energy-intensive. Refining the bitumen after an arduous and expensive extraction process requires gargantuan amounts of water and emits high toxin levels. To heat it sufficiently to flow in pipelines, the mining company must burn methane.

The pipeline would further wreck native lands in Canada, which are already heavily impacted by the mining project. It would flow through prime ranchland and near critical bodies of water in the US. A rupture in the proposed pipeline would create a spill of an estimated seven million gallons of oil. Building the pipeline for what is essentially a land-locked source of low quality oil would cause a huge increase in CO2 emissions. The Keystone XL Pipeline would augment the collateral damage involved in the complex mining process. The production process for tars and oil creates three times the emissions of conventional crude, on average.

The President, with advice from the State Department, will make a decision by the end of this year about whether to allow the Keystone XL pipeline to be built from Alberta to Texas. James Hansen, a leading US climate scientist, states that burning the Alberta oil pool could push atmospheric CO2 levels over 600 ppm. The effect on planetary climate resulting from such an extreme rise in CO2 would be unprecedented in recorded history, threatening human societies and causing the extinction of many species of plants and animals.Approved by the Steering Committee of Quaker Earthcare Witness, August 14 2011

After a hiatus of more than two decades following the nuclear accident at Three Mile Island, nuclear power is experiencing a resurgence of support as a key part of the future U.S. energy mix. With growing concern over rising fossil fuel emissions, the lack of reliable renewable power and a smart national grid, and the debate over a clean energy standard, nuclear power is seen by many as a clean and stable source of power.

While nuclear power may be touted by proponents as a viable and necessary source of energy, the earthquake and resulting nuclear disaster in Japan illustrate the inherent dangers of this thinking, as do other past events at Chernobyl or Three Mile Island which were caused by mechanical failures and human errors. Many of the 104 operating nuclear power plants in the United States have experienced serious problems related to design, structural integrity, and age, threatening major metropolitan areas in the case of malfunction. Furthermore, issues remain over economic feasibility, re-licensing, storage, long-term disposal of highly radioactive waste, proliferation, and terrorist attacks.

Taken together with the health, economic, environmental, and proliferation risks implicit in nuclear power, the technology does not meet the criteria for a sustainable energy future. It must be phased out of future energy plans, beginning with a halt to any construction on new nuclear plants and continuing with a moratorium on re-licensing operating plants, the removal of spent fuel from storage pools into dry casks, and an end to all subsidies for the nuclear industry. To meet present and future energy demands, the United States must invest in truly clean and renewable energy sources that can move the country toward a safe and healthy carbon-free economy.

The (Un)-Economics of Nuclear Power Plants

If the benefits of nuclear power are so attractive, where are the investors?

Nuclear power plants are unable to compete on the open market without large government subsidies. This is because:

These reasons have made private lenders reluctant to invest capital, leaving taxpayers to shoulder the cost through large government subsidies.

Subsidies to the nuclear industry come in the form of taxpayer-backed loan guarantees, production tax credits, shutdown subsidies, anti-trust exemptions, taxpayer financed plant construction, and federal cost-sharing liability agreements such as the Price-Anderson Act of 2005, which limits the amount of primary insurance that nuclear operators must carry and establishes an industry-funded liability cap of $12.6 billion. These subsidies not only leave taxpayers with the immediate risk of loan defaults, but also with continued financial responsibility for nuclear waste, safety, security, and potential accidents. ¹

The goal of subsidies to the nuclear industry is to shift the associated risks from the operator to the taxpayer. A 2011 Union of Concerned Scientists report on subsidies² explains that current nuclear subsidies have four principal objectives:

While the exact amount of subsidies that the nuclear industry has received is hard to determine, the amount is sure to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. The Green Scissors Report estimates that since the 1940s, the nuclear industry had received more than $125 billion dollars in federal subsidies for research and development, construction, cleanup, and insurance.³ What is also clear is that ongoing subsidies range from "13 percent to 98 percent of the value of the power produced. Even at the low-end, subsidies account for a significant portion of nuclear power's operating cost advantage over competing energy sources."⁴

Unfortunately, large amounts of this money has been wasted: $13.5 billion dollars was invested in the halted Yucca Mountain project, $30 billion on the Nuclear Waste Fund, which was intended to finance the disposal of used nuclear fuel even though to date no viable solution for waste exists, and countless dollars on failed research and development, cost overruns, and energy price hikes.⁵ Most recently, the current administration has proposed an additional $36 billion dollars to finance the construction of new nuclear plants over the next 20 years.

These financial lifelines to the nuclear industry do not change the exorbitant costs; they simply switch the financial burden from the private investment market to the taxpayer. This distorts the market and hinders the ability of other economically feasible energy technologies from gaining a foothold. A 2009 study by Dr. Mark Cooper of the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School projected that 100 new reactors would cost between $1.9 to $4.4 trillion more than meeting the equivalent electricity demand with efficiency and renewable sources.⁶ What if just half of the subsidies that the nuclear industry has received had been invested in scaling up renewable energy technologies? If the government is going to be choosing winners and losers of energy technologies, it should pick affordable, safe, and renewable sources instead of nuclear power.

Re-Licensing of Nuclear Plants

One of the most pressing issues regarding nuclear power in the United States is the relicensing of aging reactors.

Licenses are required for the operation of nuclear power plants in order to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety. The licensing process is conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which overseas all aspects of the United States civilian use of nuclear energy. Licenses are granted for a set time period, normally 20-40 years, after which the nuclear operator must secure another license for continued operation. The licensing process can take many years, and cost hundreds of million of dollars.

As nuclear reactors around the country near the end their expected operating life, many owners apply for license extensions to operate reactors for an addition 20 years in order to avoid the expensive process of decommissioning a nuclear plant or building a new one. Due to the low cost of fuel once a nuclear power plant is built and the capital-costs are paid the continuing operations costs are minimal, resulting in higher profits as the plant ages. Often in order to maximize profit owners apply for relicensing far in advance of the license expiration date in order to avoid problems associated with relicensing an aging plant, which include dated technologies and lower safety standards.

The relicensing of old nuclear plants compromises the safety of these facilities and of people living in close proximity to these plants. Many of the problems that have been documented at existing nuclear plants, such as mechanical failures and issues of structural integrity, will be exacerbated if these plants are allowed to continue operation past their initial license date. A recently released report by the Union of Concerned Scientists entitled "The NRC and Nuclear Power Plant Safety in 2010," examines the causes of 14 narrowly-avoided accidents at U.S. nuclear plants in 2010, which include inadequate employee training, maintenance, and design.⁷ Events such as these exemplify the safety threats inherent at nuclear plants, which will intensify as plants age and owners overreach on the expected operating life. It is important to note that a significant number of U.S. nuclear plants seeking license extensions share the same design to the reactors in Fukushima, Japan.

Since 2000, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved license extensions for 32 reactors. Currently, 20 additional nuclear plants are currently in the process of applying for an extension with 17 more expected to apply.⁸ So far not one application had been denied.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission should impose a moratorium on the relicensing of aging nuclear power plants. A policy of this kind would reduce the safety and health risks poised by old plants, and force the nuclear industry to confront the economic reality of building new plants.

Health and Environmental Destruction

Nuclear power plants generate power by splitting apart atoms, which produces radioactive waste that, if released, is one of the most serious and fatal health issues involved in nuclear power production. During a nuclear accident this risk is multiplied because large amounts of radioactive material can be emitted into the atmosphere and carried hundreds of miles depending on the wind and ocean currents. Exposure to large amounts of radiation can kill or mutate cells of living organisms. Cells that are altered by radiation can produce more abnormal cells, which can lead to cancers, birth defects, genetic damage, and lowered immunity to disease.

A comprehensive study of health effects of the 1986 Chernobyl accident by the World Health Organization found greatly increased incidences of thyroid cancer, leukemia, and cataracts. A number of these cases were found up to 500 miles away from the site of the plant, and were due to both indirect and direct exposure of radiation.⁹ Furthermore, radiation contamination can last for decades, causing prolonged health risks over vast amounts of once populated areas. In twenty, forty, or sixty years, what will be the health effects of the Fukushima accident?

The environmental impacts of nuclear energy are often misunderstood. While nuclear plants emit a limited amount of carbon dioxide in their end product – electricity – the industries which supply the raw materials for nuclear power plants release a lot of carbon, which contributes to global climate change. The production of uranium, which powers most nuclear plants, is one of the most carbon-intensive industrial operations, once the mining, milling and chemical conversion processes are factored in. When the full life-cycle emissions are taken into account, nuclear energy is not so clean.

Nuclear facilities also routinely emit toxic radiation and waste into the air and water. Studies in the Irish, Kara, and Barents Seas, as well as in the Pacific Ocean, show that radioactive material does travel with ocean currents and does become integrated at various levels in the marine food chain.¹⁰ It remains to be seen what the environmental impacts will be from the Fukushima Plant where thousands of gallons of highly radioactive water have been released into the ocean.

Nuclear accidents away from large bodies of water can render large tracts of land uninhabitable and cause significant environmental damage to native species, and agricultural crops. The nuclear accident at Chernobyl contaminated 125,000 square miles in Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia, and spread radioactive material as far as the British Isles 1,500 miles away.

Storage and Disposal of Nuclear Waste

Waste from a nuclear reactor is highly radioactive and must be disposed of in a way that protects people and the environment from exposure and contamination. While the radioactivity of waste does diminish over time, it can continue to be dangerous for several hundred thousand years. Currently, over 2,000 metric-tons of high level radioactive waste and 12 million cubic feet of low level radioactive waste are produced annually in the United States.¹¹ Unfortunately, there is no permanent solution for this waste. The storage of nuclear waste can be broken down into two categories, interim storage and long-term storage, both of which present unique challenges.

Interim-Storage

Commonly, nuclear waste is stored and cooled in pools of water, as was the case at the Fukushima Nuclear Plant. If, for some reason, the water in the pools is lost, the used fuel rods can catch fire and melt, releasing radioactive material. A 1997 study for the NRC by Brookhaven National Laboratory found that a severe pool fire could render 188 square miles inhabitable, cause as many as 28,000 cancer fatalities, and cost $59 billion in damages.

In the United States, these interim storage pools are usually housed in reactor buildings several stories above ground and are not protected inside a containment structure as is commonly perceived. This leaves storage pools vulnerable to both accidents and intentional attacks that could lead to a loss of pool water. Other findings suggest that these pools do not meet adequate safety standards in the event of a loss of on-site power or from an attack.¹² There is no way to be certain that these pools will not be damaged by an undetectable or unstoppable attack, natural disaster, or human error.

With the absence of a permanent storage option and the recent decision to cancel plans for a disposal site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, nuclear plants are holding an increasing amount of spent fuel in storage pools. On average US plants are holding five times the amount of spent fuel allowed by their original license.¹³ According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, U.S. reactors have generated close to 65,000 metric tons of spent fuel, 75 percent which is stored in pools.¹⁴

With the vulnerabilities of storage pools, a better solution would be to move spent fuel into dry casks. Spent fuel can be moved into casks after being cooled in a pool for over one year. These casks are typically steel cylinders full of inert gas that are welded closed, and placed into a large concrete vault. While dry casks are still vulnerable to attacks, and are not a permanent solution, they are a more viable and safe option than storage pools. It is estimated it would take roughly 10 years at a cost between $3.5 and $7 billion to transfer all the spent fuel that is currently in storage pools into dry casks. ¹⁵ Yet it remains to be answered what to do with the casks after they reach their expected life.

Long-term Storage:

Many options for long term storage have been proposed, but the consensus is that nuclear waste should be stored in underground “geologic” repositories. In 1982 the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was established to create a legal framework for site identification, construction, and funding of multiple underground repositories, but due to technical and political concerns construction has yet to begin.

If a suitable location is ever agreed upon the site must be highly vetted, based on strong scientific data. The risk of any repository depends on the geochemistry of the site, which can account for the chances of seismic activity, leakage, and groundwater contamination. There are also significant political hurdles to overcome when choosing a site, such as happened with the decision to build a repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

According to the Associated Press and the Nuclear Energy Institute, the United States has nearly 65,000 tons of nuclear waste that is growing by over 2,000 tons every year.¹⁶ Without a viable option for disposal of this waste risks to citizens and the environment grows day by day.

Nuclear Proliferation

There is no way to completely separate the nuclear technologies employed for ‘peaceful’ purposes from those technologies employed in weapons.

Nuclear plants produce plutonium that can be used to form the core of a nuclear bomb. Plutonium and uranium can be separated from nuclear waste and reused at the plant, but that plutonium can also be dangerous: separated plutonium is much easier to steal and employ in a nuclear weapon than the plutonium that is encased, with the rest of the waste product, in highly radioactive spent-fuel assemblies. It takes less than 20 pounds of plutonium to build a small nuclear bomb.

While some nuclear power advocates believe that reprocessing would solve the problem of long-term waste disposal, plutonium actually consists of only 1 percent of the spent fuel in the United States. Furthermore, any U.S. reprocessing program would add to the current stockpile of plutonium from dismantled weapons, by more than 500 metric tons.¹⁷ This would only increase the amount of nuclear bomb material, undermining any attempts to reduce the risks of nuclear war.

Due to concerns over proliferation, the U.S. has maintained a policy against the reprocessing of nuclear fuel since the mid-1970’s, and has instead put resources towards advancing a policy for underground repositories. Unfortunately attempts to reverse this policy have been made, and any growth of nuclear power in the U.S. will surely bring renewed interest in reprocessing dangerous nuclear waste.

Conclusion

Building a sustainable, healthy, and carbon-free economy should not include nuclear power. The safety, health, and environmental consequences of nuclear energy production are just too big to overcome. Alternative renewable energy sources are both economically and technologically viable right now to support a transition to clean energy. Limited financial resources should not be spent on supporting an un-sustainable industry, but should be redirected towards clean, safe, and environmentally sustainable sources of energy.

The Friends Committee on National Legislation recommends:

Footnotes

1. Nuclear Facts, Natural Resources Defense Council.
2. Nuclear Power: Sill Not Viable Without Subsidies. Union of Concerned Scientists, 2011.
3. Green Scissors Report, 2010.
4. Nuclear Power: Sill Not Viable Without Subsidies. Union of Concerned Scientists, 2011.
5. DOE Life Cycle Cost Estimate and Fee Adequacy Report for Yucca Mountain Project (2008). http://www.doe.org
6. The Extreme Costs of Nuclear Power. Beyondnuclear.org, September 2010.
7. The NRC and Nuclear Power Plant Safety in 2010: A Brighter Spotlight Needed, Union of Concerned Scientists. 2010.
8. Resources and Stats, Nuclear Energy Institute
9. WHO Expert Group report "Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident and Special Health Care Programmes: Report of the UN Chernobyl Forum Health Expert Group," Editors Burton Bennett, Michael Repacholi and Zhanat Carr, World Health Organization, Geneva, 2006.
10. Grossman, Elizabeth. “Radioactivity in the Ocean: Diluted, But Far from Harmless.” Yale360.org. 4/7/11. 
11. Factsheet #4: Radioactive Waste. Public Citizen. 
12. A study by the Institute for Policy Studies, says that U.S. spent fuel pools are not required to have “defense-in-depth” nuclear safety features, which means they are not under heavy containment structures that cover the actual reactors. US regulation of spend fuel pools, or lack there of, does not require operators to have backup power supplies to circulate water and keep pools cool, in the case of a los of on-site power. http://www.ips-dc.org/nuclear
13. Nuclear Power in a Warming World. Union of Concerned Scientists, 2007. P45 
14.  Nuclear Waste: Amounts and On-Site Storage, Nuclear Energy Institute. 
15. Reducing the Hazards from Stored Spent Power-Reactor Fuel in the United States. April 21, 2003, Robert Alvarez, et al., in Science and Global Security, Spring 2003
16.  Nuclear Waste: Amounts and On-Site Storage, Nuclear Energy Institute. 
17. Nuclear Reprocessing: Dangerous, Dirty, and Expensive. Union of Concerned Scientists.