Would you support a clean energy PAC?

8 Comments

  • Rebecca L. Ramsay - 10 years ago

    I agree people opposed to nuclear energy need to be more involved in the political process. This will be a good way to inform ordinary citizens about the misinformation coming from the nuclear industry.

    Could the PAC be called the "Safe, Clean Energy PAC"? Nuclear energy advocates have been attempting to make people think it's clean, but they've never tried to convince anyone it's safe!

  • Michael Mariotte - 10 years ago

    Jim,

    I agree wholeheartedly that we need a way out of the money/politics/corruption mess. I certainly support a Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United for example. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening anytime soon and in the meantime the nuclear industry (and other industries) are taking advantage of the situation to further enhance their power. Our sitting back and bemoaning the situation just lets the industry get further ahead. While working to change the system, I believe we also have to use the system as best we can. Whether that's forming a PAC or 527 kind of group is something still to be decided--that's why we wanted to get as many opinions as possible before we look into that further, and we appreciate your comment.

  • Michael Mariotte - 10 years ago

    Ted, Nancy,

    There are no other PACS or 527 organizations (the kind that can spend money on issues related to campaigns but not directly support or oppose candidates (hah, hah, or so they're supposed to be, it's always obvious who they oppose/support--mostly oppose) that are anti-nuclear power.

    Council for a Liveable World is indeed anti-nuclear, but it is focused on nuclear weapons rather than power. Sometimes the two issues intersect, and we do see them as allies in those cases, but for the most part anti-nuclear weapons groups do not involve themselves in the effort to build a nuclear-free carbon-free energy future.

    Michael

  • Ted Kozlo - 10 years ago

    I support a number of environmental organizations, including NIRS, but only on a modest level, of course due to modest resources. So, my PAC contribution would be similar. The strategy outlined seems worth a try, even considering the near-hopeless corruption, and (thank you Monty Python) "blinkered philistine pig-ignorance" pervasive in D.C.
    However, as suggested above, are any other NCO's running PAC's which include the goal of ending nuclear power? Allying with one if available might increase influence.

  • nancy florsheim - 10 years ago

    Have you considered collaborating with the Council for a Livable World which does ask for direct support for anti nuclear candidates?

  • Jim Sylva - 10 years ago

    I have been an staunch advocate of sustainability and the abolition of nuclear power for over 40 years, but I could not in good conscious support any PAC. I feel PACs, at least as implemented in the United States, subvert democracy and foster corruption. We need a paradigm to get us out of this mess, not more of the same, sluggish thinking. I voted for the third option.

  • MichaelMariotte - 10 years ago

    I can't afford to be volunteer or part-time staff, so I certainly wouldn't be staffing it! I'd probably be willing to be on the Board (suppose I'd have to be willing, tho that's a time commitment....), but definitely wouldn't affect my tenure at NIRS.....

    Michael

  • Mary Jane Williams - 10 years ago

    But Michael, you'll stay at NIRS, right? NIRS needs to stay the same. We need you as you are.

    Could we call it "nuclear-free, carbon-free," as sub-title after "Clean Energy Pac?"

    Seems like most main stream environmental groups would like us if it were just "clean energy." The number would drop if we say "nuclear free, carbon free." But we gotta always include those words -- immediately after the title, which I agree should be "clean energy pac."

Leave a Comment

0/4000 chars


Submit Comment