Nuclear Energy Institute spent $545k lobbying in first quarter

nt

Lobbying is what companies do. You complain about a half a million in lobbying at the federal level. For some perspective, here is some info about lobbying at the state level:

"Oregon's Measure 50, a tobacco tax increase, attracted $16.2 million, and Washington's Referendum 67, relating to insurance fair conduct, attracted $15.4 million"
...source http://www.followthemoney.org/database/graphs/lobbyistlink/index.phtml?PHPSESSID=30b4df7dcd87bd874e640d248f61ca40&gclid=CNX97tHR3KkCFYHs7QodH2_wYQ

Here's the total from just one lobbyist, approaching $10 million:
http://www.followthemoney.org/database/lobbyist.phtml?l=167085

It's called perspective. Look into it...

For some examples see: "Discovery.com: Is Nuclear Energy Safe?" http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x236861
and post #17 in that thread: "17. It is misleading nuclear industry PR" http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=236861&mesg_id=237350

This Alternet article titled Nuclear Energy's Comeback Is Fueled By Lobbying Dollars, Not By Safer or Better Technology" leads with the assertion that over the previous 10 years the nuclear industry has spent $1 million for every member of the Legislature, with another $100 million for the Administration.


http://www.alternet.org/environment/145813/nuclear_energy's_comeback_is_fueled_by_lobbying_dollars,_not_by_safer_or_better_technology/

Bookmarked.

When the nuke industry leaves off a few orders of magnitude? Maybe it's really $545,000,000? Just saying.

Oops, now that I read the rest of the thread, I see I underestimated by $100,000,000.

They spent that $645M over 10 years.

Let's put that into an averaged annual perspective using the Wikipedia data on lobbying:

Big Banks:     $427M
Big Pharma:    $422M
Big Telcos:    $350M
Big Oil&Coal:  $245M
Big Transport: $225M
Big Ag:        $128M
Big Nuke:       $65M

Nuclear spends a little more on lobbying than Big Labor or the construction industry...

You'll excuse me if I don't get too worked up about the pittance the NEI spends on legal lobbying...

because special interests (with loads o' cash) control your government. So I guess you're right, who cares...

It's not nuclear lobbying that's the problem, it's lobbying in general.

I'm not sure how we roll back the clock on special interests - they laid their eggs in our cultures long ago, and the larvae have already hatched.

What we can do is to go after public opinion about the industry itself. That way, when the lobbyists go in with their cash the lawmakers know they're looking at a loss of votes if they take it.

That seems to offend you for some reason. Get over it.

Nuclear Energy's Comeback Is Fueled By Lobbying Dollars, Not By Safer or Better Technology"

Alternet writes,
"There has been no deep, thoughtful re-making or re-evaluation of atomic technology.

No solution to the nuke waste problem. No making reactors economically sound.

No private insurance against radioactive disasters by terror or error.

No grassroots citizens now desperate to live near fragile containment domes and outtake pipes spewing radioactive tritium at 27 US reactors."


Just lots of money to politicians.

We know how much money is being spent. What Alternet seems to propose propose are changes to the industry's regulations, not changes to lobbying practices.

I'm pointing out that lobbyists are an entrenched special interest. You can't selectively change the rules for one group, so long as their product is legal.

Changing the rules on lobbying is going to be subject to its own lobbying effort. In order to avoid that fight (which will probably chew up a lot of time, effort and money to little effect) what you can do is make sure that the politicians know that the lobbying is being watched, and disapproved of, by the public. Of course the success of that approach depends on the politicians believing that people will vote against them out of outrage. That has been disproven time and again in American politics.

It may be easier to re-regulate the nuclear industry than the lobbying industry.

"Nothing to see here, move along; nothing to see, move along..."

I want the little fucks to fail, right alongside the fossil fuel industry. I'm just saying it's going to be a tough fight, because they really don't want to give up. The nuclear industry is much more vulnerable than the oil and coal boys right now, though. We know we can keep up the citizen pressure on the nuclear boys and have an effect, because we did it before, after Chernobyl.

"Nuclear Energy's Comeback Is Fueled By Lobbying Dollars, Not By Safer or Better Technology" leads with the assertion that over the previous 10 years the nuclear industry has spent $1 million for every member of the Legislature, with another $100 million for the Administration.

Alternet writes, "There has been no deep, thoughtful re-making or re-evaluation of atomic technology. No solution to the nuke waste problem. No making reactors economically sound. No private insurance against radioactive disasters by terror or error. No grassroots citizens now desperate to live near fragile containment domes and outtake pipes spewing radioactive tritium at 27 US reactors.

No, nothing about atomic energy has really changed.

Except this: $645 million for lobbying Congress and the White House over the past 10 years...."

http://www.alternet.org/environment/145813/nuclear_energy\'s_comeback_is_fueled_by_lobbying_dollars,_not_by_safer_or_better_technology


Your pronuclear spin doesn't address the points raised.

You remind me of the joke I've heard attributed to Truman Capote where he asks a model if she will sleep with him for $1 million. When she says yes, of course, he asks if she would sleep with him for $5; to which she indignantly replies "What kind of girl do you think I am?" Capote quips back "We've already established that, now we are negotiating the price."

"They're taking over the "GubMint" with that 2.7% lobbying amount!" I'm outraged!!!! (NOT)

Lobbying expenditure by sector
The top sectors and their total spending between 1998 and 2010 were:<29>

......Client...........................Amount Spent.....Percentage of Total<30>
1...Finance, Insurance & Real Estate..$4,274,060,331......14.53%
2...Health............................$4,222,427,808......14.53%
3...Misc Business.....................$4,149,842,571......14.11%
4...Communications/Electronics........$3,497,881,399......11.89%
5...Energy & Natural Resources........$3,104,104,518......10.55%
6...Transportation....................$2,245,118,222.......7.63%
7...Other.............................$2,207,772,363.......7.50%
8...Ideological/Single-Issue..........$1,477,294,241.......5.02%
9...Agribusiness......................$1,280,824,983.......4.12%
10..Defense...........................$1,216,469,173.......4.13%
11..Construction........................$480,363,108.......1.63%
12..Labor...............................$427,355,408.......1.45%
13..Lawyers & Lobbyists.................$336,170,306.......1.14%
...source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States#Lobbying_expenditure_by_sector

So you wonder why the finance industry got bailed out and not a single person got arrested for their crimes against the American people? Well, well, well, I just noticed that they are #1 in lobbying $$$.

Nuclear would be lumped in with #5, Energy & Natural Resources, and would amount to about 1/8th of that total. OMG! Those NOOK-yoo-LUR jerks have some nerve!!!

Now, are you anti-nukers through with your strawman attack against nuckear, easily disproven after a 30 second google search.

It's fascinating that you think two wrongs make a right.

The OP attempted to paint nuclear power as this behemoth lobbyist-laden monstrosity but the truth is the exact opposite. I don't mind arguing with anti-nukers who bring up facts. I'll bring up facts to counter. Which is what I did in this thread.

As it turns out, defense and agribusiness have spent DOUBLE what nuclear has. Transportation has spent almost 4x what nuclear has on lobbying.

We may not agree on nuclear power but we don't have to resort to twisting the truth in an attempt to "win" or further an agenda.

A couple of million a year is chicken feed. The oil and coal lobbies outspend the NEI by 100 to 1. They must feel either a)overconfident or b) moribund to be spending that little on lobbying.

Maybe they feel that the "M" in MIC already has their backs.

Whatever the reason, a couple of million a year buys just one Superbowl box party with hookers. Not much in the big scheme of things.

"Nuclear Energy's Comeback Is Fueled By Lobbying Dollars, Not By Safer or Better Technology"

It doesn't matter how much it costs, what matters is what you are buying and why.

They are doing legal lobbying in support of a legal industry...

You act like making the information public is a crime.

Got any suggestions as to how to make that happen across the whole lobbying industry? I don't.

And fucking the world in the process.

I'm all ears, if you have an idea.

British government officials approached nuclear companies to draw up a co-ordinated public relations strategy to play down the Fukushima nuclear accident just two days after the earthquake and tsunami in Japan and before the extent of the radiation leak was known.

Internal emails seen by the Guardian show how the business and energy departments worked closely behind the scenes with the multinational companies EDF Energy, Areva and Westinghouse to try to ensure the accident did not derail their plans for a new generation of nuclear stations in the UK.

"This has the potential to set the nuclear industry back globally," wrote one official at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), whose name has been redacted. "We need to ensure the anti-nuclear chaps and chapesses do not gain ground on this. We need to occupy the territory and hold it. We really need to show the safety of nuclear."

Officials stressed the importance of preventing the incident from undermining public support for nuclear power...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/30/british-government-plan-play-down-fukushima

:shrug:

Since You are the one posing the question to me, it should be worded, "So how are you going to stop Us from spending money this way?"

One part of the answer is putting the specifics before the public. Obviously you have a very big problem with that.

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with putting information in front of the public. I think whistle-blowing organizations like Wikileaks are the key to transparency at the moment, and support them completely - true transparency cannot come from within the system, so investigative journalists and leakers are essential. Your accusation smacks of grasping at straws.

You may not like my tone, but like it or not I'm on your side in this. I may disagree with some of your ill-formed outrage, but I want the nukes shut down. Immediately would suit me just fine.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

All my statements about nuclear power since Fukushima have been negative. My position has been clear and consistent since March 12:

• High energy radiation from concentrated radioactive sources, if allowed to enter the environment, is a great threat to any life in close proximity to the radioactive material.
  
• The danger from radiation is more localized than the danger from CO2, but its effects close to concentrated sources vary from harmful to lethal.
  
• Therefore accidental or negligent releases of radioactive material are intolerable.
  
• Even in the absence of exceptional circumstances nuclear power requires constant active control to be exerted in order to remain safe.
  
• Given human fallibility and our inability to predict all exceptional events in advance, accidents and negligence are to be expected.
  
• Given the enormous amount of money and social power involved in the nuclear industry, the temptation for the industry to hide inconvenient facts related to accidents and negligence is overwhelming.
  
• Accidental or negligent releases of radioactive material, and significant consequential damage, are therefore inevitable.
  
• Since such releases are intolerable, the only way we can be assured they will not happen is to shut the industry down.
  
• Given the degree to which the industry is embedded within government and the economy, a shutdown will be strongly resisted by TPTB.
  
• TPTB have already been suborned by the industry, and cannot be trusted to act in the public interest.
  
• It is incumbent on all citizens to actively resist the development or maintenance of nuclear power, both through the ballot box and by direct action.
  
• Given the relatively small global energy reliance on nuclear power, and the shift in public opinion since Fukushima, the industry is very vulnerable to public intervention at this time. It is a target of opportunity for a rapid shutdown.

The other side of the coin is this:

• CO2 is the greatest existential threat humanity has ever faced.
  
• CO2 is far more pervasive than radiation from nuclear accidents.
  
• CO2 alters the weather patterns on land (interfering with food production) as well as the chemistry of the oceans.
  
• Rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations are inimical to all life, everywhere on the planet.
  
• Even in the full knowledge of these consequences, 30 billion tonnes of CO2 continue to be flushed into the atmosphere every year, as part of the normal operation of our industrial civilization.
  
• As a result, fossil fuels and fossil fuel industries are Planetary Enemy Number 1.
  
• While all significant threats to life should be countered, resistance should be proportional to the threat posed - the greatest risk gets the greatest overall attention.
  
• In the energy sector, in my opinion, fossil fuel is Threat #1, and nuclear power is Threat #2.
  
• While both must be addressed, CO2 releases are more consequential, while radioactive material releases are more urgent.
  
• The nuclear industry is much smaller than the fossil fuel industry, in terms of energy produced and cash flow. This should result in an industry that can be halted with much less effort than it will take to stop the global use of fossil fuels.
  
• We can, should and must stop the nuclear industry in its tracks.
  
• This can be done without losing focus on the true threat to life on this planet, the carbon dioxide emitted by burning fossil fuels.

There. Surreptitious enough for you?

For YEARS you worked very, very hard to 'surreptitiously' steer people towards nuclear energy; just as you are 'surreptitiously' working now to move people away from thinking about nuclear while Fukushima fades from their minds.

"Move along, nothing to see here, nuclear is dead. Don't worry about buying political influence, nuclear is dead. Move along."

Your list above would be meaningful if it were an actual guide to your actions, but it isn't; it is nothing more than greenwashing for a diehard nuclear proponent during a time of crisis for the industry.

Before Fukushima I worked quite hard to actively steer people towards nuclear power. Nothing surreptitious about it at all. Since then I have chosen to call for the abolition of the industry, but I have declined to get all hysterical over the radiation or the corporate-political malfeasance. The former is not a dangerous as the hysterics make it out to be, the latter is a fact of life that is endemic to all large industries, IMO.

The fact that you see a "surreptitious diehard nuclear proponent" in that position seems to be a combination of paranoia and an ongoing frustration over the fact that, as usual, I won't toe your line.

Be that as it may, I can't change your opinions, and on here we're all basically just electrons on the internet anyway. So in the immortal words of Ricky Nelson, "you can't please everyone, so you've got to please yourself."

You were 'surreptitiously' pushing people towards nuclear until I forced you into the open.

You are still following the same play book.