March, 22 2011, 12:42pm EDT
Survey: Americans Want to Hit the Brakes on More Nuclear Power
Over Half of U.S. Adults Now Back Moratorium on New Reactors … Three Out Four Oppose More Taxpayer-Backed Federal Loan Guarantees, Favor Increasing Emphasis on Renewables, Would Make Companies Liable for Fukushima-Style Disaster Clean Up Costs.
WASHINGTON
While a drop in public support for nuclear power would be expected after an incident like the Fukushima reactor crisis, the nuclear disaster in Japan has triggered a much stronger response among Americans, a majority of whom would freeze new nuclear power construction, stop additional federal loan guarantees for reactors, shift away from nuclear power to wind and solar power, and eliminate the indemnification of the nuclear power industry from most post-disaster clean up costs, according to a major new survey conducted by ORC International for the nonprofit and nonpartisan Civil Society Institute (CSI).
Beyond major nuclear power policy questions, the survey also found a majority of Americans living near nuclear power plants ill equipped to deal with a major disaster. According to the survey, over half (52 percent) of Americans living within 50 miles of a nuclear reactor do not know "what to do in the event of nuclear reactor emergency," such as "the evacuation route and what other steps to take." The poll indicates that nearly one in four (24 percent) of Americans say they live within 50 miles of a nuclear power reactor.
Conducted March 15-16, 2011, the national opinion survey of 814 Americans also found that:
* | Over half (53 percent) of Americans would now support "a moratorium on new nuclear reactor construction in the United States," if "increased energy efficiency and off the shelf renewable technologies such as wind and solar could meet our energy demands for the near term." (Such a plan requiring no new nuclear power plant construction in U.S. was outlined in 2010 by Synapse Energy Economics, Inc., and is available online at https://www.civilsocietyinstitute.org/media/pdfs/Beyond%20BAU%205-11-10.pdf.) |
* | 73 percent of Americans do not "think taxpayers should take on the risk for the construction of new nuclear power reactors in the United States through billions of dollars in new federal loan guarantees." |
* | 74 percent of Americans would support "a shift of federal loan-guarantee support for energy away from nuclear reactors" in favor of wind and solar power. |
* | Nearly three out of four (73 percent) Americans would favor Congress reviewing a 1957 law indemnifying nuclear power companies from most disaster clean-up costs. Instead, Americans would hold the companies "liable for all damages resulting from a nuclear meltdown or other accident." |
* | 76 percent of Americans say they are now "more supportive than ... a month ago to using clean renewable energy resources - such as wind and solar - and increased energy efficiency as an alternative to more nuclear power in the United States." In fact, nearly half (46 percent) of all Americans now say they are now "much more supportive" of relying on more clean energy and energy efficiency than they were a month ago. |
Pam Solo, founder and president, Civil Society Institute, said: "The American public clearly favors a conservative approach to energy that insists on it being safe in all senses of the word - including the risk to local communities and citizens. These poll findings support the need for a renewed national debate about the energy choices that America makes. When Japan -- the nation that President Obama held up as an example of safe nuclear power being used on a large-scale basis -- is unable to effectively control its considerable downside, Americans are understandably leery about the same technology being used even more extensively in this nation. And safety concerns about the existing nuclear plants also deserve serious attention. The Japanese crisis is an opportunity for America to make smarter choices about energy and that process should start with a recognition that the problems with nuclear power cannot simply be ignored in the wake of the tragedy at Fukushima."
Graham Hueber, senior researcher, ORC International, said: "The survey findings suggest that Americans would like to see the brakes applied to more nuclear power. This goes beyond the simple gut-level question of whether nuclear power is supported or opposed. When Americans are asked about their views on specific policy questions that go to the future of nuclear power, there is majority support across the board on every question for moving away from greater reliance on this power source."
Grant Smith, senior advisor, Civil Society Institute, and executive director, Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, said: "The United States is at a real crossroads today. While the electric power industry remains obsessed with such dirty and needlessly expensive 19th and 20th century 'business as usual' solutions as coal-fired and nuclear power, there is an opportunity today to make the transition without multi-billion dollar gambles on unproven carbon capture and sequestration technology and risky nuclear loan-guarantee bailouts. In the wake of the Japan reactor crisis, there is a new opportunity here to embrace the clean energy future that is within our grasp."
The 100-percent independent CSI think tank receives no direct or indirect support of any kind from any nuclear industry interest, or any other energy-related company, organization or related individual.
OTHER KEY SURVEY FINDINGS
* | Nearly six out of 10 (58 percent) Americans are now "less supportive of expanding nuclear power in the United States" than they were a month ago. Only about one in seven Americans (14 percent) said their views had not been changed by the Japanese reactor crisis. |
* | Fewer than half (46 percent) of Americans would "support more nuclear power reactors in the United States" and 44 percent now oppose new reactors. That support level is down by more than 25 percent from the most recent March 2010 Gallup Poll showing 62 percent support for nuclear power. |
* | Over half (51 percent) of Americans would support "a halt to the United States extending the operating lifespan of its oldest nuclear reactors." |
* | 92 percent of Americans are "following news about the nuclear reactor crisis and related disaster in Japan." |
METHODOLOGY
These findings are based on a telephone survey conducted by ORC International among a national probability sample of 814 adults comprising 404 men and 410 women 18 years of age and older, living in private households in the continental United States. Interviewing for this survey was completed during the period March 15-16, 2011. Completed interviews are weighted by five variables: age, sex, geographic region, race, and education to ensure reliable and accurate representation of the total population, 18 years of age and older.
The nonprofit and nonpartisan Civil Society Institute (https://www.CivilSocietyInstitute.org) is a think tank that serves as a catalyst for change by creating problem-solving interactions among people, and between communities, government and business that can help to improve society. Since 2003, CSI has conducted more than 20 major surveys and reports on energy and auto issues, including vehicle fuel-efficiency standards, consumer demand for hybrids/other highly-fuel efficient vehicles, global warming and renewable energy.
LATEST NEWS
Warren Bill Would Overturn Supreme Court Decision Gutting Federal Agency Power
"The Supreme Court's overturning of Chevron undermines our government's ability to promote worker safety, ensure clean air and water, and protect consumers," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
Jul 23, 2024
In response to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that Sen. Elizabeth Warren said exemplified corporations' effort to "hijack our government," the Massachusetts Democrat on Tuesday introduced legislation to effectively overturn the decision and return regulatory powers to federal agencies.
Warren led a group of senators in the Democratic caucus in introducing the Stop Corporate Capture Act (SCCA) less than a month after the high court ruled on Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, overturning the "Chevron deference" precedent that had been recognized for four decades.
The legal rule required courts to defer to federal agencies' interpretation of a law if Congress had not passed legislation specifically addressing the issue, and permitted public servants in the federal government to craft regulations related to climate protections, workers' rights, and other crucial issues affecting millions of people in the United States.
The Loper Bright ruling last month, said Warren, made clear that "giant corporations are using far-right, unelected judges to... undermine the will of Congress."
"The Stop Corporate Capture Act will bring transparency and efficiency to the federal rulemaking process, and most importantly, will make sure corporate interest groups can't substitute their preferences for the judgment of Congress and the expert agencies," said the senator.
Specific actions the legislation would take include:
- Streamlining the White House's review period for regulations, creating a 120-day time limit for review;
- Authorizing agencies to reinstate rules that are rescinded by Congress through the Congressional Review Act;
- Creating an Office of the Public Advocate to help members of the public participate more effectively in regulatory proceedings;
- Requiring agencies to respond to citizen petitions for rulemaking that contain 100,000 or more signatures;
- Establishing financial penalties for corporate special interests that knowingly submit false information during the rulemaking process; and
- Requiring all rulemaking participants to disclose industry-funded research or other related conflicts of interest.
Without Chevron deference, said Warren's office in a statement, "industry-backed lobbyists hold more negotiating power in the regulatory process than the general public. They schedule private meetings with regulators, fund sham scientific studies to submit with public comments, and misrepresent the negative impact of stricter regulatory oversight. These actions slow down the enforcement of important regulations, and the American people pay the price."
"The Supreme Court's overturning of Chevron undermines our government's ability to promote worker safety, ensure clean air and water, and protect consumers," the statement added.
The bill has been endorsed by dozens of public interest groups including the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards (CSS), the Consumer Federation of America, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, and Earthjustice.
"The Loper Bright decision severely undermined the ability of expert federal agencies and Congress to address our most pressing environmental and health challenges, and instead, transferred an inordinate amount of power to judges who lack the profound understanding needed to craft federal regulations," said Raúl García, vice president of policy and legislation for Earthjustice. "This bill rightly remedies an egregious power grab from the U.S. Supreme Court while creating a more transparent and equitable federal rulemaking process. We thank senators for fighting to ensure that expert federal agencies have the power and mandate to protect the people who need these protections the most, not greedy corporations concerned more about their profits."
Rachel Weintraub, executive director of CSS, said the legislation is a "comprehensive blueprint for modernizing, improving, and strengthening the regulatory system to better protect the public."
"The bill would enhance our government's ability to deliver results for workers, consumers, public health, and our environment," said Weintraub. "And it would level the playing field so that ordinary people—not just big corporations—can weigh in on potential rules that affect them."
Earlier this month, CSS explained how the SCCA would save "our system of public protections," which the Republican Party and the right-wing policy agenda are out to "destroy."
U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who introduced similar legislation in the House in March 2023, said the bill "couldn't be more critical after the extreme, conservative Supreme Court stripped the ability of governmental agencies to implement and enforce passed laws."
"Many Americans are taught in civics classes that Congress passes a law and that’s it, but the reality is that any major legislation enacted must also be implemented and enforced by the dedicated, nonpartisan experts at our public agencies to become a reality," said Jayapal. "Too often, this process is driven by corporate lobbyists and special interests who know exactly how to make these processes benefit their bottom lines at the cost of public interest... I am proud to lead this bill, which will level the playing field and ensure that laws passed for the people actually work for the people."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Report Exposes Trump Proposal to Stop Taxing Tips as 'Hollow Promise'
"In contrast, low-wage voters will be asking, What are Democrats providing as an alternative?" said the head of the group that published the report.
Jul 23, 2024
Most U.S. workers who rely on tips to supplement their often meager incomes would see no benefits from a tax exemption proposed by former President Donald Trump that the authors of a report published Tuesday called a "hollow promise."
The report—published by One Fair Wage and the Food Labor Research Center at the University of California, Berkeley—details how the proposal by Trump, the Republican nominee for president, and Sen. Ted Cruz's (R-Texas) related No Tax on Tips Act would deliver little relief to tipped workers.
According to One Fair Wage, "66% of tipped restaurant workers would not benefit from tax exemptions on tips because they or their households do not earn enough to pay income taxes."
"Trump tried to make tips the property of owners the last time he was in office, so he's clearly NOT a genuine advocate for working people."
While the proposal may seem beneficial to tipped workers, the group said it "falls too short of having a real impact and fails to address the fundamental issue facing working-class Americans: the need for a stable, living wage."
According to One Fair Wage, the report's key findings include:
- Tipped restaurant workers earn a median income of just $15,198, a mere 37% of the national median income of $40,480;
- Over 95% of these workers earn less than $53,000 annually, with nearly half earning below the federal income tax threshold of $13,850, making them ineligible for significant tax benefits; and
- The proposal does not address the core issue of higher wages and economic insecurity: The subminimum wage for tipped workers, currently $2.13 per hour federally, perpetuates economic instability, high rates of sexual harassment, and poverty among workers, which tax relief on tips does not address.
While Trump has picked Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) as his running mate in an apparent bid to win over working-class workers, President Joe Biden on Sunday left the race and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris to become the Democratic presidential nominee.
"Regardless of who's on the ticket, it's clear that candidates who want to win this cycle should address the needs of working people," One Fair Wage president Saru Jayaraman said in a statement. "Let's remember that for his part, Trump tried to make tips the property of owners the last time he was in office, so he's clearly NOT a genuine advocate for working people."
"In contrast, low-wage voters will be asking, What are Democrats providing as an alternative?" Jayaraman added. "In order to reach this critical voting bloc, their response should be loud and clear: It is time to raise the minimum wage and end the subminimum wage for tipped workers."
In a recent interview, Jayaraman toldCommon Dreams that "the restaurant industry has used tips for 150 years in place of what people need, which is a stable base living wage with tips on top."
"It is helpful, for sure, to not have your taxes tipped, but that is a red herring," she added. "That should be on top of what workers really need."
Last week, the Center for American Progress (CAP) published an analysis that found Cruz's bill is "deeply flawed": In addition to excluding 95% of low- and moderate-wage workers who are not working tipped jobs, "it contains few, if any, guardrails to prevent high-income professionals such as hedge fund managers from shifting their compensation to a tax-free tipping model."
"The No Tax on Tips Act potentially kicks the door wide open for tax abuse by the wealthy and fails to deliver any meaningful tax cuts for low- and moderate-wage workers," said CAP senior director for economic policy Brendan Duke. "Just 5% of all workers making less than $25 per hour receive tips. And even among those that do receive tips, the tax cuts would be minimal at best."
Duke asserted that restoring the American Rescue Plan's earned income tax credit and child tax credit expansions would broadly benefit "both tipped workers such as waiters and nontipped workers such as home health aides."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Labor Unions Urge Biden to Halt Military Aid for Israel
The coalition said the move is needed "as part of the work to secure an immediate and permanent cease-fire in the war in Gaza."
Jul 23, 2024
A coalition of labor unions representing millions of U.S. workers on Tuesday urged the Biden administration to halt military aid to Israel—which is waging war on the Gaza Strip—as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Washington, D.C.
Since Israel launched its assault on Gaza in retaliation for the October 7 Hamas-led attack, U.S. labor leaders and unions have been among the individuals and groups pushing for an end to U.S. complicity—in the form of both weapons and diplomatic support on the world stage—in what is being investigated by the International Court of Justice as genocide.
The groups behind the letter are the American Postal Workers Union (APWU), Association of Flight Attendants (AFA), International Union of Painters and Allied Trades (IUPAT), National Education Association (NEA), Service Employees International Union (SEIU), United Auto Workers (UAW), and United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America (UE).
"The Israeli government will continue to pursue its vicious response to the horrific attacks of October 7th until it is forced to stop."
Writing to Democratic President Joe Biden—who on Sunday dropped out of the presidential race and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris—the seven unions called for a pause on U.S. military aid to Israel "as part of the work to secure an immediate and permanent cease-fire in the war in Gaza."
After expressing disappointment that neither Israel nor Hamas, which governs Gaza, accepted a cease-fire proposal Biden outlined this spring, the coalition warned that "the Israeli government will continue to pursue its vicious response to the horrific attacks of October 7th until it is forced to stop."
As the letter details:
Recent reports only underscore the urgency of our demands. Large numbers of Palestinian civilians, many of them children, continue to be killed, reportedly often with U.S.-manufactured bombs. Rising tensions in the region threaten to ensnare even more innocent civilians in a wider war. And the humanitarian crisis deepens by the day, with famine, mass displacement, and destruction of basic infrastructure including schools and hospitals. We have spoken directly to leaders of Palestinian trade unions who told us heartwrenching stories of the conditions faced by working people in Gaza.
The Israeli assault and blockade have killed at least 39,090 Palestinians and injured another 90,147, according to the Gaza Health Ministry. Most of the territory's 2.3 million have been displaced—many multiple times—and thousands are missing and presumed dead beneath damaged and destroyed buildings.
The letter argues that "Israel's refusal to minimize civilian harm and its demonstrated restriction of U.S. humanitarian aid call for a halt to U.S. military aid" under the Foreign Assistance Act and the Arms Export Control Act, challenging a U.S. State Department report from May which enabled the Biden administration and Congress to keep arming Israeli forces.
The coalition's call comes as Netanyahu prepares to address a joint meeting of Congress, a Wednesday event expected to be met with protests, including from lawmakers. Harris—who faces pressure to oppose more U.S. arms for Israel—has opted to attend a previously scheduled event instead of presiding over his speech. The Israeli leader is set to meet with Biden, who is recovering from Covid-19, at the White House on Thursday.
"Our unions are hearing the cries of humanity as this vicious war continues," APWU president Mark Dimondstein said in a statement Tuesday. "Working people and our unions are horrified that our tax dollars are financing this ongoing tragedy. We need a cease-fire now, and the best way to secure that is to shut off U.S. military aid to Israel."
Union members and other observers were quick to note the coalition letter's significance. Yasmine Taeb, a human rights lawyer and advocate, said: "Wow. This is huge."
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, encouraged "those who thought that fury over Biden's facilitation of the Palestinian genocide was limited to Arabs and Gen Z" to read the letter.
Workers who belong to groups in the coalition expressed pride in the letter to Biden while others urged their unions to follow suit.
The Democratic Socialists of America National Labor Commission declared: "Major unions are taking a stand against genocide! Stop military aid to Israel. Free Palestine!"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular