Sunday, June 24, 2012

Eli Outsources to Wikileaks

In which a Republican House member forgets himself and talks a bit of sense

Reference id: 05HELSINKI613
Cable time: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 05:00 UTC
Origin: Embassy Helsinki
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Attached is the draft reporting cable on CODEL Hyde's meetings in Helsinki.
CODEL is Congressional Delegation for those of you who live outside the Washington Beltway
¶1. (U) CODEL Hyde -- House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-IL), HIRC Minority Leader Tom Lantos (D-CA), Representative Melvin Watt (D-NC), Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA), and Representative Diane Watson (D-CA) -- visited Finland, May 29-31. On May 30, the CODEL met with Finnish Parliament Speaker (and former PM) Paavo Lipponen, . . . .
¶12. (U) Representative Watson voiced concern that the phenomenon of global warming has still not received the level of intensive research that it deserves, and said she hoped that nations can come together on a common approach. Representative Issa, referring to cooperation within the Arctic Council, asked whether Lipponen thought the U.S. was doing enough to protect the Arctic. It sometimes seemed, Issa remarked, that U.S. legislators think of the Arctic only in terms of its oil reserves. The Speaker urged the U.S. to do more in the area of energy efficiency and diversification. Issa, who chairs the Subcommittee on Energy and Resources of the House Government Reform Committee, noted that if the United States had built every nuclear power plant that had been on order at the time of Three Mile Island, we would be Kyoto-compliant today. Lipponen agreed that one cannot say "renewable energy is good, nuclear energy is bad." Finland's experience shows that nations can safely produce nuclear energy. Critical rhetoric is sometimes hypocritical: the Swedes "made a big deal" of closing two reactors, but at the same time raised capacity in existing reactors, so that overall Sweden now gets seven percent more of its power from nuclear sources than before.
Darryl Issa?


Anonymous said...

From Issa's own website:

"Now is the time to encourage the development of zero-emission clean energy generation, such as nuclear, hydro-electricity, wind, solar, all of which can meet our energy needs now and replace older and dirtier fossil fuel generation."

If only Mr. Issa were in some position of influence and power, whereby he could actually do something about it...

I just can't wrap my head around the position we find ourselves in, let alone how we can move forward.


anthrosciguy said...

But Issa is a very busy man, trying to find evidence of something he says there is no evidence for. He has no time for trifles like clean air. Priorities, people.

Anonymous said...

Issa is also saner than most on topics like SOPA/PIPA. Unfortunately he's also as crazy as some when it comes to net neutrality.


John said...

Issa is the richest currently-serving CongressCritter (net worth $450M from his auto theft alarm business).

Issa's pretty conservative, so it's encouraging that he has shown himself not brain-dead on the climate change issue.

The last time Darryl Issa made the national news was in 2001, when the Jewish Defense Organization (a splinter group from the Jewish Defense League) planned to bomb Issa's district office. The JDO was caught before they bombed anything, and their head honcho, Irv Rubin, went to jail, where he lived happily ever after until he committed suicide.

John said...

As the Chair of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee Issa IS hardly without power.

Actually Issa just recently made national news as his committee voted Atty Gen Holder in contempt of congress regarding the "Fast and Furious" program started under the Bush administration.

Political insanity progresses exponentially in our era, so something said in 2005 means nothing in 2012.

Let us not fall into the trap of believing every word found on websites especially the website of a filthy rich GOP whack job.

John Puma

J Bowers said...

It's sometomes worth restricting Google searches to the last year only.

susan said...

Then there's this, which is rather long. Some stones and glass houses questions, but he doesn't seem to have a problem with pretending:

Anonymous said...

Well color me stoopid, that is why they call me "Hey Stoopid".

Say, is that the same Darrryl Issa, who funded, out of his own pocket, the Governor Joseph "Gray" Davis recall petition?

Was that the same Darryl, that was pipped at the post, by Arnie "I don't need a budget" Schwarzenegger?

The very same Arnie, who totally bankrupted the once golden state in under eight years, Conan the Barbarian Style. To this day, 20% of the see no evil, hear no evil, head in the denial sands conservative voters believe Arnie the budget killer, is was and remains the second coming, since asleep at the wheel Ronald Reagan occupied the governors palace, with the insane proposition 13. Proposition 13, is why California, is in the mess, it is today.

I guess, some things never change.

Ed Darrell said...

Yeah, that one.

So, how many nuke plants were actually cancelled after Three Mile Island's blowdown, and how many as a result of that incident? I'll bet it's half the number Issa thinks it is.

dbostrom said...

So, how many nuke plants were actually cancelled after Three Mile Island's blowdown, and how many as a result of that incident? I'll bet it's half the number Issa thinks it is.

Most (all?) in the US were cancelled because they were too costly. Next you'll get the "overburdened" w/regulation whine, which if you check NRC incident reports turns out to be false; it's clear from the style of near-misses routinely occurring that there's barely enough regulation as it stands.

Traditional nuke plants are too complicated and fragile to be safe around human nature. We can design and build them but we're too faulty to be allowed to be operators. Newer models, who knows?

Anonymous said...

Issa's point that the US nuclear industry came to a near standstill is more or less correct. About half of all planned US reactors were never built. This has theoretically increased the carbon intensity of our electricity generation.

2 questions: if nuclear expansion had continued at the 1970's rate:
A) would we be using as much natural gas (vs. coal and oil) for electricity generation?
B) would the existing reactors have increased their capacity factors and operating lifetimes (which increased nuclear energy's share of the generation mix without building new reactors)?
Factors such as these could have diluted the climate benefits of a nuclear expansion.

From the links provided by J Bowers and Susan I'm getting a picture of Issa as a technically savvy, charismatic, sly, dogged, and perhaps slightly slimy individual.

I wish he were on our side.

And given his past statements, why the hell isn't he?


EliRabett said...

Yes, but the up time of the plants that exist(ed) increased enormously so, in the end it is almost certainly been a Swedish push if not a gain. It is also worth noting that many of the oldest plants have been closed and decommissioned.