Nuclear Energy Institute coaster"If we are going to seriously address our energy needs as well as our concerns about global climate change, one source stands out -- nuclear," writes Christine Todd Whitman in the San Francisco Chronicle. It's one of two recent op/eds by the former EPA administrator (the other was in BusinessWeek) that fail to disclose that Whitman is a paid consultant for the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). Patrick Moore, Whitman's co-chair of the NEI-funded "Clean and Safe Energy Coalition," has also been busy, promoting nuclear power in Michigan. "Nuclear energy is the key," Moore told a Grand Rapids audience. Meanwhile, in Britain, environmental groups have dismissed a public consultation on nuclear power as a "public relations stitch-up" by the pro-nuclear government. This is the second consultation on the issue; Greenpeace won a legal challenge against the first. Liberal Democrat Sir Menzies Campbell accused the UK government of "making up its mind on nuclear power long before this latest consultation had even begun," reports the BBC.

Whitman and Rudy Giuliani near New York's Ground Zero, 2001"Was it wrong to try to get the city back on its feet as quickly as possible?" an exasperated Christine Todd Whitman asked members of Congress. The occasion was Whitman's first appearance before the House subcommittee investigating her handling of New York air quality issues post-9/11, when she headed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

"Absolutely not," she continued. "Safety was first and foremost, but we weren't going to let the terrorists win."

There are many critics of the EPA's response to the admittedly unprecedented attacks. In August 2003, the EPA's own inspector general reported that there was not "sufficient data and analyses" to claim -- as Whitman did on September 18, 2001 -- that New York's air was "safe to breathe." The inspector general also found that EPA statements were confusing even to experienced toxicologists, and may have contributed to low rates of respirator use among Ground Zero workers. In February 2006, federal judge Deborah Batts called Whitman's statements post-9/11 "misleading" and "conscience shocking." In June 2007, the Government Accountability Office identified serious, continuing problems with how Whitman's EPA addressed indoor contamination in lower Manhattan.

The issue is more than academic. Since 2001, some 70 percent of Ground Zero workers -- tens of thousands of people, many without health insurance -- have had respiratory problems, including chronic illnesses, according to one medical study. Two deaths have been linked to World Trade Center dust, and reports of rare cancers are on the rise.

Yet in her Congressional testimony on June 25, 2007, Christie Whitman dismissed criticisms of her former agency as "misinformation, innuendo and outright falsehoods." Presumably, the nuclear power industry admires Whitman's rhetorical chutzpah.

"Two lobbyists with lengthy resumes in New Jersey government set up a conference call with the media last week to announce the formation of the New Jersey Affordable, Clean, Reliable Energy Coalition (NJ ACRE), notes an Asbury Park Press editorial. The coalition will "advocate for nuclear energy and, more specifically, a 20-year license extension for the aging Oyster Creek plant" in Lacey, N.J. However, "the lobbyists neglected to point out they are being paid by Exelon Corp., Oyster Creek's owner. There also was no mention of that fact on the coalition's Web site until a news story about their being front men for Exelon appeared in Friday's Asbury Park Press." Since the Nuclear Regulatory Commission "is expected to reach a decision on relicensing by January," reasons the paper, "much of the lobbyists' energy will be directed at the decision-makers themselves." Judging by a press release, one of NJ ACRE's arguments is that "the loss of Oyster Creek and the need to replace its electricity in the face of steadily rising demand would cause significant economic hardship." The release says shutting down Oyster Creek would cost $190 million in increased energy prices and $126 million in lost "economic activity," citing a study funded by Exelon.

Professional Greenpeace turncoat Patrick Moore is going around with a slide show that "isn't as slick as Al Gore's," writes Amanda Witherell, promoting nuclear power as a safe, clean, reliable and emissions-free solution to global warming. Witherell discusses the role that the Nuclear Energy Institute and PR firm Hill and Knowlton have played in creating Moore's "Clean and Safe Energy Coalition" and takes a critical look at some of the factoids in his presentation, such as his claim that nuclear power plants could withstand a direct hit from a jetliner without breaching radioactive contamination.

From a Nuclear Energy Institute ad

"We just find it maddening that Hill & Knowlton, which has an $8 million account with the nuclear industry, should have such an easy time working the press," concluded the Columbia Journalism Review in an editorial in its July / August 2006 issue.

The magazine was rightly bemoaning the tendency of news outlets to present former Greenpeace activist Patrick Moore and former EPA chief Christine Todd Whitman as environmentalists who support nuclear power, without noting that both are paid spokespeople for a group bankrolled by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). NEI represents nuclear power plant operators, plant designers, fuel suppliers and other sectors of the nuclear power industry. Hill & Knowlton is NEI's public relations firm, though it's not the only firm working to build support for nuclear power.

Thanks in part to an ongoing, multifaceted PR push -- along with very real concerns about energy prices, rising energy demand, aging infrastructure, sustainability and global warming -- nuclear power is attracting serious attention from reporters and policymakers alike. The question is whether a vital public debate over energy choices is being skewed by deep-pocketed interests with a dog in the fight.

The dangers of such distortions are especially acute at the state and local levels. That's where efforts to extend the licenses of existing nuclear power plants, to maintain or expand nuclear waste storage facilities, and to site new proposed nuclear power plants, are made or broken. And that's where pro-nuclear campaigners appear to be focusing, adopting the mantle and tactics of community groups while steadfastly refusing to provide details on their operations.

Entergy's Vermont Yankee nuclear power station. Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

One-time Greenpeace activist turned corporate PR consultant, Patrick Moore, has been hired by a Vermont group called Vermont Energy Partnership to help win a 20-year extension to the operating license of the aging Vermont Yankee nuclear power station. The continued operation of the nuclear plant, which is owned by Entergy, is being opposed by Nuclear-Free Vermont. Moore said that the storage of high-level nuclear waste on the banks of the Connecticut River in dry casks is "a perfectly safe and secure way to store" it. To which the president of Vermont's Senate, Peter Shumlin, retorted "I don't believe in Santa Claus anymore." Moore is also an "adviser" to New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance, which is campaigning for a 20-year license renewal for Entergy's Indian Point nuclear power plant. He is also a consultant to the Nuclear Energy Institute front group, the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition.

In an interview with the Toronto Star, veteran energy policy analyst Amory Lovins said that he had spoken with former Greenpeace co-founder turned nuclear power promoter Patrick Moore and concluded that "he's not well informed about energy alternatives." Earlier this year, the Nuclear Energy Institute established a front group, the Clean and Safe Energy Coaltion, with Moore as its co-chair. The group promotes nuclear power as a "solution" to global warming. Lovins referred to his recent Nuclear Energy International article, which showed that "if you spent 10 cents (U.S.) to make and deliver a new nuclear kilowatt-hour ... you can displace 1 kilowatt-hour of coal power. That's what Patrick is talking about. ... If you spend the same 10 cents (U.S.) instead on micropower or efficient use, you get two to 10 times as much coal displacement for the same money, because those options are cheaper -- you get more per dollar. They're also faster, so you get more carbon displacement, coal displacement, per year."

From an NEI ad

With help from the PR firm Hill & Knowlton, the industry group Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) launched the "Clean and Safe Energy Coalition." NEI is fully funding the group and paying its spokespeople, former Environmental Protection Agency head Christine Todd Whitman (who now heads the lobbying firm Whitman Strategy Group) and Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore (who now heads the PR firm Greenspirit Strategies). NEI's Steve Kerekes said the new group will allow NEI to provide "a unifying platform that supporters of nuclear energy can add their voices to." The group was launched two days before the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster. Like NEI, the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition says that "nuclear power is clean, emitting none of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming," and "new nuclear plants could provide the 50 percent boost in energy supplies the government projects are needed by 2025 without cramping lifestyles."