Setting some sort of record for the number of botched attempts to enact bad legislation, the U.S. Congress has now struck out a fourth time in as many months, failing to bail out the desperately dysfunctional uranium enrichment company, USEC Inc. USEC and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued fresh threats that the company would terminate its long-dying "American Centrifuge" uranium enrichment project, if not go belly up, without a new federal cash infusion by March 31. But the Senate and the House ignored those threats and left for two-week recess on March 29, after passing a 90-day Transportation holdover bill absent any USEC provision.
In reaction, USEC stock hit a low of $1.00 per share on March 29, eight cents below its previous all-time low. That represents a loss of 96 percent of equity value from the high of nearly $24 per share reached in 2007, after USEC was awarded a construction and operating license for a centrifuge plant by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). NRC awarded the license for a commercial-scale plant near Piketon, Ohio, even though USEC had failed to even initiate a supposedly-mandatory testing program called the Lead Cascade, and even though USEC had no financing plan for building a commercial plant.
This week's developments demonstrate that an elaborate stock speculation swindle has been conducted, supported by DOE, NRC and those members of Congress who took large amounts of campaign cash from USEC and then proposed federal payouts to the privatized company. Accusations of corruption involving USEC campaign contributions also emerged from congressional candidates this week, explaining the otherwise-mysterious retreat of the USEC caucus in Congress.
USEC's empty belly began to growl when the company was denied a $2 billion loan guarantee by the Department of Energy for a second time in October of 2011. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu then requested of Congress two annual installments of $150 million each for an ill-defined and unjustified "Research, Development and Demonstration" program (RD&D), to accomplish the Lead Cascade viability test that USEC had failed to perform on its own, despite contractual obligations and thirteen years of heavy federal subsidy.
The Chu-Chu Train
But something was very strange about the Chu request, something revealing the RD&D project as a phantom, something glaringly obvious but not publicly discussed until now. In Chu's October 2011 letters to the Senate and the House, he requested funds for the construction of "one train of centrifuges (720 centrifuges)" and that number was never publicly altered or retracted.
However, in February of 2012, in writing off the costs of 38 centrifuges damaged in the 6-11-11 crash event at Piketon, USEC placed the cost of the centrifuges at $120 million, or $3.16 million per centrifuge. At that price, 720 centrifuges would cost almost $2.3 billion, not including R&D, far more money than what was being requested of Congress by Chu.
After the tax write-off, USEC and DOE began discussing the proposed RD&D project as involving 120 centrifuges, not 720. Apparently, the 720 figure had been a misprint, but the misprint in an official funding request to Congress was never corrected, and Congress was left for the duration of the bailout effort believing that it could buy 720 centrifuges for an investment of only $300 million in federal money.
No fuss was made about the huge disparity in numbers, because the inside players understood that the RD&D program was an imaginary device from the get-go. In actuality, funds were being requested to pay USEC corporate expenses and keep the company out of bankruptcy court, where court-appointed accountants might reveal the full odoriferous history of under-the-table federal funding for USEC.
No "train of centrifuges" ever would materialize, for the very same reason that USEC never completed the Lead Cascade on its own. In the words of Piketon workers, the USEC forty-foot centrifuges based on forty-year-old technology are big "hunks o' junk." There's nothing worth testing, if the machines could survive operational performance at all. The number of phantom centrifuges that Congress would be buying is therefore like the number of proverbial angels on the head of a pin. So Secretary of Energy Chu did not labor over the nonsensical number he included in his official request to Congress.
These kinds of smelly considerations certainly came into play when congressional leaders axed USEC bailout money from the Omnibus appropriations bill passed in December. Strike 1.
Before Christmas, Congresswoman Jean Schmidt, representing the Ohio district that includes Piketon, submitted a stand-alone bill that would have permitted DOE to transfer $150 million to USEC in 2012 without specific congressional oversight or accounting controls. This was considered "too stupid" for committee consideration, in the words of a congressional staffer, so the planned January hearing on the measure was canceled without ceremony. Just as unceremoniously, Ms. Schmidt was then dumped by the voters in the Ohio Republican primary. Strike 2.
Kentucky congressman Ed Whitfield attempted a different kind of USEC bailout by mandating that DOE should "re-enrich" depleted uranium from government stockpiles at USEC's decrepit gaseous diffusion plant at Paducah, Kentucky. USEC itself put a stop to that one, declaring that extended operation of the plant is just too expensive, and so it intends to shut Paducah down. Announcement of the closure date as soon as this May is expected shortly. Strike 3.
USEC then should have been called out. But the two U.S. Senators from Ohio—Rob Portman and Sherrod Wannabe-Portman Brown, both recipients of large amounts of campaign contributions from USEC and other Piketon contractors—collaborated on a Schmidt-like USEC bailout amendment, snuck into the Senate Transportation bill that appeared to be headed to passage. But then House Republicans revolted as has become their fashion, opting instead for another 90-day extension, minus any USEC provision. That extension, which runs until July 1, is far too long to suit USEC, which has been operating on extended financing deadlines of its own since June 30, 2011.
Chu's Alternative Universe
By July 1, there won't be enough of USEC left to bail out. The total market valuation of the company now is only $130 million, meaning that USEC could not afford its 50-50 cost-share for a proposed RD&D program for which the government kicks in $300 million. USEC has about $500 million in debt due to bondholders coming due in 2014, long before any new commercial plant could be completed. And USEC is operating at a loss, which has been running at an average of $135 million per quarter. By July 1, two more loss quarters in 2012 will have elapsed. At current valuation, USEC's net worth is less than half of the proposed federal bailout of $300 million. That doesn't cut the mustard, much less atoms, in the Age of Solyndra where Tea Party rules apply.
Plus there are timing problems. In 2011, Chu proposed a two-year RD&D program, which on paper could have been completed before USEC goes to the hock shop in 2014. If the start of the RD&D program is now delayed, as it must be, until the third quarter of 2012, at the earliest, then there isn't enough time to complete the program, even in theory. That's assuming the proposed project were real, in some alternative universe within Steven Chu's brain.
And the administration has requested $150 million for the second year of USEC RD&D in 2013, bizarrely taken, without explanation, from the "nuclear nonproliferation" budget. That request is premised on completion of the first year in 2012, which now cannot happen. Congress will be asked to consider funding the second year of a two-year program before the first year is funded.
Simply put, the PR logic of the RD&D program proposed slap-dash last October has defeated itself by virtue of the congressional delay. Republican Portman and his Democratic sidekick Brown could yet preempt their own amendment by introducing the measure as a stand-alone, or by trying yet another slip-in circumvention. The former strategy, however, would necessitate committee hearings, which would do to a USEC bailout what sunlight does to vampires. And further slushing around in the USEC stock swindle pits might do unsavory things to Brown's 2012 reelection campaign, ranked as one of the most competitive Senate contests this year. November is approaching and Schmidt's primary loss forewarns.
All of which is highlighted by the emergence of USEC corruption as a major issue in Tennessee's fourth congressional district race. Eric Stewart, the Democratic challenger, is charging that incumbent Republican Scott DesJarlais timed his support for a USEC bailout to a $1,000 contribution to DesJarlais from the USEC PAC, an example of crony capitalism at work, according to Stewart.
That's small potatoes compared to the suspicious timing of federally-subsidized USEC politicking in Ohio, where then-Governor Ted Strickland had to return one USEC contribution (but kept many others) because that contribution was timed too closely to a 2010 meeting at which Strickland and Brown together lobbied Chu to circumvent Congress in giving funds to USEC. In early 2011, Sherrod Brown publicly called on the Department of Energy to forgo further testing of USEC centrifuges and simply award the company a $2 billion loan guarantee. Up to the third quarter of 2011, according to FEC records, Brown received $58,500 from USEC and related corporate PACs including USEC nuclear utility customers and Piketon site contractors.
Republican Rob Portman may also find some aspirations dashed upon the USEC shoals. He has been considered a top contender for Romney’s running-mate. But Portman is nearing the two-decade mark as a USEC shill, and continued allegiance to the Enron of 2012 might see more vocal protest from the slap-happy anti-Solyndra GOP base.
Therefore, we may not see more clandestine Portman-Brown maneuvers. They say that USEC and its "American Centrifuge Plant" have nine lives. Excuse the mixed metaphor, but now it's the bottom of the tenth, USEC is down, and even the fans are weary of the game.
Re-posted on the Southern Ohio Neighbors Group blog.
Geoffrey Sea is a writer and historian who has studied the uranium enrichment industry for thirty years. In the early 1980s, he served as a consultant to the labor unions at both the Piketon, Ohio, and Paducah, Kentucky, plants. He now lives on the southwest fence-line of the Piketon site and is a co-founder of Southern Ohio Neighbors Group.
By Karen L. Smith-Janssen
Colette Pichon Battle gave a December 2019 TEDWomen Talk on the stark realities of climate change displacement, and people took notice. The video racked up a million views in about two weeks. The attorney, founder, and executive director of the Gulf Coast Center for Law & Policy (GCCLP) advocates for climate justice in communities of color. Confronted with evidence showing how her own South Louisiana coastal home of Bayou Liberty will be lost to flooding in coming years, the 2019 Obama Fellow dedicates herself to helping others still reeling from the impacts of Katrina face the heavy toll that climate change has taken—and will take—on their lives and homelands. Her work focuses on strengthening multiracial coalitions, advocating for federal, state, and local disaster mitigation measures, and redirecting resources toward Black communities across the Gulf South.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Between 2000 and 2013, Earth lost an area of undisturbed ecosystems roughly the size of Mexico.
- Planting Projects, Backyard Habitats Can Re-Create Livable Natural ... ›
- Humans Are Destroying Wildlife at an Unprecedented Rate, New ... ›
- UN Biodiversity Chief: Humans Risk Living in an 'Empty World' With ... ›
- Scientists Warn Worse Pandemics Are on the Way if We Don't ... ›
- Coronavirus Pandemic Linked to Destruction of Wildlife and World's ... ›
By Stuart Braun
"These are not just wildfires, they are climate fires," Jay Inslee, Governor of Washington State, said as he stood amid the charred remains of the town of Malden west of Seattle earlier this month. "This is not an act of God," he added. "This has happened because we have changed the climate of the state of Washington in dramatic ways."
'These Aren't Wildfires'<p>Sam Ricketts, who led climate policy and strategy for Governor Jay Inslee's 2020 presidential campaign, tweeted on September 11 that "These aren't wildfires. These are #climatefires, driven by fossil fuel pollution."</p><p>"The rate and the strength and the devastation wrought by these disasters are fueled by climate change," Ricketts told DW of fires that have burnt well over 5 million acres across California, Oregon, Washington State, and into neighboring Idaho. </p><p>In a two-day period in early September, Ricketts notes that more of Washington State burned than in almost any entire fire season until now, apart from 2015. </p><p>California, meanwhile, was a tinderbox after its hottest summer on record, with temperatures in Death Valley reaching nearly 130 degrees Fahrenheit, according to the U.S. National Weather Service. It has been reported as the hottest temperature ever measured on Earth.</p>
<div id="29ad9" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="8346fe7350e1371d400097cd48bf45a2"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1306969603180879872" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Drought-parched wetlands in South America have been burning for weeks. https://t.co/pjAKdFcKPg #Pantanal https://t.co/ImN2C5vwcp</div> — NASA Earth (@NASA Earth)<a href="https://twitter.com/NASAEarth/statuses/1306969603180879872">1600440810.0</a></blockquote></div><p>As evidenced by Australia's apocalyptic Black Summer of 2019-2020, fires are burning bigger and for longer, with new records set year-on-year. Right now, Brazil's vast and highly biodiverse Pantanal wetlands are suffering from catastrophic fires.</p>
#climatefires Started in Australia<p>Governor Inslee this month invoked the phrase climate fires for arguably the first time in the U.S., according to Ricketts.</p><p>But the term was also used as fires burnt out of control in Australia in late 2019. In the face of a 2000km (more than 1,200 miles) fire front, and government officials and media who <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/trump-climate-change-denial-emissions-environment-germany-fake-heartland-seibt/a-52688933" target="_blank">played down the link to climate change</a>, Greens Party Senator Sarah Hanson-Young and a friend decided that reference to bushfires was inadequate. </p><p>"We both just said, we've got to start calling them climate fires, that's what they are," the Australian Senator told DW.</p><p>Hanson-Young says scientists have been warning for decades that these would be the effects of global heating. "We've been told these kinds of extreme weather events and destruction is what climate change would look like, and it's right here on our doorstep," she said from her home state of South Australia — where by early September fire warnings had already been issued.</p><p>"Calling them climate fires was making it absolutely crystal clear. It is essential that there's no ambiguity," she said </p><p>Having deliberately invoked the term, Hanson-Young soon started to push it on social media via a #climatefires hashtag. </p>
How to Talk About the Urgency of Global Heating<p>The need to use more explicit language when talking about extreme weather events linked to climate change is part of a broader push to express the urgency of global heating. In 2019, activist Greta Thunberg tweeted that the term "climate change" did not reflect the seriousness of the situation. </p><p>"Can we all now please stop saying 'climate change' and instead call it what it is: climate breakdown, climate crisis, climate emergency, ecological breakdown, ecological crisis and ecological emergency?" she wrote. </p><p>"Climate change has for a long time been talked about as something that is a danger in the future," said Hansen-Young. "But the consequences are already here. When people hear the word crisis, they understand that something has to happen, that action has to be taken."</p><p><span></span>Some terms are now used in public policy, with state and national governments, and indeed the EU Parliament, declaring an official climate emergency in the last year. </p>
Words That Reflect the Science<p>But while the West Coast governors all fervently link the fires to an unfolding climate crisis, U.S. President Donald Trump continues to avoid any reference to climate. In a briefing about the fires, he responded to overtures by Wade Crowfoot, California's Natural Resources Secretary, to work with the states on the climate crisis by stating: "It'll start getting cooler. You just watch." Crowfoot replied by saying that scientists disagreed. Trump rejoined with "I don't think science knows, actually." </p><p>It was reminiscent of the anti-science approach to the coronavirus pandemic within the Trump administration, <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/donald-trump-admits-playing-down-coronavirus-risks/a-54874350" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">at least publicly</a>. Fossil fuel companies are also benefiting from his disavowal of climate science, with the Trump administration having <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/opinion-trumps-paris-climate-accord-exit-isnt-really-a-problem/a-51124958" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">pulled out of the Paris Agreement</a> and reopened fossil fuel infrastructure like the Keystone XL pipeline. </p><p>But the science community has responded, with Scientific American magazine endorsing Trump's Democratic presidential challenger Joe Biden, the first presidential endorsement in its 175-year history. </p><p>Hanson-Young says the use of explicit language like climate fires has also been important in Australia due to the climate denialism of politicians and the press, especially in publications owned by Rupert Murdoch. As fires burnt out much of Australia's southeast coast, they were commonly blamed on arson — a tactic also recently used in the U.S.</p>
Climate Rhetoric Could Help Decide Election<p>The language of climate has begun to influence the U.S. presidential election campaign, with Democratic nominee Joe Biden labelling President Trump a "climate arsonist."</p><p>Biden is touting a robust climate plan that includes a 2050 zero emissions target and a return to the Paris Agreement. Though lacking the ambition of The New Green Deal, it has been front and center of his policy platform in recent days, at a time when five hurricanes are battering the U.S. Gulf Coast while smoke blanketing the West Coast spreads all the way to the East. </p><p>People are experiencing the climate crisis in a visceral way and almost universally relate to the language of an emergency, says Ricketts. "They know something is wrong."</p>
- The Vicious Climate-Wildfire Cycle - EcoWatch ›
- How Climate Change Ignites Wildfires From California to South Africa ›
- 31 Dead, 250,000 Evacuated in California Fires as Governor ... ›
World's Richest One Percent Are Producing More Than Double the Carbon Emissions as the Bottom 50 Percent
A new report from Oxfam found that the wealthiest one percent of the world produced a carbon footprint that was more than double that of the bottom 50 percent of the world, The Guardian reported. The study examined 25 years of carbon dioxide emissions and wealth inequality from 1990 to 2015.
If you are taking medication for an underactive thyroid, check your prescription.