Archive by Author

ICBM test rocket explodes seconds after launch

A test missile launched from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California exploded seconds after being fired late Wednesday night, according to officials. 

The Minotaur II space launch vehicle exploded approximately 11 seconds after launching off the test pad at 11:01 p.m. local time, Vandenberg officials confirmed in a statement early Thursday.  

The explosion sparked a fire on base, though the debris stayed within the “immediate vicinity” of the launch pad and there were no injuries.  

In a second release, base officials confirmed that the Vandenberg Fire Department responded to the fire after the launch as it produced smoke “but not immediate danger to the rest of base.”

“We always have emergency response teams on standby prior to every launch,” Space Launch Delta 30 Vice Commander Col. Kris Barcomb said in a statement. “Safety is our priority at all times.” 

An investigation to determine the cause of the explosion is underway.

Vandenberg Space Force Base was testing the Air Force’s new missile rocket, expected to be used with the developing LGM-35A Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile, according to The Tribune of San Luis Obispo County, Calif. 

Both are set to replace the U.S. military’s aging Minuteman missiles. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Don’t confuse the Supreme Court’s role with that of legislators

I’m not sure if we should pin the blame on our educational system, or whether the problem is with partisans who block out everything that calls into question their set-in-stone biases. But one way or another, it’s astounding that supposedly intelligent adults still don’t understand the role of the Supreme Court of the United States.

I think it was in seventh grade when I learned about the three branches of government and about how the role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the laws of the land and rule on their constitutionality — not decide cases to please a majority of the population. 

I bring this up because the other day I was reading an opinion piece in the New York Times and came across a paragraph that stopped me cold. Written by Margaret Renki, a frequent Times contributor, it said, “The majority of Americans did not want the Court to overturn Roe. They don’t want to be surrounded by guns. They are deeply worried about climate change. With these Supreme Court rulings, the law of the land no longer reflects the will of the people who live here.”

It was that last sentence that got to me. Do progressives really believe the Supreme Court is supposed to make decisions based on “the will of the people who live here”? Isn’t that the job of legislators? Does it not occur to them that there’s a good chance the Supreme Court didn’t reflect the will of a whole bunch of people who live here when it ruled in 1954 that racial segregation in public schools is unconstitutional?     

Renki, of course, is not alone in feeling the way she does. A lot of liberals and progressives are outraged by the court’s recent decisions. There’s something wrong, they tell us, when a few judges in black robes can make decisions that affect millions of Americans. Did they complain when a few judges in black robes found a constitutional right to abortion back in 1973? Are the court’s decisions legitimate only when liberals and progressives agree with them?

The Supreme Court didn’t say abortion is a good thing or a bad thing; it didn’t say abortion is moral or immoral. All it said in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is that the court’s decision in 1973, finding a constitutional right to abortion, represented an “abuse of judicial authority” and that it is “time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.” 

That reasoning is not good enough for a very angry Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who said the justices had “burned whatever legitimacy they may still have had” and that “they just took the last of it and set a torch to it.”

If they handed out Olympic medals for tossing rhetorical hand grenades, Warren would be standing on the podium while they put gold around her neck. I mean, the woman used to teach law at Harvard, for crying out loud. Surely she understands the role of the Supreme Court.

So, then, what’s all this hand-wringing really about? Here’s a theory: The left over the years has looked to the Supreme Court not so much to simply interpret the Constitution, but as an institution that would reliably deliver policy results they wanted but couldn’t get from Congress — policies on abortion, affirmative action, guns and other hot social issues.  

When they got the results they wanted, the court was a shiny gem — the cornerstone of rights, liberty and everything good about America. But when the results went the “wrong” way, the court was autocratic, undemocratic, imperial.  

Now that there’s a new sheriff in town, so to speak — the conservative justices who make up a majority of the court are making it clear that they’re not there to render decisions that make progressive activists happy. Sometimes their decisions will, and sometimes they won’t. But however they decide controversial issues, the justices’ job is to be neutral arbiters of the law.  This seemingly obvious observation is seen by the progressive left as a kind of betrayal, as an act of aggression, and so it’s not sitting well with a lot of them, or their media allies for that matter.

Never mind that all the court did in overturning Roe was to extricate itself from the issue of abortion and turn the matter over to the American people through their elected representatives.  However you feel about abortion, if you’re a fan of democracy, this isn’t such a horrible thing.

And so, even if Margaret Renki is correct when she says in the Times, “With these Supreme Court rulings, the law of the land no longer reflects the will of the people who live here,” someone needs to remind her — and a lot of other progressives — that it’s not the job of the justices to take a public opinion poll or hold their fingers up to the wind before rendering a decision. You don’t have to go to law school to know that. We learned it back in seventh grade.

Bernard Goldberg is an Emmy and an Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University award-winning writer and journalist. He was a correspondent with HBO’s “Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel” for 22 years and previously worked as a reporter for CBS News and as an analyst for Fox News. He is the author of five books and publishes exclusive weekly columns, audio commentaries and Q&As on his Substack page. Follow him on Twitter @BernardGoldberg.

Source: TEST FEED1

Georgia Guidestones demolished after bombing

ELBERTON, Ga. (WXIN) — A controversial rural Georgia monument dubbed by some as “America’s Stonehenge” was bombed and ultimately demolished after an explosion damaged one of the four granite panels early Wednesday morning.

According to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, preliminary information indicates that unknown individuals detonated an explosive device at the Georgia Guidestones at around 4 a.m. on July 6. Elbert County Sheriff’s deputies responded to the scene and reported that the explosion destroyed a large portion of the structure.

The GBI released surveillance footage on Wednesday evening that depicts the initial explosion that lead to the destruction of the guidestones. A car can be seen leaving the scene shortly after the explosion in the footage.

No one was injured in the explosion, the GBI said, but the Georgia Guidestones were completely demolished later in the day “for safety reasons.”

The roadside attraction was constructed in 1980 by an unknown individual or group who used the name R.C. Christian. The granite panels stood 19-foot-high and had a 10-part message in eight different languages with guidance for living in an “age of reason.”

“That’s given the guidestones a sort of shroud of mystery around them, because the identity and intent of the individuals who commissioned them is unknown,” said Katie McCarthy, who researches conspiracy theories for the Anti-Defamation League. “And so that has helped over the years to fuel a lot of speculation and conspiracy theories about the guidestones’ true intent.”

The Georgia Guidestones were no stranger to conspiracy theories and criticism. One part of the stones’ messages calls for keeping the world population at 500 million or below, while another part calls to “guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.”

After prior vandalism, video cameras connected to the county’s emergency dispatch center were stationed at the site, said Elbert Granite Association Executive Vice President Chris Kubas.

The monument’s notoriety took off with the rise of the internet, Kubas said, until it became a roadside tourist attraction, with thousands visiting each year.

The site received renewed attention during Georgia’s May 24 gubernatorial primary when third-place Republican candidate Kandiss Taylor claimed the guidestones are satanic and made demolishing them part of her platform. Comedian John Oliver featured the guidestones and Taylor in a segment in late May. McCarthy said right-wing personalities including Alex Jones had talked about them in previous years, but that “they sort of came back onto the public’s radar” because of Taylor.

“God is God all by Himself. He can do ANYTHING He wants to do,” Taylor wrote on social media Wednesday. “That includes striking down Satanic Guidestones.”

Elbert County sheriff’s deputies, Elberton police and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation are among the agencies trying to figure out what happened. Bomb squad technicians were called out to look for evidence, and a state highway that runs near the site was closed for a time.

No suspects were identified.

Kubas said local officials and community leaders will have to decide who, if anyone, pays for restoration.

“If you didn’t like it, you didn’t have to come see it and read it,” Kubas said. “But unfortunately, somebody decided they didn’t want anyone to read it.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Source: TEST FEED1

Positive interactions linked to sense of purpose, study finds

Positive social interactions among older adults can be tied to their sense of purpose, especially among those who are retired.  

“For everyone, but specifically for our retired older adults, the people in their lives really matter,” the study’s leader Gabrielle Pfund said in a release. 

For the small study published in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, researchers worked with close to 100 adults with an average age of around 71.  

Participants were asked three times each day to rate their social interactions. Each evening they were asked to rate their overall interactions based on the question: “How much do you think your life had a purpose today?” 

Researchers found that the more positive social interactions a person had during the day, the more purposeful they felt during the evening questionnaire.  

Pfund said while most previous research was focused on the “big picture” her team’s findings suggest one’s sense of purposefulness can vary daily.  

“Most research on sense of purpose is focused on big-picture orientation of someone being purposeful versus someone being not purposeful,” Pfund said. 

“We found purpose can change from day to day,” Pfund continued. “Everyone was experiencing fluctuations relative to their own averages.” 

The authors noted the findings might be influenced by a couple of limitations, including that most of the study participants were healthy. 

Yet the authors pointed to previous research that shows the positive health benefits of social interactions, such as lower rates of Alzheimer’s disease and heart problems. 

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news. 

“By enhancing sense of purpose, older adults will then be more likely to experience the valuable cognitive and physical healthy aging benefits that come with it,” the authors wrote. 

READ MORE STORIES FROM CHANGING AMERICA 

HERE’S WHEN ADULTS GAIN THE MOST WEIGHT: STUDY 

HERE ARE THE BEST-RUN CITIES IN AMERICA: REPORT 

FIVE FACTS ABOUT ABORTION YOU SHOULD KNOW 

LAWSUIT CHALLENGES FLORIDA ‘STOP WOKE ACT’ 

MOST SAY COST OF LIVING IS HOLDING THEM BACK FROM AMERICAN

Source: TEST FEED1

Fully funding America’s secret weapon: Paying our servicemembers what they deserve

There is not a single weapon system in our inventory that is as important as our service members and their families. 

Recently, the far left has put up a fight to ensure that all federal employees earn a minimum of $15 an hour. From congressional employees to other federal bureau employees, to even contracted workers. Every federal employee, no exceptions. But there is one critical group left out: Our servicemembers. The Democratic majority offered a slight 4.6 percent raise to our servicemembers last month, but this insufficient raise in the midst of an 8.5 percent inflationary period is back breaking. We must treat our servicemembers just as we treat other federal employees. 

So, I ask my colleagues: Why not the military? Servicemembers are the first in line to defend our country, they should be the first in line for a pay raise. 

As a member of the House Committee on Appropriations, which is tasked with ensuring that American taxpayer dollars are properly appropriated, I have repeatedly led the charge in advocating for sufficient military funding. During the committee markup of the Department of Defense fiscal year 2023 bill in June, I once again took the lead in calling for a base pay raise for servicemembers. My proposed amendment would require the Department of Defense to increase base pay to a minimum of $15 an hour, amounting to $31,200 a year, for all servicemembers. While this call for a basic pay raise was met with bipartisan support in the committee markup, the bulk of Democrats in the room ultimately decided to strike it down. 

I write today not just as a former naval fighter pilot, but as a grateful American who appreciates all that our active servicemembers do to keep us safe, day and night. 

During my time in the Navy, I witnessed the burdens that many military families endure. Today, the same struggle remains for many of our brave patriots in uniform. Some 23,000 active servicemembers are facing food insecurities, many relying on food stamps just to put food on the table because of unsustainably low base pay. That is 23,000 soldiers too many. Those who fight to protect our country should never have to worry about making ends meet. 

In Washington, I have remained focused on supporting our servicemembers through efforts to ease some of those burdens and improve services to those men and women who protect our nation.  

This should not be a partisan issue. Democrats on the committee had already included provisions for contractors to receive a minimum wage salary, but most Democrats refuse the same pay raise for our servicemembers. 

We have an all-volunteer force and if we want the best troops, we need to attract that talent with adequate compensation. In this modern world with more complex domains, we’re fighting multiple threats with sophisticated technologies. Poor military retention and recruitment is a direct threat to our national security, and we must be proactive before it’s too late. 

A pledge to serve one’s country should never include living in poverty. If the government is paying for our servicemembers to live on food stamps, we may as well pay them on the front end through base pay. The raise I am calling for is the least we can do for our servicemembers given the current inflationary period. The 4.6 percent military pay raise proposed by the Democrat majority is insufficient, which is why I stood up for our patriots with this amendment. 

I remain a steadfast leader on this issue, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in standing up to serve the patriots who serve our country and support a base pay raise for our servicemembers. 

Rep. Mike Garcia represents California’s 25th District and is a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Source: TEST FEED1

Paul Whelan's sister 'crushed' by Biden's call to Griner's wife

The sister of former U.S. Marine Paul Whelan, who was arrested in Russia while traveling as a tourist over three years ago, said she was “crushed” after President Biden’s call to jailed American basketball star Brittney Griner’s wife on Wednesday.

Quote-tweeting a press release from the White House, Elizabeth Whelan urged the president to discuss ways to secure her brother’s release.

“Still looking for that press release saying @POTUS has spoken to anyone in OUR family about #PaulWhelan, wrongfully detained in #Russia for 3.5 years,” she wrote.

“I am crushed. If he wants to talk about securing Paul’s release, he needs to be talking to the Whelans! What are we to think?!” she added.

Her tweet follows a call from Biden and Vice President Harris to Cherelle Griner. The White House said Biden and Harris assured Cherelle Griner that they are providing “all possible assistance” to bring home Brittney Griner, who has been in detention in Russia since February.

Biden’s call to Cherelle Griner came after her she told CBS it was “very disheartening” not to have heard from the president directly. Brittney Griner also wrote a letter to Biden, urging him not to “forget about me and the other American detainees.”

“I don’t begrudge Ms. Griner and her supporters their success in getting the president’s attention while he ignores so many other families,” Paul Whelan’s twin brother, David, said of Cherelle Griner’s interview, according to The Detroit News.

“It suggests the only way to get the White House’s attention, under President Trump or President Biden, is to have celebrity and wealth and resources that most wrongful detainees do not have,” he added.

David Whelan said the family will have to “wait and see,” adding that Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Paul Whelan’s case still remains a priority.

“At some level, we take that at face value,” he said. “Unfortunately, if it unfolds that Ms. Griner is released and Paul isn’t, again, we’ll be faced with the same question we were with the release of Trevor Reed: Is the White House only working on the cases when the president takes the time to call? And how do families explain that to their loved ones?”

Paul Whelan, who has been detained in Russia for three and a half years, is serving a 16-year sentence of hard labor at a prison camp in Mordovia. He was arrested for alleged spying in Moscow.

Earlier this year, Russia released another prisoner, U.S. Marine Trevor Reed, in a prisoner swap.

Source: TEST FEED1

Majority in new poll disapproves of ruling overturning Roe v. Wade

A majority of Americans surveyed in a new poll said that they disapprove of the Supreme Court decision’s last month to overturn Roe v. Wade, which gave power back to state legislatures regarding abortion laws.  

While 57 percent of the respondents in the Pew Research Center survey disapprove of the court decision, 41 percent approve of the ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

In states where strict abortion laws have been enacted since Roe was overturned, the disapproval rating of the court’s decision slightly drops. 

Fifty two percent of people in states with strict abortion laws or abortion restrictions set to happen soon disapprove of overturning Roe while 46 percent approve, according to the poll. 

Republicans are more likely to support abortion restrictions and Republican-led states are the ones rushing to prohibit abortions since the court’s ruling, Pew noted. 

Overall 62 percent of Americans surveyed said that they believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

The poll found 84 percent of Democrats said that they believe abortion should be legal while only 38 percent of Republicans agree. 

The gap between the parties regarding abortion has widened in recent years, with Democratic states vowing to keep abortion legal and expand abortion rights while Republican states are restricting it.

The poll surveyed 6,174 individuals between June 27 to July 4. The margin of error is 1.8 percentage points.

Source: TEST FEED1

If Trump returns, Democrats must stay and fight

Have you heard the joke circulating among Democratic and progressive activists? “If the Republicans win the midterms and Trump wins in 2024, where should we move?”

The choices range from Canada to Costa Rica, or a string of fantasy islands somewhere in a balmy climate. Not only is it unfunny; it’s dangerous.

Like so many political jokes, it’s not so much tongue in cheek as heart sinking into stomach; the use of macabre humor to ameliorate the sense of foreboding. It’s a coping mechanism. So far-fetched is the notion of having to pack our bags in a radically different America that we can laugh at it.

Except that as is the case in all comedy, there’s a nugget of truth to it. Two essays over the July 4 holiday give seriousness to the shtick.

Katherine Stewart‘s “Christian Nationalists Are Excited About What Comes Next” is a chilling look at how the Christian nationalist movement is planning its future and ours. It should, as the lead says, “terrify anyone concerned for the future of constitutional democracy.” Stewart, author of  “The Power Worshippers: Inside the Dangerous Rise of Religious Nationalism,” reported on last month’s annual “Road to Majority Policy Conference” in Nashville. That road veers dangerously, violently to “a new and more brutal phase of their assault on individual rights and democratic self-governance. Breaking American democracy isn’t an unintended side effect of Christian nationalism. It is the point of the project.”

The conference entertained talk of vigilante justice, “long-arm jurisdiction” to punish out-of-state abortion providers or people who aid and abet an abortion by using a phone, the internet or other medium of communication. More frightening than the audience itself were speakers who cried fire in this cultist-filled theater. Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) said, “The backlash is coming. Just mount up and ride to the sound to the guns and they are all over this country. It’s time to take this country back.”

Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson (R-N.C.) told the crowd, “We find ourselves in a pitched battle to literally save this nation, I don’t know about you, but I got my pack on, I got my boots on, I got my helmet on, I’ve got on the whole armor.”

And, of course, former President Trump was the keynote speaker. “The greatest danger to America is the destruction of our nation from the people within,” he said. “And you know the people I’m talking about.” That would be Democrats, who were described during the conference as “evil,” tyrannical” and “the enemy within.”

Which brings me to the second July 4 essay that caught my attention, by conservative columnist Bret Stephens. In “Keep Czars Far Away, in Moscow or Mar-a-Lago,” Stephens reminds us of another stab at gallows humor, which happens to be one of my favorite lines from a scene in “Fiddler on the Roof.” A Jew in the fictitious early 20th century Russian village of Anatevka asks a rabbi if there’s a proper blessing for the czar. The rabbi finds just the right prayer: “May God bless and keep the Czar…far away from us.”

It didn’t work. Ultimately, the czar arrived in the form of Cossacks. The village was purged. The Jews packed and left.

Stephens writes about how recent images from Ukraine remind him of his own forebearers’ attempts to flee the mendacity of Russia’s leaders. That line from “Fiddler” is a reminder, he says, to keep faraway the modern-day czars in authoritarian form; to continue as a “…nation that upholds the rule of law. A nation whose leaders – current or former – can’t just get away with an almost sublime contempt for truth.”

The essays return me to that joke about where we move when Trump returns. It sticks in my throat, reminding me that no matter how secure we may feel, maybe some of us should keep a bag packed — just in case. Perhaps it’s part of the DNA of the displaced. We used to achieve solace in the Constitution. Now people are seeking it in Zillow.

It turns out that it’s a cruel, defeatist joke on those who tell it, a subconscious impulse that when the going gets rough we’re the ones who have to get going. That is anything but funny.

The people of my faith were told to pack and leave England in 1290, France as far back as 1306, Spain in 1492 and Germany in the 1930s (if they were lucky enough to get out). Finally, we arrived in America. The Bill of Rights is our long-term mortgage agreement. And I’m not packing. 

If Christian nationalists, Proud Boys and their ilk want to live under a theocratic model of government, then let them check Zillow. They can start with Tehran, and move on from there: Afghanistan, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia or Yemen seem nice.

Me, I’m not even kidding about leaving. That’s my declaration of independence.

Steve Israel represented New York in the U.S. House of Representatives over eight terms and was chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee from 2011 to 2015. He is now director of the Cornell Jeb E. Brooks School of Public Policy Institute of Politics and Global Affairs. Follow him on Twitter @RepSteveIsrael. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Soaring demand for electricity and coal shows why we need nuclear energy

Last week, BP released its annual Statistical Review of World Energy and the report shows, yet again, that electricity is the world’s most important and fastest-growing form of energy.

In 2021, global electricity generation grew by a record 1,577 terawatt-hours, an increase of 6.2 percent over 2020. For perspective, last year’s increase in electricity production was greater than the electricity output of France, Germany and Britain combined. The surge in electricity generation — nearly half of which happened in China — reflects the jump in demand for power as the world recovers from the COVID-19 pandemic.

The numbers also show that, despite all the hype about renewable energy and the “energy transition,” when it comes to producing power, countries are still heavily dependent on King Coal. Indeed, coal-fired generation continued its dominance of the electricity sector in 2021, accounting for 51 percent of the increase in global electricity generation. Furthermore, coal’s share in the global generation mix increased slightly to 36 percent, while natural gas’s share of the generation mix fell to just under 23 percent.

While renewable generation increased by double-digit percentages, the increase in coal-fired generation — up 805 terawatt-hours — was greater than the jump in wind and solar production combined. Not surprisingly, China had the biggest share of the increase in coal use, accounting for more than half of the global increase of 418 terawatt-hours. By itself, China accounts for 54 percent of all global coal use.

But China is only part of the story. Coal-fired generation also increased in the United States last year, up 122 terawatt-hours, and in India, up 152 terawatt-hours. The surge in coal consumption shows that what I call the “Iron Law of Electricity” remains in effect — that countries, businesses and individuals will do what they have to do to get the electricity they need. China and India usually get the headlines, but European countries also are ramping up coal use. Russia’s restrictions on westward flows of natural gas have spurred Germany, the Netherlands, Austria and Poland to increase their coal use. 

All of these numbers matter because the electricity sector produces more greenhouse gasses than any other sector of the global economy. And because the global electricity business is so dependent on coal, there is simply no way to cut emissions without making a big dent in coal consumption.

Again, the BP numbers tell the tale. In 2021, the jump in coal use — which surged by 6.3 percent — was greater than the growth in global oil use (up 6.1 percent), natural gas consumption (up 5.3 percent), nuclear (up 3.8 percent), or hydro (down 1.8 percent). The surge in hydrocarbon consumption also explains why global greenhouse gas emissions continue climbing. Last year, global CO2 emissions increased by 5.9 percent. Here in the U.S., emissions increased even more than that, climbing by 6.6 percent.

Despite these facts, academics, policymakers and climate activists routinely claim that we don’t need hydrocarbons and that we can meet the world’s energy needs solely with renewables — wind, solar and a dash of hydropower — an idea debunked in a 2017 report published by the National Academy of Sciences.

Don’t buy the hype. The reality is that all around the world, land-use conflicts are slowing or stopping large-scale wind and solar projects. As can be seen in the Renewable Rejection Database, some 344 communities across the U.S. have rejected or restricted wind projects since 2013. To cite just one recent example: Last month, Butler County, Ohio, banned large wind and solar projects in a dozen townships in the county. The rural backlash against the energy sprawl that comes with big renewable projects also has occurred in Europe. In 2010, the European Platform Against Windfarms had about 400 member organizations. Today, it has more than 1,600 members in 31 countries.

There are many reasons why renewables cannot — will not — be able to meet soaring global energy demand. They include intermittency, land constraints, lack of sufficient high-voltage transmission capacity, and the staggering quantity of commodities such as concrete, copper, steel and rare earth elements that would be needed.

So, if renewables cannot meet our needs, and we are concerned about climate change, what is the way forward? The answer is nuclear energy. Indeed, the other big energy news from last week was a report from the International Energy Agency (IEA), which said that “building sustainable and clean energy systems will be harder, riskier and more expensive without nuclear,” and that global nuclear capacity must double between now and 2050 if the world is to have any hope of slashing emissions.

The IEA also underscored the lack of progress being made in the U.S. and Europe on building new reactors. It said that “advanced economies have lost market leadership” in nuclear development and deployment and that “27 out of 31 reactors that started construction since 2017 are Russian or Chinese designs.”

This must change. For decades, the U.S. led the world in the development of nuclear energy. But we have ceded that leadership to Russia and China. Furthermore, the U.S. has foolishly allowed too many of our existing nuclear plants to be prematurely shuttered, including two in the past 15 months: Indian Point in New York and Palisades in Michigan.

The energy crisis in Europe and the latest BP numbers show that if we are to have any hope of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we have to embrace the atom. The U.S. doesn’t lack investment dollars or good reactor designs. Last year alone, some $3.4 billion in venture capital was invested in nuclear-focused startups. What’s needed is committed and sustained leadership from President Biden and Congress.

Today’s crises are a prime opportunity for President Biden to use the bully pulpit to promote nuclear energy. And the time for him to do so is right now.

Robert Bryce is the host of the “Power Hungry Podcast,” executive producer of the documentary, “Juice: How Electricity Explains the World,” and the author of six books, including most recently, “A Question of Power: Electricity and the Wealth of Nations.” Follow him on Twitter @pwrhungry.

Source: TEST FEED1