|
9/11 POLITICAL PROFITEERS
Editorial
05/28/2002
New York Post
Of all the cheap schemes to exploit the horror of Sept. 11,
few are more obnoxious than the effort to thwart the state's
drive for sufficient electricity.
First, there were the cynical manipulations by institutions
like The New York Times, which ran what was essentially an
anti-power editorial on its front page.
The piece claimed - wrongly - that new generating plants
aren't needed any longer: The recession and the loss of the
World Trade Center had flattened demand for electricity in
the state.
Then came the overblown scare stories about how New York's
power plants - particularly nuclear plants like Indian Point
in Westchester - were at risk from terrorist attack.
Thinking folks understood, of course, how improbable it is
that such attacks can succeed and cause much damage. But for
the anti-energy crowd, 9/11 was too great an opportunity not
to exploit.
So, with that in mind, Assemblyman Richard Brodsky (D-Westchester)
resumed his old role as New York's leading Chicken Little:
Last month, he presented a new study that asserts a link between
the closing of eight nuclear plants and a decline in cancer
rates among infants near those plants.
But even the Times, in reporting that study, had to admit
that "federal officials" and "radiation experts"
see "no evidence to link illness and proximity to nuclear
plants."
And the coordinator for the group that did Brodsky's study,
Joseph Mangano, himself acknowledged that "a lot of things
could affect infant deaths. . . . [W]e really need to do more
follow-up."
Translation: We're going to keep studying this thing until
we come up with findings that fit our politics.
So far, though, that hasn't happened.
This month, Indian Point's foes paraded two more studies,
claiming that closing the plant wouldn't be so painful.
Why not? Simple: Folks could just cut down on their use of
electricity.
Which, of course, is true: New Yorkers could do without lights,
air conditioners, computers . . .
But this wouldn't be painful?
Well, not to a hermit, perhaps. But to average Gothamites,
it would hurt plenty.
Anyway, why should New Yorkers have to cut down, given the
absence of any hard proof of a downside to Indian Point? Or
of a plan for replacing lost power were the plant shut?
Indeed, real experts, like the Business Council's Public
Policy Institute and the New York Independent System Operator
(which manages the state's electricity market), have been
screaming about the state's shortage of power.
"The bottom line is that New York continues to need
significant additions of new . . . capacity despite the temporary
dampening of demand growth caused by the terrorist attack
and the recessionary conditions of last year," says NYISO's
president, William Museler.
The Business Council's president, Daniel Walsh, says the
state faces "a growing and dangerous gap between the
energy we have and what we need." Closing Indian Point
with no backup power, he warns, would cause "irreversible
harm to efforts to restore the city's economy."
Walsh warned of electric bills soaring by as much as 40 percent
and the increased likelihood of blackouts - which he said
will hurt the poor most, jeopardize residents' health and
impose "crushing new costs" on businesses.
Some 1,500 employees at Indian Point alone would find themselves
out of a job.
The attacks of Sept. 11 were bad enough without cynics trying
to milk it for their own crass political purposes.
Particularly when their plans call for turning the lights
out on New York.
BACK
TO TOP
|
