Biden urges economic aid for nuke plants in India to cut CO2 emissions

The Hill reports:

Biden also urged more progress on negotiations to enable the U.S. reactor companies to be the suppliers for planned nuclear plants in India under a 2008 U.S.-India agreement on nuclear power cooperation. The efforts have hit snags over India’s liability policies.

“Your leaders fully understand that in order to sustain your development India needs access to low-carbon technologies and other sources of clean energy. And that’s why when I was a United States Senator and Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee I fought so hard in the United States Senate to champion the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement. It’s part of the path to sustainable energy in a growing, powerful country,” Biden said.
“But part of that agreement was India committed to work with American companies as well as you build out those nuclear plants. And it’s important that we complete the first agreement between American companies and the Nuclear Power Corporation of India,” he said.

Read more…

2 thoughts on “Biden urges economic aid for nuke plants in India to cut CO2 emissions”

  1. Forget India, Why doesn’t Biden invest in nuclear plants here in the USA….

    Oh my bad, the main goal of the US Congress is to destroy the USA. (Gotta get rid of that pesky Constitution and the idea that individuals tell governments what to do) Remember both Bush and Clinton pushed for the World Trade Organization and Bush saw to it that Maurice Strong, The father of Global Warming, Chaired Kyoto.

    From the WTO Director General, Pascal Lamy, a good buddy of Clinton and Fabian ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair. (Don’t miss the LSE ‘Third Way’ they are now pushing.)

    Pascal Lamy: Whither Globalization?
    …In the same way, climate change negotiations are not just about the global environment but global economics as well — the way that technology, costs and growth are to be distributed and shared….

    Can we balance the need for a sustainable planet with the need to provide billions with decent living standards? Can we do that without questioning radically the Western way of life?….

    The reality is that, so far, we have largely failed to articulate a clear and compelling vision of why a new global order matters — and where the world should be headed. Half a century ago, those who designed the post-war system — the United Nations, the Bretton Woods system, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) — were deeply influenced by the shared lessons of history.

    All had lived through the chaos of the 1930s — when turning inwards led to economic depression, nationalism and war. All, including the defeated powers, agreed that the road to peace lay with building a new international order — and an approach to international relations that questioned the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty — rooted in freedom, openness, prosperity and interdependence…..

    Soviet Spy and U.S. Treasury official Harry Dexter White is best known as one of the leading architects of the Bretton Woods system that shaped the global economy after World War II.

    …., a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, spoke with Wonkblog recently about about his book, “The Battle of Bretton Woods: John Maynard Keynes, Harry Dexter White, and the Making of a New World Order,”

    Benn Steil: This was the most important international gathering since the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. As early as 1936, Harry Dexter White, who was then a little-known official at the Treasury Department, was planning precisely this sort of conference, with the aim of establishing the dollar as the global unit of account of the entire world, and, very importantly, eliminating the pound sterling as a rival. You have memos in White’s archives which show almost an obsession with the relative position of the U.S. dollar and pound sterling at the time. He expresses enormous concern that there should be as few sterling countries as possible around the table, to maximize U.S. leverage.

    White is already thinking about the conference in geopolitical terms, and what it means for the relative position of the United States and Great Britain, not just economically but politically. In the 1940s, after the war had started, the FDR administration is already thinking quite seriously about how Britain’s impending bankruptcy can redound to the geopolitical benefit of the United States. They were thinking about how if we manage our financial aid to Britain carefully and control it tightly, we can get Britain through the war, but also simultaneously limit its room for maneuver in the postwar world. It was a conscious effort to force liquidation of the British empire after the war.

    Bretton Woods was in the view of FDR’s Treasury very much a geopolitical event….

    Now the Movers and Shakers have moved on and India, Russia, China and South Africa (the BRIC countries ) are being set-up to oust the USA as she is intentionally bankrupted.

    The newest move is The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) “free trade” agreement… between the U.S. and Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Malaysia and Vietnam; with countries like Japan and China potentially joining later. 600 corporate advisors have access to the text, while the public, Members of Congress, journalists, and civil society are excluded…

    The WTO and NAFTA “free trade” agreement gave the USA a real 22% unemployment rate and a major and increasing trade deficit.

    Clinton made sure to change how the unemployment rate was calculated so the damage to the USA was hidden. link So the destruction of the US manufacturing base and economy was intentional. Otherwise why go to the trouble to hide the results?

    It also make the “top 1%” a lot richer. Straight from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) (There is that word interdependence again, the international traders dream)

    ….New convergence and strengthened interdependence coincide with a third trend, relating to income distribution. In many countries the distribution of income has become more unequal, and the top earners’ share of income in particular has risen dramatically. In the United States the share of the top 1 percent has close to tripled over the past three decades, now accounting for about 20 percent of total U.S. income (Alvaredo and others, 2012)….

  2. Ignoring the carbon element, well-managed nuclear power would reduce actual pollution from burning coal — ash and soot, primarily, which are real problems. I’d rather the Indians had a Three-Mile-Island setup than a Chernobyl job; better yet, is this a chance to work on the thorium pocket-reactor projects that Instapundit and Our Host have mentioned?
    BUT – maybe India’s private sector should be funding this or US investors with them. Subsidies are automatically suspect.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.