Why is Obama against nuclear power and the US drilling for oil on US soil?

The thousands of leases the oil companies now have have no oil under them so please don't answer with that.Why is Obama against nuclear power and the US drilling for oil on US soil?
Man, Mike S, that was a really dumb answer. Nuclear energy leaves NO CARBON footprint; it is a very efficient, clean, energy source; thus, it is environmentally a great choice. In fact, it's what most of the military and NASA uses to power-up. However, the plants have to be well maintained and protected (from terrorist attacks) and preferably placed in an uninhabited region. The newest research up the pipeline is IEC Fusion that NASA is working on and H3 fusion (helium 3 fusion) is another interested alternative. By the way, for all you tree huggers out there, hybrid cars, as you know, also run on electricity. Where does electricity come from? Some magical fairy comes down and give it to us? No. Think about Physics: law of conservation of energy. Here are the major components of electric power: %26gt;50% coal burning, 20% nuclear energy. Food for thought.Why is Obama against nuclear power and the US drilling for oil on US soil?
I think that's a very broad statement... Obama (as well as many politicians, both liberal and conservative) are against drilling for oil because in several cases (not all) there is legislation that would need to be over turned (environmental initiatives, laws that prevent drilling for the sake of wildlife preservation, etc.) The type of drilling Bush is calling for is something oil executives and economic advisors admit will not lower gases princes, which is the reason so many of us even consider such drilling.


There are numerous reasons nuclear power is such a touchy subject; in my opinion, its a stance that both candidates are going to want to refrain from speaking on until they win the election. The primary issue: if we are ';pro-nuclear technology'; we lose some clout, especially since we're ';encouraging'; other UN nations to refrain from using the same technology.


And if you check his official stances on these issues, you won't find him explicitly speaking out against every application of nuclear power, just generally against it, as well as a general rejection of the idea that its necessary for us to drill on U.S. soil.
for the same reason he wants no good news from iraq. He has so sold his soul to the democrat party contributers (global warming wack jobs, anti war protestors et al) that anything, no matter how good, is bad if it doesn't fit the party line. Oil is the ';failed policy of the past';. It also made this country what it is. I'm all for finding alternatives, but the ones he is suggesting, specifically ethanol have proven disasters with skyrocketing food costs and such. He may be against the ';failed policies of the past'; but he is advocating certain ';failed policies of the future';. Search for new alternatives, but don't shoot us in the face while we try to find them.





Note: those spewing the lie that the oil here won't last a year, they have found shale oil deposits that could eliminate saudi arabia as an importer for the next 90 years in the dakotas alone. Not to mention ANWAR and the coast. That 90 years could buy enough time to CORRECTLY find alternatives.
Drilling for more oil is not the solution. We need to move away from oil, and we can't do anything in the near future about supply - we can do plenty about demand.





Nuclear power plants are not a bad idea, but they have to be maintained properly, and our current power plants are not doing that.
The reason for his stance is largely due to his secret funding he gets from his relatives in the Middle East who control oil stocks and commodities. If the US was to start getting it's own oil and produce it own energy reserves, and not rely on the Middle East then the leaders of the middle east wouldn't be able to continue to finance the terrorists, and would go back being a third world country. Obama's plan is to create a New World Order to be controlled by Mulsim Oil Merchants.
Nuclear power: Because there still is not a solution to what to do with the waste.





More drilling:





1-Oil is yesterday's news we need alternate energies.





2-Additional drilling is not likely to impact price.





3-We need to maintain our reserves for strategic purposes.
Simple two-word answer: ENVIRONMENTAL RISK!





I don't necessarily agree, but I can certainly appreciate the arguments from the opposition. And some of the history is on their side. Look at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and the Exxon Valdez . . .





Still, I'm not convinced that our overall risk (including risk to our standard of living) is any better by NOT doing these things.
Technological advances since ';Three Mile Island'; have made nuclear energy much safer. The U.S. built a nuclear energy plant in France (which is 90% nuclear energy), and they are very satisfied with the results.





As far as terrorism is concerned, dirty bombs can wipe out cities, and other horrific bio-terrorist plots. We would just have to rely on increased intelligence and security surrounding the plant. They are also making advances in nuclear energy that does not produce the amount of radioactive waste and danger. Google fusion/fission nuclear energy. I say go for it, and I agree with McCain on this issue.
It is not environmentally safe to drill on US soil and nuclear power is too dangerous. An accident or a terrorist attack on a nuclear plant can wipe out an entire city. We will not put our country into such danger. We need to come up with alternative sources of energy that are safe and clean.
';the amount of oil you would find in the u.s. would last a year at best';..... are you freaking kidding me there is enough oil and natural gas offshore and other blocked areas to keep this country energy dependent for decades to come
Because the Democrats are playing the Blame game. Rather than getting all the great minds together to come up with a solution, he is pandering to the masses, blaming ';Big Oil'; so he can get votes. Its the easy thing to do, not the right thing to do.
he is more of an environmentalist than in favor of the rich getting richer.


drilling for more oil is a temporary solution to a permanent problem. he wants to find alternative sources so he is not going to waste money on something that is temporary.
Because apparently he has a '; BETTER PLAN'; It is based on hope and change.. or something.


As per obama he really doesn't tell us exactly what his plan is.. we are just supposed to blindly believe him.





Not for me.. thanks!
Because the oil companies already have 68 million off shore acres that have YET to be drilled upon.


Why give them MORE when they HAVEN'T used what they already have?
Because he panders to the environmentalist who have basically bought and run the Democratic party.
And YOU know that to be a FACT?


Then why did they buy them? When did they do the exploratory drilling?
Because he has ties to Middle East like all other politicians against us using our own resources?!
Why? Seems odd, but that's pretty much it until his campaign decides it would be advantageous to ';reassess his position';.
Because it would cut into the profits of the Middle Eastern oil producing countries?
cuz its obama and hes a democrat!!
He's a Democrat! That says it all. Gotta keep those environmentalists happy!
He wants oil to go up just because he's an a$$. It'll never go down until we drill in our own land which is another reason why I'm voting for McCain.
Because that would fix the problem and mean, wait for it, that Bush was right...AHHHHH!!!!.
the amount of oil you'd find in the u.s would last a year at the best. Its not worth it. And nuclear power isnt good for the environment