False Solutions

Nuclear's Power Play: Give Us Subsidies or Give Us Death

by Tyson Slocum

Most energy analysts in the early- and mid-1990s assumed nuclear power in the United States was dying a slow death. Utilities were saddled with unmanageable debt, mainly from the $60 billion in cost overruns and plant shutdowns due to the industry’s misadventures in the 1970s (when nukes were promoted as a solution to crippling high oil prices and calls for energy independence). Components in aging plants were failing, solutions to highly radioactive waste were non-existent, and the industry was still haunted by the Chernobyl catastrophe and the near meltdown of Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island reactor. And Enron’s electricity deregulation push appeared to be the final stake in the heart. ... But a funny thing happened on the way to nuclear’s funeral. In 2008, nuclear power is on the brink of a revival, as unprecedented federal subsidies offered as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, combined with generous state incentives, have triggered a race to build the first commercial nuclear reactor in the United States in a generation. More >>

Biotech Snake Oil: A Quack Cure for Hunger

by Bill Freese

The global food crisis has many causes, but according to the biotechnology industry, there’s a simple solution — genetically modified, or biotech, crops. Biotech multinationals have been in media blitz mode ever since the food crisis first made headlines, touting miracle crops that will purportedly increase yields, tolerate droughts, grow in saline soils, and be chockfull of nutrients, to boot. ... Not everyone is convinced. In fact, the UN and World Bank recently completed an unprecedentedly broad scientific assessment of world agriculture, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), which concluded that biotech crops have very little potential to alleviate poverty and hunger. More >>

The Concession Trap: Auto Worker Givebacks and Labor’s Future

by Simone Landon

In the early 1950s, then-president of General Motors Charles Wilson declared, “What’s good for the country is good for General Motors, and vice versa.” The point was the auto industry’s critical importance to the U.S. economy. But if the economy depended on auto, auto depended on its union workers. The gains made by auto workers set the tone for the rest of the U.S. labor movement. A half-century later, the Big Three’s market share has fallen below 50 percent, and auto is no longer the vital sector it once was. But if GM’s role in the good of the U.S. economy has diminished, the United Auto Workers (UAW) still retains its prominence as a trendsetter for the labor movement. The most recent Big Three auto contracts, bargained last fall, may be the most concessionary yet for UAW members. The fallout will affect all U.S. workers, union and non-union, in auto and beyond. More >>

Unhealthy Solutions: Private Insurance, High Costs and the Denial of Care

an interview with Steffie Woolhandler

Steffie Woolhandler is a co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program, a not-for-profit organization for physicians, medical students and other healthcare professionals who advocate a national health insurance program. She is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard University and co-director of the Harvard Medical School General Internal Medicine Fellowship program. Woolhandler is a co-author of Bleeding the Patient Dry: The Consequences of Corporate Healthcare (2001). More >>