Several decades ago, I became involved in the nuclear weapons freeze movement, which many public figures — even supposedly liberal ones — avoided at all costs. It was considered fatally naive, dangerously pacifistic, irresponsibly unilateral.
In fact, it was none of those things. It would merely have applied a brake to the development by both the US and the USSR of missile technologies that would, when deployed, have forced each side to place its nuclear arsenal on hair trigger alert — permanently. But in spite of the manifest good sense of the nuclear weapons freeze proposal, it was, as I said, considered by many liberals to be too risky a thing politically to endorse.
Congressman Markey was not one of those liberals — he endorsed the nuclear weapons freeze proposal and spoke in support of it with understanding, conviction, and eloquence.
And now, decades later, Senator Markey is showing the same high quality of leadership on an issue of equal importance — the difficult task of weaning our economy off of fossil fuels. And he is being subjected to the same intensity and quality of abuse for his support of a green new deal that he was for his support of a nuclear weapons freeze. And he doesn’t give a damn about the abuse now any more than he gave a damn then.
I intend to cast my vote for Joe Kennedy III for United States Senator — in 2026, when I assume that Markey will be retiring. In 2026, Kennedy will be a more seasoned veteran of the political wars, and at the age of 44 will still be able to look ahead to many years of service in the Senate.
But in 2020, I will cast my vote to send Ed Markey back to the United States Senate, where we have every reason to expect that he will continue to serve us with conviction and distinction, for six more years.
SomervilleTom says
I join you in remembering Ed Markey as a vigorous supporter of the nuclear freeze movement. I, too, was part of that movement. I attended my very first Democratic Party caucus in order to do all I could to ensure that Ed Markey would return to the House as my representative. I met Ed Markey, then, and had the opportunity to see him handle a diverse audience.
I hope you will join me in helping those of us who know those times only through history books and media reports understand that Ed Markey was and is the real deal.
Specifically, he supported the nuclear freeze movement because he was passionate about its necessity — not because he needed to stand out in a crowded primary.
Ed Markey was and is the real deal.
fredrichlariccia says
Ed Markey is the real deal. In over 40 years of friendship and support, I can attest there is not a phony bone in his body. He is a man of deep conviction and passionate integrity.
bob-gardner says
2026? Why stop there? Why aren’t you telling us who you will vote for in 2032 and 2038?
jessefell says
I’’m 70 years old. Making plans for six years from now is about as bold as I feel I can be.
jconway says
I know the nuclear freeze referred to the arms race/arms control initiatives in the 1980s, but where does Ed stand on nuclear power? This is one of the least disruptive ways of getting fossil fuels out of the energy mix and its a big reason France and Germany are totally coal free today. I think it is something we have to realistically include alongside renewables as a way to a carbon free future. The benefits far outweigh the risks.
SomervilleTom says
@The benefits far outweigh the risks:
You should know better than this, it’s been discussed here multiple times over the years.
What part of Fukushima were you not paying attention to? How can you be unaware of the enormous and growing risk of nuclear waste?
Even if we could somehow magically solve these huge problems, it would take ENORMOUS investments and time to design and build new plants. We don’t have the time, and the dollar-for-dollar return from other alternatives dwarfs the return from nuclear power for those enormous investments.
The nuclear power industry is the sole source of such pro-nuclear agitation.
Ed Markey has correctly been a leader in the fight against nuclear power for as long as I’ve known him.
Christopher says
Uprated mostly to offset the downrate. For me nuclear might be a good interim idea. It seems to be better than fossil fuels, but worse than truly clean and renewable sources.
SomervilleTom says
It takes decades to plan, site, and build a single nuclear power plant. That plant produces hazardous waste that is deadly for MILLENNIA. It takes decades to shut down a nuclear power plant.
How can you characterize this as a “good interim idea”? It isn’t “good”, and there is absolutely nothing “interim” about it.
The permitting process for the Seabrook NH power plant began in February of 1972. Unit 1 (the second unit was never built) reached full power for the first time in 1990 — EIGHTEEN years later.
How can a technology with a twenty year per plant startup time be “interim”?
Yankee Rowe stopped producing power in February 1992. It was fully de-commissioned in 2007 — fifteen years later. The company that owns Pilgrim and shut it down earlier this year (Entergy) says it will take SIXTY years to decommision the site.
How can a technology with a fifteen to sixty year per plant shutdown time be “interim”?
Nuclear power is not part of a carbon-neutral energy future because it doesn’t make sense. It is expensive, dangerous, and expensive in comparison to all the other alternatives. Did I mention expensive?
Trickle up says
I do not always agree with jconway, but I have never seen him troll before or otherwise post in bath faith.
But i find it impossible to believe that he does not know “where Ed stands on nuclear power.” This is like asking whom Bill Belichick would like to win the Superbowl.
Markey’s early and dogged criticism of nukes–in the 1980s!–and his defense of renewables marks him as an essential environmental voice–the real deal.
Economically, nuclear power has always been deployed as a weapon against renewable energy and energy efficiency, a fact that high-minded advocates never grapple with. That role continues today.
Call me if that ever changes.