Take a hard look at how candidates’ energy policies will affect health, climate change

Watching the political theater that our election season has become, you’d be forgiven if you thought that all matters of public policy were black or white – however, many issues, such as how we move toward a carbon-free energy mix, are much more complex than the candidates make them out to be. Especially when we consider the climate change repercussions that are tied to our energy choices, it’s clear that we simply must evaluate all our clean air options thoroughly, and this should include a comprehensive discussion about all the benefits of nuclear energy.
 
Some candidates do not have realistic policy recommendations in place and that will ultimately affect the health of Americans. Just the other day, we were reminded of this link between health and energy again when a report released by the Obama administration linked climate change to increased risks for asthma, deaths from extreme heat, and to lowered nutritional value in some crops due to rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This report was built on evidence from more than 100 scientists and researchers.
 
{mosads}Many times, the campaign trail doesn’t allow room for things like nuance and consequences. That’s the case with candidates who have recently been discussing nuclear energy, which has many more benefits than are fully explored during a stump speech.
 
A recent analysis our organization conducted found nuclear energy provides 63 percent of our carbon-free energy and that, nationwide, carbon emissions from the electricity sector would be 27 percent higher without nuclear energy. This proves the United States will not be able to meet proposed federal carbon emission-cutting goals without maintaining our existing nuclear energy fleet. However, states are not taking action to save at-risk plants — as evidenced by recently announced closures of the FitzPatrick facility in New York and Pilgrim facility in Massachusetts. When the Pilgrim Nuclear Station comes offline in 2019, Massachusetts will have a 6.4 million megawatt-hour shortfall of clean energy. This is enough electricity to power more than a quarter of the homes in the state.
 
To achieve a sustainable energy future that protects our heath, we must support an all-of-the-above energy portfolio that includes the continued use of safe, clean and affordable nuclear energy.
 
Most people wouldn’t assume that we – a former Bush cabinet member and a former Obama cabinet member – would agree on anything. However, we have found common ground in the belief in an all-of-the-above energy policy that places strong value on carbon-free energy sources is the best option for the health of our families and for everyone. And, as former public servants ourselves, we both believe it is still possible for us to come together and help make smart decisions that improve the quality of our air and slow climate change by encouraging candidates that support clean-air energies such as solar, wind and nuclear energy.
 
Dirty air is not just a talking point – it’s a real issue with real impacts on human health. As emissions increase and global temperature rises, more and more people will have serious health impacts, and we will see increased weather-related deaths. This Earth Day, we must ensure candidates understand this is the biggest environmental challenge of our time, and as citizens, we support actions to mitigate climate change. That means we – and they – must also support nuclear energy.

Kirk is co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition. He previously served as U.S. trade representative and mayor of Dallas. Whitman, former Environmental Protection Agency administrator, is co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition. She also previously served as governor of New Jersey.