CNN YouTube Debate: Democratic Candidates on Nuclear Power
23日、CNN YouTube Debateという特別番組があった。大統領候補者によるディベートだが、初の試みとして視聴者から質問ビデオレターを募り、候補者がそれに答えるという形ですすめられた。YouTubeという新しいメディアをいち早く取り入れた政治ディベート、とはなんともアメリカらしいという気がする。民主主義への素直な信頼が感じられて、（それはよくも悪くもとは言えるだろうが、少なくとも今回は）明るい気持ちになった。今回は民主党候補のディベートで、9月には共和党候補のディベートが予定されている。
民主党候補の中ではヒラリー・クリントンとバラック・オバマに注目が集まっており、今のところほぼこの二人の一騎打ちという様相を呈している。二人とも初のマイノリティ大統領になる可能性があり、それはアメリカの歴史にとって非常に重要な一歩になるだろう。ただ女性か黒人かという二者択一は不毛だと思う。最近になってジョン・エドワーズ候補（彼は男性かつ白人である）の夫人が重要なのは候補者の性別自体ではなく、女性の権利の代弁者かどうかだということを言い出している。つまり男性であってもエドワーズは女性のために一番力を尽くしている（これはクリントンは女性であるにもかかわらず、女性の権利を代弁していない＝従来の男性政治家とかわらない女性という批判ともとれる）ということで、アイデンティティ・ポリティクスの弱点を巧みについている 、しかもそれをエドワーズ本人ではなく、女性である夫人が言うところに妙がある、とも言える。
全体として非常に興味深いディベートだったが、特に印象に残った質問が一つ。「以前のディベートで各候補者ともソーラーや風力など新しいエネルギー源について述べていたが、原子力については誰も触れなかった。自分は原子力は他のものに比べてより安全で環境に優しく、かつ迅速に輸入に頼らない自給エネルギー体制を確立できると思うが、候補者それぞれはどう考えるか」という内容だった。原子力が安全で環境に優しいという発想は根本から矛盾している。化石燃料を使わずCO2を排出しないということで、地球温暖化を防止することができる＝環境に優しいということなのだが、つまりは電力会社などが原子力推進のために流布させている詭弁にすぎない。にも関わらず、アメリカでは結構素朴に鵜呑みにしている人が多くいる。
この質問に対して回答を求められたのはエドワーズ、オバマ、クリントンの3人。エドワーズは原子力発電にかかる莫大なコストと放射性廃棄物の危険性を指摘し、はっきりと反対を示した。それに対してオバマは危険性や環境問題への言及はなく、さまざまなエネルギー源のうちの一つとして原子力を検討すべきだとした。最後のクリントンは、エドワーズの言う通りコスト面からも安全性の点でも現状のままでは原子力は考えにくい、ただし、ここにアメリカの科学技術を役立てることができる。もしコストと廃棄物の問題を科学技術によってうまく解決できれば、原子力は地球温暖化防止にも役立つし新たな雇用を生み出すこともでき、いいことづくめ(win-win）だろう、と述べた。
オバマの原子力に対するあまりに楽観的な姿勢は正直ショックだった。連日の柏崎の報道を考えても、特にこの時期の答弁として軽率にすら思われる。ただし、ただ単に無知なのだろうという気もした。勝手な印象だが、彼は原子力の危険性、過去に起きた事故とその被害者たちについてこちらから一生懸命話しかければちゃんと聞いてくれそうな、そして勉強してくれそうな感じがする。一方のクリントンは表面的に原子力の危険性を認めてはいるものの、何か信用できない気がした。とにかく「如才ない」という言葉以外ない。
CNN aired the special program titled CNN YouTube Debate on 23rd. It was a presidential candidate debate, taking an experimental format in which candidates answer to question video letters posted onto YouTube. It appeared to me vintage American: a political debate employing YouTube, the latest media technology. I sensed people's innocent trust on democracy, (for better or worse, though at least this time) I liked it. It was a Democratic candidates debate this time, and Republican debate is scheduled in September.
Among Democratic candidates, Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama are most spotlighted two. Both could be the first minority President, that will make a significant milestone in American history. I believe, however, that a choice between women or black is pointless. The wife of John Edwards (he is apparently male and white) recently started claiming that what would be important was not the gender of candidate, but who would be the best advocate for women's interest. Namely Mrs. Edwards says that in spite of being a man Edwards is the best advocate for women, (this can be interpreted as that in spite of being a woman Clinton is not the best advocate for women, implying that she is just like a conventional male candidate), that points out, in a way very tactically, the problem of identity politics. Moreover, tricky is that this criticism is stated not by Edwards himself, but by female Mrs. Edwards.
The debate was very interesting over all, but there was one question particularly noticeable to me. The question was like this: "In previous debates all candidates talked about the new alternative energy, such as solar, wind, or like, however, no one mentioned to nuclear power. I believe that nuclear power is safer and cleaner, and can make quick path to energy independence. What do you think about nuclear energy?" Nuclear power as safe and clean energy is fundamentally paradoxical. Namely, they say that nuclear power generation uses no fossil fuel and emits no CO2, thus can prevent global warming = eco-friendly. It is mere a sophistry propagated by energy companies to promote nuclear power, however, surprisingly, not a few people swallow it with no doubt.
To this question, three candidates, Edwards, Obama, and Clinton were named to answer. Edwards pointed the enormous cost of nuclear power operation and the danger of radioactive waste and clearly opposed to promote nuclear power. On the other hand, Obama did not mention to the danger and environmental damage, and stated that we should explore nuclear power as a part of energy mix. Finally, Clinton said that in terms of cost and safety, as Edwards pointed it would be hard to think of nuclear power as part of American future, however, technology would provide solutions. With technology, if we could solve the problems of cost and radioactive waste, nuclear power could serve to stop global warming and also create lots of new jobs. It could be "win-win", she said.
Obama's optimism about nuclear power was honestly a quite shock to me. To think of daily report of the accident in Kashiwazaki, his statement sounds imprudent. At the same time I felt somehow that he might be just ignorant on the issue. I had an impression, though arbitrary, that he would really listen and learn, if we sincerely talk to him about the past accidents and the victims. On the other hand, while she apparently recognized the danger of nuclear power, Clinton seemed to be untrustworthy. I cannot think of any word to describe her statement other than "diplomatic".
Among Democratic candidates, Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama are most spotlighted two. Both could be the first minority President, that will make a significant milestone in American history. I believe, however, that a choice between women or black is pointless. The wife of John Edwards (he is apparently male and white) recently started claiming that what would be important was not the gender of candidate, but who would be the best advocate for women's interest. Namely Mrs. Edwards says that in spite of being a man Edwards is the best advocate for women, (this can be interpreted as that in spite of being a woman Clinton is not the best advocate for women, implying that she is just like a conventional male candidate), that points out, in a way very tactically, the problem of identity politics. Moreover, tricky is that this criticism is stated not by Edwards himself, but by female Mrs. Edwards.
The debate was very interesting over all, but there was one question particularly noticeable to me. The question was like this: "In previous debates all candidates talked about the new alternative energy, such as solar, wind, or like, however, no one mentioned to nuclear power. I believe that nuclear power is safer and cleaner, and can make quick path to energy independence. What do you think about nuclear energy?" Nuclear power as safe and clean energy is fundamentally paradoxical. Namely, they say that nuclear power generation uses no fossil fuel and emits no CO2, thus can prevent global warming = eco-friendly. It is mere a sophistry propagated by energy companies to promote nuclear power, however, surprisingly, not a few people swallow it with no doubt.
To this question, three candidates, Edwards, Obama, and Clinton were named to answer. Edwards pointed the enormous cost of nuclear power operation and the danger of radioactive waste and clearly opposed to promote nuclear power. On the other hand, Obama did not mention to the danger and environmental damage, and stated that we should explore nuclear power as a part of energy mix. Finally, Clinton said that in terms of cost and safety, as Edwards pointed it would be hard to think of nuclear power as part of American future, however, technology would provide solutions. With technology, if we could solve the problems of cost and radioactive waste, nuclear power could serve to stop global warming and also create lots of new jobs. It could be "win-win", she said.
Obama's optimism about nuclear power was honestly a quite shock to me. To think of daily report of the accident in Kashiwazaki, his statement sounds imprudent. At the same time I felt somehow that he might be just ignorant on the issue. I had an impression, though arbitrary, that he would really listen and learn, if we sincerely talk to him about the past accidents and the victims. On the other hand, while she apparently recognized the danger of nuclear power, Clinton seemed to be untrustworthy. I cannot think of any word to describe her statement other than "diplomatic".