Challenging Those Who Celebrate Vermont Yankee's Closing

Envy

Nuclear Opponents Celebrate Plant Closing

Vermont Yankee opponents are celebrating the announcement that the plant will close in 2014. Their celebrations make it appear that everyone is happy with this outcome.  In my opinion, nuclear supporters must be honest, visible and upfront with our feelings:  We are not happy that the plant is closing. We know that Vermont Yankee's closing is a bad thing for the state of Vermont.

Here comes the party

The day that Entegy announced the plant shutdown, my local newspaper called me for a quote. They interviewed me and Howard Shaffer, and they interviewed plant opponents.

The Valley News put the article on the front page: Vermont Yankee Opponents Cheer, Supporters Lament.  The article started with an opponent's reaction: When Sharon resident Nina Swaim heard the news Tuesday morning, she was so excited that she screamed. The article ended with more of the opponent's reaction:  First, though, Swaim said, “I just think we all should party for a while.”

Howard and I are well-represented in that article: as a matter of fact, the pull-quote on the front page was from me. But the article started and ended with the opponents' celebrations.

Count me out of the party

Jack Gamble and his wife work at Oyster Creek in New Jersey.  Opponents have tried hard to shut that plant down, and they have partially succeeded.  Oyster Creek is scheduled to close in less than ten years, despite having a NRC license good through 2029.

Jack saw the Valley News article (I had linked to it on Facebook) and he wrote a letter to Valley News: Count Me Out of the Party. His letter starts: About 600 people will lose their jobs, and Nina Swaim is throwing a party...The entire town of Vernon is about to be devastated. Restaurants, retailers and every other local business just lost 600 customers. The same is going to happen to our town of Forked River. But Swaim is going to party... I urge you to link to Gamble's letter and read it.

A few days later, the Valley News published a letter by Brian Cain: Where the Blame Belongs.   Cain started by listing Three Mile Island, Fukushima, etc.  He referred to Gamble's letter, and he finished his own letter with comments that I consider snarky: The world is moving toward safe, clean, sustainable energy, and nukes are not part of that equation. Good luck to you (Gamble) in your job hunt. I don’t have a job either, but I am going to the party.

(Actually, of course, Gamble has a job now, but will lose it when the plant closes. Cain equates "will lose our jobs" with "don't have a job."  Oh, I am SUCH a nit-picker!)

The party expands by adding quotation marks

Chad Simmons volunteers with an anti-Vermont-Yankee  activist campaign.  He was offended that some people have said that activists are insensitive when they gloat over Vermont Yankee closing. In The Commons, Simmons wrote a letter titled On Joy and Justice. To give him credit, he tackles the jobs question straight up:

Chicken Dance

THE “JOBS” ARGUMENT is, in my opinion, a fear-mongering ploy by the wealthy to scare communities into submission......Do Entergy “jobs” make our lives better and its “charitable giving” add to the sustainability and happiness of our communities?

Well, maybe not straight-up.  There are those quotation marks...

Cheryl Twarog, a Vermont Yankee supporter and wife of a long-term employee, wrote several good comments at the end of Simmon's letter.  I urge you to read them.

Answering the Gloaters and Party-Goers

In politics: "A Charge Un-Answered is a Charge Believed."  If  someone is accused and doesn't answer, then people think the accusation is true.

In my opinion, it is the same with the party-goers. If people are celebrating and we don't say anything about it, we are implying their celebrations are appropriate.

We should point out that the people-who-party are enjoying the misfortunes of others. Yes, these people are under the impression that they, personally, will be far safer if these others suffer misfortune (Chernobyl! Fukushima!). They are still enjoying the misfortune of others.

Rebuttals

Two people have written very effective rebuttals to the gloaters.

Cheryl Twarog wrote two excellent letters.  In No High Fives, she answered Simmons directly, in The Commons:  The reality of impending job losses is anything but fear-mongering in any VY household at the moment. Perhaps it is Simmons’ sense of reality that is skewed.

In The Sentinel and other newspapers, she wrote: Vermont Yankee Workers are Great.
Thank you for remembering what is important, even at a time like this, when so many are jubilantly celebrating the impending job losses.

You continue to go to work each day with the safe operation of the plant as your top priority, shutting out the ignorance of others. You are a highly skilled, dedicated and caring group of people, and you deserve all of the good that can come your way.Wishing each one of you the best. 

At Canadian Energy Issues, Steve Aplin described the situation: Jobs and livelihoods destroyed, lives disrupted, increasing carbon emissions: an anti-nuke's life's work.  Aplin writes about the difficulties of being unemployed in this economy. Aplin references Gamble's letter, and adds about his own experience attempting to protect union jobs against a government policy that would eliminate them:

In my initial discussions with the new union clients I sensed a quiet, very restrained, but palpable anger about the policy they had asked for advice opposing...I put everything I had into that case, and my client succeeded in at least delaying the implementation of the policy. What struck me throughout...was the callousness, on the part of those who supported and continue to support that policy, toward the thousands of people who will lose their jobs because of it.  I am supposed to be a brass-balled consultant, providing objective advice...But...I found it difficult to be detached about people who would soon be dealing with unemployment.

Party-Time Rhetoric

In my opinion, we must combat the "party time" rhetoric just as we have combated the "huge-dangers" rhetoric.

In the case of party-time, the opponents can give the impression that everyone is dancing in the streets about the Entergy announcement. There's no street-dancing and no high-fives, except among the dedicated opponents.  Nuclear supporters must continue to express our sadness that Vermont Yankee is closing.  We must continue to express our knowledge that Vermont Yankee and its employees were a great asset to the southern Vermont communities, and indeed, to the whole state.

The Sin of Envy

Envy

I cannot know the motivations of the people who oppose Vermont Yankee.  However, I do know that the median income in Windham County is $41K, and in Vermont as a whole it is $53K  (see my previous post on A Poor Area Will Become Poorer.)  In contrast, the average salary at Vermont Yankee is usually stated as "around $90K."

Envy is one of the motivations of some (many?) of the opponents.  I know my evidence for this is anecdotal evidence, but the stories are also true. I think some (but not all) plant opponents are at least partially motivated by envy.

In Dante's Purgatory, the punishment for the envious is to have their eyes sewn shut with wire because they have gained sinful pleasure from seeing others brought low (from Wikipedia). If you prefer a more modern word than envy, Schadenfreude means basically the same thing.

Yankee Rowe and the Soul of a Nuclear Worker

An Invitation

About two weeks ago, I was invited to participate in a panel discussion. This panel is happening tonight in Brattleboro. The Commons of Brattleboro is sponsoring the panel, which is titled:

The path toward a post-nuclear economy.  Life After Vermont Yankee: What's next?

I was unable to be  on the panel, because I had a conflict tonight.  I write more about the panel, near the end of this post.

A Panel Member: Dr. John R. Mullin

Of course, I was curious about the panel, though I couldn't attend.  I studied the short descriptions of the panel members. (Double-click on the announcement to do the same.)

One name on the panel was new to me: John R. Mullin.   He is a professor at University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and has an impressive Curriculum Vitae. On the panel description, he was listed as: a co-author of the 1997 paper “The Closing of the Yankee Rowe Nuclear Power Plant: The Impact on a New England Community.”  With a short search, I easily found both his paper  and a recent interview with him on Radio Boston: Lessons From the Closing of Mass. Nuclear Plant.

Economics and Property Values

I agreed with many of the statements that Mullin made on the radio program. He acknowledged that closing the plant has a  huge economic impact, and similar jobs do not exist in the areas near the plant.  On the other hand, he claims that property values fall because people are living "in the shadow of a (decommissioned) nuke."

Hmm...everybody was living in the "shadow of" a working nuke before!  It is clear to me, despite my lack of a Ph.D. in urban planning, that when a plant is decommissioned, property values fall because high-paying jobs go away. Property values don't fall because the dry casks are still at the site.  If the casks were at the site but the plant was operating and lots of workers were on-site...property values wouldn't fall.  Well, that is my opinion anyway.  In Mullin's opinion, the big question is: "Would you want to be living within the shadow of a nuke?" (From the Boston Radio interview.)

The Soul of the Nuclear Workers

Near the end of the 1997 paper on the Closing of Yankee Rowe is a section called Future Prospects for Dismissed Employees.  This section notes that  "There are simply no jobs in Rowe that match their skills, nor any local plants where pride of work is so high." Employees that remain in the town can expect jobs with less pay and less status.  That is all true, and it is sad.

However, some of section seems to reflect some schadenfreude on the part of the authors of the paper. It seems to have a little sneaking joy in other people's misfortunes.  Here's the quote that annoys me:

What is especially different at Rowe, however, is the degree of alienation likely for those who stay. Rowe and its neighboring communities were dominated by YAEC, and most employees seemed to think the plant would last forever. From this lofty situation to "just a job" is a real comedown. The decline in status will be particularly difficult because for years the Yankee employees often were regarded with some jealousy.

"Just a job," huh?  Working at a nuclear power plant is "just a job" and the workers just recently found that out?   When I read about the "real comedown" for the workers, it seemed to me to be mean-spirited.  But worse; it  missed the point!

The Motivations of the Soul

Firefighters from Wikipedia

This quote shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the motivations of certain types of workers: nuclear workers, utility workers, fire-fighters, police, doctors, nurses, paramedics.  From my own knowledge of such workers,  they don't see it as "just a job."  These types of jobs all have requirements above and beyond the nine-to-five jobs in offices and factories.  This work keeps the lights on (day and night), keeps people safe (day and night), saves lives (day and night).

In most places, work of this type is accorded high status because people acknowledge the necessity of this work to keep the community safe.  People also acknowledge the sacrifice that such work can demand. (Hail to those who carry pagers!)

Of course, these jobs are also a way to earn a living.  Everybody has to earn a living.  But many people who hold these jobs think of them as a calling. For example, my husband's family includes three generations  of fire-fighters.

Man's Search for Meaning.  Working in a nuclear plant is a "job" with the gift of meaning.

Vermont Yankee Workers by Cheryl Twarog

Let's end on a high note here, with a more upbeat quote! Cheryl Twarog, wife of a long-time Vermont Yankee employee, wrote this letter to the editor, which is appearing in several local newspapers: Vermont Yankee Workers are Great.  Quotes from her letter are below:

Thank you for being the greatest group of people John has ever worked with.....

Thank you for remembering what is important, even at a time like this, when so many are jubilantly celebrating the impending job losses...You continue to go to work each day with the safe operation of the plant as your top priority, shutting out the ignorance of others. You are a highly skilled, dedicated and caring group of people, and you deserve all of the good that can come your way.Wishing each one of you the best.

-------

More about the Panel

When the panel organizers  asked me to be on the panel, my first question was: "Can you hold it a night OTHER than Wednesday night?"  Well, they couldn't. I have a conflict tonight and cannot attend.  It is important to me to share that I was asked, however. When I put the panel announcement on the Save Vermont Yankee Facebook page, there were comments to the effect that most of the people on the panel had never supported continued operation of the plant.  So I need to state for the record that I am not on the panel because I had a conflict today, not because they didn't want me.

Here's the announcement of the panel in The Commons. The event is coordinated by journalist and Commons contributor Leah McGrath Goodman and her associate, Morgan Milazzo.  I am grateful for the invitation.

Alas, I know that Guy Page of VTEP (a frequent guest blogger on this blog) also had a conflict.  I know this because he emailed me and the organizers, and the organizers immediately asked me if I could try to manage to attend. I couldn't.  I am disappointed that Guy won't be on the panel, but since I can't be there, there is nothing I can do about it.