Chad Simmons, a volunteer with the Safe and Green Campaign, originally wrote this piece as a contemplative rebuttal to several remarks on Facebook about insensitivity and gloating in the social media sphere — including one from your editor — on the day that Entergy made its announcement about the fate of Vermont Yankee. The Commons is beginning to plan the very sort of public forum that Simmons proposes here, so stay tuned.
Originally published in The Commons issue #219 (Wednesday, September 4, 2013).
Aug. 27 was a bittersweet day for me, as I was visiting family and was not with my people in Vermont to hear the news that Entergy would close Vermont Yankee. I predominately shared over Facebook, but I would much rather have been there in person to share laughs, tears, hugs, to breathe deeply, then scheme about the next steps.
As much as there was elation, confusion, anger last week from all sides of the VY issue, this is far, far from over. The corporate line in the asphalt was clearly carved out, yet again.
Entergy refuses to act in the best interest of the community, the planet, and its employees by choosing the SAFSTOR method of decommissioning the plant.
Nobody from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the state of Vermont, or groups of antinuclear activists chose this option. This was entirely, unequivocally Entergy’s decision. People losing “jobs” is entirely the fault of a multi-billion-dollar corporation, its shareholders, and the “free market.”
The announcement by Entergy to close Vermont Yankee today has decades, maybe even centuries, of history and baggage behind it. This is about values. This is about the meaning our toil gives us individually, collectively, socially, and culturally. The fruit our toil creates.
* * *
My first memory of being asked the question of “jobs” was from 2007 by two students working on a journalism grant from North Carolina, interested in the citizen efforts to close VY. My response to this question has not changed much since then.
I am not indifferent to the struggle of the working person (quite the contrary, in fact). However, at some point (and I would argue that that point is now), we need ask ourselves, “What is the value of what I do?” “Does my job improve life on this planet?”
These are difficult and complex questions to answer.
But when it comes to the production of nuclear-powered electricity — an energy source that produces billions of tons of harmful waste, inflicts social injustice to indigenous populations and poor people, releases harmful radiation daily, siphons limited resources from legitimate energy solutions, and adds to the increased nuclear weapons proliferation — it bears diving headfirst down the rabbit hole.
* * *
The “jobs” argument is, in my opinion, a fear-mongering ploy by the wealthy to scare communities into submission —harsh, no doubt, but a statement worth unpacking. And I would suggest unpacking it in a very public, very intentional way.
I would absolutely love to see a a multi-session public dialogue hosted by local media (say, The Commons, the Reformer, BCTV, iBrattleboro) that delves into the complexities of the “jobs” “provided” by Entergy and explores the company’s “charitable giving” as a “corporate citizen.”
Are these jobs in fact needed? Do they add value to our lives? If so, what is the measure of this value? Are there alternatives that could possibly create more value? Or, a different kind of value?
Do Entergy “jobs” make our lives better and its “charitable giving” add to the sustainability and happiness of our communities?
This is just the beginning to building a base level of understanding around “jobs” and values.
The “jobs” scare tactic has been a part of Entergy’s playbook since it purchased VY in 2002. Politicians and activists groups alike didn’t want to touch the issue for fear of offending our neighbor.
Editor’s note: Our terms of service require you to use your real names. We will remove anonymous or pseudonymous comments that come to our attention. We rely on our readers’ personal integrity to stand behind what they say; please do not write anything to someone that you wouldn’t say to his or her face without your needing to wear a ski mask while saying it. Thanks for doing your part to make your responses forceful, thoughtful, provocative, and civil. We also consider your comments for the letters column in the print newspaper.