In case you missed it, the National Latino Congreso announced to its supporters via this e-mail that a resolution concerning the ban on new nuclear plants was passed:

(San Antonio, March 30, 2011) The delegates of the 5th Annual National Latino Congreso voted  to call for closing existing US Nuclear Plants on earthquake faults as well as a prohibition on new nuclear construction. “As we observe in real time the melt down at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant in Japan we must send a message to President Obama that decisive action is required beyond just studying the issue,” said Antonio Gonzalez, author of the resolution. “Nuclear stations like in San Onofre, California sit on active faults, are in densely populated areas on the Pacific Ocean, and could experience the same catastrophe as in Fukushima, Latinos are saying that the US must reverse its plans to deepen its commitment to Nuclear,” he concluded.

Approved resolutions can be found online here.

The NCL gathers annually and is comprised of more than 200 organizations and elected leaders from 15 states. It is the premier policy and politics convention for US Latinos. Some 500 delegates and observers are gathering to act on numerous issues from March 25-27. The NLC is convened by nine national Latino organizations:

·  Hispanic Federation

·  LCLAA

·  LULAC

·  MALDEF

·  MAPA

·  NALACC

·  NHEC

·  SVREP

·  WCVI

Marce Gutiérrez, a Latina enviromentalist and colleague of mine, elaborates on what happened:

I was in attendance at this Congreso, and during the voting of this resolution […]

This is what I know about resolutions at the National Latino Congreso: resolutions can be submitted and voted on by endorsing entities (organizations or individuals registered to attend/endorse the event) and conveners (i.e. several DREAM resolutions were also approved at the Congreso).

Resolutions can be debated and amended on the floor prior to voting. This particular resolution  had lots of conversation around the “no new plants” clause but in the end was passed as originally proposed. I understand the nuclear threat was on everybody’s mind as this was shortly in the heels of Fukushima-Daiichi problems arising, and I will say I noticed environmental issue discussions were naturally drawn to this problem everywhere.

On the comparison nuclear/coal safety – I’ll include a nifty little graph/article that illustrates deaths caused by each energy source measured against output (spoiler: coal sucks)

• Article: Deaths per TWH by energy source.
• Deaths per terawatt by energy source graph; click here. 

[…] I’d say we shouldn’t have any new industrial energy plants on coastlines (let alone those on fault lines), unfortunately, many of them depend on ocean water either to operate the plants, cool them or transport input/outputs.

What do you think?  Should we ban nuclear plants?  Read this previous post for some background of nuclear plants in Latin America.