Comment by raymundohpl — February 22, 2008 @ 5:16 pm

… in five years, we’d have diamonds!

Good point-

Comment by Alejandro — February 22, 2008 @ 3:16 pm

This is kind of like saying “the problem with worrying about the cancer-causing effects of cigarette smoking is that it takes the focus off of emphysema and heart disease.”

We need to look at the problem holistically.

Climate change is just one of many environmental issues related to the use of fossil fuels. From fossil-fuel derived fertilizers degrading soils and poisoning ecosystems, to fossil-fuel derived plastics entering the food chain and killing fish to Dutch Disease, fossil fuels are the source of massive environmental and social problems. We as a society need to wean ourselves off of them in all areas. It’s not just how we fuel our power plants or gas up our cars, but what we eat, what we buy, and where these come from.

Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — February 22, 2008 @ 2:47 pm

Simple! Just stick it under one of those mountains in West Virginia.

Oh wait…

Then, I assume that as a good citizen of Virginia, you’ve figured out where IN Virginia you’d like to store the nuclear waste.

We’ve been seeing the corporations out of control for quite a few years now . I’ve been thinking for quite a while that something’s got to give. They can’t really think that record profits can be sustained year after year . Yet they try like hell to make it happen.
I mean, they’ve squeezed the employee until there’s no blood left, they destroy the environment at will and completely, they outsource like mad to make another greedy buck.
It’s got to stop.

Glad to see that you listen to Glenn Beck as well. For me it’s mostly entertainment value as there is very little accurate information but live and let live, I guess.
Yes, General Electric is in the business of making Electricity- a clear conflict of interest. So I propose that we remove corporations from the media entirely… public airwaves~ public television! Can I count on your support?

General Electric’s Nuclear-Powered Returns
Tara Murphy, 05.18.01, 2:30 PM ET

NEW YORK – President Bush’s energy plan sounds like a renaissance for nuclear energy, proposing to increase reactors at U.S. licensed plants. The plan is a vision covered in red tape, but won’t likely impact investors’ wallets in the near term.

Most experts don’t see a new nuclear plant being built for decades due to the onerous licensing process and environmental issues, such as storing radioactive waste. But Bush wants to add reactors to current plants and that may clear the bureaucracy faster. U.S. companies haven’t been building plants here, but they’ve been active in more nuke-friendly countries and are ready to reap the benefits in the U.S. when the time comes.

“If the U.S starts building nuclear plants in significant numbers, that would have to be looked at, but we’re pretty active,” says John Redding, manager of marketing and public affairs of GE Nuclear Energy, a unit of General Electric (nyse: GE – news – people ).

GE, which supplied many of the reactors when U.S. plants were being built in the 1970s and 1980s, is building two plants in Taiwan and constructed two nuclear plants for Tokyo Electric Power, which have been running for four years.

One more time… despite what you’ve heard on the EIB network not one of us here is advocating that you stop using electricity altogether. All we’re saying is that sticking with fossil fuels to generate that electricity is a dead end… If you can think about conservation of electricty that’s a great place to start- I certainly wouldn’t mind if you unplugged your computer at this moment…

Comment by VA Voter — February 22, 2008 @ 2:20 pm

I’m not buying Blu-ray, I’m buying HD-DVD… yeah, I know it’s yesterday’s news but alot of people I know have them already and it works really well… plus I think people will be nostalgic for the little brown boxes in a few years and Toshiba will stage a comeback… Will anyone be nostalgic for cooling towers and nuclear waste?

Sadly, I agree 100% with this statement.

Comment by VA Voter — February 22, 2008 @ 2:20 pm

And nuclear power is clean, efficient, and problem free — until you get a Three Mile Island or Chernobyl incident, or you run out of secure space to store your nuclear waste.

Comment by VA Voter — February 22, 2008 @ 1:31 pm

Uh, move? Get a different job? Get a bike? Carpool? Vanpool? Public transit?

Comment by gummitch — February 22, 2008 @ 1:36 pm

Take the bus/train.
Move closer to your job.
Move your job closer to your home.
Ride your bike.

I’m sorry you’re having trouble coping with this dilemma.

Comment by Zooey — February 22, 2008 @ 1:38 pm

These are all good suggestions for cutting down on automobile usage, but as much as I hate to admit it, VA Voter may have a somewhat valid point.

1) Moving closer to job. Many of us have jobs in urban areas and can’t afford to live there — best we can do is find a home in the suburban/exurban sprawl several miles away.

2) Get a different job. In today’s job market? Many of us are lucky to have the job we’ve already got. Switching jobs isn’t exactly an impulse move anymore.

3) Take public transit. Excellent idea if you live in a place that has a good system. Where I live, I would have to drive three miles just to get to a bus stop, take one bus toward downtown, transfer to another bus that gets me close to where I work, and then walk about two miles from the bus stop to my workplace. Repeat process in reverse to get home. Public transit is great when it’s practical, but it’s not practical for everyone.

4) Carpool/Vanpool. This is probably the most practical idea on the list, in that it’s doable most places. However, it’s inconvenient if you cannot be matched up with people who live and work in the same vicinity you do, and/or if your hours tend to be project-driven more than fixed.

5) Ride a bike. Great idea if you don’t have to dress up for work, if you don’t have to shlep a lot of stuff to work with you, if your community has bike lanes and friendly drivers, and if it doesn’t rain a lot. Some places (like Seattle and San Francisco) allow you to bring your bike onto a bus or subway, but unfortunately not during heavy commute times.

One alternative not mentioned is telecommuting, or working from home one or two days a week.

It’s always good to find ways to cut down on driving, but because so many of our cities have been laid out for the automobile instead of public transit, and have been built sprawling outward instead of upward, it’s tough for even environmentalists to escape the automobile.

Therefore, I will concede that VA Voter has a point. But even if you HAVE to drive to get places, you can still own a smaller more fuel efficient car, and consolidate trips (run all your errands at once) to use your fuel as efficiently as possible.

Which is why Rockefeller gave lots of money to the prohibition movement. I hope nobody thought it was about “morals.”