I’ve noticed the conservative tactic in the past – just say something outrageous and dare the person to disagree with you. If they do, just sit there and smile.

My website details the oil spilled IN JUST THIS PARISH BY *KATRINA ALONE*, not counting Rita which nailed us also.

http://www.PLAQUEMINES.com

Scoll down: SUBJECT: OIL SPILLS ALMOST AS BAD AS EXXON VALDEZ SPILL

“Just months ago, oil spills on the Louisiana coast almost reached the scale of the Valdez disaster. But the spills drew little attention because they were only one piece of an even bigger story: Hurricane Katrina.

The storm smashed pipelines and tanks, unleashing at least 7 million gallons of crude; it laced valuable coastal wetlands and oiled wading birds.”

That’s where new technologies come in. Theoretically, a reactor can be designed to “burn” any radioactive material including chopped up bits of old reactors.

These new reactors (there are many types being pursued) will use generations of fuel, much of it consisting of “waste” from old reactors or created by the reactor itself. If the process is completed there will be two grades of waste.

1. Large amounts of “cool” waste which is less radioactive than the parent ore and could be shoveled back in the same hole it came out of.
and.
2. Small amounts of waste which is so “hot” it will remain dangerous for a very short time. (Years or decades as opposed to millennia.)

But, like dbadass, it’s the human parts of the equation that give me the willies. They thought of a 70 year old Bushbot making cost based decisions is too frightening to comprehend.

I think this issue is very ripe. I understand why Bush/Cheney have foot dragged, because of their ties to oil.

But, they’ll be gone in January. What I can’t understand is the lack of an attempt at a comprehensive energy policy from those vying for leadership today.

I think people want to be united in a common effort. People want to be energy independent. People want to conserve the environment. Find cleaner and cheaper, alternatives. They want to stop sending U.S. dollars to the middle east.

The goals may come to confluence.

Like most efforts, it could require some compromise (environmentalists might compromise some drilling, clean coal efforts, nuclear to get those non-environmentalists to commit to conservation measures, higher fuel standards, carbon taxes, better emissions standards, mass transit, etc.)

Obviously, my plan may not work. But, would it be that hard to come up with a plan that would?

A comprehensive energy plan, that’s more environment friendly and independent, is begging for it’s Kennedy moment.

I’m not against the use of nuclear energy so much because of the dangers of the operation itself. I agree that if built correctly and operated and run by people who understand what they’re doing (and how doing it cheaper could be deadly), there is little to worry about, though we should still be concerned.

It’s the nuclear waste that’s the problem. What do we do with it?

That’s another area we need to change our thinking. It’s never made sense, to me, to wrap a piece of meat (shelf life three days) in plastic (lasts “forever”). Why not biodegradable cellulose? Heck! Why not 100% recyclable glass bottles? I would even lobby for a return to all paper milk cartons, but, some politician would insist they be made out of old-growth Redwoods or endangered Whooping Bushes.

ONLY engineers and physicists can be allowed operational control. No lawyers. No MBAs. And absolutely no politicians. Anyone with a profit motive above a fair salary MUST be eliminated from the loop.

Yes. There are inherent dangers in running nuclear reactors. But, they are well understood and preventable IF qualified people make the decisions. Unfortunately, I have yet to hear of a method to ensure the proper level of competence. So, nuclear power must remain a promise for a more rational, evolved, future, generation. I hope we save enough of the planet to give them the chance.

Learning to live without plastic will be a freakin catastrophe”!

I’ve got nothing to base it on, but I just feel that (in terms of plastic packaging) we ought to be able to come up with a watertight, sturdy, material (like plastic) that would degrade much more rapidly.

If you think about our oil addiction, it is the ‘invisible hand’ that may finally break it.

Many people want to do good for the environment. Many people probably don’t want to be dependant on the middle east for our energy needs. Many people think it’s a good idea to conserve, innovate more efficiency and find better alternatives. They’ve probably thought that for a long time.

But, in the end, what will motivate them? $4 a gallon (and higher) gasoline. People are driving less. Adjusting the thermostat and insulating their homes. Hybrids are much more popular. Windfarms and solar farms are being built.

I don’t think the answer is to deny the invisible hand, but to find the best way to ‘progressively’ manage it for the common good.

Coherent? I’d settle for one that’s not bat-scat insane.

“Once motivated, changing how we propel cars will be easy. Learning to live without plastic will be a freakin catastrophe”!

Agreed. Which is why I would prefer that the news divisions be entirely separate from the other business units within the parent organization.

GE and MSNBC are linked so that the vast profitability concerns are paramount – not providing good news coverage. That’s why we will get numerous days of coverage for a missing white girl in Aruba, but little on the fact that the 4th amendment has been shredded.

That’s why we get wall to wall coverage of Jon Benet Ramsey and nothing of Rove’s refusal to honor a Congressional subpeona.

Until the news can stand on it’s own, we will be subject to the ‘fair and balanced’ approach which got us King Dufus and his happy henchmen.

In 1964 an oil-barge went down on the Mississippi, about 5 miles upstream from our rustic cabin. It wiped out the Bald Eagles, (which were already suffering from DDT and have since returned), and destroyed backwater vegetation for a 30 mile stretch. To this day there are places where there’s a layer of oil under about a foot of sand. And there are tarballs in the flood plain. Petroleum, as you well know, is millions of years in the making and, when spilled, lasts essentially forever.

The odd thing is that I’m not against additional exploration or drilling. We just need to invest much more in spill prevention and containment. And we can no longer afford to let the industry police itself.

What’s triply frustrating is that oil is getting precious enough that the prevention will pay for itself in reduced loss. But they can’t break their mad addiction to obscene wealth. Short-term profit will be king until the long range projections go down. And as long as a quarter of the country is stupid enough to buy the Party Line? Change won’t occur.

Then let’s all work together and make easy lifestyle changes which all add up

dbadass. That is the answer. I oppose the drill here, drill now sentiment. It’s short sighted. We can keep our reserves in the ground for a much rainier day (hopefully that day won’t come) and suffer though the short term, while we transition to better, cleaner alternatives.