Since the science of Global Warming is too complicated for most conservatives with concrete minds, show them a list of toxins produced by burning fossil fuels.  Many of the toxins found in auto exhaust and coal ash contain endocrine disrupters which can result in early puberty, change in sexual orientation, birth defects and miscarriage.  Besides the toxins, auto exhaust stinks and it is my American born right to breathe clean air.

Interesting view of conservatives you have, since conservatives tend to be much better informed and educated than liberals.  Liberals just think they know it all.  Take that Dean of Liberal Intellectualism, Noam Chomsky, a professor of linguistics who thinks he understand international law.  Having been an enlisted man and having studied international law in the US and abroad, I can tell you that the average 19 year old with a GED and one month of basic training has a better grasp of the laws of war than Noam. 

Think about THIS :

You all more or less discuss the thing this country or person said or can do in the future but instead it about what I /you can do now not in the future fore instance take your bicycle or public transportation instead of your own car and if you have to take your own car commute with others and fill up the car , change all your light bulbs to low energy bulbs etc.

Mount a solar panel on the roof of your house to make electricity or too heat your house or the hot water etc.

It´s all about what etch of us can do now not in the further PUT YOUR AKTIENS WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS ;-)

Jens Olsen 

Denmark

while nuclear energy has some waste products that need to be stored. It is far less an issue then the common alternatives of coal for example. At least you bottle up the wastes not release them to the air which also later settles out and lands in the water too.

burn coal you get CO2  =  global warming

burn coal you get radio active gasses released into the air amongst other things.

you dont believe it?  go check what the USGS has to say.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/

Some trace elements in coal are naturally radioactive. These radioactive elements include uranium (U), thorium (Th), and their numerous decay products, including radium (Ra) and radon (Rn). Although these elements are less chemically toxic than other coal constituents such as arsenic, selenium, or mercury, questions have been raised concerning possible risk from radiation.

Now tell me, would you rather have the waste bottled up or in the air we breath.

The  French get it. They make most of there electricity from nuclear power and they are selling a boatload of nuclear power plants to china so they wont have to burn coal too.

We need to understand that we need nuclear as a stop gap measure while we look to build more wind and solar arrays to at least power our homes.

Actually new nuclear is too expensive, compared to renewable and efficiency options.

Wind power costs $1,460 per kW according to the Department of Energy:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/41435.pdf
While new nuclear has reached $10,800 per kilowatt of power capacity:
http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/665644
And wind power doesn't require any water, doesn't require any foreign uranium and doesn't require any ultimate repositories and doesn't have huge decommissioning costs: http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=55119
(The US actually imports over 90% of its uranium-needs.
The US only produces 2.1% of the current world's uranium consumption: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.html
On the other hand, the US consumes over 30% of the worlds uranium:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Nuclear_generation_drops_in_2007-0906085.html.
And the total uranium mining is currently only covering about 2/3 of the world's uranium demand, which is 67,000 tonnes per year.
http://www.fraw.org.uk/mobbsey/papers/oies_article.html )

And France actually gave free government loans to build expensive nuclear power plants (Anything works with free loans. It is basically like saying: "To live in that house is very cheap - except for the mortgage"). And almost 90% of the French energy consumption is not provided by nuclear power according to the International Atomic Energy Agency:
French energy consumption: 54'785.84 kWh/capita
http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/eedrb/data/FR-encc.html
French electricity consumption: 7'366.00 kWh/capita
http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/eedrb/data/FR-elcc.html
French nuclear electricity consumption: 5'745 kWh/capita (78% nuclear power):
http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/eedrb/data/FR-elpn.html

To spend a Dollar on efficiency and renewable energy is much more effective and much faster in reducing CO2-emissions than spending that same Dollar on nuclear:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/137501
Missing the Market Meltdown
Renewable energy is attracting Wall Street but nuclear power isn't. Why? Simple economics.

By Amory B. Lovins | NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated May 26, 2008

Capitalists have already scuttled Patrick Moore's claimed nuclear revival. New U.S. subsidies of about $13 billion per plant (roughly a plant's capital cost) haven't lured Wall Street to invest. Instead, the decentralized competitors to nuclear power that Moore derides are making more global electricity than nuclear plants are, and are growing 20 to 40 times faster.

In 2007, decentralized renewables worldwide attracted $71 billion in private capital. Nuclear got zero. Why? Economics. The nuclear construction costs that Moore omits are astronomical and soaring; low fuel costs will soon rise two-to fivefold. "Negawatts"—saved electricity—cost five to 10 times less and are getting cheaper. So are most renewables. Negawatts and "micro-power"— renewables other than big hydro, and cogenerating electricity together with useful heat—are also at or near customers, avoiding grid costs, losses and failures (which cause 98 to 99 percent of blackouts).

The unreliability of renewable energy is a myth, while the unreliability of nuclear energy is real. Of all U.S. nuclear plants built, 21 percent were abandoned as lemons; 27 percent have failed for a year or more at least once. Even successful eactors must close for refueling every 17 months for 39 days. And when shut by grid failure, they can't quickly restart. Wind farms don't do that.

Variable but forecastable renewables (wind and solar cells) are very reliable when integrated with each other, existing supplies and demand. For example, three German states were more than 30 percent wind-powered in 2007—and more than 100 percent in some months. Mostly renewable power generally needs less backup than utilities already bought to combat big coal and nuclear plants' intermittence.

Micropower delivers a sixth of total global electricity, a third of all new electricity and from a sixth to more than half of all electricity in 12 industrial countries (in the United States it's only 6 percent). In 2006, the global net capacity added by nuclear power was only 83 percent of that added by solar cells, 10 percent that of wind power and 3 percent that of micropower. China's distributed renewables grew to seven times its nuclear capacity and grew seven times faster. In 2007, the United States, China and Spain each added more wind capacity than the world added nuclear capacity. Wind power added 30 percent of new U.S. and 40 percent of EU capacity, because it's two to three times cheaper than new nuclear power. Which part of this doesn't Moore understand?

The punch line: nuclear expansion buys two to 10 times less climate protection per dollar, far slower than its winning competitors. Spending a dollar on new nuclear power rather than on negawatts thus has a worse climate effect than spending that dollar on new coal power. Attention, Dr. Moore: you're making climate change worse.

And China is currently at less than 2% nuclear power (electricity only) and is building way more renewables than nuclear:

http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE_GSR_2009_Update.pdf

(And of course: China is also building more renewables than the US. But then again, China also doesn't have to spend all its tax-dollars on bankers and wars and can therefore spend it on reducing the unemployment rate sustainably in China.)

Planned obsolescence has been the basis of commerce...

Al Gore mentioned that man has all the tools he needs to make change environmentally.

Man has all the tools he needs for psychological healing as well. I have made them work for me. He/She who heals is right.

Neurosis does not have to be a permanent state. It is possible to heal emotional pain, to bring an organism back to clarity.