I am all for finding other ways to make energy besides burning hydrocarbons. It would be a good idea even if the CO2 issue turned out to be a load of crap.

And more importantly, I am for using the methods we already know how to build and that work.

That isn't what this controversy is about for those pushing it. Their typical solutions should have made this crystal clear.

All of the solutions involve, in one form or another, centralized control over the means of production, massive wealth redistribution under that centralized control, and all the rest of the same damn prescription we get for EVERY crisis from these people. You really think they want us to find a clean, cheap alternative that allows the U.S. to go on consuming and enjoying the good life?

Do you ever wonder why nine times out of ten the word "scarcity" is preceded by the word "managing?" Shortages and scarcity are GOOD for those who like collectivism.

To put it bluntly, at this point it's almost ALL politics.

What we should be hearing is:

--Anti-capitalist environmentalists being told to sit down and STFU for once so we can get on with it.

--Congress coming up with ways to clean up the regulatory system to allow rapid construction of common-design nuclear plants and multiple non-conventional alternative energy systems.

Good grief, a corporation is beating itself to death against these idiots trying to build frigging WINDMILLS in the Northeast. You want to put solar panels on your house? Better check the local regulations first.

As for the safety of nuclear power, it's an engineering problem. So is making it safe from terrorists, when it comes down to it. Easily solvable.

BTW, does it bug you at all that a bunch of nations did actually sign up for Kyoto and then it DIDN'T WORK?