Acidus wrote:

PRESIDENT BUSH: ... I know we need more nuclear power in order - nuclear power, after all, is not dependent on fossil fuels and emits no greenhouse gases.

Which would be a very great position if the statement weren't entirely false. The president's complete ignorance has come full circle in this article.

Not only does nuclear emit the most important greenhouse gas (water), but it can take 10-15 years to build a plant. And right now, every construction project (perhaps excepting this one) requires fossil fuel-powered vehicles. While plans for modular light-water reactors are underway, the technological fix is still years (if not decades) in the future. Not to mention the massive volume of waste that is generated that will, eventually, have to be relocated off-site. Technologies that convert the radioactive waste may never come to fruition; we have, afterall, been trying since the sixties. Instead of taking a proactive stance NOW to reduce consumption (which would apparently cause irreversible economic hardship, plunging the nation into a Dark Age), Bush would prefer to just throw money at the problem. He's heedless of the fact that these technologies are a long time if not infinitely far away and that mitigating future fossil fuel consumption starts today.

This article is just another indicator of Bush's goddamn obstinance. He is incapable of touting anything other than amorphous promises produced from unsubstantiated claims. Hurt the economy...give me a frickin' break. Companies aren't going to suddenly fold because 10% of the energy produced in this country has to start coming from renewable energy.

-janelane, intelligently

RE: UK Bush Interview: Enviroment, Trade, Africa, Iraq