We need more energy. Alaskan oil goes in California gas tanks, period; drill-baby-drill is not the answer. Other oil comes from countries run by superstitious barbarians. I don't like being dependent on superstitious barbarians. Nuclear power is safe. So we need more nuclear.
There is a current effort to build more nuclear power in California, but unfortunately my state has a stupid law to decrease energy production. Fortunately there was an attempt to repeal it in 2007. I hadn't heard of this. Next time I hope it's more public so the economically and technologically-minded people of the state - of whom there are many - can get behind it.
And finally, even if you think global warming is a commie plot, here's a talking point for knee-jerk progressives:
"You're not going to address global warming by addressing cow flatulence. You're going to do it with nuclear power." (From the article).
Yes, there's a non-fossil-fuel energy source that can keep the lights on right now. Plus, one of the founders of Greenpeace is pro-nuclear. Obama chose a pro-nuclear Secretary of Energy. "Socially conscious" European countries like Sweden are relaxing their regulation of nuclear power, and France has a lot more nuclear power than the U.S. China will more than pick up the rest of the world's decreased emissions by burning through all their coal for the next two or three centuries, a fossil fuel much worse than oil; maybe this is why China torpedoed the climate talks in Copenhagen.
So why the continued resistance to nuclear? The public's opinion is being manipulated with scare tactics motivated by a vestigial reflex from the 1970s. The nuclear industry has been quiet for too long. It's time to confront the issue head-on. The American public can handle it.