Actually, less than nothing doesn't quite express all of the things the Bush administration has done to actively cause global warming, or as I've heard it called more accurately, global climate disruption. This is the administration that has actively resisted any attempt at fuel efficiency.

Further, they have signed on to fuel cell vehicles rather than hybrids, electrics, or even the less radical and worse answer of biofuels. Why fuel cells? Well, first because there are still tremendous technical hurdles to making them effective and affordable. Second, because Bush was able to sign something that requires that the hydrogen will come from fossil fuels anyway, thus actually having a potential negative effect on climate relative to just burning the fossil fuel in the first place. Third, let's not forget all of the fuel we're burning everyday to fight a war that has made us less safe and has not even done anything to guarantee the flow of the oil we should stop burning anyway.

So, yes, if less than nothing is defined as actually causing the problem one is finally starting to acknowledge actually is a problem, then yes our fearless leader has but us far behind not only where we should be, but where we were before he came on the scene. Of course, this should have been obvious to anyone prior to voting for him. What else could anyone expect for electing an oil man to the presidency? (Oh yeah, we still don't really even know if he has ever been elected; he certainly wasn't the first time.)

Yes! If stopping the on going research, then demanding a totally different approach to the development of an engine that requires us to go to the fuel pumps to fill up and demanding that they not be available for ten years is not adding to the problem, I don't know what would be. We were coming up with a lot of good answers back in the 70s, but, that was threatening oil company profits and that can't be allowed. We can't blame just the administration for this because the Congress allowed it to happen and it's there responsibility to make the laws and to see that the administration enforces it. We must force the government to represent the will of the people, not the corporations! This is the only place we have to live, we must become good stewards of our planet not corporate profits.

Very well said Ranselar VanDerpoel. I couldn't agree more.

What are YOU doing about it? Do you all use florescent bulbs? Drive high mileage vehicles(no SUV's)? Vegetarian? Lead by example.

Lead by example:

1) Yes to fluorescents. I still have a couple I don't use often that I need to replace.
2) Non-SUV, yes. I'm trying to balance the cost to the environment of replacing my current car (32MPG) with a prius. The resources to build a car are also significant.
3) Vegetarian, no. But, I do consider the resources required to get my food to me and make the best choices I can, including organics where it makes sense. BTW, tilapia, carp, and catfish are all more efficient sources of protein than the most efficient vegetation (soy).
4) Working to convert my entire high-rise building to green energy.
5) Spreading the word as best I can.
6) Sending many many emails to my representatives to attempt to get them to implement appropriate policies.
7) Living in a high-rise building in NYC where I can minimize the acreage I use and take advantage of public transportation for most of my needs.
8) Walking often, an even better choice than mass transit, often including walking the 5 miles home from work.
9) Terrapass for my car's emissions and for air travel.
10) Keeping my apartment on the cold side during winter and warm side during summer to minimize heat and air conditioning use.
11) Killing vampire power by using power strips to truly turn off my TV, DVD/VCR, cable box, WiFi, and cable modem.
12) Setting my dishwasher to not dry the dishes and letting them air dry.
13) Taking navy style showers, i.e. turning off the water while lathering.
14) Unplugging laptops and shutting them down to stop power drain when not in use.

I assume you do many of these things as well, Lead by example, care to share any of your ideas?

Lyndon LaRouche and I advocate: "Fusion:Technology for the Future." These nuclear reactors will eat up the spent fuel rods from conventional reactors. No nuclear waste. A Physical economy, not a money economy. The old economics is dead, the new economics must begin. The biggest terroist threat is Cheney.

Fusion can be a part of the solution. The problem is that for it to make a significant contribution, we need about 10 times the number of power plants we have today. And, we do have a few serious issues.

1) Where do we store the waste? To the best of my knowledge, no technology gets rid of all of it.

2) Where do we build the plants? Many will, of necessity, be in developing nations that may not be able to adhere to the same quality standards. Even at high standards, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl still happened.

3) How do we secure the plants from terrorism?

4) How do we ensure nuclear non-proliferation? The technology clearly creates the capability for weapons.

These reactors produce no waste, these reactors eat the waste of the old conventional reactors. 18% of the green house gases are produced as a result of the human appetite for the flesh of the brother creatures that share the earth with us.

Fusion has been proposed as a long-term electrical power source with dramatically reduced ecological side effects compared to most sources of power in use today. To date, no fusion reactor has come close to producing net output power, but the latest designs are starting to approach this point.The likelihood of a catastrophic accident in a fusion reactor in which injury or loss of life occurs is much smaller than that of a fission reactor. The primary reason is that the fuel contained in the reaction chamber is only enough to sustain the reaction for about a minute, whereas a fission reactor contains about a year's supply of fuel. Furthermore, fusion requires very extreme and precisely controlled conditions of temperature, pressure and magnetic field parameters. If the reactor were damaged, these would be disrupted and the reaction would be rapidly quenched (extinguished).

Do you have any links for a relatively technical, article on these for someone who is not a nuclear scientist? Are any in existence yet?