Josh, I liked your cries from the heart.

In support of what you've said, I found a particularly interesting article on nuclear waste in the Economist where the author was complaining about human lack of long-term vision, particularly when it concerns a politician whose main worry in life is getting through the next elections.

I'm conscious of the clean energy arguments that surround nuclear, but what about the long-term prospects? Can we rely on scientists to find a way to deal with the dirt that's buried underground? We keep on hoping that technology will solve all our problems. I have my doubts.

The point of the article in question was that of conveying a sense of danger to future generations who might come across the nuclear waste that we had trashed away. What language do we use to communicate the risk? Will people understand? Did language prevent archaeologists and tomb-robbers from raiding the graves of Egypt’s pharaohs? The curses thought to be efficient at the time had no effect on future generations. How can we protect our offspring from suffering from what we've put away?

Nuclear waste has a very long life ahead of it but do we really have time to think things through?

Hey Pippa - a friend of mine did some work for the atomic energy authority here in the UK about this.  Among other things they reckon that microfiche engraved into gold plate is about the only medium that you can rely on lasting a few tens of thousands of years without seriously degrading unless storage conditions are controlled. Unfortunately it's also rather valuable and therefore worth looting. However it is a data storage medium that can be 'read' using only optical measures - so no need to rely on having computers/electricity - and as a species we've proven pretty good at translating hidden languages, so if you were to make a gold-engraved Rosetta Stone (three or four languages) you'd stand a chance of having it readable!

Josh - so many things to comment on.

I have to agree with you - people tend to look at a single issue and forget the whole. They say we have to save the world and then deliver their recyclables in a SUV, failing to understand that they have negated all they were trying to save. Unfortunately the world, and more particularly our society, is a complicated place and we have to simplify things to allow people to take simple decisions.

You do find incentives - my hybrid car has car tax reduced by 50%, in many US states, hybrids are allowed to use HOV lanes, in the UK the London congestion charge is reduced ......

That's why washing machines have an "A, B, C, D, E ..." style classification here in Europe, with people being told that "A" is most energy efficient. If you're a nerd and want more details, and want to understand it all, you'll have to go a look elsewhere (datasheet, manufacturer's website, etc.).

Nuclear - you're right - and most politicians have recognized that we have no choice in the future but to build more nuclear, but they have understood the paranoia in the general public and recognize the need to "educate" slowly. Despite what everyone says, our society's energy needs are increasing -- the only thing we can do with most "green" measures, is to play with the rate of increase. Whilst renewables certainly have a future, they are in no position to satisfy our collective needs.

You can hardly build more wind turbines, as no-one wants them in their back yards.

Photovoltaics require you to cover significant parts of the country to be useful, and still require more energy to manufacture than they will deliver in their lifetimes.

Not all your points, but don't despair