Energy

Probably the most important question of the next fifty years is going to be whether or not we are able to cut carbon emissions sufficiently to make the globe inhabitable by the time our grandchildren reach retirement age. There's a pretty good chance of the answer being no, as is now widely appreciated. Radical action is needed immeadiately if we are to avoid catastrophe.
For politicians, however, these are hardly the most pressing concerns. A "climate change review" is due to report to the British government some time this summer to recommend what action needs to be taken - no doubt it will conclude, as most respected scientists have already, that the most drastic measures will need to be taken to move to renewable energy sources. But in an interview with the Financial Times, the environment secretary Margaret Beckett 'warned it will "probably take a bit longer" because "obviously at the moment we aren't focused on it".'
All of this has to do with the government's wish to avoid the complex issue of nuclear energy. But do we really wish to leave our fate in the hands of a government who "obviously" is not focused on matters of the future inhabiability of the planet? I don't.