There is no way we can address the overwhelming prospect of catastrophic global warming without an increase in nuclear plants
It's true that we could use less energy. But I have yet to hear from a blogger who has sworn off using his computer. And hardly anyone (in the US,anyway) is willing to forego driving a car.
Here's a good summary of what can be done to mitigate greenhouse gases using a variety of solutions:
http://www.princeton.edu/~cmi/resources/CMI_Resources_new_files/CMI_Stab_Wedges_Movie.swf
In practice no. At least nukes are slightly politically possible. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
We all watch with growing concern the global calamity that is the George W Bush presidency, but almost everything that concerns us about him began with Reagan. We all ponder with varying degrees of sadness and anger the current reality compared to what might have been if Al Gore had taken office in 2001. Imagine how very different the world might be now if Jimmy Carter had served a second term. The alternate reality with respect to energy policy alone is enough to boggle the mind. Now where are we going and what's with the handbasket?
Carter bummed everyone out. He didn't offer fun and opulence. I think that's why Gore has been so careful in the way he's shaped his message in An Inconvenient Truth and his speeches about global warming.
People want to be entertained and coaxed into feeling good by politicians. Reagan was a genius at that. Never mind that there was no substance.
you are the media you consume.