How deadly is your energy source? The very real and lethal effects of our global energy choices become clear in this interactive data visualization, showing the death rate, as measured by the number of deaths per terawatt hour (TWh), for each of the major global energy sources, e.g., coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear, hydro, peat, and biomass. Take a closer look at the chart here:

Would she or wouldn’t she? To tell from the lavish – some would say obsessive – coverage that preceded the vice-presidential debate in St. Louis, Missouri, last week, the question that was on every self-respecting pundit’s mind was: “How, or, to be more precise, how poorly, will Palin fare?”

Following a series of highly publicized interviews in which she had “distinguished” herself for her absolute lack of grasp of foreign and domestic policy issues – citing Alaska’s proximity to Russia and her whirlwind tour of Iraq as examples of her “substantial” experience.

As greenhouse-gas emissions continue to build in the atmosphere, nuclear power is emerging from the shadows in the struggle to curb climate change. More than a decade after a nuclear plant was completed in the U.S., the Bush administration now touts it as a possible solution and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change hasn’t ruled it out. And the U.S.’s leading nuclear research lab is working to render the controversial source a safe alternative to fossil fuels.

While many experts, including Britain's James Lovelock, have been promoting nuclear energy as a greenhouse-gas-free method of generating electricity, recent shutdowns in of nuclear plants in Europe due to overheated cooling water and low-flowing rivers have exposed a very serious danger to a reliance on nuclear energy — and one which will only become worse as the planet continues to heat up.

Polly Toynbee at the Guardian today follows the climate change skeptic lobby as they morph into to nuclear energy boosters.