Like a lot of folks who have both environmental and commercial concerns, I’m of two minds about nuclear power. Clearly it can be used and used safely, as France’s experience demonstrates. In the U.S., as I read it, the real resistance is political and emotional, based on the history of environmental action against nuclear power here and on the series of disasters (esp. Three Mile Island) that color Americans’ views of what nuclear power is like.

For sure, there are sustained technical issues — especially in terms of waste disposal — that must be answered. But my sense is we need to go ahead deliberately, if not rapidly, on nuclear power. There are other, better, quicker ways to get where we need to be in terms of an energy mix that can sustain *both* the environment and the U.S. economy, but nuclear is a much better option than coal, from what I understand, in the long run.

I know Shell’s been touting their Clean Coal program, but the question is, does it hold water? Or is it just short-term lip service to consumers?

–Nuclear: I was talking about this with some friends last night, and it came up more than once at an environmentally-oriented conference I attended last week. As I see it, the major barriers here are (a) logistical, but more in terms of disposal of waste than anything else; and above all (b) political, especially because of the mass negative memories associated with Three Mile Island. Eventually, nuclear is likely to be a live option in the U.S. – but it’s going to take some doing politically.

–As for ANWR: to be fair to their position, plenty of the folks who argue against ANWR drilling *and* against dependence on foreign oil would rather advocate (what they see as) better, cheaper solutions that don’t raise the sorts of environmental concerns that ANWR drilling does. These solutions include better conservation measures, more efficient automobile fleets, etc. My larger point is that it’s not inherently absurd to argue againt ANWR drilling and against dependence on foreign oil, because the two are not linked in a zero-sum way. There are many variables in this equation.

–As for solutions, McKibben seems to be focused primarily on (a) creating policy mandates for a 350 ppm CO2 target in countries throughout the world, and (b) using the political system to install price signals that markets can then factor into their calculations. Looking over my notes, I can’t recall whether he stumped specifically for a cap-and-trade system, a carbon tax, or whatever – but he certainly wants carbon priced into decisions.

My prediction is that, if/when such price signals come into play, we’ll see a shift away from fossil fuels automatically. If this is correct, it could explain why so many companies involved in fossil fuels oppose these kinds of actions.

So many of the same people who argue against nuclear are arguing to reduce carbon footprint. It reminds me of the people who argue against oil drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) but want the U.S. to stop being so dependent on foreign oil.

Did Bill McKibben have any suggested solutions? I hear what we’re not supposed to do: use fossil fuels. What specific alternatives did he give?