Sharon Squassoni
{
"authors": [
"Sharon Squassoni"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [
"U.S. Nuclear Policy"
],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "NPP",
"programs": [
"Nuclear Policy",
"Sustainability, Climate, and Geopolitics"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States"
],
"topics": [
"Climate Change",
"Nuclear Policy",
"Nuclear Energy"
]
}Source: Getty
Who's Right?: Climate Change Experts Debate Nuclear Energy
Nuclear power is not without risks, both from nuclear waste and the possible proliferation of nuclear fuel for weapons, and its cost and build-out time make it a partial solution, at best, to climate change.
Source: America.gov

First, Squassoni questions the practicality of switching to nuclear energy. Building sufficient nuclear capacity would take many years, while the need to reduce greenhouse gasses is immediate, she says. She argues the key to reducing energy consumption lies not just in replacing fuel but in improving energy efficiency. Switching to nuclear power would not immediately address emissions from other sources, such as cars, homes, businesses and industries.
While she agrees that a sense of panic won’t speed the process of replacing fossil fuels with nuclear power, Squassoni believes the climate change issue is urgent enough to require faster solutions — the leaders of the G8 countries have set 2015 as the year when carbon dioxide emissions cannot rise any higher. She also argues that private financial investors have shown little interest in funding the high cost of nuclear plants and are more focused on smaller renewable projects that offer a faster return. In addition, the hazards of nuclear waste and the possible proliferation of nuclear fuel for weapons are major concerns. Efficiency, she says, is the fastest and safest way to reduce emissions.
Finally, even if the world had 30 years to bring carbon dioxide emissions down, immediate action still would be the most methodical and logical approach, Squassoni argues. Since free markets favor coal as the cheapest energy source, governments still would have to act as soon as possible to make fast and low-cost changes that offer the least overall risk. Energy efficiency is not an abstract concept, but one that consumers easily can see in homes and offices. Ways to use less energy are not hard to find and are the fastest routes to reducing emissions. Also, using a mix of energy sources is better than relying on a single source, such as nuclear power. Even if nuclear energy is included in the mechanism that rewards developed countries for investing in clean technologies in developing countries, it likely would be too expensive even for the wealthiest of developed countries.
About the Author
Former Senior Associate, Nuclear Policy Program
Squassoni came to Carnegie from the Congressional Research Service. She also served for nine years in the executive branch. Her last position at the State Department was director of Policy Coordination in the Nonproliferation Bureau.
- Grading Progress on 13 Steps Toward Nuclear DisarmamentOther
- Nuclear Energy: Rebirth or Resuscitation?Report
Sharon Squassoni
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Europe
- The Fog of AI WarCommentary
In Ukraine, Gaza, and Iran, AI warfare has come to dominate, with barely any oversight or accountability. Europe must lead the charge on the responsible use of new military technologies.
Raluca Csernatoni
- How to Join the EU in Three Easy StepsCommentary
Montenegro and Albania are frontrunners for EU enlargement in the Western Balkans, but they can’t just sit back and wait. To meet their 2030 accession ambitions, they must make a strong positive case.
Dimitar Bechev, Iliriana Gjoni
- Taking the Pulse: Can NATO Survive the Iran War?Commentary
Donald Trump has repeatedly bashed NATO and European allies, threatening to annex Canada and Greenland and deploring their lack of enthusiasm for his war of choice in Iran. Is this latest round of abuse the final straw?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- On NATO, Trump Should Embrace France Instead of Bashing ItCommentary
Donald Trump’s repudiation of NATO goes against the Make America Great Again vision of a U.S.-centered foreign policy. If the goal is to preserve the alliance by boosting Europe’s commitments, leaning into France’s vision is the most America First way forward.
Rym Momtaz
- Europe Doesn’t Like War—for Good ReasonsCommentary
The wars in Ukraine and the Middle East are existential threats to Europe as a peace project. Leaders and citizens alike must reaffirm their solidarity to face up to today’s multifaceted challenges.
Marc Pierini