• Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Middle East logoCarnegie lettermark logo
LebanonIran
{
  "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

In The Media

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.

Link Copied
By Sharon Squassoni
Published on Dec 10, 2009

Source: America.gov

Who's Right?: Climate Change Experts Debate NucleaIn the second round of the America.gov "Who's Right?" series of online debates, Carnegie's Sharon Squassoni and Patrick Moore of Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. exchange their views on the benefits and risks of using nuclear power to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

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

Sharon Squassoni

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.

    Recent Work

  • Other
    Grading Progress on 13 Steps Toward Nuclear Disarmament

      Sharon Squassoni

  • Report
    Nuclear Energy: Rebirth or Resuscitation?

      Sharon Squassoni

Sharon Squassoni
Former Senior Associate, Nuclear Policy Program
Sharon Squassoni
Climate ChangeNuclear PolicyNuclear EnergyNorth AmericaUnited States

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 Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Lebanon Should Try to Place Hezbollah on the U.S.-Iran Table

    As talks begin between Washington and Tehran, Beirut has an opening to advance a regional plan for the party’s disarmament.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Board Up Donald Trump’s Failed Board of Peace

    What is behind Marco Rubio’s announcement that the body is now an international nongovernmental organization?

      • Zaha Hassan

      Zaha Hassan

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Looking Past the Wall on Palestine-Israel

    Policy discussion is ignoring that the Palestinian national project is hollowed out and apartheid is a present danger.

      Nathan J. Brown

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Israel’s Security Means Insecurity in the Middle East

    As negotiations with Iran and Lebanon continue, chaos is at the heart of the Netanyahu government’s calculations.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Introduction: Beyond Climate Displacement

    Across the Middle East and North Africa, climate stress interacts with economic fragility, governance failures, social marginalization, and conflict.

      Camille Ammoun

Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
Carnegie Middle East logo, white
  • Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.