Other
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
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.
Published on Dec 10, 2009
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
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.
- Grading Progress on 13 Steps Toward Nuclear Disarmament
- 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 Endowment for International Peace
- The U.S. Has Weapons in Space. Now What?Commentary
The acknowledgment has sparked fears of a new arms race with China and Russia.
Chris O’Meara
- What Canada Knows About American PowerPaper
Smaller powers cannot go it alone, but Canadian history shows that integration with the United States will not always be benign.
Paul Samson
- Trump Had the Chance to Address U.S.-China AI Safety. He Threw Xi a Party Instead.Commentary
The summit may be remembered as a fatal blunder, when Washington, Beijing, and the AI industry collectively chose ceremony over action.
Jeffrey Prescott
- Separable, not Separate: Governing Europe’s Collective DefenseArticle
European NATO countries are wrestling with the possibility of U.S. disengagement from the alliance. With the continent’s security increasingly uncertain, governments must restore the credibility of their collective defense.
Hans-Dieter Lucas, Adam Thomson, Pierre Vimont
- Squandering Attraction: How the Second Trump Administration is Undermining American Soft PowerPaper
Soft power on its own is insufficient to meet U.S. national security needs, but hard power also has its limits. Soft power allows for more effective and efficient use of hard power than hard power alone, as it encourages cooperation and compliance which deters the need for hard power.
Sarah Yerkes
