One interesting development I missed while in my vacation-enforced relative newsvoid last week was the duel between two different pieces of climate change legislation in the Senate energy bill negotiations. The amendments more or less embodied two distinct approaches, one of which - sponsored by John McCain and Joe Lieberman, previously known as the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act (which was only narrowly killed, 55-43, in its 2003 incarnation) - essentially embodied a more European-style approach (emission caps, carbon trading - and, increasingly, nuclear power) and the other - the work of moderate Republican Senator Chuck Hagel - basically continued what has thus far been the alternative, American approach (technology incentives, more climate research, voluntary targets).
Links to the draft amendments and commentary is up on Green Car Congress if you're interested in the gory details. While I'm not opposed to a carbon caps/trading system in principle, it doesn't seem like we have the technology to make it work (as parties to Kyoto are learning), so I was basically rooting for Hagel on this one.
And this being America, it shouldn't be surprising that the Hagel proposal passed while McCain-Lieberman did not. It is a bit surprising, or at least noteworthy, that this non-turn of events happened in part because many US environmental groups and greenish senators like Barbara Boxer and Tom Harkin, who had previously backed McCain-Lieberman, turned against it due to provisions promoting the construction of new nuclear power plants. This doesn't mean that the widely anticipated nuclear/green love affair is totally scotched, but it's probably too soon to start printing up wedding invitations, no?
At the end of the day, this means that many American environmentalists still want to prioritize the proven-but- extremely-small environmental risks associated with nuclear power plants above the theoretical-but- seemingly-likely environmental risks from climate change - orrrr, they are still in denial of the fact that they have to make this choice. I'm guessing that the latter is more the case.
As Hagel pointed out in an interview with Grist in March, mandatory emissions caps would (in the short-to-medium term at least) give nuclear power a decisive advantage - nuclear power is the only proven technology that can handle our electricity generating needs with no CO2 emissions today. It may be that renewable and other non-nuclear clean/green energy sources like photovoltaics and bioengineered microbes will one day be able to handle most or all of our energy needs, but until that day comes, nuclear is probably an indispensable bridge technology. Our alternatives are a) wait for more information and better technology (e.g. the Hagel approach), or b) 'demand destruction', which is a euphemism for economic hardship for many millions of Americans and many more millions around the world that depend on US consumption to keep the global economy going.
None of the choices are easy, none are without risk, but I think that the Hagel amendment is probably the best policy of the lot, and 'demand destruction' a very distant third. I hope it makes it into the final legislation - it's important that the US makes its climate policy more explicit, shut up all the haters hating because America 'isn't doing anything' or whatever (not true in any case, nor will it be true if this amendment doesn't make it through the House), and encourage something resembling an open debate about our policy choices here.