The United States is viewed as the biggest carbon criminal in the world community, since it produces about 25 percent of the global emissions with only about 7 percent of the population.

Current Status
From the 1930s isolationist view of the world - back to Fortress America, standing alone and preparing to do war (reduction) on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions - the U.S. choice comes down to "wires" or "tires." By "wires" we refer to the methods by which electricity is generated. "Tires" refers to the vehicles (commercial and pleasure) that travel our roads.

According to the UN Charter, everyone is born equal, and has inalienable rights to enjoy modern technological civilization. At the Sixth Conference of Parties (COP 6) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Aubrey Meyer, of the Global Commons Institute, presented his concept, called "Contraction and Convergence." It follows the Charter in that at some point in the future, each country would reach a goal of reduced CO2 emissions relative to its population.

In 1997, COP 3 in Kyoto, Japan, produced the most widely known document, the Kyoto Protocol (signed by Vice President Al Gore but not yet ratified by the U.S. Senate). The Protocol sets legally binding specific targets for reduction fo GHG emission in the Annex I nations - developed countries and those with economies in transition - within specific deadlines.

Some significant features of the Kyoto Protocol:
The developed countries ratifying the protocol commit themselves to reducing their collective emissions of six key GHGs to at least 5 percent below 1990 levels by the five-year period 2008-2012. The six GHGs are CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).

The reduction requirement for the United States is 7 percent below 1990 levels. Year 2000 U.S. CO2 emissions (about 5.6 X 10⁹ metric tons [t]), for example, were about 15 percent higher than 1990 levels (4.9 X 10⁹ t). Therefore, to meet the Kyoto Protocol, an annual reduction of 1.1 X 10⁹ t is needed. Physically, this number is equivalent to emission reductions resulting from removing all of the gasoline-powered vehicles (cars, SUVs, light trucks, etc) from U.S. roads forever.

In Al Gore's book, Earth in the Balance, he proposed outlawing the internal combustion engine (eliminating the "tires" problem) to reduce CO2 emissions. Some people consider Gore's suggestion to be unrealistic and argue that the U.S. must reduce emissions by addressing the "wires" component of our pollution challenge.

Current Vice President Dick Cheney suggests increasing our reliance on nuclear power as one option. Supporters of this position claim that today in the U.S., an estimated 600 million t of CO2 per year is not released into the environment because 20 percent of the nation's electricity is produced by nuclear power plants. This nuclear power-provided "wire saving" is equivalent to the amount of CO2 generated by one-half of the nation's vehicle fleet - the "tires."

Pro-nuclear advocates argue that the U.S. can reduce its GHG emissions, without jeopardizing its standard of living, by implementing a simple national electrical energy policy. One step is to build more nuclear power plants to replace old coal plants. This suggestion is controversial as the U.S. environmental movement opposes the continued use, much less expansion, of nuclear power generation.

While many forms of mitigation (which only further reduce GHG emissions) are welcome, such as conservation, bicycles, H2 powereed automobiles and wind power, should nuclear power be a part of the ultimate solution? James Lovelock, the scientist and environmentalist (and creator of the Gaia Hypothesis), recently stated, "Solar power and windmills are not a realistic way out. Nuclear energy is the only real and practical solution, but there has been such a hysterical reaction to it."

We ask readers: should nuclear power be recognized and accepted as a significant player in GHG emissions reduction? We have provided additional material below to help further this debate.

source: Loewen, Eric P. and Sama Bilbao Y Leon, "Implications of recent developments in global climate change policy - a radical suggestion," Nuclear News, April 2000, p.23-25.

The Nuclear Energy Electricity Assurance Act of 2001 (S. 472)
is intended to position nuclear as as "environmentally-preferable" energy source, according to its sponsor, Senator Pete Dominichi (R, N.M.), who introduced the legislation on March 7. "We risk our nation's future prosperity if we lose the nuclear option through inaction," Dominichi said.

The legislation would provide $406 million to increase nuclear energy production, assure economic recognition for clean air benefits, manage nuclear waste, and improve Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations. Ten senators cosponsored the bill: Frank Murkowski (R., Alaska), Blache Lincoln (D., Ark.), Mary Landrieu (D., La.), Larry Craig (R., Idaho), Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.), Mike Crapo (R., Idaho), Chuck Hagel (R., Neb.), Fred Thompson (R., Tenn.), George Voinovich (R., Ohio) and Bob Graham (D., Fla.). Dominichi, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, is hopeful of passing the legislation this year.