Setting the Stage:

“The United States emits an immense amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it is extremely likely that the rising global temperature trends since the mid-20th century is dominantly due to human activity. No scientific organization of national or international standing disputes this. Furthermore, the US Department of Defense has officially stated that climate change poses a serious national security threat. In light of all of this, the United States recently ratified the Paris Climate Agreement, which means we are committed to significantly reducing our carbon emissions. How do we do that?

Given that, in 2015, we released 2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) from electricity generation alone, and fossil fuels accounted for over 99% of these emissions, a great place to start would be to begin replacing fossil fuel power plants with alternative energy sources. The main alternatives are solar, wind, and nuclear. The first two are certainly alluring, attracting the investment of a lot of government money worldwide. However, they are also variable. The wind isn’t always blowing; days aren’t always clear and sunny. This isn’t to say relying solely on renewables is impossible or even unrealistic with some clever storage and transportation strategies. However, it is a challenge to replace the constantly running fossil fuel power plants with sources that are intermittent.

Ideally, we’d have a source that doesn’t emit CO2 and is consistently reliable; this is known as a baseload energy source. In this context, nuclear energy is the main alternative energy source that works. Yet, unlike its fickle counterparts, nuclear energy is subjected to hostile attitudes adopted by a number of governments in the world which restrict the building or continual operation of power plants. Fear for Chernobyl and Fukushima-type catastrophes exacerbate the unpopularity of going nuclear. The US, currently the world’s largest producer, relies on nuclear energy for 20% of its overall electricity generation. Yet there has historically been a strong anti-nuclear movement in the US, and the sentiment is still somewhat present today, as demonstrated by closures of nuclear power plants and stances held by prominent political figures such as Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.” - excerpt from article “Reconsidering the Risks of Nuclear Energy” by Jordan Wilkerson, Harvard University

Possible Resource for Information on Setting the Stage - 

Resource 1: Structured Academic Controversy: Nuclear Energy

Resource 2: What Is Nuclear Energy and Is It a Viable Resource?

Articles that Support the Position:

The U.S. Should Not Use Nuclear Energy as a Main Source of Energy To Reduce Carbon Emissions.

Article 1: Nuclear Energy: Low-Carbon Electricity, with Serious Economic and Safety Issue

Article 2: Preventing an American Fukushima

Article 3: The Nuclear Power Dilemma

Article 4: Excerpts from Downwind: A People’s History of the Nuclear West

Article 5: Excerpts from Wastelanding: Legacies of Uranium Mining in Navajo Country

Article 6: Excerpts from Behind the Fog: How the U.S. Cold War Radiological Weapons Program Exposed Innocent Americans

Article 7: Excerpts from Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment

The U.S. Should Use Nuclear Energy as a Main Source of Energy to Reduce Carbon Emissions.

Article 1: 3 Reasons Nuclear Power Has Returned to the Energy Debate

Article 2:  Why Nuclear Power Must Be a Part of the Energy Solution

Article 3: Pandora’s Promise