Going Nuclear A Green Makes the Case By Patrick Moore Sunday, April 16, 2006; Page B01 In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change. Look at it this way: More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions -- or nearly 10 percent of global emissions -- of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change. Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely. Sunday Outlook Section * THE GOOD EARTH:The Blessings of Dirty Work * SHOCK AND TRAUMA:What I Faced After Iraq * Tom Ricks's Inbox * GOONS OF RANGOON:The Generals Who Would Be Kings * I'm Here, President Ahmadinejad More Stories Sebastian Mallaby: Bush's Unhealthy Veto Fred Hiatt: What We Owe the Burmese Jonathan Capehart: Pink Panic In the GOP Robert D. Novak: A Democratic Transition at Treasury Today's Editorials Think Tank Town | On Faith | PostGlobal Who's Blogging? Read what bloggers are saying about this article. * Nation-Building * WTL - Older Links * BURNcast - MySpace Blog Full List of Blogs (717 links) » Most Blogged About Articles On washingtonpost.com | On the web Save & Share * Tag This Article Saving options 1. Save to description: Headline (required) Subhead