By exaggerating the risks of climate change, environmental activists have undermined public support for curbs on carbon and opened the door for the nuclear solution
By PHILIP CROSS, National Post, Sept. 2, 2025
In her new book, Atomic Dreams, freelance journalist Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow explores the growing popularity of nuclear power as a source of clean electricity, which its advocates tout as “split, don’t emit.” Along the way, she exposes some of the broader problems undermining the environmental movement’s approach to climate change.
Opposition to nuclear power was foundational to groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. According to Tuhus-dubrow, in the 1960s they had “an antinuclear ideology at their core; being an environmentalist became synonymous with being anti-nuclear.”
Before climate change became an issue, atomic power was associated with meltdowns and nuclear war. Because cheap energy was abundant and greenhouse gases were not yet a concern, activists had the luxury of opposing nuclear power without identifying alternative energy sources.
Before climate change became an issue, atomic power was associated with meltdowns and nuclear war. Because cheap energy was abundant and greenhouse gases were not yet a concern, activists had the luxury of opposing nuclear power without identifying alternative energy sources.
Once greenhouse gases became a thing in the 1980s and 1990s, environmentalists began arguing that renewable energy from wind and solar should replace fossil fuels and nuclear power. But fundamental questions have arisen about renewables’ capacity to provide large amounts of reliable power.
‘renewable’ energy has major problems
Renewable energy does not scale up easily, it is inherently intermittent, and its environmental effects include using up large tracts of land, extensive mining and piling up hazardous waste in the form of used solar panels, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Tuhus-Dubrow emphasizes that in today’s world, reliable electricity “is non-negotiable, and politicians who can’t guarantee it will pay a price.” This was driven home by the 2003 recall campaign mounted against California governor Gray Davis after rotating blackouts and soaring electricity costs hit the state.
Since then, the proliferation of digital technologies has only increased our need for reliable flows of electricity and governments in Canada are increasingly aware of its importance. Ontario and Quebec recently announced plans to substantially expand their production of nuclear and hydro power, with the prospect of an energy supply shortfall underscored by the disappearance of Quebec’s electricity surplus for export.
Record shows nuclear power safe and reliable
Over the past 65 years, nuclear power has proved to be a safe and reliable source of electricity. Even widely publicized accidents such as at Japan’s Fukushima plant did not result in significant environmental effects. Compared to environmentalists’ apocalyptic portrayal of climate change, the risks of nuclear energy seem trivial.
While acknowledging that the “nuclear industry has done a terrible job of communicating,” Tuhus-Dubrow notes that the public is increasingly aware that jurisdictions that rely on nuclear power (such as France and Ontario) have not experienced problems—“we don’t exactly think of France as a radioactive dystopia of illness and death.”
Environmentalist Ted Nordhaus concludes it is “hard to find any serious mainstream review of how you get from here to 80 per cent reduction in carbon that doesn’t include some pretty significant role for nuclear.”
Exaggerating the risks of climate change has backfired badly for environmentalists.
Exaggerating the risks of climate change has backfired badly for environmentalists. Overstating its costs undermined the case for a carbon tax, according to Peter Teague, an adviser to the Democratic party, because when “the problem was immense and the solution set was small, people tended to think you’re either lying about the problem or the solution. They just don’t match up.” So politicians such as former president Joe Biden adopted more intrusive and expensive industrial policies to make it seem they were responding more comprehensively.
Chronic exaggeration is not the only problem in how environmentalists have operated. They have arrogantly assumed their pet issue should drive all public policy, even at the expense of economic growth. Ted Nordhaus and Michael Schellenberger wrote in The Death of Environmentalism that “environmentalists ask not what we can do for non-environmental constituencies but what non-environmental constituencies can do for environmentalists.”
Tuhus-Dubrow says greens and other left-wing advocacy groups are at loggerheads. Green anti-nuclear activists oppose technological solutions, thus effectively defending the status quo, while many left-wing groups embrace change and science-based innovations.
Public support for nuclear power growing
Public support for nuclear power has been growing both because electricity demand has been outstripping what renewables can supply and because nuclear power’s safety record has undergone re-examination. Ontario’s plan to expand nuclear power has not generated any significant opposition.
Last year, the Pew Research Center found 56 per cent of Americans favoured nuclear power, up from 43 per cent just four years earlier. This shift is one reason California recently rescinded plans to mothball its Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, while Microsoft is overseeing the reopening of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant, the site of the famous (but non-fatal) nuclear accident in 1979.
The public seems increasingly aware that relying more on renewable energy means higher energy costs and lower incomes and employment, contradicting environmentalists’ claims that the transition to a zero-carbon economy can be pain-free or even beneficial to the economy.
The public seems increasingly aware that relying more on renewable energy means higher energy costs and lower incomes and employment, contradicting environmentalists’ claims that the transition to a zero-carbon economy can be pain-free or even beneficial to the economy.
The resurgent popularity of nuclear power gives hope that facts and not fear-mongering will underpin public policy on environmental and energy-related issues.
Philip Cross is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.