"Driven by events rather than by any grand concept of his own," Hoagland writes, "Bush has correctly identified nuclear energy as an important component in reducing global warming and pollution. ... Bush must now show that his turn to nuclear [energy] is not simply short-term opportunism and ad hoc reaction to crisis but a well-integrated approach to a safer future."

The New York Times reports (at length -- set aside some time to read this one) on what some foresee as a coming nuclear-energy renaissance in the United States. Having ingested the story, all 9,500 words of it, I must say the likelihood of such a resurgence seems iffy at this point. The complexity, the cost, the licensing, the logistics of construction -- all are daunting hurdles for utilities to clear in order get a new reactor up and running. At one point, the writer, Jon Gertner, explains that over the next few decades the U.S. nuclear power industry could just as easily die as it could blossom. So a significant crossroads is fast approaching -- significant not only in terms of economics, geopolitics and public safety, but also in terms of the impact on global warming.

To me, the key passage in this long story appears about five paragraphs from the end. First, Gertner quotes John Holdren, a Harvard University professor and expert on energy and the environment: "I'm often asked, 'Can you solve the climate problem without nuclear energy?' And I say, 'Yes, you can solve it without nuclear energy. But it will be easier to solve it with nuclear energy.'"

Then, M.I.T. economist Paul Joskow opines that "there is a value" in developing at least a few new nuclear energy plants. "This line of thinking might ultimately bring you to cautious support for nuclear energy, simply because allowing it to die seems more dangerous than keeping it alive," Gertner writes. "You are against its demise, rather than for its advancement."

One more item about energy. The New York Times reports that the energy talk at the Group of 8 summit in Russia focused almost exclusively on oil, specifically on how to bring more oil to the market to keep prices down.

The Times reports that in terms of the environment, the Group of 8 issued a statement applauding the Kyoto Protocol as a means of discouraging energy waste and greenhouse gas emissions -- "but only for those who have ratified the document, an acknowledgement that the U.S. had rejected the treaty."

Further, the G8 statement explicitly affirms the Bush administration's preferred approach to combating climate change: "It is important to engage the private sector and other stakeholders in achieving these ends."

Lastly, the New York Daily News reported Friday that the New York City Council has scheduled a vote tomorrow on Mayor Michael Bloomberg's 20-year master plan for disposal of the city's solid waste. Under the plan, each borough would share the burden of housing disposal facilities. As currently constituted, the proposal still includes plans for three hotly contested waste transfer sites in Manhattan.

The report quotes Councilman Michael McMahon, chairman of the council's Sanitation Committee, as saying the vote could be delayed because of "ongoing sensitive negotiations" with Bloomberg's administration, but for now the vote remains on the council's Wednesday agenda, and according to unnamed participants in a closed-door council caucus last Thursday, "passage is widely expected."