I interviewed a honcho from an energy utility last week who told me -- with a good deal of brazen assurance -- that environmental groups everywhere have embraced nuclear power as a clean energy resource. Wow, I thought and made a mental note to Google his claim.

Then yesterday, the New York Times ran an article called Atomic Balm? about our changing view of nuclear power, especially in terms of global warming.

According to the article, nuclear power -- which has virtually no carbon emissions -- has "increasingly been framed as an environmental [issue]." That said, it seems that most green groups still strongly oppose nuclear power plants -- which explains why I haven't seen any "Love the Planet, Hug A Reactor" bumper stickers around.

My favorite perspective came from a guy from Greenpeace who reduced the nuclear industry's green streak to a mere scare tactic. More reactors will be built if the general public fears carbon emissions more than a nuclear meltdown. (Radioactive waste wins. For now, anyway.)

I don't know if nuclear energy is better for our planet. I don't believe anyone does. But I get mighty skeptical when the people trying to build more nuclear plants shroud the issue in green and claim broad environmental support that doesn't exist.

The bottom line is this: I'm willing to embrace green technology or options -- as long as it's not green like the pools of glowing muck near chemical manufacturing plants.