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 [0] as a clean energy [0] resource. Wow, I thought and made a mental note to Google his claim.

Then yesterday, the New York Times [1] ran an article called Atomic Balm? [2] about our changing view of nuclear power, especially in terms of global warming [2].

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 [2] 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.