Scientists are in consensus about the truth of global warming. It really is happening.
Climate change skeptics sometimes claim that many leading scientists question climate change. For instance, in April 2006, 60 "leading scientists" signed a letter urging Canada's new prime minister to review his country's commitment to the Kyoto protocol.  Yet many, if not most, of the 60 signatories are not actively engaged in studying climate change: some are not scientists at all and at least 15 are retired.  Compare that with the dozens of statements on climate change from various scientific organizations around the world representing tens of thousands of scientists, the consensus position represented by the IPCC reports and the 11,000 signatories to a petition condemning the Bush administration's stance on climate science.  The fact is that there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community about global warming and its causes. Even the position of perhaps the most respected skeptic, Richard Lindzen of MIT, is not that far off the mainstream: he does not deny it is happening but thinks future warming will not be nearly as great as most predict. (Lepage)

Nuclear energy, despite being a very viable energy source, is being underused due to initial financial hurdles.
Nuclear energy is one of the cleanest energy sources known to mankind, but the United States has not built a new nuclear power plant in nearly 20 years. Domestic fuel companies constructing new facilities face stiff competition in a market dominated by foreign, vertically integrated firms, many of which benefit from the financial and political support of their governments. Many in the industry have expressed that strong federal incentives are necessary to build new plants. New nuclear companies face many impediments when attempting to build a new plant, including lack of confidence in a long-term solution for used fuel disposal, and lack of public confidence in nuclear power. (CDP 2008)

Christopher Crane, president of Exelon Nuclear, which owns the facility. He said that if Exelon wanted to start a nuclear plant today, the licensing, design, planning and building requirements are so extensive it would not open until 2015 at the earliest. But even if Exelon got all the approvals, it could not start building “because the cost of capital for a nuclear plant today is prohibitive.” That’s because the interest rate that any commercial bank would charge on a loan for a nuclear facility would be so high — because of all the risks of lawsuits or cost overruns — that it would be impossible for Exelon to proceed. A standard nuclear plant today costs about $3 billion per unit. Nuclear energy is currently stagnating because of prohibitive costs. (Friedman)