This week, 30 world leaders are meeting in Brussels to pursue the most important climate solution that philanthropy doesn’t want to talk about: nuclear power and its role in fighting climate change.

The summit is part of a growing wave of high-level policy support for nuclear power. In December at COP28 — the United Nations climate meeting in Dubai — two dozen countries signed a declaration to triple global nuclear capacity by midcentury, citing nuclear power’s essential role in eliminating or reducing carbon emissions and ensuring access to clean and affordable energy.

But expanding nuclear power across multiple continents should not be left to governments alone. Philanthropy clearly has a role here, but few grantmakers are interested. I worked on this issue for several years as a program officer at the MacArthur Foundation and appreciate the hesitancy. But I believe my experience offers lessons for how grantmakers can effectively approach the nuclear power debate — and use their unique role as donors to expand understanding of any controversial issue that deserves a second look.

On one hand, the discomfort with nuclear power makes sense. The Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents live on in nightmares. Russia has turned Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, Europe’s largest, into an active war zone. Details about where nuclear power and nuclear weapons meet — and where they don’t — tend to be poorly understood. And many people express concern about how to manage growing stockpiles of radioactive nuclear waste.

But these criticisms harbor a fatal flaw: They fail to offer any viable plan to eliminate carbon-based fuels without nuclear power. In other words, they miss the bigger picture.

Read the full article in The Chronicle of Philanthropy