Parisians have long winced at Americans who mangle French verbs or add milk to their after-dinner coffee, but these days such gaucheries do not compare to America’s excessive energy consumption.

At a recent Women in Business conference hosted by investment bank Rothschild in Paris, attendees from countries around the world were shocked — really, shocked — to hear that increasing numbers of Americans are taking climate change seriously. They were stunned to hear, for example, about the “green” global conference that Mayor Bloomberg is hosting this week.

Perceptions of indifference have been fed by the refusal of America to sign the Kyoto Treaty, and will be reinforced by rumored American resistance to a proposed G-8 statement arguing for “urgent” action to combat global warming. American callousness has also been read into the nation’s continued love affair with SUVs, and with oil. By contrast, the Smart Car-driving French have long embraced energy conservation, and nuclear power.

It is on the emissions legislation front, though, that America most lags its trading partners.

One of the speakers at the twoday Rothschild conference was the permanent secretary of Britain’s Department of Food, Environment and Rural Affairs, Helen Ghosh. She reported on the various aggressive measures recently taken by the British government to combat global warning, including the publication in March of a draft climate change bill. The legislation, described by Ms. Ghosh as the first of its kind, would establish legally binding targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

Ms. Ghosh credited Presidentelect Sarkozy, and Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, as being equally committed to confronting climate change.

As the developed countries of the world address this challenge, most step gingerly around the possible role of nuclear power. The positive aspects of greenhouse gasfree nuclear power plants are hard to ignore, but the environmental lobby has only reluctantly begun to overcome its long-held antipathy toward nuclear energy.

An exception is France, which boasts a successful nuclear power industry, with about 80% of the country’s power coming from 59 plants. The government made its case long ago to the French people on the basis of independence (always a national objective), and then enticed communities to host plants by offering substantial infrastructure investments. Most countries have not been as bold.

Even the English, who have been prodded by the green lobby to be out front on limiting greenhouse gases, have been unenthusiastic about nuclear power. One of the attendees at the Rothschild conference was the head of Britain’s Atomic Energy Authority, Barbara Thomas Judge, who spends most of her time these days decommissioning nuclear power plants.

In Britain and in America existing plants are nearing the end of their approved lives. In an effort to delay the retirement of its 104 nuclear power plants, America has been extending the industry’s original 40-year operating licenses for 20 additional years. No new plants, however, have been built in either country for a great many years.

That could be about to change. According to Melanie Lyons at the Nuclear Energy Institute, there are now 15 companies in America proposing a total of 33 new nuclear reactors. “New construction does seem to be picking up a little bit of speed,” Ms. Lyons says.

As in America, the major obstacle to building new facilities in Britain has been the ongoing controversy over the disposal of used fuel. Only recently has a consensus been reached on a safe method of disposing of nuclear waste, which involves burial in stable underground sites. Ms. Thomas Judge suggests that new plants are likely to be built in Britain once the disposal issue has been resolved; the Finns are already moving toward construction of the first deepunderground storage facility. In America, the government is inching toward storage at a site in Arizona.

New power plants, Ms. Thomas Judge says, would most likely be built on the site of the old facilities, which in some cases have been razed. “People in the area have voted with their feet,” she claims. “They know the risks are low and have chosen to accept them.”

Similarly, in America, the two plant proposals furthest down the path toward construction are on sites already housing facilities. “They are in very remote areas,” Ms. Lyons says. “People want the high-paying jobs and they are comfortable with the industry.”

At the same time, it is encouraging that several prominent environmentalists, including most notably the founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, have come out in favor of nuclear power. Mr. Moore has argued that nuclear power was the only environmentally friendly way to meet America’s growing energy needs. He has acknowledged, too, that the industry’s safety record is superb.

Although signs may point to a revival of nuclear plant construction in the next decade, Ms. Thomas Judge is concerned that both Britain and America will be left behind. “We are losing competence each day,” she says. “The Iranians, the Russians, and many others are going to have nuclear power. It used to be that GE, Westinghouse, and the French were way ahead on technology. Now the Russians have the technology and are peddling it everywhere.”

Also, any such development will likely take time. Ms. Thomas Judge says the French claim to be able to bring plants on stream within five to seven years, but that does not include the inevitable political wrangling that will surely slow the process in America and Britain. Still, if both countries are to tackle growing demand for emissions controls, nuclear may be an inevitable part of the solution. For an environmentalist, the case should be easy. Not only are the emissions far lower than for any substitute, but nuclear plants “are a lot less unsightly than windmills” Ms. Thomas Judge says.

peek10021@aol.com