Just about everyone in the Northwest should be concerned about the potentially devastating effects of climate change.

And just about everyone should realize that there is only one way to head off the environmental disaster looming ahead -- an aggressive combination of improvements in energy efficiency and a major increase in the use of energy sources that do not release global-warming gases. With no possibility of increases in our large-scale hydropower projects and now talk of removing some existing dams, that means an increasing use of the only other large-scale, emissions-free source: Nuclear power.

The question is: Will any political leader promote this essential formula and call for immediate steps to make this happen?

Politicians who believe we should stop fretting about carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels ignore warnings from scientists about the effects of heat-trapping gases building up in the atmosphere. Recently, NASA scientists reported that higher temperatures and the melting of Arctic Ocean ice offered new evidence that the gases were influencing the region's climate.

"If further global warming reaches 2 or 3 degrees Celsius, we will likely see changes that make Earth a very different planet from the one we know," said James Hansen, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

The importance of improved energy efficiency is obvious. In houses, offices, factories, appliances and lighting there are ways to use less electric power for the same benefit. But the government is not setting standards or providing incentives to encourage improved efficiency.

On the other side of the ledger, the only energy source capable of achieving a decisive reduction in carbon emissions is nuclear power. The existing fleet of nuclear plants accounts for nearly three-quarters of the nation's emission-free electricity -- even counting all of our massive hydro resources. But many politicians refuse to encourage more nuclear plants, even though they can't offer a realistic alternative.

Utilities are preparing to build more nuclear power plants. But the Department of Energy estimates we will need about 60 new nuclear plants by 2030 to maintain nuclear power's current share of the energy mix and help stabilize carbon emissions. That's far more than are now being planned.

Although new generating capacity is needed in the Northwest, utilities are investing in wind turbines. The appeal of wind power is obvious. Fuel costs are zero. So are emissions. But wind power's performance is disappointing.

During the mid-July heat wave in California, when people were asked to conserve electricity by raising their thermostats and many manufacturers and businesses voluntarily shut down, wind plants weren't of much value. On the day of peak demand, wind plants produced just 4 percent as much energy as they would if they ran at full tilt, every hour of the day, a measure called "capacity factor." For comparison, nuclear power's average industrywide capacity factor last year was 90 percent.

The case for nuclear power, coupled with energy-efficiency improvements, is overwhelming -- and the danger of climate change shows that it is absolutely essential as we try to meet the energy demands of our growing population and economy.

John C. Ringle of Corvallis is professor emeritus, nuclear engineering at Oregon State University. He can be reached at ringlejc@ne.orst.edu.