The last administration was the first in ~30 years to expand the US nuclear power capacity, and there is not any concerted pressure to shut down existing nuclear plants in this country. Your suggestion that there's some sort of semantic shell game taking place is unhelpful. It's particularly odd that you complain about environmental groups while ignoring the input of the coal and oil lobbies on policy making.
I am not very exercised about draft documents, and given the huge subsidies and externalities in the nuclear power industry, it's not too surprising that people are skeptical about that. I'm not anti-nuclear but those are legitimate problems nuclear advocates need to address instead of complaining about how hard they have it.
Maybe it is because the nuclear industry in the US has a kind of mixed safety record, requires vast subsidies of its own and so few people want to handle the waste that it is shipped around the country in secret and possibly illegally. I actually do think nuclear is part of a green future but ignoring these issues while criticizing the semantics of 'global warming' v. 'climate change' seems counter-productive.
