The stimulus Bill had a good deal of money devoted for alternative energy research. The new energy bill that got stalled because of the BP oil spill included more subsidies for green energy as well as for Nuclear so pretty much everything the author is asking for is being done.
Personally I think there should just be a small carbon tax that would eventually grow instead of cap and trade.

For instance, most of the world (China excepted) has “tackled” population growth by not tackling it. Instead they develop their economy, raise education, standards of living, health care. In such a world people automatically start having smaller families. You don’t have to create political problems by imposing heavy-handed controls on a sensitive matter.

It’s a political minefield to suggest, even obliquely, that the developing world must slow or stop their progress towards a better life.

As they point out, other alternate fuels and carbon targets hurt the worlds poor the most (and economies in general). Switching to nuclear would not be significantly different in cost and would be a good stop gap until other sources are developed and made efficient.