North Korea’s latest launch — a missile that could have reached Washington — starkly confirms a possible nuclear attack by Pyongyang as the most urgent and consequential security threat we face. Having worked on the North Korean nuclear issue under three Presidents, beginning with George H.W. Bush, I have never witnessed a more dangerous moment.

On Mother's Day weekends, going back more than 30 years, I drive from my parents' house in Toledo to Magee Marsh, to see a stunning array of brilliantly colored warblers feed among the cottonwoods and box elders, gaining the strength they will need to cross Lake Erie during their spring migration. I know we are getting close when I see the cooling towers of the Davis-Besse nuclear power plant.

When the country faces a major threat, a dedicated minority recognizes it and lobbies hard for strong actions to address it.  Stakeholders with powerful vested interests in the status quo lobby just as hard (sometimes harder) to block the proposed actions. In many cases, the advocates for change never get past this stage.

On February 20, 1962, I was a first grader at Lincolnshire School in Toledo, Ohio. That day all of the teachers marched their classes down to an unused classroom, designated the “audio-visual room”, where an old black-and-white TV sat atop a rickety metal cart on wheels. Awaiting the launch, we saw condensate from the cryogenic liquid propellant bleeding off the Mercury Atlas booster and tried to imagine what it must be like for the man in the tiny black capsule sitting on top. Like millions of American kids, I fantasized about being an astronaut, suited up my GI Joe in a pressure suit and had him put his Mercury capsule through pitches, yaws, and rolls, but never dreamed that I would ever meet that American hero.

Nuclear energy has an important role to play in combating climate change, but first the United States must address the safety and security concerns that come along with it.

In this report, American Nuclear Diplomacy: Forging a New Consensus to Fight Climate Change and Weapons Proliferation, Former Deputy Secretary of Energy and Belfer Center Senior Fellow Daniel Poneman writes that we face two existential threats: nuclear annihilation and catastrophic climate change. Each, he says, stems from human origins. Both must be fought aggressively.

"Multiple studies confirm the grim truth that, even if all nations fulfill their Paris Climate Agreement emissions pledges, the world will still far overshoot the 2°C warming limit scientists say we must not exceed to prevent devastating climate impacts. Carbon-free nuclear energy can help close the gap. But can we expand its environmental benefits without increasing the risks of nuclear terror?"

Poneman outlines a diplomatic strategy and tough-minded, bipartisan policies to get us there.

The United States and other countries have set their sights on building a clean energy future. Whether that transition unfolds slowly or accelerates is an open question. But over the long run, most experts agree that we must head toward a low carbon energy future — not simply to avert catastrophic climate change, but also to reap the economic benefits of clean energy.

Over the next four weeks, world leaders will gather to confront two existential threats. On March 31, they will join forces in Washington to step up the fight against nuclear terrorism. On April 22, they will assemble in New York to sign the Paris agreement to fight climate change.

While these threats call for a complex web of tough responses, one common thread runs through them: both would benefit from strengthened American leadership in nuclear energy.