Glossing over the climate risks

Samuel S. Epstein, writing in the Huffington Post, lauds Japan for dealing with their summer after the earthquake by only turning two nuclear reactors back on.  He thinks this indicates that Japan can deal with the electricity demands of a modern growing (well, aging) population without more nuclear power. 

As More About Fukushima Contamination and Casualties Is Known, Japan Proceeding Without Nuclear Reactors 

I disagree.  Because what Epstein tries to hand-wave away is what the climate impacts are likely to be.

Epstein writes:

To help cover the electricity gap, Japan increased its usage of oil, coal, and natural gas, much of it imported. The approach of summer, when consumption of electricity is greatest, led public officials to set goals for less consumption.

Oil, coal, and natural gas pose environmental health concerns, largely from greenhouse gas emissions. However, a Japanese environment ministry panel recognizes increased use of these sources is temporary. It will take years to build up the country's supply of safe, renewable power from sources such as solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass. Still, the panel reports that by 2030, greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced to 25% below 1990 levels, with up to 35% of electricity generated from non-polluting renewable sources. These projections assume no nuclear power will be used.

The panel reports that.  But the problem is implementing those solutions, unproven, in a power-stretched country and an uncertain economy.  I don't think it's doable.