The quick answer is yes. There are two differences between nuclear and carbon. First of all, you have to realize that people have concerns about nuclear energy because of the waste. It's a very important concern. The time scale for the reduction of that waste is on the order of thousands of years. It's no different from the time scale associated with the natural processes that draw down carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide we put in today, as we saturate the system, will last thousands of years.
So there's a difference, but there's a fundamental difference between the two problems. Nuclear power gives you energy locally, and the waste byproduct of it is local. It's a local storage issue. Carbon burning, through coal and things like that, uses the atmosphere as a dumping ground, a trash can, which then distributes the waste globally. So your problem is global with the burning of coal, and it's local with the creation of energy from nuclear.
Generally, the problem with what we've done is that society has treated the atmosphere as a trash that we can put anything into at no cost. This is why many people fought for the introduction of a carbon tax, because it recognizes that if you go to the dump and throw your waste away, you have to pay a cost for that waste. The atmosphere is a dumping ground that has no cost associated with it, and that has to change.