[testHNac]

Did I say Nuclear is the only option ?

I said we could have taken action decades back when we had the Nuclear technology.

Not sure why you think one needs a Nuclear Reactor in their house.

Anyways, I guess Nuclear sceptics know best. And thus, here we are winning over Global Warming.

[adrianN]

We could also have taken action decades back without nuclear. That we didn't isn't the fault of either the pro or the anti-nuclear lobby. Both are insignificant compared to the pro-fossil lobby.

[testHNac]

Since you are focused on fossil fuels you can take a stand and avoid any products that are derived from Fossil fuels like non-EV vehicles, Grid based electricity, Plastics, lipsticks, deodorants, fossil fuel based medicines and medical devices, lubricant, waxes, tar for roads, nylon, polyester etc

I am sure you will set an example for all of us to follow by cutting yourself of Fossil Fuel based products completely.

I just suggested Nuclear as it could have been a viable option. And saved Humanity to an extent till we figured out a solution. But, Good ideas don't stand the test of silly American politics.

Do keep us updated about your journey avoiding Fossil-fuel products.

[adrianN]

Why are you reacting like this? It is generally agreed upon that climate change is bad. Stopping the use of fossil fuels is the only way to stop it from getting worse. I really don't care how we do, I just want it done. It's too late to start with nuclear now, so it's a bit silly to discuss what we could've done sixty years ago.

[testHNac]

Because taking an extreme position saying Fossil Fuels are bad and stop using them is the best solution doesn't work.

Sure, they are bad. But as of today the products derived from fossil fuels are irreplaceable. Like the list of products I listed earlier. Unless of course, entire society is willing to give up on these products to save the world. Sadly, that's not ever going to happen. People and society work towards short term benefits.

The challenge with saving the environment is people get stuck in these 'my way or the highway' solutions.

No space for any middle ground. No compromise.

Every possible solution gets an opposition. Because there is probably no perfect solution. Yet.

Nuclear was not the only solution. It 'could have' helped. So can solar, wind and whatever.

We can still start working on implementing solutions that improve things. But we get stuck on asking for the impossible, and if that doesn't get done, we don't consider any other solution.

Whenever work starts on something, you will get a news article having an issue with that and suggesting something altogether different. All noise. No results.

[adrianN]

Buddy, there is no room for compromise. Either we stop emitting CO2 soon or the climate is fucked beyond recognition. There is no middle ground. Obviously to way to stop emitting CO2 is not to ask everyone to live in mud huts and do subsistence agriculture from now on. Literally nobody proposes that.

[testHNac]

>Either we stop emitting CO2 soon or the climate is fucked beyond recognition.

Most would agree with this. Even school kids tell us that we should do this. The question to be answered is the 'How' ?

Please do enlighten me, how do you propose to stop using fossil fuel without giving up on energy needs of billions and derivative products like plastics and other things which are essential to humanity ?

Since last 4-5 comments you are saying that we should stop using Fossil Fuels. Great. Please explain the path forward.