I get your point. My point is our only option is to greatly and rapidly expand solar, wind, hydro in like ten to twenty years. Because that’s the quickest way to lower emissions to the point we don’t cause the unstoppable feed back cycle. Obviously nuclear is greener and more sustainable and the to long term solution. Ideally 50-60 years ago, we would have invested way way way way more into nuclear and energy efficiency along with renewables. We don’t have enough time currently to invest into nuclear more or reallocate funds from renewables to nuclear. Nuclear takes too long to go live without red tape. We need to get emissions down now. Then go more to nuclear. If we go nuclear now at the expense of other renewables, we won’t get emissions down fast enough. Yeah we’ll have sustainable energy with nuclear sooner but it would be too late. Us reducing emissions then won’t stop the feed back cycle, we are toast. We would have been better off just living it up emitting more emissions and all agreeing at a certain date fir ever country launching their nuclear weapons so we die quicker. Humans won’t survive but life might. Maybe the nuclear winner and removal of man will allow for the planet to heal.