> If it's as dire as some seem to imply, we should all switch to nuclear right now.
We probably should, or take other similar-scale approaches (multiple, as it wouldn't do to put all our eggs in one basket).
The lack of response shouldn't be taken as any indication that the problem isn't dire. That would be placing a truly ridiculous amount of faith in human civilization to tackle collective-action problems, which there is little evidence we are especially good at doing.
In fact, what you see in the world is exactly consistent with an extremely dire problem and a very insufficient response.
Why the response to such a dire problem is so lukewarm is left as an exercise for the reader.
I think it's notable that he's saying "I don't believe in this, but I'd belive it if you did X" where X has been considered and dismissed by most relevant experts (nuclear is simply too slow to build and and too expensive to fix the problem) exactly like these cycles have been discounted as an explanation of global warming.
So if someone keeps bringing these things up, then it's likely they're acting in bad faith or they've been duped by someone else doing likewise.
Enthusiastic nuclear support while downplaying other sensible solutions (carbon fees, renewables, insulation and efficiency) is basically the socially acceptable face of climate change denial at this point.
We probably should, or take other similar-scale approaches (multiple, as it wouldn't do to put all our eggs in one basket).
The lack of response shouldn't be taken as any indication that the problem isn't dire. That would be placing a truly ridiculous amount of faith in human civilization to tackle collective-action problems, which there is little evidence we are especially good at doing.
In fact, what you see in the world is exactly consistent with an extremely dire problem and a very insufficient response.
Why the response to such a dire problem is so lukewarm is left as an exercise for the reader.