I don't see nuclear power as a great solution. The waste contaminates the environment for thousands of years. And the system is not fault-tolerant, failing in ways which render the environment uninhabitable for who knows how long (Chernobyl, Fukushima).
Yeah, it doesn't generate CO2. But at least you can live in a hotter world, can't live with nuclear waste/fallout.
(Also, we don't know that a hotter climate is bad, we've never tried it before)
Are you sure that's an objective assessment of the relative risks, numerically speaking, and not just a common human failing of seeing slow acting, nebulous threats like climate change as being less dangerous than fast and scary threats like nuclear disasters? Nuclear seems the less dangerous bedfellow to me.
Yeah, it doesn't generate CO2. But at least you can live in a hotter world, can't live with nuclear waste/fallout.
(Also, we don't know that a hotter climate is bad, we've never tried it before)