This. The apparent carbon problem can be solved with a phased-in shift of *most* industry and transport to nuclear (grid or batteries charged from the grid), and some technical fixes to a few other sectors (ie bio/synth fuel for jets and likely some trucks and ships). That has the fringe benefit of not requiring the complete destruction of the global economy and the forced re-engineering of society into a socialist worker's paradise.

Nuclear fission can be considered a stop-gap measure, within 20-200 years it's essentially inevitable that fusion and/or large scale space-based solar will be viable. The former sooner, the later not-so-soon.

If carbon is really THAT big of an issue, it should be worth dealing with some fission waste for a few decades. We've been doing it for about 70 years anyway, in many nations.

Greta and OAC can get back to me when they get onboard with that, and stop talking about shutting down airlines (and the entire economy) by 2030.

We do have to be fair, hard-core lefties are not the only impediment to paradigm shifts in the energy sector, I'm sure the petroleum lobby is paddling furiously to protect their interests. Hopefully they're smart enough to start working on synth/bio fuel soon, they are best suited infrastructure-wise to doing the heavy lifting on alternative liquid fuels.

Also have to recognize that ending the petroleum production industry will have far-reaching economic consequences as well, but probably not as bad as grounding all the jets. A lot of folks are employed in oil production, and some regionas (including Alaska, Canada, and several US states) would be destitute. Some of that will be mitigated by alt liquid fuels but most pax cars will end up on batteries, or with part-time hybrid and a fuel tank that only gets used on long road trips. Liquid fuel would probably be reserved for applications where the energy density of batteries won't cut: Jets, large trucks, ships, some heavy equipment, and weapons systems.