> If carbon emissions pose the greatest threat to humanity, it follows that the costs of nuclear power—waste disposal and the occasional meltdown—might be beara

> If carbon emissions pose the greatest threat to humanity, it follows that the costs of nuclear power—waste disposal and the occasional meltdown—might be bearable. This assumes that the costs are paid by the same group of people. The people who live within range of a meltdown might consider the threat of a meltdown a much larger threat to their future than the threat of a much more evenly distributed disaster. Alaskans didn't feel personally threatened by the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island, but there certainly were New Yorkers who felt affected. Also, "pose a threat" on the time scales of (Nuclear Power plant lifetimes and climate change) is as much about perception and values as it is objective fact. Different people and societies are likely to perceive different levels of threat from different sources. For example, rural Americans who fear ISIS and terrorism are least likely to be directly affected by it or to have actually seen it in person (excluding those individuals who sign up to be shipped to the place where those are actually existential threats), yet they overwhelmingly value policies which prioritize defense against terrorism over defense against climate change. Discussions of nuclear power accidents and climate change generally should (but don't) include {probability, impact, and duration}. A nuclear power incident is likely to be low probability, high impact (within a state-sized region), and quick. Climate change is likely to be a high probability (of unknown effects), wide ranging impacts, and affecting many different regions of the world over a long timescale (perhaps longer than a lifetime).