In 2006 I would have agreed with all four of these. Today I still agree more than I disagree. (Though I didn't think "urbanization" was something environmentali

In 2006 I would have agreed with all four of these. Today I still agree more than I disagree. (Though I didn't think "urbanization" was something environmentalists generally opposed even at the time; the energy intensity of suburban or exurban living has long been recognized as higher than urban.) The one I've since rather soured on is nuclear power. It is quite safe enough, certainly safer than continuing to burn fossils. I also think that reactors that are already completed and operating should be used as long as possible. But the dreadful delays and cost overruns with projects to build standardized EPR and AP1000 reactors have convinced me that nuclear is not the "fast, proven, affordable" path to decarbonization that it looked like in 2006. (Inevitably somebody will blame regulations. Note that these reactors are badly behind schedule and over budget in France, Finland, the United States, and China -- everywhere they've been attempted. China has a better track record with its own domestic designs but one reactor still takes nearly 6 years from construction start to commercial operation, slower than any kind of energy project but large scale hydro.) Renewable generation has since grown in scale and improved its price:performance ratio faster than I thought possible in 2006, solar PV in particular. The intermittency of these newer renewable sources and difficulty of seasonal energy storage means that some additional nuclear may still be required for deep decarbonization, despite its horrendous schedule and budget problems. But new nuclear really doesn't look like the first, fastest, and best way to cut emissions any more.