1. Take a look at https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=map&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=map&solar=false&remote=... --

1. Take a look at https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=map&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=map&solar=false&remote=... -- renewables are certainly not switching over fast enough. 2. Even if nuclear were not controversial, it cannot be deployed quick enough. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080304100413.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080304100413.h... I recall seeing a calculation that it would require us to turn on a new nuclear power plant every day for the next several decades. That's obviously not going to happen, when countries are currently decommissioning nuclear plants. > the whole thing might get solved in the background without much more serious effort. Most people wouldn't even notice. Frankly, this is a ridiculous and dangerous assumption. Globally, we have a limited carbon budget remaining in order to prevent catastrophic warming. That means we must be decreasing emissions on the order of at least 10% per year until we're at zero emissions, and then continue taking carbon out of the atmosphere. Such a scale requires massive transformation across all sectors of society.