I wouldn't consider myself particularly radical on this. I see a reasonable period for this change being about 50 years and I would not expect us to be below 3

I wouldn't consider myself particularly radical on this. I see a reasonable period for this change being about 50 years and I would not expect us to be below 30% of current emissions before the second half of this century, even if we adopted a breakneck pace. Canada cannot control anything but its own emissions, really. It is possible to run Canadian society in a way with very low carbon emissions compared to right now, while maintaining a relatively high standard of living. Given the scale of impact, primarily on the poorest peoples of the world for our material benefit, it seems a strong moral imperative to me, yes. If both are economically feasible, the choice between nuclear and natural gas for energy is not a trivial whim. It's more like choosing to strip-mine a third world country vs. a sustainable mining practice for our supply of a mineral, when both are fairly viable processes economically. It's quite blindly and unnecessarily injurious to others, just to realize a relatively small profit. Dismissing it as "minute" amounts of energy is a fallacy. It's all minute amounts of energy. When you add up how much Texans use for recreational drives on Saturday, Albertans to keep their homes 24 °C in January, the folks on Okinawa to keep their air conditioners running, and the nouveau riche of Malaysia jet-setting around the world -- it really starts to add up. You can dismiss all emissions with "it's a minute amount" with this sort of argument.