We still don't need nuclear. We have many other solutions, including reduction of power consumption, cap-and-trade carbon credits, and much more. What's happen

We still don't need nuclear. We have many other solutions, including reduction of power consumption, cap-and-trade carbon credits, and much more. What's happened is that, bizarrely, people have completely conceded to the reactionaries. People have given in, and now give the reactionaries free reign, making it a fait accompli that none of those solutions will happen. If you quit trying and let the reactionaries off the hook, then nuclear is (arguably) what's left. The anti-nuclear power position of the 1980s didn't take into account - and shouldn't have taken into account - that the American conservatives and the fossil fuel industry would prevent any action on climate change for decades, even denying climate change was happening, then falling back to 'it's not caused by humans', and now to 'there's nothing we can do'. > Seems like everybody is jumping on the "environmentalists that don't like nuclear power do it for ideological reasons and are paid by the oil lobby" resentment bandwagon. Again, everyone has completely capitulated to the reactionaries, like people in Vichy France. They are jumping on the reactionary bandwagon. The reactionaries are exceptionally aggressive (an obvious, unimaginative tactic) and people feel powerless against them, so like people bullied on the playground, they find a safe position: Join the bullies and attack their targets.