It is less that fission-prevents-global-warming, but that removal of nuclear plants has a very strong positive relationship with the construction of new fossil

It is less that fission-prevents-global-warming, but that removal of nuclear plants has a very strong positive relationship with the construction of new fossil fueled power plants. Sweden as an example did not use fossil fueled power plants, but in the aftermath of decommissioning of their most southern power plant there is now one oil fueled power plants operating almost 24/7, and a additional new gas powered plant being building built. This in times where emissions need to go down rather than up. Its also a fairly common story in other countries where nuclear power plants get decommissioned and hastily get replaced with newly constructed fossil fueled power plants. Sweden did have a nuclear program but it was decommissioned in 1966. The program instead went exclusively into civilian energy production, with nuclear power plants being built from 1969 until 1980. The military did not show any interest since 1970, with nuclear weapons deemed way to expensive, ineffective, and the civilian research and military research diverging too much in order for continued cooperation. Geo-engineering is interesting, but like nuclear weapons it is also a tool for mass destruction and warfare on a scale that even dwarf the largest nuclear weapons in existence. The R&D for geo-engineering in order to address global warming is indistinguishable from using it as a weapon. It order to make sure that geo-engineering does not cause mass destruction, it is essential to know what could trigger mass destruction.