The choice is not between coal and nuclear.

Yes, actually it pretty much is.

If climate change truly is incompatible with global civilization, I would rather have some defunct coal plants laying around than spent nuclear fuel. Nuclear maybe would have helped us avoid the worst of climate change if we had adopted it at a broader scale sooner, but at this point I think we have to be planning for post-civilization scenarios.

You might want to read "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels" for a slightly less dire perspective.

Thanks, I'll check it out. I've been watching the shitshow for a few decades now though, and to be honest the only surprising thing is that it hasn't already fallen apart. In my mind it's inevitable, and not just due to fossil fuel usage. We won't change course until it's demonstrably catastrophic and then it will be "too late" for a majority of humans. The only question is, will it happen within 20 years or 50 or 100? Malthus was right in principle, only wrong in timeline.

> Nuclear maybe would have helped us avoid the worst of climate change

Not even that. People seem to forget that most utilized energy is eventually dissipated in heat in the atmosphere!

Any unlimited and extremely cheap energy source would only encourage more unsustainable consumption.

Not to mention that many industrial products that lead to pollution (e.g. plastic) are correlated to the cost of electricity. Give the world free energy and people will want a new smartphone every month.

(let's sit back and count the downvotes now...)