Aren't they strongly anti-nuclear? Putting science behind ideology is not a very good position to take about climate change.
CCL tends to be more pragmatic and have many more nuclear proponents.
If you look at sociology and anthropology, the evidence of the ability of human civilizations to handle problems with the time scale nuclear waste requires seems to be lacking. That the physics says it can be done safely does not prove that the other fields of science say it is likely to be done safely.
Is it? That's how France ended up with the yellow vests. It seems likely that demand for fossil fuels will prove rather inelastic, such that everyone just ends up paying more and not changing behavior in a significant enough way.
1) In British Columbia, consumption of fuel has actually _gone_ up despite a tax on carbon (now at $35/ton). It had initially gone down when the tax was introduced...
2) The theory of change of the fee and dividend model was that it wouldn't enlarge the state, and therefore it would be attractive to Republicans. I've seen firsthand all the hemming and hawing of Republicans, and I've pretty nearly lost confidence in any of them coming forward--let alone with the conviction and speed we need. It's more likely to me that a liberal majority will strong-arm a green new deal type program in the next decade.
But that's just my take.
> It seems likely that demand for fossil fuels will prove rather inelastic
Doesn't the contrast between the US and Europe belie that? Petrol prices are double or more in much of Europe and their cars are smaller and more fuel efficient, their cities are denser, they drive less miles per capita, they invest more in public transport, use more bikes and scooters, etc.
In other words, it’s co-opting the environment crisis to push for wealth redistribution.
1) The Citizens Climate Climate Lobby has been around ten years, and it currently has a bill in Congress that has bipartisan (1 Republican) support: The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (http://energyinnovationact.org/). With this plan, all the revenue from a carbon tax* is directly returned to citizens as a yearly check--no enlargement of the state. This is the organization cofounded by NASA scientist James Hansen, who first testified to Congress about the perils of climate change over 30 years ago.
2) If you're a millennial/gen Z, and you're more skeptical of a market-based solution, the Green New Deal and Sunrise Movement are making waves. Rather than a concrete policy in Congress, they have a set of principles/values that they are pushing forward. This includes economic and social justice issues.
*Carbon pricing (which can come in the form of a tax or cap and trade) is the single most effective mechanism to address climate change. The idea is to internalize the _real_ costs of climate change into the price we actually pay--ramping up the price on carbon over time until it is prohibitively expensive to use fossil-fuel-expensive products, and incentivizing the economy to adapt. That fundamental price signal, where renewable energy becomes cheaper relative to fossil fuels (and similarly less fossil fuel-intensive goods are cheaper relative to fossil-fuel-expensive ones) reverberates throughout the economy. However, it's worth noting that while this solution should theoretically appeal to Republicans, almost none have stepped forward...