Emissions are increasing globally because we are building a lot of coal plants.
The fact remains that we are at least 2 or 3 decades from renewables being able to replace fossil fuels for power generation
That’s half a century of waiting
Why do you insist on attempting to set renewables and nuclear in opposition?
Scotland for example recently hit generation of 97% of demand from renewables in the year 2020. As part of a larger grid with appropriate balancing and storage, 100% renewables is absolutely doable, and as part of a grid with some base load generated from nuclear (as the US and UK for example already have and is not going away soon), it's definitely doable right now with sufficient will and resources:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-56530424
The only reason the US is trailing so far behind other countries is a lack of will to transition off fossil fuels, a chronic lack of investment in infrastructure and a balkanised electricity grid run for profit, all of which is fixable.
IMO existing nuclear plants should be kept until they can be replaced easily, and the US may well take decades to do so as they are very slow on the uptake. Other countries are doing a lot better, some have reached 100% power from renewables already for short periods of time and are on track to do it for long periods in the coming decades.
Greenhouse emissions are not rising in the US, they are gradually falling as renewable options become cheaper and are built out and EVs spread:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_th...
I'd expect them to keep falling given transport and electricity generation are the main sources.