> Nuclear is not forbidden.

What is this point replying to?

Anyway, over-regulation can make nuclear energy commercially unviable. It doesn't take a ban for nuclear to die.

The regulation is there for a purpose. The idea that nuclear was "killed" by regulation is a kind of "stab-in-the-back" conspiracy theory.

If nuclear was truly this obvious answer to aquire abundant clean energy, wouldn't our business friendly leaders embrace it with open arms?

A couple of treehuggers didn't stop them from allowing overfishing the sea, or from extracting fuel from oil sands. Despite those things having very clear negative environmental consequences. And strong popular opposition.

But for Nuclear apparently they went totally in the opposite direction. Deaf to the cries of businessmen they heavily regulated an obviously harmless and extremly profitable energy industry to death?

Occam's razor says there's a simpler explanation.

The regulation is there for a reason, but it doesn't have to be a sensible or proportionate reason. Nuclear power is held to a ludicrously higher safety standard than fossil. You are right to suspect that business interests had a hand in subverting nuclear power - the issue is that while nuclear was getting off the ground, the fossil fuel industry was already well established and integrated with government. The anti-nuclear movement wasn't the ultimate cause, but it allied public opinion with a business interest it should have been viciously fighting.

> But sure, go ahead and blame environmentalists for the destruction profit driven market capitalism caused. If that soothes your cognitive dissonance

This is laughable. I come from a country that’s officially socialist. But even people from there want to come to Texas and drive a big SUV and live in a big house with a pool. Better yet, they want to attain that same standard of living in their own country.

If environmentalists tell people to turn down the thermostat and stop eating meet and crowd into public transit, they will lose every time.

> they will lose every time.

Then I dearly hope turning down the thermostat, stopping eating meat, and crowding in public transport isn't necessary to prevent climate change.

Because if it is, and if you're right, then we are fucked.

Because people in India and China want air conditioned malls, meat for every meal, and private cars. The governments in these regions are absolutely dependent on keeping those countries on a path to western prosperity for their legitimacy. Any climate change plan that contradicts that isn’t a serious plan and will fuck us all.

Then let the west (which has by far the largest carbon emissions per capita) lead the way! Show the world that prosperity isn't necessarily 2 cars and a heart attack at 67.

And to people saying it is not possible, I call bullshit. There are large carbon footprint variations within the West. Of course countries have different circumstances, but it's also very clearly a question of political will.

Point to me where in BD constitution it says that? Are you thinking of India?

> But sure, go ahead and blame environmentalists for the destruction profit driven market capitalism caused.

The alternative economic systems are even worse on environmental grounds, and their only saving grace is their ineptness and inefficiency, which limits the amount of damage they cause.

Like, have you heard about environmental disaster of Aral Sea? About how Soviet Union explicitly pursued maximizing fossil extraction as its core economic policy? About the environmental disaster of Great Leap Forward? Check out the list of 10 most polluted places in the world, where are they? Literally the only one that got its pollution under capitalism is in Zambia, all the rest are in former Soviet Union, China and India, which started doing market economy when they were already high polluters.

There are alternatives to both extremes