Significantly reducing population (to, say, 3 billion or less) is probably our best bet against climate change. However, to do so in any remotely ethical way takes a lot of time.
The next step is energy use: both reduction of consumption and reduction of wasted energy, ie. less energy, more effectively used. Things like insulation fall under this category.
Because we're simply using too many resources for the world to remain unchanged in the medium term. We need to change.
Changing the energy mix without addressing this just postpones the consequences of our actions - and not even that much.
Basically: massive, world-wide societal changes are our best bet against climate change. Nuclear energy is our best bet to push the hot potato to (at best) the next generation.
The next step is energy use: both reduction of consumption and reduction of wasted energy, ie. less energy, more effectively used. Things like insulation fall under this category.
Because we're simply using too many resources for the world to remain unchanged in the medium term. We need to change.
Changing the energy mix without addressing this just postpones the consequences of our actions - and not even that much.
Basically: massive, world-wide societal changes are our best bet against climate change. Nuclear energy is our best bet to push the hot potato to (at best) the next generation.