Climate is a pretty complicated topic that is often vastly overly simplified. To the point where major mistakes are made. Remember, first (and even second) order approximations are only useful in limited regimes.
If you're in the camp of "net negative, regardless of costs" then it is silly to ignore nuclear. But people seem to confuse this as "nuclear VS renewables." We should ABSOLUTELY build as much renewable energy as possible. The issue is that the world/country/states aren't homogeneous. For example, Southern California and the entire Southwest probably needs little to zero nuclear power. There's more than enough sun and wind year around to exceed demand. But this isn't true everywhere. Where this isn't true (and where there isn't hydro availability) nuclear is a great option and it is silly to discard it as an option. You also can't just transport energy across the country without significant losses and drawbacks (e.g.s energy security, reduced priority).
So I want to make it clear that you can think nuclear is expensive and too slow but still be in this camp. This camp is just believes that you shouldn't remove a zero carbon emitter from the table. Why tie a hand behind your back? You don't have to use that hand, but it may come in handy every once in awhile.
As to carbon capture, again this is a complicated topic. Often it is overly simplified into "plant more trees." But we just can't plant enough trees and the scientific consensus is that this won't get us there. There's also plenty of natural ways to reduce carbon. Land management is broad term usually used. But soil restoration, bogs, and swamps are far less sexy than forests (which when young are actually carbon emitters). DCC still has a long way to go too, but again, why turn away from it? Use every tool at hand. Especially because we have to remember that zero emissions typically means "zero energy emissions" and that doesn't solve the other half of the problem that we have.
I know everyone is passionate about this subject (I am too) but I also encourage everyone to recognize that we have more similarities and differences. We are mostly arguing about the most efficient way to reach the goal, but mind you that if we fight too much others can use this to divide us and make us overall less efficient. Complex problems require complex solutions. Very few people here are experts in climate and if you ever talk to climate scientists they will happily tell you that their expertise is limited to their niche. It is too complex of a problem for a singular person to understand. So let's keep that in mind when we're arguing with one another. It is good to have arguments and discussions, but turning into fights is unproductive and just demonstrates how naive we all are. I'll bastardize a Feynman quote: "I think I can safely say that no one understands Climate Change."