Green movement has spent the last 50 years opposing nuclear power, otherwise we would have decarbonised at least 90% already (like France has).
I can tell someone is going ask you for your "solution."
You know what the solution is, reader? Either support pro-nuclear policies until something better comes along, or shut up about climate change. In my experience, every single person who views climate change as an impending catastrophe responds with "but what if" when asked about nuclear. This is a widespread form of insanity. If we are headed for catastrophe, or extinction according to some, then the purely hypothetical world-ending events related to nuclear reactors shouldn't be any more of a problem. Personally, I'll take 100 Chernobyl-like events over extinction and a dying planet. Think that's crazy? Do the math.
Renewables are already cheaper than fossil fuels in many cases.
No one thinks fossil fuels were not essential in getting us to where we are.
At 1pm when sun is shining. For the rest of the time you need to run backup ... on fossil fuels. This is the main reason why Germany is unlikely to decarbonize in a near future.
according to wikipedia it cut the required farmland to feed a population in four. obviously it's hard to argue with more food for more people, but it clearly made urbanisation and overpopulation that much easier. quite a brilliant invention of engineering, but is it actually a good thing for a population to grow at that rate?
Fossil fuel companies opposing it I can understand: it’s a straightforward, strategic move.
For green proponents, I think it was an own goal, likely driven by a mix of fear and failing to realize that people would not readily temper their demand for energy and the holistic solution needs to include humanity harnessing substantial amounts of energy. Ruling out nuclear directly (in a single step) means decades of people creating gigatons more emissions from burning fossil fuels.
After all, nuclear power was brand new. And the pollution and death if one goes bad...