I'd listen more about global warming if the solutions offered weren't always involving more government authority, more taxes, or just generally less freedom.
It's never not funny that you advocate this position but then on the other hand advocate for fission (a stance I agree with) but that is the source of power generation that necessitates the most government interaction. It reads very bad faith, almost like this pro-nuclear position is more of a convenient cudgel to resist climate change but act like you don't. A position sadly I have found all too common with nuclear advocacy but it makes sense, many of you tossed your lot with the Republicans.
Comparatively with regards to solar and wind power it has been a pretty seamless public/private cooperative effort with good initiative by the private market itself. Private markets love commoditized infrastructure and fast ROI and they have responded with dollars.
I also notice in all those words you say these things, "government authority" or "less freedom" but it's vague and diffuse. Tell me what freedom we have given up for the booming wind and solar industry right now? If we had decided to invest in those two decades ago what dystopian freedom less world would be live in with more of that energy or if we had gotten to the EV sector earlier? Actually don't answer that, I won't read it, it'll be too long and won't get to the point.
I think this is all conservatives propaganda further forcing the false narrative that this is some binary choice. Is to me, tacitly dishonest and in 2025, I'm not even considering the position honest. There is no being nice enough or saying the right thing that would change your tune. It's not the merits here, it's ideological.
