He warned against any use of it. I relate this to illustrate how negative or mute most of the present leaders in the field of environment are in the question of use of nuclear power even though they are desperately looking for energy systems that reduce CO2 emissions. If this electricity had been generated instead by the burning of coal, about 1800 M.t. of CO2 would have been added to the 20,000 M.t. that already go into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. I am not going to suggest to you that an expanded use of nuclear power is a panacea for global warming, nor that it is without some problems, but I do submit that if we are serious about limiting CO2 emissions, we cannot afford to do without an expanded use of nuclear power in the world's energy mix. Conservation and greater energy efficiency can help us over time to avoid a good deal of CO2 but such measures are not likely to do more than partly offset increased demand.
Actual trends are clearly towards the use of more fossil fuels.
Not long ago Belgium opted for a gas fuelled power plant rather than a nuclear one. Sweden seems intent to phase in gas and phase out nuclear. India plans to treble its coal use over the same period. All this will increase CO2 emissions not reduce them. The current per capita CO2 emission is 2 tons per year in China and 0.9 tons in India.