The world does not have an energy generation problem. The world has an energy transmission problem. Fossil fuels are an easy but suboptimal solution to the latter. The premise that this has anything to do with environmentalism is absurd.
"It will not. We orbit a self-sustaining fusion reaction which by definition will last our habitable life. The Earth, at least, is pretty much set."
We are set if we are allowed to find new ways to generate the energy. I don't see that happening right now or in the near future, in fact what I see is primarily an attempt to replace current usage.
Perhaps you have different sources that shows we have no problem and I would be happy to have a look at them. Otherwise we have to agree to disagree.
"Many environmentalists argue for nuclear and thorium reactors. What decade do you think it is?"
Perhaps our definition of environmentalists differ and perhaps it's because I am from Europe. But again if you have sources showing that the waste majority of envorimentalists are pro nuclear and pro thorium I would be happy to be proven wrong.
We could easily generate enough power for the world using solar, nuclear, or coal, with solar being the longest lasting. What we cannot do presently is store or transmit that power to the point of use in a way which meets current expectations. This is why oil, though rarely burned for electricity, remains one of our primary energy sources-- #1 in the US, at least.
I'm curious what part of this stretches credibility.
> But again if you have sources showing that the waste majority of envorimentalists are pro nuclear and pro thorium I would be happy to be proven wrong.
I have claimed no such thing. Decide what you're arguing about.
