I respect Peter for taking the time to provide explanations in a discussion that only shows concern for personal sentiments any. Since the thread grew this far, I begrudgingly put in the time to add another seemingly obvious argument: Creating actually pleasant living spaces.

I want to find only one among the people of the fossil fuel and nuclear power supporters who want to have their home next to running fuel generators, roads packed with combustion engine vehicles, or a large nuclear reactor and fuel deposit. These things create amounts of noise, smell and practical risk that I have never heard one human describe as pleasant, unless they have another quiet, ecologically sound retreat. Some of the more stout contrarians even talk about their own citadels.

So why advocate for building the noisy, hazardous trash no one wants to live near?

Some kind of cynical idea that the majority should or deserve to live under squalid conditions, because only exceptional merit should afford you access to an actually livable home?

I find the concern about the long term atmospheric impact of emissions almost immaterial compared to the idea that I want to shape the environment in ways that actually make pleasant to live in. A few interspersed National Parks make no livable planet, and insensitivity towards natural beauty make no strength character.