And overpopulation? Um... because draconian population control tactics and policies are evil? China's one child policy was unconscionable.
German energy is costly not due to production costs, but instead due to taxes on energy utilization in general to subsidize a more rapid transition to environmentally sound energy. Other countries, i.e. France, have chosen to lower costs substantially. (France is unwise, IMHO. Lower costs increases utilization which offsets carbon gains, see rebound effects [0]. Germany is doing the right thing) [1]
Nuclear: Has always been on the table. Environmentalists are not a unified block. The Gates foundation is substantially funding nuclear.
Most of what you think of as "environmental support" is actually funding from petroleum based business. The whole personal recycling movement? paid for by the petroleum industry. [2]
Finally, the petroleum industry hired the exact same goons that the tobacco industry did to peddle pseudoscientific nonsense. [3]
There are coherent, comprehensive, effective plans for fighting climate change. You are just unlikely to hear about in the news because they are deeply wonky. There are paths out, they are neither easy (there will be losers) nor simple (it's a complex system).
However, most of what we hear are the voices of very, very, very rich and powerful oil industries trying to muddy the waters. And lets be clear: they will be the losers, if the rest of us have any hope of not either having to bear terrible austerity or the horrors of climate change.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect_(conservation)
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/02/05...
[2] https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-...
[3] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-i...