I think some on the left are too quick to slap the denier label on anyone who disagrees with their policy agendas, which is a discussion/debate killer (I'm not accusing you of this by the way).  

What are your thoughts on where we go from here?  As I mentioned, I think big changes were necessary for us to mitigate the effects of climate change, and we may have already missed the boat.  Right now it seems like all of the debate is still on how to best prevent or slow down global warming, rather than dealing with the consequences of what appears to be inevitable.  

As to where to go from here: the first step would be for the US to re-commit to its previously made promises with regards to the Paris climate accords.

Another step is to recognise that improved efficiency and cleaner energy is a desirable goal, regardless of global warming... And that these are achievable goals.

Wind farms work. Hydro plants work. Clean electricity and they don't cause cancer. Government can lead the way to help build the necessary infrastructure that we need to move away from fossil fuels.

The number one way to guarantee we cannot achieve something is to say 'nope, can't do it!'

At this point we have to figure out how to deal with what's coming.  Its time to pay the piper for the dance.  Fortunately, there is a lot that can be done if we can find the collective willpower.

As far as clean energy is concerned, I'm actually working on a hydro project right now that could be consequential. The inventor has created a way to construct micro-power plants that run off of a sealed system. The technology has been certified by a third party engineering firm, and is going through patenting.  We have a tentative PPA in place with a firm in CA.  Can't say more due to non disclosure agreements, but keep your fingers crossed, it could be a game changer. 

Nuclear is the one resource that can provide future needs of energy but when I see so-called environmental activists decrying nuclear and working to actively block it, I know that they don't really have the best interests of the environment in mind, but are just using environmental issues as a tool to further their political aims. 

(Not saying Peter had this in mind when he posted it. Just using his quote to make a point.)

------

Or perhaps they have a genuine difference of opinion on what's best for the environment? They may be making the wrong calculus, but to assert disingenuity is fuckery along the lines of people asserting that masks are not about fighting the pandemic but about government control.

The real problem with nuclear energy is that plants are expensive and take a long time to build, and then something like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, or Fukushima happens and governments stop investing in nuclear for a while.

This is nothing new. Many environmentalists have stated that they don't want cheap, plentiful energy since that will simply bring about more people. Back in the 1960's nuclear was touted as the best way to solve pollution issues since it is clean, cheap and plentiful. Activists who were opposed to providing cheap energy begin a disinformation campaign which has been quite successful. Nuclear plants are expensive because they have been forced to kowtow to ridiculous safety standards no other energy production method would ever have to shoulder, which also adds to their build time. Three Mile Island? Nothing happened. Chernobyl? 1960s crappy Communist technology. Fukushima? Crappy old 1970s technology. You can't compare them to a modern facility. Yet Germany, in their push for clean energy, banned all nuclear plants and fired up the coal plants instead. The activists won that round. 

Luckily, many environmentalists, the ones that really do want clean, safe and cheap energy for everyone, have been pushing for nuclear energy. 

Again, nothing new. This has been going on for decades.