The only way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55% is to push everyone into poverty, basically. Make the car ownership too expensive for common folks, as well as meat consumption, buying new clothes, heating your apartment in winter, air travel, and more.
Why wouldn’t massive buildout of nuclear energy plants allow hitting that greenhouse emission goal while simultaneously tripling the amount of power used per person?
That's an extremely uncharitable and snarky answer given the open-ended nature of my question.
Thorium reactors don't use either and a fusion reactor wouldn't involve any isotope of uranium. Others may disagree, but I don't think it's a forgone conclusion that all R&D in nuclear energy grinds to a halt.
I disagree with the GP's claim that poverty is "the only way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55%."
No scifi nuclear reactor concept is going to be mass deployed by the early 2030s. The only nuclear fuel source that has ever been used in commercial application is U235, with a little bit of Pu239 to boost yield. There is no viable source of U235 for even a fraction of current energy use.
OP's claim is garbage (insulation, ending car dependency, and legislating products that aren't landfill help the poor rather than hindering them), but the constant nuclear shilling and shilling for growth is much worse.
> (insulation, ending car dependency, and legislating products that aren't landfill help the poor rather than hindering them)
That's not at all what "Fit for 55" program is about. I agree, those things, over long enough timespan (say, 20 years) could be net positive. Instead, "Fit for 55" means imposing additional "carbon tax" on many industries, and on goods imported from China, based on how much carbon was emitted when producing them. And given the short, 7 years time frame the net result of those policies will be what I originally claimed: pushing everyone to poverty.
EU politicians say it quite openly really, that in order to "save us from the climate catastrophe" we need to sacrifice the standard of living.
Problem solved. It won't hurt anyone but anybodybwho is already doing the right thing will be far better off.
If people who choose to drive (and it will be a choice because non-car infrastructure is part of the plan) pay more, then nothing of value has been lost.
When was the last time in history of mankind when taxes were actually distributed to the poor? I mean in significant amounts, not as a lame attempt to win upcoming elections.
"Fit for 55 is a package by the European Union designed to reduce the European Union's greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030."
I call bullshit on your statement.