Remember the oil crisis in the 1970s? This was back when lots of people burned oil to make electricity? So what happened? The French Government picked winners ... nuclear. And the result? They've had clean electricity for 25 years. Elsewhere, nuclear was also successfully rolled out, although I don't know all the mechanisms, but the rollout broke the back of the oil crisis in about a decade and prices slowly fell.
It's now been 24 years since the IPCC AR1 and Governments got pretty firmly behind stopping climate change with Kyoto ... but by that period, the market had become the predominant religion and, as a clear consequence, very little has been done. In the US, with nuclear sidelined by the anti-nuclear movement, gas (which had been in decline during the oil crisis) took off. The triumph of gas in the US demonstrates the stupidity of both market mechanisms and the domination of short term thinking. Replacing coal by gas reduces emissions but can never get you to the low level required to roll back climate destabilisation. So after huge (but piecemeal) investment in gas infrastructure, you have to throw it all out and start again with a technology which is actually clean. How stupid is that? but what about renewables? If we had a hundred years and you don't mind maximising the area of wildlife habitat you cover in concrete, steel and glass, then fine. But we don't and I mind very much.
Picking which fission technology to rollout might be tough, but knowing that nuclear is the only feasible long term solution is blindingly obvious ... except if you are a market and driven by the things that markets value ... short term profit and feel good PR campaigns about how green you are!
We know what's needed to deal with climate change, but the market and the anti-nuclear movement are getting in the way.