There might be a pragmatic case to make, but I don't think she should be the one making it, that's just a gift to the industry and undermines her own credibility for nothing. In a sane world these 'bridge fuel' arguments might have some merit ..

The reason I was making that (pragmatic) argument is because of not wanting to stress the working people and at the same time making an assumption that all the caveats (as to how decarbonising is to be accomplished thereafter) are taken into account, which is a big if, since we have a systemic problem i.e. capitalism. Whether Greta made a PR blunder, according to deep greens, may be debatable, and ultimately it is not for me to judge.

'Btw, I noticed that there are more *live* decarbonising of coal plants projects ongoing at the mo' - as in carbon capture stuff? Haven't seen it... source?

I had a couple of interviews with engineering companies recently where this was mentioned as being as part of their portfolio/s. They obviously would not tell me which countries are considering it, or any other details. Since these were large and 'reputable' companies I take it as given that this work is ongoing (early stages of design) and is likely to be built at some point.

The last point I made about nuclear weapons is the most important one for me, and something that needs to be tackled first imo. Like I said, it's pointless to worry about the climate if we are all going to be dead (apart from the microbes and such). The rest can follow ..