The underlying core principle is false. Carbon (CO2) is NOT a pollutant, certainly not in the amounts we emit via industry and agriculture.
To state otherwise is bad science and/or a lie.
By the way, warming isn't a bad thing either. Not only have we been cooling a hair the past 10 to 20 years (which I believe to be just a hiccup in the warming, not a start of a new cooling period), but our Modern Warm Period is actually a good time to be alive. At least from a climate perspective, I'd gladly take life in one of the warming periods over life in one of the cooling periods.
It shall never be possible to completely decarbonize the grid. The world will be relying on hydrocarbon-based fuels for decades if not centuries into the future. Carbon dioxide, after all, is the true essential for all life on earth, as it is the source of both the carbon that goes into formation of carbohydrates, the basis of most foodstuffs that sustain life, and the free atmospheric oxygen we breathe in to extract the potential energy in carbohydrates.
For good, sustainable, long term power, the use of nuclear energy is by far the most cost-efficient means to produce that power. A nuclear reactor can continue to generate heat 24/7/365 for YEARS before refueling is required, and the heat may be used to power steam-driven dynamos, to evaporate sea water to collect in a condensation tower, or to refine and smelt any number of industrial metal products.
And this nuclear power need not be a uranium-fueled Light Water Reactor. Thorium-fueled molten salt reactors are superior to the LWR reactors in just about every way, are much safer to have in locations of high population density, and have the added advantage of being able to process the “spent” uranium fuel rods in to a very small package of radioactive “waste”, as compared to the fuel rods.