There is a lot more to environmentalism than just worrying about greenhouse gasses. The damage to ecosystems in Saskatchewan and Alberta caused by uranium mines and the tar sands is horrendous. And there is still no practical way to dispose of nuclear waste.

Just like solar and geo-thermal, nuclear power is not profitable without generous subsidies. According to this link:

http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/nuclear-free/reactors/nuclear-and-clim-chg-6-01.html

nuclear power in Canada has costs tens of billions of dollars, racked Ontario with debt and caused several accidents. And of course, plenty of expensive infrastructure has been built to support investment in the tar sands. What would happen if we invested that sort of money into geo-thermal, solar, and energy efficient technologies? If we have to subsidize energy, why not choose the greenest available? The reason solar and geo-thermal are (supposedly) so much more expensive than nuclear is because they have not received anywhere near the same financing into research and development or government support.

From an environmental perspective, nuclear does not produce GHGs and the tar sands use a lot of energy to produce, which mainly comes from coal-fired power plants that do produce a lot of GHGs.

This just shows the hypocrisy of the environmental movement. Sometimes I think they want us all living in caves.