Following on from my previous post, I just noticed a more informative version of the 'progress in decarbonisation' graph after a visit to Bishop Hill's blog, where he links to a post on Euan Mearns' blog:
This version of the graph gives the breakdown of contributions of nuclear, hydroelectric and the Green-favoured renewables (mainly wind and solar) to the overall graph. Nuclear and hydroelectric are on the wane as we go into the 21st century with only the favoured wind and solar contribution increasing steadily. If it wasn't for the fact that some parts of the world, which until recently included Japan, have shown a bit more resistance to environmentalism than the West, the progress in decarbonisation would probably be going backwards rather than coming to the virtual standstill it has done for the last twenty years.
Mearns also quotes a cost for the current effort in installing wind and solar power as being $1.7 trillion (US trillions).
So I suppose in regard to the question posed by Oreskes "Why didn't they act?", the answer might be that they let the Greenies get in control of the global decarbonisation effort.