Again, this is untrue. Stop saying this. Nuclear power is FAR cheaper than any green alternative.

And Chernobyl melted down because it was poorly maintained and was built far under any western specification for nuclear plants... 25 years ago. The tech is far more advanced. Outside of one rickety, poorly designed, poorly maintained, and under protected nuclear plant in SOVIET RUSSIA, name me one nuclear plant that has destroyed its surroundings or even made civilians sick in an accident.

And who said anything about letting Iran have nuclear power? I'm talking about the western world here (and so are you). It's the only part of the globe that emits enough pollution to matter and actually gives a shit about the environment (along with Japan and a few other SE Asian nations).

On top of that, American, Russian, and (if I remember correctly) British nuclear technology of the age of Chernobyl was focused on making the smallest nuclear reactors (to be put on submarines) not to make the safest nuclear reactors ... In contrast, Canada lacked the heavy industry to build these kinds of reactors, and had not interest in developing nuclear submarines, so they designed the Candu reactor which is (generally speaking) a larger but safer design.

Or to put it another way, designs for reactors exist today that would make Chernobyl remarkably unlikely even if they were as poorly maintained.

I'm not an expert in this,but I know that a carbon tax  is not the answer. All that's going to do is increase the prices of everything.

Not only that but look at Chernobyl:

Notice anything missing? Look at Three Mile Island, which was built close to the same time (actually a few years earlier):

When Russian engineers started building plants without walled protection around the reactor, everyone knew the dangers. They simply chose to ignore it and devastated an entire city because of it.

2. The claim:  Polar bears are drowning because they have to swim farther to find ice.

The truth: Justice Burton noted that the only study citing the drowning of polar bears (four of them) blamed the deaths on a storm, not ice that is melting due to manmade global warming. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, furthermore, found that the current bear population is 20,000-25,000, up from 5,000-10,000 in the 1950s and 1960s. Day says in Not Evil Just Wrong that the appeal to polar bears is "a very clever piece of manipulation."

http://www.infowars.com/an-inconvenient-question/

All carbon tax is, is another tax on the wealthy. I hate that idea.

Now I do agree we should use alternative energy sources like solar, wind, etc. for electricity and hybrid/electric cars but fuck carbon tax.

Alternative energy sources and preaching  environmentalist policies is supported by some of the wealthiest people on the planet. 

Governments on both side of politics in a lot of countries are working on implementing new carbon taxes because they all know they can tax people and can get more money to bring them more power. Carbon taxes can be dressed up as a goods and service tax or a levy which applies to all businesses and citizens who must contribute based on their energy consumption. 

A flat rate of carbon tax could be  put in place by the government and once a tax is in it is hard to remove. More ethanol added to dilute gasoline. Bio-fuel is a green clean fuel that can be used to run your motor vehicle and help saves the planet. 

Sorry to burst the bubbles of any believers, but the only factor that would affect the climate in this way is the sun, varying sun spot activity is what causes the planet to heat up and cool down.

No. Chernobyl type reactors use a completely different technology than "western" type reactors. In theory (simplified), western type reactors are "fail safe", you have to actively enable chain reactions (basically, if you walk away, the chain reactions stop). Chernobyl type reactors work exactly the opposite way, you have to actively control the chain reactions (if you walk away, the chain reactions exponentially increase).

I know that but that doesn't mean the Russian reactors weren't inferior to western reactors in many ways, the most obvious being a protective shell around the reactor itself to contain a meltdown. Chernobyl was essentially a building with a reactor in it and lacked many safeguards that were available at the time (including an opt-in on the reaction instead of an opt-out).