How could one call nuclear energy as a part of the solution to global warming?

Letter by Shankar Sharma, Power & Climate Policy Analyst based in Karnataka, to Rafael Mariano Grossi, Director General, International Atomic Energy Agency, France, wondering how could one call nuclear energy as a part of the solution to global warming:

***

Whereas it is very disappointing to note that IAEA may have no satisfactory responses to the concerns I have raised in my earlier email of 19th Nov. 2021, as forwarded below, or that IAEA did not deem it necessary to respond to such genuine public concerns, I can only assume that the contents of that email have been noted by you and your team.
Now that most parts of the world are seriously concerned that "Ukraine conflict could jeopardize safety of nuclear facilities", a statement attributed to you, is there not an even more urgency for IAEA to diligently review its continuing advocacy on nuclear energy as a part of the solution to global warming? You were also reported to have stated: “the best action to ensure the safety and security of Ukraine’s nuclear facilities and its people would be for this armed conflict to end now.” We all know that such armed conflicts in the vicinity of nuclear facilities in any part of the world cannot be wished away entirely, which means there will always be such credible risks to the safety and security of nuclear facilities and the communities around them.
It will be a shock if IAEA is not aware of the increasing global level concerns over the potential of Russian shelling of Ukraine nuclear power plants leading to a major catastrophe similar to that of Chernobyl or Fukushima. A few of such concerns are as in the news links in the end. I hope IAEA will not dismiss such concerns from different parts of the world as frivolous. Whereas, the entire global community can be expected to be really concerned about the possible impacts of such a potential catastrophe on the affected communities, there is no realistic chance of the global community preventing such wars and/ or nuclear accidents, even though they are keen to do so, if global agencies such as IAEA continue with their ill-conceived advocacy on more of nuclear power reactors.
Since such armed conflicts near nuclear facilities, and/ or nuclear accidents cannot be entirely prevented, should there be more number of nuclear reactors, as IAEA seems to be advocating for? Can IAEA assure the global population that a vastly more number of nuclear reactors, as some countries such as India and China, are planning for will not be against the true interest of the global population, and that no nuclear mishap will occur?
The advocates of larger role for nuclear power as a part of green energy transition, assuming that they are all truly responsible in their societal level obligations, should guarantee that such a catastrophic nuclear fallout scenario will be prevented. What sort of governance mechanism and/or regulatory mechanism will IAEA implement to prevent such credible risk? Since IAEA continues to advocate a much higher role for nuclear power in the guise of green power, is there a mechanism wherein one agency/ few individuals can be held directly responsible for any unfortunate nuclear mishap?
This question becomes vastly more relevant in the case of India, which has some nuclear reactors close to densely populated areas, and which seems to have been influenced by the related advocacy by agencies such as IAEA to have many more such nuclear reactors in the coming years; not far from densely populated cities. It has become much more relevant to the people in India to question the acceptability of such credible threats of 'nuclear terror' from the growing number of nuclear power reactors spread across the length and breadth of the country, in the larger context that the aggregate nuclear power capacity in the country is only 6,780 MW, which is only about 1.7% of the total electric power generating capacity (as on 11.2.2022), and that this percentage of nuclear power to the total power capacity can only come down further.
Can we say that IAEA still believes that we can afford to ignore the cautionary approach strongly supported by many reports/ articles which have appeared in the media and by leading personalities such as Mikhail Gorbachev, UN Secretary General, Japanese Prime Minister at the time of Fukushima disaster, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Dr A Gopala Krishnan (of AERB, India)?
IAEA's diligent and responsible review of its stand on the relevance nuclear power for a safer world, in the context of all the issues discussed above, and in the perspective of overall welfare of global community, will not only help many densely populated countries like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh to possibly avoid/ minimise any major nuclear fallout scenario, but will also prevent the wastage of enormous resources in building such risky and complex installations.

News links:

• Fire at Ukraine nuclear plant extinguished, Kyiv claims 'nuclear terror'
• Zelenskiy says ‘Europe must wake up’ as Russian shelling sparks fire at Ukraine nuclear power plant: IAEA calls for ceasefire and warns of ‘severe danger’ if reactors are hit
• "Nuclear plant: How close was nuclear plant attack to catastrophe?"
• French nuclear watchdog on high alert after nuclear plant fire
• "Russia’s invasion of Ukraine poses ‘unprecedented‘ nuclear threats: Experts"
• Russia informs IAEA that its military has taken control of Europe's largest nuclear plant
• Ukraine conflict could jeopardize safety of nuclear facilities, iAEA warns