Thursday, June 01, 2006

Ever-reasonable Greenpeace

This is too good not to spread all round:

Greenpeace's fill-in-the-blank public relations meltdown

Before President Bush touched down in Pennsylvania Wednesday to promote his nuclear energy policy, the environmental group Greenpeace was mobilizing.

"This volatile and dangerous source of energy" is no answer to the country's energy needs, shouted a Greenpeace fact sheet decrying the "threat" posed by the Limerick reactors Bush visited.

But a factoid or two later, the Greenpeace authors were stumped while searching for the ideal menacing metaphor.

We present it here exactly as it was written, capital letters and all: "In the twenty years since the Chernobyl tragedy, the world's worst nuclear accident, there have been nearly [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE]."

(Biretta tip: Redstate)

5 comments:

Field Marshall Dodge said...

As a leftist and someone who tries very hard to not be wasteful with natural resources, I find 1970's-style rejection of nuclear energy embarassing.

It's clear that continued burning of fossil fuels is

A) much, much worse for the planet than nuclear power ever could be even if there was a spectacular meltdown every 10 years.

B) An economic disaster waiting to happen when supplies run out (and they will).

And the alternatives they cite aren't technologically feasible yet. You'll never convince people to conserve very much or change their lifestyles to be less wasteful, so I don't understand why environmental groups like Greenpeace aren't DEMANDING more nuclear power.

Nuclear power isn't clean, but the amount of waste generated is a tiny fraction of waste from burning fossil fuels. It really seems like a sensible choice for the US's energy needs.

Big Tex said...

And wind power is not as easy as it sounds. There is a lot of volatility in wind paterns, so depending mostly on wind power would be hard, if not impossible.

Jim said...

The burning of coal for power actually releases more radioactive particles to the air than producing the same energy with nuclear. source

It is easily the best near term solution to our energy needs.

Wind and solar are excellent for individual use but can not be used as a stand alone energy source.

When the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine there has to be a big power source to handle the energy requirements. That means building double the energy producing capacity. Obviously that is not cost effective.

Anna said...

Let's not forget that some environmentalists are against wind power too. It obscures their view or has the potential to kill fish or birds. That was a big controversy in NJ or MA. (I don't pay any attention to the nuts, I'm too busy trying to keep from being run over by speeding SUV's)

Field Marshall Dodge said...

Let's not forget that some environmentalists are against wind power too. It obscures their view or has the potential to kill fish or birds. That was a big controversy in NJ or MA.

That was in the Nantucket (MA) chanel, and those people were not really environmentalists. They were rich people who owned oceanfront property facing the proposed windfarm. They didn't care about fish or birds as much as they cared about their ocean views. But "think of the poor birds" is a lot more palatable than "think of my 8 million dollar house."