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)
3 comments:
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.
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.
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)
Post a Comment