Great post Zion. It seems to me that Greenpeace are, on this topic anyway, becoming more and more like the Sealed Knot society in England or Civil War re-enactors in the USA; turning out to recreate the battles of yesteryear, dress up, meet old friends and enjoy some flapjacks, while being of little consequence and less relevance.
Love it! Especially since cost seems to be the biggest concern now (thankfully, seems we have moved past previous non-issues!), are you familiar with the Levelized Full System Cost of Electricity (Robert Idel, BoA report) and LCOE + Externalized Costs (Entler et al, 2018) estimates? I'm curious if anyone has done a deep dive into their numbers. If they are indeed accurate estimations, I feel it would go a long way for people to know about them because, if accurate, they show that nuclear is much cheaper than renewables when looking at the full system costs.
It’s perhaps necessary to look at what Greenpeace claims to be about in its own words. Here are some excerpts from the front page of Greenpeace Canada. From Our Vision:
“We believe optimism is a form of courage. ”
And here’s how they started in their own words,
“In 1971, motivated by their vision for a more green and peaceful world, a crew of twelve planned to set sail from Vancouver, British Columbia, in an old fishing boat.”
Regarding their methods, Greenpeace states,
“Greenpeace is an independent campaigning organization, which uses non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems, and to force the solutions which are essential to a green and peaceful future. Greenpeace is an independent campaigning organization, which uses non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems, and to force the solutions which are essential to a green and peaceful future. ”
This is sufficient, I think, to illustrate some of the severe problems with this organization.
1. Greenpeace is NOT optimistic. It takes the most pessimistic possible construction of every single development of advanced science or technology. Examples here are many, but Greenpeace’s well established hostility to nuclear science and technology and biosciences have been evident for decades. There is not one single use of nuclear science which Greenpeace has ever approved. It has opposed them all strenuously including the use of nuclear medicine.
In the case of biosciences, Greenpeace has opposed all new development of disease-resistant crops that require fewer or no pesticides for production. It has opposed things like the use of Golden Rice despite its obvious benefits for preventing blindness. Greenpeace opposes all use of pesticides or herbicides of any kind, regardless of the starvation this would cause in the world's poorer nations.
2. Greenpeace is more than a little deceptive about its origins. It makes no mention of the fact that at least one of the 12 voyagers in 1971 has been denounced by Greenpeace as a heretic. That same leading founder, who is also now a strong supporter of nuclear power denounced Greenpeace as "anti-science" in the 1980s.
3. Greenpeace claims to want a “green and peaceful future” using “non-violent, creative confrontation”. It is unclear to anyone how this can be achieved by “force the solutions”. So is Greenpeace peaceful, or is it just another organization striving to achieve its means by force?
It should be evident by now that Greenpeace is mere eco-colonialism. What it truly wants is a poorer world with greater poverty and disparity. This means a world with less protection of the environment. This means returning to a world of clear-cutting forests to make steel via charcoal. This means returning to a world to butchering whales to produce oil for lubricants and other industrial uses. This means returning to a world with rampant, uncontrollable communicable diseases.
This is Greenpeace’s actual vision of the future - "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" as described by Thomas Hobbes in the 17th century.
Great post Zion. It seems to me that Greenpeace are, on this topic anyway, becoming more and more like the Sealed Knot society in England or Civil War re-enactors in the USA; turning out to recreate the battles of yesteryear, dress up, meet old friends and enjoy some flapjacks, while being of little consequence and less relevance.
Awesome post Zion! Very honored to be among the many badass atomic ladies in the last collage there!
Love it! Especially since cost seems to be the biggest concern now (thankfully, seems we have moved past previous non-issues!), are you familiar with the Levelized Full System Cost of Electricity (Robert Idel, BoA report) and LCOE + Externalized Costs (Entler et al, 2018) estimates? I'm curious if anyone has done a deep dive into their numbers. If they are indeed accurate estimations, I feel it would go a long way for people to know about them because, if accurate, they show that nuclear is much cheaper than renewables when looking at the full system costs.
Thanks for what you do, always enjoy the reads!
It’s perhaps necessary to look at what Greenpeace claims to be about in its own words. Here are some excerpts from the front page of Greenpeace Canada. From Our Vision:
“We believe optimism is a form of courage. ”
And here’s how they started in their own words,
“In 1971, motivated by their vision for a more green and peaceful world, a crew of twelve planned to set sail from Vancouver, British Columbia, in an old fishing boat.”
Regarding their methods, Greenpeace states,
“Greenpeace is an independent campaigning organization, which uses non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems, and to force the solutions which are essential to a green and peaceful future. Greenpeace is an independent campaigning organization, which uses non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems, and to force the solutions which are essential to a green and peaceful future. ”
This is sufficient, I think, to illustrate some of the severe problems with this organization.
1. Greenpeace is NOT optimistic. It takes the most pessimistic possible construction of every single development of advanced science or technology. Examples here are many, but Greenpeace’s well established hostility to nuclear science and technology and biosciences have been evident for decades. There is not one single use of nuclear science which Greenpeace has ever approved. It has opposed them all strenuously including the use of nuclear medicine.
In the case of biosciences, Greenpeace has opposed all new development of disease-resistant crops that require fewer or no pesticides for production. It has opposed things like the use of Golden Rice despite its obvious benefits for preventing blindness. Greenpeace opposes all use of pesticides or herbicides of any kind, regardless of the starvation this would cause in the world's poorer nations.
2. Greenpeace is more than a little deceptive about its origins. It makes no mention of the fact that at least one of the 12 voyagers in 1971 has been denounced by Greenpeace as a heretic. That same leading founder, who is also now a strong supporter of nuclear power denounced Greenpeace as "anti-science" in the 1980s.
3. Greenpeace claims to want a “green and peaceful future” using “non-violent, creative confrontation”. It is unclear to anyone how this can be achieved by “force the solutions”. So is Greenpeace peaceful, or is it just another organization striving to achieve its means by force?
It should be evident by now that Greenpeace is mere eco-colonialism. What it truly wants is a poorer world with greater poverty and disparity. This means a world with less protection of the environment. This means returning to a world of clear-cutting forests to make steel via charcoal. This means returning to a world to butchering whales to produce oil for lubricants and other industrial uses. This means returning to a world with rampant, uncontrollable communicable diseases.
This is Greenpeace’s actual vision of the future - "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" as described by Thomas Hobbes in the 17th century.