Slashdot Mirror

Global stupidity seems a constant factor on this planet. In some social groups denial of reality is most prominent, because reality challenges their believe and there behavior.

This is an example: https://www.greenpeace.org/usa...

So after a brief pause gained from a move from coal to gas in major countries, the upward march of carbon resumes.

Greenpeace favour 100% renewable energy: https://www.greenpeace.org/arc...

Nuclear is too expensive, has too many problems and doesn't even cut CO2 emissions that much. The economics are steadily getting worse and the timescales involved in building it make any investment extremely risky and uncertain.

Climate change is the fault of stupid, short-sighted fanboys like you who are stuck on nuclear instead of renewables.

Are you claiming, without evidence, that all of the deaths in Chernobyl were covered up by the USSR? That is a massive conspiracy. There have been cases of thyroid cancer, but that has a very low fatality rate and it is treatable.

Are you a moron? This was literally the first link in a google search for chernobyl deaths.

You can find some good information about the Chernobyl Liquidators. There are thousands of sites, articles, and studies, and god knows how many videos on you-tube from various sources, from the reputable to the downright dishonest. I have watched thousands of hours of related videos on every nuclear accident that I have been able to find. I have read tens of thousands of pages of documents, testimony and explanations. I am as close as you can get to being an expert in nuclear accidents as you can get without having a degree in nuclear engineering. There is no cover up, there are no conspiracies, just most people don't care about the gritty details the way I do. The WHO Estimates that there will be a total of about 4000 premature deaths, but this is a far cry from the Greenpeace estimates of 200,000. Greenpeace is completely bonkers (Think tin-foil hat levels of crazy). The WHO estimate is likely the most accurate estimate, as their methodology is by far the best, but only a head in the sand idiot believes the official death toll is anywhere near as low as 60. Even the soviets didn't try to keep that fiction going long.

So, as far as the US is concerned, there is no significant problem.

Unless, of course, you actually check the details.

The fact that South America, China, and Africa are destroying their environments, destroying their farms, and experiencing overpopulation isn't our fault or our problem; those countries have chosen to become socialist shitholes and they will have to deal with that themselves or deal with the consequences themselves.

Actually, it has nothing to do with socialism, it's your corporations behind it. And churches.

Other countries do, but that's something "we" have no influence over.

Except for your massive efforts to destabilize local cultures, seize properties, and crush all opposition to your rule.

You've been doing that for over a century. Did you think nobody noticed?

What you read
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0...

Few months later
https://unearthed.greenpeace.o...
http://www.dw.com/en/china-ind...

The spin (no really it is OK they are adding them)
https://www.americanprogress.o...

They are building them. Maybe not in China but all over the place. Their labor pool price is rising. So they are building them in Africa and India now.

If you cleaned up 10 rivers in the world most of the plastic pollution in the ocean would stop. Those rivers are not in the Americas or Europe.

They will be forced to clean up their act. But not by sanctions placed upon ourselves but by their own populace.

Disclaimer: I went on a rant here... Parts of it is a bit offtopic, but this is not only a reply to the article, but about these types of misleading articles that gets posted.
Sorry for any spelling-errors or incoherence below, but this willful misleading and witch-hunt on anything with nuclear in it's name is irritating me.

I care about the environment, and i think we should continuously review our stand and plan to build things that will have the least amount of impact, but still allows our society to function.. Nuclear power, but maybe not the older plants in use, is a good way to do this for reducing the amount of CO2 and other pollution we release.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

So the top 3 there is related to nuclear weapons.. The remaining nuclear reactor disaster of Chernobyl was just a huge human screw-up where they disabled the safety systems on purpose and then doing that on a reactor that only had one of the most basic containment buildings around it.

Take hydro-electric..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Take coal.
https://endcoal.org/health/ ... Only around 800000 people per *YEAR* die prematurely..

For solar/wind do some research yourself, but don't forget to include the pollution created from producing those panels and batteries needed to keep us going..

So i would call nuclear power fairly safe compared to the rest..

One issue is that the public has been fed with incorrect information, like number of death's caused by chernobyl.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre...

5 SEPTEMBER 2005 | GENEVA - A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.

As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004.

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm...

The Chernobyl accident's severe radiation effects killed 28 of the site's 600 workers in the first four months after the event. Another 106 workers received high enough doses to cause acute radiation sickness. Two workers died within hours of the reactor explosion from non-radiological causes. Another 200,000 cleanup workers in 1986 and 1987 received doses of between 1 and 100 rem (The average annual radiation dose for a U.S. citizen is about .6 rem). Chernobyl cleanup activities eventually required about 600,000 workers, although only a small fraction of these workers were exposed to elevated levels of radiation. Government agencies continue to monitor cleanup and recovery workers' health. (UNSCEAR 2008, pg. 47, 58, 107, and 119)

But the numbers that has been fed to the public from organizations like Greenpeace:
https://www.greenpeace.org/arc...

31 workers died shortly afterwards. A total of between 600,000 and 800,000 men were involved in the clean-up operations in Chernobyl up to 1989. Of these men, 300,000 received radiation doses 500 times the limit for the public over one year. Today, the ones who still survive are still suffering from the damage to their health.

How many of them have died to date from the disaster is a controversial question. According to government agencies in the three former Soviet

Saying "safer than wind" or "safer than solar" is "trolling".

Perhaps. By the way the answer is "nuclear fission".
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/...
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/...

If taken as a global average, where Chernobyl and Fukushima are included then hydroelectric wins on the "deathprint" metric. Since I assume we've learned out lessons from both, and are not letting engineers from Soviet Russia do the building, then nuclear comes out on top.

Here's an article from GreenPeace that does a different analysis claiming to be more "honest" but still shows nuclear as safe or safer than wind. http://www.greenpeace.org/inte...

The costs metric shows nuclear, natural gas, and geothermal as cheapest. We might want to rule out natural gas on "deathprint" and "carbon footprint". Geothermal is great unless you don't have a place to drill for geothermal. That leaves nuclear.
https://www.instituteforenergy...

Another cost analysis shows nuclear cheaper than only coal and solar thermal. Which doesn't help nuclear here but people want reliable power, and so long as it's cheaper than coal I suspect they'd choose that.
http://www.renewable-energysou...

Finding a source on energy reliability with a quick Google search was proving to be more difficult than I thought. The best I could find was that same link above on costs where it listed capacity factors.
https://www.instituteforenergy...

This use of capacity factor to measure reliability is likely pretty fair for wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear, coal, many forms of natural gas, and biomass, since these are the kinds of energy a utility is going to want to keep up as much as possible for reasons of costs, legal requirements, and such. However this metric really takes a dump on hydro and natural gas turbines since those are kept in reserve to meet peak demands, they are in fact very reliable and that's why they are kept in reserve. With that said, the top of the list includes nuclear and geothermal with capacity factors at 90% or higher. If we account for the peak power technologies of hydro and natural gas turbines we can include those as well.

Let's end with an analysis on carbon footprint, since most people already suspect that fossil fuels lose out big, but let's just take a look at an aggregated "meta-study".
http://www.world-nuclear.org/u...

Nuclear, wind, and hydro are effectively tied. PV has more than triple the carbon footprint, but still far better than natural gas. Natural gas being half that of coal might just make it a not so bad choice given it's price, not bad "deathprint", local availability, and reliability.

Best I can tell we have at the top of the list nuclear and maybe natural gas if one considers halving carbon footprint from coal as "good enough". Wind, hydro, and geothermal might beat them out if one has them available nearby. Solar, PV and thermal, are not that great and should be left to off grid situations. Putting solar on the grid only adds to the cost, reduces reliability, and isn't that great on carbon footprint or "deathprint" compared to wind or hydro.

wow. Another idiot who knows NOTHING about this issue, but will speak about it at length.
Here, lets go to the TRIVIAL lies of yours. The Chinese gov, the CHinese oil companies, AND their academia say that they have pretty much hit peak oil and expect it to drop QUICKLY. They have exactly 3 choices which is 1) to militarily fight for ocean bottom that does not belong to them from the nations that I mentioned before, 2) import a lot more, which they are growing their imports, but absolutely do NOT want to do so, and 3) move off oil over to coal with EVs. The later is what the CHinese gov wants.
So, you claim that CHina is burning less coal, that new plants are replacing old one, and that they have turned on all of the pollution controls. Ok. Assume that is true? Then why is pollution getting WORSE, not better? about 85% of China's visible pollution comes from their coal plants and their not using pollution controls. If coal use REALLY dropped, then the air would actually clean up WRT all pollutions. If pollution control was turned on, then visible pollution will drop (regular unseen pollution such as SOx, NOx, etc would continue ). If new plants were replacing the old ones, then again, TOTAL pollution would drop. BUT, that is not the case
for the last couple of year, pollution improved slightly, but that was due to their economy dropping on the industrial side. Now it is picking up as the idiots in Europe try to cozy up to them like they did with Hitler
2016, along with 2017, saw major increases.
And here.

New plants are not being built and what few are simply replacing old ones?
Nope. Only the idiots make such wild claims.
China is the largest builder of new coal plants. Much of that will still go into china, but China continues to push this all over the world, in spite of their claiming to be on-board with paris accord. As was pointed out, Trump talks about restoring coal to America, but the fact is, that unless he gets MAJOR subsidies for coal, which has nearly zero chance of passage, we will not be building anything new. In fact, America's will continue to drop.

As to your personal hatred of America, whatever. Go live in China, Russia, North Korea, etc. Please, go have a good time.
But claiming that America is polluting the world, is total BS. We emit no mercury of any amount. It is Canada, Australia, Europe India, Russia and esp China that do all that.
SOX/NOx? America emits a fraction of that.
And as has been shown by OCO2, America's emission of CO2 is about right on to what we claim, while Europe's, South Korea, Japan's, China, etc are MUCH HIGHER. And for the last decade, America has dropped the most CO2 emission of all nations.

They aren't building 700 coal plants. There were plans for to to 700, but they have largely stopped approving them now so most won't ever get started.

http://mobile.reuters.com/arti...
https://unearthed.greenpeace.o...

Similarly all new nuclear approvals were stopped in 2011 after Fukushima. The only ones being built were approved before then.

You should not uncritically believe the NY Times:
https://unearthed.greenpeace.o...

That is Myth 1.
        Citigroup: The age of renewable energy is beginning. Increasingly cost competitive with coal, gas and nuclear in the US. Source

        HSBC: Wind energy is now cost competitive with new-build coal capacity in India. Solar to reach parity around 2016-18. Source

        Deutsche Bank: solar now competitive without subsidies in at least 19 markets globally. In 2014 prices to decline further. Source

        Unsubsidised renewable energy is now cheaper than electricity from new coal and gas fired power plants in Australia. Source

Here are the other myths that hopefully you will read before you post again.
http://www.greenpeace.org/inte...

Well, you could just Google it but I'll hold your hand:
http://www.ecowatch.com/100-re...
http://news.stanford.edu/news/...
http://energyblog.nationalgeog...
https://www.scientificamerican...
http://energyblog.nationalgeog...
http://www.greenpeace.org/inte...

That's why the original leader/founder left.

Are you talking about Bob Hunter? He left when died of prostate cancer in 2005. Possibly you mean David McTaggart? He left when he died in 2001 of a car accident. Dorothy and Irving Stowe are also both dead and supported Greenpeace until their dying days. Or do you mean this guy?

Sounds like a really great market for vehicles that don't have internal combustion engines, unless the electricity is generated by burning coal.

Greenpeace has come out against ITER, and spoken against fusion in general:

[Greenpeace] Spokesperson Bridget Woodman said: "Nuclear fusion has all the problems of nuclear power, including producing nuclear waste and the risks of a nuclear accident."

They are one of the largest and most influential 'Green' organizations, so if Greenpeace is unambiguously opposed, it's a safe statement to say "The Greenies" are opposed.

China and India are building more clean energy sources than the USA

Ah, but you ignore the fact that China is building more energy sources of all types. Our friends at Greenpeace warn that in 2016, China has been starting coal-fired power plants at the rate of two per week. http://energydesk.greenpeace.o...

So how is your post not also a "dick move"?

China is now doing more than the US to clean up

...while continuing to build a coal plant every few weeks...

Jesus AmiMoJo why are you constantly talking about subjects that you know literally nothing about?

My source is that right wing nut job think tank known as greenpeace

Yet China has another 200,000MW of coal-fired capacity under construction, and a new Greenpeace analysis has identified a further 150,000MW of projects potentially able to enter construction — despite recent suspensions.

I have an idea though... why dont you just fucking stop making shit up on every story they you "feel" for?

Just kill all the mosquitoes. They are not useful enough to be worth the troubles they cause. And also kill all the ticks and other similar parasites.

So you're not supporting Greenpeace's efforts to reintroduce small pox to the wild either, are you?

Ad-hominem, good one. That kind of argument really lends Sooooooooooooooooooo much credence to it...

I bothered to check the actual source material from here, which includes links to spreadsheets of the raw data.

The "too many new models" thing is just a small part of the questionnaire, which is asking it in the context of it creating pressure to upgrade. If there was no new iPhone this year, how many people would simply keep their older iPhone for another year? How many parents wouldn't be pestered by their kids for one? And iOS/app developers would target older hardware for another year, instead of dropping support.

They find some other unsurprising things too, like consumers wanting phones to last longer. One interesting thing, the Chinese are much better at getting phones repaired than the rest of the world.

Except the one you describe as "agribusinessman" typically has owned their farm for many generations. I think the term you meant to use was "hippie".

The hippies, damn hippies. Such a scourge upon humanity.

And yes, greenpeace is full of hippies that oppose GMO, and even vehemently oppose a GMO crop that can easily solve TON of chronic diseases in eastern countries (such as blindness) called golden rice.

Why? Because again, greenpeace are hippies, and they oppose it just over the principle of the fact that it's GMO, and really don't give a shit about the people with chronic illness, nevermind that there's no actual profit motive for golden rice (if the target consumer of golden rice actually had money, they would be able to afford more than just rice, and wouldn't have any problems related to malnutrition.)

Yep, Greenpeace totally wants them to go blind, and doesn't suggest alternative solutions, they're not at all concerned that this magic bullet isn't effective, and isn't a scam taking money away from other options that are proven to work.

Because they're hippies, you can just totally dismiss them, and not even care about any of their work developing sustainable farming. Or even just building silos to store harvests, roads to transport product, or markets to sell goods. Their opposition to industrial-scale plantation farms by foreign countries, totally off-base.

And as is well known, hippies will never be satisfied until agricultural technology reverts to the way we had to do things 70 years ago.

Better than 80 years ago, when we had the Dust Bowl, but I guess you'd blame that on the Hippies too.

Of course, technically 70 years ago was 1946, when the US was exporting lots and lots of food to war-torn countries and feeding the poor. It was also engaged in wide-spread programs to ensure incidents like the Dust Bowl wouldn't occur again.

But no, they're not concerned about the technology used, so much as how it's used. But even the Amish see things that way.

Still, GreenPeace is helping with rural electrification and I guess that WAS a policy 70 years ago, so you're not entirely wrong.

Except the one you describe as "agribusinessman" typically has owned their farm for many generations. I think the term you meant to use was "hippie".

The hippies, damn hippies. Such a scourge upon humanity.

And yes, greenpeace is full of hippies that oppose GMO, and even vehemently oppose a GMO crop that can easily solve TON of chronic diseases in eastern countries (such as blindness) called golden rice.

Why? Because again, greenpeace are hippies, and they oppose it just over the principle of the fact that it's GMO, and really don't give a shit about the people with chronic illness, nevermind that there's no actual profit motive for golden rice (if the target consumer of golden rice actually had money, they would be able to afford more than just rice, and wouldn't have any problems related to malnutrition.)

Yep, Greenpeace totally wants them to go blind, and doesn't suggest alternative solutions, they're not at all concerned that this magic bullet isn't effective, and isn't a scam taking money away from other options that are proven to work.

Because they're hippies, you can just totally dismiss them, and not even care about any of their work developing sustainable farming. Or even just building silos to store harvests, roads to transport product, or markets to sell goods. Their opposition to industrial-scale plantation farms by foreign countries, totally off-base.

And as is well known, hippies will never be satisfied until agricultural technology reverts to the way we had to do things 70 years ago.

Better than 80 years ago, when we had the Dust Bowl, but I guess you'd blame that on the Hippies too.

Of course, technically 70 years ago was 1946, when the US was exporting lots and lots of food to war-torn countries and feeding the poor. It was also engaged in wide-spread programs to ensure incidents like the Dust Bowl wouldn't occur again.

But no, they're not concerned about the technology used, so much as how it's used. But even the Amish see things that way.

Still, GreenPeace is helping with rural electrification and I guess that WAS a policy 70 years ago, so you're not entirely wrong.

Unsurprisingly, Greenpeace has a statementabout him.

"Since then he has gone from defender of the planet to a paid representative of corporate polluters."

It's quite cool that he's actually a real life former good guy turned aspiring supervillain :)
(I know, he's probably a jerk. But that's a requirement for being a supervillain, so who can blame him)

Like the AC said, Patrick Moore wasn't a founder - he was the president of Greenpeace Canada for some years. That's all. Unsurprisingly, Greenpeace has a statement about him.

It's also worth noting that Greenpeace isn't a monolithic organization. Greenpeace USA is different from Greenpeace Canada and Greenpeace International, etc. GP USA, for example, has a rather poor reputation as a rubber stamp for corporate interests.

Where does this idea that returning to an agrarian society is necessary or even suggested by any mainstream body as the solution? Even Greenpeace's radical Energy Revolution doesn't propose that, quite the opposite in fact. Cheap, clean energy for all without wars over resources.

It is starting to happen, and with solar, wind, and nat gas becoming cheaper than coal, it will happen quicker.

Everyone keeps saying that, but until it shows up in the power bill, it just isn't true.

Wind is about 30% more expensive than coal, at least in Texas. Granted, it may be otherwise somewhere else, but Texas has more wind power than any other state and it STILL is expensive.

Worse, that wind power is subsidized by all of us to the tune of about 30%, so actually wind is 60% more expensive than coal.

---

You are correct that natural gas prices have dropped to the point where it indeed is cheaper than coal, at least in new power plants.

Solar on the other hand, isn't remotely close, being about twice the price of coal/natural gas and about 50% more expensive than wind.

Now that China is on board as well, maybe some real change will happen.

China approved construction of 155 coal-fired power plants in the first 9 months of 2015.

http://energydesk.greenpeace.o...

The "clean China" message is nice propaganda, but the reality doesn't seem to match that.

Anyway, we can disagree about the transition time, but consider this: The average lifespan of a coal power plant is about 40 years - and many of them are due for replacement fairly soon. Knowing what we now know, it would be insane to replace them with more coal plants

Logically, I understand your viewpoint... but consider this:

http://energydesk.greenpeace.o...

"According to a new Greenpeace analysis, in the first nine months of 2015 Chinaâ(TM)s central and provincial governments issued environmental approvals to 155 coal-fired power plants â" thatâ(TM)s four per week."

At the end of the day, the goal to replace fossil fuels runs into a $20 trillion dollar roadblock... money... The known reserves in the ground are already accounted for above ground on balance sheets...

http://www.reuters.com/article...

"The largest U.S. independent refiners are bullish on domestic gasoline demand as super-cheap fuel and the lure of bigger vehicles entice more consumers.

Valero Energy Corp and Phillips 66 both say they are in "max gasoline mode," pumping out as much as they can as a mild winter, economic uncertainty and a stinging slump in oil drilling squeezed U.S. diesel demand.

They still see export demand growth for both gasoline and diesel, but at home expectations are for rising gasoline demand, despite concerns the U.S. economy could soften in 2016."

As gas gets cheaper, demand for it will pick up. There are over a billion cars in the world, many of them 20 years old. EVs will continue to grow of course, but last year 75 million cars were sold world-wide, about half a million of them EVs (most of those plug in hybrids that still use gas).

This path isn't going to change by 2050. Even if we wanted it to, it can't, because of economics. Many governments, for better or worse, are addicted to coal, oil, and natural gas, they won't allow them to change faster, we'll have an economic disaster on our hands.

Or do you really think Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the USA are going to leave all those trillions of dollars in the ground?

"But they’re unlikely to be used to their maximum since China has practically no need for the energy they would produce. Coal-fired electricity hasn’t increased for four years, and this year coal plant utilization fell below 50%. It looks like this trend will continue, with China committing to renewables, gas and nuclear targets for 2020 — together they will cover any increase in electricity demand." - http://energydesk.greenpeace.o...

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/...

Side note, if you're for Electric Vehicles, don't listen to Clinton and don't vote for her.

She has already gotten $4.5 million from oil and gas companies, and that is the "known" amounts that had to be reported.

---

Note: This doesn't mean anyone on the Republican side would be better, you should probably vote for Bernie Sanders.

The modern christian church does a lot of good in society.

Lots of good they do: they promote the spread of AIDS by discouraging people from using condoms, prevent people who love each other from marrying because they are homosexual, are just starting not to reject divorced people, try to stiffle free speech by banning caricatures of religious symbols, reject evolution, global warming (for their evangelist branch), try to ban abortion even in cases of rape or when the mother's life is in danger (see Ireland among others) etc.

I haven't seen many 'society of atheists' running soup kitchens, or micro finance banks, or free surgery ships, or child sponsorship programs, or crisis counseling centers, or refugee support programs.

You really did not look far: Medecins Sans Frontière, Reporters sans Frontière, Greenpeace, Les Restaurants du Coeur, Le Refuge (helping young homosexuals rejected by their family), etc.

The phrase "cut their emissions" implies they took some sort of positive action to deal with their environmental problems, when in fact all that happened is that they manufactured less and so spewed less pollution.

You didn't even read the article or even the summary before blathering out that nonsense. From TFA:

"Booming renewable energy generation - China was able to reduce fossil fuel fired power generation by 3% while overall power demand increased 0.5% by adding 30GW of wind power and 17GW of solar capacity, a new world record for any country ever."

In what universe does adding "a new world record for any country" amount of renewable energy sources equates to them not taking any positive action to deal with their environmental problem? Perhaps you should do some research rather than just spouting the party line.

The point is valid, if you use a computer to for you livelyhood, aka you die if you don't use it and Microsoft is the only supplier you can use, then yes you are a slave to Microsoft.

And although Greenpeace have influence, I am sure that they are dwarfed by the marketing budget of monsanto.

Quick research greepeace total spending 2014: 80 million in 2014
http://www.greenpeace.org/inte... and currency conversion
Monsanto selling and administrative expenses 2.5 billion
http://www.monsanto.com/invest...

Greenpeace may well spreed FUD but so do Monsanto and Monsanto have a lot more money to do it.

The issue has never been about GMO itself

That's not what Greenpeace says:

http://www.greenpeace.org/inte...

Which by the way, greenpeace is completely wrong about this issue. In fact, you ought to read the history about their opposition of Bt spliced plants. First their argument was that GMO plants contain too much Bt, but then when it was found that conventional plants are sprayed with an even higher quantity of Bt, their argument suddenly turned into GMO plants don't have enough Bt, even though the amount they have has been proven to be equally effective.

If Greenpeace was truly an environmentalist organization instead of the anti-science one they've become over the last few decades (and similarly why Patrick Moore, a co-founder, left them) they'd be in favor of GMO as it is already solving some environmental problems (namely, higher crop yield for the same landmass and needing less water) and has the potential to solve many more.

Anyways there are a lot of other organization opposed to GMO technology (and for similar nonsensical reasons.)

I don't care one way or another about Monsanto, by the way. When I speak about GMO, I'm referring entirely to the technology itself, which has great potential.

They also call for making it worse.

Greenpeace have done just that. Fully costed, realistic and achievable plans. It's actually cheaper than ignoring the problem, but of course most people don't think that far ahead or assume is to far enough down the road that someone else will pay for it.

http://www.greenpeace.org/inte...

How do you internalize the cost of a rare catastrophe (which would probably bankrupt any insurance company)?

There is a report by russia today that fukushima has cost $105 bn. Greenpeace (which hates nuclear power) claims a damage of $205 bn. So, the range of nuclear meltdown damages is in the range of hundreds of billions of dollars. Now, the insurance company munich re reports that they had to pay $31bn in 2014. I really think that it is doable to scale their business. So basically, there is one nuclear incident every 20 years world-wide. Lets be generous and say it costs around $400 bn. Now, the nuclear industry would have to pay $20 bn every year for such an insurance, world-wide. With a number of 438 reactors, that's $44 million per year. Energy companies make much much more with nuclear power on reactors in average than this amount, don't you think?

Why don't we start by internalizing the external costs of fossil fuels? That will drive us to alternatives REALLY quick.

Full agree. This is improperly internalized.

Unfortunately, while some do, many loud and prominent ones do not. Greenpeace is the most obvious example. See especially their opposition to ITER: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/ITERprojectFrance/, http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/lockheed-martins-compact-nuclear-reactor-yet-/blog/51074/, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/22/fusion_greenpeace_no/.

The Sierra Club which is in many ways more moderate than Greenpeace weakly opposes such fusion also http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/energy/nuclear-power, and while their main argument is that it is too expensive compared to more conventional renewables, they also cite "The dangers posed by the probable releases of tritium used by fusion plants, the problems with decommissioning these plants" which only makes sense if you both don't fully understand how little tritium is being used and how think that the plants will be highly radioactive like conventional fission plants.

Sortir du nucléaire, one of the major French anti-nuclear groups are basically treating ITER and fusion in general very close to how they treat fission power. See e.g. http://www.dw.com/en/france-wins-nuclear-fusion-plant/a-1631650

The environmental movement has done a lot of good and continues to do a lot of good. But there is a definite anti-technology bent in some parts and general anti-nuclear bent which is very unfortunate. There are some environmentalists who understand the potential benefits of fusion and how it is different than fission power, but it is definitely not all of them and certainly doesn't include some of the most prominent organizations.

Unfortunately, while some do, many loud and prominent ones do not. Greenpeace is the most obvious example. See especially their opposition to ITER: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/ITERprojectFrance/, http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/lockheed-martins-compact-nuclear-reactor-yet-/blog/51074/, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/22/fusion_greenpeace_no/.

The Sierra Club which is in many ways more moderate than Greenpeace weakly opposes such fusion also http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/energy/nuclear-power, and while their main argument is that it is too expensive compared to more conventional renewables, they also cite "The dangers posed by the probable releases of tritium used by fusion plants, the problems with decommissioning these plants" which only makes sense if you both don't fully understand how little tritium is being used and how think that the plants will be highly radioactive like conventional fission plants.

Sortir du nucléaire, one of the major French anti-nuclear groups are basically treating ITER and fusion in general very close to how they treat fission power. See e.g. http://www.dw.com/en/france-wins-nuclear-fusion-plant/a-1631650

The environmental movement has done a lot of good and continues to do a lot of good. But there is a definite anti-technology bent in some parts and general anti-nuclear bent which is very unfortunate. There are some environmentalists who understand the potential benefits of fusion and how it is different than fission power, but it is definitely not all of them and certainly doesn't include some of the most prominent organizations.

There are a lot of lies spouted during the Overall Abortion Debate. For example, it is a lie to claim that "intrinsic value" exists. It is a lie to claim that an unborn human is not alive. It is a lie to claim that human life matters, in the Grand Scheme of Things. It is a lie to claim that an unborn human is equal to a "baby" or "child" (both of which normally don't have an attached placenta as a vital organ). It is a lie to claim that an unborn human is more than just a mere-animal organism. It is a lie to claim that "human" is always equal to "person" (see all the human life, cuticle cells, getting killed during manicures and pedicures; cuticle cells have the full set of human DNA and modern cloning/stem-cell research shows that any such cell has the potential to act like a zygote --also see "hydatidiform moles" and "brain-dead adults on full life-support" as other examples where "human" does not equal "person"). It is a lie to equate "potential" with "actual" (do you, a potential corpse, want to be buried 6 feet under today?). It is a lie to claim that the finite Earth has endless food-resources for an ever-growing population. It is a lie to claim that fossil fuels will last indefinitely. It is a lie to claim the Earth is not currently overpopulated, when we have such problems as Global Warming, Deforestation, Overfishing, Aquifer Depletion, Farmland Encroachment by Cities, Topsoil Losses, Algae Blooms, and vast amounts of Toxic Waste being dumped into the environment as a side-effect of Mass Production. It is a lie to claim that humanity is immune to a "Malthusian Catastrophe". It is a lie to claim that unborn human animal organisms are "innocent", when they actually act worse than parasites (without actually being parasites). It is even a lie to claim God opposes abortion (see Exodus 20:21, in which causing a miscarriage can be associated with the arbitrary penalty of ZERO). When all the lies are finally extirpated from the Overall Abortion Debate, there will be no valid rationale for illegalizing abortion in this day-and-age.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/...

They are not right now. They are still protesting. People like them seem to believe that technology stands still.

Yes, as he feels nuclear is more dangerous than other technologies, yet the actual figures disprove that.

http://www.greenpeace.org/inte...

As we were talking about Anti-GMO though, it should be pointed out that GMO has been being practiced for 1000s of years with no ill effects, but suddenly we're all going to get cancer from it. No study has shown negative health effects except for farmers who mishandle the herbacide, and that is likely true of any chemical in the concentrations that study was done with.

You're posting on the wrong site, buddy. You were looking for is http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/...

IYou could run for office there. I think the post of He-who-waves-torch-at-bears-at-mouth-of-cave is open.

they are closing down old, inefficient coal burners and investing heavily in wind and solar.

And building new coal plants...

http://www.climatecentral.org/...

http://energydesk.greenpeace.o...

"We can't. Without that much free energy it's not possible to sustain our current technology level. Renewables just aren't enough and never will."

Total nonsense, the sun can power our civilisation just by covering a small chunk of the Sahara or roofs worldwide.

http://www.greenpeace.org/inte...

This much area needed for solar to power the world:
http://landartgenerator.org/bl...

Right now their religion supports solar and wind power, and solar and wind power ONLY.

http://www.greenpeace.org/inte...

Note how even Greenpeace, one of the most hard line environmental movements, clearly states that there will need to be a mix of energy sources that includes wind and solar but also many others. For the time being fossil fuel is necessary, as is nuclear, but in the long term purely renewable sources (including hydo, geothermal, tidal and various non-PV types of solar) is possible. By long term they are stating around 2050 if the world makes a massive, concerted effort, which is obviously quite unlikely.

Your argument is a straw man. No major organization is arguing for just solar PV and wind.

Disgracefully, hunger and desperation have become the Genetic Engineering industry's best tools to penetrate the developing world's food supply.

Starving people still deserve the dignity of choice.

he was not a co-founder of Greenpeace but he was their early in its creation, he's a paid consultant at the Heartland Institute http://www.greenpeace.org/inte...

We are not ready to accept apologies from anybody," says Luis Jaime Castillo, the vice minister for cultural heritage. "Let them apologize after they repair the damage.

First, the damage cannot be repaired. But second, Greenpeace has NOT issued a real apology. Their disgraceful excuse for an apology is here:
http://www.greenpeace.org/inte...

The obvious missing element is an apology for defacing a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Instead, they offer mere apologies for how things LOOK, and the typical "I'm sorry if anyone was offended" not-pology. Peru should throw all of the activists in Prison, and when the Executive Director shows up in Lima, lock him up too.

Meanwhile, as others have pointed out, the image of the message doesn't even look real in the first place, and they could have gotten the exact same image from Photoshop. Here's the worthless Greenpeace image:
http://www.iflscience.com/site...

And here's the damage the fuckers caused:
http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-c...

Prison sentences for all.

Greenpeace does not oppose GMO crops

They destroy research and lie about lifesaving GMOs. What do you call the destruction of scientific research? There's a reason I referred to the as book burning thugs. These people actually think destroying basic research is a good thing.

Greenpeace has concerns about the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops

No they don't. Thousands of varieties of crops co-exist just fine with the proper seed saving techniques. A transgene does not change that. To give an example in some GMO crops, yellow flesh is dominant over red flesh in papaya, and yellow kernels are dominant over white in corn, yet there is still white corn and red papaya. Why is it then that these varieties can co-exist? Proper seed saving techniques. The transgenes operate on the exact same principles, it's just that no one makes a fuss until genetic engineering is involved and Greenpeace relies on you not understanding the basics principles and understanding the background context of seed saving to spread that excuse. They are lying to you.

calls for more precautionary research and monitoring of GMO's before widespread adoption.

The precautionary principle is idiocy. It says that unless you can prove something will not happen, you do nothing. Imagine if I tried to ban vaccines or wifi on the same principles, demanding that someone prove they will not, through a currently unknown mechanism, cause autism in X+1 years, demanding that you prove a negative. How foolish would it be to say that? Why does that suddenly make sense once GMOs are involved? This precautionary principle excuse is the agricultural equivalent of Russell's teapot. I suggest you read Carl Sagan's Dragon in my Garage analogy to understand why the precautionary principle is completely irrational. GMOs are extensively studied. A rational risk assessment would say there is nothing wrong with using them.

It might be helpful to search out their position papers on these things

Okay. Here they say, quote: "We continue to work with governments to get rid of genetic engineering once and for all." Here they say: "Greenpeace has been an advocate for keeping Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s) out of our food supply and encouraging consumers to only buy foods that are GMO-free." They use lots of fearmongering imagery. That's not anti-GMO? The hell it isn't. Greenpeace is one of the biggest anti-GMO organizations out there, they've got no science to back them, and their work has helped hold my field back by at least a decade and a half, as well as contributed to hunger, malnutrition, environmental degradation, and climate change.

Greenpeace does not oppose GMO crops

They destroy research and lie about lifesaving GMOs. What do you call the destruction of scientific research? There's a reason I referred to the as book burning thugs. These people actually think destroying basic research is a good thing.

Greenpeace has concerns about the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops

No they don't. Thousands of varieties of crops co-exist just fine with the proper seed saving techniques. A transgene does not change that. To give an example in some GMO crops, yellow flesh is dominant over red flesh in papaya, and yellow kernels are dominant over white in corn, yet there is still white corn and red papaya. Why is it then that these varieties can co-exist? Proper seed saving techniques. The transgenes operate on the exact same principles, it's just that no one makes a fuss until genetic engineering is involved and Greenpeace relies on you not understanding the basics principles and understanding the background context of seed saving to spread that excuse. They are lying to you.

calls for more precautionary research and monitoring of GMO's before widespread adoption.

The precautionary principle is idiocy. It says that unless you can prove something will not happen, you do nothing. Imagine if I tried to ban vaccines or wifi on the same principles, demanding that someone prove they will not, through a currently unknown mechanism, cause autism in X+1 years, demanding that you prove a negative. How foolish would it be to say that? Why does that suddenly make sense once GMOs are involved? This precautionary principle excuse is the agricultural equivalent of Russell's teapot. I suggest you read Carl Sagan's Dragon in my Garage analogy to understand why the precautionary principle is completely irrational. GMOs are extensively studied. A rational risk assessment would say there is nothing wrong with using them.

It might be helpful to search out their position papers on these things

Okay. Here they say, quote: "We continue to work with governments to get rid of genetic engineering once and for all." Here they say: "Greenpeace has been an advocate for keeping Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s) out of our food supply and encouraging consumers to only buy foods that are GMO-free." They use lots of fearmongering imagery. That's not anti-GMO? The hell it isn't. Greenpeace is one of the biggest anti-GMO organizations out there, they've got no science to back them, and their work has helped hold my field back by at least a decade and a half, as well as contributed to hunger, malnutrition, environmental degradation, and climate change.

Greenpeace does not oppose GMO crops. Greenpeace has concerns about the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops and calls for more precautionary research and monitoring of GMO's before widespread adoption. It might be helpful to search out their position papers on these things. A quick google gave me this, for example: http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-u...