Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Greenpeace mentions this usually as an aside; they hardly care at all about air pollution

This is either a disingenious falsehood or reflects on the local branch of Greenpeace familiar to you. In Germany, Greenpeace forms a part of a quite active movement against coal, especially the open-cast mines west of the Ruhr area.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Jan 9th, 2007 at 07:05:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Acid rain was a big issue in Germany, after all.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jan 9th, 2007 at 07:23:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, though other issues playing a strong role was/is surface destruction (including, of course, some people's homes in villages in the way), fine dust pollution, selling of (low-grade radioactive) ash for fertilizers, and of course the subventions for coal (always a main sticking point between the Green Party and the SocDems).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Jan 9th, 2007 at 08:02:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"disingenuous"

!  Sums up how I feel about NNadir's reply to my request.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Jan 9th, 2007 at 08:17:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I will post, in due course, an analysis of what the Greenpeace inspired and supported "nuclear phase out" has meant to German energy policy.   The short answer is that Germany is neither reducing its climate impact, reducing fossil fuel use, or producing enough renewable energy to meet the claims advertised for the "nuclear phase out."   Again, more detail will follow.

Greenpeace opposes coal in the same way people oppose toy stores by suggesting that only Santa Claus should deliver Christmas gifts.   It is reasonable to ask whether or not perpetuation of the Christmas traditions and appeals to "Santa Claus" has a negative or positive impact on the number of toy stores on the planet.   Banning toy stores will, in fact, have an outcome on the possibility of fulfilling children's Christmas wishes.   (Whether Christmas itself is or is not a good thing is another question entirely.)

Greenpeace does not oppose coal by any means other than saying it opposes coal.   It, in fact, has no strategy for replacing fossil fuels other than to issue regular platitudes.   I can say lots of things, but I will be judged on my actions.

by NNadir on Tue Jan 9th, 2007 at 10:30:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree with you. Greenpeace and its clones are promoting environmental destruction by disseminating false information about nuclear power and misleading honorable people who might sign up with these organizations because they care about the environment and want to do something.

The peculiar result of Greenpeace campaigns has been to encourage the increased burning of fossil fuels.  As you have pointed out elsewhere, Germany is on track to cut back nuclear power while expanding coal-fired power. BTW, I doubt if this scheme is going work in the long run.

Other European countries are having second thoughts about Green-party inspired plans to scrap their nuclear plants.

Please keep posting here, NNadir.

by Plan9 on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 01:47:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series