Greenpeace: anti-intellectual, anti-environment, anti-reason

As part of my attempts to be as awesome as Penn and Teller, I would like to point out the problem with Greenpeace. Look at this article here on why South Africa shouldn’t even consider nuclear power, and should instead be looking toward technologies that currently do not work and cannot support industry.

Then read my post here on nuclear power. Because I do actual research.

No one likes to talk about the other plant at Fukushima, built ten years after the one that did have a minor meltdown. The plant that quietly shut down with no troubles and leaked not a drop of radiation. No one wants to talk about that one, because it just isn’t cool to defend nuclear power. Ever. Even if France is wise enough to keep investing.

Why, though? Why are organisations as huge as Greenpeace refusing to do their research? South Africa does not have the time or money to invest in researching new forms of energy. (Unless we could somehow run Joburg off Malema’s ego.) We don’t have giant universities and corporations to do that. What we do know is that nuclear is cheap to run once the buildings are finished, that it has no pollution and the waste can be safely disposed of. It has fewer deaths than coal, uses less water than solar panels require to be made and is sustainable in the long term. And before we can harness solar to a decent level of productivity, the technology for recycling nuclear waste will be available. There are no good reasons to be anti-nuclear. As one of my fellow Dr Strangeloves notes, (@prof818) Greenpeace can’t see past the atom bombs. They refuse to believe that anything to do with hardcore science can possibly be good for us. They actively oppose genetically modified foods that could save lives. (Because hating the poor is trendy?) Never mind the job creation that Greenpeace prevents, and the fact that the Canadian goverment sees no public benefit in the organisation and therefore has cut all their tax benefits.

And never mind the propaganda against Apple, a publicity stunt as ridiculous as it is facetious.

Greenpeace, you make me want to stab baby seals. This is not a good outlook for an environmental group. Why do you hate science, and scientists, so much? Is it because BA is the best you could do? Even then, a humanities degree would have taught you to critically analyze and understand information, not have knee-jerk reactions to anything not made of hemp and rainbow-cloaked sentimentalism. Either become more informed about the issues you protest, or have the decency to drown yourself in soya milk.

One thought on “Greenpeace: anti-intellectual, anti-environment, anti-reason

  1. Ryan Davey says:

    Perhaps Greenpeace should make themselves aware of the carbon footprint it takes to actually make a solar panel, or the long term change in air movement patterns caused by a wind farm, or the massive environmental damage and loss of arable land cause by damming a river for hydro power.

    Even clean energy has its price.

    COP17 is interesting, the series of conferences is essentially the negotiation for the slow change of human socio-economic behavior to favor “green policies”. This may ring hollow with the enviro-fundies, but the aim is to negotiate green policies without buggering up the global economy.

    Admit I am skeptical. “Green” is often pretty much nothing more than just “fashionable policy”. People react positively to ethical capitalism, which exonerates the guilt of being a consumer with the feeling of “making a difference”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s