British Public Tiring of Greenpeace

In the wake of an unssuccessful attempt to prevent U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair from delivering a speech on energy policy that said Britain needs to consider building a new generation of nuclear plants, Oliver Kamm in the Times of London says it's time for the public to change its perception of Greenpeace and other pressure groups:

The intention of yesterday's Greenpeace protest at the CBI conference was, the organisation's spokesman said, "to stop Tony Blair delivering his speech". Not since the author of Tarka the Otter, Henry Williamson, evangelised for the English landscape and wartime fascism has British political debate seen a more explicit identification of the ecological cause with contempt for democracy.

Some might be tempted to treat seriously Greenpeace's objections to nuclear energy, or GM crops, while not necessarily endorsing its tactics. That is misguided. Greenpeace's determination to shut down debate is not aberrant hotheadedness but deeply held conviction. Its is an obscurantist illiberalism more appropriate to a cult than a pressure group.

(snip)

While all pressure groups are vulnerable to the charge that they advocate policy while insisting someone else picks up the tab, Greenpeace is a case apart. Its campaigning extends to vandalising GM crops and now a thuggish disregard for free speech... Greenpeace has likewise given definitive evidence that its voice should be discounted and derided in public debate.

Kamm calls their tactics, "thuggery with a green gag," and he's exactly right. Thanks to Muscular Liberals for the pointer.

UPDATE: In New Zealand, Bouncin' Around is on the fence on nuclear energy, but is at least willing to talk about it.

Would it not be beneficial to society to be able to develop methods of safer storage and refinement of nuclear fuel and waste? Do the benefits not warrant at least a discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of pursuing the nuclear path and the exploration of safer measures?

Like it or not, nuclear power is a viable alternative. The only questions are 'Are we able to significantly reduce the risks' and 'Are we willing to live with the consequences of failure'?

I don't have the answers yet, and will only be able to decide once logical arguments are made in the appropriate forum.

At the end of the day, this is the sort of conversation the nuclear energy industry wants to have. And it looks like more and more self-described environmentalists are willing to talk.

LATE AFTERNOON UPDATE: Here's a piece from the Daily Mail on the Blair speech, complete with lots of reader feedback. Though not every reader objected to Greenpeace's tactics, it's safe to say their support is less than universal.

Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics, United Kingdom, Tony Blair, Greenpeace, New Zealand