Skip to main content

British Public Tiring of Greenpeace

By Eric McErlain
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: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

By
You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...
1 comment
Read more

Wednesday Update

By
From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...
Post a Comment
Read more

Nuclear Utility Moves Up in Credit Ratings, Bank is "Comfortable with Nuclear Strategy"

By
Some positive signs that nuclear utilities can continue to receive positive ratings even while they finance new nuclear plants for the first time in decades: Wells Fargo upgrades SCANA to Outperform from Market Perform Wells analyst says, "YTD, SCG shares have underperformed the Regulated Electrics (total return +2% vs. +9%). Shares trade at 11.3X our 10E EPS, a modest discount to the peer group median of 11.8X. We view the valuation as attractive given a comparatively constructive regulatory environment and potential for above-average long-term EPS growth prospects ... Comfortable with Nuclear Strategy. SCG plans to participate in the development of two regulated nuclear units at a cost of $6.3B, raising legitimate concerns regarding financing and construction. We have carefully considered the risks and are comfortable with SCG’s strategy based on a highly constructive political & regulatory environment, manageable financing needs stretched out over 10 years, strong partners...
Post a Comment
Read more