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

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more