Skip to main content

Another Blogger for Nuclear Energy

Meet Jonathan Hodges:
I believe that nuclear energy is the only short term solution to the energy problem until solar power becomes more efficient and viable on a large scale. And one of Greenpeace’s founders agrees with my opinion, despite the organization’s opposition to virtually every currently viable form of energy. In order to reduce atmospheric pollution and to address the issue the waning fossil fuel supply, nuclear energy is the only viable source in which to turn. New reactor technologies (i.e. breeder reactors) since the last plant was built in the US (1970’s) means even more efficient energy production. Building more nuclear power plants would provide additional clean energy sources in a time when there are shortages in energy across the country along with increasing pollution primarily from coal burning plants.
It's amazing to see the effect Patrick Moore's op-ed has had on the Blogosphere. Click here to see what I'm talking about.

Technorati tags: , , , ,


Anonymous said…
um, hasn't patrick moore been outed as biased:
Eric McErlain said…
If you define bias as disagreeing with you...
Anonymous said…
no i define biased as being paid by one side or another. he makes his living as a consultant for the industries he now espouses.

on the other hand, james lovelock makes no money (that i know of) from interested parties and still touts nuclear as a solution.
Eric McErlain said…
Whether you believe he's biased or not, don't you believe honest debate means that you ought to engage the arguments he makes, and not simply dismiss him?
Paul Primavera said…
Why shouldn't Patrick Moore be paid for telling the truth? After all, people at NECNP, Riverkeeper, NIRS / WISE, CAN, Green Peace, etc., get paid for disseminating disinformation and downright fear and hysteria. In the case of the latter, they call themselves charities, yet they do nothing to actually help the poor in the communities where they exist whereas the utilities who supposedly finance Patrick Moore actually perform valuable charity work in the communities where they have nuclear power plants, always helping the poor.

If you tell the truth, then yes, you deserve to be paid.

If you tell a lie, then you deserve to be sued.
Anonymous said…
Everyone is, in some way, biased. So what he gets paid for what he says? As long as he says what he honestly believes in, who cares that someone sponsors him to say it?

There's no evidence that he only holds his beliefs because he's paid to. In fact, the article you supply states:

Nonetheless, he adds, he refuses to tailor his opinions to please a client. "People don't pay me to say things they've written down or made up. They pay me to tell them what I think." Furthermore, he maintains that his positions - with the exception of his take on nuclear energy (which he now favors) - have hardly changed since 1971. The rest of the movement, he says, has shifted around him.

It's your choice to believe him or not, of course. It would be impossible to prove beyond any doubt he is sincere. But I can see little evidence to falsify this claim, unless you have something other than that he gets paid.

On a side note, Greenpeace activists get paid too, but nobody says they are biased.
Paul Primavera said…

You stated, “On a side note, Greenpeace activists get paid too, but nobody says they are biased.”

Actually, web site has a great deal to say about Greenpeace and its biases.

“Greenpeace was originally the brainchild of the radical “Don’t Make a Wave Committee,” a group of American draft-dodgers who fled to Vancouver in 1969 and, supported by money from anti-war Quaker organizations, got into the business of forcibly blocking American nuclear tests. Over the years the group has loudly made its feelings known on a variety of issues (nuclear testing, whaling, and global warming, for instance), and its Amsterdam-based activist moguls pull the strings on what is estimated to be a $360 million global empire….

“…With each cry of ‘wolf,’ Greenpeace seems to up the ante while ignoring the real-world consequences of its rhetoric. The group has warned that genetic crop engineering would cause new and horrible food allergies (it hasn’t), and that biotech corn would endanger monarch butterflies (whose numbers have increased substantially since the introduction of biotech corn). And completely forgotten by the ‘Frankenfood’ protesters is the tremendous potential for biotech foods to solve many of the Third World’s famine-related problems. Tanzania’s Dr. Michael Mbwille (of the non-profit Food Security Network) said it best. ‘Greenpeace,’ he wrote, ‘prints and circulates these lies faster than the Code Red virus infected the world’s computers. If we were to apply Greenpeace’s scientifically illiterate standards [for soybeans] universally, there would be nothing left on our tables.’

Here are its financials for the tax year ending 12/31/2003:



End-Of-Year Net Worth

Tax Status

What I have found fascinating is the contributions that the Rockefeller family has made to Greenpeace (remember that Standard Oil which is now Exxon-Mobil was started by John D. Rockefeller and his brother William Rockefeller):

Rockefeller Brothers Fund
1997 – 2003

Rockefeller Brothers Fund
$150,000.00 in 2001

I also find it fascinating that one of the Rockefeller brothers is currently a Senator from coal-rich West Virginia.

Now of course I couldn’t find out how much stock the Rockefellers currently own in XOM (Exxon-Mobil), nor in the coal industry, and I am NOT accusing the Rockefellers of any crimes against humanity, but their interest in fossil fuel certainly isn’t zero and every contribution they make to anti-nuclear organizations only serves to enrich companies like XOM.

Oh, and yes, the Rockefellers have contributed mightily to RFK Jr.’s Waterkeeper Alliance, the parent to Riverkeeper which has for years been trying tooth and nail to shut the Indian Point Energy Center down. Look at what they have contributed:

Rockefeller Family Fund
1998 – 2002

And here are the financials for Waterkeeper / Riverkeeper ending in 09/30/2004:



End-Of-Year Net Worth

Tax Status

Let’s see: Greenpeace, a supposed charity organization, is worth over 6 million dollars at year’s end and they aren’t biased?

So ask yourself: why would oil-rich, coal-rich Rockefellers donate so much money to anti-nuclear Greenpeace? The money and its origins speak louder than words.
Anonymous said…
Paul, this is a different person than the previous one and I agree with your point.

My statement in saying "nobody says they are biased" was one highlighting the hypocracy of those who try to say pro-nuclear/pro-corporate advocates are biased while not holding the anit-nuclear/anti-corporate advocates to the same level of scrutiny. The use of "nobody" was a bit imprecise, I admit.

Nonetheless, it is good to see exact facts and figures to back up my point.
Rod Adams said…

Great data about Rockefeller Foundation activities.

There are plenty of other institutions with petroleum roots including but not limited to the MacArthur Foundation, The Pew Charitable Trusts, and the J. Paul Getty Foundation that provide plenty of money to the anti-nuclear activists.

Popular posts from this blog

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

A Design Team Pictures the Future of Nuclear Energy

For more than 100 years, the shape and location of human settlements has been defined in large part by energy and water. Cities grew up near natural resources like hydropower, and near water for agricultural, industrial and household use.

So what would the world look like with a new generation of small nuclear reactors that could provide abundant, clean energy for electricity, water pumping and desalination and industrial processes?

Hard to say with precision, but Third Way, the non-partisan think tank, asked the design team at the Washington, D.C. office of Gensler & Associates, an architecture and interior design firm that specializes in sustainable projects like a complex that houses the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys. The talented designers saw a blooming desert and a cozy arctic village, an old urban mill re-purposed as an energy producer, a data center that integrates solar panels on its sprawling flat roofs, a naval base and a humming transit hub.

In the converted mill, high temperat…

Seeing the Light on Nuclear Energy

If you think that there is plenty of electricity, that the air is clean enough and that nuclear power is a just one among many options for meeting human needs, then you are probably over-focused on the United States or Western Europe. Even then, you’d be wrong.

That’s the idea at the heart of a new book, “Seeing the Light: The Case for Nuclear Power in the 21st Century,” by Scott L. Montgomery, a geoscientist and energy expert, and Thomas Graham Jr., a retired ambassador and arms control expert.

Billions of people live in energy poverty, they write, and even those who don’t, those who live in places where there is always an electric outlet or a light switch handy, we need to unmake the last 200 years of energy history, and move to non-carbon sources. Energy is integral to our lives but the authors cite a World Health Organization estimate that more than 6.5 million people die each year from air pollution.  In addition, they say, the global climate is heading for ruinous instability. E…