Skip to main content

Greenpeace's Angry Kid Backfires

We all know that Greenpeace is a natural when it comes to needless fear mongering, but this latest "public service" video on energy and global warming has to take the cake:



If you slide over to YouTube, reading some of the comments there is pretty instructive:
God, this video convinces me, I really do hate GREENPEACE. Even their name is a misnomer!!

I'm definitely voting AGAINST his future.

I'm an enemy, kid. Definitely an enemy. If the world is going to be left in your hands, I say let's destroy it now. This ad makes me want to start my car and let it idle in the driveway all night. Every night.
As I've written before, I'm sympathetic to the aims of many environmentalists. But time and time again, groups like Greenpeace lower the level of public debate, and actually make it harder to implement real solutions.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Don't be ridiculous, Eric.

You think YouTube comments are a fair enough assessment to call this ad a "backfire." It's this kind of spinmeistering that the kid is coming after.

In the lexicon of my g-g-g-generation, "Right on, kid."
Occupy the construction site if need be.

NEI and its monied interest lot plan to sell your future with more and more orphaned nuclear waste for your children's children to deal with... without a single watt of benefit from today's reactors.

gunter, nirs
Anonymous said…
All manner of causes use children to promote their agenda. Even NEI has featured cute kids running through green fields in its various media ads and publications. Why is it considered unfair for Greenpeace to do this, but not for others?

I know this won't make it past the moderator but it's a point worth making.
Brian Mays said…
Oh please.

Of course, using children for advertising is as old as advertising itself. Everybody does it. Some do it better than others, but that's not the point.

If Greenpeace wants to use fearmongering to influence the public (and ... oh yes, they do), then they would do well to take notes on the effective use of children in an ad, such as the "Daisy" ad from the Johnson presidential campaign of 1964 (perhaps people of your g-g-g-generation might remember that one, Mr. Gunter). That was a brilliant ad.

The Greenpeace spot, however, is pathetic. I just can't see how a bratty-looking kid, who sounds like he's pissed off because his parents didn't buy him a new skateboard, is supposed to influence anybody's opinion on anything. It doesn't even do the fearmongering well. What is this kid going to do? Toilet-paper your house? Vandalize your mailbox? Am I missing something here?

Frankly, I'm disappointed. For the amount of money that Greenpeace takes in, you would think that they could do better stuff than this.
I don't see what really backfired, although I didn't think there were that many crazed right-wingers total to write that many comments.

Face it. While it might be a bit goofy, that video represents mainstream environmental opinion and probably mainstream American opinion. Whole Ecology--the idea that humans are a part of the environment and not distinct from it--does not in any way imply the opinions expressed in the YouTube comments, but normal people are getting associated with them nonetheless. Unfortunately, scientific thought is a rarity in this debate: We. Are. Going. To. Lose. The only thing we can do is complain as loudly as possible.

One other thing: global warming is caused by the emission of insulating gases into the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect refers to a precise process which does not include nuclear waste (or anything else the mainstream of the environmental movement has decided to dislike) at any point. People who try to associate every single thing they don't like with global warming are doing a massive disservice to public literacy. And there might just be a few people who disagree with this notion who aren't part of a "monied interest lot."

And "gunter," to paraphrase Commissioner McGaffigan, I'm going to go off the topic because you went off the topic. I want a quote on this waste issue: it has been demonstrated fairly well that nuclear waste is actually only about 1% waste (mine to cask), that the resulting unused fuel represents not only 500 years' worth of electricity at today's consumption level but also the bulk of the long-term radiological hazard, and that reactors are capable of using the aforementioned unused fuel safely with a reprocessing process that does not extract plutonium or produce liquid waste (pyroprocessing). Now let's say the federal government caps spent fuel production, kills Yucca Mountain, and orders the industry to either manage the waste themselves in a way that reduces it to the activity of natural uranium or stop making it. What exactly is wrong with closing the cycle in that manner?
Anonymous said…
It's interesting that the commenters all seem to assume that the "kid" in this ad is actually talking to adults/parents. It seems to me that Greenpeace is actually aiming this at teenagers and young adults as a recruitment campaign. It's probably pretty effective in this way. And there is no reason to be burdened with facts in that kind of campaign. "Us against Them" is all that has ever been needed to mobilize youth.
Anonymous said…
Youtube's right, that kid looks like the emperor from Star Wars. What a lousy video.

No-one outside of youtube is talking about it. That's the real gauge of an ineffective ad.

That kid needs a nap, same as some of the commenters.
Brian Mays said…
"I can feel the hatred flowing in you now, give in to your anger, strike your father down for driving an SUV and take his place at my side, and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!"

I think you guys might be on to something.
Anonymous said…
It is simply part of the childish psyche to be swayed by things that look "cool" or "tough", or to be part of what is considered by one's peers to be a popular or "in" movement. Think back to when you were a child or teenager. Probably the number one thing in your life was to be accepted by a group or clique, to feel like you belonged to something, to feel like you were wanted and held in regard by those you thought were important. This appears to play on those immature emotions.

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

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

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

Wednesday Update

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