Skip to main content

Greenpeace's Angry Kid Backfires

By Eric McErlain
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.
Labels:

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
February 23, 2007 at 1:34 PM
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.
February 23, 2007 at 1:43 PM
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.
February 23, 2007 at 5:42 PM
Stewart Peterson said…
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?
February 23, 2007 at 6:53 PM
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.
February 26, 2007 at 6:40 PM
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.
February 26, 2007 at 9:37 PM
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.
February 27, 2007 at 7:16 AM
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.
February 27, 2007 at 8:47 AM
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