Skip to main content

Following Greenpeace, Follow the Money

Plenty of our friends in the anti-nuclear movement often go to great pains to detail many of the PR activities that groups like NEI engage in -- Sourcewatch, being just one example.

But all too often, many of those same groups won't reveal the sources of their funding. Which is why this exchange between Rod Adams and one of his readers -- who isn't a native speaker of English -- caught my eye:
I have a friend whose girlfriend was a speaker of Greenpeace for antinuclear matters in the Czech republic, now she does the same ... for Calla (a similar organization), that is a long story, but anyways my friend, boyfriend of this lady, told me once with a surprised face: "all this environmentalists movements in Czechia are financed from Austria, you didn't know that? I thought everybody knows that."
Sounds like something somebody ought to look into.


Anonymous said…
And all of BNFL's activities are funded from the UK, and Areva's from France, etc. So what's your point? One can only support activism within one's own nation?
Well, if you wanted to look into it, there's circumstantial evidence of correspondence or perhaps a meeting in December 1963 in which coal industry representatives asked the Atomic Industrial Forum to not talk about the health hazards of coal in exchange for the coal industry not discussing the hazards of radiation.

If there's any written evidence of such an offer, it would be in your files, and would be extremely useful if you could find it.
giona79 said…
I can't understand what is the problem. It's true, Greenpeace Austria is financing Greenpeace Czech. Actually Greenpeace Austria, Czech, Poland and Slovakia (probably I missing some one else) are part of the same office: Greenpeace CEE (central East Europe).

And it's not secret, it's written in their website (German):

As you can immagine, mostly of their supporters in the that area are from Austria, so the Vienna's office helps the others smaller offices.

Where is the scandal!?
eric said…
If Greenpeace supports it, I am usually against it. They may not be bad people, but so often, they tend to be wrong, offering criticisms without solutions.

I would consider it a privilege if you would add my mainly political blog "The Tygrrrr Express" to your list of linked sites if you feel the quality is high.

Happy June.

G. R. L. Cowan said…
The Financial Times had something about this, according to this August 2001 comment of mine.

--- G. R. L. Cowan, former H2 fan
Oxygen expands around B fire, car goes
pepa65 said…
I dont know about Greenpeace, but I know for sure that other "environmental" organizations which have been also protesting against NPP Temelin such as "Jihoceske matky" have been financed from Austria - not from GP Austria, but from the givernment of Upper Austria, which holds stakes in an energy company Alpen Adria Energie AG - a company which profits are largely decreased once a new large power source is brought on-line.

It is of course difficult to discover the financing trails, as they usually go via secret channels such as private individuals or independent foundations, however in this case they were stupid enough to write it in their yearly review and publish it on-line including detailed figures. This was I believe in year 2000, they ceased this soon after they were asked about it ...
G. R. L. Cowan said…
The Financial Times link seems to have expired. But here's Radio Prague:

"... An Austrian member of parliament said on Saturday that the lower house had approved the release of 40 million Austrian schillings for what he described as 'the battle against Temelin.'"

Where the scandal is, is in the fossil fuel revenues taken by the governments that apparently fund antinuclear activities. Dividing that revenue by the annual count of people killed by pipeline explosions, carbon monoxide poisonings, and other fossil fuel mishaps yields a take of several tens of millions of dollars per death. Funding the antinuclear lobby suggests they're more concerned about the millions than about the deaths.

--- G. R. L. Cowan, former H2 fan
How do cars gain nuclear cachet

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.

Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …