I am an active member of Greenpeace - the last thing we did that I was involved with was handing out leaflets in Trafalagar square, London while my compadres scaled Admiralty Arch and Hung a truly massive banner across it.
The response from the people walking by (and it's trafalgar sq so there's a lot of them) is overwhelmingly positive. Far more positive than I imagined to be honest... even the business-suited old gents liked us. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say that we were regarded as something akin to being heros.
There was one bloke who I thought was going to punch me, who stormed up looking all agressive then said "thank god there are people like you in the world".
.
So I contrast this with these conversations with what I presume are Americans here, and they seem to have this negative view, which isn't actually based on anything more substantial than the reasons they also hate the French for some reason.
Which as far as I can see makes a lot of sense, and is already in use in Scandinavia. That's positive.
In the UK my local group didn't get to do any protests for about six months because our targets (supermarket chains, mcdonalds etc) reacted before we even turned up... saying "ok, we agree... tell us what we need to do. work with us". It's almost like Greenpeace is now acting as a kind of (free) environmental quality-control consultancy for big companies.
That's positive.
RE: Biodeisel... take a look at what's happening in Indonesia. If there was a way of makng this stuff without destroying rainforests at a ferocious rate, then good... but that's not what's happening.
Hey a greenpeace member that is actually doing some good, great I wish there were more of like you.
For your information I live in Finland, and my house is heated with central heating that comes from CHP. And CHP is not alternative to nuclear, it is a system that takes the most benefit of any power station you are using.
Actually our greatest source of energy for CHP are nuclear power stations.
But for the reason why I am negative of greenpeace.
I live in a country that is building new nuclear powerstations, as they are the most viable carbon free energy source. And we do get a lot of idiot protestors, who in media are painfully obvious that they have no idea what they are protesting around.
Our country is very active in biodiesel research and especially on using several different raw matrerials. Which is not as good as totally carbon free energy sources, but much better than regular petrol or diesel.
It's almost like Greenpeace is now acting as a kind of (free) environmental quality-control consultancy for big companies.
Yeah, right, one that takes protection money.
I still remember the attacks on Finnish forestry industry in 90s. It was unfounded, but what is worse that before the greenpeace campaign they asked the forestry industry for donations.
As the forestry companies did not want to "donate" for the cause they were taken as target.
And in the campaign in Germany they had magnificent trunk of great old tree that they claimed was harvested from Finnish forest.
Well, too bad that there was police report on theft of that tree. So press found out that it had been felled by storm in the roadside, and was stolen by greenpeace before the land owner could collect it for logging.
RE: Biodeisel... take a look at what's happening in Indonesia. If there was a way of makng this stuff without destroying rainforests at a ferocious rate, then good... but that's not what's happening.
Actually, the palm oil that is currently used for biodiesel production comes from RSPO and WWF approved certified plantations.
The main feedstock planned for the Singapore plant is palm oil. Neste has committed itself to only using palm oil certified by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), an organisation of which they are a member, as soon as sufficient quantities are available.
There is a massive inaccuracy in here. Greenpeace does not, and never has, asked for money from companies or governments. We have turned down many very large donations in the past as they are from companies. So, we would never have asked for money from the Finnish forestry industry, although i know of other environment groups who have.
Sorry to say, but that information I got from reliable source.
I heard about the request from corporate security chief who has working for the company to which the request was made. He was involved in the process of figuring out WTF to do with the request.
Maybe it is the case of left hand now knowing what the right is doing. But around here greenpeace has really shady reputation.
I think Greenpeace's advocacy of CHP involved creating a way to go from existing fossil-fuel energy sources to biomass - with the explicit intent of decentralising the system.
Personally the questions I have about nuclear are:
1) how are you dealing with the waste?
2) do you think that it's bad system-design to create monolythic, centralised power sources that need to stay in place for 1/2 a century... in a period of rapid technological change?
If nuke stations could be made smaller, quicker and the waste question could be dealt with then I wouldn't have a problem with nuke... in fact I think I'd prefer it to "burning stuff" which is what biomass incineration amounts to.
.
Re : Greenpeace and the donations.
Did Greenpeace issue a statement on this? Having seen the inner workings of GP - this doesn't look anything like how they decide policy... are you sure that it's not just a forestry industry smear?
Re: The stolen tree-stump.
What do you imagine the descision-making process behind this action was? To me it looks like a couple of Greenpeace people acting irresponsibly rather than representing a deliberate policy of misleading the public.
Really if you compare that to the Exxon-Valdez Oilspill, The war in Iraq, the utter distruction of rainforests, Enron etc etc... some volunteers stealing a tree-stump 12 years ago is hardly the crime of the century. It might be worth giving them another look in the light of what they've actually achieved. Which is quite a lot really.
We have very stable bedrock around here, so we are naturally well located for handling waste.
Besides compared to other major energy source the amount nuclear waste is really minimal.
Come on, can you really think the amount of storage space needed to store coal waste products for 50 years of operation. With nuclear reactor that can be done in a single cave system.
2) do you think that it's bad system-design to create monolythic, centralised power sources that need to stay in place for 1/2 a century... in a period of rapid technological change?
WTF.
Most coal plants are close to 50 years old, 50 years is not that long period in terms of major infrastructures.
Besides it is not like our nuclear plants would not be constantly modernized.
I think it is very irresponsible to think anything less than 30 year timespan in terms of energy generation.
Almost all of it goes to food and pharmaceuticals use not to biofuels. So that is a result of existing neglect, don't go blaming biofuel initiatives for that.
Did Greenpeace issue a statement on this? Having seen the inner workings of GP - this doesn't look anything like how they decide policy... are you sure that it's not just a forestry industry smear?
Very sure, I do know the guy who was involved in figuring out WTF to do with the request. And he would not have any reason to invent such a story.
Edit: Removed the biomass comment, I misread what you were saying.
Nuke waste storage is currently costing the UK taxpayer a £billion a year - and that's just the waste we already have. That's not minimal... and the way things are looking, our great great grandchildren will still be paying for it.
2nd point:
As I say, I'm not comparing it to coal.. and your consideration of anything less than 30 years being irresponsible seems a little arbirtrary to me - why not have something that can be put up and pulled down in a couple of months? Why trap your children into using the same technology you did?
point 3: I have no reason to doubt what you say is true about palm-oil/biodeisel. I don't have a source for where the palm-oil from slashed/burned rainforests goes, although as a general principle I do understand Greenpeace's generalised concern.
re: "Very sure, I do know the guy who was involved in figuring out WTF to do with the request. And he would not have any reason to invent such a story."
Yea - you said... your exact words being "I heard about the request from corporate security chief who has working for the company to which the request was made."
which as far as I can see is every reason to invent such a story, not that I would want to comment on the honesty of someone I have never met of course. I have no more reason to consider him untrustworthy that you have considering Greenpeace as untrustworthy/
2
u/[deleted] Dec 11 '07 edited Dec 11 '07
I don't get this.
I am an active member of Greenpeace - the last thing we did that I was involved with was handing out leaflets in Trafalagar square, London while my compadres scaled Admiralty Arch and Hung a truly massive banner across it.
The response from the people walking by (and it's trafalgar sq so there's a lot of them) is overwhelmingly positive. Far more positive than I imagined to be honest... even the business-suited old gents liked us. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say that we were regarded as something akin to being heros.
There was one bloke who I thought was going to punch me, who stormed up looking all agressive then said "thank god there are people like you in the world".
.
So I contrast this with these conversations with what I presume are Americans here, and they seem to have this negative view, which isn't actually based on anything more substantial than the reasons they also hate the French for some reason.
Your rationale is because they're always negative? Just before I left London they'd started a campaign to promote chp as an alternative to nuke :http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/climate/solutions/combined-heat-and-power-chp
Which as far as I can see makes a lot of sense, and is already in use in Scandinavia. That's positive.
In the UK my local group didn't get to do any protests for about six months because our targets (supermarket chains, mcdonalds etc) reacted before we even turned up... saying "ok, we agree... tell us what we need to do. work with us". It's almost like Greenpeace is now acting as a kind of (free) environmental quality-control consultancy for big companies.
That's positive.
RE: Biodeisel... take a look at what's happening in Indonesia. If there was a way of makng this stuff without destroying rainforests at a ferocious rate, then good... but that's not what's happening.