1. @ael – The debate was fairly interesting, though I have to admit that “my side” was far better prepared and passionate than the Greenpeace side.

    The top down approach that Roger Levett described for how he would reduce energy consumption was downright chilling.

    There was a “smoking gun” moment as Doug Parr, Senior Scientist at Greenpeace, described his organization’s strong support for gas fired combined heating and power (CHP) plants as a proper substitute for nuclear energy.

    1. I have listened to both Levett’s and Monbiot’s call to curb world energy demand. Pretty smart move directed to third world citizens, who I now reckon, have no need for refrigeration or quality of life or economic growth after all.

      There is only one way to curb demand for anything, and you can ask your favorite ‘greens’, and it is to increase the price of the underlying commodity. People will behave in crazy and unsuspected ways to maintain their ‘economic utility’ curve unchanged.

      Don’t kid yourself, the german leader of Greenpeace ain’t taking no bus nor is he going to walk some more. His wallet is thick enough. He has no incentive to do so because GAZPROM finances his organisation at the rate of 100 million dollars a year to fight nuclear and stand aside when gas plants are proposed.

      There are no valid reasons that clean energy based on knowledge, like nuclear fission, cannot be the main source of base load energy to support family confort, economic growth and mass transportation in any modern economy.

      Don’t give me that decreasing demand BS when the entire planet can benefit from carbon free energy.

      We have the knowledge to make energy. We can do without carbon.

      1. Daniel – Greenpeace does more than “stand aside” when gas plants are proposed. As Doug Parr clearly stated during the debate, they strongly advocate for the construction of gas fired combined heating and power plants.

        After I heard that, I went searching and found this brochure:


        Greenpeace was pretty straightforward during the discussion – their chief scientist essentially described how his organization was employed to market large wind, solar and gas power plants to replace the nuclear plants that they oppose. Of course, he phrased it a little differently, but that is what he said.

      2. Combined heat and power is all very well, but I don’t see where the U.K. has the infrastructure to use it. Building a heat distribution network is hugely expensive which is why most existing steam districts are legacy systems that were founded in the early part of the last century or before. And this doesn’t include the cost of converting end-user’s appliances to take advantage of this source.

        Also, there is absolutely nothing preventing a nuclear reactor from being the primary heat source on such a system, and indeed there are several examples of just that in the ex-Soviet Bloc.

        Oh well at least Greenpiss is showing its true colors

      3. I thought Greenpeace (unlike certain other environmentalist organizations) had a policy of refusing to take corporate money — where is your source for the claim that Greenpeace is taking $100m per year from Gazprom?

        If it could be confirmed, then that could blow Greenpeace out of the water if disseminated widely enough. For thing, it would paint them as traitors in Russia’s pocket.

        Historically, one of the biggest weaknesses of the international Communist movement was that it was (largely) centrally controlled from the Kremlin, allowing anti-Communists to portray Communists outside the Soviet Union as being traitors bent on selling out their country to the Russians.

      4. @George
        Greenpeace Germany is the best financed national office in the world.

        At the end of 2006, it generated annual returns of approximately 40 million Euros.

        I read recently that huge amounts of money were being injected by GAZPROM into Greenpeace thru disguised personal donations. I do not recall the source but it is a very recent article.

      5. @George

        It was in English. But the financing of Greenpeace by GAZPROM or Big Oil is not news from what I understand.

        It was not the first time I heard about Greenpeace’s corporate financing. The only thing green about Greenpeace is its huge financial resources.

        No wonder Patrick Moore jumped ship when he realized that Greenpeace was becoming an extremist organisation.

        And don’t kid yourself, the governments around the world do not mind exempting those organisations from any form of taxation as it keeps them busy focussing on other stuff than big politics. Better put their focus put on environmental stuff than real politics as far as head of nations are concerned.

      6. @George

        Financing makes strange bedfellows. How do you think Cousteau was able to explore marine life and the oceans all these years ?

        While diving, he was giving important information to Oil companies (TOTAL to name one) on potential deposits.

        In exchange, he received funding.

      7. @Daniel,

        I’m not disputing your claims, but I’d dearly love to be able to read your original source, and I was wondering if you could help me track it down.

        By the way — here’s an idea for a bumper sticker: the slogan “NO TO NUCLEAR! YES TO RENEWABLES GAS!” (with RENEWABLES crossed out — unfortunately I don’t think the <s> tag works on these comments), and underneath the Greenpeace logo with a red star after it, and the initial G of Greenpeace replaced with the G of Gazprom.

      8. @George

        I spent 3 hours trying to find the specific article thru my web archives to no avail.

        But I did find this link that shows specific sections of Greenpeace USA Audited Financial Statements. The funding from the right wing and powerful oil is right in there and cannot be disputed.

        From there, believing that GAZPROM will find its way into Greenpeace Germany cannot be considered a leap of faith.


    2. Regarding Roger Levett’s ‘top down’ approach to energy saving, need I remind everyone that the Buddha tried and rejected asceticism? Access to energy is what separates third world countries from rich countries. It’s time we all get this.

      Will we go back in time and finance the construction of our nuclear plants using John Calvin’s social and economic views? If we listen to Roger, we might.

      Nuclear energy is the ultimate ‘equalizer’ and carbon ressource bound countries should wake up and so should the WNA, IAEA and all the other nuclear promoters who are not doing such a great job.

  2. While energy saving is a necessary part of the solution, that doesn’t translate in less electricity, since all transport and heating needs to go electric in a zero carbon emission world.

    I kind of liked the fact that the fossil greens in this debate were defeated quite convincingly in the final tally and generally looked clueless as well as inept. Both of them read their statements from some paper. How do they expect the audience to remember what they say if they are unable to do so themselves?

    My favorite moment was at the end, when the Greenpeace guy had to admit being completely clueless about recent developments in Germany in answer to the question by Mark Lynas.

  3. I will make some more comprehensive response to the above on an additional DSA post, but a huge thank you to Rod Adams for his kind words and the (sometimes much needed) encouragement to press on. I am deeply appreciative. Thanks also to KF Lenz for posting the video link; we are very proud of that piece of work and would love to see a few more hits from the US.

    1. Ben – thanks for dropping by. Good luck with your continuing efforts. I have updated the post with an embed of your excellent video. I hope that more of my pronuclear blogging friends do the same; it deserves wider exposure.

  4. http://www.npr.org/2011/07/06/137633351/at-u-s-nuclear-reactors-crews-train-for-the-worst

    What boggles me with NPR and Greenpeace and AatlanticWire.com and their scare-seeding ilk is that the big ultimate Meltdown accident they’d been all dreading (hankering for) finally occurred — in multiple sets no less — yet Doomsday fell a poor long third to a overlooked quake. Instead of showing their let down they’re still fanning the flames to a bewildered public. Truth should douse their fire some.

    James Greenidge

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

Similar Posts