Similar Posts

Recent Comments from our Readers

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

10 Comments

  1. Don’t call them Luddites – the original Luddites were not against technology per se, but only against technology which would make them unemployed. I don’t think the likes of Greenpeace and the Sierra Club are fighting to save jobs.
    Some alternative terms I suggested (on this Depleted Cranium thread – read for explanation) were “technophobes”, “neo-Mongols” or “21st-century Huns”…

    1. George – if you look past the rhetoric and pull the string to find out where the organizations get their funding, I think you might agree with Pete that the term Luddite is a pretty good one to apply to the likes of Greenpeace and the Sierra Club.
      The vocal, publicly facing marketing concept for the groups is that they are sandal wearing defenders of the “environment” against corporate greed and even rational development. Some observers cast them in the light of being completely against technology development and desirous of a return to a more simple utopia. In many cases, the groups encourage this perception.
      The reality is that Greenpeace, Sierra Club, World Wildlife Federation, the National Resources Defense Council, and Public Interest Research Group (among many others) are large, professionally organized corporations that obtain hundreds of millions of dollars each year in corporate donations to support their campaigns. If you scratch hard on the surface of these groups and meet the people in leadership positions, you will find that they engage in carefully chosen agendas that are often suggested by the corporate sponsors.
      In many cases, those campaigns actually serve to reduce the supply of particular commodities like developable waterfront property, real estate zoned for industrial or commercial use, energy, air transportation, or property that has good access to a surface road network. When the supply of a commodity is reduced by preventing competitors from developing a viable alternative to the supply that is already in the market, the major beneficiaries of that campaign – from a financial perspective – are the same corporation that invested in the non-profit corporations in the first place.
      Sometimes, the corporations do not have full control of the groups, since they pull the strings at arms length, but in general, the groups do not spend much of their effort going against existing suppliers.
      In other words, just like the Luddites who destroyed mechanical weaving machines because they threatened their income through a supply increasing competition, modern day non-profits that engage in well organized campaigns to destroy new technologies are working for organizations whose profits are at risk by allowing new suppliers into the market.
      Same motivation, similar techniques, different era.

      1. So Greenpeace et al are false flag organizations who are actually serving corporate goals? Reminds me of the Masada Action and Defense Movement, a French far-right terrorist group which attacked Muslims and framed Jews for the bombings.
        I read on the Making Light forum that Greenpeace’s “Stop Esso” campaign (Esso is the British name for ExxonMobil) received funding from a rival oil company. Greenpeace has also been paid by foundations to oppose GM crops.
        Given the anti-corporate image of Greenpeace and similar groups, why haven’t such links been exposed in the media by people who want to bring them down?

  2. George – exactly what “media” do you expect to do this kind of investigative journalism? The commercial one that makes its living by publishing advertisements from the same corporations involved in selling the established products against the upstart competitors?
    You can – and apparently have – find the stories and the back up if you look hard enough on the web. I have documented a few of the specific instances that I have found in my concentration area of atomic energy opposition. You can find them if you search Atomic Insights with the words “smoking gun”.

    1. In other words, the “Green” groups and the media are both working for the same set of corporate oligarchs? Defeating this oligarchy sounds to me like a problem going far beyond the energy question…

      1. George – that may be true, but like any good soldier, I have to focus on my own part of the battle. I am not necessarily looking to defeat the oligarchs, but to influence and shape the battlefield.

  3. For our part, we have been keeping tabs on corporations involved in these activities and boycott their products. If you do this, make sure you send the company an email to inform them that you will no longer be supporting their products.

    1. Lynne – is there a place where you have a list of the corporations that you are following and some information that links them to the activities?

      1. There is a partial list and some links at http://www.nocapandtrade.com/boycott/ . A few minutes on Google will provide more information. We just passed up a GE washer and dryer and decided not to put our commuted pension in the TD Bank in Canada due to their involvement in a Suzuki Foundation study. I also read that there is a movement afoot by citizens to remove their money from the big banks. If you check the Chicago Carbon Exchange, you will find that big investment banks are also heavily invested with carbon emissions trading and stand to make a lot of money-which means profit for them and a compromised energy supply plan and higher electricity prices for the rest of us. It makes absolutely NO sense that nuclear is being sidelined by ‘environmentalists’ and politicians claiming to be concerned about AGW, when nuclear and hydroelectric are the cleanest forms of energy. Those self-same environmentalists and politicians then proclaim that wind turbines and solar panels will “repower” the future, which is patently absurb, as wind and solar serve mainly as distractions for the backup generation of coal and natural gas. Have you noticed who the major companies are building the large renewable projects? Up in Canada, quite a few of the wind farms are being built by oil and natural gas companies. Could it be that they are after the carbon credits to offset their other business activities? Does nuclear need carbon offsets – not really, so they have been left out of the game.

        1. Lynne – this is terrific information. You might enjoy searching Atomic Insights for the term “smoking gun” to read some of the posts where I identify a close relationship between anti-nuclear activity or statements and producing or selling fossil fuel. In many of those posts, I also point out the interest that fossil fuel producers – particularly oil/gas companies – have in solar and wind projects. Even traditional “nuclear” companies like GE and Siemens have a strong interest in producing alternative energy equipment and financing the projects.
          I do not keep my money in a major money center bank; I prefer credit unions and banks like USAA. I also do not use mutual funds; I have been buying individual stocks in carefully selected companies since I was 18.

Comments are closed.