4 ms·

> They might have missed an opportunity to slow climate change. 35 years ago, I was a pretty ardent and sometimes locally active environmentalist, primarily in

> They might have missed an opportunity to slow climate change. 35 years ago, I was a pretty ardent and sometimes locally active environmentalist, primarily in and around the high mountains of California. And, of course, a member of Greenpeace. Once the true threat of CO2 and friends became apparent to me, I started raising hell about it at local meetings. Pollution does not matter if global average temperature goes up many degrees F. So because of their inability to have a wider, more global outlook, I parted ways with Greenpeace around 1990. I don't dislike the organization, for the most part. But they've been unable to focus on the big picture threats. This is understandable; it's relatively easy to be passionate about the things Greenpeace is into. Things you can 'touch' and directly see. Had they, as an organization, tried to switch their focus to climate change, they'd probably have lost most of their internal energy.

jacquesm 8y ago
The bigger problem I have with Greenpeace is that they started campaigning against renewables here. Lots of dis-information about windmill parks and how solar wasn't feasible anyway. The whole thing turned into a self-perpetuating funding circus with relatively little real world impact.
- radicalbyte 8y ago
  They were doing that in The Netherlands? Idiots. Time to cancel my membership.
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    They came around eventually and are now 100% on board but for a while there was some kind of internal struggle there between the 'statists' who wanted everything to remain as it was or to simply reduce energy consumption and the 'realists' who figured if they were going to be against windmills they were indirectly pro-nuclear. The amount of noise around 'horizonvervuiling' (horizon pollution, I'm not making this up) and reflections from solar panels as well as bird strike stats that were not even close to realistic turned a whole pile of people off from wind energy and solar. But nowadays Greenpeace can't see enough windmill parks so all is good and your contributions are going towards something positive again, though, in all fairness I think Greenpeace really is more of a self-perpetrating PR machine and lobby group than an activist platform. The days of the Rainbow Warrior #1 are long behind us. The interaction between 'Groenlinks' (a political party here) and Greenpeace led to some pretty weird results, I'm sure the coal, oil and natural gas lobbies were having a great old time with the green groups helping them.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      >but for a while there was some kind of internal struggle there between the 'statists' who wanted everything to remain as it was or to simply reduce energy consumption and the 'realists' who figured if they were going to be against windmills they were indirectly pro-nuclear. Well, history will probably say that the actual realists where those that were promoting reducing energy consumption...
  - calcifer 8y ago
    You are going to make membership decisions (for any organization) based on an HN comment with no sources? If so, can I get you to close your Ziggo account and cancel your NS subscription?
    - radicalbyte 8y ago
      Not directly, but when someone like with the reputation Jacques mentions something that important then yeah, I'm going to investigate further (and cancel if it checks out). Regards Greenpeace specifically: I was already on the edge because they've quite frankly become more part of the problem than part of the solution for their stance on existing nuclear energy production. It makes absolutely no sense to close any nuclear generators early when you're still burning coal / peat / ignite / biomass without carbon capture and storage.
      - jacquesm 8y ago
        It is more of a populist thing now which brings in donations hence their stance. In NL being against windmill parks was probably good for their funding even if it was bad for the longer term environment. People pay their contribution today, not in the future.
- codeulike 8y ago
  Was that a very long time ago? Cos I was a Greenpeace member in the 1990s and they were pro-renewables at that time.
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    Yes, it was a long time ago, but it totally turned me off from them (and the Green party, and a couple of other well meaning but mostly clueless groups). The problem was that they were going on and on about what things looked like and exaggerating the risks rather than to look carefully at what alternatives we had. NL is kind of special in that way I guess, people here really care a lot about keeping things traditional. It brings in the tourists and of course it is lovely to see the country through a lens like that. And those pesky windmills and solar panels were going to change all that. So we saw a lot of resistance. In the end they went so far as to determine that any sea based windmill parks had to be an x number of miles off-shore (in much deeper water, increasing construction costs considerably) rather than nearby. Anyway, it's all moot, they came around and since then it has been good to see them fix things (the Green party also came to their senses at some point, but there are still hold-outs that would love to see all the windmills go away because they are eye sores - or at least, in the eyes of some, I think they are beautiful). It is interesting to what extent history has been edited, good luck finding much about horizon pollution, bird strike studies or the effect of all those dark solar panels on our traditionally red brick roofs today. What is also interesting is that we have a huge windmill tradition here, simply because without windmills a lot of the land here would have never been developed (if it even existed) in the first place. So this is the last place in the world where I would expect any kind of headwind (pun intended) for renewable energy. I guess in a hundred years when we have cheap fusion there will be a political party or lobby group trying hard to keep those windmills that are so beautiful.
- dev_north_east 8y ago
  When I was much younger I thought the Greens were onto something and that they were the future. Then they started campaigning against vaccines and spreading lies about same in the media. That led me off them. As I've grown up and lived since then, I've seen them be consistently on the wrong side of issues to which they seem utterly beholden to an ill informed base. No nuclear, no GM, no nothing.

jacquesm 8y ago

The bigger problem I have with Greenpeace is that they started campaigning against renewables here. Lots of dis-information about windmill parks and how solar wasn't feasible anyway. The whole thing turned into a self-perpetuating funding circus with relatively little real world impact.

radicalbyte 8y ago
They were doing that in The Netherlands? Idiots. Time to cancel my membership.
- jacquesm 8y ago
  They came around eventually and are now 100% on board but for a while there was some kind of internal struggle there between the 'statists' who wanted everything to remain as it was or to simply reduce energy consumption and the 'realists' who figured if they were going to be against windmills they were indirectly pro-nuclear. The amount of noise around 'horizonvervuiling' (horizon pollution, I'm not making this up) and reflections from solar panels as well as bird strike stats that were not even close to realistic turned a whole pile of people off from wind energy and solar. But nowadays Greenpeace can't see enough windmill parks so all is good and your contributions are going towards something positive again, though, in all fairness I think Greenpeace really is more of a self-perpetrating PR machine and lobby group than an activist platform. The days of the Rainbow Warrior #1 are long behind us. The interaction between 'Groenlinks' (a political party here) and Greenpeace led to some pretty weird results, I'm sure the coal, oil and natural gas lobbies were having a great old time with the green groups helping them.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >but for a while there was some kind of internal struggle there between the 'statists' who wanted everything to remain as it was or to simply reduce energy consumption and the 'realists' who figured if they were going to be against windmills they were indirectly pro-nuclear. Well, history will probably say that the actual realists where those that were promoting reducing energy consumption...
- calcifer 8y ago
  You are going to make membership decisions (for any organization) based on an HN comment with no sources? If so, can I get you to close your Ziggo account and cancel your NS subscription?
  - radicalbyte 8y ago
    Not directly, but when someone like with the reputation Jacques mentions something that important then yeah, I'm going to investigate further (and cancel if it checks out). Regards Greenpeace specifically: I was already on the edge because they've quite frankly become more part of the problem than part of the solution for their stance on existing nuclear energy production. It makes absolutely no sense to close any nuclear generators early when you're still burning coal / peat / ignite / biomass without carbon capture and storage.
    - jacquesm 8y ago
      It is more of a populist thing now which brings in donations hence their stance. In NL being against windmill parks was probably good for their funding even if it was bad for the longer term environment. People pay their contribution today, not in the future.
codeulike 8y ago
Was that a very long time ago? Cos I was a Greenpeace member in the 1990s and they were pro-renewables at that time.
- jacquesm 8y ago
  Yes, it was a long time ago, but it totally turned me off from them (and the Green party, and a couple of other well meaning but mostly clueless groups). The problem was that they were going on and on about what things looked like and exaggerating the risks rather than to look carefully at what alternatives we had. NL is kind of special in that way I guess, people here really care a lot about keeping things traditional. It brings in the tourists and of course it is lovely to see the country through a lens like that. And those pesky windmills and solar panels were going to change all that. So we saw a lot of resistance. In the end they went so far as to determine that any sea based windmill parks had to be an x number of miles off-shore (in much deeper water, increasing construction costs considerably) rather than nearby. Anyway, it's all moot, they came around and since then it has been good to see them fix things (the Green party also came to their senses at some point, but there are still hold-outs that would love to see all the windmills go away because they are eye sores - or at least, in the eyes of some, I think they are beautiful). It is interesting to what extent history has been edited, good luck finding much about horizon pollution, bird strike studies or the effect of all those dark solar panels on our traditionally red brick roofs today. What is also interesting is that we have a huge windmill tradition here, simply because without windmills a lot of the land here would have never been developed (if it even existed) in the first place. So this is the last place in the world where I would expect any kind of headwind (pun intended) for renewable energy. I guess in a hundred years when we have cheap fusion there will be a political party or lobby group trying hard to keep those windmills that are so beautiful.
dev_north_east 8y ago
When I was much younger I thought the Greens were onto something and that they were the future. Then they started campaigning against vaccines and spreading lies about same in the media. That led me off them. As I've grown up and lived since then, I've seen them be consistently on the wrong side of issues to which they seem utterly beholden to an ill informed base. No nuclear, no GM, no nothing.