5 ms·

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.

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.