3 ms·
What I don't understand is why this is so controversial. Meticulously planned political & media interference campaigns run by fossil fuel companies and related
by crispinb 7y ago
What I don't understand is why this is so controversial.
Meticulously planned political & media interference campaigns run by fossil fuel companies and related think tanks. They understood the implications of climate change by the late 1970's and knew the writing was on the wall. They executed plans to delay political action for as long as possible in exactly the same way corporations had done with regard to tobacco regulation since the 1950s. These conspiracies against science and the public interest were remarkably successful. In some cases (eg. Heartland Institute) the very same organisations were involved in both campaigns.
- piokoch 7y agoBut why Greenpeace and majority of other environmentalists where so strongly against nuclear energy? Were they the part of this conspiracy? It would be good to know, as all those eco organizations are still functioning and likely they are still governed by the people who were involved in this conspiracy?
- kaybe 7y agoI think they were blindsided by how huge of an issue climate change has become. If we had started decades earlier (and the knowledge was there), it might still have been a somewhat comfortable path, even without nuclear. And nuclear does have its problems. I used to be against it, but right now the risk and problems are just not an issue compared to the consequences of carbon emissions.
- mrguyorama 7y agoI view Greenpeace on the same level as PETA, a front for power hungry people to do whatever they want and have fanatical followers. I do not believe they are trying to genuinely push for a better world