13 ms·

Greenpeace is directly working against nuclear energy, which is the best way to have clean energy in the future for a large portion of humanity.

colinmhayes 6y ago
I don't think that changes how much the Koch's donated to climate change deniers.
- the-dude 6y ago
  Would you please consider using heretics instead of the energy wasting climate change deniers? This would emit about 60% less CO2, mind you.
- forest_dweller 6y ago
  It highlights the very important point that activist groups will quite often ignore viable solutions. This is usually because they wish to keep on being activists and keep on continuing the fight. Thus it brings into question anything they claim and all claims should be treated with skepticism.
  - aniro 6y ago
    Have you seen how big the Chernobyl exclusion zone is? are to move your family there? Have you paid any attention to the after effects at Fukushima? Do you care to realize that we are pushing radiation with unknown effects into the largest body of water (and one of the greatest repositories of life) on Earth? That the effects will likely reverberate for a 1000 years or more? What is your solution to the problem of accumulating Nuclear waste? Has it occurred to you that life has succeeded on the planet primarily by a fantastical luck of getting dosed with EXACTLY the right amount of radiation, carefully controlled by an atmosphere that literal took a millennia of millennia in order to develop? That fucking with that balance by inviting disastrous and unknown consequences into that careful envelope might turn some people off? No. You must be right.. just a bunch of loony activists that are clinging desperately to the activist identity. How shallow and unconsidered an opinion. Did it make you feel as smug as it sounded when you typed it out?
    - bhickey 6y ago
      > Has it occurred to you that life has succeeded on the planet primarily by a fantastical luck of getting dosed with EXACTLY the right amount of radiation, carefully controlled by an atmosphere that literal took a millennia of millennia in order to develop? Well, no. We aren't in some mystical radiation balance with nature. Heritable point mutations are primarily driven by DNA polymerase errors and repair failures, not by radiation damage. Ultraviolet light is good at causing thymidine cross-linking, which can give rise to cancers, but this is irrelevant to heritable change. Likewise, higher energy particles can cut DNA, but compared to crossing over events during chromosomal assortment this has approximately no bearing on heritable change.
      - aniro 6y ago
        I gather all of that evidence was collected from Martian samples? Maybe Venus? Was it derived from DNA developed on the Moon? What does make Earth just right for you to have developed in order to be aware, gain such knowledge, share such knowledge? Untold eons of carefully controlled radiant energy emitted by our blessed Sun. The Sun and its ilk are massive emitters of radiant energy. Light is a form of radiation. Heat is a form of radiation. The universe is full of lifeless rocks either burnt by the sun or left out in the cold. In fact, all the ones we know of exist in this state except this one. I am not advocating some “mystical radiation balance with nature” so much as pointing out that “life” (as we know it) is playing the long game on controlling radiant energy doses. When we muck about with that by playing our dumb little short game without consideration for the consequences we invite disaster upon ourselves. All of this discussion about global warming is pointless if we leave large swathes of the planet uninhabitable by humans.
        Miraste 6y ago
        You know that we can measure and control for radiation in experiments, right? And that radiation levels are not constant across the planet?
        aniro 6y ago
- cwhiz 6y ago
  It changes my evaluation of the claim, which is sourced by Greenpeace. In the long run I have no doubt that Greenpeace will have caused more damage than the Koch family. We could have clean energy right now if it weren’t for the decades of nuclear fear mongering, and the Koch family isn’t even opposed to nuclear.
  - arshbot 6y ago
    Is this a troll? Comparing a single point on greenpiece's agenda to literally hundreds of millions of dollars Koch dollars to climate change deniers as a whole are simply incomparable. Just in case this is somehow contestable, let me highlight a few points * Climate change deniers oppose solutions that don't involve oil/gas/coal - this means nuclear power * Koch funding > greenpiece funding * greenpeice didn't start nuclear fear mongering, pro-oil lobbyists did - AKA climate change deniers.
    - Godel_unicode 6y ago
      Greenpeace's annual budget for activism (as opposed to fundraising, which eats roughly 1/3 of their budget) is on the order of $200 million. That's more than the lifetime spending of the Koch brothers, and Greenpeace does that volume every year. They're not some scrappy little actor, they're one of the single largest lobbying groups in the entire world.
      - lazyasciiart 6y ago
        I don't know where you are getting your numbers, but they are orders of magnitude wrong. The Koch brothers also spend about $200million/year. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/27/koch-brothers-network-to-spend-400-million-in-midterm-election-cycle.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/27/koch-brothers-network-to-spe...
        chipotle_coyote 6y ago
        Also, the numbers for Greenpeace are wrong, according to their annual reports. https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/about/annual-reports-and-financial-statements/ https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/about/annual-reports-and-fina... Their expenditures for all their "program services" (their various activism campaigns) was $27.4M in 2019 and $26.3M in 2018. If the Koch Bros. spend about $200M a year on activism, they're actually substantially outspending Greenpeace. Which, well, is to be expected: Greenpeace is a non-profit that's very often taking positions opposing major corporations. (Greenpeace is actually a collection of quasi-independent groups around the world, but since the Koch's activism is primarily focused in the US, it makes sense to compare them to Greenpeace USA.)
- missedthecue 6y ago
  Do you have a quote where they deny it is changing?
  - zbyte64 6y ago
    The claim isn't that the Koch brothers deny climate change, but that they funded climate "skeptic" think tanks. They knew full well what they were doing.
legulere 6y ago
Renewables are cheaper and faster to deploy now and getting cheaper.
a-nikolaev 6y ago
Nuclear energy is still dangerous. For example, it is still not safe against possible natural disasters (Fukushima), as well as from possible terrorist attacks. Imagine a 9/11 type of accident with a nuclear plant as its target. Potential danger is still extremely high, even if the chances of it are very small. We still cannot correctly estimate the risks of nuclear energy, after all these years.
- rurounijones 6y ago
  > Nuclear energy is still dangerous. For example, it is still not safe against possible natural disasters (Fukushima), I mean, if we are going to be bringing up a single datapoint then allow me to raise a counterpoint. Nuclear energy is still safe. For example, it is still safe against possible natural disasters (Onagawa) [1] [1] https://thebulletin.org/2014/03/onagawa-the-japanese-nuclear-power-plant-that-didnt-melt-down-on-3-11/ https://thebulletin.org/2014/03/onagawa-the-japanese-nuclear...
  - pydry 6y ago
    It's also, like, 4x more expensive per kWh (probably 2x more expensive with variability taken into account) than wind or solar and is uninsurable without a government backstop. I really wonder why people are so keen on it. It made sense to build them 40 years ago to deal with global warming. Today it's only financially viable if it's massively subsidized compared to wind/solar. What is it that makes that extra cost so worthwhile?
    - iSnow 6y ago
      Well, the idea of an energy source that never fails, is abundant and reliable has some allure. Solar and wind seem capricious in comparison. Nevertheless, nuclear has some big issues: try to switch to it now and it will take decades for the power plants to be build. Expensive as well and leaves a lot of toxic and radioactive waste.
    - p1necone 6y ago
      The impression I get is that people are still hung up on nuclear not getting widely adopted decades ago when it was the best option. So they're still trying to make that argument now despite there being better options because they feel wronged.
pfdietz 6y ago
Nuclear energy is working against nuclear energy, by being far too expensive to compete.
spodek 6y ago
Nothing beats reducing consumption.
Ma8ee 6y ago
When you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. Duh!

colinmhayes 6y ago

I don't think that changes how much the Koch's donated to climate change deniers.

the-dude 6y ago
Would you please consider using heretics instead of the energy wasting climate change deniers? This would emit about 60% less CO2, mind you.
forest_dweller 6y ago
It highlights the very important point that activist groups will quite often ignore viable solutions. This is usually because they wish to keep on being activists and keep on continuing the fight. Thus it brings into question anything they claim and all claims should be treated with skepticism.
- aniro 6y ago
  Have you seen how big the Chernobyl exclusion zone is? are to move your family there? Have you paid any attention to the after effects at Fukushima? Do you care to realize that we are pushing radiation with unknown effects into the largest body of water (and one of the greatest repositories of life) on Earth? That the effects will likely reverberate for a 1000 years or more? What is your solution to the problem of accumulating Nuclear waste? Has it occurred to you that life has succeeded on the planet primarily by a fantastical luck of getting dosed with EXACTLY the right amount of radiation, carefully controlled by an atmosphere that literal took a millennia of millennia in order to develop? That fucking with that balance by inviting disastrous and unknown consequences into that careful envelope might turn some people off? No. You must be right.. just a bunch of loony activists that are clinging desperately to the activist identity. How shallow and unconsidered an opinion. Did it make you feel as smug as it sounded when you typed it out?
  - bhickey 6y ago
    > Has it occurred to you that life has succeeded on the planet primarily by a fantastical luck of getting dosed with EXACTLY the right amount of radiation, carefully controlled by an atmosphere that literal took a millennia of millennia in order to develop? Well, no. We aren't in some mystical radiation balance with nature. Heritable point mutations are primarily driven by DNA polymerase errors and repair failures, not by radiation damage. Ultraviolet light is good at causing thymidine cross-linking, which can give rise to cancers, but this is irrelevant to heritable change. Likewise, higher energy particles can cut DNA, but compared to crossing over events during chromosomal assortment this has approximately no bearing on heritable change.
    - aniro 6y ago
      I gather all of that evidence was collected from Martian samples? Maybe Venus? Was it derived from DNA developed on the Moon? What does make Earth just right for you to have developed in order to be aware, gain such knowledge, share such knowledge? Untold eons of carefully controlled radiant energy emitted by our blessed Sun. The Sun and its ilk are massive emitters of radiant energy. Light is a form of radiation. Heat is a form of radiation. The universe is full of lifeless rocks either burnt by the sun or left out in the cold. In fact, all the ones we know of exist in this state except this one. I am not advocating some “mystical radiation balance with nature” so much as pointing out that “life” (as we know it) is playing the long game on controlling radiant energy doses. When we muck about with that by playing our dumb little short game without consideration for the consequences we invite disaster upon ourselves. All of this discussion about global warming is pointless if we leave large swathes of the planet uninhabitable by humans.
      - Miraste 6y ago
        You know that we can measure and control for radiation in experiments, right? And that radiation levels are not constant across the planet?
        aniro 6y ago
cwhiz 6y ago
It changes my evaluation of the claim, which is sourced by Greenpeace. In the long run I have no doubt that Greenpeace will have caused more damage than the Koch family. We could have clean energy right now if it weren’t for the decades of nuclear fear mongering, and the Koch family isn’t even opposed to nuclear.
- arshbot 6y ago
  Is this a troll? Comparing a single point on greenpiece's agenda to literally hundreds of millions of dollars Koch dollars to climate change deniers as a whole are simply incomparable. Just in case this is somehow contestable, let me highlight a few points * Climate change deniers oppose solutions that don't involve oil/gas/coal - this means nuclear power * Koch funding > greenpiece funding * greenpeice didn't start nuclear fear mongering, pro-oil lobbyists did - AKA climate change deniers.
  - Godel_unicode 6y ago
    Greenpeace's annual budget for activism (as opposed to fundraising, which eats roughly 1/3 of their budget) is on the order of $200 million. That's more than the lifetime spending of the Koch brothers, and Greenpeace does that volume every year. They're not some scrappy little actor, they're one of the single largest lobbying groups in the entire world.
    - lazyasciiart 6y ago
      I don't know where you are getting your numbers, but they are orders of magnitude wrong. The Koch brothers also spend about $200million/year. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/27/koch-brothers-network-to-spend-400-million-in-midterm-election-cycle.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/27/koch-brothers-network-to-spe...
      - chipotle_coyote 6y ago
        Also, the numbers for Greenpeace are wrong, according to their annual reports. https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/about/annual-reports-and-financial-statements/ https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/about/annual-reports-and-fina... Their expenditures for all their "program services" (their various activism campaigns) was $27.4M in 2019 and $26.3M in 2018. If the Koch Bros. spend about $200M a year on activism, they're actually substantially outspending Greenpeace. Which, well, is to be expected: Greenpeace is a non-profit that's very often taking positions opposing major corporations. (Greenpeace is actually a collection of quasi-independent groups around the world, but since the Koch's activism is primarily focused in the US, it makes sense to compare them to Greenpeace USA.)
missedthecue 6y ago
Do you have a quote where they deny it is changing?
- zbyte64 6y ago
  The claim isn't that the Koch brothers deny climate change, but that they funded climate "skeptic" think tanks. They knew full well what they were doing.

legulere 6y ago

Renewables are cheaper and faster to deploy now and getting cheaper.

a-nikolaev 6y ago

Nuclear energy is still dangerous. For example, it is still not safe against possible natural disasters (Fukushima), as well as from possible terrorist attacks. Imagine a 9/11 type of accident with a nuclear plant as its target. Potential danger is still extremely high, even if the chances of it are very small. We still cannot correctly estimate the risks of nuclear energy, after all these years.

rurounijones 6y ago
> Nuclear energy is still dangerous. For example, it is still not safe against possible natural disasters (Fukushima), I mean, if we are going to be bringing up a single datapoint then allow me to raise a counterpoint. Nuclear energy is still safe. For example, it is still safe against possible natural disasters (Onagawa) [1] [1] https://thebulletin.org/2014/03/onagawa-the-japanese-nuclear-power-plant-that-didnt-melt-down-on-3-11/ https://thebulletin.org/2014/03/onagawa-the-japanese-nuclear...
- pydry 6y ago
  It's also, like, 4x more expensive per kWh (probably 2x more expensive with variability taken into account) than wind or solar and is uninsurable without a government backstop. I really wonder why people are so keen on it. It made sense to build them 40 years ago to deal with global warming. Today it's only financially viable if it's massively subsidized compared to wind/solar. What is it that makes that extra cost so worthwhile?
  - iSnow 6y ago
    Well, the idea of an energy source that never fails, is abundant and reliable has some allure. Solar and wind seem capricious in comparison. Nevertheless, nuclear has some big issues: try to switch to it now and it will take decades for the power plants to be build. Expensive as well and leaves a lot of toxic and radioactive waste.
  - p1necone 6y ago
    The impression I get is that people are still hung up on nuclear not getting widely adopted decades ago when it was the best option. So they're still trying to make that argument now despite there being better options because they feel wronged.

pfdietz 6y ago

Nuclear energy is working against nuclear energy, by being far too expensive to compete.

spodek 6y ago

Nothing beats reducing consumption.

Ma8ee 6y ago

When you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. Duh!