3 ms·

I think we agree on more than we don't. You're listing very reasonable reasons why Greenpeace has failed to, say, reduce our fossil fuel use to meet the Paris A

I think we agree on more than we don't. You're listing very reasonable reasons why Greenpeace has failed to, say, reduce our fossil fuel use to meet the Paris Accords, and why whaling hasn't been completely eradicated. (FWIW my family just got back from Norway, and there were many restaurants and stores that sold whale products for food.) Having said that, your reasons for the campaign against nuclear power include the fact that it's related to bombs, which has nothing to do with Greenpeace. You also reasonably said that "Greenpeace" is short for "environmental groups at large". To me this means that civil society in general came out against nuclear power, which lead to nuclear power being curtailed, which is... how civil society is supposed to work? If the underlying argument is "I wish people in the 1980s had a better understanding of the benefits of nuclear power plants and we had continued to build them, albeit with better safeguards" then I would 100% agree with you. But every time there is a discussion of nuclear power on HN there is a top comment blaming the current lack of it on Greenpeace. It's lazy and intellectually bankrupt. To say that civil society came out against nuclear power after two high profile disasters, due in part to mainstream environmental groups' campaigning, but also due to high construction and electricity costs, low trust in the industry, and the availability of (imperfect!) alternatives, would be much more accurate, if less exciting to upvote.

godelski 2y ago
> the fact that it's related to bombs, which has nothing to do with Greenpeace. >> Greenpeace got its start protesting nuclear weapons testing back in 1971. https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/fighting-climate-chaos/issues/nuclear/ https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/fighting-climate-chaos/issues... > "Greenpeace" is short for "environmental groups at large". To me this means that civil society in general came out against nuclear power, I think you took the meaning different than intended. I'm more saying that someone might substitute "Sierra Nevada Club" with "Green Peace". This includes when people blame. As to the claim that there was dirty money involved, well I find that when I post sources my comments get less engagement. But here's an example (there's others that are easily searchable. Including governments because yes, weapons and energy production are related. Due to enrichment. They don't need to be, but it is an avenue to justify enrichment even if the quantities are dramatically different). https://science.time.com/2012/02/02/exclusive-how-the-sierra-club-took-millions-from-the-natural-gas-industry-and-why-they-stopped/ https://science.time.com/2012/02/02/exclusive-how-the-sierra... > But every time there is a discussion of nuclear power on HN there is a top comment blaming the current lack of it on Greenpeace. It's lazy and intellectually bankrupt. I'm pro nuclear, have a physics degree, and have worked on nuclear tech; I agree with you. But I also think the same is true for the other side (I'll note that I frequently correct many pro nuclear comments. But I'm just tied today and trying to stay off HN more. If you search my history breeder reactors are a common topic). Truth here is that these conversations are excellently complicated. Climate change is one of the, if not THE, most complicated challenges humans have ever faced. All the sub topics have a lot of nuance and complexity to them as well as a lot of misinformation. Even with strong domain backgrounds these are hard topics! (And I doubt many HN users have strong backgrounds in atomics, PV, battery production, energy transmission, various physical engineerings, and so on, let alone all at once) But I do believe a lot of people care and a lot of people are on the same side (fixing the planet and moving away from fossil fuels). And I think it'd be better if we saw that common ground and would argue as if we're on the same team instead of not. So let's bring what pieces we have to the table. Because when we argue like we aren't on the same team, oil is the winner. But I think we can all agree that be it renewable or nuclear (or honestly some combination that is best suited for a given situation and location) are leagues better than fossil fuels and gas. It's also important to recognize that neither camp offers a full solution to the problem. Luckily their solutions aren't complete overlaps. So please do still advocate your position, but we need to also recognize a common enemy who wants to split us apart. Let's save most of the arguing until they're dead. Clearly fighting each other hasn't worked.

godelski 2y ago

> the fact that it's related to bombs, which has nothing to do with Greenpeace. >> Greenpeace got its start protesting nuclear weapons testing back in 1971. https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/fighting-climate-chaos/issues/nuclear/ https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/fighting-climate-chaos/issues... > "Greenpeace" is short for "environmental groups at large". To me this means that civil society in general came out against nuclear power, I think you took the meaning different than intended. I'm more saying that someone might substitute "Sierra Nevada Club" with "Green Peace". This includes when people blame. As to the claim that there was dirty money involved, well I find that when I post sources my comments get less engagement. But here's an example (there's others that are easily searchable. Including governments because yes, weapons and energy production are related. Due to enrichment. They don't need to be, but it is an avenue to justify enrichment even if the quantities are dramatically different). https://science.time.com/2012/02/02/exclusive-how-the-sierra-club-took-millions-from-the-natural-gas-industry-and-why-they-stopped/ https://science.time.com/2012/02/02/exclusive-how-the-sierra... > But every time there is a discussion of nuclear power on HN there is a top comment blaming the current lack of it on Greenpeace. It's lazy and intellectually bankrupt. I'm pro nuclear, have a physics degree, and have worked on nuclear tech; I agree with you. But I also think the same is true for the other side (I'll note that I frequently correct many pro nuclear comments. But I'm just tied today and trying to stay off HN more. If you search my history breeder reactors are a common topic). Truth here is that these conversations are excellently complicated. Climate change is one of the, if not THE, most complicated challenges humans have ever faced. All the sub topics have a lot of nuance and complexity to them as well as a lot of misinformation. Even with strong domain backgrounds these are hard topics! (And I doubt many HN users have strong backgrounds in atomics, PV, battery production, energy transmission, various physical engineerings, and so on, let alone all at once) But I do believe a lot of people care and a lot of people are on the same side (fixing the planet and moving away from fossil fuels). And I think it'd be better if we saw that common ground and would argue as if we're on the same team instead of not. So let's bring what pieces we have to the table. Because when we argue like we aren't on the same team, oil is the winner. But I think we can all agree that be it renewable or nuclear (or honestly some combination that is best suited for a given situation and location) are leagues better than fossil fuels and gas. It's also important to recognize that neither camp offers a full solution to the problem. Luckily their solutions aren't complete overlaps. So please do still advocate your position, but we need to also recognize a common enemy who wants to split us apart. Let's save most of the arguing until they're dead. Clearly fighting each other hasn't worked.