3 ms·
It is pretty surprising that Greenpeace, an organization that was for years actively fighting nuclear energy, what led to the crappy climate warming situation w
by piokoch 2y ago
It is pretty surprising that Greenpeace, an organization that was for years actively fighting nuclear energy, what led to the crappy climate warming situation we have now, is accusing someone of "climate destroying".
- triceratops 2y agoIf protesting vigorously, particularly by Greenpeace, killed nuclear energy, why isn't it working for fossil fuels?
- prepend 2y agoThere’s a lot more money in fossil fuels. And it’s more distributed with way more active sites than nuclear. It takes like, what, 15 years to bring a reactor online? A well can be dug and producing in 1-2 years and there are tens of thousands of them.
- triceratops 2y ago> There’s a lot more money in fossil fuels Ding ding ding. You've found who/what killed nuclear. They even managed to frame the environmentalists.
- akimbostrawman 2y agoIs it really framing when they voluntarily rally against it for decades while also gaining from it. At best they seem like useful idiots.
- triceratops 2y agoWhat else would you call it? Words don't end profitable businesses. Especially not in the energy industry.
- prepend 2y agoPerhaps someone should tell this to Greenpeace and their donors. Seems all that protesting and $660m judgement is for naught. According to you.
- triceratops 2y ago> Seems all that protesting... is for naught. According to you. The pipeline went live in 2017. Did protesting work?
- criddell 2y agoBecause people are already afraid of nuclear. It doesn’t take much to stoke those fires. Oil and gasoline are things that people are more familiar and comfortable with.
- triceratops 2y agoYou're forgetting money. O&G were, and continue to be, cheaper than nuclear so the slander stuck. The fossil fuel industry is trying the same playbook against solar power now. For a long time because solar + batteries were more expensive they didn't have to work very hard at it.
- Aloisius 2y agoRegular people don't own nuclear power plants. Banning new ones from being built had little immediate personal impact. Regular people do own devices that use fossil fuels. Banning them means people would immediately have to replace vehicles, water heaters, heaters, stoves, ovens, grills, generators, etc. Raising fuel prices means people immediately feel it.
- lupusreal 2y agoThe only thing you can count on Greenpeace to consistently do is to subversively attack the economic stability and defense capabilities of western liberal democracies.
- croes 2y agoThat is not what caused climate warming. Nuclear energy isn’t a simple substitute for fossil fuels in the industry.