Greenpeace On Nuclear Power - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-02-2006, 04:50 AM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:17 PM
Greenpeace On Nuclear Power

They couldn't get the right "alarmist and armageddonist factoid"
Quote:
Before President Bush touched down in Pennsylvania Wednesday to promote his nuclear energy policy, the environmental group Greenpeace was mobilizing.

"This volatile and dangerous source of energy" is no answer to the country's energy needs, shouted a Greenpeace fact sheet decrying the "threat" posed by the Limerick reactors Bush visited.

But a factoid or two later, the Greenpeace authors were stumped while searching for the ideal menacing metaphor.

We present it here exactly as it was written, capital letters and all: "In the twenty years since the Chernobyl tragedy, the world's worst nuclear accident, there have been nearly [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE]."

Had Greenpeace been hacked by a nuke-loving Bush fan? Or was this proof of Greenpeace fear-mongering?

The aghast Greenpeace spokesman who issued the memo, Steve Smith, said a colleague was making a joke by inserting the language in a draft that was then mistakenly released.

"Given the seriousness of the issue at hand, I don't even think it's funny," Smith said.

The final version did not mention Armageddon. It just warned of plane crashes and reactor meltdowns.
link

The mask slips on the opposition to one of the more viable carbon free alternative energy sources.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-02-2006, 08:21 AM   #2
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 02:17 PM
Doesn't change anything.
__________________

__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 06-02-2006, 09:11 AM   #3
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:17 PM
Right it doesn't, well maintained nuclear power plants do not produce greenhouse gases and the burial of nuclear waste in stable geological settings is a reasonable method of disposal.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-02-2006, 09:12 AM   #4
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:17 PM
Good money to be made with alarmist and armageddonist factoids
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-02-2006, 09:36 AM   #5
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 2,710
Local Time: 11:17 AM
Tell me where you can 100% guarantee a stable geological setting?
__________________
Tania is offline  
Old 06-02-2006, 09:45 AM   #6
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 10:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Good money to be made with alarmist and armageddonist factoids


oh come on.

i'm not going to defend Greenpeace on this one -- though nuclear power requires the utmost caution, especially because the potential benefits are tremendous -- but to paint it as some sort of money-making scheme, as if the members of Greenpeace are looking to get rich and make a profit ... that's hardly the case.

99% of people who work for Greenpeace (or PETA, for that matter, who i often disagree with as well) are very sincere people who work very hard for very little money. there's not much money to be made in left-wing activism (as opposed to, say, Exxon), so to paint this as a money-making scheme is silly. will it increase their donations? yes. but it's not like there's even a profit motive to begin with.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-02-2006, 10:58 AM   #7
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 07:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Tania
Tell me where you can 100% guarantee a stable geological setting?
Still waiting for an answer on this one.

Perhaps Australia is nicely geologically stable?
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 06-02-2006, 11:21 AM   #8
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
oh come on.

i'm not going to defend Greenpeace on this one -- though nuclear power requires the utmost caution, especially because the potential benefits are tremendous -- but to paint it as some sort of money-making scheme, as if the members of Greenpeace are looking to get rich and make a profit ... that's hardly the case.

99% of people who work for Greenpeace (or PETA, for that matter, who i often disagree with as well) are very sincere people who work very hard for very little money. there's not much money to be made in left-wing activism (as opposed to, say, Exxon), so to paint this as a money-making scheme is silly. will it increase their donations? yes. but it's not like there's even a profit motive to begin with.
There are many organizations that make money by simply "raising awareness". In a dichotomy where corporations are thought of as "bad", these entities can make some good money, as the "good guys". Usually off the backs of the sincere, low or unpaid paid members.

Perhaps you should take a peek at their financials. Sure their not Exxon, but then again, they don't produce a product or service we use on a daily basis. With reported 2005 income of over $200 Million, it looks like there is money to be made in left-wing activism.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-02-2006, 11:37 AM   #9
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 2,710
Local Time: 11:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


Still waiting for an answer on this one.

Perhaps Australia is nicely geologically stable?


Yep, and I think it will be a long time coming.

And, much as I would love to say, yes, Australia is geologically stable, unfortunately (or fortunately as the case may be) it is not.

Oh, and while we are talking about nuclear waste, what exactly is the half-life of an isotope?
__________________
Tania is offline  
Old 06-02-2006, 11:41 AM   #10
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 10:17 PM
the president of PETA is salaried at $30,000. i make more.

Kristen Engberg the Ex. Director of Greenpeace makes $133K. i have friends in their first year at law firms who make more.

you've got to also be aware of the difference bewteen "raising" money and "making" money.

does Greenpeace put forward an image of sincere, hard-working, underpaid do-gooders who need your money? yes. is this largely correct? yes. is anyone going to get rich off working for Greenpeace? no.

it would also be interesting to see the discrepancy between the highest salaried employee at Greenpeace vs. the average salary and compare that to the inequities between CEO and average worker at a place like Exxon.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-02-2006, 11:45 AM   #11
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 2,710
Local Time: 11:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


There are many organizations that make money by simply "raising awareness". In a dichotomy where corporations are thought of as "bad", these entities can make some good money, as the "good guys". Usually off the backs of the sincere, low or unpaid paid members.

Perhaps you should take a peek at their financials. Sure their not Exxon, but then again, they don't produce a product or service we use on a daily basis. With reported 2005 income of over $200 Million, it looks like there is money to be made in left-wing activism.
No, they do produce a service. They "raise awareness" and in doing so have made people see another point of view or perhaps even research something that normally would have been taken for granted. While the methods they use may not be to everyone's taste, how is this method any different to the crappola we are force fed about needing a war or that there is no money for education or for schools?

In emotive situations, such as nuclear power, where accidents can/do and will continue to happen (as in any industry) but were the consequences can be horrendous to err on the side of caution or alternative sources of power (hey, lets think about this for a minute... solar power.... clean resource, freely available, little impact on the environment, if the money spent on the generation of nuclear power was diverted to R&D for solar power, hmm.... maybe we would have a better environment. Now there's a thought!) would probably be a sensible thing to do.
__________________
Tania is offline  
Old 06-02-2006, 12:04 PM   #12
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
the president of PETA is salaried at $30,000. i make more.

Kristen Engberg the Ex. Director of Greenpeace makes $133K. i have friends in their first year at law firms who make more.

you've got to also be aware of the difference bewteen "raising" money and "making" money.

does Greenpeace put forward an image of sincere, hard-working, underpaid do-gooders who need your money? yes. is this largely correct? yes. is anyone going to get rich off working for Greenpeace? no.

it would also be interesting to see the discrepancy between the highest salaried employee at Greenpeace vs. the average salary and compare that to the inequities between CEO and average worker at a place like Exxon.
Again, I agree that the average worker at Greenpeace probably makes below market salaries & benefits. We can maintain the do-gooder image by contrasting with large multinational corporations all day. But it is still a $200 Million/year business - a fact that most supporters are not fully aware.

And, one can live quite comfortably on $133K a year - many would consider that "rich".
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-02-2006, 12:05 PM   #13
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Tania
No, they do produce a service. They "raise awareness" and in doing so have made people see another point of view or perhaps even research something that normally would have been taken for granted. While the methods they use may not be to everyone's taste, how is this method any different to the crappola we are force fed about needing a war or that there is no money for education or for schools?
How many people budget for "raised awareness"? It is not a commodity people seek. Companies that produce goods and services that people seek will naturally make more money.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-02-2006, 12:13 PM   #14
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 10:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
But it is still a $200 Million/year business - a fact that most supporters are not fully aware.

And, one can live quite comfortably on $133K a year - many would consider that "rich".

the real question is not how much money flows into Greenpeace in any given year -- for an international organization, that's not exactly a mind-blowing number -- the question is how that money is spent.

you and i both know that in coastal urban america, $133K would make someone comfortably middle class. and this is the top salary at the organization. no one gets paid more. in fact, i bet most supporters would be surprised at how little it is -- i expected the top paid person to be making at least $200K, as you'd need some semblance of a 6 figure a year salary to get someone with the skills needed to run such a large organization when they probably could be making three times that in the private sector.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-02-2006, 12:44 PM   #15
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:17 PM
At least $200K a year? I guess there are higher expectations of "making money".
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com