El Cid Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Not directly at least. WWF gets some tens of millions per year from governments. I haven't checked the others. WWF is the world's leading independent conservation organisation. Does the WWF for an environment group too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Can anybody name a major environmental group which is not against nuclear power? I've been looking as I can't find any. Moonbat is not a lobby group and I generally don't have a problem with his column. Climate change we told poses an existential threat to humanity. Nuclear waste does not. Why then delay tackling climate change by refusing to adopt nuclear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) Can anybody name a major environmental group which is not against nuclear power? No, mostly their thinking is distorted by what they want to believe, kind of like how you somehow don't believe that the billion dollar coal and gas industries don't have significantly more power than them (and have chosen to completely ignore the point about the massive subsidies they receive, instead only choosing to focus only on government grants that go to green energies). You don't want to feel like you're taking the side of Goliath against David. Why not focus on educating people about nuclear power instead of using it as a stick to bash the apparently all pervasive green lobby? Their hearts are in the right places, they're just wrong. That does not apply to the lobbyists for fossil fuel companies. Edited January 12, 2017 by flamingjimmy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 No, mostly their thinking is distorted by what they want to believe, kind of like how you somehow don't believe that the billion dollar coal and gas industries don't have significantly more power than them (and have chosen to completely ignore the point about the massive subsidies they receive, instead only choosing to focus only on government grants that go to green energies). You don't want to feel like you're taking the side of Goliath against David. Why not focus on educating people about nuclear power instead of using it as a stick to bash the apparently all pervasive green lobby? Their hearts are in the right places, they're just wrong. That does not apply to the lobbyists for fossil fuel companies. I don't think the green lobbyists are wrong. If they did I would take the approach you suggest. I think that they're false. I have no love for the fossil lobbyists either. I'm not sure why they're relevant to the matter of nuclear vs renewables though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) I don't think the green lobbyists are wrong. If they did I would take the approach you suggest. I think that they're false. You think they genuinely know and understand that nuclear is relatively safe and environmentally friendly yet still deliberately choose to pretend that it isn't and lie about it in order to pursue the renewable energy agenda? That's insane! Why assume conspiracy when stupidity can much more simply explain it? Try Ockham's razor. Edited January 12, 2017 by flamingjimmy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 You think they genuinely know and understand that nuclear is relatively safe and environmentally friendly yet still deliberately choose to pretend that it isn't and lie about it in order to pursue the renewable energy agenda? That's insane! Why assume conspiracy when stupidity can much more simply explain it? Try Ockham's razor. It's not insane just cynical. They reject fossil and it's obvious replacements then they have decades of funding and meaning fighting a problem that they've basically created. It's not plausible that they don't know. Its too damn obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) It's not insane just cynical. They reject fossil and it's obvious replacements then they have decades of funding and meaning fighting a problem that they've basically created. It's not plausible that they don't know. Its too damn obvious. So I'll echo Obelix's response from about a page ago: Do you have a reference for that assertion? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And you're not just being cynical you're invoking a conspiracy that envelopes (as you yourself have pointed out) every single high ranking member of every major environmental group, with none of them ever coming out about it, over about 60 years. No really there isn't a conspiracy against nuclear energy (apart from that coming from the fossil fuel industry who actually do have massive vested interests in the regions of billions and billions of pounds in keeping us reliant on them). The grass roots green movement certainly isn't a part of it. It's just lack of education and people being silly for the most part. Edited January 12, 2017 by flamingjimmy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 You think they genuinely know and understand that nuclear is relatively safe and environmentally friendly yet still deliberately choose to pretend that it isn't and lie about it in order to pursue the renewable energy agenda? it's relatively safe only until it goes wrong.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 it's relatively safe only until it goes wrong.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster All the deaths from Chernobyl were factored into the numbers I quoted earlier, and are dwarfed every year by the number of deaths caused by other methods of power generation. Per amount of power generated, Nuclear is the safest energy generation method we have. You'd be 10 times safer working in a nuclear power plant than you would be installing solar panels on someone's roof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin-H Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 it's relatively safe only until it goes wrong.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster As has already been discussed on this thread the number of deaths when hydroelectric power goes wrong (dam burst) have been much higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now