Greenpeace are cocks

[Tom]

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/fridaythe13th/

Really, I mean how likely is that to happen? And do they seriously think that something like that could possibly be a safety risk comparable with 9/11?

Do me a favour. Idiots.

 

[throdgrain]

The only trouble with them is I never know what they do want, only what they dont

 

[Jupitus]

... it's also pretty fucking inconsiderate towards those who lost friends or relatives in the 9/11 incidents.... pillocks.

 

[tris-]

greenpeace are noobs, like the animal rights people who get peace by causing havoc.

 

[Earl]

Better yet, lets not build any power facilities at all, or even buildings. For it'll be a target for planes!

 

[ECA]

We all need to go back to subsistence farming and bartering.

 

[Whipped]

I enjoyed the trailer, looks like it could be a good film. When's it due out

Cocks!

 

[old.user4556]

The only trouble with them is I never know what they do want, only what they dont

Exactly, extremism may be the only way to get through to them. What I mean by that; lets just let blackouts occur, extortionate leccy prices, rationing etc - then ask them if they want nuclear power.

The power is going to have to come from somewhere - excuse my ignorance - but what are greenpeace suggesting as an alternative? Wave power? bwahaha!

 

[leggy]

I think you are missing the point.

They are using a tactic that will get through to the ignorants (a bit harsh maybe); the people who are not informed enough to understand and debate the real issues with nuclear power.

Now I must say before the muppets jump down my throat - I do not advocate this tactic and I am ambivalent about the use of nuclear power stations.

Plus as far as I'm aware they are not suggesting an alternative at all. I am sure they are aware that renewables (wind esp.) are backed up by about 90% carbon producing fuels (and heavily subsidised). I would expect them to playing the 'efficiency' card now.

 

[JBP|]

Damn,why do they cut stuff just as the good bits start to happen?

 

[old.user4556]

I see Leggy, thus buying into the sympathies of the retarded UK public?

 

[leggy]

I see Leggy, thus buying into the sympathies of the retarded UK public?

Something like that.

Put yourself in their shoes though.

1) you feel strongly about something
2) you need to get your point across in about 2 mins max
3) do you:
-------- a) launch into a technical teaching session on the perils of nuclear fuel?
-------- b) go for the shock tactic?

 

[old.user4556]

Shock tactic, naturally; but anyone with half a brain (the English for example ) will find it laughable.

 

[Escape]

Everyone else uses the 'terrorist threat', why not Greenpeace?

 

[tris-]

i didnt even realise it was a shock tactic.

i thought it was the "lets waste the charity money and show everyone how narrow minded we are" tactic.

 

[leggy]

They aren't being narrowminded per se. They are using what 'works'

If we weren't all spasticated over the War on Terror right now they wouldn't even have made that ad.

 

[maxi]

I agree with Legg0x. Same tactic the Right have been using to frighten us years. It is stoopinng to a low level, perhaps neccessary to get a point across.

What would be stupid is to disregard the underlying message entirely on a shitty piece of hyperbole aimed at dimwits. just as dim as swallowing it whole.

I too, haven't made my mind up about Nuclear Power. P

 

[DaGaffer]

Even James Lovelock, the so-called 'Father of The Environmental Movement' has suggested that we have to reinvestigate nuclear, because if we don't, we're fucked, and alternative energy sources are worse (or far less efficient).

I'd like to see some alternatives to that trailer;

1. A Russian gas pipeline gets blown up by terrorists (a damn site more likely scenario than an airliner into Sellafield), and half a million grannies across Europe freeze to death.

2. An oiltanker crashes into a wave farm and wipes out half of Britain's sealife.

3. We beome so dependent on diminishing oil supplies we have to invade half the middle-east. Oh wait...

 

[Tom]

I attended a seminar on Nuclear power the other day (well I was working there actually, but I listened all the same).

It was very interesting, and the arguments put forth by the doubters in the audience were resoundingly proved false.

Personally, I'm all for Nuclear power. Its shocking to see how us, a country that pioneered Nuclear research, now has woeful staff levels in this industry.

 

[Tsjiep]

Meh... Greenpeace is just a front for terrorists. Just like them Pakistani cornershops.

 

[Doomy]

But.....?

 

[Sar]

I enjoyed the trailer, looks like it could be a good film. When's it due out

!

 

[Chilly]

But.....?

Fish eyes are a delciacy, bring on the mutants!

 

[old.Tohtori]

Anyone else disaapointed that the plane didn't hit...?

 

[xane]

Even James Lovelock, the so-called 'Father of The Environmental Movement' has suggested that we have to reinvestigate nuclear,

So has Dr Patrick Moore (not the astronomer), who was one of the founders of Greenpeace, he now says the organisation is too political.

 

[xane]

The real reason the advert is so ridiculous is that alternative energy systems such as wind and solar are unreliable and need "backup" in the form of conventional power generation, so even if you covered Scotland and Wales in wind turbines, you'd still need a regular power plant to take up the slack when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing, and nuclear power is the safest, most economical and best for the environment out of all of them.

 

[Nerve]

The real reason the advert is so ridiculous is that alternative energy systems such as wind and solar are unreliable and need "backup" in the form of conventional power generation.

Plant the desert full with solar energy collectors and use em to generate hydrogen. Problem solved.

 

[Scouse]

Just to be the dissenting voice - what makes you all think that a plane hitting any of our nuclear reactors would be OK? You don't seriously think that we've designed them to be bomb-proof on that scale do you?

Although I don't agree with the political views of greenpeace and do agree that they're now too poiticised, I also have a fair bit of sympathy for the organisation.

I mean, an organisation that was once hugely popular in this country (and the world over) until the Thatcher government hired a load of spin doctors to see how they could change public perceptions, not just about Greenpeace - but also of the environmental movement in general.

How did they do it? They forced the news coverage (BBC is massively culpable here) of environmental issues to show environmentalists as massive beardy hippies - swampy and the like. Pretty soon the word environmentalist became synonymous with "wanker" and Greenpeace synonymous with extremists...

Perhaps you should take a closer look at, if not at Greenpeace, any organisation which only real vested interests are protecting the environment for the people of the world. Same goes for a lot of the anti-capitalist movements. I mean - they're not funded by chavs are they? They tend to be funded by an pretty intellectual section of our society. They're not trying to make money out of you. They're trying to do what they believe is good for us and raise awareness of issues that affect us.

Whether you believe how they do it is wrong, do you all believe the point they are trying to make is rubbish?



Personally, I don't see a way out of using nuclear power if we're going to cut greenhouse gas emissions. I do, however, acknowledge that there are huge issues surrounding the technology - waste disposal being one and terrorism being a valid other.

For example: We ship a lot of our nuclear waste abroad to be reprocessed (because why irradiate our own population when we can get shut of it in a poor country eh?). Unfortunately that cost-saving means that there's a compromise with security. The opportunity for someone to get their hands on our waste and turn it into a dirty bomb, for example, massively increases.

You pretty much can't turn any of the, apparently comedic to some, "renewable" energy resources against us like that, no matter how hard you try. In fact, they're not very suceptible to terrorism at all - because we have to have lots of technologies spread over differing areas and that makes it logistically difficult to hit our power generation facilities.

I'd go on for ages but I'm gonna be late for work...

 

[DaGaffer]

Just to be the dissenting voice - what makes you all think that a plane hitting any of our nuclear reactors would be OK? You don't seriously think that we've designed them to be bomb-proof on that scale do you?

No-one does, but at the same time it's the sheer blatant scaremongering and the simple fact is, we live in a dangerous world and you have to play the odds on everything.

I mean, an organisation that was once hugely popular in this country (and the world over) until the Thatcher government hired a load of spin doctors to see how they could change public perceptions, not just about Greenpeace - but also of the environmental movement in general.

How did they do it? They forced the news coverage (BBC is massively culpable here) of environmental issues to show environmentalists as massive beardy hippies - swampy and the like. Pretty soon the word environmentalist became synonymous with "wanker" and Greenpeace synonymous with extremists...

I think you're giving too much credit to Thatcher and her ilk here tbh; the environmental movement was always regarded as a bunch of hippies, and unfortunately, their bad pr in some people's eyes is entirely down to the fact they've been crying wolf for more than thirty years; as far back as 1970 and the Club of Rome, they've been saying the oil will be gone, overpopulation will mean we'll all eat each other and God knows what else, and they're still doing it. Unfortunately, some of the stuff they've been going on about is true, however, it turned out the worst of it was hidden where they couldn't see it during the early days of the environmental movement, behind the Iron Curtain.

Perhaps you should take a closer look at, if not at Greenpeace, any organisation which only real vested interests are protecting the environment for the people of the world. Same goes for a lot of the anti-capitalist movements. I mean - they're not funded by chavs are they? They tend to be funded by an pretty intellectual section of our society. They're not trying to make money out of you. They're trying to do what they believe is good for us and raise awareness of issues that affect us.

Intellectualism is no guarantee of common sense (often quite the opposite), the anti-capitalist movement is a bit off-topic here, but the problem with these guys is they're aiming for utopias that will never exist; all you can hope for is a 'least-worst' situation.

Whether you believe how they do it is wrong, do you all believe the point they are trying to make is rubbish?

I believe the overarching point they're trying to make is rubbish, because it fails to consider the realities of the situation and fails to offer practical solutions; the only way Greenpeace's true environmental mantra would work is if 4/5 of the world's population suddenly disappeared. Besides, 'gearing down' and living in a resource constrained world for ever isn't 'human'. We're an expansive species, we can't just sit in a world where we parcel up a smaller and smaller share of vanishing resources for all eternity.

Personally, I don't see a way out of using nuclear power if we're going to cut greenhouse gas emissions. I do, however, acknowledge that there are huge issues surrounding the technology - waste disposal being one and terrorism being a valid other.

For example: We ship a lot of our nuclear waste abroad to be reprocessed (because why irradiate our own population when we can get shut of it in a poor country eh?). Unfortunately that cost-saving means that there's a compromise with security. The opportunity for someone to get their hands on our waste and turn it into a dirty bomb, for example, massively increases.

You pretty much can't turn any of the, apparently comedic to some, "renewable" energy resources against us like that, no matter how hard you try. In fact, they're not very suceptible to terrorism at all - because we have to have lots of technologies spread over differing areas and that makes it logistically difficult to hit our power generation facilities.

I'd go on for ages but I'm gonna be late for work...

The main reason we send our nuclear waste abroad is because no bugger here would allow it in their back yard. You can't blame the politicians for offloading the problem to the third world, British nimbyism was the 'will of the people' (for a change).

 

[xane]

Plant the desert full with solar energy collectors and use em to generate hydrogen. Problem solved.

Solar energy "costs" more to make than it generates in its lifetime, the technology needs to advance a bit more before it can be considered "efficient".