Interview with the founder of Greenpeace

#1

I read alot of this kind of stuff, and will post more here, cause Ty specifically asked for us to kick it up a notch... so, this is for you:

http://www.icelandreview.com/features/p ... _id=244252

His article is REFRESHINGLY stable compared to some of the eco-fanatical. But he is a bit TOO on board with nuclear energy as a standard solution, if you ask me.

Highlights:

QUOTEEW: You left Greenpeace in 1986. Why leave what was perhaps the first environmental organization with clout?

PM: I left because I saw my colleagues abandoning science and logic and adopting zero-tolerance policies that made no sense. In many ways, Greenpeace is now promoting policies that are environmentally negative. Genetically modified crops reduce pesticide use; nuclear energy reduces greenhouse gas emissions; sustainable forestry produces the most abundant renewable material; aquaculture produces healthy oils and protein, and takes pressure off the wild stocks.

which is why I ended up not joining, and tuning out activism all-together.

QUOTEEW: You were quoted as saying that global warming and the melting of glaciers is positive because it ¢¢¬…œcreates more arable land.¢¢¬‚ I can understand how more arable land could be a good thing, but aren¢¢¬¢ž¢t those positives offset by the loss of fresh water and rising sea levels?

PM: The future balance of ¢¢¬…œpositive¢¢¬‚ vs. ¢¢¬…œnegative¢¢¬‚ impacts from climate change is both difficult to determine and depends on where one lives. Warming should result in increased rainfall overall. We don¢¢¬¢ž¢t know the extent of sea level rise, I believe it is exaggerated. Nonetheless it would be prudent to reduce fossil fuel consumption for a number of reasons, including reducing the risk of serious negative consequences.

...yup, choose where you live WISELY. ask pompeii.

QUOTEEW: Iran is trying to bolster its nuclear program, its leaders say, for domestic energy. The West is opposed. If the West builds more nuclear reactors for energy purposes, shouldn¢¢¬¢ž¢t other countries have the same right? Should we worry about nuclear reactors sprouting up across the globe?

PM: The American proposal for an international partnership to control nuclear fuel would allow all nations to have nuclear power but would require that the uranium enrichment and used-fuel recycling be done by the existing nuclear powers. Russia appears to have accepted this approach.

strange he didn't mention alternative energy sources available by unihabitable flowing waters and tradewinds from the gulf. they are undeniably cheaper per megawatt hour, and we stopped because of the strict environmental impact, most of which is now minimalized. or is it just me?

at any rate, I would love to see what people have to say about this.

#2

Greenpeace is guilty of militant behaviours and policies. A huge flaw in most, if not all Liberal organizations. But I can see how their sensible position could have come to their contemporary methods. Eventually, all hippies will growl and snarl when 'Kumbaya" is largely ignored, and they do like attention.

The problem with Greenpeace now is that its huge following is largely uneducated about options. In their defense, though, I will say that these options don't get much further than being featured in a few articles. I don't really know why places like The Netherlands show true interest in "alternatives" and are funded to the point of completion and implementation.
Ethanol is still being "discussed as an option" in North America. 40% of Brasil is projected to be completely independent of gasoline in a few years, and BMW is only just released its first Hydrogen-powered car beyond the prototype stage. Maybe the measured pacing of progress in the alternative resources stage is a bit much for Greenpeace, and it's followers, notorious for being all bark/no bite, simply denounce in unison.

#3

xen,

yeah, i was going to join greepeace to save the environment when i was 15, and found out how IMHO unrealistic and ineffective they were.

seeing greenpeace try to dump tons of fertilizer on a ship, and putting it in the San Fran bay was enough for me to say "nope."

-----

and alternatives are fine, but in reality energy demand is too high and rising too fast for any one solution that will not have drastic impact, if only in the market and in the lifestlye.

and Hydrogen is idealistic. most people don't realize most of the commercial hydrogen proposed is processed from natural gas... which is historically a bad bet. Remember how gas stoves and heaters were going to save the power industry and consumers alike. eh, not so much...

#4

Well, what I mean is Greenpeace is powered by treehuggin steam, and not much else. Well, and lots of cash. The point is that the Americas and a big fucking chunk of "the old world" can't seem to get it together on environmental initiatives. Greenpeace sounds like a good idea on paper (assuming, of course, you don't use Google), so greenheads cling to it. The concept of the one eyed man-king is nothing new, certainly not exclusive to the granola crowd.

#5

QUOTEEW: You left Greenpeace in 1986. Why leave what was perhaps the first environmental organization with clout?

PM: I left because I saw my colleagues abandoning science and logic and adopting zero-tolerance policies that made no sense. In many ways, Greenpeace is now promoting policies that are environmentally negative. Genetically modified crops reduce pesticide use; nuclear energy reduces greenhouse gas emissions; sustainable forestry produces the most abundant renewable material; aquaculture produces healthy oils and protein, and takes pressure off the wild stocks.

QUOTE(raum @ Nov 16 2006, 02:12 AM) which is why I ended up not joining, and tuning out activism all-together.

That's why I'm not a member either. I regard Greenpeace as a threat to the environment.

Hippies living in trees? Yeah, break the tree limbs, scare away the koalas and other animals that rely on the trees for habitat. Yeah, REAL good for caring for the environment... (that's just one example)

QUOTEEW: You were quoted as saying that global warming and the melting of glaciers is positive because it ¢¢¬…œcreates more arable land.¢¢¬‚ I can understand how more arable land could be a good thing, but aren¢¢¬¢ž¢t those positives offset by the loss of fresh water and rising sea levels?

PM: The future balance of ¢¢¬…œpositive¢¢¬‚ vs. ¢¢¬…œnegative¢¢¬‚ impacts from climate change is both difficult to determine and depends on where one lives. Warming should result in increased rainfall overall. We don¢¢¬¢ž¢t know the extent of sea level rise, I believe it is exaggerated. Nonetheless it would be prudent to reduce fossil fuel consumption for a number of reasons, including reducing the risk of serious negative consequences.

QUOTE(raum @ Nov 16 2006, 02:12 AM) ...yup, choose where you live WISELY. ask pompeii.

I know what you mean by that. Extrusive volcanics enriches the soil. Plus the glaciers scrape the hard bedrock and bring in minerals, enriching the leached soil. Because Australia hasn't experienced glaciations since the Permian, that's why most of our soil is so damn OLD, thin, and relatively naturally infertile for crops.

QUOTEEW: Iran is trying to bolster its nuclear program, its leaders say, for domestic energy. The West is opposed. If the West builds more nuclear reactors for energy purposes, shouldn¢¢¬¢ž¢t other countries have the same right? Should we worry about nuclear reactors sprouting up across the globe?

PM: The American proposal for an international partnership to control nuclear fuel would allow all nations to have nuclear power but would require that the uranium enrichment and used-fuel recycling be done by the existing nuclear powers. Russia appears to have accepted this approach.

QUOTE(raum @ Nov 16 2006, 02:12 AM) strange he didn't mention alternative energy sources available by unihabitable flowing waters and tradewinds from the gulf. they are undeniably cheaper per megawatt hour, and we stopped because of the strict environmental impact, most of which is now minimalized. or is it just me?

I also reckon it's strange. What happened to those floating channel markers & wave machines that work on the tides?