terra
Member
- Location
- Southern Highlands Australia
C'mon muckferret... let's chip in and buy her a soap box ! 
..... she sure does need it !.....
..... she sure does need it !.....
Does anyone care that the Russkies nabbed Greenpeace?
- Thread starter Diwundrin
- Start date
rkunsaw
Well-known Member
- Location
- Clarksville, Arkansas,USA
Don't let 'em get you down Di. I agree with you.
Those greenie types have a one track mind and don't consider the consequences of their actions.
I remember back in the sixties or early seventies some 'green' types got on a campaign against dyed fabric because they said colored dyes were bad fr the environment. They protested against clothing manufacturers and wore only white or natural clothing.
What they failed to consider was that clothes are only colored once but whites are bleached every time they are washed and the bleach is much harder on the environment than the colored dyes.
When will they ever learn? Probably never.
Those greenie types have a one track mind and don't consider the consequences of their actions.
I remember back in the sixties or early seventies some 'green' types got on a campaign against dyed fabric because they said colored dyes were bad fr the environment. They protested against clothing manufacturers and wore only white or natural clothing.
What they failed to consider was that clothes are only colored once but whites are bleached every time they are washed and the bleach is much harder on the environment than the colored dyes.
When will they ever learn? Probably never.
Diwundrin
Well-known Member
- Location
- Nth Coast NSW Australia
Onya Rky, knew I wasn't the only one onto them. 
SifuPhil
R.I.P. With Us In Spirit Only
- Location
- Pennsylvania, USA
Onya Rky, knew I wasn't the only one onto them.
You can always tell who else is onto them - they all glow in the dark from their nuclear reactors.
Seriously - you're going to come down on groups that are trying to preserve the world instead of strip-mine it to death?
Painting "Greenies" with a broad brush misses the very point they're trying to get across. No, they aren't offering any valid alternatives, but that isn't their job. They're all about awareness.
The fact that we're all here discussing it shows that they've succeeded.
Diwundrin
Well-known Member
- Location
- Nth Coast NSW Australia
Yeah whatever. I just have a deep inate suspicion of do gooders. Especially grandstanding ones with 'Donate here' buttons on them.
Good point Phil! I'm far from a greenie, but they do make us aware of the pollution and raping of the planet by careless humans...and that I give them credit for. Look at the huge garbage dump in the oceans, not good for us, the fish or the plant life. http://www.natmedtalk.com/showthread.php?t=23508&highlight=ocean
dbeyat45
Professional Stirrer
- Location
- SE Queensland, Australia
I came across this piece by Dr. Patrick Moore who has been a leader in the international environmental field for over 40 years. He is a co-founder of Greenpeace and served for nine years as President of Greenpeace Canada and seven years as a Director of Greenpeace International:
http://www.cfact.org/2013/10/05/has-greenpeace-lost-its-moral-compass/
The whole article is worth reading and finishes with ....
http://www.cfact.org/2013/10/05/has-greenpeace-lost-its-moral-compass/
The whole article is worth reading and finishes with ....
Diwundrin
Well-known Member
- Location
- Nth Coast NSW Australia
Excellent article, my sentiments exactly. They are not what people perceive them to be, if they ever were.
They've become a cult with a God complex. They are not humanitarian as they put every other lifeform and even the inanimate rocks of the planet ahead of the human race's needs in general.
While I agree that Humans are the greatest plague this planet has so far suffered, and that it, and everything else would no doubt get along better without us, I think it only fair that they prove their dedication to their cause and voluntarily exit first!
SifuPhil
R.I.P. With Us In Spirit Only
- Location
- Pennsylvania, USA
He states that Vitamin A is not toxic, yet the symptoms of vitamin A overdose (which needn't be an overdose of Vitamin A itself; merely a lack of other vitamins) are very unpleasant: bone fragility, hair loss, double vision, eye inflammation, erosion and skin diseases, nervous disorders. An overdose of vitamin A can lead to vomiting and other symptoms similar to poisoning symptoms.
He rants that Greenpeace opposes the scientists - hardly surprising that they do so, since science has been so often corrupted by big business to produce exactly the results that are desired. Twenty years down the road when those children start growing second heads no one will remember Greenpeace's warnings.
Warrigal
SF VIP
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
Yeah, like super powers that can ignore the rest of the world's protests.basefare said:
Russia, China and the USA.
Haven't visited Russia, but in China and the USA I was very careful not to offend the powers that be.
Diwundrin
Well-known Member
- Location
- Nth Coast NSW Australia
But Phil, the problem is too many people. More people equals more problems keeping them healthy and feeding them. Greenpeace are against doing that. Sure GM food is risky, I don't like it either but what's the alternative? Starvation in the short term? Is treating diseases preventable by a water additive the preferred option? siiigh. They are trumpeting about the symptoms, not the cause. It's not that humanity has gotten more messy, it's just that there's more of them now.
The major risk to the planet is overpopulation. All of these things they're protesting about are recent problems due to the massive increase in population.
If Greenpeace want to do something useful they should be sabotaging the Vatican, raiding Hindu temples, picketing day care centres and legislating for mandatory sterilization.
I don't see them doing that though do you? Who's gonna donate for that cause??
Of course they, or at least their politically ensconced cronies, are pushing the joys and benefits of homosexualty so I guess that will go some small way in making a tiny dent in the numbers.
The major risk to the planet is overpopulation. All of these things they're protesting about are recent problems due to the massive increase in population.
If Greenpeace want to do something useful they should be sabotaging the Vatican, raiding Hindu temples, picketing day care centres and legislating for mandatory sterilization.
I don't see them doing that though do you? Who's gonna donate for that cause??
Of course they, or at least their politically ensconced cronies, are pushing the joys and benefits of homosexualty so I guess that will go some small way in making a tiny dent in the numbers.
SifuPhil
R.I.P. With Us In Spirit Only
- Location
- Pennsylvania, USA
... Of course they, or at least their politically ensconced cronies, are pushing the joys and benefits of homosexualty so I guess that will go some small way in making a tiny dent in the numbers.
Perhaps that is their bid at controlling population.
As for specific problem-solving ... short-term starvation is preferable to long-term, wide-spread genetic malformation. One you can come back from; the other is pretty much a one-way street.
Again, yes, they ARE trumpeting the symptoms - that's always the first step in a diagnosis and treatment plan. We as a species haven't even achieved THAT level yet - most of us spend our days with our heads in the sand, not knowing and not caring about the global problems. Greenpeace does what it does perhaps to raise the awareness levels of the world. Sometimes, when faced with an audience that is ignoring you, you have to do something outlandish to grab their attention.
And also, maybe, just maybe, they are exercising their own version of voting. They turn down a GM program because of its dangers - that's a negative vote, and urges the PTB to try again. Like the U.S. throwing pennies at a trillion-dollar deficit these scientists are proposing giving food to a population instead of teaching them to become more self-sufficient. They are exchanging food for alliance and obedience.
To be totally transparent here I haven't really followed their antics since their whale-protecting and tree-spiking days, so I can't really comment on their more recent activities. Perhaps as Dr. Moore stated they HAVE lost their way ...
Warrigal
SF VIP
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
I used to contribute to Greenpeace some 20 years ago mainly because they were harrowing the French over nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific, but the organisation splintered due to internal differences and I stopped my contributions.
I think the more radical adventurers formed Sea Shepherd and every time they challenge the Japanese commercial whaling in the Antarctic I cheer. I would very much like to know that there are less nuclear bombs and more whale pods on the planet.
I don't see what either of these issues has to do with either over population nor homosexuality.
I think the more radical adventurers formed Sea Shepherd and every time they challenge the Japanese commercial whaling in the Antarctic I cheer. I would very much like to know that there are less nuclear bombs and more whale pods on the planet.
I don't see what either of these issues has to do with either over population nor homosexuality.
Diwundrin
Well-known Member
- Location
- Nth Coast NSW Australia
No nor do Greenpeace, but overpopulation is the fundamental cause of all the problems that they are protesting about.
The fossil fuel pollution has been around as long as campfires, it is the massive increase in it that is the problem.
Nuclear energy generation wouldn't be necessary if there were less need for power to support the existence of such a dense civilization.
Nuclear technology was initiated by scientists who saw that fossil fuels wouldn't be enough, and a more efficient energy source would be necessary.
Bombs weren't their objective, they were just the product of human nature's propensity to find the worst possible use for the best inventions. Bows and arrows sufficed when wars were tribal. Nuclear bombs, and the funding to have researched building and delivering them would have been impossible and unnecessary without the growth in population in the last few hundred years.
Trees are cut down to fuel human consumer's needs. Either by their wood products, or by their absence, which opens land to grow crops to feed the expanding amount of mouths.
Greenpeace are jumping about and pointing out the damage without looking at what is really causing it.
The fossil fuel pollution has been around as long as campfires, it is the massive increase in it that is the problem.
Nuclear energy generation wouldn't be necessary if there were less need for power to support the existence of such a dense civilization.
Nuclear technology was initiated by scientists who saw that fossil fuels wouldn't be enough, and a more efficient energy source would be necessary.
Bombs weren't their objective, they were just the product of human nature's propensity to find the worst possible use for the best inventions. Bows and arrows sufficed when wars were tribal. Nuclear bombs, and the funding to have researched building and delivering them would have been impossible and unnecessary without the growth in population in the last few hundred years.
Trees are cut down to fuel human consumer's needs. Either by their wood products, or by their absence, which opens land to grow crops to feed the expanding amount of mouths.
Greenpeace are jumping about and pointing out the damage without looking at what is really causing it.
dbeyat45
Professional Stirrer
- Location
- SE Queensland, Australia
Well, that's never worked - long term - in the past ....
Warrigal
SF VIP
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
It was nuclear bombs, not nuclear technology that the French were testing and they didn't sink the Rainbow Warrior over fission generated power.
You seem to be more up to date with Greenpeace's current agenda than I am.
I haven't heard anything much about them in recent years.
Or are you just assuming things ? Again.
You seem to be more up to date with Greenpeace's current agenda than I am.
I haven't heard anything much about them in recent years.
Or are you just assuming things ? Again.
terra
Member
- Location
- Southern Highlands Australia
Let's not forget that "people power" or sometimes known as "greenies", can actually make a difference.
The protesters on the Franklin River in Tasmania, Australia, stopped the construction of a proposed dam that would have destroyed the river as we know it.
"The Franklin Dam or Gordon-below-Franklin Dam project was a proposed dam on the Gordon River in Tasmania, Australia, that was never constructed. The movement that eventually led to the project's cancellation became one of most significant environmental campaigns in Australian history.
The dam was proposed for the purpose of generating hydroelectricity. The resulting new electricity generation capacity would have been 180MW.[SUP][1][/SUP] This would have subsequently impacted upon the environmentally sensitive Franklin River, which joins the Gordon nearby. During the campaign against the dam, both areas were World Heritage listed.
The campaign that followed led to the consolidation of the small green movement that had been born out of the non-violent protest campaign against the building of three dams on Lake Pedder in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Over the five years between the announcement of the dam proposal in 1978 and the axing of the plans in 1983, there was vigorous debate between the pro- and anti-dam lobbies, with large protests from both sides.
In December 1982, the dam site was occupied by protesters, leading to widespread arrests and greater publicity. The dispute became a federal issue the following March, when a campaign in the national print media, assisted by the pictures of photographer Peter Dombrovskis, helped bring down the government of Malcolm Fraser at the 1983 election. The new government, under Bob Hawke, had promised to stop the dam from being built. A legal battle between the federal government and Tasmanian state government followed, resulting in a landmark High Court ruling in the federal government's favour."
SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Dam_controversy
The protesters on the Franklin River in Tasmania, Australia, stopped the construction of a proposed dam that would have destroyed the river as we know it.
"The Franklin Dam or Gordon-below-Franklin Dam project was a proposed dam on the Gordon River in Tasmania, Australia, that was never constructed. The movement that eventually led to the project's cancellation became one of most significant environmental campaigns in Australian history.
The dam was proposed for the purpose of generating hydroelectricity. The resulting new electricity generation capacity would have been 180MW.[SUP][1][/SUP] This would have subsequently impacted upon the environmentally sensitive Franklin River, which joins the Gordon nearby. During the campaign against the dam, both areas were World Heritage listed.
The campaign that followed led to the consolidation of the small green movement that had been born out of the non-violent protest campaign against the building of three dams on Lake Pedder in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Over the five years between the announcement of the dam proposal in 1978 and the axing of the plans in 1983, there was vigorous debate between the pro- and anti-dam lobbies, with large protests from both sides.
In December 1982, the dam site was occupied by protesters, leading to widespread arrests and greater publicity. The dispute became a federal issue the following March, when a campaign in the national print media, assisted by the pictures of photographer Peter Dombrovskis, helped bring down the government of Malcolm Fraser at the 1983 election. The new government, under Bob Hawke, had promised to stop the dam from being built. A legal battle between the federal government and Tasmanian state government followed, resulting in a landmark High Court ruling in the federal government's favour."
SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Dam_controversy
Diwundrin
Well-known Member
- Location
- Nth Coast NSW Australia
Who me Warri? Assuming of course.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then that's good enough to suspect that it's cooked in Peking.
You know me, I don't take anything I'm told to believe at face value, hunting motives is my hobby and the motives behind what Greenies are doing don't make sense above being a performance at the donation money level, so either I'm missing the point or they are.
They may well have started out to draw attention to a looming disaster, and with that I'm okay, it's when it started being politically targeted that my alarm bells rang. It was taken over, long ago, by those with other than the original agenda in mind. It's become yet another tool in socio-engineering us to accept any bullshit we hear as long as it's in the name of a good cause.
As I'm trying to point out, there are too many people to make this planet Utopian. No amount of protesting will ever accomplish that. It never was Utopia!
This planet has been trying to kill us off for millions of years. We've survived it by technological means. Those means have repercussions, like pollution and overuse of natural resources. We've survived it too well. We're now at the point of being unable to survive without that technology.
Ask yourself this. Are Greenpeace and for that matter all of us, intent on 'saving the planet'? Or are we really trying to save humanity? Because realistically the best thing we could do for this planet and for all other lifeforms on it would be to quietly vanish!
So just how dedicated are you to 'saving the planet?'
Aren't we really trying to clean the joint up to make it more liveable for us? To ensure our own survival into the future?
Let's not kid ourselves that we give a toss beyond preserving our lifestyles. That's what this is all about. But we are missing the glaringly obvious that there are simply too many of us!
To get back to my initial point.... The Greenies insistence on depriving people of the energy that supports their existence (i.e. fossil fuels) immediately, with no viable alternative is at best stupid and at worst malevolent.
Because painting signs and harassing boats is just pointing at the problem. All this recycling and Pollyanna protesting is just putting a bandaid on a gut shot.
Or, just to make my though processes even more confusing... perhaps the collapse of humanity into the Mad Max scenario by way of 'stopping' fossil fuel use will accomplish that necessary decrease in population? The hard way. Could that be their ultimate agenda after all?
Gets silly doesn't it? Pick your conspiracy and chuck it in. The more complications and red herrings the better. I love thinking about the intricacies of this stuff.
At our age double thinking issues that seem obvious is the best fun we can have with our eyes shut.
Tezza, how much time do you spend on the Franklin??
SifuPhil
R.I.P. With Us In Spirit Only
- Location
- Pennsylvania, USA
I think you have your timeline backwards.
- The neutron itself was only discovered in 1932.
- The Curies discovered radioactivity in 1934.
- Nuclear fission was confirmed in 1939.
- Chicago Pile - 1, the first nuclear reactor, achieved criticality in December 1942 and was used as part of the Manhattan Project.
- Electricity was generated for the first time by a reactor in 1952 - 10 years after the first weaponized use.
Bombs were most assuredly their first objective.
Oh, and a by-the-way - after the uranium runs out in less than 100 years as has been calculated, what then? You've built a world based upon yet another limited resource. Why not invest in solar, geo-thermal, tidal and other unlimited resources?
Warrigal
SF VIP
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
I've never considered myself to be an environmentalist. It didn't even know that the term meant until later in life but I've always had a conservationist impulse. My dad used to take my sister and I into the bush for little picnics and he instilled into us that we should always leave a place as good as, if not better, than we found it. This sometimes meant picking up other people's litter and putting it in the bin before we left. He would show us things in nature but we had to leave them alone. There was no picking of wild flowers or collecting birds eggs allowed. He instilled in us the concept of common ownership of the bush and that we should all take care of it. We could enjoy, but not destroy.
It's not a huge leap to move from conservation of a piece of bushland to the whole planet. In my lifetime I've seen the results of some of the things humans have done, often with the best intentions, and have also seen that once a problem is identified it is usually possible to do something about it. Remember those foaming rivers in Europe caused by detergents that were not biodegradable? We have developed better detergents now. And DDT was an essential insecticide and a great boon to humanity in the immediate post war period until two things happened - the insects developed resistance and the chemical built up in the soils and in the food chains, threatening high order predators with extinction and concentrating in the tissues of humans and breast milk. We don't use DDT any more, and for good reason. Before we stopped, a battle was necessary against the industry that produced the stuff.
We aren't the only organisms on the planet, and if we were, we'd have to eat each other. In the web of life we need diversity. That's why I'm a conservationist at heart and that's why I support groups that sound warnings and those that stand against selfish over exploitation of natural resources.
It's not a huge leap to move from conservation of a piece of bushland to the whole planet. In my lifetime I've seen the results of some of the things humans have done, often with the best intentions, and have also seen that once a problem is identified it is usually possible to do something about it. Remember those foaming rivers in Europe caused by detergents that were not biodegradable? We have developed better detergents now. And DDT was an essential insecticide and a great boon to humanity in the immediate post war period until two things happened - the insects developed resistance and the chemical built up in the soils and in the food chains, threatening high order predators with extinction and concentrating in the tissues of humans and breast milk. We don't use DDT any more, and for good reason. Before we stopped, a battle was necessary against the industry that produced the stuff.
We aren't the only organisms on the planet, and if we were, we'd have to eat each other. In the web of life we need diversity. That's why I'm a conservationist at heart and that's why I support groups that sound warnings and those that stand against selfish over exploitation of natural resources.
Diwundrin
Well-known Member
- Location
- Nth Coast NSW Australia
I get a lot of stuff backwards Phil, that's why you and Warri are needed. 
I'm too lazy to study anything deeply, just use tidbits of info to see if they fit patterns. If I get it wrong, fine, I'll change the 'theory'.
I see the world as tiny pieces all building a bigger picture and when some don't fit I start to wonder why. Just a hobby.
I just seem to remember that scientists were aghast when they found out that nuclear energy research was being steered towards weaponry rather than power generation, so I won't argue that you're right that the bomb came before the power plants.
But I don't believe they were the original intention of the scientists' initial research into nuclear energy potential. That intention, as I remember reading of it, was the same as 'green' technology scientists are researching today. A viable alternative for increasing power demand into the future, with the knowledge that fossil fuels were finite.
I'm not anti green technology per se. Just green technology that is no better for reducing the 'emissions' in their production than what they are replacing is emitting. I won't settle for pie in the sky, look good, massively profitable to their manufacturers only, white elephants.
I'll let DB carry the technicalities and figures, that's his area of expertise, but half of the country covered in windmills and mirrors would still produce only a fraction of the power that a couple of nuclear power plants could put out.
They are a step on a long journey toward renewable power sources. That 100 years of uranium should give us enough time to perfect green technology. If not then we are even sillier than we look and deserve to drown in our own garbage. But we need time to replace what works now. The world cannot be sustained without fossil fuels overnight. The Greens/Greenpeace demands of instant cessation of fossil fuel use is insanity.
Nuclear energy is a stop gap measure that relieves at least part of the pollution problem and 'saves' the planet from strip coal mining and maybe a few of those oil wells in inappropriate places that Greenpeace is in trouble over now.
That they've scared everyone so much that nuclear power has become an almost impossible alternative is why we have so much pollution from coal.
We should have started building nuke plants years ago, as soon as the new better, safer, design technology was available but politicians were too afraid of the deadbeat banner wavers and the scared voters to start them.
The greatest percentage of the last decade of fossil fuel 'emissions' in this country, OZ, can be laid fair in the lap of the Greenie scare campaigns. They are hoist by their petard. I say again, no free lunches, even for Greenies.
Warri, you won't find as much as a potato peeling around my yard. You won't find an unwashed can in my recycle bin. We never left a picnic site showing sign that we'd been there. We never kept undersized fish except poddy mullet for bait, and even that is legal.
My family were both miners and farmers. The mining part of their lives they had no control over, but as most farmers are, they were environmentalists. They had to be to keep the farms sustainable. Nothing was wasted, no tree was cut that didn't need to be, no creek was polluted because that was the most precious asset of the farm. We were and are not planet trashers, just realists.
But we picked wildflowers, and the boys back in the 30s collected birds eggs. But never more than one egg from a nest. The eldest of them enforced that rule on them, he must have been a forerunner of the Greenies without even realizing it. I remember his collection from when I was very young and he had only one egg of each species.
I've lost count of the spiders I've swept out rather than step on and of the lizards I've saved from the over enthusiastic dog.
Just because I don't approve of the Green movement's motives doesn't mean I don't respect life and love nature.
It doesn't mean I approve of massive mining, just that is a necessary evil.
Nor does it mean that I want to see the planet trashed.
It just means that I realise that we have to sacrifice some Utopian fantasies for the real immediate needs of supporting the society we've built. And that the Greens are not the answer, their ideas are fantasies of what should be, not what realistically can be.
Nor are they looking at the real underlying causes of why the planet's being trashed.
Why too many chemicals being used? Why so much and many pollutants? Why so few trees, and whales? Because too much food and infrastructure is having to be produced for the planet to cope with, for too many people needing it.
btw: one of those 'kinder' replacements for DDT is what's killing the bees. no free lunches.
I'm too lazy to study anything deeply, just use tidbits of info to see if they fit patterns. If I get it wrong, fine, I'll change the 'theory'.
I see the world as tiny pieces all building a bigger picture and when some don't fit I start to wonder why. Just a hobby.
I just seem to remember that scientists were aghast when they found out that nuclear energy research was being steered towards weaponry rather than power generation, so I won't argue that you're right that the bomb came before the power plants.
But I don't believe they were the original intention of the scientists' initial research into nuclear energy potential. That intention, as I remember reading of it, was the same as 'green' technology scientists are researching today. A viable alternative for increasing power demand into the future, with the knowledge that fossil fuels were finite.
I'm not anti green technology per se. Just green technology that is no better for reducing the 'emissions' in their production than what they are replacing is emitting. I won't settle for pie in the sky, look good, massively profitable to their manufacturers only, white elephants.
I'll let DB carry the technicalities and figures, that's his area of expertise, but half of the country covered in windmills and mirrors would still produce only a fraction of the power that a couple of nuclear power plants could put out.
They are a step on a long journey toward renewable power sources. That 100 years of uranium should give us enough time to perfect green technology. If not then we are even sillier than we look and deserve to drown in our own garbage. But we need time to replace what works now. The world cannot be sustained without fossil fuels overnight. The Greens/Greenpeace demands of instant cessation of fossil fuel use is insanity.
Nuclear energy is a stop gap measure that relieves at least part of the pollution problem and 'saves' the planet from strip coal mining and maybe a few of those oil wells in inappropriate places that Greenpeace is in trouble over now.
That they've scared everyone so much that nuclear power has become an almost impossible alternative is why we have so much pollution from coal.
We should have started building nuke plants years ago, as soon as the new better, safer, design technology was available but politicians were too afraid of the deadbeat banner wavers and the scared voters to start them.
The greatest percentage of the last decade of fossil fuel 'emissions' in this country, OZ, can be laid fair in the lap of the Greenie scare campaigns. They are hoist by their petard. I say again, no free lunches, even for Greenies.
Warri, you won't find as much as a potato peeling around my yard. You won't find an unwashed can in my recycle bin. We never left a picnic site showing sign that we'd been there. We never kept undersized fish except poddy mullet for bait, and even that is legal.
My family were both miners and farmers. The mining part of their lives they had no control over, but as most farmers are, they were environmentalists. They had to be to keep the farms sustainable. Nothing was wasted, no tree was cut that didn't need to be, no creek was polluted because that was the most precious asset of the farm. We were and are not planet trashers, just realists.
But we picked wildflowers, and the boys back in the 30s collected birds eggs. But never more than one egg from a nest. The eldest of them enforced that rule on them, he must have been a forerunner of the Greenies without even realizing it. I remember his collection from when I was very young and he had only one egg of each species.
I've lost count of the spiders I've swept out rather than step on and of the lizards I've saved from the over enthusiastic dog.
Just because I don't approve of the Green movement's motives doesn't mean I don't respect life and love nature.
It doesn't mean I approve of massive mining, just that is a necessary evil.
Nor does it mean that I want to see the planet trashed.
It just means that I realise that we have to sacrifice some Utopian fantasies for the real immediate needs of supporting the society we've built. And that the Greens are not the answer, their ideas are fantasies of what should be, not what realistically can be.
Nor are they looking at the real underlying causes of why the planet's being trashed.
Why too many chemicals being used? Why so much and many pollutants? Why so few trees, and whales? Because too much food and infrastructure is having to be produced for the planet to cope with, for too many people needing it.
btw: one of those 'kinder' replacements for DDT is what's killing the bees. no free lunches.
Warrigal
SF VIP
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
How many years ago? Before Three Mile Island, or Chernobyl ? If we had we would have had the same unreliable plants.
After them ? Where? The NIMBY factor is a lot more powerful than any Greenie protestors.
John Howard talked about something like 28 nuclear energy plants.
All would have had to be located near abundant supplies of water, which usually means a coastal area.
Nothing depreciates an ocean view like a nearby nuclear power plant.
It would take a lot of political nerve to face the irate property owners.
A lot more nerve than any PM since Menzies.
Diwundrin
Well-known Member
- Location
- Nth Coast NSW Australia
No not that long ago, 2007 was the most recent example of short sighted, anti nuke re-election strategy.
Before that Howard, but then he didn't build much of anything.
Before him, Keating, another anti nuke, Union puppet, government.
You're getting a little more savvy of the situation I see, yes it's down to gutless politicians dodging the stampeding herd of voters spooked by the Greenies.
But really only in the last 10 to 15 years have the better designs become available. We could have had one or two half finished at least by now.
Before that Howard, but then he didn't build much of anything.
Before him, Keating, another anti nuke, Union puppet, government.
You're getting a little more savvy of the situation I see, yes it's down to gutless politicians dodging the stampeding herd of voters spooked by the Greenies.
But really only in the last 10 to 15 years have the better designs become available. We could have had one or two half finished at least by now.
Warrigal
SF VIP
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
You're getting a little more savvy of the situation I see, yes it's down to gutless politicians dodging the stampeding herd of voters spooked by the Greenies.
More savvy than you give me credit for.
Who's spooking the property owners about wind turbines?
It's just pure NIMBYism at work IMO.
People also remember the British atomic testing programs in the desert
and don't want anything even remotely atomic/nuclear close to their homes.
This, and the abundance of cheap coal in this country is why governments have avoided nuclear power generation.
As far as I know, not a single dollar has ever been allocated for a feasibility study.