Is it me, or do Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and others detract severely from the cause of those who wish to attempt to prevent Climate Change (if prevention is possible)?

One of my main reasons for doubting the concept that we can have any effect on the climate change problem - especially by such pointless exercises as turning the TV of (instead of stand-by) - is that Greenpeace and Friends Of The Earth are behind the campaigns that say we can.

These so-called charities are immoral, unscientific groups of people with a political agenda. I've seen this in several specific cases over several years, and they're not showing any sign of changing. The use the same indoctrination tactics that we accuse american cults and Islamist terrorist groups of, and they use falsified evidence to support their claims, and ignore studies which contradict their stated aims. They're also irrationally militant in their persecutions of specific countries, companies and people. I am extremely sceptical of them and their methods, and their information.

Anyone with me?

Well Greenpeace and their lunatic friends are at it again!

This report inthe FT today Nuclear power plan faces fresh legal threat
shows how desperate they are to block any policy likely to ensure the UK has a sensible transition to sustainable power.

What exactly is their agenda. They bleat about climate change, but stonewall all realistic attempts to get to grips with it.

Where does DC stand on this. - Time for workable green policies!

It is likely to be high profile at the next election.
Resource depletion and climate change are not going away!

that's like trying to bail out the Titanic with a teacup?

Why can't people just fight pollution - instead of attempting to fight nature?

So I have been saying for a long time... Though my metaphor was 'attempting to prevent a dam bursting by plastering it with chewing gum'. Either works :-)

Anyway, in short I think it's safe to say these Greenpeace folks are f*ckwits. I wouldn't believe a word they say without verifying it externally.

time for some transparency from them I think.

For example, are they funded largely by businesses that make wind turbines that will only solve our energy needs if the wind blows hard enough for long enough.

Oh b****r - that'll be another charge of heresy for yours truly.

Kozmicstu Thank you for your words of wisdom
Who funds these groups anyway?
Glynne is right when he asks "What exactly is their agenda. They bleat about climate change, but stonewall all realistic attempts to get to grips with it."

I would like to see DC answer that.

The process of GW is entirely natural, if we are to believe that we have already started a new warming period then it is futile for us to fight it. We will use up all the oil, gas & coal before the natural processes that reverses GW even start to kick in.

I'm all for helping our environment a better place to live, but green taxes don't do that.
Green taxes are also an economic time-bomb with no way to defuse them.

Greenpeace and FOE between them pulled off the biggest con possible in the nuclear debate by linking it the public perception the danger levels of the 30 second half life elements but the thousand year half life of the ones less dangerous than the luminous watch material used for years.
In doing so they destroyed the nuclear power industry in this country and set us back half a century in nuclear power development. That they should still enjoy charitable status is a crime against humanity as thousands of pensioners will die from lack of heating they would otherwise have been able to afford but for these people.
As for the risks of nuclear power we have them anyway from the French stations only about fifty miles from us which neither group ever feels any compulsion to mention when highlighting those terrible risks to the gullible technophobe and technologically inadequate public they appeal to.

fOR information
The report is a crucial tool in the race to cut greenhouse gas emissions, showing that by 2020, 1,250 GW of wind power can be installed saving a cumulative 10,771 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, a key contributor to climate change.
Wind Force 12 demonstrates that there are no technical, economic or resource barriers to supplying 12% of the world's electricity needs with wind power alone by 2020 - against the challenging backdrop of a projected two thirds increase of electricity demand by that date.

Its easyier than "fighting polution".

Stop buying polution,

Poluters only polute when someone gives them money to do so.

Avoid disposable (natural products excluded) everything.

Switch everything off. (untill needed)

Proccessed is off the menu.

Learn to use less and less power,"at walking speed",untill
your power consumption is very low,then when it goes off you will hardly miss it.

People in poverty live like this now.

So its possible for everyone.

:)

( a big "WELL DONE" for anyone attempting any of this )

canvas:



And promote more efficient energy usage.

agree Graham

Extract from Force10 for you interest
There is considerable pressure to see the
requirements in PPG22 relaxed to encourage more renewables.

i'm with you kozmicstu. I agree with the points your making. I think they are causing more problenms than solutions.

I did however see an interesting poll on FOE's website. Even on the website of a green pressure group 65% would rather see a reduction in duty than more money spent on public transport.

I think that these groups are anti-industry they want things that are not possible.

Greenpeace and company are stuck in the 1970s when it comes to the policy on energy as it relates to climate change.

And they should stop misleading the public into thinking that wind and solar power can do the job on their own. I will be the first to commend them for their courage.

An adviser to government and industry, Dr Patrick Moore is a co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace, and chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies.

link to Moore's article

Extract
In its recently issued final report for 2007, the IPCC makes a number of unambiguous references to the fact that nuclear energy is an important tool to help bring about a reduction in fossil fuel consumption. Greenpeace has already made it clear that it disagrees. How credible is it for activists to use the IPCC scientists' recommendations to fuel apocalyptic fund-raising campaigns on climate change and then to dismiss the recommendations from the same scientists on what we should do to solve it?

Nice link Lizabeth

Anyone wishing to be 'astounded' by reports of Greenpeace's incompetence and untrustworthiness could do worse than to have a read of this article from Roughly Drafted, aswell.

I often say, "greater love hath no green for the planet than to require someone else to lay down their lifestyle so they can carry on with their own" .... perhaps I'll have to modify it to include something along the lines of "as long as it costs someone else money".

The green lobby is responsible for blocking many proposals that will provide a stepping stone approach to a sustainable future.

Nuclear has, and still, is being demonised - to the extent that for many people the gut reaction to this technology is now a strongly negative irrational response.

Nuclear is an essential tool to help us toward a sustainable non fossil fuel energy future.

As are all the various renewable energy sources.
Including wind - they all have a part to play - yet we have pressure groups denigrating these developed and emerging technologies in an attempt to stop them being used.
Just as the Greens denigrated nuclear, they use misinformation and political manipulation.

We have a limited time window, and resource availability, to make the structural changes to our energy supply systems needed to secure our civilisations future.

We are in a situation where its not a case of being able to pick and choose which particular technology we like - its a case of having to use the appropriate technology available now to help us build toward the ultimate solution.

Wind has a part to play - it is safe, has no long term impact on the environment, and is a mature developed technology.
In order to roll it out quickly, to off load our fossil fuel generators, subsidies are needed, as are fast track planning and approval structures - so be it.

What good is "solving" one problem if the "solution" just creates another problem?

Until we can come up with a method of dealing with nuclear waste that doesn't involve sticking it in a hole for a few thousand years, it just pushes the problem into the future for someone else to deal with.