Article

2007-06-30 Home Front: Culture Wars

Biofuels stampede 'damaging the environment'

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by lotp 2007-06-30 00:00|| || Front Page|| [1 views ] Top

#1 So they'll be lobbying for more nuclear power then, right? Nah, makes too much sense...

Posted by PBMcL 2007-06-30 01:41|| 2007-06-30 01:41|| Front Page Top

#2 Is there anything that doesn't damage the environment?

Posted by Mike 2007-06-30 08:21|| 2007-06-30 08:21|| Front Page Top

#3 Ima thinkin that all the CO2 and hot air put out by these groups causes environmental problems.

Posted by JohnQC 2007-06-30 08:36|| 2007-06-30 08:36|| Front Page Top

#4 I was impressed that this group actually looked at data rather than just emoting their way to public policy. They're one up on the Gorester at least.

Posted by lotp 2007-06-30 08:53|| 2007-06-30 08:53|| Front Page Top

#5 Is there anything that doesn't damage the environment?

Probably not. We are well beyond hunter-gatherer population densities in most places. Providing food and energy will therefore leave some sort of "footprint". Absent functional fusion power generation, nuclear power is the only viable alternative at this point. Even Greenpeace finally admits this. One can only imagine how much their vocal opposition has caused damaging polarization on the issue of constructing more reactors. A hydrogen economy is one of the few prospects with any real potential for minimizing environmental impact. Towards that end, building more nuclear reactors makes ultimate sense.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-06-30 09:20|| 2007-06-30 09:20|| Front Page Top

#6 Unfortunately, advocating nuclear power won't put contributions in Greenpeace's purse. Eventually they will come such a 'reluctant' conclusion, but only after their contributors and most vocal supporters accept it.

Posted by Pappy 2007-06-30 10:15|| 2007-06-30 10:15|| Front Page Top

#7 Unfortunately, advocating nuclear power won't put contributions in Greenpeace's purse. Eventually they will come such a 'reluctant' conclusion, but only after their contributors and most vocal supporters accept it.

Pappy, reality has already gobsmacked these gits long ago. The guy's language reveals what a total loon he ~~still~~ is.

Going Nuclear A Green Makes the Case
By Patrick Moore
Sunday, April 16, 2006; Page B01

In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.
[emphasis added]

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-06-30 10:35|| 2007-06-30 10:35|| Front Page Top

#8 Let me know when Greenpeace, as an organization, does so.

Posted by Pappy 2007-06-30 17:22|| 2007-06-30 17:22|| Front Page Top

23:35 newc
23:35 Frank G
23:24 ed
23:23 Helmuth, Speaking for Chusoling1715
23:21 Zenster
23:18 trailing wife
23:18 twobyfour
23:14 Helmuth, Speaking for Chusoling1715
23:06 Zenster
23:05 Zenster
23:02 Zenster
23:00 Pappy
22:58 RD
22:56 Mike N.
22:55 Zenster
22:52 Super Hose
22:51 Zenster
22:48 Pappy
22:44 Helmuth, Speaking for Chusoling1715
22:40 gromgoru
22:39 Zenster
22:38 Helmuth, Speaking for Chusoling1715
22:36 Mike N.
22:35 gromgoru