If then Greenpeace comes along and shows what is really necessary to do to improve our environment, you don't like that as EPA employee I reckon....
As I noted to the other Greenpeace astroturfer:
Quote:
Greenpeace is interested in money and political power. There's no bloody altruism associated with Greenpeace, NRDC, or EDI. John Adams, president of NRDC made $368K in 2001. Their top 9 officers took in $1.7M in compensation in 2001. EDI's top 13 took in $2.1M. Greenpeace Fund paid nine employees $400K in 2001 and GPF is nothing but a shell company that funnels tax deductible money into Greenpeace International and Greenpeace, Inc. Some of those folks double dipped and were also paid by Greenpeace International or GP, Inc.
"Greenpeace Incorporated" is just the right mental picture for that so-called environmental organization. The IRS slammed GPF and GP, Inc for the "illegal nature" of how they do business. How's that for moral or ethical?
In contrast the President of the PETA (whom folks really hate) made $30K in 2001. Their top 5 officers made a combined $300K. The Sierra Club's Executive director made under $140K and a combined $400K for its top officers in 2001.
Excepts for 2004:
John H. Adams, President, NRDC: $704,796 (whew!); Steven Sanderson, CEO Wildlife Conservation Society: $495,422; Mark Van Putten, President, National Wildlife Federation: $477,138; Steven McCormick, CEO, The Nature Conservancy: $399,788; John Flicker, President, National Audubon Society: $362,237; Peter Seligmann, CEO, Conservation International: $336,3353; Russell Mittermeier, Conservation International: $331,515; Kathyrn Fuller, President, WWF: $310,781. Even underlings do well, i.e., "The National Conservancy paid 1,025 salaries above $50,000, with nine above $200,000 and nine more over $150,000."
Steve McCormick. Base salary $275,000. Signing Bonus: $75,000. Yearly living "allowance": $75,000, $1.55M home loan from the Conservancy.
Greenpeace Fund doesn't show on the 2004 big spenders list. Do I believe that they've "changed their ways"? Paint me doubtful.
Even for the run of the mill compensation packages of the Sierra Club the folks ain't starving. Nor do I expect them to but what environmental footprint do you expect from anyone with a 6 figure income? It ain't gonna be that tiny.
I can tell you it takes quite a few BTUs to heat McCormick's house in McLean. Thank goodness for global warming this year.
Eco groups are nothing but big business with big business compensation packages selling yet another "product" on the market.
I'm with Dr. Moore on at least that eco-groups have lost their way along with logic.
Nuclear energy is by far our cleanest form of large scale energy available. The people who think otherwise have been brainwashed with emotional arguments. The anti-nuclear movement is a religious movement that disregards facts and statistics in favor of slogans.
Is this the same as Nucular energy or is it maybe Nuclear energy? However the hell you want to spell it or pronounce it, its extraordinarily clean. There is no Greenhouse gas emission. In fact, Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace recently made a case for going nuclear - something Greenpeace continues to oppose.
Nuclear energy is by far our cleanest form of large scale energy available. The people who think otherwise have been brainwashed with emotional arguments. The anti-nuclear movement is a religious movement that disregards facts and statistics in favor of slogans.
The only thing I have against nuclear power is that at least in the US many nuclear reactors turned into case studies for cost overruns and poorly managed projects. Okay, that and transportation of the resultant waste into a still "not in my backyard" site which hopefully really will be complete by 2010 (Yucca Mountain).
But yeah, other than that nuclear power is an important aspect for reduction of fossil fuel usage and I'm all for that. The downsides are IMHO much much less than the upsides if we can get more stuff onto electricity and away from fossil fuels.
I also wish we had subsidized solar power in the US like they do in Germany and Japan. Thin film solar looks like a game changer if we can get it to work. If we can get prices to $1/watt...
If we planned on staying in the house longer I'd probably spring for a solar install but right now replacing older appliances is a better bang for the buck. If the housing boom still existed I'd consider it anyway.
Wow, the knee-jerk hatred of some of you people is really disheartening. I guess even Mac-o-philes can be stupid.
1. It is NOT contradictory for GP or any other eco-group to use electricity or paper for brochures. We and they live in a world where marketing and consumption are a part of life. They need to be consistent and use only as much as necessary, but c'mon, you can't be so ignorant as to think GP is about using NO technology or NO resources. Thus the "they just want us to live in a cave" people are simply ideologues making straw men ... 'a la Rush Limbaugh.
2. If you think nuclear is so clean, there are lots of residential property waiting for you at Chernobyl, Ukraine and Three Mile Island. Let me know when you want to move there and we'll arraign it.
3. 50% of the problem is not so much the kind of packaging and such, but the vast, incredible consumption of stuff. The best way to reduce your negative effects on the planet is simply to consume less. Buy only one iPod. Buy things used. Reduce first, then think about recycling.
4. The political system in Washington DC means that everyone has to play the game, even if a group does not want to. I certainly give money to other groups rather than GreenPeace, but I sure don't have to lie and rant about them if they are not perfect. Talk about blaming the messenger.
5. Nuclear power has its place and yes, pseudointellectuals, it does not produce greenhouse gasses, BUT if you actually knew anything beyond the most superficial, you would know that this country is full of ponds full of warm nuclear waste that are not well guarded, usually situated next to large rivers (because nuclear power plants need a tremendous amount of water for cooling and steam for turbines) that flow past large cities, which leak, increase the temp. of the river AND are great targets for any terrorists that can hit one with a plane.
6. The economics of nuclear plants is VERY complicated and as I've said before, it takes so much energy just to BUILD one that it doesn't create any new energy until decades after it runs - and that is only if it actually runs most of the time. Here in Oregon we had a nuclear plant and it was 20 miles from Portland, on the second largest river in the nation, ran barely 20% of the time and it was closed down by the electric company because they couldn't make money on it. Now the people through taxes have to deal with the waste and had to help pay for the reactor itself to be taken to Hanford where who knows what will happen. So don't be so shallow about physics and economics when you spout your pro-nuke rhetoric. I am not anti-nuke at all, I think France was smart to do some of what it did, but there are some major problems to overcome still.
7. The special kind of vitriole that seems to bubble out of certain people when a "green" or "liberal" organization seems to screw up is an indicator of a internalized frustration that resembles a hidden conservative/me-first streak that becomes legitimate during times of social change. The fact that someone would spend more time complaining about GreenPeace than complaining about the larger problems with GE, Monsanto and others, speaks of a reactionary psychosis that is okay in a blog or forum such as this, but is the first steps to calls to fascism and fundamentalists. So try to be aware of your sense of objectivity.
8. e1618978: You are a twit.
9. vinea: You shouldn't dump all eco-groups together.
2. If you think nuclear is so clean, there are lots of residential property waiting for you at Chernobyl, Ukraine and Three Mile Island. Let me know when you want to move there and we'll arraign it.
This is absolutely ridiculous ... TMI 1 is still operational and TMI 2 is shutdown and contained. The effective dose equivalent to the population was less than 1 mSv per person. Hardly relevant considering you get more than that from the environment every year.
The area around Chernobyl is indeed not great for living, but you have to put the blame for that on the Soviets and the people running the reactor. No Western country would ever authorize a reactor to be built the way Chernobyl was. Outside of Russia, when the temperature goes up in your fuel at a certain point the reactivity goes down...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGregor
5. Nuclear power has its place and yes, pseudointellectuals, it does not produce greenhouse gasses, BUT if you actually knew anything beyond the most superficial, you would know that this country is full of ponds full of warm nuclear waste that are not well guarded, usually situated next to large rivers (because nuclear power plants need a tremendous amount of water for cooling and steam for turbines) that flow past large cities, which leak, increase the temp. of the river AND are great targets for any terrorists that can hit one with a plane.
I'll tell you what, if you can jump into that pond, unload a portion of the core into your pickup and drive away, you are indeed an immortal. You WILL die before you can get away. Please don't think a terrorist is going steal a multi-ton core section releasing extraordinary amounts of radiation. Also, these ponds are INSIDE the containment building so radiation isn't released during refueling. Containment vessels of nuclear reactors are built to withstand jumbo-jet impacts...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGregor
6. The economics of nuclear plants is VERY complicated and as I've said before, it takes so much energy just to BUILD one that it doesn't create any new energy until decades after it runs - and that is only if it actually runs most of the time. Here in Oregon we had a nuclear plant and it was 20 miles from Portland, on the second largest river in the nation, ran barely 20% of the time and it was closed down by the electric company because they couldn't make money on it. Now the people through taxes have to deal with the waste and had to help pay for the reactor itself to be taken to Hanford where who knows what will happen. So don't be so shallow about physics and economics when you spout your pro-nuke rhetoric. I am not anti-nuke at all, I think France was smart to do some of what it did, but there are some major problems to overcome still.
Trojan was closed primarily because the steam tubes in the steam generator kept failing. There was also violent opposition during and after its construction. The NRC deemed it unsafe to operate because of the secondary equipment problems. During operation though Trojan supplied 12% of all power to the grid in Oregon. PGE is the operator and therefore responsible for the decom and cleaning of the site as per their license with the NRC, so no, the peoples tax money isn't going to move the core. The pressure vessel was buried at Hanford and the spent fuel casks are still at the Trojan site awaiting transport to Yucca Mountain.
I also don't quite understand your argument about it taking a lot of energy to build a nuclear plant. It takes energy to build anything ... a power plant, a skyscraper, a car ... what do you mean it takes decades for new energy to be produced? If I build two nuclear plants using electricity from the established grip, then I've added anywhere from 2000 to 2600 MW to the electric grid. Your argument about required energy makes little sense ... you don't "consume" energy, it has to be conserved. The energy required to build the plant is either expended as heat during construction or held in the potential energy of the structure itself. The reactor relseases energy from fission, which is given off as heat ... blah blah blah ... turbine turns and your get electricty from the generator coils ... its just transferred from one state to another.
2. If you think nuclear is so clean, there are lots of residential property waiting for you at Chernobyl, Ukraine and Three Mile Island. Let me know when you want to move there and we'll arraign it.
Grouping Chernobyl and TMI is fearmongering. As AgNuke points out TMI-1 is still operational. Chernobyl was built without containment.
Quote:
4. The political system in Washington DC means that everyone has to play the game, even if a group does not want to. I certainly give money to other groups rather than GreenPeace, but I sure don't have to lie and rant about them if they are not perfect. Talk about blaming the messenger.
The messenger in this case is making stuff up.
Quote:
6. The economics of nuclear plants is VERY complicated and as I've said before, it takes so much energy just to BUILD one that it doesn't create any new energy until decades after it runs - and that is only if it actually runs most of the time.
Yes, its a large civil engineering project that typically runs long and more $$$ than projected. On the other hand coal plants are not free to build either.
Quote:
9. vinea: You shouldn't dump all eco-groups together.
I don't. But GP isn't one of the stellar ones. Nor are the ones on the list. Is there a reason that eco-groups need to pay execs 250K/year+?
This is absolutely ridiculous ... TMI 1 is still operational and TMI 2 is shutdown and contained. The effective dose equivalent to the population was less than 1 mSv per person. Hardly relevant considering you get more than that from the environment every year.
Nice evasion of the point! Again, how many people want to live near a nuclear plant. Probably a few more than want to live near a coal plant, but that also isn't the point. Everyone knows the site is still operational and it usually poses no problem during operations, but the one reactor is shut down and contained. Yeah, because it is so safe. You don't talk about how close a real release was. And I'm not anti-nuke so stop saying that it is ridiculous to for me to call you on the "nukes are only clean" bandwagon.
Quote:
The area around Chernobyl is indeed not great for living, but you have to put the blame for that on the Soviets and the people running the reactor. No Western country would ever authorize a reactor to be built the way Chernobyl was. Outside of Russia, when the temperature goes up in your fuel at a certain point the reactivity goes down...
Again, the technology is better now and a lot better outside the old Soviet Union, but mistakes happened and mistakes will happen and no coal plant will contaminate an entire region for 10,000 years.
I'll tell you what, if you can jump into that pond, unload a portion of the core into your pickup and drive away, you are indeed an immortal. You WILL die before you can get away. Please don't think a terrorist is going steal a multi-ton core section releasing extraordinary amounts of radiation. Also, these ponds are INSIDE the containment building so radiation isn't released during refueling. Containment vessels of nuclear reactors are built to withstand jumbo-jet impacts...
I never said terrorists would steal material from a storage pond, dillweed, but thanks for describing the dangers. Also ponds are not inside containment buildings. At the Trojan site there is a radioactive pond sitting out in the open between a camp ground and the Columbia River and the whole thing is on a geologic fault. Reactors are inside very strong containment buildings, not the ponds and not the storage tanks at Hanford. I've worked with the public relations team of both places designing museum exhibits and such so I've been there and seen that.
Quote:
Trojan was closed primarily because the steam tubes in the steam generator kept failing.
And that was one of 100 problems with it. What is your point?
Quote:
There was also violent opposition during and after its construction.
And that made the plant uneconomic how? PGE did spent millions trying to stop local votes against the plant, which they successfully did and then closed it on their own a few months later. Now you and they are trying to rewrite history as if opposition was too great for the poor power plant. Typical false claim.
Quote:
The NRC deemed it unsafe to operate because of the secondary equipment problems.
My point exactly. Not to mention all of the millions lost in the WWPS projects in Washington.
Quote:
During operation though Trojan supplied 12% of all power to the grid in Oregon.
Yes, it was very useful. I would still support it if it could run safely and efficiently even now, since more coal and large hydro is no longer an option in the area. Again, I'm not anti-nuke. I am anti-people who think nukes solve environmental problems and then call eco-groups that point this out as evil. This photo shows how dangerous the situation is ... http://capefeare.com/snpp.gif
Quote:
PGE is the operator and therefore responsible for the decom and cleaning of the site as per their license with the NRC, so no, the peoples tax money isn't going to move the core. The pressure vessel was buried at Hanford and the spent fuel casks are still at the Trojan site awaiting transport to Yucca Mountain.
And I am still paying for it as a rate payer too. But if you think PGE didn't use any government funds or government research or government subsidies or help in getting and storing the core at Hanford, you are quite misinformed. And you act as if fuel casks sitting waiting for transport to Yucca Mountain is a good thing.
Quote:
I also don't quite understand your argument about it taking a lot of energy to build a nuclear plant. It takes energy to build anything ... a power plant, a skyscraper, a car ... what do you mean it takes decades for new energy to be produced? If I build two nuclear plants using electricity from the established grip, then I've added anywhere from 2000 to 2600 MW to the electric grid. Your argument about required energy makes little sense ... you don't "consume" energy, it has to be conserved.The energy required to build the plant is either expended as heat during construction or held in the potential energy of the structure itself. The reactor relseases energy from fission, which is given off as heat ... blah blah blah ... turbine turns and your get electricty from the generator coils ... its just transferred from one state to another.
Nice attempt at trying to teach me thermodynamics, but conversion to heat is the same as "consumption" for any practical purpose unless you are chemosynthetic algae. Once the steam cools to water again, what can you do with the heat? If you think nuclear power is so practical, name one nuclear plant on Earth that was build with private funds and actually paid itself off during its life time.
Nuclear power is a necessary evil in a world where we can't seem to stop accelerating our consumption of energy. I think you need to have a realistic view of what nuclear power and nuclear waste really means. There is not that much uranium in the world and it would help if power companies and the Dept. of Energy would not destroy Native American reservation lands when they try to mine it.
For anyone interested in some facts, this is a decidedly anti-nuclear site, but most of the facts are true as far as I've researched: http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/kyotonuc.htm
I don't. But GP isn't one of the stellar ones. Nor are the ones on the list. Is there a reason that eco-groups need to pay execs 250K/year+?
I don't know why eco-groups need to pay anyone $250K, but non-profits still live in a free market world and CEO's everywhere are over paid in my opinion. In the environmental business we call GreenPeace an example of the Environmental North, versus the on-the-ground, truly socially active groups as the Environmental South.
Eco-groups have gone corporate like everything else and that is very sad and wasteful. I still think they do more good than harm and there are mid-level managers at many Fortune 500 companies that do a lot less good for that same salary.
Eco-groups have gone corporate like everything else and that is very sad and wasteful. I still think they do more good than harm and there are mid-level managers at many Fortune 500 companies that do a lot less good for that same salary.
This is where you and I disagree. I don't care much for ideological purity and I don't mind spirited disagreement. I DO mind mis-stating facts in order to generate income because it sounds better on a 30 sound bite.
Greenpeace IMHO does more harm than good in as much as it innoculates the general public in believing that environmental folks are either crackpots or money grubbing suits.
Blind opposition to nuclear power, hydro, genetic engineering, etc is too much like anti-technology than pro-environment when the only certainty is that no one is going to give up creature comforts like "electricity" and "running water" to reduce our environmental footprints.
The alternatives when eco-nuts shut these projects down is another coal plant.
But, hey, at least GP supports windfarms. Sometimes.
That Trojan turned out to be a mess doesn't mean that folks can't build reactors that work and are safe. That Trojan has material sitting out doesn't mean that they can't be better protected.
This is where you and I disagree. I don't care much for ideological purity and I don't mind spirited disagreement. I DO mind mis-stating facts in order to generate income because it sounds better on a 30 sound bite.
We certainly agree on that. I don't see what you disagree with.
Quote:
Greenpeace IMHO does more harm than good in as much as it innoculates the general public in believing that environmental folks are either crackpots or money grubbing suits.
That is a very legitimate opinion. However I think it is the rightwingnuts who take some statements by enviro groups and over-react to it with their own 30-second sound bites. The general public I would hope can see the difference.
Quote:
Blind opposition to nuclear power, hydro, genetic engineering, etc is too much like anti-technology than pro-environment when the only certainty is that no one is going to give up creature comforts like "electricity" and "running water" to reduce our environmental footprints.
Yes, but you are repeating the same lies of the right. Where does it say ANYWHERE that ANY real environmental group is against electricity and running water?!?!?!? No one is espousing going back to caves. I am calling B.S. on that kind of bumpersticker argument that others have used in this thread.
Quote:
The alternatives when eco-nuts shut these projects down is another coal plant.
Actually there are plenty of other alternatives. That is the point. And eco-nuts are polarizing figures, which make real discussion more difficult, yet ALL groups that are outside of the main power structure need to use strategies that are often "crazy" or "improper." If you agree with them, then they are brave and imaginative patriots, like Bostonians in 1776 or James Dean or revolutionary heroes. Just read the works of Thomas Jefferson and Henry David Thoreau. If you do not agree with them, then they are crazy, anti-establishment radicals, like Luddites or anarchists. Of course anyone who uses violence outside of self-defense or times of war may even be terrorists.
My point is that Greenpeace is not crazy or terrorists. Are we forgetting that their BIG, BAD demonstration was to shine green lights and words onto buildings!?!?!?!? C'mon, right there it shows you how much some folks in this thread have over-reacted and shown their prejudice.
Greenpeace is a corporate version of an environmental group that has created its own corporate structure to affect change in Washington DC, where money and power talk. In doing this they lose much of their street cred, or rather trail cred, and when they do articulate some "radical" ideas, it comes off as self-serving. When any group of people, from companies like Apple to non-profits like Greenpeace to even some religions operate with millions of dollars in budgets, they ALL are susceptible to waste and bureaucratic self-interest. You can admit this and criticize it, but it is hardly worth condemning them as "evil."
Quote:
But, hey, at least GP supports windfarms. Sometimes.
Yes, but NO technology should just get a free pass. I don't admire GP that much or give them money, but they do get issues on the table for discussion. Now if they used violent means to stop windfarms or anything else, I would not support it or them. But even Gandhi broke the "law" at times to make a point.
Quote:
That Trojan turned out to be a mess doesn't mean that folks can't build reactors that work and are safe. That Trojan has material sitting out doesn't mean that they can't be better protected.
Vinea
Agreed and I repeat that I am not opposed to certain nuclear power projects. However it is up to the Dept. of Energy and the power companies to PROVE their worth and safety BEFORE given the green light. Trojan was built without sufficient oversight. Power companies buy and sell assets so easily that they can not be trusted to always work for the public interest. I think we can all agree on that.
My point is that it is a sad state when normally sensible people go crazy over very simple and non-violent protests. It is a sign that they have deep seated frustrations and prejudices that may color their perceptions ... either that or people feel free to act as idiots when they are annonymous online.
Ok, time for everyone to sit back, relax, and enjoy a 'Tall Cool Glass of OJ?'.
Seriously, enough with the emotional crap.
I think yall should present credentials, if you wish to betaken seriously. Particularly, Nuke and Mac, since you both sound like you have some reasonable basis for your positions, how about some background? What degrees do you hold, and what do you do for a living?
On a side note, from my perspective in private security in Michigan (bout 7 months out of date now, since I'm back in school (studying physics)), nuclear powerplants in MI, and I can reasonably speculate the entire US, employ security personnel who are armed to the teeth, and who all have security clearances. So diving into the pool wouldn't be what killed ya. It it'd be the holes left by the bullets that go zinging through you.
Also, in my hometown, there was, once upon a time, a big huge plan for a nuclear power plant. Permits were obtained, and construction began. Then, oops, the NRC decided to raise the requirements for the soil stability at new powerplants. Our site was too sandy. So the whole project was converted to an electric/steam co-generation plant. Dow Chemical, located right in the plant's back yard, makes excelent use of the steam, and everyone else in town and the surrounding area gets electrons. Same as if it had been built as a nuclear facillity, I think, except that it burns coal (rather cleanly, actually) and output is lower.
There's my anecdotes.
Now quit being childish and reactionary, and stop the name calling, or I'm turning this car arround and we're going home.
Yes, Greenpeace is probably jumping on Apple because of Apple's progressive connections and strong positive public image. People expect Apple to be more enviromentally friendly than other computer companies because of the generally friendly image of its products (plus lifelong Democrat Steve Jobs, who invited Al Gore to sit on Apple's board, is probably easier to influence than Bush Pioneer Michael Dell). Apple and Apple fans have a legitimate issue with Greenpeace there...
Yes, there are also REAL issues with the ecological impacts of the technology industry. Computers are made out of some dangerous things, and they tend to become obsolete quickly compared to other appliances. Greenpeace has a legitimate issue with Apple (and the rest of the tech industry!) there...
One thing that neither Greenpeace nor the Apple fan community has addressed with real data is how well Apple does environmentally compared to other major technology companies. I suspect they're actually better than average, but nowhere near good enough (but I don't have real data either). Having unpacked a lot of Macs, iPods. PCs and other consumer electronic devices, I can judge that Apple's packaging is MUCH better than average (both from a reduction standpoint and a recyclability standpoint). Apple probably uses 1/3 the packaging volume of many other devices I've seen, and it's clearly marked for recycling. Their products also tend to last longer than many others (at least Macs, I'm less sure about iPods), which is very good from a waste reduction standpoint. I have no information on their manufacturing processes, and I'd love to know!
Now quit being childish and reactionary, and stop the name calling, or I'm turning this car arround and we're going home.
Celemourn
I understand it is easy to miss the facts when you concentrate on the exclamation points, but you should not fear emotion ... dad. And if you think any of that was sabre rattlin'
Unless you have a great job offer, I'm not going to give you my resume, and I dislike it when people feel the need to give credentials ... but I have a BA in Biology, an MS in Education (science and culture) and I teach at two universities. I used to work for a science musuem and I developed exhibits for NASA and Hanford and went to countless meetings from all sides regarding the history and cleanup of the reservation. We tried to make a little vitrification demo, but it was a bit too dangerous! I am on the board of a local land-use non-profit and spent time working for a SPIRG group, so I've also seen the ego-driven side of eco-groups.
Anyone who separates the ecological from the social is doing so arbitrarily and I just really dislike willful ignorance, ie "I only watch FOX News" or "I only think Apple is true." The "greening" of an Apple Store is non-threatening, clean, kind of artistic and uses few resources.
GP or my greening idea? Because green is my favorite color and my favorite apple is Granny Smith. And I don't think dark/solid green would work, lighter shades of green used tastefully would look fine IMHO. Besides, I actually like the look of the GP "Green your Apple" website.
Comments
If then Greenpeace comes along and shows what is really necessary to do to improve our environment, you don't like that as EPA employee I reckon....
As I noted to the other Greenpeace astroturfer:
Greenpeace is interested in money and political power. There's no bloody altruism associated with Greenpeace, NRDC, or EDI. John Adams, president of NRDC made $368K in 2001. Their top 9 officers took in $1.7M in compensation in 2001. EDI's top 13 took in $2.1M. Greenpeace Fund paid nine employees $400K in 2001 and GPF is nothing but a shell company that funnels tax deductible money into Greenpeace International and Greenpeace, Inc. Some of those folks double dipped and were also paid by Greenpeace International or GP, Inc.
"Greenpeace Incorporated" is just the right mental picture for that so-called environmental organization. The IRS slammed GPF and GP, Inc for the "illegal nature" of how they do business. How's that for moral or ethical?
In contrast the President of the PETA (whom folks really hate) made $30K in 2001. Their top 5 officers made a combined $300K. The Sierra Club's Executive director made under $140K and a combined $400K for its top officers in 2001.
Excepts for 2004:
John H. Adams, President, NRDC: $704,796 (whew!); Steven Sanderson, CEO Wildlife Conservation Society: $495,422; Mark Van Putten, President, National Wildlife Federation: $477,138; Steven McCormick, CEO, The Nature Conservancy: $399,788; John Flicker, President, National Audubon Society: $362,237; Peter Seligmann, CEO, Conservation International: $336,3353; Russell Mittermeier, Conservation International: $331,515; Kathyrn Fuller, President, WWF: $310,781. Even underlings do well, i.e., "The National Conservancy paid 1,025 salaries above $50,000, with nine above $200,000 and nine more over $150,000."
http://www.worldtwitch.com/animal_charities_2001.htm
Excuse me for being cynical of all the big name eco orgs.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A9890-2003May3
Steve McCormick. Base salary $275,000. Signing Bonus: $75,000. Yearly living "allowance": $75,000, $1.55M home loan from the Conservancy.
Greenpeace Fund doesn't show on the 2004 big spenders list. Do I believe that they've "changed their ways"? Paint me doubtful.
Even for the run of the mill compensation packages of the Sierra Club the folks ain't starving. Nor do I expect them to but what environmental footprint do you expect from anyone with a 6 figure income? It ain't gonna be that tiny.
I can tell you it takes quite a few BTUs to heat McCormick's house in McLean. Thank goodness for global warming this year.
Eco groups are nothing but big business with big business compensation packages selling yet another "product" on the market.
I'm with Dr. Moore on at least that eco-groups have lost their way along with logic.
Vinea
They think nucleair energy is clean
Nuclear energy is by far our cleanest form of large scale energy available. The people who think otherwise have been brainwashed with emotional arguments. The anti-nuclear movement is a religious movement that disregards facts and statistics in favor of slogans.
They think nucleair energy is clean
Is this the same as Nucular energy or is it maybe Nuclear energy? However the hell you want to spell it or pronounce it, its extraordinarily clean. There is no Greenhouse gas emission. In fact, Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace recently made a case for going nuclear - something Greenpeace continues to oppose.
Going Nuclear: A Green Makes the Case (Washington Post)
Nuclear energy is by far our cleanest form of large scale energy available. The people who think otherwise have been brainwashed with emotional arguments. The anti-nuclear movement is a religious movement that disregards facts and statistics in favor of slogans.
The only thing I have against nuclear power is that at least in the US many nuclear reactors turned into case studies for cost overruns and poorly managed projects. Okay, that and transportation of the resultant waste into a still "not in my backyard" site which hopefully really will be complete by 2010 (Yucca Mountain).
But yeah, other than that nuclear power is an important aspect for reduction of fossil fuel usage and I'm all for that. The downsides are IMHO much much less than the upsides if we can get more stuff onto electricity and away from fossil fuels.
I also wish we had subsidized solar power in the US like they do in Germany and Japan. Thin film solar looks like a game changer if we can get it to work. If we can get prices to $1/watt...
If we planned on staying in the house longer I'd probably spring for a solar install but right now replacing older appliances is a better bang for the buck. If the housing boom still existed I'd consider it anyway.
Vinea
1. It is NOT contradictory for GP or any other eco-group to use electricity or paper for brochures. We and they live in a world where marketing and consumption are a part of life. They need to be consistent and use only as much as necessary, but c'mon, you can't be so ignorant as to think GP is about using NO technology or NO resources. Thus the "they just want us to live in a cave" people are simply ideologues making straw men ... 'a la Rush Limbaugh.
2. If you think nuclear is so clean, there are lots of residential property waiting for you at Chernobyl, Ukraine and Three Mile Island. Let me know when you want to move there and we'll arraign it.
3. 50% of the problem is not so much the kind of packaging and such, but the vast, incredible consumption of stuff. The best way to reduce your negative effects on the planet is simply to consume less. Buy only one iPod. Buy things used. Reduce first, then think about recycling.
4. The political system in Washington DC means that everyone has to play the game, even if a group does not want to. I certainly give money to other groups rather than GreenPeace, but I sure don't have to lie and rant about them if they are not perfect. Talk about blaming the messenger.
5. Nuclear power has its place and yes, pseudointellectuals, it does not produce greenhouse gasses, BUT if you actually knew anything beyond the most superficial, you would know that this country is full of ponds full of warm nuclear waste that are not well guarded, usually situated next to large rivers (because nuclear power plants need a tremendous amount of water for cooling and steam for turbines) that flow past large cities, which leak, increase the temp. of the river AND are great targets for any terrorists that can hit one with a plane.
6. The economics of nuclear plants is VERY complicated and as I've said before, it takes so much energy just to BUILD one that it doesn't create any new energy until decades after it runs - and that is only if it actually runs most of the time. Here in Oregon we had a nuclear plant and it was 20 miles from Portland, on the second largest river in the nation, ran barely 20% of the time and it was closed down by the electric company because they couldn't make money on it. Now the people through taxes have to deal with the waste and had to help pay for the reactor itself to be taken to Hanford where who knows what will happen. So don't be so shallow about physics and economics when you spout your pro-nuke rhetoric. I am not anti-nuke at all, I think France was smart to do some of what it did, but there are some major problems to overcome still.
7. The special kind of vitriole that seems to bubble out of certain people when a "green" or "liberal" organization seems to screw up is an indicator of a internalized frustration that resembles a hidden conservative/me-first streak that becomes legitimate during times of social change. The fact that someone would spend more time complaining about GreenPeace than complaining about the larger problems with GE, Monsanto and others, speaks of a reactionary psychosis that is okay in a blog or forum such as this, but is the first steps to calls to fascism and fundamentalists. So try to be aware of your sense of objectivity.
8. e1618978: You are a twit.
9. vinea: You shouldn't dump all eco-groups together.
2. If you think nuclear is so clean, there are lots of residential property waiting for you at Chernobyl, Ukraine and Three Mile Island. Let me know when you want to move there and we'll arraign it.
This is absolutely ridiculous ... TMI 1 is still operational and TMI 2 is shutdown and contained. The effective dose equivalent to the population was less than 1 mSv per person. Hardly relevant considering you get more than that from the environment every year.
The area around Chernobyl is indeed not great for living, but you have to put the blame for that on the Soviets and the people running the reactor. No Western country would ever authorize a reactor to be built the way Chernobyl was. Outside of Russia, when the temperature goes up in your fuel at a certain point the reactivity goes down...
5. Nuclear power has its place and yes, pseudointellectuals, it does not produce greenhouse gasses, BUT if you actually knew anything beyond the most superficial, you would know that this country is full of ponds full of warm nuclear waste that are not well guarded, usually situated next to large rivers (because nuclear power plants need a tremendous amount of water for cooling and steam for turbines) that flow past large cities, which leak, increase the temp. of the river AND are great targets for any terrorists that can hit one with a plane.
I'll tell you what, if you can jump into that pond, unload a portion of the core into your pickup and drive away, you are indeed an immortal. You WILL die before you can get away. Please don't think a terrorist is going steal a multi-ton core section releasing extraordinary amounts of radiation. Also, these ponds are INSIDE the containment building so radiation isn't released during refueling. Containment vessels of nuclear reactors are built to withstand jumbo-jet impacts...
6. The economics of nuclear plants is VERY complicated and as I've said before, it takes so much energy just to BUILD one that it doesn't create any new energy until decades after it runs - and that is only if it actually runs most of the time. Here in Oregon we had a nuclear plant and it was 20 miles from Portland, on the second largest river in the nation, ran barely 20% of the time and it was closed down by the electric company because they couldn't make money on it. Now the people through taxes have to deal with the waste and had to help pay for the reactor itself to be taken to Hanford where who knows what will happen. So don't be so shallow about physics and economics when you spout your pro-nuke rhetoric. I am not anti-nuke at all, I think France was smart to do some of what it did, but there are some major problems to overcome still.
Trojan was closed primarily because the steam tubes in the steam generator kept failing. There was also violent opposition during and after its construction. The NRC deemed it unsafe to operate because of the secondary equipment problems. During operation though Trojan supplied 12% of all power to the grid in Oregon. PGE is the operator and therefore responsible for the decom and cleaning of the site as per their license with the NRC, so no, the peoples tax money isn't going to move the core. The pressure vessel was buried at Hanford and the spent fuel casks are still at the Trojan site awaiting transport to Yucca Mountain.
I also don't quite understand your argument about it taking a lot of energy to build a nuclear plant. It takes energy to build anything ... a power plant, a skyscraper, a car ... what do you mean it takes decades for new energy to be produced? If I build two nuclear plants using electricity from the established grip, then I've added anywhere from 2000 to 2600 MW to the electric grid. Your argument about required energy makes little sense ... you don't "consume" energy, it has to be conserved. The energy required to build the plant is either expended as heat during construction or held in the potential energy of the structure itself. The reactor relseases energy from fission, which is given off as heat ... blah blah blah ... turbine turns and your get electricty from the generator coils ... its just transferred from one state to another.
2. If you think nuclear is so clean, there are lots of residential property waiting for you at Chernobyl, Ukraine and Three Mile Island. Let me know when you want to move there and we'll arraign it.
Grouping Chernobyl and TMI is fearmongering. As AgNuke points out TMI-1 is still operational. Chernobyl was built without containment.
4. The political system in Washington DC means that everyone has to play the game, even if a group does not want to. I certainly give money to other groups rather than GreenPeace, but I sure don't have to lie and rant about them if they are not perfect. Talk about blaming the messenger.
The messenger in this case is making stuff up.
6. The economics of nuclear plants is VERY complicated and as I've said before, it takes so much energy just to BUILD one that it doesn't create any new energy until decades after it runs - and that is only if it actually runs most of the time.
Yes, its a large civil engineering project that typically runs long and more $$$ than projected. On the other hand coal plants are not free to build either.
9. vinea: You shouldn't dump all eco-groups together.
I don't. But GP isn't one of the stellar ones. Nor are the ones on the list. Is there a reason that eco-groups need to pay execs 250K/year+?
Vinea
This is absolutely ridiculous ... TMI 1 is still operational and TMI 2 is shutdown and contained. The effective dose equivalent to the population was less than 1 mSv per person. Hardly relevant considering you get more than that from the environment every year.
Nice evasion of the point! Again, how many people want to live near a nuclear plant. Probably a few more than want to live near a coal plant, but that also isn't the point. Everyone knows the site is still operational and it usually poses no problem during operations, but the one reactor is shut down and contained. Yeah, because it is so safe. You don't talk about how close a real release was. And I'm not anti-nuke so stop saying that it is ridiculous to for me to call you on the "nukes are only clean" bandwagon.
The area around Chernobyl is indeed not great for living, but you have to put the blame for that on the Soviets and the people running the reactor. No Western country would ever authorize a reactor to be built the way Chernobyl was. Outside of Russia, when the temperature goes up in your fuel at a certain point the reactivity goes down...
Again, the technology is better now and a lot better outside the old Soviet Union, but mistakes happened and mistakes will happen and no coal plant will contaminate an entire region for 10,000 years.
Here is a good pdf for the future of nuclear power in the future. It is UK centered, but the issues are pretty clearly laid out: http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publ...missioning.pdf
I'll tell you what, if you can jump into that pond, unload a portion of the core into your pickup and drive away, you are indeed an immortal. You WILL die before you can get away. Please don't think a terrorist is going steal a multi-ton core section releasing extraordinary amounts of radiation. Also, these ponds are INSIDE the containment building so radiation isn't released during refueling. Containment vessels of nuclear reactors are built to withstand jumbo-jet impacts...
I never said terrorists would steal material from a storage pond, dillweed, but thanks for describing the dangers. Also ponds are not inside containment buildings. At the Trojan site there is a radioactive pond sitting out in the open between a camp ground and the Columbia River and the whole thing is on a geologic fault. Reactors are inside very strong containment buildings, not the ponds and not the storage tanks at Hanford. I've worked with the public relations team of both places designing museum exhibits and such so I've been there and seen that.
Trojan was closed primarily because the steam tubes in the steam generator kept failing.
And that was one of 100 problems with it. What is your point?
There was also violent opposition during and after its construction.
And that made the plant uneconomic how? PGE did spent millions trying to stop local votes against the plant, which they successfully did and then closed it on their own a few months later. Now you and they are trying to rewrite history as if opposition was too great for the poor power plant. Typical false claim.
The NRC deemed it unsafe to operate because of the secondary equipment problems.
My point exactly. Not to mention all of the millions lost in the WWPS projects in Washington.
During operation though Trojan supplied 12% of all power to the grid in Oregon.
Yes, it was very useful. I would still support it if it could run safely and efficiently even now, since more coal and large hydro is no longer an option in the area. Again, I'm not anti-nuke. I am anti-people who think nukes solve environmental problems and then call eco-groups that point this out as evil. This photo shows how dangerous the situation is ... http://capefeare.com/snpp.gif
PGE is the operator and therefore responsible for the decom and cleaning of the site as per their license with the NRC, so no, the peoples tax money isn't going to move the core. The pressure vessel was buried at Hanford and the spent fuel casks are still at the Trojan site awaiting transport to Yucca Mountain.
And I am still paying for it as a rate payer too. But if you think PGE didn't use any government funds or government research or government subsidies or help in getting and storing the core at Hanford, you are quite misinformed. And you act as if fuel casks sitting waiting for transport to Yucca Mountain is a good thing.
I also don't quite understand your argument about it taking a lot of energy to build a nuclear plant. It takes energy to build anything ... a power plant, a skyscraper, a car ... what do you mean it takes decades for new energy to be produced? If I build two nuclear plants using electricity from the established grip, then I've added anywhere from 2000 to 2600 MW to the electric grid. Your argument about required energy makes little sense ... you don't "consume" energy, it has to be conserved.The energy required to build the plant is either expended as heat during construction or held in the potential energy of the structure itself. The reactor relseases energy from fission, which is given off as heat ... blah blah blah ... turbine turns and your get electricty from the generator coils ... its just transferred from one state to another.
Nice attempt at trying to teach me thermodynamics, but conversion to heat is the same as "consumption" for any practical purpose unless you are chemosynthetic algae. Once the steam cools to water again, what can you do with the heat? If you think nuclear power is so practical, name one nuclear plant on Earth that was build with private funds and actually paid itself off during its life time.
Nuclear power is a necessary evil in a world where we can't seem to stop accelerating our consumption of energy. I think you need to have a realistic view of what nuclear power and nuclear waste really means. There is not that much uranium in the world and it would help if power companies and the Dept. of Energy would not destroy Native American reservation lands when they try to mine it.
For anyone interested in some facts, this is a decidedly anti-nuclear site, but most of the facts are true as far as I've researched: http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/kyotonuc.htm
I don't. But GP isn't one of the stellar ones. Nor are the ones on the list. Is there a reason that eco-groups need to pay execs 250K/year+?
I don't know why eco-groups need to pay anyone $250K, but non-profits still live in a free market world and CEO's everywhere are over paid in my opinion. In the environmental business we call GreenPeace an example of the Environmental North, versus the on-the-ground, truly socially active groups as the Environmental South.
Eco-groups have gone corporate like everything else and that is very sad and wasteful. I still think they do more good than harm and there are mid-level managers at many Fortune 500 companies that do a lot less good for that same salary.
Eco-groups have gone corporate like everything else and that is very sad and wasteful. I still think they do more good than harm and there are mid-level managers at many Fortune 500 companies that do a lot less good for that same salary.
This is where you and I disagree. I don't care much for ideological purity and I don't mind spirited disagreement. I DO mind mis-stating facts in order to generate income because it sounds better on a 30 sound bite.
Greenpeace IMHO does more harm than good in as much as it innoculates the general public in believing that environmental folks are either crackpots or money grubbing suits.
Blind opposition to nuclear power, hydro, genetic engineering, etc is too much like anti-technology than pro-environment when the only certainty is that no one is going to give up creature comforts like "electricity" and "running water" to reduce our environmental footprints.
The alternatives when eco-nuts shut these projects down is another coal plant.
But, hey, at least GP supports windfarms. Sometimes.
That Trojan turned out to be a mess doesn't mean that folks can't build reactors that work and are safe. That Trojan has material sitting out doesn't mean that they can't be better protected.
Vinea
This is where you and I disagree. I don't care much for ideological purity and I don't mind spirited disagreement. I DO mind mis-stating facts in order to generate income because it sounds better on a 30 sound bite.
We certainly agree on that. I don't see what you disagree with.
Greenpeace IMHO does more harm than good in as much as it innoculates the general public in believing that environmental folks are either crackpots or money grubbing suits.
That is a very legitimate opinion. However I think it is the rightwingnuts who take some statements by enviro groups and over-react to it with their own 30-second sound bites. The general public I would hope can see the difference.
Blind opposition to nuclear power, hydro, genetic engineering, etc is too much like anti-technology than pro-environment when the only certainty is that no one is going to give up creature comforts like "electricity" and "running water" to reduce our environmental footprints.
Yes, but you are repeating the same lies of the right. Where does it say ANYWHERE that ANY real environmental group is against electricity and running water?!?!?!? No one is espousing going back to caves. I am calling B.S. on that kind of bumpersticker argument that others have used in this thread.
The alternatives when eco-nuts shut these projects down is another coal plant.
Actually there are plenty of other alternatives. That is the point. And eco-nuts are polarizing figures, which make real discussion more difficult, yet ALL groups that are outside of the main power structure need to use strategies that are often "crazy" or "improper." If you agree with them, then they are brave and imaginative patriots, like Bostonians in 1776 or James Dean or revolutionary heroes. Just read the works of Thomas Jefferson and Henry David Thoreau. If you do not agree with them, then they are crazy, anti-establishment radicals, like Luddites or anarchists. Of course anyone who uses violence outside of self-defense or times of war may even be terrorists.
My point is that Greenpeace is not crazy or terrorists. Are we forgetting that their BIG, BAD demonstration was to shine green lights and words onto buildings!?!?!?!? C'mon, right there it shows you how much some folks in this thread have over-reacted and shown their prejudice.
Greenpeace is a corporate version of an environmental group that has created its own corporate structure to affect change in Washington DC, where money and power talk. In doing this they lose much of their street cred, or rather trail cred, and when they do articulate some "radical" ideas, it comes off as self-serving. When any group of people, from companies like Apple to non-profits like Greenpeace to even some religions operate with millions of dollars in budgets, they ALL are susceptible to waste and bureaucratic self-interest. You can admit this and criticize it, but it is hardly worth condemning them as "evil."
But, hey, at least GP supports windfarms. Sometimes.
Yes, but NO technology should just get a free pass. I don't admire GP that much or give them money, but they do get issues on the table for discussion. Now if they used violent means to stop windfarms or anything else, I would not support it or them. But even Gandhi broke the "law" at times to make a point.
That Trojan turned out to be a mess doesn't mean that folks can't build reactors that work and are safe. That Trojan has material sitting out doesn't mean that they can't be better protected.
Vinea
Agreed and I repeat that I am not opposed to certain nuclear power projects. However it is up to the Dept. of Energy and the power companies to PROVE their worth and safety BEFORE given the green light. Trojan was built without sufficient oversight. Power companies buy and sell assets so easily that they can not be trusted to always work for the public interest. I think we can all agree on that.
My point is that it is a sad state when normally sensible people go crazy over very simple and non-violent protests. It is a sign that they have deep seated frustrations and prejudices that may color their perceptions ... either that or people feel free to act as idiots when they are annonymous online.
Peace
Blah blah blah, <rattle's sabre> yahma hama oogie boogie booo!!
Peace
Blah Blah Blah!!!
Ok, time for everyone to sit back, relax, and enjoy a 'Tall Cool Glass of OJ?'.
Seriously, enough with the emotional crap.
I think yall should present credentials, if you wish to betaken seriously. Particularly, Nuke and Mac, since you both sound like you have some reasonable basis for your positions, how about some background? What degrees do you hold, and what do you do for a living?
On a side note, from my perspective in private security in Michigan (bout 7 months out of date now, since I'm back in school (studying physics)), nuclear powerplants in MI, and I can reasonably speculate the entire US, employ security personnel who are armed to the teeth, and who all have security clearances. So diving into the pool wouldn't be what killed ya. It it'd be the holes left by the bullets that go zinging through you.
Also, in my hometown, there was, once upon a time, a big huge plan for a nuclear power plant. Permits were obtained, and construction began. Then, oops, the NRC decided to raise the requirements for the soil stability at new powerplants. Our site was too sandy. So the whole project was converted to an electric/steam co-generation plant. Dow Chemical, located right in the plant's back yard, makes excelent use of the steam, and everyone else in town and the surrounding area gets electrons. Same as if it had been built as a nuclear facillity, I think, except that it burns coal (rather cleanly, actually) and output is lower.
There's my anecdotes.
Now quit being childish and reactionary, and stop the name calling, or I'm turning this car arround and we're going home.
Celemourn
Yes, there are also REAL issues with the ecological impacts of the technology industry. Computers are made out of some dangerous things, and they tend to become obsolete quickly compared to other appliances. Greenpeace has a legitimate issue with Apple (and the rest of the tech industry!) there...
One thing that neither Greenpeace nor the Apple fan community has addressed with real data is how well Apple does environmentally compared to other major technology companies. I suspect they're actually better than average, but nowhere near good enough (but I don't have real data either). Having unpacked a lot of Macs, iPods. PCs and other consumer electronic devices, I can judge that Apple's packaging is MUCH better than average (both from a reduction standpoint and a recyclability standpoint). Apple probably uses 1/3 the packaging volume of many other devices I've seen, and it's clearly marked for recycling. Their products also tend to last longer than many others (at least Macs, I'm less sure about iPods), which is very good from a waste reduction standpoint. I have no information on their manufacturing processes, and I'd love to know!
-Dan
I'm too lazy to search the thread. You guys are long winded. What did Greenpeace end up doing?
GP "Greened" an Apple Store in SF. Woohoo!
GP "Greened" an Apple Store in SF. Woohoo!
I don't understand what that means.
I don't understand what that means.
Basically a lot of green flashlights, a green Applesignal (a la Batsignal), handed out flyers, stuff like that, GP gave the Apple store a "Greening."
And actually, if Apple "greened" themselves (i. e. a green color motif for the store interior/exterion), that might not be such a bad idea?
Basically a lot of green flashlights, a green Applesignal (a la Batsignal), handed out flyers, stuff like that, GP gave the Apple store a "Greening."
And actually, if Apple "greened" themselves (i. e. a green color motif for the store interior/exterion), that might not be such a bad idea?
That's kind of dumb.
Now quit being childish and reactionary, and stop the name calling, or I'm turning this car arround and we're going home.
Celemourn
I understand it is easy to miss the facts when you concentrate on the exclamation points, but you should not fear emotion ... dad. And if you think any of that was sabre rattlin'
Unless you have a great job offer, I'm not going to give you my resume, and I dislike it when people feel the need to give credentials ... but I have a BA in Biology, an MS in Education (science and culture) and I teach at two universities. I used to work for a science musuem and I developed exhibits for NASA and Hanford and went to countless meetings from all sides regarding the history and cleanup of the reservation. We tried to make a little vitrification demo, but it was a bit too dangerous! I am on the board of a local land-use non-profit and spent time working for a SPIRG group, so I've also seen the ego-driven side of eco-groups.
Anyone who separates the ecological from the social is doing so arbitrarily and I just really dislike willful ignorance, ie "I only watch FOX News" or "I only think Apple is true." The "greening" of an Apple Store is non-threatening, clean, kind of artistic and uses few resources.
That's kind of dumb.
GP or my greening idea? Because green is my favorite color and my favorite apple is Granny Smith. And I don't think dark/solid green would work, lighter shades of green used tastefully would look fine IMHO. Besides, I actually like the look of the GP "Green your Apple" website.