Greenpeace declares "threatened" status for Polar Bears a victory!

[NNadir]

In connection with my work on another website, I held my nose and stumbled over to the Greenpeace website today.

I was greeted with this piece of news from the organisation that tells us that replacing 30% of our fossil fuel use for electricity with wind by 2050 will also be a "victory!"

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has officially listed the polar bear as a 'threatened' species, due to the meltdown of its sea-ice habitat caused by global warming.

This is a huge victory for polar bears, even if it did take a Greenpeace lawsuit to accomplish it

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/victory-polar-bear-protected

I wonder if they're talking about lawsuits against nuclear power plants that they've filed over the years. If so, they certainly helped the Polar Bears achieve "threatened status."

If you would like to have a "Victory for Groundhogs" may I suggest that you go out and destroy some of their habitat so they can also, like the Polar Bear, achieve exalted "threatened" status.

Can these people possibly get any more stupid?

[Dead_Parrot]

1. You really have to wonder who's side they're on... nt

[NNadir]

2. They're on the side of praising themselves for their own nobility.

It's the Louis XIV approach to marketing.

[Dead_Parrot]

9. Here's a thought:

Since they spin so much, maybe we could rig them up to a generator? Must be enough for a few MW_(peak) in there. :)

[T Wolf]

3. The victory is NOT in the bears' status but rather in the

acknowledgement of their precarious hold on survival.

Would you also say that fire alarms cause fires and are therefore a bad thing to pay attention to?

If not for efforts of organizations like Greenpeace and PETA, the environmental destruction would go on without notice.

Jesus Christ - use your brains.

[NNadir]

4. That's pure nonsense.

I don't need Greenpeace or any other organisation of distracted middle class "look at me" brats to tell me what's going on with the environment. I've been figuring it out all by myself for years - which is why I know that Greenpeace is a cause of climate change.

If you want to know how Greenpeace is a cause of climate change, all you have to do is to count the number of huge coal facilities that have been announced since the nuclear phase out in Germany, representing the addition of hundreds of millions of tons of new carbon dioxide dumped in the atmosphere each year.

In fact, I don't need anyone to think for me, thank you. My brains are quite satifactory. I think most people would have noticed the Polar Bears situation without Greenpeace's commentary. Maybe you would have not noticed the situation with Polar Bears without Greenpeace, but I assure you I was aware of the matter all by my little self and so were many other people here.

[Zensea]

5. Do you own a car?

Do you use air conditioning?

Wondering how pure you are.

[Dead_Parrot]

6. Burning 3½ billion tons of coal a year is OK...

...so long as NNadir drives a car? How so?

[Zensea]

7. Did I say that?

No I didn't.

Think about it some more and you might figure out what my point is.

[Dead_Parrot]

8. Ok, I've thought about it

And I still don't get it. What has NNadir's "purity" have to do with anything?

[Zensea]

10. This

I admit to being a little snarky and your not getting it doesn't say anything bad about you.

When I see comments like this "I don't need Greenpeace or any other organisation of distracted middle class "look at me" brats to tell me what's going on with the environment,"
my response is -- well just how pure are you then since you are lording yourself over what you call middle class look at me brats?

[Dead_Parrot]

11. fair enough...

Being snarky is compulsory on E/E, especially if nuclear power is mentioned. :) But that Greenpeace has managed to come out with a "hooray! we got polar bears on the endangered list!" article when they have, for years, been campaigning against emission-free power (with no sense of irony whatsoever) is sort of breathtaking.

The polar bears aren't drowning because we have nuclear power - they're drowning because we don't have enough. It would be nice if Greenpeace would recognise this, rather than waving around their endangered status as if it was a good thing.

Whatever NNadir's faults (and they are numerous ;)) he is an ex-anti-nuclear campaigner who's acquired a sense of perspective. We could (unfortunately) do with more arrogant bastards like him.

[bananas]

13. That is an ontological question for me right now

To be snarky or not to be snarky?
That is the question,
Whether 'tis nobler to blah blah blah snore snore zzzzz ....

[NNadir]

12. I am not pure. What about you?

Is your computer powered by windmills?

My computer, happily, is one half powered by nuclear power. I am calling for the percentage being raised to something more like the percentage in Vermont.

[Zensea]

14. No I'm not

The way I see it any technology is bound to have adverse impact.
It just depends which impact you are more comfortable with and think can be obviated more easily and how to do so.
Nuclear waste will be around for a long time.
Why go for half baked measures, as long as we're at it let's just set off a couple of hundred nuclear bombs.
That should take care of the global warming problem when the nuclear winter kicks in.
:)

[NNadir]

15. Really? "Nuclear waste" will be around for a long time?

What about fossil fuel waste? That's temporary?

What's your estimate on the half-life of open pit coal mines?

How about the half-life of coal ash? What, 10 years, 20 years at max?

Or is it simply that only "pure" people care about fossil fuel wastes and "impure" people only should consider so called "nuclear wastes?"

Personally, even though I am rich enough to post drivel on this website and have a computer monitor, I think that that the attention paid to so called "nuclear waste," is a conceit for rich boys and girls who haven't been compelled, ever, to think much.

[Zensea]

17. I pay attention to nuclear waste and I'm sure as hell not rich

and I'm a grown man not a boy.
I've also been compelled to think quite a bit in my life.
I've even done quite a bit of thinking without being compelled to do so.

It doesn't really matter what you think does it?
It certainly doesn't matter to me, especially if the level of thought that you've descended to so rapidly in your posts is any evidence of your character.

Looks like your screen name is appropriate.

See, I can trade insults if you want, but it's kind of silly to do so.

[NNadir]

18. You may not know it, grown man, but if you have a computer, you're rich.

I have seen lots of people consign so called "nuclear waste" to a special category all to itself.

I regard this as a failure to think, since I regard thinking as the ability to do comparisons. Maybe you don't, but I do.

It really doesn't matter if you do not pause to consider whether fossil fuel waste is eternal. It will be whether or not you think on the subject.

[Zensea]

22. Rich compared to the rest of the world, yes I know

... but I'd really appreciate that you avoid making assumptions about the rest of me though you have backed off from it slightly in this new response.
I came very close to being homeless over the period of two years once a decade ago.
At the same time my income was around $7500. This was in New York City.
Sure that's a lot of money compared to about 97% of the world, but it didn't mean I wasn't down to one meal a day during part of that time frame and can still feel the results.
I'm not going to feel any guilt about where I am now in that regard.
I am quite familiar with comparisons.
I've seen the open pit copper mines all through southern Arizona and up in Butte Montana personally.
I've demonstrated against bringing coal fired plants into places like Kansas.
Also, back to my original point, I haven't owned a car in 20 years even when I lived in suburbia & I haven't used an air conditioner in 20 years either even when living in places that got up to 105 for weeks.
Save your lectures.
I thought maybe I was being unfair with my initial gut instinct about thinking you evidenced a certain holier than thou attitude (or maybe I should say the attitude that you have some great insight that someone else hasn't also thought about simply because they have come to different conclusions than you have) but the more you respond in the fashion you have, the more it confirms it for me, although of course there is a possibility I am continuing to misperceive regarding this. :) :)

By the way, look up the definition of so called, you'll see it can mean the exact opposite of what you probably mean by it. It's a funny word that way, in that it has two exactly opposite meanings.

[meow mix]

16. they are on the right side of the fight.

i fear theres not enough good-guys like greenpeace around to save the world unfortunatly. still.. some heros are better than none.

of course its easy for thier critics to pick out something trivial and poke fun at it but luckily most people here can see these bs tactics quite easily, being often used by rw interlopers.

[NNadir]

19. Greenpeace are not "good guys" nor heros, except in descriptions of themselves.

Actually the members are forces for ignorance.

I repeat, the reason that Polar Bears are threatened has to do with climate change. Greenpeace attitudes enforce, and do not fight, climate change.

If you think a pronouncement about eliminating "30%" of fossil fuels is 2050 is fighting climate change, I have news for you, especially because world energy consumption is increasing and not decreasing.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press/releases/wind-power-can-produce-one-thi

They are bad guys, through and through. It is neither reasonable or moral to postulate that 30% of electricity from wind is an acceptable approach. Neither is it reasonable or moral to oppose nuclear power.

[meow mix]

20. they actively do anything they possibly can.. and that means anything.

which is more than most everyone else.

the fact that they are of the few "do-ers" is why they are so hated.

[Dead_Parrot]

23. Quite

Even if it's damaging to the environment, they dive straight into it and damn the consequences.

[meow mix]

25. ?

thats just dumb... where do you guys manufacture this stuff up?
lol ok fine, yah, greenpeace has a supersecret plan to actually destroy the world. just google "greenpeace millions dead"

[Dead_Parrot]

26. Which bit is confusing you?

That electricity production is expected to double by 2030? that Greenpeace believe 40% can be generated by renewables, or that Greenpeace oppose nuclear power?

The rest is fairly basic math, but let me know if you need help.

[meow mix]

27. sounds good to me..

well not that first part, id rather see and decrease if i have a choice =)

[Dead_Parrot]

28. A 92% increase in CO2 from fossil fueled electricity sounds good to you?!

You should definitely join Greenpeace, then.

[Dead_Parrot]

21. So let me get this straight:

Greenpeace want to scrap nuclear power, and have a rather vague plan of getting 40% of electricity from renewables by 2040 or so. Which, if you know anything about power generation trends, will mean an hefty increase of fossil fuel use and carbon emissions. This makes them the "good guys".

NNadir, myself and quite a few other E/E regulars would like to see mankind stop using fossil fuels, completely, as soon as possible. This makes us "right wing interlopers"

Riiiiight.

Out of interest, if you classify massive irreversible climate change as "something trivial", what would you classify as something serious?

[meow mix]

24. eh? nice distortion..

i was speaking of the tactics they commonly employ, not any issue in particular.
by the way thats the same desire as every other green liberal, even the kind that attack thier own im not sure what the excuse for that is.

as far as the trivial part, well your the ones poking fun at liberal efforts and making them seem trivial.
im not sure what the excuse for that is either.. pretty lame though.