Skip to main content

View Diary: Troll Rating Fritz Haber, Jimmy Kunstler and the Oracle at Snowmass, Part 2 (155 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Greenpeace & TXU sitting in a tree? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Plan9, willb48, bryfry, Matthew B

    In fact, Greenpeace is in bed with the large coal company TXU, to put up some wind farms in the UK.  This was in 2002 that this union was formed.

    And perhaps it explains the massive silence from Greenpeace on the subject of the 17 dirty coal plants planned by TXU in Texas.  Yes, none of these were so called clean coal plants.  Even the mayors of Texas were outraged.  Even the Sierra Club was outraged.  Greenpeace?  crickets

    It is certainly clear that TXU knows how to grease people's palms:

    The governor's decision to speed up the permit process has drawn attention around the state. His executive order is especially not going over well with ranchers in central Texas, where many of the new power plants will be built.

    "I think he's been bought off," says rancher Ruth Pilant. "TXU has given him money to fast-track these permits and give him enough money and he'll do most anything apparently."

    One wonders how much money changed hands for Greenpeace to become such a coal enabler.

    •  You should stop by for the later part of this (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LIsoundview, Plan9, willb48

      series when we take a look at the finances of the Oracle at Snowmass and the list of companies who pay him (off).

      If that same list of companies paid me $15,000-$20,000/day to say they were environmental there would be so much shill talk it would split the processor.

      I mean, Amory Lovins is about as bald faced as the Bush administration was with Halliburton.   I wouldn't be surprised if he announced he was going to do "environmental" consulting for Exxon.

    •  Your info is a bit out of date (6+ / 0-)

      In fact, Greenpeace is in bed with the large coal company TXU, to put up some wind farms in the UK.  This was in 2002 that this union was formed.

      I wouldn't exactly say that is "in bed" - and it's funny you should mention 2002. Just a few months later in October 2002 is when TXU got out of the UK electricity business, selling its UK operations due to "financial distress" as the SEC put it. I doubt TXU has had much to do with UK wind farms since.

      Regarding the "17 dirty coal plants planned by TXU in Texas" your information seems to be out of date there as well. Last I read, the 11 planned units providing up to 9000 MW new capacity have been reduced to just three (1 at Sandow, 2 at Oak Grove) which, if air permits are granted as expected by the end of this year, will result in around 2000 MW new coal capacity in 2009/2010. This is less than the new capacity of both wind energy and nuclear energy that TXU is investigating.

    •  So Green Peace (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doinaheckuvanutjob, NRG Guy

      isn't protesting everything that you wish them to , therefore they are corrupt ?
      Can you prove your accusation ?

      "coal enabler."

      GreenPeace founder on nukes , energy and coal .

      l'essentiel est invisible

      by indycam on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 09:00:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes-because if they cared about global warming (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Plan9, NNadir, bryfry

        they would protest 17 dirty coal plants in Texas.  Maybe they haven't got time to protest everyone one of the coal plants going up in the US. But all the other environmental groups did have time for this one.  

        The fact that the 17 plants are now becoming fewer is due to the Sierra Club, the Billioniares for whatever protests at Merrill Lynch and so forth, & the mayors of Texas, no thanks to Greenpeace.

        As to the link touting the expired wind farm, it is from the Greenpeace site.  Greenpeace has never repudiated TXU.  It's not unreasonable to wonder why that is.  They had an association with TXU in 2002.  The leaders know all the right villains.

        So it's not unreasonable to wonder why Greenpeace has been fairly silent about coal everywhere in the US and why it asserts that global warming is not interesting until about 2050 when the evidence says otherwise.

        Don't you wonder why Greenpeace never protests any coal plants in the US?  Occasionally, they say a few words, but man, they are just not there.

        •  You have not proven your (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Plutonium Page, NRG Guy

          accusation , you have merely repeated your faulty accusation . Saying they have not done something , is not proof of anything . Lack of a protest is not an approval or consent .

          "Don't you wonder why Greenpeace never protests any coal plants in the US?  Occasionally, they say a few words, but man, they are just not there."

          "Activists Dump Coal And Oil Drums At Vice President's Residence To Protest Energy Plan
          Greenpeace activists dumped five tons of coal and five faux oil and nuclear waste drums outside the Vice President Cheney's residence at the Naval Observatory in Washington today to protest the Bush/Cheney Energy Plan. Activists held a banner reading "Stop the Bush/Cheney Energy Scam: America Needs Clean Power Now." The drums were labeled with the logos of Exxon/Mobil, Chevron, Texaco, BP and Enron."
          "Memorial to Pittsburgh Area Power Plant Deaths Erected in the Shadow of Elrama Power Plant
          Highlighting the deadly impacts of coal-fired power plant emissions on the residents of the Pittsburgh Metropolitan region, Greenpeace today installed 3 foot crosses for every one of the 563 people who die prematurely from power plant pollution every year. The crosses were installed in the Elrama Little League baseball field, just across the fence line from the Elrama power plant. The installation was the first stop on a Greenpeace tour of some of the area’s dirtiest power plants."
          llegheny Energy- Hatfield's Ferry Coal Plant
          Hatfield’s Ferry power plant, located in Masontown, Pennsylvania, is an exceedingly dirty coal-burning power plant. Owned by Allegheny Energy, this plant ranks as one of the worst polluters in the country, violating environmental standards and causing numerous health problems, including premature death. However, thanks to extensive Republican Party contributions, this plant is permitted to continue on its dirty energy path without consequence.
          "CO2 emissions
          The primary human source of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is from the burning of fossil fuels for energy production and transport. Changes in land use and deforestation also contribute significantly. Trees, for example, are natural 'carbon sinks' - they absorb carbon dioxide while alive and when they are destroyed, carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere. Once in the atmosphere, most of the carbon dioxide stays there for 50 to 200 years, and some of it stays there indefinitely."
          Update! The Smokestack Six
          Thanks to all of you who supported the Smokestack Six - the four women and two men that scaled a 700-foot smokestack to highlight the dangers of a dirty coal plant and the Bush administration's failure to protect communities living in the shadows of polluting power plants. On February 15, 2005, these activists were able to resolve their case with the District Attorney of Greene County, Pennsylvania. We're happy to report that after generating more than 7,500 faxes from supporters, the unwarranted felony charge was dropped! The group has always maintained that they were prepared to take responsibility for their actions and that's just what they did. These six activists served their jail sentences ranging from four days to one month. All are now free!
          Pennsylvania Tour Promotes Clean Energy
          We went on the road in western Pennsylvania, promoting clean energy with our Rolling Sunlight solar demonstration vehicle. We targeted dirty coal fired power plants, hosted events for our National Hair Sampling Study of Mercury Exposure, and called on George Bush and John Kerry to commit to a plan within the first 100 days in office that will ensure that 20 percent of the nation's energy comes from renewable sources by 2020.

          Join Green Peace ,
          Pay your dues ,
          and make that your issue .
          If you don't , then you do not care about global warming and you are in the pocket of TXU .

          "But all the other environmental groups did have time for this one."
          All ?
          So sea shepard was there ?
          WWF was there ?
          EDF was there ?
          Surfrider foundation ?
             * Bellona Foundation
             * Biofuelwatch
             * BirdLife International
             * Center for International Environmental Law
             * Conservation International
             * Earth Charter Initiative
             * Earth Policy Institute
             * Environmental Investigation Agency
             * Environmental Youth Alliance
             * FERN
             * Forest Stewardship Council
             * Friends of Nature
             * Friends of the Earth
             * Gaia Mater (the mother Earth)
             * Global Water Policy Project
             * Global Witness
             * Great Transition Initiative
             * Green Cross International
             * International Analog Forestry Network
             * International Institute for Sustainable Dev
             * NatureServe
             * Tellus Institute
             * The Nature Conservancy
             * Nicodemus Wilderness Project
             * Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI)
             * Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society
             * World Business Council for Sustainable Dev
             * Worldchanging
             * Worldwatch Institute
             * World Wide Fund for Nature
             * Xerces Society
             * Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative

          Please tell me you have photos / written accounts of the big demonstrations put on by EFN .

          l'essentiel est invisible

          by indycam on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 10:00:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  kudos on an excellent butt-kicking (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Plutonium Page, indycam
          •  Really? Clown Acts involving smokestack climbs (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LIsoundview, Plan9, bryfry, raoul78

            are part of the "fight" against coal?

            This stuff - the best part is driving around on the "solar tour" - is so bourgeois that it's laughable.

            Unless Greenpeace has a program for phasing out fossil fuels - and it doesn't - and a real program that doesn't involve "look at me" circus stunts that offer nothing more than candidates for the Darwin Awards, you have not demonstrated that Greenpeace gives a rat's ass about dangerous fossil fuel waste.

            Lip service and circus performances are very, very, very, very, very different than action, but I very, very, very, very, very much doubt that you have a clue about that.

            Greenpeace opposes the largest, by far, form of climate change gas free energy.   It has taken part in malicious and dangerous frankly vandalous actions to destroy this infrastructure.

            In the meantime, not one Greenpeace action in any place has ever shut a dangerous fossil fuel plant.   NOT ONE.   When was the last time that Greenpeace entered into a persistant campaign - even one that was misleading - to phase out dangerous coal?

            On the other hand, some Greenpeace actions, have worked up public stupidity into a tizzy, notably at Rancho Seco, Yankee Maine, and Trojan, all of which were subject to misinformation campaigns and repeated referendums whipped up by Greenpeace types.  (It would appear that all of the referenda except the Sacramento one failed, but in each case Greenpeace called for new referenda.)  All of these plants have been replaced by dangerous fossil fuel plants and Greenpeace did nothing to stop them.   It did attempt to cover up what was happening by making a big innumerate deal about the 3 MW (peak) solar plant that was erected outside Rancho Seco to advance the lie that the plant was replaced by "solar energy."

            Let's do some Greenpeace "we didn't just push for more fossil fuels in California" math.

            3.2 "peak" = 913

            Of course, SMUD was a terrible bunch of dunderheads - probably still are - and bungled the operation of the plant, a real "gang who couldn't shoot straight."  Even so, they really only started injuring people when they shut the plant and decided to burn dangerous fossil fuels instead.

            Greenpeace couldn't care less.   In fact, I doubt very much that Greenpeace has ever seen a dangerous natural gas plant it couldn't love.    Greenpeace seems to be under the absurd impression that dangerous natural gas is clean.  

            In fact, the trust fund brats at Greenpeace won't give a rat's ass when the problem of peak dangerous natural gas comes home to roost.   Probably they'll just dress up in clown suits, climb smokestacks, and march around telling everyone that everything will be fine if the poor people would stop insisting on having 200 watts of power to use.

            And if the last statement is a mystery, as I will cover later in this series, the situation in China - let's blame China for climate change - comes down precisely to that.

            Earlier links - and I realize that numbers are meaningless if you're a Greenpeace/Fossil Fuel apologist - have given the numbers on solar energy production, and in units of energy as opposed to the little "peak power" rating.   All of the solar electricity produced in the United States does not equal the energy output of a typical nuclear power plant.

            The most amusing thing about Greenpeace/Fossil fuel apologists is that they think they should be taken seriously just because they've taken two minutes to offer illiterate lip service.

            In fact, climate change is a very, very, very, very serious matter and the life of all humanity is potentially at risk.   It is hardly addressed by a bunch of middle class brats with poor educations driving around from place to place with rappeling equipment trying to get their pictures of TV.

            •  your diaries have closed how many coal plants? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Plutonium Page, indycam, BruceMcF

              I guess I lost track of how many coal plants you can claim credit for stopping.  

              Last time I checked, coal has been getting a lot more flack lately and planned plants are being canceled frequently -- in part due to public concern about global warming.  I guess it's your diaries on dKos have that created this public concern, while Greenpeace toils in obscurity.

              In the meantime, you attack natural gas yet fail to acknowledge that replacing a coal plant for a CCGT gas plant reduces GHG emissions by more than 50%.  I think it would be better to actually replace some coal plants with perhaps a gas fired CCGT, some wind, and efficiency improvements rather than just talk about nukes that companies don't seem to want to build.  One approach is based on what's happening in the US today and one is based on your rants and wishes.  

              You say you want to have an impact NOW, then you should be pushing for the Energize America agenda and write diaries about how the gov't needs to mandate efficiency improvements for cars, appliances, and buildings and maybe even pushing for a carbon tax or more fuel switching from coal to natural gas -- these are strategies that may actually have an impact in GHG emissions in the next 5-10 years.  A doubling of new car fuel economy in the US is equivalent to building about 5 large nukes each year.  Where are your diaries on that?  In addition, dKos readers may be able to help push for the political changes needed to make these changes happen -- unlike nukes which are unlikely to be helped much by the opinions of dKos readers because companies don't want to build them.    

              I guess it's easier for you to pretend that the choice is solar PV vs. nukes.  If I took your approach, I guess I would conclude that you don't give s shit about global warming.  But I'm more generous than that -- I think that you just care much more about promoting nukes than about anything else.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (150)
  • Community (65)
  • Elections (43)
  • Civil Rights (38)
  • 2016 (32)
  • Culture (32)
  • Baltimore (28)
  • Economy (27)
  • Texas (27)
  • Law (27)
  • Bernie Sanders (26)
  • Environment (26)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Labor (23)
  • Health Care (21)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Barack Obama (20)
  • Republicans (18)
  • International (18)
  • Freddie Gray (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site