Re: And who will not be happy
If it's good enough for Jonathan Swift...
Greenpeace activists are celebrating today, after their protests led to the halting of plans to build a massive renewable powerplant which would have supplied clean, green, low-carbon electricity in huge quantities. "Today, we celebrate," Greenpeace chief Matías Asún told reporters, following a decision to withdraw government …
If it's good enough for Jonathan Swift...
I was at living in residence at University when another guy living there decided he was going to join Greenpeace and headed down to the waterfront to protest the arrival of a US Aircraft carrier. His protest was about keep Halifax (the city we were in) a Nuclear Free Zone... the ship has a nuclear reactor and capable of (and likely carrying) nuclear-type weaponry.
On his return I asked him if he really felt that strongly about being Nuclear-Free... of course his response was that he was dedicated to it! It was only then that I informed him of his gross oversight in paying tuition to a University with not only a nuclear physics doctorate program, but a functional nuclear reactor that is used for training purposes.
Not surprisingly, his enthusiasm for following the "Cult of GP" waned pretty quickly on facing the fact that he was financially supporting a nuclear reactor operation in the city.
The point of this story is that I somehow doubt that the Greenpeace activists that were protesting here were made up of people without reliable or affordable power... but rather those people that have much more privileged positions in the world, where is is easy to look down at others for trying to climb the ladder of prosperity.
Halifax's got an university? And how the heck would someone bring an aircraft carrier there - it's almost as far from any waterfront as it gets. In the UK. Oh... Canada, you said :)
"'I'd like to take each and every member of the 'environmentalist' lobby, strip them naked, and dump them "
Don't tar all enviromentalists with the greenpeace brush. Greenpeace jumped the shark years ago and now they're just a left wing anti-everything political movement. But they're are organisations like Friends of the Earth who do have a reasonable point of view and don't want to ban anything invented after 1800.
FoE are worse that Greenpeace, if that's possible. They are both fascist organisations that want to control how we get our energy and think they know best about how to run the world.
Look at bio-diesel. They were all for it initially. Now that it's been shown to be a pile of poo, they are against it.
Everything GP and FoE touch is eventually seen to be a lie.
Look at the debacle with the oil rigs in the North Sea where GP campaigned to not have them sunk but rather dismantled at shore. Turns out that GP lied and that it would not have been a problem to sink the oil rig. In fact it would have created a nice reef for the fishes.
" 'I'd like to take each and every member of the 'environmentalist' lobby, strip them naked, and dump them "
Don't tar all enviromentalists "
He never said he was going to tar them let alone reach for the feathers..............
"They are both fascist organisations"
I suggest before you start spouting moronic off the shelf student rhetoric you at least get a clue first:
" think they know best about how to run the world."
Unlike governments and corporations who obviously DO know best, right? Oh , wait...
If people checked their facts before yelling "fascism", Godwin would be wrong, and we'd never know that an arguement had run its course.
"Look at bio-diesel. They were all for it initially. Now that it's been shown to be a pile of poo, they are against it."
I don't understand. You're complaining because they changed their policies to fit the facts?
FoE once tried to get the UK to ban glass recycling. They were supporting a naive banning of lead on a simple parts per million basis from the Packaging and Packaging waste directive with no regard to its perversities.
"Look at the debacle with the oil rigs in the North Sea where GP campaigned to not have them sunk but rather dismantled at shore. Turns out that GP lied and that it would not have been a problem to sink the oil rig. In fact it would have created a nice reef for the fishes."
I emailed Greenpeace at the time suggesting the rig(s) would make a nice reef. They never bothered to reply.
Therein lies the problem with the pseudo science and mythology which these organisations base their opinions.
When they were banging on about using bio fuels the potential problems were highlighted but the green lobby won the day.
Now we are committed to a percentage of bio based fuel in petrol throughout the EU and it is harder to wind this out than it is to put it in to law.
"until we're all living in caves, killing our own sausages."
Once, herds of wild sausages a hundred thousand strong thundered across the prairies, shaking the earth and crushing whatever lay in their path.
The majestic sausage played a significant part in the early history and culture of Europe. Otto von Bismarck attributed his keen understanding of politics to having spent his youth watching wild sausages during mating season.
They didn't change their policies when the facts changed, the facts have always been constant. What caused them to change their policies is the realisation that they were causing problems. So they quickly buried the fact that they were for it.
Look up the meaning of the word "fascist" in a dictionary - "a person who is dictatorial"
if someone has to look up "fascist," I'm guessing they would also have to look up "dictatorial"
Midnight, who would not be able to stand in awe of these breathtaking creatures? Today, only a handful remain, scattered among nature reserves, zoos, and other locations.
Mike Godwin's law only applies to Nazis, not fascists in general. When Hillary Clinton compares Putin to Hitler, that's a perfect Godwin*. But if she compared him to Mussolini - who wasn't 100% evil and at least tried to sort out the Italian mess - that would still be wrong, but could be a legitimate argument.
*In fact Putin compares himself to Charles de Gaulle, who gets a better press than Hitler, Mussolini or Franco despite having been not much better than either of the last two. Being called a fascist seems to depend on where, and when, you happen to have been in power.
In the US, a Republican who changes his or her mind to fit reality is called a "flopper". It is not a complimentary term. In the minds of far too many people, consistency is more important than accepting reality.
Having said that, producing tar presumably isn't very environment friendly and neither is obtaining the feathers... :D
Not when you go destroying some VERY nice parts of nature to do so.
Same goes for the idiots who are planning the hydroelectric projects in Iceland. All nice on paper with their zero emissions, until you visit the place where they will build this and see what rare piece of nature has to go for this.
I normally don't agree very much with Greenpeace, but in this case, I fully understand them. This one's for nature!
Right, while burning fossils instead, which is what Chile will have to do now, is SO much better for nature.
1) Pick up fone to Canada
2) Order up a few CANDUs
4) ENERGY from cheap uranium.
On the minus side, the lead time is prolly 10 years.
On the plus side, you will enrage Amurricans and Greens because you can produce Plutonium in a continuous cycle.
Added bonus if you order up a Russian fast breeder package.
7 downvotes as I write this reply?
Not bad, only 7 readers so far who never get from behind their desk and only know how nature looks from those nice wallpapers on their desktops... Here, have a FAIL icon....
What do you expect when you imply that only nature above the waterline is beautiful? With statements like that you will make the Great Barrier Reef cry.
"only 7 readers so far who never get from behind their desk and only know how nature looks from those nice wallpapers on their desktops"
My, what a pompous arse you come across as. As it happens, I live in one of the most beautiful places in the world and am lucky enough to spend most of my time in the countryside miles from anyone. However, I also realise the beautiful environment around me has changed over time. What we see as "this green and pleasant land" was constructed by people AND nature. Nature is hugely adaptable. Even more so than humans. Things change. Not all change is bad. Not all change is ugly. Not everyone who doesn't share your opinions is an industrialist desk-bound psycho.
Get over yourself.
"Not bad, only 7 readers so far who never get from behind their desk and only know how nature looks from those nice wallpapers on their desktops... Here, have a FAIL icon...."
Ooh, a pretty forest that could have been replaced with ooh, a pretty lake. No matter, thanks to Greenpeace Chile can mine coal instead, or cut forests for woodchip fuel.
So countries that don't already have hydro shouldn't be allowed to pursue it because of the "nice parts of nature", but it is fine in the developed world because no one remembers how nice the nature was that got flooded to build those dams? Not everywhere is as conveniently barren as the area flooded by the Hoover Dam.
I don't know anything about the project, but most dams also have great benefits for flood control and droughts, two things we're told we should expect more of as the Earth warms. So not only will they be saddled with more expensive energy, they'll be saddled with higher food prices during years where floods and droughts affect yield.
If Greenpeace wants this for less developed countries, they should ask for donations to offset the cost to countries and their residents for stuff like this. Like those who buy tracts of virgin rainforest or stands of redwoods to keep them safe from logging. But their mission seems more about self-publicity than actually having a real benefit on the environment. I'd donate money to almost anyone before I'd give a cent to Greenpeace.
I don't know anything about the project, but most dams also have great benefits for flood control and droughts,
You should actually check out what the project is before blindly assuming it's not bad. It's actually pretty bad.
Granted, Chile could do better by setting up a nuke plant, but I'm guessing that's not going to fly in this post-Fukushima era.
Not when you go destroying some VERY nice parts of nature to do so.
I think perhaps we can do without "nice" if the alternative is inexpensive and emmission-free electricity for the foreseeable future. What we can possibly NOT do without is the loss of biodiversity in the areas that would be submerged, the loss of CO2-absorbing forest, and the human impact.
As some others have pointed out, though, the decision here seems to have been motivated more by political concerns than environmental ones.
"I'd donate money to almost anyone before I'd give a cent to Greenpeace."
Burning money, literally, would serve a better purpose than donating to Greenpeace. Donating to those clows just encourages them.
There was quite a nice bit of nature here that got flooded, and a town or two IIRC
Before we had the "greenies", it was possible to indulge in major works such as this. Perhaps the TVA is another (though I am not familiar with its details).
These days, we couldn't put a green on an already existing "island" in a pond at my golf club, because some do-gooder discovered a frog living there :(
It was terrible for the environment.
Not everything is great about big hidroelectric!
Few things are great about hydro.
...really really want to save them then there is a very effective way to do it and its proven.
Basically scatter the area you wish to save with thousands of anti-personnel mines.
Think I'm crazy? Well the Americans may well have saved huge swathes of jungle etc. in Vietnam and the surrounding areas from logging etc. as there is far too much ordinance sitting just under the surface and it costs a fortune to clear it.
Keeps the humans out and the wildlife just carries on as normal. Ironic really that US forces in trying to destroy something could well have saved it for future generations.
If you wanted to you could design the explosive with a limited effective lifespan of say 25 years and then review the situation.
I now have this wonderful image of a green paradise, sun shining, birds tweeting, bunny rabbits exploding...
>bunny rabbits exploding
It was Vietnam so it's more likely to be pigs than rabbits...
The bunnies in Vietnam are combat camoflaged:
Not these bunny rabbits:
Y'know, reading this article made me wonder if I had inadvertently switched to the Daily Heil.
Maybe you could tell the full story rather than just the 33% you have actually written.
Sometimes I feel that you actually like the way your inbox fills up.
You could also point out the part he missed...
"Hydroelectric dams produce significant amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, and in some cases produce more of these greenhouse gases than power plants running on fossil fuels."
Can't you capture all this methane and use it to run a gas turbine. ;)
Sorry mate, it's many years since New Scientist was a reputable source, in my book (indeed, if it ever was).
The whole "flooding valleys creates methane" story is not universally correct because it depends on what and where is flooded, and where it may apply there's a simple answer of stripmining the reservoir bed back to sub soil or bedrock. Even if you don't do that, as IAS pointed out above, a hydro electric dam has an asset life of hundreds of years, so the short term methane emissions are a one time cost for a very long term reliable resource.
And as usual the hippies have ignored what nature does, which is to erode soil and rock, and wash living and dead plant matter into water courses. If the tossers applied the same logic to any lowland river in the world they'd find that nature generates millions of tonnes of methane all the time, and they'd be protesting in Parliament Square demanding the immediate closure of the River Thames. Likewise wetlands and rain forests are major sources of methane, but you don't hear the hippies demanding the levelling of the Amazon basin to stop its methane emissions (the Amazon basin alone is perhaps 5-6% of global methane emissions). What Greenpeace object to is the fact that somebody's lives might be improved.
It's just so easy to jump on Greenpeace appropriating credit that a man with Lewis's beliefs couldn't really resist it. They've never been afraid to claim victory on behalf of others.
Perhaps now we can have a proper report on why 60% of the Chilean population opposed and eventually killed this project, which seems to be a combination of national pride in their national parks/landscape, well founded distrust of their government, a genuine lack of belief that this project made any sense and the refusal of their government to consider alternatives.
"which seems to be a combination of national pride in their national parks/landscape, well founded distrust of their government, a genuine lack of belief that this project made any sense and the refusal of their government to consider alternatives"
You forgot to add "and being deceived by the strident, often inaccurate, frequently dishonest PR campaigns by smug, middle class, first world based NGOs, who personally enjoy the benefits of the modern world, but are only too keen to stop the less developed world enjoying them"
well founded distrust of their government, a genuine lack of belief that this project made any sense and the refusal of their government to consider alternatives.
Distrust? How about "they got voted out of government in the following election"? I'm pretty sure the whole project is why Chileans preferred to vote Michelle Bachelet back into power rather than letting Piñera destroy their national park. It seems they learned that voting for conservatives is a huge mistake, something they should know better given their recent past.
Okay, I know that fair and balaced reporting on El Reg aint your thing, but couldnt you at least mention the reasons they opposed it?
Sex an' drugs an' rock and roll an' LOTS an' LOTS of tea.
Put kettle on, I'll build another one.
What do you mean I've been here three days? I must get going soon.
What, five days? I've been here five days? I'm going.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017