Patrick Moore, Greenpeace and climate change denialism And ... the issues of nuclear energy, GMOs, etc.

In case you're not up to speed on Twitter hot takes, Donald Trump unshockingly had taken at face value Patrick Moore's climate change denialism, as well as the lies about Moore helping found Greenpeace.

Greenpeace has the truth on this. So does Wikipedia, there on Moore's page and again on Greenpeace's page.

For wingers trotting out a Wayback Machine version of Greenpeace's website? A self-owned fail, as that website lists Moore under "founders and early members." NOT "founders."

A list two paragraphs below that? "On board" is not "on THE board." Rather, it's on board the ship Phyllis Cormack when it went to Amchitka, Alaska in silent protest of a U.S. nuclear weapons test.

For wingers trotting out a Google search which allegedly shows Moore among Greenpeace's founders? Dudes, this is Twitter. And, that's not what MY Googling shows.

My first assumption is you, or another wingnut, is OK with Photoshopping 101.

So, put a sock in it.

===

Moore is generally a pretentious twat, such as bitching about enviros for saying "carbon" instead of "carbon dioxide."

Second, before he became a pro-nukes mouthpiece, he was a British Columbia timber industry mouthpiece, supporting forest clear-cutting, among other things. He ceased to be an environmentalist decades ago, as soon as he made that devil's bargain.

More on his background here.

===

That said, is nuclear power the devil?

Not in my book.

We need to approach it cautiously. We need to fix the long-term waste disposal before building any more nuclear plants. We need to correctly carbon-price nuclear power plants, including mining costs of carbon dioxide emissions.

AND, we need to do the same with wind and solar, including mining costs.

We also need HONEST answers on how much wind and solar we would need not just to replace the current electric grid but to allow us to go to a 100 percent electric car fleet.

And, so far, environmental groups have generally shied away from that.

IF we can do that (and reasonable estimates only, please) without nuclear power, fine. If we can't? Well, we need to start talking, then.

And, I'm far from the only environmental to feel that way.

I'm also not the only environmentalist who is OK with GMO crops. And, I've said that for years, too. Read Grist's "Panic Free GMOs." Let's talk reality, not bogeymen or Frankenfoods. Or "chemicals" in your food. (Which is also radioactive.) Let's also not ignore how "Big Organic" has a vested interest in running down GMOs.

And, for that matter, has Greenpeace ever apologized for its 2014 cultural desecration and cultural imperialism?

Overall, I see Greenpeace as about 50 percent Gang Green, 20 percent stuntmakers for stuntmaking's sake, and 30 percent trying to hold on to original roots. (Most Gang Green and non-Gang Green enviro groups alike are anti-GMO, with The Nature Conservancy being the one major exception. (OTOH, TNC takes donations from Monsanto; I agree with their stance but they leave themselves open to challenges there.) They're afraid of losing donors, and within non-profit groups, enviros in general and Gang Green in particular have a high "churn" rate on donors.)

That said, per one of the tags for this post, I reject the idea of "salvific technologism" — that is, I do not believe the tech world, whether in ag or elsewhere, is the cavalry always riding over the hill and guaranteed to save us. But, I'm not a Luddite, either. And, I think most non-Gang Green environmental orgs and activists are. I like a lot of Wrong Kind of Green, for being post-capitalist (that's me, but not anti-capitalist). But ... it too is on the Luddite wagon of most anti-GMOers. GMOs and Big Ag? I'm willing to talk, though I have in the past passed on that Montanto's market capitalization is smaller than that of Starbucks. But, pseudoscience, like WKOG swallowing whole cloth Arpad Pusztai? No.

Greenpeace commits cultural imperialism

I'm sure that, by now, most informed people, especially environmentalists, are well aware of Greenpeace's heaping helping of stupidity and arrogance at Peru's famous Nazca lines.

Yet, some PC-ish types of liberals, or New Left activists continue to try to defend this. (And Greenpeace still has no real apology on its website.)

To those folks, I'm going to hang you by your own petard.

The Nazca figures were made by non-white, indigenous peoples.

Therefore, Greenpeace committed cultural imperialism and you're supporting it. And I hope at least a few of the responsible get the full six years in prison.

“It’s a true slap in the face at everything Peruvians consider sacred,” said Luis Jaime Castillo, the deputy culture minister, after the action by the environmental group on Monday.

There’s your cultural imperialism.

As for questions about whether actual damage was done? Well:

“They are absolutely fragile. They are black rocks on a white background. You walk there and the footprint is going to last hundreds or thousands of years,” Castillo said. “And the line that they have destroyed is the most visible and most recognised of all.”

And, that’s not taking into effect that this may be cryptobiotic soil like in the US Southwest.

Even if not cryptobiotic, the lines were created by a differentiation in soil color below the surface, which Greenpeace disturbed. (See photo below.) In this story, Luis Jaime Castillo, Peru's vice minister for culture, says bluntly:

There is no known technique to restore it to the way it was.

That's the bottom line.

And, they picked the wrong place within Nazca, even, Castillo said:

The hummingbird was in a pristine area, untouched. Perhaps it was the best figure.

Oy.

Two more notes.

One, the activists included people from neighboring Argentina, Brazil and Chile, who definitely should know better, one would think.

Two, despite pledge of cooperation with the government of Peru, there's this:

The group said it would cooperate with authorities. But on Friday a spokesman in Lima, Mike Townsley, said that the activists involved in the incident had left Peru and that the group had not given their names to government officials.

In other words, Greenpeace to Peru says: Eff you. 

Beyond that, it’s a second round of cultural imperialism for white Westerners to be telling Peruvian officials that this was no big deal. So, too is a non-apology about possible "moral offense." Any alleged apology where the actual apologetic statement begins with an "if" isn't an apology.

As for people still trying to defend Greenpeace?

Put down the shovels ...

And, let's crank up the petards in another way.

How much carbon dioxide did Greenpeace use for this (and other stunts of the past week) at a climate conference that set a carbon-busting record and is going to end by probably doing nothing, all while relying on the Church of AlGore's carbon offsets, modern environmentalists' equivalent of medieval Catholic indulgences. (A wrap on the Lima meetings: Yes, they essentially did nothing, while pretending they accomplished something.)

Nazca, post-Greenpeace

Update: Greenpeace US has an actual apology. Too bad the internationals don't have such a full apology; as this piece, which includes the photo at left, reminds us, this is just the latest in a laundry list of stupid Greenpeace actions, which above all include destroying Golden Rice as part of a blanket anti-GMO stance.

It's also not the first time that a dumb stunt by Greenpeace has been culturally insensitive to non-white peoples.

But, this was just a "minor environmental error" to its most ardent defenders.

I asked one a rhetorical question about whether it would be OK to do it to Native American-type sites here in the US or First Nations sites in his Canada and he dodged the issue.

As High Country News describes, the Blythe Intaglios, though not well known, are very similar.

Yeah, right.

And, these were all dumb stunts deliberately decided in advance by a group, where nobody apparently said, "Hey, wait a minute."

That's another part of the problem. Groupthink.

NYT a big fail on Earth Day ideas

Well, John Tierney is, at least. And, apparently, Stewart Brand along with him, for backing nucleaer power without discussing nuclear waste. Or the real costs of nuclear power. (Oh, and I don't care if Greenpeace likes nuclear power, either, unless it's willing to talk about the full nuclear issue.)

Meanwhile, Tierney disses green energy for, among other things ... costing too much!

Tierney can be kind of hit and miss, IMO, and this time, he's a pretty big "miss."

What’s your take on Waxman-Markey – with poll?

As the federal climate control bill, often known as Waxman-Markey from the bill’s originators, Congressmen Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, moves toward a vote today, what’s your take on the bill?

Me? Contra Gang Green enviro organzations (who, of course, value their Democratic Party “access” on a bill like this), I’m halfway in agreement, at least, with Greenpeace’s dump this sucker angle.

What’s wrong with the bill? Per Grist, a fair amount:

The biggest flaws environmental organizations have identified in Waxman-Markey include the removal of the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act, the grandfathering of old coal-fired power plants in the initial years of the cap-and-trade program, and the delay in considering the climate impacts of indirect land use in biofuel production, among others.

In other words, back to the BushCo era on CO2 regulation, back to the BushCo era, or staying there, on Big Coal, and kicking the can down the road on biofuels.

Add in the fact that the Obama Administration teamed up to shift the U.S. “target year” for greenhouse gas cuts from 1990 to 2005, and this bill is Swiss cheese.

Add in that USDA, not EPA, will regulate will regulate details of the compromise with Big Ag, and it’s factory farm Swiss cheese.

And Gang Greeen group League of Conservation Voters has already promised NOT to endorse Waxman-Markey opponents, including real environmentalists who oppose the Swiss cheese.

Former Clinton Administration Department of Energy technocrat Joseph Romm argues that, while the bill is flawed, it’s a good start and can be built upon in the future. He uses the analogy of the original Clean Air Act of way back in 1963, with further development after that.

Romm says Reason No. 2 for the Senate to approve Waxman-Markey is it will lay the groundwork for a bipartisan climate control accord with China, and do so before the Copenhagen environmental summit in December.

If Romm has insider information that says passing Waxman-Markey is pretty much a slam dunk as a guarantor of that, then, I’ll accept the good, or what sounds more good, as a precursor to the better. If not, I’ll stay in reluctant opposition.


Anyway, I’m curious about your views, so take the poll if you would. (Multiple answers are allowed, as I have a bit of snark in it.)

Free polls from Pollhost.com

What's your take on the Waxman-Markey climate bill?

Very good per the current political climate Solidly per the current political climate So-so at best in the current political climate Something is better than nothing, I guess Where was Obama's leadership on this? Sometimes the so-so is the enemy of the better I reluctantly agree with Greenpeace - dump it Weak from the start, got worse with time