Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 04/25/2008 5:52:32 AM PDT by Aquinasfan
When Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore first began second-guessing his opposition to nuclear power, he did what any good environmentalist would do: He buried it.
The activist had already helped spearhead Greenpeace’s fight against nuclear testing and had gained international recognition after being arrested for shielding a baby seal from a hunter’s club.
“I had always been afraid of nuclear waste,” he said in an interview. “I thought if I got anywhere near it, it would kill me. But deep down, intellectually, I knew it could work.”
As global warming grew from scientific theory to public concern in the late 1980s, Moore left Greenpeace in 1986, aiming to prove to the environmental community that pro-nuclear environmentalism was not an oxymoron.
Today, he co-chairs the Nuclear Energy Institute’s Clean and Safe Energy Coalition and is a harsh critic of what he calls an “extremist” anti-nuclear environmental movement — his former Greenpeace colleagues and others who are unwilling to consider nuclear energy as a solution to global warming.
“Anybody taking a realistic view of our country’s energy requirements knows nuclear has to be a big part of the global warming equation,” Moore said. “These environmental groups are not doing that.”
Moore’s critiques of the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth have not been well-received. He’s been called a traitor, a prostitute, and has even been branded the “eco Judas” by former colleagues.
“The nuclear industry was very smart about hiring the likes of Mr. Moore. This industry has been looking for a selling point, and it’s picked global warming, an issue it’s incapable of addressing,” said Greenpeace nuclear policy analyst Jim Riccio. “We oppose nuclear because of price and waste issues.” As lawmakers begin debating how to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy alternatives, Moore’s transformation is one that a growing number of environmentalists may face.
The nuclear debate has already caused a number of small cracks in the green framework. Both the Environmental Defense Fund and the Wildlife Habitat Council believe nuclear energy must at least be considered as a potential solution.
Moore is not the first green leader to leave his job over the energy debate. A trustee of Friends of the Earth, British Bishop Hugh Montefiore, now deceased, was forced to resign after writing a pro-nuclear article.
Born in British Columbia, Moore walked a natural path of environmentalism.
In 1975, the Canadian was part of the original Greenpeace clan that drew global attention with a rubber boat and a human blockade between a Soviet whaling ship and a sperm whale. Later, Moore served as president of Greenpeace Canada for almost a decade and as a director of Greenpeace International.
Now 60, Moore is chairman of Greenspirit Strategies, an environmental policy consulting firm in Vancouver, British Columbia, where he lives.
Despite some harsh criticism over his job switch, Moore maintains he’s still fighting for the environment.
He’s not a registered lobbyist, describing himself as a coalition builder. His message is basic: People must change their behavior, and the government must change the country’s technology.
He spends much of his time urging environmental groups to abandon their hard-line approach to fossil fuel independence — a prospect that makes many nervous to consider, and most flatly refuse to. Most greens believe that a combination of solar and wind power could answer most of the nation’s energy needs, but nuclear advocates say those sources are unreliable and intermittent.
He failed to realize that his “movement” had been co-opted by the very people that had made him “afraid” in the first place, the communists.................
His 'message' is still demented, if he's being reported correctly. AGW is garbage, and Govt should let the Free market decide how to power itself. It's nice that he's pro-nuke, but that's about it.
That’s the thing about Leftists in general - their beliefs are totally situational. Against nuclear power yesterday, for it today, depending on which way the trendy political winds are blowing.
“That’s the thing about Leftists in general - their beliefs are totally situational. Against nuclear power yesterday, for it today, depending on which way the trendy political winds are blowing.”
Profound truth that everyone needs to consider-situational ethics, beliefs, double standard, two faced, you nailed it well.
I think his position is consistent. If you accept the premise of AGW, then you have to be in favor of accelerating the use nuclear power. However, the fact that most advocates of global warming are violently opposed to nuclear tells me that AGW is a massive fraud being used to achieve statist goals.
Yep. Even in an absurd worst-case scenario of several nuclear power plant meltdowns per year, the resulting damage would be trivial compared to the alleged consequences of global warming. Ergo, anyone who honestly believes that the latter threat is real must advocate the replacement of fossil-fuel power plants with nuclear ones ASAP.
bump
This guy appears in the DVD ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’. In the DVD, he seems sceptical of the whole AGW myth.
‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ is one of the most eye opening movies I have seen regarding globull warming. I recommend it to anybody with children in public schools or who are influenced by the media.
Headline:
“Econuts cry, ‘No fair!’ to US attempt to join 21st century”
Just think of all the oil MONEY we sent to the Arabs to run our oil-fired power plants while these 4$$holes kept us away from nuclear energy!
Buncha jihadists, in my book.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.