• Deestan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Greenpeace is a long time contributor to keeping us on - and in some instances reverting to - oil and coal, by their feelgood-based resistance to nuclear power. They are actively harmful to Earth’s climate and environment.

  • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    We? How about you either study the subject and form your own opinion or then don’t have an opinion on it at all.

  • xe3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think there is no “we” and there is no “them”

    It’s an arbitrary distinction between two groupings that are too broad to meaningfully judge.

    There is also no point or honor in judging on its own. If you dislike Greenpeace’s approach, find another approach and devote yourself to it, put your money where your mouth is.

    Activism is in reality often a choice between choosing the least worst strategy in a context where you have limited power and control, and any decision you make will alienate someone. Particularly the armchair-sitters who believe they are “in the middle” and who’s only contribution tends to be saying empty things like “I believe in their mission just not their tactics” but don’t put forward a practical strategy of their own. This applies to most activism, particularly direct action.

  • x2XS2L0U@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Personally I dislike top-to-bottom-orgs like gp, while I see at the same time they are fighting for a world worth living in (as I do as well).

  • sbv@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    There isn’t enough opposition to entrenched influence. They push back against huge companies doing shitty things. I like that.

    I’m ambivalent about their anti-nuclear stance. Renewables seem like a much better bet, but it’s hard to say no to anything that would slow down climate change.

    They’ve screwed up on some of their actions, sure. But they’re pushing in the right direction.

    • KptnAutismus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      absolutely, i’ve done a lot of research on nuclear energy recently and i can safely say: we should’ve shut down the coal plants. but there are some real problems with long-term storage. so if we did leave them running, we still would need to get renewable either way.

      • jasory@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        “Some real problems with long-term storage”

        Political problems. Real, political problems; see Harry Reid’s opposition to Yucca. Fossil fuel and renewable manufacturing also have serious waste problems that are on a far greater scale than nuclear.

    • mindlessscrollingparrot@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If we (society as a whole) had started switching to renewables when Greenpeace first started campaigning for them, I suspect we wouldn’t have the climate emergency that makes nuclear look attractive.

      It’s hard to expect them to change their stance just because we failed to follow their lead for decades.

      • jasory@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Nuclear is attractive because all the renewable options are climate dependent consequently highly variable. Unless you have some new form of renewable energy, this isn’t going to change.

      • sbv@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think that’s what most people miss. Green Peace is mostly right. Everything scientists and environmentalists have been saying for decades is right. They’re easy to shit in because they are passionate and wear their hearts on their sleeves, but they’re right: we need to do better.

        • jasory@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          They’re easy to shit on because they are stupid, being passionate and stupid are not a necessary combination.

  • Ekky@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Can’t talk for anyone else, but I put them in the same category as PETA.

    They probably do a lot of good, but it feels like the good they do is outweighed by all the bad they do to get there.

    Like kidnapping collared dogs from the streets to euthanize them (PETA), or fighting the (at the time) only realistic alternative to oil, giving all the rich oil sheiks a hard on and adding to the already bad global warming problem (Greenpeace).

    • jeffw@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      While there was like 1 fucked up story about a PETA employee doing that, it’s not something they actually do. It’s like the needles in the Halloween candy, people still spread the story

      • Ekky@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Right, I thought it was a group of employees doing this over an extended period of time, might not be a fair comparison after all then.

        Not that it’s a fair comparison to begin with, I just held a similar amount of annoyance toward the two.