> you might even be forgiven to think it's very likely anti nuclear movement was funded if not founded by big coal

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-f...

https://thebreakthrough.org/blog/the-true-face-of-the-anti-n...

"In 1970, a leader of the petroleum industry and the head of the Atlantic Richfield Co. named Robert O. Anderson contributed $200,000 to fund Friends of the Earth, an organization that is strident in its opposition to nuclear energy, citing both safety and cost issues."

Why am I surprised at learning this?

I am actually surprised that the article doesn't provide more examples. The article argues that the fossil fuel industry is paying the antinuclear movement and the single, one example given is a onetime payment in the 70s to start a new organization by a private person. Sure, everyone requires different levels of evidence, but I heavily doubt that you will be able to convince anyone with that one. And then the rest of the text is about how renewable are (as of 2016) so much smaller than the loss in nuclear power.

Well they did the same with "climate scepticism" too, so it's from the playbook.

Another fun one: Greenpeace is a natural gas energy provider in germany (proWindGas)

Yeah of course they are, I was being a bit sarcastic (but also don't know how people here would cope with such "conspiracy theories").

This is not the only area of alignment. The green movement has been pushing for "recycling" of plastics for the last decades. This is a big gift to the oil industry, that has been able to rely on a grassroots movement to put the burden of getting rid of plastic garbage on individuals through "recycling".

Agreed. In "The New Climate War" climate scientist Michael Mann charts the history of polluters convincing the green movement that it should be the responsibility of ordinary citizens to change their behavior rather than polluters. He opens with the "crying Indian" campaign in the 70s--sponsored by the soda industry--to convince people to throw away their bottles in order to avoid legislation that would curb their own profits. Nowadays, "environmentalists" try to persuade people toward veganism and away from SUVs as though these things are (1) ever going to happen en masse or (2) put us anywhere near the necessary ballpark even if (1) happens.

Veganism is funny. Some vegan food, such as avocados and certain nuts (cuisine definition; not botanical) such as almonds require a lot of water to grow, and also there's the transport problem. Although that one's a paradox: a transport ship might seem like its terrible for the environment, but its actually quite efficient compared to an airplane or every customer using their car to drive to the grocery store (though via local consumption it can be avoided). In this respect, individual responsibility matters, you can make a difference in various ways. Don't use fast shipping by airplane even if you can easily afford (only do it by exception), you can also sometimes pick train (e.g. from China, via Russia to Europe). You can do grocery shopping perhaps by bicycle instead of car. Other non-vegan food, where no animal got farmed (a free range chicken a family holds) is thrown away or not eaten (even though it was already produced), foods with trace elements (e.g. milk sugar) is avoided, foods with by-products such as gelatin or whey is avoided. But they drive in a train powered indirectly by coals (electricity network), or use a bus with tires made from pigs. And that's somehow fine (as long as they don't know it). What it boils down to is impact of choice, and simplicity of implementing it. Avoiding eating meat is a lot easier than avoiding any animal (by)products, therefore I find veganism self-defeating, and a luxury (first world) problem as well. No normal, average human being is going to have time to care enough about this issue to put the effort in it, its unreasonable. What works? Taxation, for example. If I'd drive a SUV instead of something small like a Ford Ka or Nissan Kia then I'd be paying a lot more per km on fuel, and for what gain? Its not worth it for me. But Americans barely pay any tax on their fuel.

Why would you say something so controversial, and yet, so true?