Having said that, your reasons for the campaign against nuclear power include the fact that it's related to bombs, which has nothing to do with Greenpeace. You also reasonably said that "Greenpeace" is short for "environmental groups at large". To me this means that civil society in general came out against nuclear power, which lead to nuclear power being curtailed, which is... how civil society is supposed to work?
If the underlying argument is "I wish people in the 1980s had a better understanding of the benefits of nuclear power plants and we had continued to build them, albeit with better safeguards" then I would 100% agree with you.
But every time there is a discussion of nuclear power on HN there is a top comment blaming the current lack of it on Greenpeace. It's lazy and intellectually bankrupt.
To say that civil society came out against nuclear power after two high profile disasters, due in part to mainstream environmental groups' campaigning, but also due to high construction and electricity costs, low trust in the industry, and the availability of (imperfect!) alternatives, would be much more accurate, if less exciting to upvote.
> the fact that it's related to bombs, which has nothing to do with Greenpeace.
>> Greenpeace got its start protesting nuclear weapons testing back in 1971.
> "Greenpeace" is short for "environmental groups at large". To me this means that civil society in general came out against nuclear power,
As to the claim that there was dirty money involved, well I find that when I post sources my comments get less engagement. But here's an example (there's others that are easily searchable. Including governments because yes, weapons and energy production are related. Due to enrichment. They don't need to be, but it is an avenue to justify enrichment even if the quantities are dramatically different).
https://science.time.com/2012/02/02/exclusive-how-the-sierra...
> But every time there is a discussion of nuclear power on HN there is a top comment blaming the current lack of it on Greenpeace. It's lazy and intellectually bankrupt.
Truth here is that these conversations are excellently complicated. Climate change is one of the, if not THE, most complicated challenges humans have ever faced. All the sub topics have a lot of nuance and complexity to them as well as a lot of misinformation. Even with strong domain backgrounds these are hard topics! (And I doubt many HN users have strong backgrounds in atomics, PV, battery production, energy transmission, various physical engineerings, and so on, let alone all at once) But I do believe a lot of people care and a lot of people are on the same side (fixing the planet and moving away from fossil fuels). And I think it'd be better if we saw that common ground and would argue as if we're on the same team instead of not. So let's bring what pieces we have to the table. Because when we argue like we aren't on the same team, oil is the winner. But I think we can all agree that be it renewable or nuclear (or honestly some combination that is best suited for a given situation and location) are leagues better than fossil fuels and gas. It's also important to recognize that neither camp offers a full solution to the problem. Luckily their solutions aren't complete overlaps. So please do still advocate your position, but we need to also recognize a common enemy who wants to split us apart. Let's save most of the arguing until they're dead. Clearly fighting each other hasn't worked.
His complaint is that GP stopping nuclear is BS with no evidence. Your comment can be summarized as "I don't see why it couldn't be true" without presenting any evidence that it is true.
You're making the same logical error you're accusing others of. But if you'd like to know, it's because there's a frequent association between the two. But truthfully I think people use "Greenpeace" as a stand in for any environmentally focused organization because it's the one they're most familiar with. There is direct connection with the nuclear case, but as another user points out the Sierra Nevada Club has uncontestable bias given that there are records showing that they took money from natural gas companies to support their anti nuclear campaigns. (I'm unsure if there's as clear evidence for GP. Maybe someone could link. I'm aware of indirect evidence but if someone has financial statements -- like we have with SNC -- I'd appreciate that)
As for why might success in whaling be different than nuclear? For one, whaling was already a huge established industry, while nuclear was budding. I think that's a key difference you can't ignore. Not to mention that whaling doesn't have a direct connection to bombs, not to mention that biggest bombs we've ever made.... Importantly, I think you're also undermining the success of their anti whaling campaigns. Synthetic oils almost certainly had a larger impact but it wouldn't be surprising if their efforts helped accelerate the adoption. Whaling might not have "stopped" but it has as a global industry.
As for oil, well, again, harder to take down a well established large industry. Especially when so much is dependent upon it and ethics gets complicated when you get into nuance (you want to shut down hospitals?). It's also a not harder to do when you fight against alternatives because they don't pass a purity test, even if they are strictly better (and by a lot).