A page on energy issues and peace

but...

The more I think of the name "Greenpeace" the more I like it.

You can't have green without peace

Wars are incredibly and increasingly destructive to the environment and to civilisation.

There are still massive amounts of military nuclear waste temporarily stored in underground tanks (at best) and left for future generations to clean up. And the next major conflict will probably see widespread use of asbestos in warships and the like. It's not much use protecting your sailors from asbestosis if the inferior performance of their ship gets them killed by the enemy anyway. 

You can't have peace without green

Widespread human need, or even perceived need, is an unstable situation. Unless basic human needs are met, including security, there will be wars. 

Security doesn't just mean that nobody shoots you or your family, or blows them up in an air raid or a terrorist bombing. It also means water security, energy security, protection from disease, justice under the law... lots of things... obviously. It means having hope. And it's hard to be hopeful if humanity appears to be destroying the environment on which we depend for our very existence.

So what went wrong

Something did! And it's not really their fault. See the pathetic PR record of nuclear power for example.

See also

• The green nuclear backdown - Does Greenpeace have the ability to escape its greenist agendas and survive this?
• Greenwashing
• Climate change denial and the anti nuclear movement Sauce for the goose
• Patrick Moore and Greenpeace (don't believe everything he says, see pollies and participants, but isn't it interesting how greenhanded Greenpeace have been caught? If they are prepared to falsify... there is no other word... and otherwise obscure their history in that fashion, what else are they falsifying?)
• The expert and the others less relevant but interesting
• Pollies and participants as linked to above
• Agendas and power for some obstacles Greenpeace faces 
• peace