[cdn-nucl-l] greenpeace terror

[Randal Leavitt <randal.leavitt@rogers.com>]

I received a copy of an email sent to Greenpeace yesterday, and the 
Greenpeace response.  If I may editorialize a bit, the Greenpeace guy 
just does not get it.

==========

Dear people at Greenpeace, membership coordinator,

Please cancel my membership and my monthly donation to Greenpeace, 
effective immediately.  Please remove me from any and all contact lists 
you have.

I feel very strongly that our means define our ends, regardless of the 
illusions we would like ourselves to believe.  The reason I am leaving 
Greenpeace is that I feel that Greenpeace has become a terror 
organization, spreading fear rather than sense.  The video on the
Greenpeace International site under the nuclear campaign entitled "Do we 
really want..." is obscene.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/nuclear

I want NOTHING TO DO with an organization that employs terror, or seeks 
to employ terror, as means of achieving its goals.  In this respect 
Greenpeace is in perfect alignment with the military industrial complex 
and its drive to constantly create new enemies, real or perceived, to 
fuel demand and public brainwashing.

Nuclear installations in the West are required to be able to withstand 
the impact of a plane.  Even without an intentional attack, there is a 
recognized risk of such a thing happening by accident and consequently 
plants are constructed to withstand them.

Of even more importance than this basic abuse of fact in the 
above-mentioned video, the creation of a perception of a supposed threat 
from supposed Arab terrorists has been the vehicle by which the American 
public was conned into condoning four years of criminal international 
aggression and the murder of 100's of 1000's of innocent men, women and 
children.  How ironic that we perceive as real a terrorism that does not 
exist and anguish about 3000 deaths yet we cannot see the terrorism that 
is in front of our faces every day and the blood that stains our own hands.

To this day there has been no official, public investigation into the 
plane attack in New York in 2001.  Given the vast amount of money that 
has changed hands as a result of this event, not to mention the nearly 
3000 deaths and now the many suffering from having breathed and been in 
the area at the time, why have we not had a full blown inquiry? (10's of 
billions of dollars changed hands in American Airlines stock trades and 
WTC insurance claims before and after the attack, have you ever tried 
counting to a billion?  Or figured out how many minimum wage salaries 
fit into a billion dollars?  Or how many windmills could be erected?)

Of the many reasons the White House administration has not held an 
official and public inquiry, one is clear:  It wants to use the attack as
a tool of terror, on its own people.  The element of terror relies 
heavily on the unknown; if we knew what happened, it would not be a 
mystery any more and the 'terror factor' would diminish.  There are 
many, serious questions as to whether it could even be possible for a 
bunch of inexperienced pilots and terrorists to pull off everything they 
would have had to pull off in order to pull that off.  Enough so that it 
is irresponsible and deceitful for anyone speaking about fact, rather 
than feeling or fiction, to express any certainty about the origins of 
the attacks or the motives behind them.  While Greenpeace has something 
of a mandate to act in the absence of fact, it's credibility relies on 
accurately representing those we know.

For Greenpeace to seek to leverage this fear is the proverbial straw, 
for me.  I had been willing to agree to disagree about nuclear energy 
given the many other projects and actions that Greenpeace undertakes.  
However the use of terror is simply unacceptable.

I feel that Greenpeace's official position on nuclear energy is outdated 
by 30 years, immature and irresponsible in the face of an urgent need 
for the elimination of greenhouse gas emissions, in light of the fact 
that conservation will only delay demand, not stem it, and that other 
green sources could not meet more than a quarter of our demand.  Yes, we 
need to invest in developing these technologies, however we do not have 
the luxury of time.  Greenpeace could be a major influence in making the 
nuclear industry transparent and accountable, in influencing WHICH KINDS 
of nuclear technologies get developed, ensuring that only reactors that 
do not enrich their fuel are adopted, that the processes for recycling 
ALL fuel in a 200 year cycle (which technology exists today) are 
required by law, that plants that can burn existing, used-once nuclear 
fuel (waste is a misnomer as it is still full of energy) are built and 
that better mining practices are applied, to name a few focuses that 
would be construtive.  Instead we will get whatever nuclear plants make 
it by the protests with
no more public knowledge about them than 'Nuke. Baaaaad.'

Given Greenpeace's supposed strong position on the Environment and 
Climate Change, the position on Nuclear Energy makes no sense, indeed it 
is contradictory.  Even based on exaggerated, worst-case scenarios and 
calculations, nuclear energy is far less lethal than fossil fuel energy, 
emits zero green-house gases and could be a zero-polluting source 
today.  In fact, Greenpeace actually helps the fossil fuel industry, 
because the demand must be met, other alternative sources will not come 
close to meeting demand any time soon and protesting nuclear rather than 
demanding it be done well make nuclear harder to implement.  How ironic 
is that?

Goodbye, good luck, and my warmest wishes that Greenpeace evolve out of 
an organization of terror into an organization of peace befitting of its 
name.

X

==========

Dear Mr. X,

Thank you for your support of Greenpeace. It is through supporters like 
yourself that Greenpeace is able to remain free of the influence of 
corporate and government funding.

I am in receipt of your request to put a stop to your monthly 
contribution to us. Your email has gone to the correct place to make any 
changes to your Greenpeace file.  ...  I have put a stop payment code on 
your file effective immediately, so that the last deduction to us will 
have been the one in January 2007. I have also placed our "Remove from 
Database" code on your file so that you will not be hearing from us from 
that information on the database again.

I have also forwarded your e-mail to Greenpeace Canada's Campaign 
Director, though while new nuclear power plants that are proposed to be 
built in some jurisdictions are being proposed to built be to withstand 
plane crashes, accidental or otherwise, current CANDU and current 
proposed CANDU reactors are not, along with all the other myriad 
environmental problems they cause and all the money they waste and waste.

Kevin Gamble
Member Services
Greenpeace Canada


-- 
Randal Leavitt - another Ubuntu user
http://positiveenergy.blogspot.com/
http://www.simpy.com/user/randalleavitt/links
http://tinyurl.com/hgvmg