Why is greenpeace against the 2 things that we need to do to save the planet, nuclear power and GM crops?

Question

I mean green power isn't going to meet demand so it's either fossil fuels that cause loads of pollution or nuclear that produces hot water and some nuclear waste that can easily be contained and nuclear fission only needs to be used until nuclear fusion is developed. Also they talk about biodiesel and all that but to grow plants for fuel either for cars or food for people or for anything you will need fertiliser and to produce fertiliser you need to heat it up to about 400°C which requires burning allot of gas which comes from oil and there is more petrol than gas in oil so biodiesel uses more oil and causes more pollution than just using the petrol. So you need to genetically modify the crop so it doesn't need fertiliser to grow. (I am not American before you call me one for not wanting to demolish all industry to save small bird)

Answer 1

Because we need nuclear power because it is a good clean energy source that is safe but green peace would loose their funding if they said they were for it.
I also do not go along with the ethanol fuels, but not for the same reasons. they are expensive to produce true but they also lower fuel economy and there is a great loss in power. That is personal experience speaking.
If....IF the fuel manufactures would properly refine gasolines and diesel fuels there would be no need for all the anti-pollution equipment on vehicles. That is a proven fact.
Green Peace is an organization that is for instilling the One World Order and for depopulating the United States and making it a total biosphere reserve and doing the same in other countries.

Answer 2

Nuclear power is not a clean source of power. Its pollutants are the most biotoxic that any industry produces, and remain in the environment for thousands of years (if they get into the environment). There is no safe known way of disposing of the waste, despite almost 50 years of research. The worlds known supply of uranium is only enough for 25 years of reactor power production at todays level - less if we produce more nuclear power. To extend it we would have to use fast breeder technology which produces plutonium. It vastly extends how long the uranium would last but produces masses of weapons grade plutonium, which makes it politically unacceptable.

The west produces more crops through subsidy than it needs. In Europe there are grain mountains and wine lakes of overproduced food stored because the subsidy leads to intensive farming to a level that is not actually needed. This is all without and GM.

GM is an unproven technology. Its effects in the environment have not been studied for long enough to know if or how damaging they may be. What is known is that claims that these genes do not get into wild populations and do not pose a risk have both been proved to be false.

These are the down sides, and this is why Greenpeace oppose the technologies. It can of course also be argued that there are up sides.

Answer 3

GM crops require far more fossil fuel based inputs than other systems. Because the GM is designed to lock the grower into buying specific pesticides etc. And because they are an extreme form of mono-culture they are much more suseptible to pest & disease so require more preventative spraying. they also require more water and fertilser because they take so much out of the soil.

Compare with growing a crop like hemp organically, this requires no genetic modification, is pest & disease resaistance, builds soil structure, and requires little water. All parts of the crop have a human value, not specifically bio-fuel (first diesel engines used hemp oil not fossil fuel).

Climate change will severly reduce the area of arable land available and we will struggle to feed the growing human population. To divert land from food to servicing energy wasteful lifestyles is only a reasonable option if you don't question the media's glossy greed and industrial growth model of the world.

Just turning off TVs etc overnight, not just left on standby, could save the equivelant of a number of nuclear power station.

Answer 4

"...whether nuclear ability flowers latest a situation on a similar time as working usually is an factor concern to the devastation they'd reason if there is an twist of destiny. And no you may make useful no longer something will bypass incorrect..." If is the biggest word interior the English language. If Lord Nelson had grew to become to communicate to somebody for the time of the conflict, he might have lived longer. If Hitler were admitted to artwork college, we'd in no way have fought WWII. If if if... No no you may make useful something WILL bypass incorrect, the two. possibly Greenpeace would desire to lobby government and businesses to extra perfect prepare for contingencies than be so adverse. i be responsive to i'm going to get thumbs down votes, yet, I used to artwork for Greenpeace, and am unimpressed by ability of their loss of innovative and prescient.

Answer 5

That is because Greenpeace is ruled by a bunch of ignorant crooks who take advantage of other ignorant people to use them as their shock force.
They collect money from governments while they say publicly that they don't.
Governments uses them to create lobby according to their commercial/financial needs.
I know that, a lot of people know that, but the whole mass doesn't.
I'll just give you a few examples of what I'm saying:

They have been repeatdily protesting in North and Latin America against Round Up Ready Soybean (RR), the most famous GMO.
At the same time, European countries, which pay billions of dollars every year in subsidies for their farmers to keep them away from the cities (France is the most clear example), have released RR canola over there as a way to reduce their costs like everybody does; Greenpeace, which lives on European incomes, never said anything.

Same happens when they are trying to stop small countries such as Uruguay to install factories, only because their competitors who have the exactly same factories at large (ex. Argentina) tells them to do so in exchange of money and reputation.
I'm from Argentina, and I see what they are doing against Uruguay.

They are even against deforestation in areas where the tallest tree is just a 4 feet bush full of thorns, avoiding people of that place to progress and get fed by agriculture.

Finally,

To Fred (above answerer): GMO crops don't require more fertilizers or fuel fossils than the conventional ones, that the most stupid thing I ever heard.
They need a lot less amount of herbicides because some of them are resistant to the total herbicides (those ones that kills almost every weed), so usually one application is requiered instead of one for each genre of weed.
They use A LOT LESS amount of insecticides, because they prevent the attack of several worms in their shoots. BT cotton, used to require up to 12 (yes, twelve) application of insecticides to keep the several bugs that attack it away.
That means a huge amount less of pesticides going to our water every year!!!!
They use a lot less diesel fuel (exactly the opposite of what you said), because they allow farmers to enter in a zero till system, where they don't plow the soil anymore because they get rid of the weeds and insects chemicaly instead of mechanically, and this IS THE BETTER WAY TO PREVENT EROSION AND MANTAIN THE USABLE ACREAGE!!!

New form of GMOs are concentrated in increasing the nutritional quality of food, making crops a lot more efficient to feed 6.3 billion people.

Just remember that population in the world was only 1 billion 100 years ago!!! You have to feed them.

I'm soooooooooo tired of reading such stupid things from people that has absolute not clue of what they are talking about like you Fred.
If you don't know something please don't bother people who work and know what they are talking about.

Answer 6

Because we don't need those 2 things to save the planet, but to save ourselves...
Planet can do well without us, nuclear power and GM crops...
Maybe you're not American, but you ARE anthropocentric...