Why doesn't Greenpeace speak out against coal burning power plants lung cancer producers?

Question

Nuclear is clean and not one life has ever been spent due to a nuclear plant in the U.S.. Meanwhile cancer rates around coal burning power plants sky rocket? Where are the environmentalists on this issue???

Alphabet it is more harmful than nuclear to the environment so why don't they take a more harsh stance against coal burning plants?

Answer 1

Not greenpeace expert but in general most environmentalists are really anti-capitalists. When Soviet Union went away (thanks Ron!!) the reds went green. This explains why only western democracies are under attack for global warming while gross polluters like China get a pass.

Answer 2

I found this hard to believe, so did a Goggle search on "greenpeace" and "coal". A cursory glance at the 327,000 hits indicates that Greenpeace IS active against the coal industry.
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=greenpeace+coal&hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&num=100&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&cr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images

To me, the more pointed question... "why this administration is so supportive of the coal industry?"
Bush has tried to tell us that there's such a thing as "clean coal", yet the reality shows a very dirty picture...
Shortly after Bush took office, Cheney ordered a 90 day review of pending EPA violations cases. Instead of the EPA conducting the review, as was normal, the EPA was ordered conduct the review “in consultation with the energy department. The result of this review was the Clear Skies” initiative which:
(1) eliminated mandatory pollution caps for individual plants in favor of industry-wide levels allowing companies to buy and sell emissions credits and
(2) states that no improvements in pollution levels would be required of any companies for at least 10 years AND the pending cases were dropped.

Bush and the RNC, in return, got 4.8 million dollars in campaign contributions from the electric utility industry to the Bush campaign, the Republican National Committee and the innagural committee. That total included 1.85 million from the four largest utilities facing NSR enforcement actions, and another $424,770 from five other utilities also facing NSR actions.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/apr2002/air-a05_prn.shtml
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/06/28/who_owns_the_sky.php
http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/documents/NSR_final.pdf
http://www.aep.com/newsroom/newsreleases/default.asp?dbcommand=displayrelease&ID=483
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2004/2004-10-14-10.asp

Answer 3

Most conservation grouos are for managing coal burning better, or, the elimination there of, they just do not make this a central issue to the public.

Answer 4

Agreed; all the nuclear deaths could not touch on month of coal miner illnesses.

Answer 5

At the risk of sounding like a stooge, I share in your puzzlement.

Answer 6

Neither is good for the environment, just one is worse!