GREENPEACE is a large global corporation broadly committed to ‘saving the environment’. Greenpeace is currently focused on influencing the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit in December on the basis that this represents “the best chance we have of reversing current emissions trends in time to prevent the climate chaos that we are hurtling towards”.
Greenpeace has called on governments gathering in Copenhagen for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to agree to legally binding emissions reduction obligations for industrialised countries, as a group, of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. But Greenpeace demands that this be achieved with the exclusion of what it deems unsustainable technologies in particular nuclear energy.
Australia’s Labor government has what many claim to be a relatively modest target: a reduction in emission of between 5 and 15 percent. But even these reductions would be impossible to meet without a switch to nuclear energy or the development of a new source of base load energy supply – see for example Energy Technology for Climate Change a report from the Australian Academy of Technical Sciences and Engineering.
So, if we just consider Australia, the Greenpeace proposal of a 40 percent reduction and the exclusion of nuclear energy, would have to be considered a completely unrealistic expectation.
Is this a characteristic of the Greens: that they are generally unrealistic in their expectations?
Notes and Links
Copenhagen Climate Summit-Greenpeace Demands (Full Version)
see page 6.
The image of the nuclear power plant is from http://www.greenpeace.org/international/footer/search?q=nuclear+power .
Background report by the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE), December 2008, Energy Technology for Climate Change: Accelerating the Technology Response.
Earlier posts in this series ‘Defining the Greens’ can be found here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/tag/philosophy/