Patrick Moore was in South Africa recently on a whirl wind tour touting nuclear as the only solution to our power shortages . . .
I attended one of his presentations and found his use of statistics very one sided and narrow (climate change is not only about carbon output) and I would have thought as an ecologist he would understand the interconnectedness of ‘things’. What I disliked the most about his presentations was his continuous need to slander the greenies to make himself seem so right. If he was so keen to move from the “politics of confrontation” to the “politics of consensus” and if he wanted to be “fighting for something” rather than against something, then perhaps he needs to consider remaining consistent and leave Greenpeace and the anti-nuclear pundits and the greenies alone and rather work on what he is fighting for.
The press release from Earthlife Africa below says much more about the character of Dr Patrick Moore, including the questioning of hie co-founder status of Greenpeace which he shouts out about all over the world. If he has such issues with Greenpeace, then why proclaim so loudly that you were once a part of it?
I believe it is time Dr Moore moved on and honestly faced up to who he is now:- a pro nuclear lobbyist, with little doubt, paid handsomely by the Nuclear Industry. Lets not be deceived by loud claims of environmental friendliness, the great-green-gravy-train it seems has started rolling.
Earthlife Africa Cape Town
Press Statement – Patrick Moore in South Africa
Cape Town, 10 March, 2008 - Patrick Moore is in South Africa at a time when the country is experiencing electricity shortages and when decisions must be made about investing substantial amount of resources into new energy capacity. Patrick Moore’s visit is also at an opportune time as South Africa reviews its premier energy policy document – the 1998 white paper on energy policy.
As much as Patrick Moore has the right to an opinion, Earthlife Africa Nuclear Energy Cost the Earth Campaign (NECTEC) object to a number of matters associated with his visit to South Africa. Firstly, we would like to clear that Patrick Moore is not a Greenpeace founder and that he is simply providing public relation services to the nuclear industry and other controversial issues including genetically modified organisms (GMOs). We are concerned that the public is being misinformed that Patrick Moore, who left the organisation more than 20 years ago, is paraded as a Greenpeace founder.
“Patrick Moore was one of the people involved in sailing the ship Phyllis Cormack against Amchitka nuclear tests in 1971, but his claims that he is a co-founder are not true. The initiative against those nuclear tests origins in 1969, and only two years later Moore sent a letter in which he introduced himself as a student and asked if he could join. Both his application from March 16, 1971, and a response from “Greenpeace/Don’t Make a Wave Committee”
dated March 24, 1971 have been archived. And it is a matter of fact that co-founders do not have to write applications to join” said Jan Beranek, Greenpeace International nuclear campaigner.
Moore, who once denied the existence of climate change, is in South Africa on a mission to save the world from the wrath of global warming by pursuing rigorous nuclear programs, as well as projects to plant genetically modified trees that can absorb more carbon from the air. “This comes from a man who carries a counterfeited Greenpeace co-founder card which he uses to hide the fact that he came to South Africa to mislead the nation aided by the Nuclear Industry Association of South Africa (NIASA),” said Sibusiso Mimi acting spokesperson on nuclear.
For more information visit: www.earthlife-ct.org.za
From: Earthlife Africa
Nuclear Energy Cost the Earth Campaign
Earthlife Africa
021 447 4912
March 13, 2008 at 3:52 pm
This is odd. I’ve read two biographies about people who participated in Greenpeace’s early days and they all said Moore was there in the beginning. The Earthlife link doesn’t lead to any information and a site search for “patrick moore” got me nothing.
Greenpeace’s website lists Moore as one of the Greenpeace members on the first cruise to Amchitka.
Is it possible that an anti-nuclear group can’t be trusted to tell the truth?
March 14, 2008 at 8:50 am
The possibilities are endless and perhaps the Earthlifes press release is not true. The Earthlife article is also querying his co-founder status and not his membership.
I suppose what bothered me the most was his ongoing ‘greenie’ bashing instead of just getting on with what he called the Politics of Consensus. It seems to me he has some serious issues with GReenpeace and I would have thought he would be better off just to move on rather than slander Greenpeace to achieve goals he can achieve with his positive politics.
At the end of the day I am not necessarily anti-nuclear, but I would like to see the same amount of R&D funds thrown at renewable energy research as has been thrown at nuclear & oil & coal energy sources before we write solar or wind off as being inefficient.
March 14, 2008 at 5:08 pm
ekokym, thanks for the response.
It’s not my place to defend or apologize for Dr. Moore. From what I have read, he was one of the originators of the group. I mentioned the Amchitka cruise to show that he was there at the beginning.
He says that his criticism is aimed at separating science from political activism within the environmental movement. His view is that political activists have distracted the movement away from real environmental concerns and toward ideological causes. In that context, nuclear energy is a central point of interest. It seems to me that people with little scientific training view nuclear technology through fictional novels and movies–to them it’s a fiendish threat. People with more scientific training view nuclear energy as a means of minimizing environmental harm.
An awful lot of money has been spent on R&D for renewable energy sources. It would be hard to make the case that spending more would make them more practical. At present, expansion of wind power, PV power, and biofuels is being driven not by economic or environmental considerations but only by legislative mandate, under pressure from political groups and specialized businesses.
From what I can see, wind power and nuclear energy, along with strict conservation, can do the most to forestall global warming. PV may offer benefits in the future. Biofuels don’t show any evidence of future practicality and are mandated only to draw political support from farmers. I think we need to move beyond R&D and politically-driven energy policies. It’s time to start building new energy facilities.
March 17, 2008 at 7:25 am
Hi Red Craig
I do agree with you that wind and nuclear (and solar) are the best solutions at the moment and I am also sceptical about Biofuels, but I must say that although I wholeheartedly agree that we need to move away from “politically-driven energy policies” I still believe R&D and technological advances can make the difference for the future. WE should never stop learning and reaching for better technologies.
The recent government budget in South Africa put R2 billion towards ALL renewables and about R342 billion towards bringing back some mothballed coal stations (we are in an energy crisis here) and the building nuclear power stations (cannot remember the exact numbers of stations being built). Now that to me is a huge difference in bueget figures. At the very least, surely solar water heaters should be installed as a basic prerequisite for low cost housing? This would reduce the tenants’ electricity bill as well as lessen then impacts on the grid. Perhaps I am simplifying things, but onthe other hand perhaps politcally motivated energy policies overly complicate issues to dirty the waters so we cannot see clearly?
I also think that some of the smaller/medium wind and solar companies who have been around for some time are surely driven by profit now? Perhaps they began with a dream, but to survive they need to be economically viable and many of them are. Perhaps legislature drives some changes, but economic viability & sustainability has to be a factor in the long term.
I think we could argue the finer points ad nauseum, but it seems we certainly do agree that we do need to do something now and not wait for the next great thing! And yes nuclear is an option now, but that does not mean it is the only solution and that we should stop looking for the next best thing or keep working on developing current technologies.