Do they want their cake and to eat it?

[Loosehead]

I bet most of those protesters at the drax power station are against Nuclear power too. Do they want us to live by candle light in caves and wear fir? Plonkers!

[IggyB]

they are probably more in favour of trying to harness the elements to produce power more e.g. wind and water, which i agree is a useful pursuit - but it can only ever be a small(ish) percentage of the power production required as it just isn't capable of providing the energy this country needs... i think as the lights began to flicker and the computers stopped working as we gradually ran out of power you would find these sort of protests becoming rarer and rarer. We do need to address the environmental impact of our energy production - a point they have raised awareness to - so i guess they are helping further a useful debate about future energy production even if they are at the extreme spectrum of ideas (e.g. switch it all off)

[WaldoMcFroog]

How would anyone know what they support?

I've not seen a single news source that's actually bothered to say why the protesters were there and what there agenda is beyond 'they're environmentalists'. Until you know their agenda, it's pointless speculation and posturing.

[Loosehead]

Several where interviewed on News 24 and sky news Waldo, they all said broadly that they where protesting against the amount of emissions from the power station.

You are correct that they did not go into their views on Nuclear power. I was just speculating that so called enviromentallists are generally against Nuclear power.

[WaldoMcFroog]

Sorry, I wasn't having a pop at you in particular - I should have written 'one' - just noting that in what I've seen in print at least, there's been nothing to explain what their grievances actually are, which I found frustrating.

I've been able to find out that particular power station generates a huge amount of carbon dioxide, way over it's allowed emissions, so I think that's why it may have been singled out.

[JudgeJ]

Sorry, but this business about �carbon emissions� is getting out of hand.

Only about 4% of carbon emissions from the earth come from man-made sources. The remainder come from natural sources such as volcanic activity, rotting vegetable matter and reactions that take place in the sea.

Mankind could cease all its carbon emissions immediately (highly undesirable, utterly impossible and completely unnecessary) and there would still be 96% of the emissions still taking place.

Having said that, regardless of its effects on the atmosphere, burning coal is a ridiculously messy and inconvenient way to generate electricity. Nuclear power is by far the better option.

If the demonstrations at Drax accelerate this government�s scandalously sluggish attitude in tackling the energy shortages which the country will definitely face sooner, if not later, then more power to their elbow.

[jenstar]

What's wrong with wearing fir? It's much better than wearing something deciduous, at least.

[Loosehead]

Spot on Judge I've been saying that about carbon emmissions till I'm blue in the face but these idiots do not do there own research they just believe the latest trendy theory.

[WaldoMcFroog]

Skepticism's all well and good - in fact it's essential for good science, but isn't that a bit OTT?

"these idiots do not do there own research they just believe the latest trendy theory. "

They don't do their own research? Have you gone round and checked whether they have a set of test tubes under their beds, then? Have you checked their library tickets to see what sort of literature reviews they've done? Internet history? Looked up their qualifications?

I think what you actually mean is 'I disagree with them.'

And what's *your* research? Years conducting rigorous analysis of data or Google/ a couple of newspaper articles..?

I'm no more qualified to say about you than you are about them. But personally, I'd be very skeptical of a body of scientific thought that is easily proved to be substantially funded by vested-interest companies such as Exxon.

[Loosehead]

Well Waldo I didn't mean research in the lab sense I mean that there are many studies on the subject, tv programs, articles etc. One of the most respected sources is the excellent "Earth Story" from the National Geographic. Essentially part of the series examines the long carbon cycle, within which 96% of the carbon is tied up at any one time. There are lots of things to read on the subject. I think the eco warriors tend to fall into a group that is well meaning but easily brainwashed by the latest trendy opinion, hence my comments. When confronted with the facts they simply don't accept them they just cannot believe their eco guru's are wrong. The power station in question is like a running tap compared with the niagra falls, when it comes to carbon immissions, mankind is not at the races.

[stevie21]

Ahhh, jenstar. Someone had to make some kind of tree hugger joke :-)

[claireyfairy]

My mum made a good point the other day when the Drax protestors thing came out. Apparently one of the protestors had been claiming that they actually intended to get in and shut down the power. At about the same time a main power-line in castleford (not too far away) was cut. Are these environmentalists not aware that some people may well be relying on electicity to power breathing equipmetn and so on that is keeping them alive? And if human beings are not their primary concern how about fish pond pumps, heated tanks and so on that people keep their pets in? Is it ok for these innocents, human and animal alike, to die just because an environmentalist does not agree with how they are being kept alive?

Furthermore, how many of the environmentalist drove cars?!