No probs Zogeel. Yes I agree that currently Greenpeace are...

No probs Zogeel.

Yes I agree that currently Greenpeace are against nuclear. However as I mentioned some of their activists are beginning to see the anti-nuclear stance as out dated, especially when set against a back drop of trying to solve climate change, which is a key objective of Greenpeace as an organisation.

There is a pretty influential documentary on nuclear doing the rounds at the moment, I forget the name of it but many environmental activists who have watched it are beginning to reassess their views on opposing nuclear energy. More and more people are beginning to see nuclear as a clean, safe fuel that has a major role to play in reducing carbon emissions.

Finally I would say that while Greenpeace might right now be lobbying the Greenland govt And/or opposition I seriously doubt they are doing it in any meaningful way. I say this because when I studied political science and NGO's Greenpeace were held up as a concrete example of an NGO who deliberately position themselves as being outside of government. Instead of lobbying their views to the relevant ministers quietly behind closed doors they prefer to be outside of government and go down the road of publicity stunts like we saw in the Arctic a couple of weeks back. As a consequence the vast majority of governments won't sit down with them whatsoever for fear of being caught up in one of their typical PR stunts, all of which are designed for media attention and by extention, fund raising for themselves to carry out the next PR stunt. Consequently Greenpeace are outsiders when it comes to actually effecting policy in any meaningful,way. They can write all the emails and letters they want but at the end of the day policy makers largely ignore them- unless the voting population agrees with them and that has not happened in the case of Greenland- in fact the opposite is true- the Greenlanders themselves voted for a party that has a stated pre election promise to lift the uranium ban.