The only shread of validity this argument should get is that we should indeed do whatever is "economically" viable to reduce fossil fuel reliance.
However the argument is pure theatrics and half truths. Subsidies relate to volume and economic values to the Country. Greenpeace take one peice of a puzzle and try to convince everyone that it is the whole story.
The Government provides business incentives and subsidies to multiple industries within this country. It helps make the country tick. We may hate coal, but we love the dollar.
These are the same peanuts that want to stand up tell the world they should not be mining uranium and using nuclear fuel, but can not provide an 'Economically' viable alternative for base load power.
BASE LOAD POWER - 24hrs a day un interupted = COAL, GAS, NUCLEAR
Developing = Geothermal, Fission
NOT POSSIBLE - wind, tidal, solar - These can only assist in fractional reductions as they are not constant and at a massive cost.
GREENPEACE NEED TO BECOME PART OF A PROACTIVE ECONOMICAL SOLUTION - INSTEAD OF DRUMMING UP MISLEADING MISINFORMATION - WHICH SERVES ONLY TO DIVIDE AND DISRUPT THOSE THAT WANT TO ACTUALLY ACHIEVE EMISSION REDUCTIONS
I suppose you all know that a lift on the Uranium mining bans in WA and QLD could fund the entire emissions reduction targets and renewable energy industry in Australia, without the need for a nuclear industry in the country (ie) no reactors.
GREENPEACE don't tell you that do they.
WORLD CLIMATE CHANGE IS A PRODUCT OF GREEN ACTIVISTS FROM THE 1970's. THEY ARE 100% TO BLAME FOR IT.
WHY? - THEY STOPPED NUCLEAR POWER IN THE FREE WORLD AND MADE SURE DEVELOPING WORLDS STRUGGLED TO GET IT.
So the next time you see a GREENY having a crack about industry and its unholy attack on the EARTH. Just smile and thank them for CLIMATE CHANGE.
The founding father of GREENPEACE from the 1970's shares my view!
