Talk-Polywell.org

In my opinion, the evidence suggests Greenpeace vigorously opposes all low carbon energy solutions which might actually work. The question is, why?

Indeed, that does fit their pattern.

Just prior to the Fukishima troubles, Greenpeace was warming up to fission.

I'm not sure this poster actually speaks for Greenpeace, and if this is actually representative of their attitude now, this is a shift that suggests they've lost touch with their roots.

The only reason for them to oppose fusion is that it threatens wind and solar, both of which are on shakier ground economically than Fukishima.