Talk:Natural Resources Defense Council

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

POV tag[edit]

I removed the POV tag as the advertisement tag allready implies POV. If their are specific issues beyond it reading like an advertisement that someone feels adds to the non-NPOV of article such as lack of criticism of NRDC then please explain on the talk page. --Cab88 05:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone put it back, and I've taken it out again. The advert tag is sufficient. Furthermore, the POV tag does not seem appropriate unless there is a discussion of the NPOV on the talk page. Chovain 04:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
That makes absolutely no sense. 09:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
One POV issue, which I addressed just now, instead of placing a tag, is the characterization of NRDC as "non-partisan" - it's a fixture of the leftist branch of the ecology lobby, works hand-in-glove with the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to the extent that NRDC staffers Kristensen and Oelrich have a regular column with the Bulletin, which while a handy resource for students of nuclear weapons policy, is also a handy reference for political activists. It's MUCH easier to correct obvious abuses like this than to tag, wait for a discussion which never occurs (I noticed the latest changes in this talk page are three years old), and then play edit war over NPOV tags.loupgarous (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Page revisions[edit]

Fair comment. Am responsible for the last edit of the piece, and will adjust this one now. Jcoifman 16:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Organization history[edit]

It would be interesting to include some information on this org's founding and history. ike9898 (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Lack of any criticism[edit]

The credulity of the Wiki entry is hampered by a lack of any criticism of the NRDC (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

What? No "takers"? (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Also, calling NRDC 'non-partisan' is horse****. Due to their stance on unilateral nuclear disarmament, NRDC is inevitably partisan.
NRDC has a valid brief to criticize DoE and DoD on nuclear stewardship and fabrication operations with an impact on the ecology. It ought to be proud of any part it had in the closure of the Rocky Flats plutonium reprocessing plant, for example. I'm sort of puzzled why, when they boasted of so many less consequential matters, if they DID actually even just raise consciousness about what was going on at Rocky Flats, they deserve bragging points on it.
However, under Kristensen, Oelrich and the other people in their Nuclear project, NRDC has taken a broader stance toward nuclear disarmament and lobbying Congress against new nuclear weapon designs (some of which, like "nuclear bunker busters," are designed to transfer most of their energy to a buried target with a minimal fallout plume, and are hence friendlier to the Earth's ecology than the megaton-class silo-busters which would otherwise be used to destroy a hardened underground installation. A multi-megaton nuclear device in a ground burst mode would irradiate everything downwind of it for dozens or hundreds of miles with lethal fallout, and there are at present no alternatives to that (thanks in part to NRDC and the ecology lobby) outside that limited brief they have.
Opposition to nuclear bunker busters in a multilateral nuclear power world could very well lead to worse ecological catastrophes than either neutrality on the issue or holding an even-handed debate on it. But NRDC basically put themselves behind a partisan opposition to the technology despite its potential ecological benefits compared to the current alternatives on the shelf.
Unless they openly and candidly tell their contributors that they plan to spend contributions on nuclear disarmament activity, NRDC daily crosses the line into outright charity fraud.
Worse, the partisanship of NRDC on nuclear weapons policy counter-intuitively exposes innocent bystanders downwind of enemy buried command and control or nuclear weapons fabrication sites to WORSE ecological consequences than would ensue if our Department of Defense had available to it nuclear devices designed to engage underground sites with minimal fallout and other weapons effects away from the target site.
Finally, NRDC's partisan opposition to nuclear power has obvious and urgent adverse environmental consequences by requiring a global society now inextricably dependent (without massive starvation and other results of a global economic collapse) on dense energy such as hydrocarbon fuels to have not even the bridge to a renewable energy economy provided by nuclear power, which does not contribute to global warming in any significant fashion. A nuclear-electric-hydrogen economy, hopefully dominated by one of several cold fusion alternatives under development OTHER than the wasteful and dangerous thermonuclear option pushed by Big Government and Big Federally-Funded Physics, would be the very best way to go. The boron-11 + proton reaction possible in some cold-fusion designs under active development wouldn't even have much radioactive waste, since its core reactions are aneutronic. But NRDC is basically planting its feet and seeking bans on nuclear power, period.
I invite discussion and argument to the contrary of my statements before I write a contrarian section to the NRDC article showing its potential adverse effects on Earth's ecology thanks to its partisan stances.loupgarous (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I decided to pursue a "middle way" and simply - in accordance with the tag on the article criticizing it for smacking of an NRDC press release - removed the laudatory and uncritical language from the original article. I also added some reference from authoritative sources (the Discover News clip refers to a NASA study showing that the net impact of nuclear power on the human ecology has been to save significant numbers of lives simply by not contributing to the air pollution problem) which contradict NRDC's stance that nuclear power isn't a viable solution to the need for energy-dense power sources which don't exacerbate global warming, and added the sentence "Other authorities on the subject disagree on that point." Mostly, though, I pointed the article away from its gushing narration of NRDC's activities toward a more neutrally-worded summary where possible. loupgarous (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Deleted "non-partisan" from the description of NRDC at the head of the article[edit]

NRDC is not "non-partisan." It routinely coordinates its work with the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and other antinuclear advocacy groups to the point that the heads of NRDC's Nuclear project have a regular column in the Bulletin; and in general its activities are designed to coordinate with Democratic and other leftist political parties' platforms.

Therefore, I deleted the text "non-partisan" from the article's lead paragraph. NRDC may believe themselves to be non-partisan, but their activity speaks otherwise.loupgarous (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Logo Update[edit]

I am requesting that the logo for Natural Resources Defense Council be updated to reflect the new logo and brand identity. See here:

[1] [2] (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Green tickY Done. An updated logo has been uploaded as fair use and included on the page. -- dsprc [talk] 22:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Natural Resources Defense Council. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)