How to counter-troll Greenpeacefags?

The last couple weeks, as I've been walking the eight blocks between buildings at work in DC, I've been approached by kids in blue T-shirts asking me to participate in a survey or whatever. Well, I just noticed last Friday that they were actually with Greenpeace.

How would you guys scare these kids straight before they get recruited for full-fledged eco-terror?

I go to school in Chicago.  They approach me every couple of months.  They see me as a liberal target because I wear internet t-shirts.  I am conservative and strongly oppose Greenpeace. 


I always ask the environmentalists what they think about nuclear power.  I particularly hate Greenpeace because of the slander and blatant lies about nuclear power.  In Europe, they ran an ad featuring mystical mutated animals running through a forest and tried to blame nuclear power.

The best counter is to make a valid point about something they don't support.  Liberals like them are so narrowly focused that they will not be able to respond to any sensible debate.  Nuclear is great for this.

It emits no CO2.  The deaths from the mining of uranium combined with the deaths from radiation (zero) are far fewer than the lives lost in any given coal mining accident.  There are more fatal accidents in fossil fuel plants than nuclear plants by far.

Radiation is never released.  Ever.  Even in core meltdowns, the radiation has never breached the massive concrete shell.  Chernobyl was a Soviet multipurpose plant designed both to generate power and create weapons-grade nuclear material and was without such a shell.  There is more radioactivity released from uranium in coal burned in coal plants than is ever released from a nuclear plant.

The only pollution is the spent radioactive fuel.  First, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978 limits the reuse of fuel.  The technology is available to recycle fuel and ultimately reduce the radioactivity when the spent fuel is finally ready to be stored.  Furthermore, there is no plan for permanent fuel storage because of pressure and fear-mongering from groups like Greenpeace.  We could have had a storage plan thirty years ago, but nuclear was made so taboo that no progress was made.

As opposed to the renewable sources Greenpeace will try to push on you, nuclear is clean, cheap, and reliable.  It can compete with fossil fuels in terms of cost and capacity.  Fuel is abundant and efficient.  In terms of megawatts per area, nuclear plants have a significantly smaller footprint than any renewable sources such as wind and solar.  It does not dam rivers or destroy ecosystems.


Just pick some good points out of that and strike up a discussion.  See what they have to say about the Greenpeace stance on nuclear, then give them your points.  Also don't fall for it if they try to tell you the official stance is not against nuclear.  It is stated on their website.  Bring up that and the commercial if they try it.

I wish I could study up and get a good speech together before talking to them.  I'm usually in a rush and can never give enough points; I just walk away after asking.  Good luck trollin'!