998
this post was submitted on 14 May 2026
998 points (98.8% liked)
Technology
84700 readers
4229 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Greenpeace Energy sells fossil fuels while fighting nuclear power. After it became a scandal, Greenpeace officially divested and changed the name but they still share the same office building in Hamburg so I think it's more than fair to say they are strongly ideologically aligned.
I'm sure on paper they would rather renewable than fossil, but they clearly are willing to compromise with them, unlike with nuclear. When they combine forces with the openly pro-fossil fuel lobby right wing, you get the exact mess Germany is in: inexcusably high reliance on gas and a consistently worst-in-class CO2 footprint per kWh for Western Europe.
Yes, I'm extremely bitter about this. The environmentalist political class being unyielding on nuclear but soft on gas set us back more than a decade with the green transition.
Thank you for your reply. I was not aware of that. However I do think that there is a nuance between a selling natural gas product (for heating) vs. electricity produced with natural gas. Greenpeace did the former, because there was/is no way to get enough green gas at the moment. I think this is legitimate, because at the moment that’s the case for every natural gas provider. Then in the future they can transition with their already client base. To be clear Greenpeace never sold non-renewable electricity.
Nonetheless is extremely disappointing that it takes so long and I also understand if current customers feel betrayed.
Does anyone know if there is a better natural gas provider with a higher percentage of green gas in the mix?
Biogas and hydrogen are both greenwashing products. Neither is better than electric alternatives where they are being sold. They have major major flaws that the fossil fuel industry (y'know, the one selling both of those products) won't advertise to you:
And even if the above wasn't true and biogas was awesome (it's awful), the simple fact that they are selling trace amounts in order to promote fossil gas as their main product is an obvious act of greenwashing unto itself.
Greenpeace knows all of the above very well. I can't say for sure that they are corrupt and bought out by the fossil fuel industry. All I can say is that I don't have a better explanation for their stupidity.
I am still not convinced. I am a big fan of heat pumps (especially the large one they have in Denmark), however not everyone has the luxury to choose their heating solution. Greenpeace doesn‘t make the laws which make landlords not transition away from fossil fuels.
So Greenpeace is offering the best in-class "green" natural gas product. You didn‘t name another provider, which is better. May be there is one. You can‘t really critize the best for not being even better, because there are obviously reasons for it or someone else would have already done better.
Secondly even though we we will not need that green gas infrastructure for personal heating in the longterm, because there is much better option available (the heatpump), there are certain industries which need it badly. These are the steel, chemical and aviation (in that order). Therefore it is important to bootstrap green hydrogen generation additionally to what is already being done.
At last let me emphasize that what Greenpeace is doing is not ideal. Ideally the government would follow a plan where personal natural gas heating would not be needed, because heat pumps would be installed everywhere.
It would be quite rich for Greenpeace to position themselves as "enlightened centrists" willing to sell & promote fossil fuels on the VERY flawed assumption that biofuels are a) feasible and b) a meaningful improvement, while on the other hand being uncompromisingly hardline anti-nuclear and being at the heart of the plan to shut down existing power plants based on nothing more than their dogmatic beliefs.
If a rando energy provider sells fossil fuels, I don't care. They're just playing by the byzantine economic incentives set by the EU in an amoral capitalistic way. When Greenpeace does it, it is inherently a political statement and so deeply hypocritical that the only rational explanation is that they are deeply corrupt and/or profoundly stupid. Which would not matter if they weren't, ideologically and politically, strongly influential on European environmentalist activism and policy.