“Green” power is an environmental catastrophe waiting to happen? Do people even know what they’re saying anymore when they pitch a new power project idea or do they just ad-lib the proposals… this is so confusingly backwards.
Times Colonist: B.C. Rivers at Risk from Green Power
um… if the project pollutes the river, like say the COAL MINE on Flathead River for example, then that is not GREEN.
I think when the coal mining industry uses the word “green” to describe their new project, its time to find a new word for environmentally sustainable.
OK, I’ll climb off my soap box now… but seriously… Rivers at RISK from Green Power! SWA?
The Morning After 
I think people have different definitions of the term “green”.
For example, hydroelectric power is “green” in that it gives off no emissions or greenhouse gases. However, it damages the environment because you have to flood an area to make a reservoir, etc.
So you could argue that in that circumstance there is environmental damage even though it’s considered “green”.
But I agree, there needs to be a new term to discuss this stuff. “Green” has become a throw-away.
agreed, I liken “green” to be environmentally neutral… so if “green” damages the environment, then it is not green.