Pro-nuke Greenpeace? 'Fraid not.

In today's White House press briefing, Tony Snow gave reason to be optimistic that Greenpeace was taking a pro-nuke position:

We're talking about nuclear development, which is now championed by, among others, Greenpeace.

But alas, nothing on Greenpeace's web site confirms the optimism.

There's this from Greenpeace's "campaigns" page:

We have always fought - and will continue to fight - vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and shutdown existing plants.

Then there's this from Greenpeace's January 2007 statement on the proposed McCain-Lieberman climate change legislation:

Regrettably, the Senators have also included subsidies for nuclear energy which is inherently dangerous and provides no real solution to global warming.

And finally Greenpeace's January 2007 "energy [r]evolution: A Blueprint for Solving Global Warming" (pdf) leaves no doubt where the organization stands on nukes, as these statements show:

To make the energy [r]evolution real and to avoid dangerous climate change, greenpeace recommends that the United States:
• Phase out of all subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear energy....

"The risk of nuclear accidents, the production of highly radioactive waste and the threat of proliferating nuclear weapons are only a few reasons why nuclear power needs to be phased out."

A new UN agency is needed to tackle the twin threats of climate change and nuclear proliferation by phasing out nuclear power and promoting sustainable energy, in the process promoting world peace rather than threatening it.

Sorry, Mr. Snow. It's plausible that some within Greenpeace privately promote nukes, but I see no evidence that the organization is moving that way.