> But nuclear electricity and nuclear weapons are not the same thing.
No, but distinguishing between the two from the outside can be tricky even for a small army of IAEA inspectors, cf the Iranian and Iraqi nuclear programmes.
> Clearly opposition against nuclear weapons was in parts guided by the Soviet Union
What I'm arguing against was your original "I've always wondered to what extent the anti-nuclear movements had tacit support from coal/oil producers/users." and the nearby comment "but here's an issue (Germans switching from nuclear to Russian gas) where the Russians would obviously benefit strongly both economically as well as politically."; it's very common these days to allege that people aren't who they say they are or are backed by shadowy forces, on the basis of zero evidence, and when this is levelled against the Left there's a whiff of McCarthyism there too.
As you say, the Chernobyl disaster was the end of Europe believing that nuclear power was inherently safe.
(The more I think about it, the more the reason nobody cared much about CO2 in pre-90s environmentalism was that the existential risk of nuclear war was seen as a much higher priority!)
So? The reason that's very common is the increase public understanding that this is often happening. There are several reasons fo this, including: leaks like Wikileaks, opening of Soviet-block achieves (e.g. Stasi), transparency laws that force more transparency on lobbying, a massive increase in the amount of lobbying which means more and more people work in this domain, increasing sensitivity to such issues (e.g. Facebook, Cambridge Analytica). Anecdata, but I've personally been involved with an NGO that a big international oil company tried to use to get oil drilling right.
Countries like Saudi Arabia have everything to loose from de-carbonification, and we've seen that they are not shy to undermine anything that threatens the affluence of the ruling families.
against the Left
So? Is the left immune from being used and sponsored? It's well know
for example that Germany supported not only Lenin's Bolsheviks, but also socialist rivals (Leon Trotsky, then a Menshevik, who published antiwar articles in Paris and then New York City). During the Napoleonic wars, France aided Irish rebels to undermine Britain, and Polish nationalists against Russia. Britain, in turn, backed Spanish guerrillas fighting French occupation forces. See e.g. [1].
whiff of McCarthyism
The funny thing is that the original McCarthyite accusations were (in some sense) not without evidence. Maybe McCarthy looked at the wrong people, but there was Soviet subversion, up to the highest levels of the US government (e.g. Harry Dexter White [2]) famous for tricking John Maynard Keynes at the Bretton Woods Conference.
No, but distinguishing between the two from the outside can be tricky even for a small army of IAEA inspectors, cf the Iranian and Iraqi nuclear programmes.
> Clearly opposition against nuclear weapons was in parts guided by the Soviet Union
What I'm arguing against was your original "I've always wondered to what extent the anti-nuclear movements had tacit support from coal/oil producers/users." and the nearby comment "but here's an issue (Germans switching from nuclear to Russian gas) where the Russians would obviously benefit strongly both economically as well as politically."; it's very common these days to allege that people aren't who they say they are or are backed by shadowy forces, on the basis of zero evidence, and when this is levelled against the Left there's a whiff of McCarthyism there too.
As you say, the Chernobyl disaster was the end of Europe believing that nuclear power was inherently safe.
(The more I think about it, the more the reason nobody cared much about CO2 in pre-90s environmentalism was that the existential risk of nuclear war was seen as a much higher priority!)