The Hypocrisy of Greenpeace Illustrated
August 9th, 2008
|
| Share |
If you fly from New York to London or London to Warsaw or just about anywhere else, well shame on you! At least, according to Greenpeace, air travel is so sinfully decedent and fuel-hungry that it’s entirely justified and fair to run onto the tarmac at a major airport and stage a publicity stunt. All the delays and misery be damned, because for those like Greenpeace the idea that people would dare burn hydrocarbons to travel is just plain evil.
Lets run some numbers here. London Heathrow is a major hub airport which, among other things, serves as the gateway for trans-Atlantic flights for Europe. If one were to fly from New York to London on a Boeing 747-400, one of the more common aircraft for long-haul transcontinental flights, then the aircraft would be burning something like 4.8-5 gallons of fuel per mile. This comes out to about 16,000 gallons of fuel for a transatlantic flight. Considering that the aircraft can hold about 500 passengers, this actually isn’t too bad. The among of fuel used per passenger is about 32 gallons. Of course, if you’re flying from London to Berlin or Rome, it will be a whole lot less fuel. Also, the numbers above are for a 747-400, but if you happen to be flying in a 747-8, a 787, an airbus 380 or one of the other newer, more efficient aircraft, you could be consuming as much as 15% less fuel per passenger.
To be fair, it’s possible that a trip may consume more fuel that that, especially if the aircraft is not entirely booked or if it is not the most up to date aircraft with the highest efficiency turbofan engines. However, these days, with fuel prices at historic highs, airlines are trying harder than ever to fill their aircraft to capacity and use the most efficient aircraft, especially for the longer runs.
But according to the eco-stupid side, it’s not really your choice to fly. Rather, it’s just wrong and bad and you need to be stopped from doing it. Greenpeace thinks we just should not travel. Cultural exchanges and broadening one’s horizons be damned, it’s just not right to burn that kind of fuel, even if a modern jumbo jet burns 0.01 gallons per person per mile.
Now lets take a look at how Greenpeace gets around:
(When they’re not flying first class to a conference or protest that is)
That’s the MV Esperanza, one of the ships of Greenpeace, and if it looks like it’s spewing out sooty black smoke, that’s because it is. It happens to be a former Russian firefighting and emergency response ship. Russia is prone to a lot of ice, so a ship like this needs to have a very thick and heavy hull, but being that it also has to respond to emergencies, it also has to be fast. So how the hell do you make a big bulky heavy ship also go fast? Well, you put an enormous engine in it, of course! Or in this case… three of ‘em. That’s why the 72-meter giant can cruise at 16 knots without breaking a sweat.
Yes, three engines. Two enormous large displacement marine diesel engines and one APU engine to provide the ship with power when it’s not underway. Marine deisel engines are a lot like the land-based ones, except they burn marine diesel. Marine diesel is consumed in enormous volumes because the engines are constantly at work, unlike a land vehicle where there’s a lot of coasting, a ship needs to have constant power to the props to keep it moving against the the fluid friction it encounters. This combined with less regulation makes marine diesel a lot cheaper than the land-based kind. Cheaper, heavier and dirtier.
Greenpeace has said that it has a “special fuel system” to make it cleaner but they don’t give many details. On the other hand there are plenty of other things they could do to make it cleaner that they seem to have elected not to do. For one thing, they could run it on a cleaner fuel. A marine diesel engine will happily burn something like Jet-A fuel, which is available pretty easily. It’s much more refined and lower in sulfur, resulting in less smoggy emissions and generally cleaner burning. It’s also a lot more expensive, so they might not be able to have as many luxuries on the ship. Even better would be they could use something like LPG, which has proven to work decently as a marine fuel. They’d need new engines, it might slow the ship down and it would be more expensive. But then, aren’t these the guys who say “shame on you” to everyone who flies or drives an SUV?
Not exactly energy efficient:
The engine you see to the left is not actually one of the main engines. While the propulsion engines are gargantuan, the engine to the left is only moderately huge. That’s because it’s the electric generator engine. Apparently this ship uses an enormous amount of electricity because that is not exactly a small generator. Considering that the electric generator is going to be running nearly all the time, or at least when they’re not in port connected to grid power, it would help a lot to replace it with a smaller one.
One easy way to do that would be to put a small generator of a few horsepower on board and rely on that most of the time. Another thing they could do, which would be even better, would be to have a hybrid battery-engine system. That way the ship could run off of battery power most of the time and only run the engine when they get low, allowing it to operate more efficiently and eliminate any idling. This might even a rare example of a circumstance where wind or solar power could actually help, if it were installed to top off the batteries. If they’re frugal enough they might even get by without running the generator very much at all. To do this though, the power consumption of the ship would need to be cut drastically. A small generator would only produce a few kilowatts. Sure, that’s more than enough to run the radar and communications, provide energy to high efficiency lighting and run the other important systems on the ship.
But… they’d likely have to give up a few things. For example, notice the big dirty dome pictured to the right. It’s dirty because it’s located near the stacks where the ship belches out filth into the atmosphere. It’s big because it has a high power gyroscopically stabilized two-way satellite dish in it. Something like that needs a lot of power to keep up communications on the high seas to provide broadband Internet service. Of course it’s not the only way to get on the internet at sea. There are systems like Iridium Satellite Internet which is so low-energy it can run for hours on a lithium ion battery the size of a deck of cards. But systems like Iridium or other mobile satellite systems have one problem: They’re slow and generally charge per-megabyte. This doesn’t stop them from being used for the basics like sending e-mails or text information or the occasional image upload or webpage, but if you want to check out Youtube, surf the net and play with webcams while on the high seas, you’ll need a big VSAT system like that thing.
But, I guess without the massive and power-hungry satellite system there wouldn’t be much use for the computer facilities on board. I mean, if you’re going to have a network for numerous laptops and desktops on board, you’re going to want to have an internet connection, right? And a good fast one, because hey, between the two workstations in the radio room, the those in the office and all the laptops you’re going to be using that satellite link quite a bit. Hell, it even has a webcam that is transmitting 24/7. And you’ll need a lot of content to print to make sure that the laser printers are used to the maximum utility.
Oh, but there’s more. The damn thing has it’s own video editing room and dedicated computer on it. Why? Well, because they want to edit video and not have to do something lame like install the video-editing software on one of the other computers. That would be really annoying, having to share the computer for multiple purposes. Also, although you *could* edit video just fine on a little energy-sipping laptop just fine, it’s a lot better to have your own decked-out editing rig, complete with a dubbing monitor and a set of jog dials and stuff. Otherwise, you’d be stuck with shuffling a bunch of little windows on a single screen and using the mouse to navigate. So apparently, to Greenpeace, it’s totally worth the expense, space and energy. (note: sarcasm)
There are plenty of other places to cut energy use. The cabins on the ship look downright lavish and if you were to bunk up instead of giving everyone such a nice stateroom, there would be plenty of space for those LPG tanks I mentioned earlier. In addition to that, the ship is not only air conditioned, but it has very large refrigerators and freezers on it. Here’s an idea: ditch all those massive power-sucking refrigeration systems and just stock the ship with canned and non-perishable foods. Oh is that roughing it too much for you? You want your Ben and Jerry’s? Poor baby!
Greenpeace also has two other ships: The MV Argus and the MV Artic Sunrise. They’re both a bit smaller, but generally the same deal in terms of complete wastes of energy and generally being quite environmentally-unfriendly. The Argus is a smaller and not really a full-fledged oceangoing ship, although it does have two bigass engines. The Artic Sunrise is akin to the Esperanza with big high speed satellite internet and all the other luxuries you’d expect for a crew of candyass rich college hippies. Then there’s the SV Rainbow Warrior II.
The Rainbow Warrior II doesn’t seem to get used very much. It gets its picture taken and everything, but it never really seems to be one of the vessels they use to do anything much with. Perhaps this is because that ship is wind powered (a sailboat that is) and like most things that are wind-powered the performance is generally not very good and subject to the whims of nature. It does also have filth-belching engines on board too, for electricity and axillary maneuvering power. (Apparently they use way too much power to get away with a wind turbine or something stupid like that.. those are for everyone else to have to use.)
So why bother with all the trouble of sails and rigging, cross wind sailing and that crap when you can just fire up those big engines and plow through the waves, eh Greenpeace? And if you do happen to take out the sailboat, why even bother raising the sails, anyway? Just hire a tugboat. Hell, it’s not like you can’t afford it, right?
BUT, I’ve saved the best for the last:
What’s that thing on the back of that Greenpeace ship? Oh. It’s a helicopter. Yes, a fast zippy little helicopter. Actually it’s a what they call “Tweeny.” And it happens to be a Hughes 500D. I’m actually a bit surprised they even have a webpage on it, because this is the same group that will tell you that you’re a bad, sinful, shameful person for daring to do something as uneco-friendly as flying. The Hughes 500D happens to sell for $500,000-750,000 for a used early-80’s model, like Greenpeace has, which is plenty of money to get the cleaner engines put on their floating filth factory. It’s a zippy, nimble little aircraft and clearly it’d be all kinds of fun to have one of those at your whim. It carries five passengers (four comfortably, but it will seat five), including the pilot.
Given that it’s a small, high performance, single-rotor helicopter, the Hu-500D happens to be ABOUT THE MOST INEFFICIENT VARIETY OF AIRCRAFT EVER BUILT. Not that I have anything against helicopters, but when you’re willing to protest big modern turbofan passenger jets and then go for a ride in a little helicopter, it takes things to a new level of douchebag. Helicopters are less efficient by their very nature. They don’t cruise on big wings but rather are a very un-elegant brute-force method of flying that uses a single big prop to force air downward. Small helicopters have small rapidly-spinning props which make the efficiency even worse, and except for dual-rotor helicopters like the Chinook, up to 25% of the engine power is sent to the tail rotor, which doesn’t actually provide any lift but simply counteracts the torque of the main rotor that would otherwise make the body of the helicopter spin.
The 500D model is the high performance version of the Hughes 500. While other versions may use a power plant as small as 280 horsepower, the D model has a big Alison 250-C20, putting out 420 horsepower. It has a maximum range of about 300 miles (less when fully loaded), if both the main fuel tank and the reserve are filled for a total of 109 US gallons. So the aircraft gets a bit less than 3 miles to the gallon. If you’ve got four people in it, it’s 12 passenger miles per gallon. Of course, it’s less if you are going to be doing any hovering or plan on swooping down for dramatic camera shots or anything like that. The damn thing will run the tank dry in just a couple hours of hovering!
Apparently, Greenpeace uses the little gas guzzler to do a bunch of things. They say it’s for “research” and transportation in support of their various activities, but more than anything else it seems to be a camera platform, and also, of course, a really fun little joy-ride toy. Greenpeace says that they need the chopper to do things like document whaling and other “eco-crimes.” It seems to be a fun platform for stunts too. For example, joy riding the chopper while carrying a can with a scull and crossbones painted on it. Oh that’s clever! (sarcasm) Can I go for a ride? Last time I went on a helicopter tour it was like 80 bucks and it was really short and the helicopter wasn’t even as nice!
Well, I’d like to mention to them that there are other ways of getting areal camera shots which don’t involve such enormous amounts of fuel. What about an unmanned helicopter? You could get a very good gas powered model chopper with a camera mount for just a few grand, and they’ve proven a versatile and effective means of getting good shots. Greenpeace might respond by saying that they can’t tolerate the footage from an amateur single-CCD camera. They want some well-stabilized HDTV footage of a professional grade (money being no object). In that case, there are professional-grade remote helicopters that can carry high grade cameras on gyroscopically stabilized mounts. They can even get more dramatic images than manned helicopters because they can come in close and make quick moves. The high end ones will do quite a distance as long as there’s line of sight. They just won’t be fun to ride in.
If you absolutely MUST have the ability to carry people around by aircraft, because ya know.. rubber boats are lame and not as fast.. then what about a seaplane? You can get a reasonably efficient small plane to hold two or four people and put floats on it. It’ll use a fair amount of fuel but a hell of a lot less than a helicopter. You won’t be able to fly it on and off of the deck, but you can hoist it up onto the boat after taking off and landing on the water. Could you maybe possibly live with that? Even better would be an ultralight amphibious aircraft. It would be super fuel-efficient, it could land on glaciers and places like that and would not be too heavy to lift on the boat.
Somehow I doubt that Greenpeace has any interest in any of this. I even doubt that they’d do something like replace the helicopter with one with a smaller engine or a small two-person helicopter instead of the high performance five seater.
What is that smell in the air? What the hell is that? Is that the thick gritty smell of marine diesel exhaust? Or is that the smell of the lubrication grease and all the other supplies for the upkeep of the helicopter? Or is that the smell of the cold hard cash that pays for it all? No.. no that’s not what I smell. I know that smell. I’d know that smell anywhere. That’s the stench of hypocrisy and it’s stinking up the place so bad that I can hardly breathe!
Many of the images used here as well as those which were studied to determine the condition of the ships and other technology of Greenpeace were taken from various online photo albums of idiots who have been on their ships and support their actions or are affiliated with the organization. No, I don’t have permission to use these. No I am not giving credit to whoever they came from. I don’t care either. Hell, some of the albums were even embedded such that the photo could not be saved from the page and I had to screen-cap them. I don’t care. I have no respect for these bastards and it’s not like they have any respect for the rights of others.
This entry was posted on Saturday, August 9th, 2008 at 12:02 am and is filed under Bad Science, Enviornment, Humor, Just LAME, Obfuscation, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
August 30th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Monica Hess said:
Very true, but in this case Greenpeace cannot hide behind fanaticism, as clearly they are about keeping the funding flowing from those that they have convinced they are making a difference by these antics. They are literally mountebanks; (or charlatans if you prefer) persons that knowingly employed bogus means of impressing people in order to swindle them out of money. They stage elaborate skits and farces that do nothing except draw attention to them (not the issue) but do little to engage in any real debate, and in fact seem to actively avoid it.
They are bad political theater and nothing else.
Quote Comment
August 30th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
I agree. The problem is that people want to help the environment (and baby seals/latest big deal) but they don’t have the time or the inclination to check out these activists. (activist=fanatic with mainstream media on their side) So, they donate money to ease their conscience…and end up supporting a bunch of publicity hounds who are really only interested in making the news while being as comfortable as possible because after all they “deserve” the best. After all, they’re the “good guys”. (sarcasm intended)
And, PETA is in the same category. Nothing but a bunch of eco-terrorists with too much time on their hands.
Quote Comment
August 30th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Green and Proud said:
Old ways, like lack of refrigeration, disease, war, and famine?
Quote Comment
August 30th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
It’s astonishing isn’t it that people like Green and Proud can utter statements of this nature in complete ignorance of what conditions really were in the past, and in complete ignorance of human nature.
It’s astonishing just how arrogant they are demanding that we all live “humble, simple” (and I suspect short) lives.
Quote Comment
August 30th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Well, if we all simplify things and stay close to home…what of those in the world who depend on what our society produces? Who will feed the hungry? Who will create and produce the vaccines and other drugs that make our world a safer place for us all?
For that matter, who will protect our homeland so the old hippies can opt to live the simple life and reap the rewards of the greatest nation in the world?
And, lets address the vegetarian point of view. Suppose we all stop eating beef. Who’s going to feed all those cattle that will be breeding like cattle? I don’t have room in my back yard for one. I have trouble enough worrying about all of Kentucky’s homeless horses since it’s now illegal to ship horse meat overseas, and people are turning unwanted horses loose to fend for themselves.
Gosh. Maybe going back to the simple life isn’t for realists. How about we just give thanks for all the blessings we’re being “forced” to endure?
Quote Comment
August 30th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Monica Hess said:
In general I see third world countries and societies that consume less than industrial countries as ones that will hopefully become more like us. AS opposed to looking at those countries and thinking “we should be more like them.” When I say “Like us” I don’t mean they need to have our customs and culture, but I generally think that it would be better to have Africans living in houses with electricity and plumbing than to have Europeans and Americans living in a world of mud huts and hunger.
This seems to be the opposite of what many in the green movement want.
Also, the only way that seems to lift societies out of poverty is commerce. If they can cultivate a business relationship with the rest of the world and attract some investment capital and become part of the global economic community then they can really improve the standard of living. Many in the green community think this is the worst thing that can possibly happen.
Quote Comment
September 1st, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Isn’t Africa backward and riven by tribalism largely because geographical factors made intra-African trade almost impossible (the tsetse fly killing off draft animals, the mesa-like form of the continent creating waterfalls or rapids making rivers useless for shipping, the wildly seasonal water levels resulting from the wet-and-dry-season tropical climate, the dearth of natural harbours)?
Quote Comment
September 2nd, 2008 at 8:41 am
ima email this site to greenpeace
and ask what they have to say about it
Quote Comment
September 2nd, 2008 at 9:14 am
zwenkwiel said:
That might get interesting.
George Carty said:
Don’t forget the heat from the tropical climate: it isn’t really good to have to spend a large part of the day largely inactive because it simply is too hot to work. And it is difficult to compensate by working partly during the night, because lights are often not available.
Quote Comment
September 2nd, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Yes, obviously there are many issues with Africa and bringing it into the world economic community. There are also other areas of the world which experience hunger and widespread poverty, for example many areas of southeast Asia, much of Latin America etc.
I’m still of the belief that the best way to help such countries in the long run is through trade and economic development. Of course, some of them are geographically/socially/culturally difficult and will present challenges. That’s a given.
I just don’t think the way to go is for “less consumerism” and “organic farming” and that bull.
Quote Comment
September 6th, 2008 at 5:54 am
Your argument is based on a false premise
Any argument can be taken apart by logic. I could if I was clever enough convince you that the moon was in fact a butterfly.
Of course you are fully entitled, justified and right to pull another man’s argument apart, as I am doing to yours now, but that does not take away the general idea of what Greenpeace is trying to achieve.
Your general idea is that man’s activity on the planet does no harm.
Greenpeace’s general idea with all its inherent contradictions is that we are harming the planet.
Why don’t you say that in the first place before you go onto to justify your own materialistic all consuming lifestyles.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I am no hippy, in full time employment, don’t do dope, never been in the communist party and I really hope you have a great day
Quote Comment
September 6th, 2008 at 6:01 am
Heart of the Forest said:
I fear that you are slightly mistaken; DrBuzz0’s argument isn’t that man’s activity on the planet does no harm, it is that we can mitigate the harm through the use of scientific thinking and the application of that thinking. For example: we should use nuclear energy, because (1) it greatly reduces greenhouse gas emissions, (2) it is cheap, (3) it is safe, (4) it delivers a great quantity of energy.
As always I may be mistaken; if so, correct me.
Quote Comment
September 6th, 2008 at 6:28 am
“it is that we can mitigate the harm through the use of scientific thinking and the application of that thinking”
The vast majority of people who deal with Earth Sciences today now believe that we humans are harming the planet, Greenpeace’s activity relies on this knowledge and is the reason why they protest.
If logic was anything to go by (and who says it is) then DrBuzz0’s argument should be to support Greenpeace.
But I honestly don’t think that is what he is implying in his whole argument, he supports business as usual and the status quo which many believe is no longer tenable.
Quote Comment
September 6th, 2008 at 7:07 am
Heart of the Forest said:
While DrBuzz0 agrees with Greenpeace that e.g. coal burning isn’t a good thing (for humans as well as for nature), he disagrees with their stance that we should return to the life style which is “organic” or “sustainable” (as thought of by Greenpeace, that is: without much or even any of the technology which we have today, even if they say it isn’t so, but wind and solar simply aren’t capable of sustaining an industrial society), so supporting Greenpeace would be hypocritical and counterproductive.
And I don’t think DrBuzz0 is supporting the status quo as a whole. He supports capitalism, but he calls for more nuclear power (the probably desirable levels of which are only the status quo in France), and for action against underground coal fires (which doesn’t happen on the scale needed).
I would also suggest you to read a little bit more of this site, so that you can give us some citations to validate your stance, because you seem more to be ranting (as in “not presenting a well-researched and calm argument”) than actually reading our (at the moment: my) responses to your rants. At the moment I’m rather tempted to consider you a troll, or maybe a baiter, so prove me wrong.
Quote Comment
September 6th, 2008 at 8:22 am
Hey I don’t think that’s fair
Because you don’t agree with me or I don’t agree with you does not mean that we are stupid or trying too wind each other up.
The basis of science in my view is an objective view of the real world (hard to attain I know). As most people are cynical and wary of science because it does not represent their localised real world, scientific data can be pulled to pieces, its part of the game.
Greenpeace and other environmental organisations have a fundamental democratic right to protest and point out man’s depletion of earth’s resources, which most of science agree is now happening, so how can they be hypocritical?
How can one not care about the environment and not live a sustainable life, the two are inseparable even if full of contradictions.
Capitalism is all well and good and much better than all the other ‘isms’ out there, but you have to admit the environment is way down on its agenda and just wants to take over everything in its path.
We don’t need any more ‘isms’ what we need is that big word ‘responsibility’ without dictat.
Hopefully that washes the idea away that I am a baiter or troll. If you are willing to point out the inconsistencies or hypocrisies of others you should be willing to face your own as well. That is the nature of true debate and I hope you don’t take personal offence by my straightforward opinions, because none is intended. Have a great day.
Quote Comment
September 6th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Heart of the Forest said:
No. I do believe that we’re harming the planet – in some cases severely and that we’re emitting polutants that harm human health, using mining practices which destroy enormous areas of land as well as water tables, the lives and property of those in the area etc. I also think that we’re clearing way more land than necessary for agriculture, that we’re not doing a very good job of keeping trash out of the oceans… numerous other things.
My problem with Greenpeace is not simply nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is the best single way to reduce greenhouse emissions and everything associated with filthy fuels like coal. I dislike that Greenpeace is for tokenism – pushing small solutions that won’t amount to squat. I dislike that they ignore major, yet low profile sources of pollution like underground coal fires, while targeting comparatively small sources. They ignore things like cement manufacture, again because its not as high profile, even if it is enormous. They oppose things like Genetic Engineering with nearly religious ferocity, even when it can be very helpful and the risks have been well assessed. They put forward the notion that “natural is how it should be” and thus encourage farming methods that can, in the long run, have enormous impacts on the enviornment. They oppose things like chlorine, again with near religious furocity, forgetting it is the single largest improvement in water safety and sanitation in human history.
However here, I’m making a point about their hypocrisy. They have ships with enormous engines that burn heavy, sulfur-laden marine-quality diesel. They believe they’re entitled to a gas-guzzling helicopter for their protests and such. They burn untold amounts of this filthy fuel in sensative marine habitat to power their broadband satellite uplink and their dedicated video editing computers.
At the same time, they condem the expansion of civil and commercial aviation. The gal of someone to say from their gas guzzling helicopter that nobody else has the right to see the world, experience cultural exchanges or appreciate the great sites of travel is revolting.
Opposing aviation is just another example of short-sited, public-pandering, useless opposition. The carbon footprint of aviation is relatively small. It’s smaller than manufacture of cement or underground coal fires, yet without aviation some of the most prestine, unique natural sites in the world would no longer be supported by the primary economic pillar of the area – tourism. Without tourism places like Aruba, Fiji, Bermuda, The Virgin Islands would revert to being dirt poor. Also they would no longer have any incentive to keep their reefs, forests and alike preserved. Without being a money-maker they’d instead tear them up to try to make money selling materials or growing food.
But above all else, it’s an issue of them demanding everyone in the world make sacrafices to save it, as they go flying around in helicopters, sip their ‘organic’ lemonaid in luxury cabins and generally live the high life with no regard for practicing what they preach.
Quote Comment
September 6th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Heart of the Forest said:
It is hypocritical to do exactly the opposite of what one proposes. They preach that we have to cut back our use of fossil fuels in special and (more important) energy in general (because they preach that we can’t use anything that would at least make it possible to retain a large part of our current comfort, such as nuclear energy, while crying that we have to use “sustainable” energy, such as solar or wind, which will use so much land area and resources for so little payback that we could probably better continue using fossil fuels if nuclear is forbidden), but they use a way too big helicopter and heavy machinery to propel their ships, without doing all they can (such as flying a smaller or even no helicopter, or replacing their engines and be content with low speed and low comfort).
They have the right to protest how they want (as long as it doesn’t violate the law – something which they haven’t understood yet), and no one forbids them to be hypocritical. But being hypocritical, while not generally forbidden by the law, exposes one to sometimes vehement criticism and subsequent loss of credence.
Quote Comment
September 6th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
drbuzz0 said:
If you want to be true to an argument to the nnth degree, an impossibility in my view, Greenpeace should be seen to be more environmentally aware when it comes to their own operations.
But this contradiction is minor compared to the benefit they have brought to the world by increasing awareness of the environment and you have acknowledged that we humans are damaging the planet.
We would not even be discussing these issues if it weren’t for Greenpeace and other such supporters of the planet.
I no apologist for Greenpeace but do you really expect them to go on the high seas in a little pleasure boat and mount a protest against nations that have fast high powered shipping fleets, that is operationally not possible.
The issues of nuclear energy, solar power, aviation and all those other issues are all hotly debated, all mired in politics and self interest and it is nearly impossible to work out what is really beneficial.
The reality as I see is not creating better and more efficient technologies to substitute and increase energy use, it is to use less energy.
This does not mean going back to the stone age or sitting in a field naked contemplating the nature of the universe eating pearl barley, it just means we use less and lead more simple lives, no science is required to work that out.
So if the you really acknowledge that we are harming the planet go after the big boys out there who are doing the real damage and look at your own way of life, not go after the little fish like Greenpeace who just want us make us aware that we can no longer live our profligate life styles.
As always, have a great day
Quote Comment
September 6th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Heart of the Forest said:
The contradiction may be minor (at least according to you), but it damages their image and credibility quite severely.
I wouldn’t expect Greenpeace to go on the high seas in a little pleasure boat, or, more probably, on a larger boat that is wind-powered (or whatever it is that they promote and is utilisable to propel a ship), if they didn’t brag that obnoxiously about the need to give up all comforts in order to save the planet. Most people won’t do that voluntarily, and if one tries to force such austerity upon them there would probably a revolution.
To use less energy may be a possibility in the richer parts of the world (the west), but even if we cut all frivolous energy use – which would require us to define what is “luxury” and what is necessary (there is a large gray zone, so this would be very difficult) – we still would need to give the larger part of humanity that energy level, which means giving them more energy. If we don’t, then we have gone back to the stone age (or the iron age, more probably). Even if we gave you what you want, it would be necessary to develop more efficient technologies to negate the effect of a large part of humanity getting (generally) substantially more energy. These technologies would then probably also be adopted in the west, so that the level of living could stay more near its contemporary level.
Greenpeace may not be a really large fish in harming the planet directly, but their quite influential policy concerning nuclear energy, “renewable” energy (which is not that different from the burning of greenbacks, be they dollars or €100 notes) and other such things has actually harmed (and will continue to do so) the efforts to fight global warming. Some big boys about which DrBuzz0 has complained (and about which Greenpeace is mysteriously silent) are underground coal fires and cement production.
Quote Comment
September 6th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
I’m interested in whether it would be physically possible to support our present population levels on renewable energy alone. If not, then the environmentalists could be crushed via an “anti-nuclear = pro-dieoff” argument…
Quote Comment
September 6th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Vjatcheslav said:
I don’t want to go on and on, but I do support your concerns about forcing people to do something against their nature.
I would never force anyone to do anything they did not want to do, not that I could anyway or wish to.
It’s only by awareness and education that there lies the answer.
If there was a new breed of eco-fascists calling for a revolution that involved turmoil or chaos or denial of fundamental liberties I would not support them. Everyone should make their own decisions.
Quote Comment
September 6th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
George Carty said:
I doubt if it is possible. At this moment it is impossible, but I don’t know what some sort of supergrid coupled with truly megalomaniac projects could do.
Quote Comment
September 6th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
By the way, if it wasn’t clear from post 120, I didn’t mean “can we sustain our present standard of living on renewables alone?”, I meant “can we support our present planetary population – even at a much lower standard of living – on renewables alone?”
The point is that advocating a reduction in living standards is nowhere near as evil as advocating a large-scale human die-off.
Just checking you understood me correctly…
Quote Comment
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Great article.
Quote Comment
May 4th, 2009 at 4:32 am
It is interesting how Heart of the Forest notes that “any argument may be taken apart by logic” – yet they do not attempt to do so! Whoever you are, you must realise that merely stating previously heard “facts” as an argument makes you seem to have rather poor reasoning. perhaps you just do not wish to “go on and on” but the the fact remains that that is the way arguments are won: several claims backed up by substantiated evidence. Have fun stoking your fire in your forest retreat…
Quote Comment
May 4th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Dude like every point you make is pointless. Why can’t they have a plane? Oh yea its cause they are on a boat jackass not an aircraft carrier, Green peace probably needs helicopters for their emergency hippo festivals more than they have time to upgrade a system which ultimately hurts their efficiency. Use your head before posting
Quote Comment
May 5th, 2009 at 12:50 am
SpencKing said:
It’s called a seaplane, jackass. Greenpeace uses their helicopter (which I may reiterate, is one of the LEAST effecient flying machines) entirely for stunts. That’s what they use it for: flying around fake cans of radioactive waste and harassing various merchant vessels etc etc. They do this while at the same time telling people they have no right to fly on a highly effecient turbofan airliner.
They don’t really **need** any aircraft. They do, however, think that nobody else is entitled to ever fly except themselves.
They do this from a ship which burns downright filthy marine deisel.
Quote Comment
May 10th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Lets consider the 32 gallons per passenger on the Transatlantic flight. This flight is about 3500 miles. Greenpeace wants to slam the airline for this, but an individual would have to be in a vehicle that gets OVER 109mpg to get similar efficiency!
There is no end to Greenpeace idiocy.
Quote Comment
May 18th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
umm the rainbow warrior was scuttled by the french secret service in new zealand during the early 90’s. killed one and basically destroyed the ship…. bit hard to use in that state!
BTW GP is a crock of ****, there main purpose is to sell t shirt! ask the paople of Dunedin who tried to get them to help them with polution in the bay. “not high profile enough”
Quote Comment
May 18th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
woz said:
Yeah, that was the original “Rainbow Warrior” they have a new ship which is sometimes called “Rainbow Warrior II” or just “rainbow warrior” using the name again. They also have at least two other major ocean going ships and I believe there is one other which is operated by one of their national chapters.
The sinking of the original Rainbow Warrior happened in 1985. It was damn near the best thing to happen to Greenpeace. The ship was sunk by French special forces because it had been used to invade French military exercises, including nuclear tests and missile tests and had caused several security breaches. The French simply wanted to stop having a ship endanger their operations by getting involved in restricted areas.
The sinking was designed to avoid any loss of human life. Actually they put quite a bit of effort into it.
It is, by the way, not necessarily improper or illegal by international law to disable or sink a vessel which has been used in hostile actions against your national interests such as in acts of piracy. The fact that it was sunk in forign waters is a problem. It would likely have gotten them off scott free if they torpedoed it in international waters, but that would have likely caused loss of life. The covert sinking in a port was considered safer and more desirable as a means of disabling the vessel.
They attached two small hull-mounted mines. The first mine was positioned in a manner that made it unlikely to cause huge amounts of damage. It was set off first followed by the second mine about four minutes later. The idea was that the first one would get everyone to abandon the ship and the second one would do it in. The first charge was a small ten kilo charge affixed to the propeller shaft. It would disable the ship and get everyone off of it, or at least no longer bellow decks. Since it was not far out from shore in a harbor they were not really in any danger of not being rescued. The second charge was larger and positioned to blow out the keel, thus assuring the ship would go down.
Well, all this would have worked out fine except for the fact that as soon as the first explosion occurred, despite being large enough to make it clear that the ship had been damaged and to get everyone out from the damaged area, one of the assclowns decided he needed to run down bellow decks and get his camera equipment so that he could take pictures of it to show everyone and make a big whiney fit over. He got what was coming to him.
While he was trying to get a good shot or something the second charge went off and he couldn’t get out of the hull before it went under. Serves him right. Anyway, this turned out to be a huge PR win for Greenpeace which surely loved it (they don’t value human life much to begin with). It let them play the victim, with they love. They built a memorial and everything and got all of New Zealand to think they were the best damn thing around.
Quote Comment
May 18th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
drbuzz0 said:
Nevertheless they do not interfere with the French on the high seas anymore. Would it be that other nations were less squeamish about handing out a sharp lesson to groups like this. But you are right, had it been my call I would have ordered the ship to be sunk at night by a sub without warning.
Quote Comment
May 19th, 2009 at 2:17 am
DV82XL said:
There is something of an irony to it. I’ve read some of the information out there. The big concern was the fact that Greenpeace was getting increasingly bold with regards to French military activity and so forth on the seas. This included the well publicized nuclear tests but also Greenpeace was interfering with French submarines surfacing and coming into port and harassing naval vessels and civilian ones (The kind of stuff they still do now anyway).
My understanding of the matter is that if the vessel comes within restricted areas of a military exercise or harasses civilian vessels and does not leave after warnings then the French would have been within their rights by most international conventions to presume them hostile and sink them. This was something they wanted to avoid and as it was becoming increasingly likely as the group was getting more and more bold. Of course these days they continue to push the bounds of safety by forcing merchant ships to make dangerous maneuvers, blockading the channel that British submarines use when coming into port and throwing bolders into areas that are trawled.
I can hardly blame the French for it. They would have been in no trouble if they did it in international waters. Of course they couldn’t do it in French waters but Greenpea was smart enough to never go there.
Quote Comment
May 19th, 2009 at 5:03 am
I would have a very hard time feeling any kind of sympathy for anyone who was shot at by a navy vessel after repeatedly provoking and harassing the navy of a country. That is just what you expect! If you get in the way of a cruiser or an air craft carrier and it’s clear you’re doing it on purpose then what do you expect? They blow you out of the water it’s in their own self defense. You don’t have the right to endanger another ship by stupid antics and you don’t have the right to impede a country’s national defense forces. I’d only feel sorry for you for being so stupid, but how on earth does that make them the victim?
Yet they manage it. That group Sea Sheppard was ramming Japanese ships and throwing things at them. One of their crew tried to get on the Japanese ship to sabotage it. They called it an ‘inspection’ or something stupid like that. The crew caught the little jackass and tied him up then took off as fast as they could to meet up with a Japanese coast guard or navy ship to transfer him to their custody to be taken to Japan for prosecution. Of course they had every right to do this when he got on their ship and tried to break their stuff and they radioed to the Japanese government to let them know that the kid had been caught and was being taken to the authorities.
In any case, the bastards on the pirate ship said he was kidnapped and held hostidge while being persecuted etc. I don’t know how far they got with that.
God, I just really would like these guys to for once start going after some Chinese ships or maybe some Russian ones.
Quote Comment
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Aside from the typographical, grammatical and syntax errors riddling this post, I enjoyed reading it. Greenpeace has been a front for world-wide bull**** scams for so many years now, it really has become something of a joke. If GP was honestly trying to help the world, instead of trying to make money off the publicity stunts, we’d probably have a bit of a better situation.
Good call, overall.
Quote Comment
June 16th, 2009 at 8:08 am
Ever read Frank Furedi’s 1999 article Consuming Democracy? It points out how environmentalists (along with other activists) operate more through networking with governments and the media than through actual popular support…
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Joel P said:
exactly! you know your stuff!
Quote Comment
July 4th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Despite all the stuff said about Greenpeace on these pages, the fact is, they have been responsible, along with many many others in changing peoples and governmental attitudes for the betterment of our fragile planet despite the fact they don’t go round ‘In a beautiful pea-green boat’
Your arguments are still stuck in the denial of the Bush era, now the whole environment scene has changed with the Obama administration starting to take on environmental responsibility as one of its kingpins of policy.
Come on guys move on, accept the world is changing and has to whether you want it to or not.
Quote Comment
July 4th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
icarus said:
There is so much wrong with that above comment and so much denial of the facts of what helps and what doesn’t. However I’ll stick to this part: I (the author of this article and of this page) am not a general supporter of the Bush administration policies nor am I a registered Republican. Many visitors here are not American and the US is not the only country that matters.
Obama’s policies when it comes to the enviornment are based on politics and not science or an objective evaluation of what does and doesn’t work.
Greenpeace is not an American organization either. It was founded in Canada and now is headquartered in Amsterdam.
By the way: There are countries which took on a very aggressive “green” policy as far back as the early 1990’s and did the kind of things Greenpeace advocates and the current US political climate has been favoring. These include Spain, Germany, Austria and The Netherlands. Without exception their energy situation and emissions have gotten signifficantly worse even as the continue to pour money into “renewables”
Quote Comment
July 4th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
drbuzz0 said:
…as Revenue Canada has several outstanding questions for them that Greenpeace would rather not answer.
Quote Comment
July 4th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Come on now, most of the arguments put so far are based on semantics that just go round and round and round never arriving at a resolution.
You are perfectly entitled and should continue to criticise anyone’s viewpoint but Greenpeace and other organisations are making the world a better place despite all their innate contradictions.
In the real world there is no such thing as the perfect pure argument, I certainly have not met one.
I agree with you that environmental policies the world over are certainly confused, inconsistent and offer no reassurance for those people trying to make sensible informed decisions. Hopefully in time that will change.
But at least Greenpeace has brought forward into everyone’s minds one of the most pressing issues of our age, our planet.
IMHO you need move the argument onto a new level and don’t forget to have a great day
Quote Comment
July 4th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
icarus said:
Garbage. Show an example of what you are describing or withdraw that slander.
icarus said:
By persisting in their steadfast, irrational opposition to the one source of enegy (nuclear) capable of addressing the environmental issues they ‘raise awareness’ of, they have demonstrated that they care not one wit about these issues in reality, and have long since turned into shills of the very industries they purport to oppose. They are hindering the implementation of solutions by promoting non-solutions such as useless wind and solar tech as a fig leaf for continuing to burn fossil fuels. They promote primitive low-yield agriculture and oppose high-tech intensive food production. So where, when and in what manner is Greenpeace supposed to have made the world a better place?
Quote Comment
July 4th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Why is Greenpeace so influential, and what if anything can we learn from their prestige?
Are there any of Greenpeace’s methods which could be used to promote a less ignoble cause?
Quote Comment
July 4th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Finrod said:
More than that. Add to that their opposition to chlorine usage (as in safe drinking water that does not result in mass deaths from waterborn illness) and their opposition to genetic engineering, including the kind that can result in new life-saving antibiotics or other pharmasuiticals produced by genetic engineering. Their support of more energy intensive and less economical manufacturing practices. Their damn near piracy tactics in attacking fishing vessels and others they don’t agree with.
They are all about image and self-serving methods not results or even the good of the enviornment
George Carty said:
Beats the hell out of me. Maybe it’s just that they oppose all that is considered important to traditional economics, whether or not it is harmful?
Quote Comment
September 18th, 2009 at 1:26 am
I don’t see where GreenPEACE lives up to their name at all…instead of bringing peace they continue to fight, fight, fight. You stir up a lot of people and you get a big kick out of it. Feeding your egos. Just another way of controling…we have to realize that those days are gone, there is no such thing as control, though we keep trying and until we get it; well, there will always be this…us arguing, groups fighting, poverty, war…no one is right. Neither am I, though in my heart I feel uniting and giving up the ego and embracing life. To be grateful for what we have, appreciate what we are willing to accept into our lives to make things easy. Give. Respect for all, including our enviroment. We can take, though give back. Be realistic…..keep a balance. That is simplicity. We cut down a tree, we replace it. Procreating together. Gia will take care of herself…I don’t understand why we have to fight about it…if we don’t stop fighting, she will take care of us… and she has many, many times in the past, the energy we put out there will come right back. Greenpeace doesn’t help any situation by protesting, they are creating more negitive energy then they realize. Change the way we look at things and the things we look at will change…start with ourselves…Everyone. Love unconditionally…You might ask why?! I say, why not! Respect is another huge one we have to start realizing…respect for ourselves, for our fellow man and for the earth we live on. We are evolving all the time, there has to be better solutions out there without compromising to the extreme of things…Greenpeace, if you don’t walk your talk, you will always be fighting. How many of you greenpeace people are stressed because you have made this your life? You eat, drink and sleep it?
Do any of you understand Quantum Pysics? I challenge each and every one of you to check it out…very interesting to say the least…when we can understand that we are all energy, all one…then we have started the change. Oh, one other thing, when we relearn how to love ourselves, because we did before we were conditioned and conformed to believe otherwise, then we will embrace and love and respect this beautiful world we live in including everyone in it.
Love and Light
Quote Comment