• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Coal Ship Boarded By GreenPeace

hayenmill

Student
H
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
30
(worldwideweb).guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/22/greenpeace-kingsnorth-coal-protests

Six people were arrested when climate change campaigners boarded a coal freighter and stopped it unloading its cargo at the planned site of the new Kingsnorth power station today.

Four protesters remain on board the ship, 10 metres up the foremast, and are in a stand-off with police on the deck of the ship.

"The coal hasn't been able to be unloaded – that's what we set out to do here," Sarah Shoraka, one of the activists in the crow's nest on the foremast said.
Click to expand...

So these protesters use a fossil fuel powered boat, in order to stop another fossil fuel powered boat from delivering fossil fuels?

And these people are taking themselves seriously...

I suppose the videocameras they bought where made using renewable energy aswell, not to mention the chemical flares, rubber speedboats, and polyurethene clothes.

Unbelievable.
 
thanks for linking, and thanks for the welcome, but it's not like i only started posting right now ^^
 
lionking said:
The "Newblood" title warrants a welcome. :)
Click to expand...

lol okay. Do you agree with me on the analysis of this article or am i the only one to think Greenpeace's stance is pretty hypocritical, and that if there is indeed a problem with using fossil fuels, this should NOT be the way to act about them?
 
hayenmill said:
(worldwideweb).guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/22/greenpeace-kingsnorth-coal-protests



So these protesters use a fossil fuel powered boat, in order to stop another fossil fuel powered boat from delivering fossil fuels?

And these people are taking themselves seriously...

I suppose the videocameras they bought where made using renewable energy aswell, not to mention the chemical flares, rubber speedboats, and polyurethene clothes.

Unbelievable.
Click to expand...

It is a mockery, I wonder what their opinions are on nuclear power stations.

The Green lobby in the UK seems to have its self in a bit of a mess, opposing pretty much everything!
 
hayenmill said:
lol okay. Do you agree with me on the analysis of this article or am i the only one to think Greenpeace's stance is pretty hypocritical, and that if there is indeed a problem with using fossil fuels, this should NOT be the way to act about them?
Click to expand...
I agree with your analysis. Greenpeace are a bunch of hypocrits.
 
Coal is correctly identified as a horror....and last time I checked there are not a lot of alternative fuel boats???:rolleyes:

Where Greenpeace goes off track is it's anti-nuke stance ( tho it's founder has shifted gears )
but high lighting the horror of coal plants is long over due......

So your "hypocrisy snark" is misplaced totally as you don't understand the situation.

This is a science forum after all...:garfield:

Maybe do some reading so you understand the risks with coal and using up our fossil reserves

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/aug/22/carbonemissions.fossilfuels

MITs updated assessment
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090519134843.htm

http://ecoworldly.com/2009/05/31/2002-coal-ash-risk-study-not-released-by-epa/

and the consequences

Agence France-Presse, June 18, 2009
PARIS (AFP) -- The world faces a growing risk of "abrupt and irreversible climatic shifts" as fallout from global warming hits faster than expected, according to research by international scientists released Thursday.

Global surface and ocean temperatures, sea levels, extreme climate events, and the retreat of Arctic sea ice have all significantly picked up more pace than experts predicted only a couple of years ago, they said.

The stark warning comes less than six months before an international conference aiming to seal a treaty to save the planet from the worst ravages of global warming.

A 36-page document summarized more than 1,400 studies presented at a climate conference in March in Copenhagen, where a United Nations meeting will be held in December to hammer out a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. Kyoto expires in 2012.

The report said greenhouse gas emissions and other climate indicators are at or near the upper boundaries forecast by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose 2007 report has been the scientific benchmark for the troubled UN talks.

There is also new evidence that the planet itself has begun to contribute to global warming through fall out from human activity.
Click to expand...
continues

http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=7400&Method=Full

from the science community....a sobering read ....so I'd take the snarky attitude off to back lot with the trash....
••

Wudang I concur - WWF a more balanced approach than Greenpeace but I;m not sure how integrated Greenpeace is anymore compared to WWF.
 
Last edited:
No, I don't think they're hypocrites. If they feel they can achieve a net reduction in burning of fossil fuels, either by disrupting this shipment, or indirectly, through the attention brought to the cause by this action, then a small expenditure of energy - even fossil fuel-derived energy - to achieve this is not hypocritical.

I'm not saying these are (or aren't) worthy goals, and I'm not saying these actions are (or aren't) an effective way of achieving these goals. I'm just saying that they're not hypocrites just because they're burning fossil fuels in order to try to reduce fossil fuel consumption.
 
Last edited:
I agree with linusrichard.

Hayenmill, I challenge you to show me comparable progress to that which Greenpeace has been able to make by any other organiztion (in the same field of activism). I can't find any place Greenpeace claims to be powered by 100 % renewable energy, so what's your fuss?

Sure, they drag a lot of crap with them (who doesn't). Sure, they tend to have a disturbing religious zeal in some of their claims. The stuff in wudang's link deserves to be brought up and has been accordingly criticized. But in this day and age, I don't see how any lesser means of trying to influence the public will result in desired outcomes. Or are you suggesting we should simply leave these matters in the hands of governments and their business :rolleyes:?

Greenpeace isn't near perfect, but it's the most effective we've got so far.

What are you doing about it?
 
In a way greenpeace is being hypocritical, not letting that shipment of coal get unloaded, is saying we aren't going to let anyone use these fossil fuels. But then there is the fact that they themselves use fossil fuels. Tapio, I challenge you to show me how that isn't hypocritical, when it fits the very definition.
 
I find it particularly interesting that they're against coal and nuclear.

They appear to be in favour of wasting natural gas on baseload power and shaving off a tiny little bit of that with wind turbines whenever the wind happens to blow. That seems like a terrible idea in the US where natural gas is quite abundant; it's downright assinine if you happen to be in Europe and need to import gas from russian Gazprom.
 
Last edited:
hayenmill said:
lol okay. Do you agree with me on the analysis of this article or am i the only one to think Greenpeace's stance is pretty hypocritical, and that if there is indeed a problem with using fossil fuels, this should NOT be the way to act about them?
Click to expand...
Not only hypocritical, but I see no reason the rectum breathers should not be arrested for piracy.
 
Careyp74 said:
In a way greenpeace is being hypocritical, not letting that shipment of coal get unloaded, is saying we aren't going to let anyone use these fossil fuels. But then there is the fact that they themselves use fossil fuels. Tapio, I challenge you to show me how that isn't hypocritical, when it fits the very definition.
Click to expand...

Heh...I challenge, you challenge...ok, I'll play.

It's all about whether the part I underlined is accurate. If it is, yes, I too think it can be called hypocrisy.

But. Where do you find them saying "we aren't going to let anyone use these fossil fuels"? Isn't this jumping to unwarranted conclusions? I believe they would have been been happy if the ship could've been turned back, but I also believe they have enough experience to know, that with such tiny manpower, it wouldn't happen. As a matter of fact, from their own site:

Although the ship has now managed to dock, climbers remain in position, and with enough food and water to stay there for several days, they are demanding that the cargo turns back.
Click to expand...

I predict they won't succeed in their demands. And I believe they know it too. But that's not the point. If you read through their site you'll see the point is something much more far-reaching.

So, to really know if they're hyppocrite in this case or not, you first have to prove your point of them claiming what you wrote they're claiming. Now, I hope this won't turn into a philosophical debate on hypocrisy, but rather focus on the actual results of the actions of Greenpeace.
 
Oh, I don't think they are hypocritical. I just think they are criminal and their behavior borders on terrorism.

The coal company should sue Greenpeace for all the loses involved with their little act.
 
Careyp74 said:
In a way greenpeace is being hypocritical, not letting that shipment of coal get unloaded, is saying we aren't going to let anyone use these fossil fuels. But then there is the fact that they themselves use fossil fuels. Tapio, I challenge you to show me how that isn't hypocritical, when it fits the very definition.
Click to expand...

The very definition?

"Hypocrisy is the act of pretending that one has beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities or standards that [one] do[es] not actually have"
(Wikipedia - with me cleaning up the grammar a tiny bit)

"a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not"
(m-w.com)

So how does using a little bit of fossil fuel in an attempt to prevent the use of many tons of fossil fuel fit the "very definition" of hypocrisy, exactly?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom