Coal Ship Boarded By GreenPeace

[Bobert]

Gh

Greenpeace are very keen on the high-profile stunts that keep the donations coming in. I used to donate but switched to the WWF ages back and the difference in communications is amazing. Especially in terms of what they get doen.

I am not sure how balanced this is but fwiw http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Movements/Greenpeace/ge-ar-gr.htm

you went from an environmental group to wrestling?

 

[realpaladin]

Gh
you went from an environmental group to wrestling?

Stranger things happen within the confines of this forum.
Just go with it, see where it takes you.
Mayhaps down the rabbit hole?

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Don't give Mr. McMahon any ideas. He'll get caught up in the "green craze" and actually have a wrestler with blue skin and a green mullet throwing out Conservation Chokeslams as his finisher.

 

[rjh01]

Gh
you went from an environmental group to wrestling?

I think this is the WWF website. Nothing to do with wrestling http://www.wwf.org.au/

 

[Tapio]

I apologize to both hayenmill and Tapio for the misattribution. I got a bit confused while trying to multi-quote.

Completely understood .

That the statement does support any fanatic violence, is exactly the point. "Even if you don't agree with their agenda and methods of achieving this, you must respect the fact they're constantly striving to have to compromise as little possible from their core-agenda/beliefs. I don't agree with them in many issues, but I really value this kind of dedication." Even "in context," as stated, this is a defense of any fundamentalist violence. Agenda and methods define a movement. They are not hand-waved away by "dedication."

That is definitely not something I was advocating. But since you read it that way, I must have a problem in comprising my thoughts (not such a surprise when remembering English isn't my mother-tongue, or even tongue-in-cheek ).

I'd really value some help here. How can I convey this thought* without it not involving all fundamentalist behaviour in the world, but limiting it to discuss only the way I feel about Greenpeace using fossil fuels in fighting to decrease the use of them?

*I very much disagree with some of Greenpeace methods. But I can respect them not giving up on their mission (which I can relate to) just because, at the moment, it's impossible for them to hold on to their idealistic vision every single step of the way. Meaning the use of the most efficient boat motors available while at the same time advocating for technology that would enable them to use motors with same abilities that wouldn't be powered by fossil fuels.

Of course this thought requires a belief in that they actually are seeking new methods, and would change their fossil fuel powered motors for more environmentaly friendly ones the moment it would be possible. As with all of my beliefs, I'm prepared to change this one, provided adequate evidence to support the change.

So hayenmill, I'd really appreciate you showing me a non-fossil fuel powered boat motor capable of performing at the same rate as the one's Greenpeace is using at the moment?

As an individual concerned with the environment, what bothers me most, is the damage in credibility. Greenpeace taints the work of legitimate environmental scientists and political action committees. In a similar manner to the way PETA discredits legitimate animal shelters and animal rights groups. That said, the breaking of certain laws, in certain situations, can bother me. Breaking laws can be considered righteous, if the laws are unjust.

I think I understand what you mean. However, at least in my experience, this "tainting of legitimate environmental scientists and political action committees" is not so much of a problem. Most people seem to be capable of recognizing actions through which we can make a positive influence from radical, destructive behaviour, even though organizations behaving in one way or the other might share some part of their agenda.

Regarding the law-aspect. Maybe I'm just an incurable rebel (or simply ignorant of the matter), but I don't feel the laws set at the moment to restrict the destruction of nature by humankind are even near adequate. So, as long as nobody is actually harmed, I do want to support actions which seem necessary while waiting for these laws to be made. Of course, necessity is a completely subjective matter and must be wheighed case by case.

I think this is the equivalent to what some of you've been discussing regarding the piracy-law. Some of you feel it would be okay for the people aboard to even kill confused the "pirates" of Greenpeace, even though it definitely would be against the law at the moment, while waiting for it to become legal. Or am I being inconsistent here?

Boarding a random ship making a coal delivery as a protest of fossil fuels everywhere will strike many as juvenile and self-righteous. This clouds legitimate debate with ideological in-fighting and generalization of environmental activists as violent whackos.

As I understand, the ship they boarded wasn't just "a random ship". Unless they're straight forward lying on their site.

Headline:

Greenpeace activists have boarded a bulk freighter carrying coal to the UK's controversial Kingsnorth power station in Kent.

Later from the article:

Land next to the existing plant at Kingsnorth has been earmarked for the construction of the first new coal-fired power station in Britain for 30 years. The highly controversial plans have sparked a series of protests, but this is the first time a coal shipment to the site has been blocked and boarded. The UK government claims a new Kingsnorth plant will be cleaner but in reality, under the new policy announced in April, it will still pump three-quarters of its emissions into the atmosphere for years to come - six million tonnes of CO2 every year.

Now, if this is all hogwash, I'd like to know. Because I too think that a random act of activism will lead only away from the goal.

To be successful a movement must be credible, this is why MLK is still remembered today while the Black Panthers remain mired in legal troubles and self-defeating ideological rhetoric.

Agreed. But I really see no larger credibility problem with Greenpeace. Their continuing success regarding various different cases is, to me, a decent indication of that. However, this doesn't mean I don't think they could benefit even more by refining some of their most controversial ways of activism.