Coal Ship Boarded By GreenPeace

[paximperium]

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?

No more than a suicide bomber blowing himself up in crowd using a little violence for "peace".

 

[linusrichard]

No more than a suicide bomber blowing himself up in crowd using a little violence for "peace".

Exactly. Ironic, perhaps, but not hypocritical.

 

[paximperium]

Exactly. Ironic, perhaps, but not hypocritical.

I agree. They believe in what they do and will do many things to accomplish it.

There is alot of criticize Greenpeace about; hypocrisy isn't one of them.

 

[Terry]

Sure there are, just go nuclear.

nuke-powered zodiacs appear to be a bit thin on the ground (water)...

 

[MG1962]

Action like this only re-inforce a lot preconceptions about Greenpeace as being a bunch of smelly tree huggers. Environmental activism is a good thing, provided it is done correctly. However I would suggest that a smarter course of action would be political

Target politicans that are positive to their cause, work with them to get legislation and processes changed. In a sense effect change from within, rather than without

We see this with Whale Wars, a bunch of well intentioned activists who come across as a complete bunch of idiots, in TV series made by people who have no agenda to make them look bad. So you can imagine what a negative aligned media is going to do to them

 

[DC]

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.

and Nature should sue Industrialiezed trow-away humanity and the coal companys for her loses......

 

[Tapio]

Action like this only re-inforce a lot preconceptions about Greenpeace as being a bunch of smelly tree huggers. Environmental activism is a good thing, provided it is done correctly. However I would suggest that a smarter course of action would be political

Target politicans that are positive to their cause, work with them to get legislation and processes changed. In a sense effect change from within, rather than without

Good point, and personally I would hope to see exactly this kind of activism increasing globally.

However, I feel this isn't an either/or question. The paths of bureaucracy are arduous and so thoroughly entwined that it simply _takes_too_long_ for ecological, NGO-based motions to become actual reality (ecological, since we're talking Greenpeace. I think this applies to various different topics as well).

For example, how long do you think this would've been going on without the likes of Greenpeace getting actively involved?

The decision, announced at a meeting of the Brazilian Association of Supermarkets (Abras) this week, comes less than two weeks after Greenpeace's exposé of the Amazon cattle industry. The report, titled Slaughtering the Amazon [], linked some of the world's most prominent brands — including Nike, Toyota, Carrefour, Wal-Mart, and Johnson & Johnson, among dozens of others — to destruction of the Amazon rainforest for cattle pasture.

I'm not a fan of all aspects of Greenpeace activism, but I still think NGO activism is definitely needed. And it seems it sometimes has to be straight forward, in your face (non-violently speaking) activism to really get the message up. With all it's faults (which I don't think are that big compared to the opponents their facing) Greenpeace does a good job in this.

We see this with Whale Wars, a bunch of well intentioned activists who come across as a complete bunch of idiots, in TV series made by people who have no agenda to make them look bad. So you can imagine what a negative aligned media is going to do to them

This is exactly why I feel critical thinking skills are so essential when seeing, reading and hearing things. Needless to say, but still will. Some group of people coming across as idiots to you doesn't necessarily mean they are idiots. Some other person might see them as heroic (not that I've ever even heard of Whale Wars).

 

[paximperium]

and Nature should sue Industrialiezed trow-away humanity and the coal companys for her loses......

If and when any government of private entities decide to do things LEGALLY to decrease coal use, I'm all for it.

Are you advocating this terroristic and criminal behavior?

 

[MG1962]

For example, how long do you think this would've been going on without the likes of Greenpeace getting actively involved?

See this an excellent example of positive activism. Greenpeace didn't go around firebombing walmarts or damaging logging equipment etc. Greenpeace went out, put together a detailed report of issues going on, released a report....and the article shows the result

The Australian company I worked for cancelled all its wood chip supliers contracts when it was brought to their attention where the material was comming from. They switched to Rainforest alliance certified material and now proudly market that fact.

For them it was not a case of caving to public pressure or activism, it just never entered their head that it could be happening. We sometimes get a very distorted evil corporation image of companies, when the reality a little education can completely change their way of thinking.

This is exactly why I feel critical thinking skills are so essential when seeing, reading and hearing things. Needless to say, but still will. Some group of people coming across as idiots to you doesn't necessarily mean they are idiots. Some other person might see them as heroic (not that I've ever even heard of Whale Wars).

It is a series detailing the adventures of the Sea Shepard, a vessel crewed by a group of people committed to stopping whaling around the world. I am definately anti whaling and a number of my countrymen crew that vessel, but even I can see some of the stupid and downright dangerous acts they are performing.

For example the craft is taken very deep into antarctic waters even though the vessel has a zero ice rating. At one point the captain addresses the crew and says he is not interested if people get hurt. They are in a dangerous situation and they need to suck it up and deal with it

Finally, and this stunned me - the were trapped in ice, got free but where not clear of the flows. Ice charts indicated a passage they needed to find to break out into open ocean. The captain in the middle of this left the bridge and left the first officer in charge.

Now call me ignorant, but I have never heard of a captain leaving the bridge while a vessel was still in imminent danger. Thats kinda why he gets paid the big bucks to be called captain

 

[hayenmill]

"The term hypocrite is widely misused. Many persons state that hypocrisy is the action of 'not practising what you preach'. It is easy to see the resemblance, and completely understandable why there has been widespread confusion"

it seems i owe an apology, only by using bad semantics. Of course i'm beginning to realize people here are a bit bitchy in what concerns semantics.

In any case, they are "not practicing what they preach".

They preach any fossil fuel use is bad for the environment because it is contributing to global warming. Let's assume they are right for the sake of the argument.

if its bad for the environment to use coal to create electricity, then it is equally bad to use fossil fuel for any other purpose. Of course the amount of fossil fuel transported, and its effects, and the amount of fossil fuel used to power greenpeace's boat is very different.

But didn't you guys started arguing that: "ohh they are sending a message"

The message they are sending is that its ok to harm the environment to save the environment. This sounds oddly familiar

What their action implies, is that it's ok to make sacrifices for "the greater good"

A simple paralel could be drawn: it's ok to kill 2 people who've done nothing wrong to save 1 million.

Since they are the first to criticize it's bad to use fossil fuels, they should be the first to show the example

If they were consistent (and im not going to the matter of how their clothes were made, and the boat) to the point that they would at least be using an electrical motor that got its electrcity from non-fossil fuels, then i would bitch less.

Also, it's not just about them beging rather contradictory in their approach, but how they actually approach. They force their way into a ship they don't own without the consent of the actual owners. It's not like the owners are murdering, enslaving or stealing anybody. Even if fossil fuel and its impact on global warming and global warming impact on people were that severe that just a tiny bit of fossil fuel could kill lots of people, shouldn't governments, instead of greenpeace, interfere? isn't that the purpose of governments?

 

[linusrichard]

Well, I guess we could drag out a tired gedankenexperiment, and set up some set of facts where you could kill one or two innocent people, or let millions die. And then see how people answer that. I'm sure there are threads in R&P about that.

I don't know how I'd answer that question, but I sure wouldn't be calling the people who would kill the innocents to save the masses "hypocrites" or "not practicing what they preach," or any other like criticism. If I take you at your word that Greenpeace says it's always bad to use fossil fuels, it still remains true that the intent of their action is to reduce the use of fossil fuels. So I really don't see the inconsistency, or the doublethink.

Is it hypocritical or inconsistent that the mom who smokes doesn't want her 10-year-old son to smoke? She's sending the wrong message, yes, but, no. Is it hypocritical or inconsistent that the cop who arrests you for carrying a handgun is himself carrying a handgun? I don't see it.

 

[hayenmill]

Well, I guess we could drag out a tired gedankenexperiment, and set up some set of facts where you could kill one or two innocent people, or let millions die. And then see how people answer that. I'm sure there are threads in R&P about that.

If you want me to, i can explain my stance regarding that, which im pretty sure you already guess what it is.

I don't know how I'd answer that question, but I sure wouldn't be calling the people who would kill the innocents to save the masses "hypocrites" or "not practicing what they preach," or any other like criticism. If I take you at your word that Greenpeace says it's always bad to use fossil fuels, it still remains true that the intent of their action is to reduce the use of fossil fuels. So I really don't see the inconsistency, or the doublethink.

Who are they to decide who lives and who dies?

If the intent of their action is to reduce the use of fossil fuel, then they could start by changing their OWN actions before trying to force their beliefs onto anybody.

Is it hypocritical or inconsistent that the mom who smokes doesn't want her 10-year-old son to smoke? She's sending the wrong message, yes, but, no. Is it hypocritical or inconsistent that the cop who arrests you for carrying a handgun is himself carrying a handgun? I don't see it.

Well, she should first change her own actions which she thinks are wrong before making judgements about others actions. THAT is inconsistency. She wouldnt be inconsistent if she didnt smoke and were now free to critize. ("look who's talking" comes to mind)

Yes the cop's action is also inconsistent. That is very partially why i am in favor of no gun control.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

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!

A coal fired power plant will release hundreds, even thousands of times more radiation into the air than even the most chronically mismanaged nuclear plants.

 

[Tapio]

MG1962, thanks for your reply. Thanks also for the Whale Wars elaboration. Sheesh, the captain...wouldn't want to be him next morning, walking down the corridor under the eyes of the rest of the crew...so long authority, eh?

So, you think the example I gave was "positive activism". Agreed there. Am I right if I then conclude you have no strict objection against all forms of Greenpeace (or other NGO) activism, but only specific (law breaking?) kinds of actions?

 

[Delscottio]

A coal fired power plant will release hundreds, even thousands of times more radiation into the air than even the most chronically mismanaged nuclear plants.

That was the point I was making.

I haven't read up on Greenpeace lately but I would bet there are factions against every single type of energy production for various environmental issue.

 

[linusrichard]

If you want me to, i can explain my stance regarding that, which im pretty sure you already guess what it is.

Doesn't really matter.

Who are they to decide who lives and who dies?

They have to decide! They are forced into it by the terms of the gedankenexperiment. Two innocents by their hand, or a million innocents by the hand of a hypothetical bad guy. There is no not deciding who lives and who dies.

If the intent of their action is to reduce the use of fossil fuel, then they could start by changing their OWN actions before trying to force their beliefs onto anybody.

Right, except that once they stop using fossil fuels, their ability to force their beliefs onto anybody else drastically diminishes. Which I suspect wouldn't bother you much. Hey, it wouldn't bother me much either.

Well, she should first change her own actions which she thinks are wrong before making judgements about others actions. THAT is inconsistency. She wouldnt be inconsistent if she didnt smoke and were now free to critize. ("look who's talking" comes to mind)

Hey, she should. But if she's not going to quit smoking, which we agree she should do, she's still a better mom if she tells her 10-year-old not to smoke than if she doesn't. Right?

Yes the cop's action is also inconsistent. That is very partially why i am in favor of no gun control.

Fair enough, I suppose. Not that I agree.

 

[Tapio]

it seems i owe an apology, only by using bad semantics. Of course i'm beginning to realize people here are a bit bitchy in what concerns semantics.

So true . No harm done. Since we're communicating solely through words (and in my case with a language I'm not very talented at), I think this "bitching" is somehow a necessity. Gladly I'm the nitpicking type, so it's all good for me. Hope I don't come across too aggressive or patronising etc. This is only fun. And because you're a newbie like myself, I'll gladly have this dialogue to get to know some of your values.

In any case, they are "not practicing what they preach".

They preach any fossil fuel use is bad for the environment because it is contributing to global warming. Let's assume they are right for the sake of the argument.

What they are preaching regarding fossil fuels is quite based in scientific evidence. So your assumption would not only be suitable for this discussion, but it would also be one with the most evidence supporting it.

if its bad for the environment to use coal to create electricity, then it is equally bad to use fossil fuel for any other purpose. Of course the amount of fossil fuel transported, and its effects, and the amount of fossil fuel used to power greenpeace's boat is very different.

Regarding the part I underlined, I don't see how that is logical thinking.

The highlited part I find quite cheeky and malignant, and totally without support. Do you believe they aren't doing all in their power to use as little fossil fuels as possible? Do you believe what they claim to be their goal, locally (meaning their personal/organizational energy consumption) as well as globally is just lip service? If your answer is yes to any of these questions, I'd like to hear what has led you to form this belief about them. Because it's the complete opposite of what I believe (which I'm completely ok with, just interested in your why's/how's).

But didn't you guys started arguing that: "ohh they are sending a message"

The message they are sending is that its ok to harm the environment to save the environment. This sounds oddly familiar

What their action implies, is that it's ok to make sacrifices for "the greater good"

A simple paralel could be drawn: it's ok to kill 2 people who've done nothing wrong to save 1 million.

I think what you're saying here is totally absurd. Your "paralel" is way off base. They haven't hurt anybody by their attempt to stop the coal from arriving at it's destination. Sure, the companies involved in the production/purchasing/distributing of this coal cargo might suffer financially a teensy weensy bit (which I doubt, but am ready to be proven wrong), but I really don't see how this can be compared to killing people.

I feel the message is of great importance here. I also feel that usually Greenpeace (as with this case) gets the message through in a manner captivating as much audience as possible with as little damage to the environment as possible (consistent with their message). Do you think the mother-of-three swimming to stop the ship would do it if she knew a more safer, but as efficient method of raising her voice?

Since they are the first to criticize it's bad to use fossil fuels, they should be the first to show the example

They aren't first to criticize the use of fossil fuels. Check your statistics. And they are showing an example. 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.

Hypocrisy or inconsistence is nowhere to be seen (at least regarding this case) and I don't think you've really even scratched the surface in trying to present this.

If they were consistent (and im not going to the matter of how their clothes were made, and the boat) to the point that they would at least be using an electrical motor that got its electrcity from non-fossil fuels, then i would bitch less.

I'm sure the people at Greenpeace would be very interested if you could present them a non-fossil fuel motor with the same attributes as a fossil fuel powered motor. This must be one of the toughest decisions to the activists. To have to use transportation they know is destroying what they're trying to protect. But here, again. If, by using a couple of fossil fuel powered rubber boats they can prevent a much greater destruction, it's quite clear what the ethical choice is.

Also, it's not just about them beging rather contradictory in their approach, but how they actually approach. They force their way into a ship they don't own without the consent of the actual owners. It's not like the owners are murdering, enslaving or stealing anybody. Even if fossil fuel and its impact on global warming and global warming impact on people were that severe that just a tiny bit of fossil fuel could kill lots of people, shouldn't governments, instead of greenpeace, interfere? isn't that the purpose of governments?

If you ask me, YES THEY SHOULD (if only I could make the letters blink). But are they, efficiently, fast enough?

Look, nobody was hurt on the ship. They are not pirates, neither terrorists (what's going through your mind with this [aimed at pax and fuelair]). They are concerned people who're trying to get their message through in every non-violent way they can think of. Sure, they often fail at it miserably. Even make things worse by gathering enemies they could possibly influence by using different methods of activism. But they also succeed in many other ways, like no other environmentalist NGO does.

All things combined, I feel your rant against this coal cargo disturbance and the claimed inconistencies you draw from it are quite one-sided...

 

[hayenmill]

They have to decide! They are forced into it by the terms of the gedankenexperiment. Two innocents by their hand, or a million innocents by the hand of a hypothetical bad guy. There is no not deciding who lives and who dies.

Yes there is. I have no right to murder, enslave or steal another person for whatever reason. If that were the case, then can i kill you to use your body parts to save hundreds of lives? It's for the greater good...Your blood alone could improve the lives of many people, let alone the organs.

Right, except that once they stop using fossil fuels, their ability to force their beliefs onto anybody else drastically diminishes. Which I suspect wouldn't bother you much. Hey, it wouldn't bother me much either.

How does it diminishes? They can just get an electric motor and charge with a solar panel. It still allows them to power their boat to get to the ship, and they have caused less damage to the environment. I don't think anyone should force their beliefs onto anybody, with the intent of changing their minds. Force and mind are opposites, morality ends where a gun begins.

Hey, she should. But if she's not going to quit smoking, which we agree she should do, she's still a better mom if she tells her 10-year-old not to smoke than if she doesn't. Right?

Actually, good point. She would definitely be a better mom if she told her son not to smoke, but she would have a lot greater chances of succeding if she didn't show inconsistencies in her actions. That said, she would be a better mom, but not an effective mom, and what would the point be of warning if she knew she was likely not to achieve it?

 

[hayenmill]

What they are preaching regarding fossil fuels is quite based in scientific evidence. So your assumption would not only be suitable for this discussion, but it would also be one with the most evidence supporting it.

I mentioned that so we could get outside from the AGW debate here (leave that for other threads) and focus on the real issue.

Regarding the part I underlined, I don't see how that is logical thinking.

The highlited part I find quite cheeky and malignant, and totally without support. Do you believe they aren't doing all in their power to use as little fossil fuels as possible? Do you believe what they claim to be their goal, locally (meaning their personal/organizational energy consumption) as well as globally is just lip service? If your answer is yes to any of these questions, I'd like to hear what has led you to form this belief about them. Because it's the complete opposite of what I believe (which I'm completely ok with, just interested in your why's/how's).

What that highlighted part reads is that: the harm done by the combustion of that coal is far more harmful than the harm done by the combustion of the fossil fuel that powers greenpeace's boat.

I do believe they are not doing all in their power to use as little fossil fuel as possible. Just look at their motor in their boat.

I don't believe its just lip service, i think that they are not practicing what they preach, and starting to change their own lifestyle (using electric motor instead of combustion motor) before demanding others to change their lifestyles.

I never criticized greenpeace whole organization (im afraid i dont have time to look at even 1% of all their activities), nor i generalize my arguments and judge them so that if they do this bad, then everything they do must be bad. Im simply mentioning that, in this case, with this institution, these individuals are being inconsistent, and could do better.

I think what you're saying here is totally absurd. Your "paralel" is way off base. They haven't hurt anybody by their attempt to stop the coal from arriving at it's destination. Sure, the companies involved in the production/purchasing/distributing of this coal cargo might suffer financially a teensy weensy bit (which I doubt, but am ready to be proven wrong), but I really don't see how this can be compared to killing people.

I feel the message is of great importance here. I also feel that usually Greenpeace (as with this case) gets the message through in a manner captivating as much audience as possible with as little damage to the environment as possible (consistent with their message). Do you think the mother-of-three swimming to stop the ship would do it if she knew a more safer, but as efficient method of raising her voice?

I'm not comparing the death either action could cause. I'm comparing the scale of nature of their actions.

action one: harm a bit of nature to save a lot of nature
action two: harm a bit of mankind to save a lot of mankind

It's the same, except applied to different abstractions.

Also, they are not "passing the message through in a manner captivating as much audience as possible with as little damage to the environment as possible". They couldve done more - take my electric motor in their boat for example.

They aren't first to criticize the use of fossil fuels. Check your statistics. And they are showing an example. 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.

Hypocrisy or inconsistence is nowhere to be seen (at least regarding this case) and I don't think you've really even scratched the surface in trying to present this.

Its not their methods i am criticizing precisely (even though i still do, because they are entering private property). My main argument is that they are separating their beliefs (fossil fuels are bad) from their actions (we should use fossil fuels to run the campaign to abolish them)

I'm sure the people at Greenpeace would be very interested if you could present them a non-fossil fuel motor with the same attributes as a fossil fuel powered motor. This must be one of the toughest decisions to the activists. To have to use transportation they know is destroying what they're trying to protect. But here, again. If, by using a couple of fossil fuel powered rubber boats they can prevent a much greater destruction, it's quite clear what the ethical choice is.

quite clear indeed. If our goal is to minimize harm, even at the expense of someone or something (nature), then i suppose you wouldnt mind me going to your house, stealing your computer, selling it and using the money to donate to charities that will help people who are more in need than you.

i'm sure greenpeace has the resources to get a non-fossil fuel motor for their boat fleet.

If you ask me, YES THEY SHOULD (if only I could make the letters blink). But are they, efficiently, fast enough?

Look, nobody was hurt on the ship. They are not pirates, neither terrorists (what's going through your mind with this [aimed at pax and fuelair]). They are concerned people who're trying to get their message through in every non-violent way they can think of. Sure, they often fail at it miserably. Even make things worse by gathering enemies they could possibly influence by using different methods of activism. But they also succeed in many other ways, like no other environmentalist NGO does.

All things combined, I feel your rant against this coal cargo disturbance and the claimed inconistencies you draw from it are quite one-sided...

This is a violent way, because they are trespassing property which they do not own. Just because they did not damage anything or anyone, should they be free to enter private property? By that logic, anyone can enter whatever building, house, structure they want, so long as they do not damage anyone or anything when they do so. Therefore, you have no right to kick me out of your house, if i decide i want to go there right now, and i do not damage anything or anyone in my way in.

 

[George 152]

If they illegally board a vessel there are two things can be done.
Arrest and charge them as pirates.
OR
Set sail for the roughest coldest bit of ocean available.
A week or so out in the open should change their minds about invading a ship.