Well done Greenpeace...

[bonnie]

Really? Slavery? Whats next to call Shell Hitler?

If it was a slave ship it would be illegal. Shell followed the correct legal process and was legally approved by the government. That's how a democracy works. A handful of people don't get to make the laws for everyone, no matter how strongly they feel about it.

It was a fair question. Flatly stating that blocking a ship is unjust implies that there are no circumstances under which it IS just. Adding 'Hitler' to my question was just inflammatory and distracts from actually discussing the issue. The question remains: Are there circumstances under which it would be just to block a ship's passage?

And I'm pretty sure that the British felt the same way about some pesky colonists who were disagreeing with the law a few centuries back. Peaceful protest is a cornerstone of this society.

 

[nwdiver]

Adding 'Hitler' to my question was just inflammatory and distracts from actually discussing the issue.

HA! Godwin's law... and only 3 pages in...

 

[Johan]

History proves that with very high probability people or groups performing systematic Peaceful protest through civil disobedience have generally been on the right side of things, when seen retrospectively.

 

[mknox]

History proves that with very high probability people or groups performing systematic Peaceful protest through civil disobedience have generally been on the right side of things, when seen retrospectively.

...or it could simply mean that the methods were successful. History, after all, is written by the victors (I'm such a devil's advocate :wink

 

[Johan]

...or it could simply mean that the methods were successful. History, after all, is written by the victors (I'm such a devil's advocate :wink

Yup. This is indistinguishable.

 

[yak-55]

It was a fair question. Flatly stating that blocking a ship is unjust implies that there are no circumstances under which it IS just. Adding 'Hitler' to my question was just inflammatory and distracts from actually discussing the issue. The question remains: Are there circumstances under which it would be just to block a ship's passage?

Perhaps, but not *these* circumstances of lawful conveyance on a public waterway. Your escalation to the theoretical "what if it were a slave ship" was also inflammatory and distracting. I suggest that in those circumstance the appropriate law enforcement authority would intervene long before a risky publicity stunt of this kind was necessary.

What of the delay, cost, and risk to other (more politically correct) vessels transitioning the area?

 

[nwdiver]

What of the delay, cost, and risk to other (more politically correct) vessels transitioning the area?

Reports are that they are allowing unrelated vessels to pass. The activists are experienced climbers and can apparently ascend/descend as needed...

IMO this is the perfect protest...

- Highly visible
- VERY organized
- Effective
- Non-Violent

Well done Greenpeace :wink:

 

[Canuck]

I am struggling to think of anything Greenpeace has ever done that I agreed with, and I'm coming up with a blank.

How about what they are probably most well-known for: their campaign in the 1970's to 80's to save the whales? You didn't agree with that?

I grew up around the founding Greenpeace members. My mother was a hippie and she held Greenpeace meeting at our home in Kitsilano in the 1970's. I also spent many of my pre-teenager days at Greenpeace's first office in Kits.

"Greenpeace functions moved to other private homes and held public meetings weekly on Wednesday nights at the Kitsilano Neighborhood House before settling, in the autumn of 1974, in a small office shared with the SPEC environmental group at 2007 West 4th at Maple in Kitsilano."

But over the years, I have veered away from Greenpeace and more towards supporting Paul Watson -- whose cause I support with a monthly donation.

Protests are vital to a thriving democracy, and to non-democratic nations, protests are often the precursor to a change to democracy.

Is there any more powerful image than this one person's simple act of protest? Or what about the image in our minds of Rosa Parks refusing to go to the back of the bus? Protests are what keep us strong and free.

Even protests I don't agree with, I agree with their right to protest peacefully. To me, people who want to "cut the ropes" on protesters are, in my mind, similar in thinking to those who run totalitarian states. Putin, and the Pussy Riot band, also come to mind.

 

[bonnie]

Perhaps, but not *these* circumstances of lawful conveyance on a public waterway. Your escalation to the theoretical "what if it were a slave ship" was also inflammatory and distracting. I suggest that in those circumstance the appropriate law enforcement authority would intervene long before a risky publicity stunt of this kind was necessary.

What of the delay, cost, and risk to other (more politically correct) vessels transitioning the area?

No, I used that example because some things clearly DO cross the line and I was pointing out that stopping passage in that case WOULD be justified.

I'm trying to figure out how providing an example to the point I was making is labeled 'inflammatory and distracting'. Unless you just didn't understand. And in that case, I get your comment.

 

[Johan]

No, I used that example because some things clearly DO cross the line and I was pointing out that stopping passage in that case WOULD be justified.

I'm trying to figure out how providing an example to the point I was making is labeled 'inflammatory and distracting'. Unless you just didn't understand. And in that case, I get your comment.

The problem here is how to define what is "right". It's highly subjective. Is the law always right? One persons morals may not coincide with another's, some value the environment higher, some value oil drilling for various reasons (profit, the need for oil in order for poor nations to lift themselves out of poverty if you're to believe the Heartland Institute) higher.

And just because it's been decided in a democracy that something is allowed, it doesn't have to be right.

Also define democracy. It says in the US constitution:

"Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Ask Greenpeace and they'll likely argue that oil drilling in the Arctic is part of "a lo g train of abuses and usurpations".

Also how democratic the US is can be argued. Politics in the US is highly influenced/controlled by special interest. As William M. Tweed insightfully said: "I don't care who does the electing, so long as I get to do the nominating."

Major Study Finds The US Is An Oligarchy - Business Insider

"The U.S. government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country's citizens, but is instead ruled by those of the rich and powerful, a new study from Princeton and Northwestern universities has concluded."

Full study (academic, peer reviewed, empirical):

http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf

Sooo, anyway, before this post is shipped off to the Politics Quarantine thread remeber: Read. Think (for yourself).

 

[nwdiver]

And just because it's been decided in a democracy that something is allowed, it doesn't have to be right.

+ ∞

I'm not going to give a history lesson... we all know that democracies have allowed some terrible things to happen...

The most important component to the protests in Portland is that they are non-violent. IMO there is no higher cause than standing up for what you know is right. Some 'right' is subjective... some not so much; The science behind what Shell is attempting to do is crystal clear. It angers me to the point of despair and desperation how foolish we're being with our resources. When do we say enough is enough? I wish I had the time and courage... I'd be hanging from a bridge too. I may not be able to hang from a bridge but I can help support them financially... they're probably going to need it.

The really sad thing is... is how unnecessary this all is; It's ALL a huge waste of time and resources; Just give up petroleum as a fuel source... there IS a better way... we've got plenty of reserves in the lower 48 to ween us off this addiction... no need to go digging around in the Arctic.

 

[Electroman]

nwdiver: +1 +1 +1000.

it is time we stop raping mother earth and look for a sustainable living. I think we are at a level of advancement in science and technology that renewable energy is doable and can sustain our current living habits.

So why are we still drilling holes in arctic, pumping water for shale gas and depleting oceans of fish?

 

[ecarfan]

There is a process to change laws, and illegal protests/actions are not it

They certainly are. Many examples in American history come to mind. An obvious one is the civil rights marches from Selma to Montgomery in 1965. They were illegal according to local laws at the time, but they were clearly the ethically and morally right thing to do, and they helped accelerate the civil rights movement. Selma to Montgomery marches - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[trils0n]

Current known fossil fuel reserves are greater than the amount of fuel we can burn if we hope to have any change of keeping global temp under control. New exploration is bizarre, both from a climate perspective, and a financial standpoint (why would a company spend to explore for more oil if they can't burn what they already have?). New exploration in the Arctic is a huge mistake. Glad someone is standing up to them.

 

[nwdiver]

They certainly are. Many examples in American history come to mind. An obvious one is the civil rights marches from Selma to Montgomery in 1965. They were illegal according to local laws at the time, but they were clearly the ethically and morally right thing to do, and they helped accelerate the civil rights movement. Selma to Montgomery marches - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We're at a crossroads... which side of history do you want to be on?

The science is clear... our moral obligation is clear...

'All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing' -Edmond Burke

 

[Johan]

Agreed. Anyone interested read the study I posted upthread. I'll just leave the study's closing paragraph here, and let's all ponder who some of the most powerful businesses are, and from what black, sticky substance many of the most affluent individuals owe their fortunes?

"... our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."

Thankfully things are changing, partly thanks to progressive people in Silicone Valley for example, who want other and better things for this world and who don't see money and wealth as the end goal, but rather what good can be achieved using that money.

 

[adiggs]

Current known fossil fuel reserves are greater than the amount of fuel we can burn if we hope to have any change of keeping global temp under control. New exploration is bizarre, both from a climate perspective, and a financial standpoint (why would a company spend to explore for more oil if they can't burn what they already have?). New exploration in the Arctic is a huge mistake. Glad someone is standing up to them.

One good financial reason, if you're an oil company, is that if you shut down your exploratory efforts, even if that's being a good steward of your money and the planet, it's also a bad message for the quarterly earnings report as it instantly changes how that company is valued based on historical norms for how oil companies are valued.

Shell (and the rest of the industry) needs to keep up the façade of adding to reserves because without it, the stock will be valued solely based on the earnings / dividend stream it can generate from currently producing assets.

 

[LetsGoFast]

I am struggling to think of anything Greenpeace has ever done that I agreed with, and I'm coming up with a blank.

How about when they spray painted baby seals with green dye so that they wouldn't be clubbed to death for their pelts? I don't agree with everything they do, but I'm hard pressed to find a reason to object to that one.

 

[Ocelot]

How about what they are probably most well-known for: their campaign in the 1970's to 80's to save the whales? You didn't agree with that?

I grew up around the founding Greenpeace members. My mother was a hippie and she held Greenpeace meeting at our home in Kitsilano in the 1970's. I also spent many of my pre-teenager days at Greenpeace's first office in Kits.

"Greenpeace functions moved to other private homes and held public meetings weekly on Wednesday nights at the Kitsilano Neighborhood House before settling, in the autumn of 1974, in a small office shared with the SPEC environmental group at 2007 West 4th at Maple in Kitsilano."

But over the years, I have veered away from Greenpeace and more towards supporting Paul Watson -- whose cause I support with a monthly donation.

Protests are vital to a thriving democracy, and to non-democratic nations, protests are often the precursor to a change to democracy.

View attachment 88998

Is there any more powerful image than this one person's simple act of protest? Or what about the image in our minds of Rosa Parks refusing to go to the back of the bus? Protests are what keep us strong and free.

Even protests I don't agree with, I agree with their right to protest peacefully. To me, people who want to "cut the ropes" on protesters are, in my mind, similar in thinking to those who run totalitarian states. Putin, and the Pussy Riot band, also come to mind.

I agree on nearly all fronts. However as someone who lived on the rock for six years...I could never support Paul Watson.....

the follwoing is exerted from here Our Place in Canada - The Newfoundland Experiment: Canadas N-Word (with Readings from the Book of Paul)


"Consider the words of Captain Paul Watson who has said of Newfoundland and Labradorians that they are a “blight and a curse... they debased Canada when they joined Canada in 1949..." He went on to say Newfoundland and Labrador was “a place where priests rape orphans and residents kill seabirds for fun..."

- - - Updated - - -

How about when they spray painted baby seals with green dye so that they wouldn't be clubbed to death for their pelts? I don't agree with everything they do, but I'm hard pressed to find a reason to object to that one.

My Ancestors Were Rogues and Murderers (2005) on Vimeo

really good documentary. worth an hour if looking for something to watch.
If you only watch a couple minutes (or want a trailer go to the 20 min 40 second mark, and listen to the words from a sealer). As with any industry there is a lot of FUD out there.

 

[trils0n]

One good financial reason, if you're an oil company, is that if you shut down your exploratory efforts, even if that's being a good steward of your money and the planet, it's also a bad message for the quarterly earnings report as it instantly changes how that company is valued based on historical norms for how oil companies are valued.

Shell (and the rest of the industry) needs to keep up the façade of adding to reserves because without it, the stock will be valued solely based on the earnings / dividend stream it can generate from currently producing assets.

Exactly. They don't have a good business reason to explore for new oil, but do have other financial reasons. All about continuing the facade. Which is/could be considered a deceptive thing to do to shareholders.