Heck, if they had left them up they could have been turned into good PR for Shell, as in “Hey, look, we agree with these guys,” continuing, “We admit we haven’t been the best stewards, blah blah blah….” Then simply continuing on with business as usual.
It seems that all Greenpeace does these days are stunts. Greenpeace is still on my S***list for their stunt of vandalizing the Nazca Lines, and then hustling the vandals out of Peru instead of accepting the consequences. Stunts aren’t effective tools of persuasion, and they invite similar (or worse) stunts by the other side.
Having been a member for a while and having just renewed my membership for another year, I can assure you that Greenpeace does more than “stunts”.
Greenpeace has been perhaps the most “way out” major organization in terms of stirring the environmental shit pot, and has made some mistakes, but IMO “…the good they do far outweighs, etc….”.
The “other side” has had the economic and political power and controlled the media for all too long, and has done nothing but lie and obfuscate. In this modern world of “reality TV” and 30-second attention spans, “stunts” ARE effective ways of making a point. If Senators can throw snowballs on the Senate floor, Greenpeace can certainly unfurl some banners that speak truth.
To paraphrase a conservative who is likely spinning in his grave over what “conservative” means today, “Performing mildly extreme stunts in the defense of the biosphere is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of scientific truth and environmental justice is no virtue.”
Damaging priceless cultural treasures as part of a ‘gesture’, does far more harm than good to their cause. It wouldn’t have taken any great amount of research to learn of the fragility of the Nazca Lines and perhaps had they done done so they would changed their plans. But as the whole world knows from their actions, Greenpeace cares more about headlines than the collateral damage to cultural treasures.
IMO, and the opinion of many people, trying to excuse terrible acts by claiming that they were done for a good cause so the ends justify the means is wrong on many levels.
If Greenpeace truly had any concern for our common heritage the Greenpeace members who committed the vandalism would have surrendered themselves to the Peruvian authorities and faced the consequences for the damage they did. But that didn’t happen, did it? Instead, Greenpeace hustled the vandals out of the country ahead of the police, and has refused to provide the details of who planned and carried out the ‘gesture’. Greenpeaces’s actions don’t demonstrate any contrition over what happened in Peru.
Greenpeace’s choice to damage the Nazca lines in Peru was on a par with the Taliban’s choice to destroy the Buddha sculptures in Afghanistan, and ISIS’ choice to destroy the cultural museum in Mosul. How anyone can support any of those three groups is beyond me.
I have also renewed my membership in P.O.O.P. (People Offended by Offended People), and can therefore say authoritatively to Philip that anyone who compares Greenpeace to the Taliban and Isis is treading heavily on Godwin’s Law. Swastikas anyone? If we are going to go all “war criminal” here, how about charging Bush and Cheney for their wars? Or BP for the Gulf spill? Or the coal companies that destroy mountaintops? Or the Koch brothers for…..?
And Philip wants them to turn themselves in so that they can spend years in a Peruvian prison to make amends to the aggrieved? How many Peruvians have ever seen the Nazca lines? LOL There will be a “settlement”, Greenpeace will get publicity (even bad publicity can be “good” sometimes), the Peruvian tourism industry will get a boost, and the freakin’ lines will be there for another 1500-2500 years or more as they have been already. There are hundreds of drawings, and the GP’ers did NO damage to the drawings themselves—merely scuffed up the rocks surrounding the drawings a bit—-they DID do their research—-Philip talks as if they were urban graffiti artists that spray painted their message over the drawings.
Tina Loeffelbein, a spokeswoman for Greenpeace, asserted the activists were “absolutely careful to protect the Nazca lines” during the stunt, and the group also issued an apology over the incident: (in part)
“We welcome any independent review of the consequences of our activity. We will cooperate fully with any investigation. We take personal responsibility for actions, and are committed to nonviolence. Greenpeace is accountable for its activities and willing to face fair and reasonable consequences.
“Dr Kumi Niadoo, the International Executive Director of Greenpeace, will travel to Lima this week, to personally apologise for the offence caused by the activity and represent the organisation in any on going discussions with the Peruvian authorities. Greenpeace will immediately stop any further use of the offending images.
Here’s a clip that expands on the above and covers the story from all angles, including real time video shot by the Greenpeace folks as they “destroyed” the site beyond all repair. Don’t tell us again how offended you are, Philip, until you’ve viewed it in its entirety.
And “….priceless cultural treasures, priceless cultural heritage, vandalism, common heritage, terrible acts….” is hyperbole of the highest order. I have spoken many times of man’s unworthiness. The Nazca lines are indeed interesting, have NO cultural heritage in that we don’t know who made them or why, and IMO are not as “priceless” or as much of man’s “common heritage” as is the biosphere that nearly ALL of mankind is “vandalizing” 24/7. (Long live P.O.O.P. and Greenpeace!)
He might as well have been clubbing a baby seal for all the bad publicity that will cause. LOL
Definitely one of their better attempts.
Shell playing whack-a-mole. Wish they could have had a few more to go up and down and out of reach. Keystone Cops moment would go viral for sure.
Not the first time that they’ve made someone look foolish. Made me smile too.
I wanna see him do that when its the OCEAN that’s rising!
Still priceless!
2013 GP of Belgium. Old news but still amusing (and I love F1)
Really, taking down that banner during the ceremony only called attention to it. Hardly anyone would have noticed if they just ignored it.
A perfect example of the Streisand Effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
Heck, if they had left them up they could have been turned into good PR for Shell, as in “Hey, look, we agree with these guys,” continuing, “We admit we haven’t been the best stewards, blah blah blah….” Then simply continuing on with business as usual.
It seems that all Greenpeace does these days are stunts. Greenpeace is still on my S***list for their stunt of vandalizing the Nazca Lines, and then hustling the vandals out of Peru instead of accepting the consequences. Stunts aren’t effective tools of persuasion, and they invite similar (or worse) stunts by the other side.
Having been a member for a while and having just renewed my membership for another year, I can assure you that Greenpeace does more than “stunts”.
Greenpeace has been perhaps the most “way out” major organization in terms of stirring the environmental shit pot, and has made some mistakes, but IMO “…the good they do far outweighs, etc….”.
The “other side” has had the economic and political power and controlled the media for all too long, and has done nothing but lie and obfuscate. In this modern world of “reality TV” and 30-second attention spans, “stunts” ARE effective ways of making a point. If Senators can throw snowballs on the Senate floor, Greenpeace can certainly unfurl some banners that speak truth.
To paraphrase a conservative who is likely spinning in his grave over what “conservative” means today, “Performing mildly extreme stunts in the defense of the biosphere is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of scientific truth and environmental justice is no virtue.”
Damaging priceless cultural treasures as part of a ‘gesture’, does far more harm than good to their cause. It wouldn’t have taken any great amount of research to learn of the fragility of the Nazca Lines and perhaps had they done done so they would changed their plans. But as the whole world knows from their actions, Greenpeace cares more about headlines than the collateral damage to cultural treasures.
IMO, and the opinion of many people, trying to excuse terrible acts by claiming that they were done for a good cause so the ends justify the means is wrong on many levels.
If Greenpeace truly had any concern for our common heritage the Greenpeace members who committed the vandalism would have surrendered themselves to the Peruvian authorities and faced the consequences for the damage they did. But that didn’t happen, did it? Instead, Greenpeace hustled the vandals out of the country ahead of the police, and has refused to provide the details of who planned and carried out the ‘gesture’. Greenpeaces’s actions don’t demonstrate any contrition over what happened in Peru.
Greenpeace’s choice to damage the Nazca lines in Peru was on a par with the Taliban’s choice to destroy the Buddha sculptures in Afghanistan, and ISIS’ choice to destroy the cultural museum in Mosul. How anyone can support any of those three groups is beyond me.
I have also renewed my membership in P.O.O.P. (People Offended by Offended People), and can therefore say authoritatively to Philip that anyone who compares Greenpeace to the Taliban and Isis is treading heavily on Godwin’s Law. Swastikas anyone? If we are going to go all “war criminal” here, how about charging Bush and Cheney for their wars? Or BP for the Gulf spill? Or the coal companies that destroy mountaintops? Or the Koch brothers for…..?
And Philip wants them to turn themselves in so that they can spend years in a Peruvian prison to make amends to the aggrieved? How many Peruvians have ever seen the Nazca lines? LOL There will be a “settlement”, Greenpeace will get publicity (even bad publicity can be “good” sometimes), the Peruvian tourism industry will get a boost, and the freakin’ lines will be there for another 1500-2500 years or more as they have been already. There are hundreds of drawings, and the GP’ers did NO damage to the drawings themselves—merely scuffed up the rocks surrounding the drawings a bit—-they DID do their research—-Philip talks as if they were urban graffiti artists that spray painted their message over the drawings.
Tina Loeffelbein, a spokeswoman for Greenpeace, asserted the activists were “absolutely careful to protect the Nazca lines” during the stunt, and the group also issued an apology over the incident: (in part)
“We welcome any independent review of the consequences of our activity. We will cooperate fully with any investigation. We take personal responsibility for actions, and are committed to nonviolence. Greenpeace is accountable for its activities and willing to face fair and reasonable consequences.
“Dr Kumi Niadoo, the International Executive Director of Greenpeace, will travel to Lima this week, to personally apologise for the offence caused by the activity and represent the organisation in any on going discussions with the Peruvian authorities. Greenpeace will immediately stop any further use of the offending images.
Here’s a clip that expands on the above and covers the story from all angles, including real time video shot by the Greenpeace folks as they “destroyed” the site beyond all repair. Don’t tell us again how offended you are, Philip, until you’ve viewed it in its entirety.
https://news.vice.com/article/drone-footage-shows-extent-of-damage-from-greenpeace-stunt-at-nazca-lines
And “….priceless cultural treasures, priceless cultural heritage, vandalism, common heritage, terrible acts….” is hyperbole of the highest order. I have spoken many times of man’s unworthiness. The Nazca lines are indeed interesting, have NO cultural heritage in that we don’t know who made them or why, and IMO are not as “priceless” or as much of man’s “common heritage” as is the biosphere that nearly ALL of mankind is “vandalizing” 24/7. (Long live P.O.O.P. and Greenpeace!)