[SebC]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Of those that have responded thus far in this thread, how many actually believe that global warming is happening and is caused by mankind?

I believe that global warming is happening and is at least partially caused by mankind. I also don't believe in not breaking the law, in response to kipperfan. But that doesn't mean I condone Greenpeace's actions. In fact, as far as I'm concerned the whole organization can rot in hell.

Originally Posted by Burninator

I think the belief in man-made global warming in Alberta is less of a factor to their cause than peoples jobs. It's tough to take up a cause that could severely impact your livelihood.

I have personally been affected by Greenpeace in this manner.

I was working for a consulting engineering firm that was working on an oil shale project in Australia. The project started out as a Suncor thing, but was shut down over air quality concerns (which Suncor claims were overblown in the first place). A junior company bought the project from them.

Our company had developed a solution. The client's plan was to do a technology demonstration at the brownfield site leading up to a commercial scale greenfield project.

Greenpeace however applied pressure on the Queensland state government to block oil shale development, using the problems associated with the project the first time it was operational - problems we had developed solutions for, as the basis of their argument. The government caved and placed a 20-year moratorium on oil shale with an exception for the brownfield site. This was a big setback for the client (as they needed to redesign the commercial project for a different site to make it viable) and in a time of economic uncertainty that put the project at risk cost my company a lot of engineering hours, which set off layoffs, including myself.

I understand that working in Oil and Gas means that my career may be hurt by anti-pollution measures, but I have two problems with what Greenpeace did. One, they made their argument from a position of ignorance. Against that, reason is as useful as a square tennis ball. And two, their actions prevented a company that had done environmental R&D from capitalizing on that R&D. That creates a deterrent to other companies that may want to develop other polution mitigation technologies. We can reduce pollution by going backwards, or we can reduce pollution by going forwards. I'd rather go forwards, that way we can save the environment without giving up our quality of life. Greenpeace needs to step aside, and let the companies that are finding solutions that bring us forwards do so without getting in the way by yelling at the public until they cave to their poorly thought-through demands. If they put the energy and creativity they put into their publicity stunts into coming up with real solutions, they'd be much more effective in saving the world.

Originally Posted by kipperfan

Breaking the law to protest is wrong. Bottom line, end of story.

I don't believe that people have a moral imperative to obey the law. Lots of laws are stupid, some are outright immoral as far as I'm concerned. And that's just todays laws. Add historical laws to the discussion and there's lots of examples of laws that it wouldn't be wrong to break. Especially where historical and current laws contradict each other. They can't both be wrong to break, can they?

Originally Posted by SeeBass

Many on here have acted with vile towards the protesters but I only wished for them to think equally at all illegal protests and wether they are mad at the act or hated them as they didn't agree with the message.

I agree with you. The message determines our judgement of whether or act of civil disobedience is justified or not. I don't see the problem with this. If it's not even clear what the message is, then the civil disobedience becomes a publicity stunt and should rightfully be condemned.