I love it, Ark2 (who I have ignored, thanks for quoting him...) and Mikey talking about conspiracies!
Dr. Patrick Moore, one of the founding members of Greenpeace, said that the organization had been taken over by politicos that use environmental hysteria to push an anti-capitalist agenda. Don't believe me? Here's the clip (Moore comes in at the 4:00 mark):
Maybe I'll get lucky and someone will quote me again.
The Following User Says Thank You to Ark2 For This Useful Post:
I saw on the news the stelmach mask was just a picture with some elastics. I was hoping for the full presidents-from-point-break thing, but it'll have to do.
RE: Money, I wish people would stop donating to Greenpeace. What do they hope their dollars go to? What kind of success will they bring? No matter how much they want to protest to the government, 90% of the people still don't want to pay more for gas and thats what influences the governments decisions. 1 week from now, we will have forgotten all about this, but we will always whine about the price of gas and want cheaper gas every time we're filling up at the pump.
Want to help the environment? Give money to the California government so they can extend the BART train to cut down on cars. Give money to top chip makers that are building next-generation energy sources. Sound ridiculous? Probably. I bet nobody is going to do it anyways.
__________________
"With a coach and a player, sometimes there's just so much respect there that it's boils over"
-Taylor Hall
So what I've gathered from all of this is that Greenpeace = Eklund.
Both commit questionable acts to promote discussion!
As for Global Warming, I have no doubts we're contributing to and exacerbating a natural process. What we can all agree upon is that it's not good for us.
While I tend to support the messages of organizations like Greenpeace and PETA, I find their often illegal, and sensationalist methods of protesting annoying. As a result, I do not, and never will support these organizations in anyway.
^ I tend to align myself to a Buddhist religion (if I"m religious at all) so like you, I try to be as environmentally friendly as I can and I'm pretty in sync with some of the technologies and ideas out there. I've mentioned this a few times, but China is looking to lead the world into these environmentally friendly cities, though it looks like the idea is going to die (Dongtan).
Dongtan, a new city development (three quarters the size of Manhattan Island) was to have been built on Chongming Island, near Shanghai, in the Yangtze River Delta. The first phase, comprising a city of 25,000 people, was due to have opened for the Shanghai Expo in 2010. By 2030 it was intended to house 500,000 residents. In Western terms, this sort of ambition is impressive, but in terms of China’s own plans to create a further 20 cities a year over the next 20 years, Dongtan was small fry. But, of course, an eco-city is not meant to be intrusive.
Dongtan has been variously credited for its planned zero-carbon footprint, encouragement of biodiversity, low car-usage, and low-consumption ideals. Peter Head, director of the engineering firm Arup, which was in charge of the project, said: ‘It is no gimmick. It is being led at the highest levels of the Chinese government. They are very committed to developing a new paradigm of economic development.’ (1) It was claimed that while ‘Shanghai has a typical ecological footprint of 5.8 global hectares per person… Dongtan eco-city will be 2.6’. Dongtan had been feted for so long that it is remarkable to some people to learn that it hasn’t already been built. It’s even more incredible to learn that it probably never will be.
As far as new technologies go, I know a few major IC design companies are looking to debut a set suite of technology that will harvest energy from the environment for a target of 2015-2020 or so. This, more than any other stupid protest, will make a big impact on reducing our carbon footprint.
__________________
"With a coach and a player, sometimes there's just so much respect there that it's boils over"
-Taylor Hall
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
Part of Greenpeace's mandate is to encourage more environmentally behaviour on the part of ordinary citizens like myself. They should be promoting awareness, genuine alternatives and effective protest that engages citizens' minds and motivates their spiritedness.
Ever since, oohhhh about the 1980s they have done precisely the opposite. They're morons engaging in self-righteous, divisive, and often illegal activities that serve to alienate citizens and radicalize their base.
Oh and those like DA comparing this to the civil rights movement, I don't know what I can do for your little brains, but it's not even close.
Okay. I'm done. I love having political debates, but when people start throwing out personal insults, I'm done. If you disagree with my point of view, fine. I'm all for that. But when you start insulting me personally.... I would hope that I would have more respect for you.
Okay. I'm done. I love having political debates, but when people start throwing out personal insults, I'm done. If you disagree with my point of view, fine. I'm all for that. But when you start insulting me personally.... I would hope that I would have more respect for you.
You honestly don't see the insulting comparison you are making?
As much as I hate to agree with him, Peter12 is right. The comparison was asinine. But then, so too was the comparison to the FLQ, so it wasn't just you.
Remember to send your cheque to Greenpeace though DA. They can't promote themselves without your help!
As much as I hate to agree with him, Peter12 is right. The comparison was asinine. But then, so too was the comparison to the FLQ, so it wasn't just you.
Remember to send your cheque to Greenpeace though DA. They can't promote themselves without your help!
Didn't see that one either, but too is pretty dumb, although not nearly as much so.
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Ive read this whole thread and I still have no idea what the whole slogan on the banner was supposed to mean...none.
Seperate Oil and State. Ummm...OK...I guess. If the idea was to get the government out of the oil business, I think that would be completely contradictory to there known stance of not wanting big oil to do whatever they want.
If it was in protest of the oilsands that they claim are already spoiling the province with toxins etc...then how does pulling back ALL controls there going to help?
Pretty clear that this was no more than a publicity stunt that had zero message behind other than..."look at me".
Last edited by transplant99; 08-04-2010 at 08:35 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to transplant99 For This Useful Post:
Ive read this whole thread and I still have no idea what the whole slogan on the banner was supposed to me...none.
Seperate Oil and State. Ummm...OK...I guess. If the idea was to get the government out of the oil business, I think that would be completely contradictory to there known stance of not wanting big oil to do whatever they want.
If it was in protest of the oilsands that they claim are already spoiling the province with toxins etc...then how does pulling back ALL controls there going to help?
Pretty clear that this was no more than a publicity stunt that had zero message behind other than..."look at me".
I think the message is pretty clear. Basically they believe that oil companies drive government decisions like the war in Iraq - whether or not that is justified is another story. I don't know what a Calgary specific example would be, but I'm sure people in the oil industry would know of instances where they "worked closely" with local communities and governments to get what they want with no concessions. Thus, by separating oil and state, they hope that government will drop the hammer on any suspicious/bad/unethical behavior without worrying about the massive royalties that they would lose, or energy security that they would gain.
Again, I am not supporting their stance, nor do I feel like their stance has any merit. It is one born out of ignorance to what actually happens. I am also amused that it IS so ambiguous, but I can clearly see what their intention was.
Ive read this whole thread and I still have no idea what the whole slogan on the banner was supposed to me...none.
Seperate Oil and State. Ummm...OK...I guess. If the idea was to get the government out of the oil business, I think that would be completely contradictory to there known stance of not wanting big oil to do whatever they want.
If it was in protest of the oilsands that they claim are already spoiling the province with toxins etc...then how does pulling back ALL controls there going to help?
Pretty clear that this was no more than a publicity stunt that had zero message behind other than..."look at me".
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
I understand that the message is something to do with oil and government...and not wanting both working together...but again what is it they want?
No oil at all? No government at all? No government regulating oil? No oil companies donating to politicians?
All of the above?
If this, as has been argued by their supporters, was to get their message to all and not just bring attention to themselves, then this is what one could classify as an epic failure.
I think the message is pretty clear. Basically they believe that oil companies drive government decisions like the war in Iraq - whether or not that is justified is another story. I don't know what a Calgary specific example would be, but I'm sure people in the oil industry would know of instances where they "worked closely" with local communities and governments to get what they want with no concessions. Thus, by separating oil and state, they hope that government will drop the hammer on any suspicious/bad/unethical behavior without worrying about the massive royalties that they would lose, or energy security that they would gain.
Again, I am not supporting their stance, nor do I feel like their stance has any merit. It is one born out of ignorance to what actually happens. I am also amused that it IS so ambiguous, but I can clearly see what their intention was.
Wow... you're kind of like the guy who stands up in English class when the teacher says.... What did the author mean when the character in the book did this or said that?... and you give this intricate and deep explanation as to what the author meant when he wrote a particular passage in a book.
You know, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. It doesn't really mean anything in particular.
To me, and a lot of others, the message wasn't clear at all.... and you would think that if they went to all the trouble of hanging a banner from the Calgary Tower, that the point of their protest would be clear to everyone. (which clearly it isn't)
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Greenpeace, meanwhile, hailed the protest a success.
“We meant to create a dialogue in Alberta,” said spokeswoman Melina Laboucan-Massimo. “That’s why we did it in the heart of Calgary.”
A dialougue about what?? This is what i dont get...what should we all be talking about today? Because all I can infer from the whole thing is....we are talking about Greenpeace and their illegal tactics to bring attention to...themselves. Its just very odd.
Quote:
One of the protesters, however, was from Europe. Laboucan-Massimo said “we’re not getting into the details” when asked if it isn’t contradictory to fly someone over from Europe to protest against the industry that provided the fuel for the airplane journey.
