Latest email from Greenpeace: We’re making headlines. Our ad – which 1,269 amazing Greenpeace supporters helped pay for – has made a splash in the Telegraph, Britain’s most widely-read broadsheet. We’re also hoping to get the ad printed in the Times tomorrow. 
Thank you to everyone who has taken part in this campaign. Together, we’ve exposed Shell’s long list of costly Arctic blunders to investors, politicians and the public at large – and we’re not done yet. Want to keep the pressure up until we’ve won this thing for good? Right now, Greenpeace is looking for a few creative, eco-conscious youngsters to design a flag for all the world to see. The winning design will be taken to the North Pole, where it will join a scroll featuring millions of names demanding the Arctic be protected forever. We will plant it at the bottom of the ocean at the top of the world, where it will remain: a statement from people who care about the health of our planet and a symbol of the conscience of humanity. Why? Because the Arctic belongs to everyone, yet young people today will most likely live to see a time when there is no more Arctic sea ice in the summer – a fate unthinkable just a few decades ago. We know that Arctic drilling to burn more oil will accelerate climate change and is a folly driven by greed, and as a movement we’re doing everything we can to stop it. Today that means inviting the youth of the world to be heard. Click here to find out more information, then get a young person involved – or send this email on to someone you know. Thanks for being part of this, Ian and the Arctic team
-
Archives
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- December 2014
- July 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
-
Meta
Anthropocene Reality 
The worrying thing is that Greenpeace don’t just oppose oil drilling, amazingly they also want fusion reseach cancelled and the money diverted into yet more windturbines. Yet, fusion offers the best hope of a long term solution to our energy requirements, without pollution. They have also raised all manner of arguments as to why shale gas is bad for the environment. Yet, most of these arguments don’t seem to hold true when examined closely. I think we begin to understand that the real issue at stake here is the need to protect, at all costs, the Greens’ stake in the wind and solar industries. Industries which have so far cost us billions in subsidies but given very little return in the way of actual energy. Before people sponsor ads like this, they want to look at the other activities of the organisation. Arctic drilling might be questionable, but is stopping fusion research in our best interests? I would not support a group with such motives.
LikeLike
Thanks for visiting and comenting, Anteaus. I support Greenpeace even though I disagree with their ideologically-driven opposition to nuclear power; and I do not agree with the reason they oppose GMO’s (i.e. safety); because the main reason people should be anti-GMOs is the same reason people opposed Nestle for marketing powdered milk for babies in Africa. However, I also vote Conservative even though I do not agree with everything they stand for either. Life is like that. If you only became friends with people with whom you agreed about everything, I suspect you would not have (m)any friends. There are only two reasons why people could consider pursuing all manner of unconventional hydrocarbons as anything other than insane: (1) they don’t believe burning them is the primary cause of the climate disruption we are now witnessing; or (2) they are gambling the future habitability of this planet on us rapidly making carbon capture and storage (CCS) safe and widely implemented. Irrespective of where you stand on this, I would also suggest that you read Stephen Leahy’s item about Fracking, which I recently re-blogged here: This highlights the potential for fracking to lead to uncontrolled methane release to the atmosphere (not something that generally gets talked about), which could be very bad news (as if uncontrolled methane release from thawing permafrost were not already bad enough). I think you really need to stop inverting reality and recognise that the the only reason fossil fuel companies can afford to chase evermore inefficient hydrocarbon sources (i.e. based on EROEI data) is that they (1) are massively subsidised in the form of tax breaks; and/or (2) they put up the price of what they sell. These are the vested interests you should be concerned about. Furthermore, I think we all need to ask why oil companies have not yet re-invented themselves as renewable energy companies. One day soon they will have to do so but, by not doing so already, they have guaranteed their own eventual demise. Sadly, their tunnel vision – and focus on maximising profit in the short-term – looks to have guaranteed a very bleak future for all life on Earth (unless, as I said, we crack CCS soon).
LikeLike
@Anteaus Arctic drilling isn’t just questionable, it’s downright insane, as are so many human pursuits today. The most worrying thing I find is that there are people like you who find ways to object to the pursuit of sanity.
LikeLike
Pingback: Another Week of GW News, January 27, 2013 – A Few Things Ill Considered
Will Greenpeace’s flag be biodegradable?
LikeLike
I think it would be more pertinent to ask whether anthropogenic climate disruption is still biodegradable.
LikeLike