Greenpeace is hardly an organization that has a shred of a ethical or moral right to make any statement, because the last 40 years of it's rhetoric has lead to a disaster of unimaginable proportions.
Greenpeace was founded in 1971. From 1971 to 1981 the annual rate at which carbon dioxide concentrations on this planet was growing was 1.34 ppm per year.
In the last ten years recorded the rate is 2.27 ppm per year.
I guess all the dressing up in orangutan suits, getting a huge set of nutcases naked on a glacier and all the other puerile bourgeois stunts that these uneducated children play hasn't panned out all that well.
Let's talk for a second about the orangutan suit puerile protest by Greenpeace pictured above.
The largest single event for the destruction of orangutan habitat was the 1998-1999 forest fires in Southeast Asia, 1998 being a (then) record setting year for increases in carbon dioxide in the planetary atmosphere, at 2.93 ppm over 1997. In part the potential for these fires was driven by the El Nino event that took place that year which lead to a drought in SE Asia. However, as noted in the link, "According to local farmers of the indigenous Dayak population, 'these fires did not fall down from the skies..."
In part they were driven by fires sent by companies given concessions to plant palm oil plantations.
These plantation concessions were driven by, in large part, by the "renewable energy portfolio standards" set by Germany (which has a large proportion of diesel cars) to include "renewable biofuels" in German diesel fuel.
What group has been the largest at hyping and driving this destruction of habitat world wide for so called "renewable energy," driving the need to have huge trucks drive to the tops of pristine mountains to make them into wind farm industrial parks, doing the same in pristine deserts, ecosensitive offshore continental shelves and elsewhere?
The fact that scientifically illiterate journalists quote scientifically illiterate organizations as being "environmental" is pure and unadulterated garbage, an environmental tragedy that entrenches ignorance, just as so called "renewable energy" entrenches the gas industry.
Citing Greenpeace on Antarctica's exigent on going environmental tragedy is like turning Antarctica over to a sixth grade "science" class.
Here's a clue. The oceans are dynamic. They don't end or start in protected zones, even if they those zones rules were monitored and enforced, which they won't be.
What is needed for Antarctica is decidedly not another piece of specious paper. What is needed is sobriety, sincere commitment, and a willingness to acknowledge that this is not at all a simple matter that can be solved by amateurs hand waving for a few hours after a drive to a glacier, getting naked, and getting photographed by an environmentally illiterate, if famous, artist.
We need to think, and stupid stunts don't make people think. They might make them laugh, but in so doing, the trivialize a very serious matter which spans all humanity and all living things, from Spitsbergen to McMurdo Sound, from the coast of Chile to the Chilean Andes and beyond to the sea in all directions.
= new reply since forum marked as read
