I'd say they (the organization overall) does not represent the group you think it does.
Greenpeace is well funded.
It does not disclose where the funds come from.
It strongly opposes all forms of nuclear power. No matter how safe or eco-friendly, or how unproven the dangers are.
It does not oppose oil and coal energy production, which are absolutely, positively big polluters. They are also the only true alternative to nuclear power... at least for a while.
They have little focus on energy preservation.
The option they claim to support is solar/wind/etc power, which is economically unfeasible most of the time, and many folks at Greenpeace must realize this.
Combine this with other, semi-random publicity stunts which require very little personnel and time investment from Greenpeace. This serves to muddle the picture and paint Greenpeace as a generally eco-friendly operation.
Let's say I have a pretty good idea where their funding comes from.
The things I hate most about the organization is
- first, that by opposing nuclear power they are a major contributor to pollution on attitude level
- second, that the random stuff they do is often lies and actually harms people. I have seen this in action in Finland, where they claimed the wood industry was destroying the natural forests. This is just a lie. Finnish forests have never been under any sort of threat, and they still aren't. But the short Greenpeace shock campaign still damaged the Finnish paper industry and severely hurt their German exports.
man you are totally prejudice and have blinkers on . GP gets funding totally from donations from individuals . Its in their charter . I know this practically cause a friend tried to donate via his business and was refused .
You really should worry about the sources you are using to form your views as some of the statements you make about GP are blatantly wrong .
Also You act as though the facts are all out about nuclear are clearly established. Which they are not . Nuclear is an option in my head which involves considerable risks and should only be considered when the other alternatives such as global warming are worse . The lead time for nuclear is so long . and the fossil fuels used in construction or plants and mining or uranium the problems with safe disposal of waste . Vulnerability to terrorism and the sort of police state and surveillance needed to protect against such make Nuclear are no go as far as i am concerned .
Well, boats don't exactly have brakes, so it's actually pretty easy to make someone hit you in the side. It's a pretty good tactic because a lot of idiots will just think whoever's paint is scratched on the front initiated contact...
And it's great to hear about Greenpeace from someone who so intimitely knows their motives and dealings! Thanks for the intelligent insight! Damn non-profit environmental advocates! You're right, only Enron is worse! (sarcasm)
Watching the video the Captain of the GP ship did nothing to avoid the collision. A turn to starboard would have avoided any contact. Instead he did some very credible braking to hit the Japanese ship at a very low speed.
Its also somewhat bizzare to assume the Captain of the Japanese vessel would have elected to take damage amidships from the bow of the other GP ship even if it was much smaller. The relative damage would have put the Japanese out of the "whale research" picture for at least the rest of the season. Its typically much harder on the ramee rather than the rammer.
Looks like greenpeace accomplished their intermediate goal, publicity.
They were handing out free apples? That's genius.
"What's with all the apples everywhere"
"Green Peace was handing them out."
"Why?"
"They want more environmentally friendly computers."
"Sounds good. You seen the adaptec booth babe yet?"
I frequently agree with their cause but dislike some of the action they take to further said cause. Sometimes being a complete jackass is justified. But you're still a jackass.
I am truly sorry to say this, but much of this thread strikes me as a tad hypocritical.
Kind of like a bunch of drunks debating the link between obesity and the amount of calories in liquor.......
If one is remotely concerned about the environment -- and truly means it -- one should stop using computers (Apple, Dell, whatever; who cares). These are amongst the most environmentally-unfriendly products.
I am truly sorry to say this, but much of this thread strikes me as a tad hypocritical.
Kind of like a bunch of drunks debating the link between obesity and the amount of calories in liquor.......
If one is remotely concerned about the environment -- and truly means it -- one should stop using computers (Apple, Dell, whatever; who cares). These are amongst the most environmentally-unfriendly products.
i don't get it . i use a computer to pay a bill or order something of line , instead of driving to a mailbox or shop to deliver the payment or inspect the product I do it online . by not using a vechile one or two times I have saved as much carbon emissions as a computer generates in a life time . what is so environmentally unfriendly about that ? After that any time i use a computer to do such I am minimizing my impact .
why exactly do you think that computers are so unfriendly to the environment ?
i don't get it . i use a computer to pay a bill or order something of line , instead of driving to a mailbox or shop to deliver the payment or inspect the product I do it online . by not using a vechile one or two times I have saved as much carbon emissions as a computer generates in a life time . what is so environmentally unfriendly about that ? After that any time i use a computer to do such I am minimizing my impact .
why exactly do you think that computers are so unfriendly to the environment ?
Sigh...... I am not surprised you don't get it.
Your very framing of the argument -- that the lousy environmental impact of computers is justified because it obviates the need for an even more lousy environmental impact (e.g., use of a vehicle to mail a letter, or to buy a product) -- just proves my point about the hypocrisy.
Comments
I'd say they (the organization overall) does not represent the group you think it does.
Greenpeace is well funded.
It does not disclose where the funds come from.
It strongly opposes all forms of nuclear power. No matter how safe or eco-friendly, or how unproven the dangers are.
It does not oppose oil and coal energy production, which are absolutely, positively big polluters. They are also the only true alternative to nuclear power... at least for a while.
They have little focus on energy preservation.
The option they claim to support is solar/wind/etc power, which is economically unfeasible most of the time, and many folks at Greenpeace must realize this.
Combine this with other, semi-random publicity stunts which require very little personnel and time investment from Greenpeace. This serves to muddle the picture and paint Greenpeace as a generally eco-friendly operation.
Let's say I have a pretty good idea where their funding comes from.
The things I hate most about the organization is
- first, that by opposing nuclear power they are a major contributor to pollution on attitude level
- second, that the random stuff they do is often lies and actually harms people. I have seen this in action in Finland, where they claimed the wood industry was destroying the natural forests. This is just a lie. Finnish forests have never been under any sort of threat, and they still aren't. But the short Greenpeace shock campaign still damaged the Finnish paper industry and severely hurt their German exports.
man you are totally prejudice and have blinkers on . GP gets funding totally from donations from individuals . Its in their charter . I know this practically cause a friend tried to donate via his business and was refused .
You really should worry about the sources you are using to form your views as some of the statements you make about GP are blatantly wrong .
Also You act as though the facts are all out about nuclear are clearly established. Which they are not . Nuclear is an option in my head which involves considerable risks and should only be considered when the other alternatives such as global warming are worse . The lead time for nuclear is so long . and the fossil fuels used in construction or plants and mining or uranium the problems with safe disposal of waste . Vulnerability to terrorism and the sort of police state and surveillance needed to protect against such make Nuclear are no go as far as i am concerned .
Well, boats don't exactly have brakes, so it's actually pretty easy to make someone hit you in the side. It's a pretty good tactic because a lot of idiots will just think whoever's paint is scratched on the front initiated contact...
And it's great to hear about Greenpeace from someone who so intimitely knows their motives and dealings! Thanks for the intelligent insight! Damn non-profit environmental advocates! You're right, only Enron is worse! (sarcasm)
Watching the video the Captain of the GP ship did nothing to avoid the collision. A turn to starboard would have avoided any contact. Instead he did some very credible braking to hit the Japanese ship at a very low speed.
Its also somewhat bizzare to assume the Captain of the Japanese vessel would have elected to take damage amidships from the bow of the other GP ship even if it was much smaller. The relative damage would have put the Japanese out of the "whale research" picture for at least the rest of the season. Its typically much harder on the ramee rather than the rammer.
Vinea
Of course.
They were handing out free apples? That's genius.
"What's with all the apples everywhere"
"Green Peace was handing them out."
"Why?"
"They want more environmentally friendly computers."
"Sounds good. You seen the adaptec booth babe yet?"
I frequently agree with their cause but dislike some of the action they take to further said cause. Sometimes being a complete jackass is justified. But you're still a jackass.
Kind of like a bunch of drunks debating the link between obesity and the amount of calories in liquor.......
If one is remotely concerned about the environment -- and truly means it -- one should stop using computers (Apple, Dell, whatever; who cares). These are amongst the most environmentally-unfriendly products.
I am truly sorry to say this, but much of this thread strikes me as a tad hypocritical.
Kind of like a bunch of drunks debating the link between obesity and the amount of calories in liquor.......
If one is remotely concerned about the environment -- and truly means it -- one should stop using computers (Apple, Dell, whatever; who cares). These are amongst the most environmentally-unfriendly products.
i don't get it . i use a computer to pay a bill or order something of line , instead of driving to a mailbox or shop to deliver the payment or inspect the product I do it online . by not using a vechile one or two times I have saved as much carbon emissions as a computer generates in a life time . what is so environmentally unfriendly about that ? After that any time i use a computer to do such I am minimizing my impact .
why exactly do you think that computers are so unfriendly to the environment ?
i don't get it . i use a computer to pay a bill or order something of line , instead of driving to a mailbox or shop to deliver the payment or inspect the product I do it online . by not using a vechile one or two times I have saved as much carbon emissions as a computer generates in a life time . what is so environmentally unfriendly about that ? After that any time i use a computer to do such I am minimizing my impact .
why exactly do you think that computers are so unfriendly to the environment ?
Sigh...... I am not surprised you don't get it.
Your very framing of the argument -- that the lousy environmental impact of computers is justified because it obviates the need for an even more lousy environmental impact (e.g., use of a vehicle to mail a letter, or to buy a product) -- just proves my point about the hypocrisy.
This is beyond arguing about.....
Isn't posting that argument here the equivalent of driving to an anti-car convention?