All aboard the good ship Copenhagen
With a BBQ hosted by Lucy Lawless, a lifeboat named Copenhagen, and poem by Rhys Darby titled Global Warning (watch this space for the video) we launched a new campaign called Sign On over the weekend.
With a host of big name climate ambassadors including Stephen Tindall, Geoff Ross, Robyn Malcolm and Francesca Price to name a few, we kicked off what could be our most important campaign to date.
So not the usual Greenpeace approach but these are unusual times.
Climate change is now happening faster than anyone expected. Normally reserved scientists are raising the alarm. In December this year world leaders will gather in Copenhagen to Sign On to a global agreement for action. For NZ to do its bit to help avoid catastrophic impacts, Prime Minister John Key needs to go to Copenhagen and Sign On to reduce New Zealand’s emissions by 40 per cent by 2020.
This is the message the Sign On ambassadors echo and it is what thousands of New Zealanders are already supporting via the Sign On website www.signon.org.nz
We need you to Sign On and we need you to tell your friends and family to Sign On too. This year is our window of opportunity to turn climate change around.
By December we need hundreds of thousands of kiwis standing alongside us and our climate ambassadors in supporting John Key to do the right thing at Copenhagen.
All the ambassadors made videos which you can watch here
Related posts
Email This Post
TV3’s report of your Sign On campaign quoted Bunny McDiarmid as saying, in reponse to Bryan Leyland: “Greenpeace chooses not to debate people who don’t accept the scientific reality of anthropogenic climate change.”
Greenpeace, though not debating people, might debate the science, no? What about simply answering questions?
Greenpeace might, for argument’s sake, be asked: “What is the evidence of anthropogenic climate change?” Would it make an answer, or would it instead make an assumption about the questioner’s beliefs, claim a debate has begun and ignore the question?
The questioner might instead state: “I accept the reality of anthropogenic climate change. What evidence of it have you observed?”
Would Greenpeace then venture an answer and, if so, what would it be?
You have taken a quite astounding stance. In a free society, Greenpeace is not required to justify its views — but nobody listens to those who remain silent.
How say you?
Cheers,
Richard Treadgold,
Convenor,
Climate Conversation Group.