The aftermath
As the dust settles after yesterday’s action it’s good to see that the story has been picked up widely in the media and we have managed to draw attention to the double standards at play with climate policy in New Zealand.
The message that there is no future in coal has been communicated loud and clear to Solid Energy, the Government and other political parties.
This morning there is a story running in the media about a claim that, due to our action on the coal shipment yesterday in Lyttelton, police did not have enough staff to respond to an incident in Christchurch which led to a police officer being assaulted by a young woman.
While we have every sympathy for the officer who was assaulted, we also believe that it is unreasonable to place the blame on Greenpeace. It wasn’t our decision that the police should choose to prioritise getting a coal shipment to market on time over other policing priorities.
For 30 years now Greenpeace has conducted peaceful non violent direct action and caused harm to no one.
The police response to the Rainbow Warrior activity yesterday was excessive and out of proportion to what was actually required. Greenpeace cannot be held responsible for police decisions regarding their own deployment.
Indeed there were so many police on the scene they were tripping over each other and many of the officers present stood around for the duration and did nothing at all.
Direct action is an important and valid form of protest and is a proud part of NZ’s history. The Springbok tours and the anti nuclear demonstrations are good examples. If the organisers of such events did not do them for fear of the police not being capable of a measured response - where would we be now?
The real issue here is that we are fast running out of time to act on climate change, and yet New Zealand continues to mine, export and burn coal in gross quantities, and there are plans to expand all three activities.
Not only are we failing domestically, with skyrocketing emissions and an ETS that’s failing to deter domestic coal use, but we’re also upping our contribution to the global problem by allowing the expansion of coal exports.
The Government has put some commendable climate policies in place, such as a renewable electricity target, but the good of this is undone if we’re still exporting the problem to other countries.
It is, as the Climate Change Minister himself pointed out this week, not called “global” warming for nothing. Emissions anywhere in the world affect us all, and we shouldn’t be adding to them.
Related posts
Email This Post
Suggest you take a tour of a Solid Energy mine and educate yourself on modern mining alongside alternative energy technologies currently being explored to the benefit of both the environment as well as the indigenous economy. It’s totally typical of your position to claim this latest action as a victory; quite the opposite, it is our belief you have lost credibility and support.
What a waste of time Green Peace has become!
These actions are for the deluded. Get a life.
What a bunch of blockheads you are. Here I was, about to make a donation to Greenpeace for your action against Japanese whalers, and you go and pull this stunt. My money will go elsewhere now. The Rainbow Warrior can piss right off, you’re not welcome in Christchurch anymore.
While the Rainbow Warrior and crew were taking action against coal exports yesterday, scientists were warning that a second ice shelf is starting to collapse in the Antarctic as a result of climate change.
Read about it here: http://nsidc.org/news/press/20080325_Wilkins.html
Cause and effect - it’s a shame the media doesn’t join all these things together. Meanwhile The Press has its “Earth Hour” support plastered all over its website but chooses not to focus on coal and climate but on police resourcing, captivated by the police spin, as usual.
I have been a supporter for greenpeace and its activities for a number of years, and while I support a persons right to protest, I also think organisations should take responsibility for their actions and the effect of those actions. You could not have known that as a result of the protest and the resources that were allocated to manage the police response other people may have ben unreasonably exposed to possible harm. But you should have considered the possibility and made a conscious decsion to accept the responsibility of the effect of your protest. I believe your stance is unhelpful. You should be advising that you regret what has happened, but that you carefully considered all of the options available to you before you took your actions, which you considered were neccesary. In effect what you have done is to thumb your nose at the impacts your actions have had on the police officers who have been injured. Greenpeace has had a very special place in the hearts of New Zealanders since the Rainbow Warrior Bombing. I do not believe your protest would have significantly affected that position in the New Zealand psyche, and probably would have been quiety supported. However your response to the effects of your protest I think have been more damaging. Certainly, long time supporters like me will probably be reconsidering our continued support of your organisation, which seems to have tarnished itself a little with its latest actions.
despite the advances in mining technologies, open cast mining is still hugely destructive, ‘clean coal’ still isn’t clean and mining is still a dangerous occupation. Ever seen a coal miner’s lung? I have, its not a pretty sight.
I’m not sure what Anna means by indigenous economy. Last I was aware much of the land that solid energy mines was either obtained by dodgy colonial land deals or the State Owned Enterprises Act.
It is not the responsibility protesters to account for numbers of police employed in any region. That responsibility lays with the Government, as does the export of coal by a Government company which is contributing to climate change among many other bad things.
It is irresponsible of the police to create a smokescreen to take the heat off the Government’s double standards on climate chance. Shame on them!!!
Good on those people who put it on the line in the interests of the bigger picture - the future of the planet. You’re welcome to come round to my place for dinner anytime.
So, it takes 30 Christchurch police several hours to deal with a handful of peaceful protestors in a stationary boat?
I’d hate to think how many it takes to change a lightbulb.
Congrats to Greenpeace for drawing attention to the Government’s hypocrisy on climate change.
Shame on the Christchurch police for trying to shift blame for an incredibly bad resource deployment decision on their part.
I think that Greenpeace has done a good job in drawing media attention to this issue, without this protest I’m sure New Zealander’s would have had no idea this was happening.
I believe the crew from the Rainbow Warrior deserves our support and respect. It takes a Great person to risk their lives to try to fix what we destroy. Blessings!!
I think Greenpeace is amazing and do amazing things for our country and the world and I think it is sad that people don’t like it that they are trying to stop coal in NZ and are trying to stop Global Warming. Shame on you to all the people that don’t like what Greenpeace are doing.
Haven’t we heard this “wasting police resources” arguement just one too many times when it comes to any protest in this country? Lets get real here.
Protest is a key part of a thriving democracy and Greenpeace has built up an untarnished reputation of non-violence in all its protests over the last 30+ years in its efforts to clean up the planet.
30 police officers was just plain overkill. I certainly hope they weren’t just hanging out for the entertainment value of seeing activists hanging off ships!!!!
I think that Greenpeace was justified in their actions and thank you for once again drawing attention to this monstous threat of climate change. That’s the real story here.
If anyone chooses not to support Greenpeace over this, then there will be a hundred people queing up behind them to replace them.
Got to wonder Greenpeace, what did you accomplish here? I mean, you can say you’ve drawn people’s attention to the government’s hypocrisy on climate change, but at what cost? The good will of a large section of the general population? What did you actually achieve in real terms?
As to the whole police thing. Do you really think the police over reacted? You blocked and the boarded a ship. On the highseas that has another name. Moreover, despite what Greenpeace states, such acts do put people’s lives at risk, and I am not only talking about Greenpeace members (for more on this see below).
I am increasing concerned about the showboat protests being enacted by Greenpeace and other organisations. They’re not only dangerous, but also, ironically, undermine attempts to save the environment by painting activist organisations as a bunch of selfish nutters who have little concern for anyone but themselves/their agenda. This, as I noted above, causes public support to wane rather quickly. Simply put, showboating doesn’t educate, nor does it engender support.
With regard to the who police thing. Greenpeace and its supporters can say the police over reacted (that is the response that is to expected, especially after the police’s statements), but I wonder what critics of the police would have said if only a few officers had been deployed and Greenpeace member had been assaulted, or a person had been seriously injured as a result of the protest. No doubt, it would have been along the lines of the police didn’t protect the protesters because they police are an arm of the state/conservative so and sos etc etc.
I mean, come on, GP and other activist groups are quick to cry for police/state protection of their right of protest/their bodies when the S**t goes down (shall we talk about the recent incident in the southern ocean - not GP, I know, but the point is valid nonetheless). You can’t have it both ways.
Tell me critics, what would have done if you were the police. Try giving an objective answer that recognises all the pressures on the police, rather than simply the pro-GP one (”let the protest go ahead, [ie don’t show any concern for the rights of the shipping company or potential dangers blocking a ship might cause]).
Now, before anyone thinks I am some kind of anti-Greenpeace activist, I’m not. Indeed, I generally support many of GP’s objectives. However, I am, like Kurutia, concerned about some of the methods that the organisation uses.
To those of you who think that this stint was a waste of time… Consider what the world is going to look like in 20years time, consider what damage is happening now and double it. Though some of you may not be around it still going to happen.
Greenpeace have been defending “Our World” and Aotearoa for many a year and to say that you only gave your support when she was bombed is a little sad. We should be taking care of our land and what she harbours, after all we live here and it’s us that are slowly destroying it. We only get the “wake up” call now?? Come on!! Whether you think this was a complete waste of resource and money.. I’d like to see what you think when that coal begins to waste this world and the money that we taxpayers give to the government to try and clean the mess it leaves. I mean they continue to build roads, and host events that harbour worse outcomes, so that’s our clean green image tarnished right there.
We only get one chance in this lifetime, our offspring will relay our actions in the future, so help to educate them with Keeping Aotearoa Clean & Green
Kia Kaha Greenpeace
Oki - “rights of the shipping company” - that’s an interesting one. Do they really have a right to leave our port with 60,000 tonnes of climate damaging coal? Does Solid Energy (a company owned by Government ministers) have any right to continue destroying our natural environment with more and more coal mines and to actively work to expand the market for coal both within NZ and offshore?
Whose rights should the police be defending? Surely the right to peaceful protest must trump the “right” to inflict serious environmental harm?
You have to wonder why police sent 30 officers out of the city to a peaceful protest in order to ensure a climate damaging coal shipment wasn’t delayed.
There is only one thing I like to say to everybody who posted on this blog criticizing GP’s actions: atleast they are doing something, trying to raise awarness trough non violent means. I fully believe that organisation such as Greenpeace should not even exist. Every one of us can do their own part and allow the good ppl on the Rainbow Warrior to go home to their families and their friends instead of having to hang onto ships and be beaten by the police. As long as we all believe that money is more important that everything else this story will repeat itself over and over. So if you can’t or won’t affect change by yourself allow others to do it to the best of their abilities. If you agree with them support them and if not be constructive in your criticism.
There is nothing sustainable about coal, it is a finite fossil fuel that releases carbon dioxide emissions when burnt, and pollutes landscapes and rivers when mined.
also those tours arent available to some environmentalists. they are not open tours.
solid energy is increasing NZ and global co2 emissions. it would do better to focus on its woodpellets and place its profits into tidal energy research, not CCS which may not yield results and could take too long.
we need emissions reductions NOW, coal cooks the climate and ‘clean’ and coal have nothing to do with each others.
coal is a fossil fuel, not a clean energy source.
http://www.climatecamp.org.nz
there was nothing selfish about putting yourself on the line to stop or stall a coal barge, full of coal waiting to be exported to france and latter burnt.
that was a selfless action.
Kiakaha!!!
In answer to your questions
1) Yes, they do under current laws.
2) No, I don’t. The police obvious assessed a high potential for trouble/danger. Indeed, the deployment may have been as much to protect the activists as to remove them (GP activists have been attacked in the past). I refer you to the question I asked in relation to this in my last post. Did you consider that?
Raz, you don’t know what I do for the environment so I would suggest you stop making assumptions about those who have questioned the sense of this act.
Just because someone dares to wonder about the sense of a protest (and whether it will actually help), does not mean that they are anti-environmental.
I also have to question the whole non-violent protest argument on some levels. True, the acts of the activist are not directly violent. But blocking a ship/boarding a boat are arguably froms of violence as they do endanger people (and not just the activists). This is just a thought. I’d like to discuss this a little.
Oki, i agree that debate and critique is a healthy and necessary process, but I’m not sure what it is that you suggest instead. Pure lobbying and education campaigns? sucking up to politicians and hoping that they catch on before its too late? What about those with out the money to coordinate such activity. Completely dismissing any form of direct/ non-violent action seriously restricts protest to those who can afford the photocopying and stalls and time to organise them. Personally, I think that organising and agitating is a better form of social change, but non-violent direct action is a part of this.
It is too easy to reject the validity of protest by claiming it is violent. It all depends on what you define as violence. GP could of damaged the boats engines and I still would not define this as violence. Even Ghandi was not opposed to destroying private property (as opposed to personal property). Infact, he refused to condem the blowing up of train carridges full of British ammunition.
The thing is that direct action and illegal actions are not new. People have always acted outside of the acceptable limits of protest, and have always been marginalised because of it. But without them Te reo would never have been taught in our schools and New Zealand would of become a silent partners to apartied in South Africa.
Perhaps the problem isn’t so much that GP and others are too out there (if anything they have become less radical), but that NZ society has become more conservative and individualistic than it likes to believe.
Well my money is going elsewhere instead of being donated to Greenpeace. You have done some great work till now but if you ask me you undid it all in a matter of hours in Lyttelton. Boarding another vessel is not peaceful protest nor is blocking a ship whilst breaking maritime laws. there were other ways to get the message across but you chose to put lives in danger occupy police resources and breach the rights of those people working on the ship by boarding there property.
There were ways of doing this better and if anyone needs to look at the deployment of there resoures then greenpeace do. the cops just fronted up on the day with the resources they thought they may need to a protest they probably knew very little about. shame on greenpeace.
no one was endangered. driving a car or smoking is more dangerous.
no one was hurt, therefore it was a non violent direct action (the blocking the ship is the direct action part) you can read a dictionary definition.
so how bout Solid Energy’s $50 000 snail documentary - biggest waste of taxpayers money this year? or propaganda masterpiece?
Mon,
I am not suggesting “sucking up to poliltians”, but I simply can’t accept the “ends justify the means” argument either. You seem to be arguing that GP could have induged in direct acts of violence (vandalising the ship) and prehaps even bombing (ah, the irony) and you wouldn’t see it as a problem because they have the moral high ground. Problem is a lot of groups that commit acts of violence justify their acts based on a moral/ideological position.
My fear is that GPs protest, are increasingly crossing the line into acts of violence despite what their media machine (which is just as well oiled as those of coal companies etc) states. As has been noted above, blocking and board ships are acts of violence. They directly assault the rights of others and, arguably, threaten the safety of people. That to me is violence. Indeed, to engage with CCTC comment, violence has more than one meaning (maybe you should a dictionary before suggesting others do so), and the fact of the matter is GP simply relies on a narrow definition what in an attempt to retain the moral highground.
There was coverage on National news last night that showed a small island called Midway Island with thousands of Albertross go to reproduce, so many chicks and adult birds are being slowly killed from HUMAN waste!! Waste from continents around the world. Plastic tags, plastic hooks, thousands of shopping bags, large bread cartons, plastic crates.. I could go on. Sure, everyone thought “How shocking”, but how many of you have actually heard of this island?? Human ignorance is what is going on! We are ignorant of nature and we are ignorant of how to fix it. So what do we do? We create more!! So good on those of you who think that protesting to stop a boat from causing sickness to a planet that is already on a terminal death bed, a complete waste of time and money, wasn’t it??. The police men and women sent out there were only doing there job, and God bless them for doing so. It shouldn’t be a debate about violent or peaceful protest. It was a protest to simply send a message, and it did, a message that the media created to be a “media frenzy.” There is obviously no news around this country. To have people like all those on this blog now, take a side and stand up for what they think to be good or bad. From what I’ve read so far I think everyone has made valid points, from what should have been done and what has been done. Why no leave it as that. A main concern is what is happening right now and what are you all doing about it.. such as Midway Island, how many of you knew about that? Is there is anywhere else that we should know about?? I would like to know, so I myself can do something about it.
I’m just worried about what my daughter is going to be left with when I die, looks like it be something called pollute and destroy to me… But hey at least I won’t be here to see it though right??
God bless Greenpeace where ever you go, you are one organisation that has a handful of us right behind you.
Julz
a ship has no feelings, you cannot commit violence against it.
you may consider it property - that is another issue. you cannot hurt a wall, a ship, a cup or a airplane.
greenpeace didnt blow anything up, unlike the french government and secret agents. they got away with it, a little payout and the matter was over, even though someone was murdered.
greenpeace does direct action, notice the action part. it is open, it is done in the public and the consequences are thought about.
stoping a forest being cut down is an option and a choice. preventing coal being burnt all over the world is a choice too. it is not only up to coal companies.
go hard, more action.
students and activists will be there making some noise too.
Kia Kaha
Sometimes doing the RIGHT thing is never the POPULAR CHOICE. Why be so angry at Greenpeace… when we should all be angry at people and companies continuing their business AS IF THE WORLD IS NOT MELTING????
WAKE UP everybody!
Do you really wish Greenpeace to stop what they’re doing? You’d rather be on the side of policemen and coal companies???
Take a stand!!!!
I seriously prefer that Greenpeace doesn’t change…and they should never compromise. If they did, this world would be a much uglier place.
To all those who cannot understand the gravity of the climate change…and how integral COAL is in this issue.. i hope you never have any children..so that you will not be ashamed of not having done everything you could to avert climate change.
It is getting this bad… antartica is melting fast… what choice do we really have?
WHAT ARE YOU DOING ABOUT THIS? Unless you are actually saving the world I suggest you leave greenpeace alone!
Duane,
How grown up. The old “don’t dare question us” approach. The children statement was also a nice touch. Really strengthens your argument, not. Surely, I (and others) have a right to protest/question? Or do only the groups you support have that right?
TNCP,
GP has stated that it “embraces the principle of non-violence, rejecting attacks on either people or property” that action the other day, was, no matter how it is spun, an attack (ie violence) on property. Some might even argue it was an attack on people do (GP stopped individuals from working etc). Sure nothing was blown up, but that doesn’t change what the direct action was.
Mallory,
I am not angry with GP (why oh why do people think I am anti-GP because I question its actions?), I am merely raising questions about things that trouble me. I have repeatedly stated I am happy to discuss things, goodness I am happy to be convinced that I am wrong. But, here is the thing, I need to be convinced through rationla discussion and not being told to “STFU”.
Oki - you seem to be spending WAY too much time on here defending your comments and you are seriously going around in circles. You cant expect to come onto the GREENPEACE WEBSITE and not get any reactions/comments that will be opposed to yours. Maybe you should get out of cyberland and go and do something tangible in the fight against climate change.
You cannot change what people are passionate about - what are you passionate about?
Greenpeace actions, to my knowledge are well planned, safety of all concerned is the number 1 priority and the aim is to get the message out. Police chose to send that many officers to the scene - end of story. Most actions will lead to police presence - so they have a fairly good idea from past ones how many will be needed. The SOE (state owned enterprise) Solid Energy would have more than likely put the pressure on the powers that be in the police force, to send that many -gotta get that dirty coal to market on time. I am thinking that you would concur that the officer who jumped onto the GP inflatable deserves a commendation.
I suggest you visit the NZ Herald comment forum online - there you will find a myriad of fellow right wingers that will agree with your comments.
Oh dear.
Thanks for your concern, but I respectfully suggest that what I do with my free time is my business.
I expect people both to disagree with me and to be passionate. I am passionate about environmental issues, but concern about some of GP’s tactics, that is why I came to the GREENPEACE WEBSITE. I want to discuss my concerns. God, you you really think that I should just blindly offer my support? Is it really a matter of “you’re either with us or aganinst us”? Please don’t say it is so.
I am concern’s with GP’s tactics and increasing media spin (some which have bitten the movement in the backside - a certian tree from Finland comes to mind, as do acts of vandalism, as well as some questionable scientific assertions in the past).
In relation to your conspiracy theory about SE leaning on the police. If strong evidence can be provided that proves this was the case, I’ll be first to condemn the police and SE. Until that time, I am not going to commit myself to joining in anti-establishment rumour mills.
You condemn me as a right winger, call me boring and tell me to take my views somewhere else. Others tell me to STFU. These are hardly the words of people who believe in an organisation whose core values include “seek[ing] solutions for, and promote open, informed debate about society’s environmental choices,” and who develops its “campaign strategies and policies…[with]… great care to reflect…[GP’s]… fundamental respect for democratic principles.” Yes, I know GP better than you think. Indeed, I am far from being a RW, but I guess it is just easier to write me off as a neo-con eh? Then you don’t actually have to engage with my concerns.
Oh, and I’m doing a lot of stuff to help the environment, both at home and at work. Still, I doubt you’re going to believe that. Again, its easier to write me off as a monster polluter eh?
Okay Oki
Lets see an action plan of what you would have done, how you get the msg out to thousands of people and to the pollies, why you are doing it, who are you targetting, why you are trying to stop climate change.
You do seem very passionate about the tactics used and how it shouldnt have been done - so lets hear how you would have done it - particularly without the media spin to help it get out there.
Cheers
Oki,
If you know GP more than you think, then why do persist that what happened a week ago now, such a complete waste of time?? Your comments are contradicting something that you say you’re “doing something” about. If you say you’re helping the environment in your own way then GOOD for you!! So why not Let it GO!! Unfortunately GP will pay a hefty price for something that they are passionate about anyway, if you’ve been watching the news or reading the paper’s, you will see that they are in strife for something that was just a MESSAGE for the media to pounce on and spread the word really. That what’s media good for, even though it backfires. Unfortunately for them it has and they are being punished for it. So stop chasing your tail and go find some other news blog to rant and rave on and let Greenpeace be.. Your not going to make any difference at how GP act around here, except piss supporters off! I’ve always thought, if you love something with a passion you will do ANYTHING for it!! And if that’s risking your life, organisation you will do it. Greenpeace are notorious for being like this. It’s happening in Tibet, those protesters are doing the exact same thing are you going to condemn them as well?? They are making WORLD news with there action’s and other’s out will be supporting them regardless.. So LET IT GO, you’re on a losing streak here..
Simple.
1) Don’t use information that is questionable (check up about the Finnish Tree/Brent Spar etc). In this case it didn’t happen but GP has been guilty of such media spin in the past and it has bitten them in the arse.
2) Educate: The RW can still protest and educate the population without the drama. Look at the numbers of people that - according to GP - visit the boat. That is an audience. Run educational tours, give lectures, handout flyers, media releases (the media will jump on “Doom” news quite happily)…god the list is endless.
3) Protests can be made without the dramatic TV whoring acts of last week. One of the most effective I have seen is a quite sit-in in Vancouver, B.C. It got a lot of media coverage AND it didn’t break any laws.
I could go on.
I wonder, now I have (started) to answer your question, prehaps you might engage with my concerns?
A friendly but cautionary note from the admin:
Hi everyone - thank you for commenting here on the Greenpeace NZ blog - it’s great to see some debate occurring. This post in particular has elicited some rather heated discussion! This is good but, while we welcome constructive criticism and discussion, we do not want to see personal attacks please.
Please keep it civil.
Julz,
I’m not here to “piss people off”, merely to raise my concerns about actions taken. As I have repeatedly said, I support GP generally, but I am concerned about who some GP actions contradict is core values, and, indeed, hurt the movement. I won’t let this go because I care. Again, I’m not into blindly following the pack.
The thing I have found so sad about this debate is the fact the few people have actually engaged with my concerns, but rather have choosen to launch numerous personal attacks on me - accussing me of all manner of things (ranting, being a right-winger etc etc). Other have, in numerous ways, told me to shut up or go away. It seems many simply want the blog to be a back-patting forum and will not tolerate anybody who dares to step out of line. Not cool, not cool at all. Indeed, these reactions, as I have observed before, go against GP’s stated aim of have informed debate. Indeed, informed debate is all I ask for from other members of the community. It’s not really that much of an ask. Goodness, I am willing to be convinced my position is faulty. However, in order for that to happen we’re going to have to talk about the issues.
I will give credit where credit is due. The fact that the admins have allowed me to post my concerns - which have questioned the position of the organisation they work for and believe in - indicates that they are willing to allow debate. And, with out trying to sound like too much of a sycophant, I am grateful for their tolerance (and, indeed, adherance to GP stated values).
I would also like to admit that I was guilty of over stepping the mark with my “TV whoring” comment, and for that I apologise to other blog readers and the admin. It was an ill choosen phrase written in a hurry and I sincerely regret using it. That said, I will not apologise for being concerned about the tactics being employed by GP as I believe some of them do more hurt than good.
Julz, I don’t think you can draw a direct parallel between what is happening in Tibet and the protest last week. That, however, is a debate for somewhere else.
I was merely giving an example of the varying ideas of ‘violence’, I’m sorry if you misinterpreted it as me saying that Greenpeace should blow things up, that would be just abit OTT, to say the least.
The most important thing about any action, legal or otherwise is CONTEXT.
I’m not trying to preach any moral high ground, but I don’t consider damaging private property, unless its being used to inflict fear or suffering, as violence. Just as I don’t believe owning private property (as opposed to personal property) to be a natural born right.
However, I do agree that GP should be critiqued, constructively. Having said that, they can’t be blamed for the numbers of police who turned up! Be critical of this. If you think that GP has a strong media machine, its nothing compared to that of the state.
There has to be a future for coal. We still have huge coal deposits and oil shale under the lush pastures of Southland. It is how coal is processed that is central to any debate.
Mon,
You realise you’ve just said that you don’t consider vandalism a problem.
As to my interpretation, you did say “GP could of damaged the boats engines and I still would not define this as violence. Even Ghandi was not opposed to destroying private property (as opposed to personal property). Infact, he refused to condem the blowing up of train carridges full of British ammunition.” I think the jump I made wasn’t too great (and i did say it seemed you were saying that), nonetheless if you’re not saying that fair enough.
I would also like you to explain, in some detail, the difference between private and personal property in your mind.
Personal property, by my understanding, are objects (tangible and intangible) owned by an individual. Private property is any property that is not public property (property that is controlled by a state or by a whole community). Private property can be controlled by individual or by a group of individuals collectively. This in my mind makes private property the personal property of the controlling individual[s]. Am I wrong here?
While you’re at it why not define what you mean by fear and suffering. Destroying some one’s research (especially after they have spend a considerable amount of time and effort on it) might cause them suffering eh?
I have never denied the strength of state or, indeed, multi-nationals media machines. I am not, however, talking about them.
I understand solar needs several times the land area of the city to run it. And only during daylight summer hours. Covering valleys in silicon is not green! But if you really do think so why not ACTUALLY ‘do it’ instead of being against just about everything.
Like, start a company / venture fund to deliver EXACTLY the thing you like (On time and at a cheaper price mind!)
Also other planets in the solar system have ice cap shrinkage at this time. Did WE cause that? I doubt it.
Ethanol needs hundreds/thousands/millions of times MORE land horizontally in every direction than vertical mining or drilling: and drives up the price of food for the poor. What is the good of that?
Ever hear that SOME glaciers are GROWING, on the shady sides of mountains. And that EASTERN antarctic ice is THICKER by hundreds of feet.