why are Greenpeace always missing the obvious ?

Le_Petit_Lapin · 26 Jul 2006 at 00:01

cymap said:
Maybe they prefer to place wind farms where the local ecosystem does not consist of a number of rare species?

What, and just forget that they are killing a large swathe of non-rare species? :rolleyes:

Is that somehow "better"?

reflex · 26 Jul 2006 at 00:03

Atleast they care, or pretend they do.

I like hippies there nice people

Efour · 26 Jul 2006 at 00:03

Andy100 · 26 Jul 2006 at 00:04

Just because they are a not for profit organisation doesn't mean they don't make a profit. It just means they transfer their profit each year to a reserve.

Their 2005 accounts show net current assets (basically cash and investments) or "reserves" of 87million Euro's.

Their London offices are in N1, not exactly a cheap part of town.

I'd also imagine that a lot of the higher level staff take home considerable pay packets, drive expensive cars and live in big houses. For the sake of the environment obviously...

Lets not kid ourselves into thinking they're only in it for the planet.

cymap · 26 Jul 2006 at 00:04

Le_Petit_Lapin said:
What, and just forget that they are killing a large swathe of non-rare species? Is that somehow "better"?

Yes.

Le_Petit_Lapin · 26 Jul 2006 at 00:10

cymap said:
Yes.

Ah, but why is it better?

Also is there some specific reason why we should give more protection to animals that simply cannot be arsed to mate enough to maintain their own species on their own without our intervention?

Indy500 · 26 Jul 2006 at 00:14

Andy100 said:
Just because they are a not for profit organisation doesn't mean they don't make a profit. It just means they transfer their profit each year to a reserve.

Their 2005 accounts show net current assets (basically cash and investments) or "reserves" of 87million Euro's.

Their London offices are in N1, not exactly a cheap part of town.

I'd also imagine that a lot of the higher level staff take home considerable pay packets, drive expensive cars and live in big houses. For the sake of the environment obviously...

Lets not kid ourselves into thinking they're only in it for the planet.

I doubt they get 87 million from individuals' donations. *eyes big business*

Vonhelmet · 26 Jul 2006 at 12:28

Le_Petit_Lapin said:
Nevermind the fact that a massive wind or tidal farm would totally **** up the ecosystem of the area in which you put it....

Of course, no coal/gas/oil fired plant or coal/gas/oil extraction site has ever screwed up the environment, has it?

Think before typing.

Le_Petit_Lapin · 26 Jul 2006 at 12:36

vonhelmet said:
Of course, no coal/gas/oil fired plant or coal/gas/oil extraction site has ever screwed up the environment, has it?

Think before typing.

Windfarms take up a vastly greater space to generate the same ammount of power than a standard oil/gas/coal/nuclear powerplant.

Obviously the benefits of windfarms are that they are non-polluting. (Except visual pollution of the landscape)

leaskovski · 26 Jul 2006 at 12:43

Jokester said:
Looks like they are a bit fussy about it then when it comes to the crunch.

Jokester

ROFL! What a bunch of dipswitchs!

cymap · 26 Jul 2006 at 13:00

Le_Petit_Lapin said:
Ah, but why is it better?

Also is there some specific reason why we should give more protection to animals that simply cannot be arsed to mate enough to maintain their own species on their own without our intervention?

If you feel the reason these species "cannot be arsed to mate" then I feel there is no reason for me to discuss the matter further with you. Your position is ignorant.

cymap · 26 Jul 2006 at 13:02

sr4470 said:
I doubt they get 87 million from individuals' donations. *eyes big business*

What on earth are you talking about? Why would "big business" donate to Greenpeace?

Sleepy · 26 Jul 2006 at 13:03

Le_Petit_Lapin said:
Windfarms take up a vastly greater space to generate the same ammount of power than a standard oil/gas/coal/nuclear powerplant.

Obviously the benefits of windfarms are that they are non-polluting. (Except visual pollution of the landscape)

Turbines effect the micro climate, wind farms have a marked effect on the climate of the area. They also have a marked effect on bird populations. They are not 100 %benign. They do have a downside.

nin9abadga · 26 Jul 2006 at 13:05

whether you agree or not with what they choose to highlight or why they choose to highlight it, the underlying message is so important that it cannot and should not be ignored. sustainable development, reduced pollutants environmentally friendly transport solutions etc etc, need to implemented before it's too late, unless of course it already is too late.

nin9a

Le_Petit_Lapin · 26 Jul 2006 at 13:06

cymap said:
If you feel the reason these species "cannot be arsed to mate" then I feel there is no reason for me to discuss the matter further with you. Your position is ignorant.

No, I'm just a firm believer in survival of the fittest.

You on the other hand seem to be willing to risk the destruction of another species, rather than just killing off a species that is already dying out.

nin9abadga said:
whether you agree or not with what they choose to highlight or why they choose to highlight it, the underlying message is so important that it cannot and should not be ignored. sustainable development, reduced pollutants environmentally friendly transport solutions etc etc, need to implemented before it's too late, unless of course it already is too late.

Yes, but rather than just trying to educate the public, they run around like some form of eco-friendly Rambo being a general bunch of *******.

nealw · 26 Jul 2006 at 13:19

Greenpeace = confused contradictory self-righteous self-important fools

FACT!

and if another one of their supporters tries to stop me on the street and ask for my bank details once again, i'm gonna kick their ass, OcUK style!

Christo · 26 Jul 2006 at 13:19

Greenpeace to me seem so negative, they complain about everything without coming up with any viable alternatives, eg complaining about coal, nuclear etc etc then blocking wind farms! To me they make no sense.

nin9abadga · 26 Jul 2006 at 13:19

yeah but unless they make a fuss and grab the headlines no one really gives a ****. can you imagine a well informed piece on the front page of the sun about how we should all recycle more and conserve energy unless it's a result of a greenpeace boat trying to sink a warship with the accompanying screaming headline?

i'm not saying i agree with their methods but the message they send is an important one for everyone.

nin9a

Le_Petit_Lapin · 26 Jul 2006 at 13:31

nin9abadga said:
yeah but unless they make a fuss and grab the headlines no one really gives a ****. can you imagine a well informed piece on the front page of the sun about how we should all recycle more and conserve energy unless it's a result of a greenpeace boat trying to sink a warship with the accompanying screaming headline?

i'm not saying i agree with their methods but the message they send is an important one for everyone.

nin9a

But have you ever noticed they only ever seem to get in the news for all the wrong reasons? Its almost always for illegal acts of civil disobedience.

They're like bloody door-to-door salesmen, the only way they get you to remember their product is to constantly irritate you.

johnson · 26 Jul 2006 at 13:43

I want nuclear power
I want the countryside to be tarmac'd

cue Tim Allen Home improvement laugh OARHHH OHARHHH OHAHRRA