Greenpeace vandalise UNESCO world heritage site - Nazca Lines

Love it.

Send your people to carry out a stunt without any actual thought of where they are going, or any environmental factors. Damage a 2000 year old national and cultural treasure.

Say sorry by flying your director out there (with considerable carbon footprint).

Wonder why people think it's not all ok, because you said "sorry".

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/10/peru-press-charges-greenpeace-nazca-lines-stunt

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

somemightsay888

Greenpeace here trying desperately to cling onto some relevance.

Reply 2

jaffacake111

Brilliant - I got offered a job doing calls for them (no not cold calling, I do have some morals) but refused on principle.

Reply 3

Drewski

Read this story yesterday and couldn't help but laugh.

Clueless bunch of amateur environmental terrorists. That old ship they run is more polluting than any oil rig, for starters.

Reply 4

Chlorophile

Original post by Clip

The only reason why you're taking the slightest amount of notice to this is because it suits your political agenda. It was a stupid move and Greenpeace have apologised for it. And complaining about Greenpeace using aeroplanes really is a stupid argument. They're a campaigning organisation, if they can't network then they would be completely ineffective. Greenpeace is campaigning for a new system but as long as the old system exists, you haven't got a choice but to work with it.

You don't care about this UNESCO World Heritage Site, please stop pretending that you do. You've just capitalised on this because it suits you. If it were a logging corporation that had done this I very much doubt that you'd pay an iota of attention to it.

Reply 5

Clip

Original post by Chlorophile

100%.

Nothing to do with politics, though. I just can't stand deluded, tree-hugging idiots.

I notice that you also think it's all ok, just because Greenpeace said "Sorry".

Reply 6

Drewski

Original post by Chlorophile

If it were a logging corporation that had done this I very much doubt that you'd pay an iota of attention to it.

I'd be more confused about what a logging corporation was doing in the middle of an arid desert with no semblance of plant life for hundreds of miles.

Reply 7

Unruly Marmite

Greenpeace really do seem to have fallen a long way since their heyday. Of course, it could be that nobody pays any attention anymore because they didn't know when to shut up, which is a pity because they used to have a point- and still do, I suppose.

Reply 8

Chlorophile

Original post by Clip

100%.

Nothing to do with politics, though. I just can't stand deluded, tree-hugging idiots.

I notice that you also think it's all ok, just because Greenpeace said "Sorry".

They are desperate. If you've got an impending global disaster, nobody seems to care and armchair petitioning doesn't work, you've got to go further. I don't agree with a lot of the things that Greenpeace does but they're certainly outstanding at giving issues attention. Greenpeace is doing what a lot of people secretly want to be doing - screaming and shouting about a serious problem that is being ignored.

Original post by Drewski

I'd be more confused about what a logging corporation was doing in the middle of an arid desert with no semblance of plant live for hundreds of miles.

Not a brilliant example, point still stands.

Reply 9

Clip

Original post by Chlorophile

Terrorism, basically. You subscribe to their cause, so you think it's ok and justified.

I don't believe there is an impending apocalypse. That's why I have no truck with these kind of people. Just like I don't believe that God authorises people to go around killing.

You believe in all this green stuff, so you're an apologist. No different from any other apologist for extremism.

Not a brilliant example, point still stands.

It's absolutely relevant. You make up nonsense, and then try to defend it.

Reply 10

Chlorophile

Original post by Clip

What they did was stupid (not terrorism by any stretch of the imagination, but stupid). Most of Greenpeace's actions do not go too far. There is not an impending apocalypse but there is going to be an absolutely massive problem. It's completely irrelevant whether or not you believe in it because it's a matter of science, not a matter of belief. You not believing in it doesn't change the fact that it probably will happen and I trust scientists (and my own research) a lot more than you (and your lack of it).

If you've got a problem and you get ignored, there's only so long you can stay silent. Any sane person would eventually start screaming. I'd love to, but that wouldn't do my objectivity any favours.

I'm not believing anything, I'm basing my views of the world on the available evidence. If you did more of the latter and less of the former, we'd all be a lot better off.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 11

derasmus appeal

Original post by Chlorophile

Giving issues attention. Corporate stooages laughing their asses of, this is a field day for them, environmentalists embarrass themselves again. You might as well try to coup the bloody government.

Reply 12

Chlorophile

Original post by derasmus appeal

Giving issues attention. Corporate stooages laughing their asses of, this is a field day for them, environmentalists embarrass themselves again. You might as well try to coup the bloody government.

As I said, Greenpeace don't usually screw up. They're arguably the most visible charity on the planet, that's an achievement.

Reply 13

derasmus appeal

Original post by Chlorophile

As I said, Greenpeace don't usually screw up. They're arguably the most visible charity on the planet, that's an achievement.

Don't usually screw up? This isn't a screw up, this is a catastrophe.

Reply 14

Chlorophile

Original post by derasmus appeal

Don't usually screw up? This isn't a screw up, this is a catastrophe.

It's a screw up. The only reason why people are making a big deal about this is because it makes a good headline. They left footprints on the ground - that's not good, but they've hardly seriously defiled the site.

Reply 15

derasmus appeal

Original post by Chlorophile

The Press don't care, the People won't care, Peru certainly doesn't care, this is very bad news for them.

Reply 16

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by Clip

Terrorism, basically. You subscribe to their cause, so you think it's ok and justified.

It isn't terrorism. It is vandalism.

Reply 17

Clip

Original post by Chlorophile

As I said, Greenpeace don't usually screw up. They're arguably the most visible charity on the planet, that's an achievement.

They screw up all the time. They supported a group that destroyed GM crops in the Philipines (crops that were being engineered to cure blindness in children) and they covered a town in New Zealand with leaflets and posters the day after a community clean up. Their people get arrested all the time for basically doing illegal things.

Original post by Chlorophile

Is this a joke? That's what Greenpeace obviously thought - entirely ignorant of the environment there. Ironic much? Nothing happens up there on Nazca. If you leave footprints there - they will basically stay there for hundreds of years. No-one is allowed to go up there without special equipment. What bit of that don't you get?

Reply 18

Clip

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

It isn't terrorism. It is vandalism.

Doing whatever you want because of your ideology is bascially terrorism.

Reply 19

ThatPerson

From what I've read, it's the Peruvian government who are claiming the Nazca lines are damaged - the protesters say they took precautions to avoid it. Either way, I think this detracts from the real issue: climate change. If action isn't taken to respond to climate change, then preserving the Nazca lines for "future generations" is a pointless exercise. Lastly, Global Warming and Climate change are real; if you disagree, then provide a valid scientific argument with evidence.