Greenpeace

timhowardlaw

Greenpeace Billboard in Peru

Peru hosted a summit meeting on climate change in early December, 2014 under the auspices of the United Nations.  Greenpeace made its point:  “Time For Change!  The Future is Renewable.  Greenpeace.”  For a billboard Greenpeace chose big and obvious:  huge yellow letters easily visible from the air positioned near Nazca, Peru – near the site of a geoglyph portion of the Nazca Lines.  The Nazca Lines were made between 500 B.C. and 500 A.D. by removing a layer of overburden to reveal lighter colored stratum below.  The Greenpeace letters were placed next to a glyph of a hummingbird.

Greenpeace achieved its intention.  Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, saw the message.  But the message delivered with the lettering was rather different:  disrespect for an archaeological site and perhaps irreparable damage from the letters and from the footprints of the activists on fragile terrain.  Professional archaeologists and the Peruvian Ministry of Culture voiced their fury.

A portion of the Nazca Lines, including the hummingbird, lie within an area declared a World Heritage Site.  The Greenpeace action created a real controversy.  But Greenpeace intends its actions to create controversy.  What difference if the actions affect a site internationally known and scientifically important or infringe my private property – or yours?  The number of people damaged or affected?

Greenpeace achieved notoriety but not the objective of focusing attention on climate change.  Perhaps a misfire of tactics, or perhaps a case of offending the scientific and intellectual community instead of the for-profit.

timhowardlaw

Piracy or Greenpeace?

The 30 person crew of the Greenpeace vessel Arctic Sunrise was taken ashore in Murmansk, Russia on Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2013 for questioning in connection with the attempted scaling on Sept. 18 of a Russian oil platform owned by OAO Gazprom in the Barents Sea.  The activists were protesting oil drilling in the Arctic, specifically in a new area that Russia was opening for development.  Russia was neither amused nor tolerant; the Investigative Committee, a Russian federal law enforcement body, will probe the incident but has already vowed to bring all those involved to justice.  The potential charge is piracy and the penalty is up to 15 years in a Russian prison.  The crew includes an American, four Russians and six Britons as far as now known.  The Investigative Committee specifically stated that punishment will be levied “regardless of their citizenship.”  The Kremlin’s human rights ombudsman characterized the option sought by the Investigative Committee as “gentle”, called the activists’ goals “noble” but accused them of endangering their lives and the health of others, presumably those on the drilling rig.  The spokesman for the Investigative Committee said that the Dutch-flagged Greenpeace vessel was “full of electronic devices of unknown origin and people calling themselves participants in an ecological rights group”, who tried to “all but storm” the platform.  He concluded that these actions raised doubts about their intentions.

Greenpeace rejected the characterization, called the activists peaceful and took the position that the charges had no basis in international law.  Some of the statement by the Investigative Committee took issue with the legal points, international as well as Russian federal law.

The oil platform?  Drilling now and expected to begin production later this year (2013).  The partners in the oil platform may include oil companies from various countries.  No statement from the governments of those countries or from the oil companies.  Greenpeace demanded the immediate release of the crew (no mention of the vessel) but made no further indication of plans to contest the matter.

Piracy action or Greenpeace activism?  Surprisingly muted response from Greenpeace and no statement at all from ecologically-minded countries, the UN or any NGO about what could be a stunning precedent.