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.