Slashdot Mirror

You must have entirely missed that banner hang on the coal plant on the east coast, eh?

Sorry to say I don't think your facts are straight. Could be some hot heads only claiming they were Greenpeace. Could be they didn't even say they were with Greenpeace, and your friend just assumed it. Heck, could even be that the whole thing is made up. But if it did happen, then I hope the pepper sprayers were charged. And yeah, logging is all good and fine - so long as it's done right. Too often it's not. Globally the forests are disapearing, and it looks like Greenpeace USA (the real Greenpeace USA) thinks there is some room for improvement in Oregon. I like wiping with something plush and comfy as much as the next man, but there's no reason not to look for the recycled paper symbol when you're shopping.

Yes terrorists.

I met Greenpeace folks in Portland that were proud to 'know' people who disabled brakes on logging trucks to scare/injure/kill the drivers.

I met Greenpeace folks who told me what they do is not breaking the law because, "We're right and the government is wrong, so the law shouldn't apply to us."

Greenpeace, on their site, has a story about "peaceful protestors" who are being denied (according to Greenpeace) the right to protest peacefully because they are being charged with trumped up charges. Never mind that they broke in to an energy plant (coal), climed a smokestack, and affixed a banner to it. Seems to me they broke several laws there . . . oh, my bad -- laws don't apply to them.

I hope the pub from this WiFi helps others to go to their website (as I did upon reading it) so they can see how Greenpeace really is. Some may agree, some may reach my conclusion -- that they are terrorists . . . But that's the beauty of the web . . . and a little thing called free speech.

Apparently, some sources, such as Greenpeace disputes this:

"The 1991 cholera epidemic in Peru did not arise because the disinfection of water supplies with chlorine was discontinued. Chlorine disinfection of the public water supplies of the affected areas in Peru had been non-existent, intermittent and/or insufficient long before the cholera outbreak." ...

"In Lima, a city with a population of seven million and a water supply built to serve 230,000, chlorination of the water was intermittent at best. After the epidemic, officials claimed their failure to chlorinate was the result of a report they had received from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that linked chlorination to a small risk of cancer. This was later described as "a face-saving excuse to cover up their laxity - while the city of Lima seems to have had the resources to chlorinate its water, the bureaucrats in charge chose not to make the effort." "

Link to Greenpeace article on Peru Cholera crisis:
http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/media/publications/to xics/international/cholerachlorine.pdf

>The captured solar energy of a 150 mile by 150 mile square area of Nevada desert would provide the United States with all its energy needs: consumer, residential, transportation, commercial and industrial; oil, gas, coal, electric, etc. combined. Yes. It's a fact.

Interesting theory. Theory, though. Certainly not a fact, considering it doesn't even make mention of the most obvious problem:

What do we do at night?

But then again, I never expect someone who hasn't even taken a business course to notice a simple MISSING FACT like that.

>But we _are_ running out of oil. And we're running out of it much faster [google.com] than anybody cares to inform [peakoil.net] you.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Did you ever take a business course, ever? Even once? Hell, have you even filled out a tax return?

In conclusion, if markets are allowed to function freely the supply of oil will never run out. Changes in consumer patterns and the emergence of new technology driven by increases in the price of oil will prevent this from happening. While predicting doomsday scenarios may be a good way to get people to know your name, they are a very poor predictor of what is likely to happen in the future. -- Mike Moffatt, PhD

But we _are_ running out of oil. And we're running out of it much faster than anybody cares to inform you.

You are thicker than tar pitch, aren't you?

Nobody cares to inform you because you are deluded and your doomsday fantasies are only shared between a select few clinically insane individuals.

How much did you spend on heat this winter? On hot water? On AC last summer? On $2/gal gas for your Camry and SUV? It's time we had Open Source Energy, don't you think?

We will if you keep your hands out of the economy. It's working perfectly fine and if you keep trying to screw with it, you may just succeed at breaking it. At that point you *WILL* have your doomsday scenario, and if you think running out of oil or coughing in smog sucks, imagine the depression, but 10 times worse. Rent Mad Max someday to get a feel for what life without a stable economy would be like.

Now ask yourself, why? How's that? What the heck is going on?

Oil is heavy (duh!). Greenpeace makes it costly to transport. Nobody wants to handle it (grose, smelly, dangerous stuff). So they don't without adequate compensation. Which makes it cost effective to buy it from Canada. That along with the good relations that comes with trading with neighbours and the mutual benefits NAFTA provides mean the US is an intelligent country that knows a good deal when it sees it.

That WHAAAAAMBULANCE sure struck a deep pothole, didn't it?

For every four barrels of oil we burn, we're only finding one new one.

So you admit we're daily finding new oil?

You're shooting holes in your own argument!

Again, for every four barrels of oil we burn, we find only one new one.

Then you repeat that fact. Yeesh, why did I even bother to write this?

And again, for each new barrel of oil discovered, we're burning four from the old fields.

For crying out loud. Am I the only one reading this? That we are finding new oil even now?

Do you know how many of these we could have built for the over $100 billion spent on securing middle east oil?

??? Can you give even the slightest shred of evidence of that? Any? At all? Even an iota? Even a nudge in the right direction?

First law of business: Make the consumer believe the product is scarce, then package and sell it in a format that can be controlled (ie. barrels of oil can be controlled, solar roofs can't

How hard would it be to install a nuclear reactor on an oil rig in international waters and start splitting seawater?

Pretty damn hard if these guys stay active.

Nuclear is a terrible idea!

Well, that's good if true. But that's not enough. Let's see what Greenpeace says:

The survivors have never received adequate compensation for their debilitating illnesses and even 18 years after the disaster, the polluted site of the abandoned factory, bleeds poisons daily into the groundwater of local residents.

In the criminal proceedings in courts in India, preceding the settlement, UC and members of its senior staff (including Chairman Warren Anderson) refused to appear in court or obey court orders. Warren Anderson and UC were notified as absconders by the court.

This settlement was made without any consultation with the survivors. The survivors petitioned the court against the settlement. The court ruled that the settlement did not remove criminal liability from UC, UCIL and senior staff mentioned in the initial criminal case.

These figures should be compared to $108 million that Monsanto Company was ordered to pay the family of a single chemical worker who died due to benzene exposure or the $2.5 billion offered by Johns Manville Corporation for about 60,000 claimants of injury caused by exposure to asbestos. (5)

As per the current settlement, the average claimant (the gas affected who put in a claim for compensation) receive approximately $300-$500, which in most cases does not pay for medical bills.

...

# Myth. An independent investigation claimed that a disgruntled employee caused the incident.

Reality. Even though UC has had an opportunity in court to provide information on this sabotage theory, originally presented by Arthur D. Little (ADL), and thus resolve the case, it has failed to do so. However, the corporation still promotes this argument. When this theory was proposed in an international seminar, there was widespread condemnation by experts. A safety specialist with the World Bank noted that he "was shocked when [he] heard that ADL people were promoting the "sabotage" theory for Bhopal at the Institution of Chemical Engineers conference in London." (12)

I don't know much about Bhopal so I thought it best to quote directly, but I couldn't let such one-sided bullshit stand unchallenged.

Are you by any chance an astroturfer working for Dow? Maybe you're not, but I wouldn't be terribly surprised if some of the pro-Dow arguments here came from astroturfers.

(If ad homenim arguments can be used against Greenpeace, I don't see why I shouldn't use ad homenim arguments right back!)

Why you'd better try harder!

Greenpeace has set up an easy-to-use form that you can use to contact your Sentators and Representatives. Of course, it is appearantly too late to worry about your Senators. Perhaps a letter reprimanding them for their vote is in order.

God save us from a totalitarian State.

I sincerely suggest that you research what the WTO has stood for in its past actions.It serves the interests of huge multinational corporations above and beyond anything else.There are many examples of how the WTO is the weapon utilized to force unsustainable and detrimental policies upon sovereign nations in the name of "free trade"From 1988 until August of this year, Europe banned the import US beef because it contains growth-enhancing hormones.The WTO declared the ban illegal since it was detrimental to free trade.Regardless of whether or not you feel that injesting animal hormones is safe can you honestly say that it this is fair?Is it really the responsibility of the WTO to decide that it knows what is best for the health of the European people?I definitely do not think so. It is because of decisions like this that the WTO is "getting in the neck" and rightfully so.

I agree that a denial of service attack against the WTO may not be the most productive form of protest possible, but I am confused by your statements in the third paragraph.It seems to me that you are stating that the WTO is somehow unlike allowing "the most powerful nations, such as the US and power blocks such as the EU, to carve up the global economy behind closed doors."In truth, the WTO is much worse.Since the WTO is the puppet of short sighted and self minded multinational corporations that are generally aloof from the citizens of the world, the only say that we have is through protest. What kind of freedom is that?To suggest that the only alternative to the WTO is a Cold War is misinformed.The WTO is operating behind closed doors, and it is the goal of the protesters to try and inform everyone of this and to ensure that the WTO does not increase its already disturbing amount of influence over our lives.

Here are some links that should help arm and inform:

• Greenpeace USA
• ZNet
• WTOWatch.org