Greenpeace

[Edric O]

its okay. edric will grow out of his teenager idealism.lol too many teens are like that.

And I advise you to outgrow your pathetic arrogance and pull yourself out of the pit of pessimism you're crawling in right now.

At least I add things to the conversation. You just complain that others talk too much. ::)

Can you actually make an intelligent argument for once, instead of an ad-hominem attack?

[nampigai]

I don't really like Greenpeace, I'm sure their intentions are good, and don't get me wrong I love the nature and I agree with them that it is our fault that the world is what is today and that we need to do something soon.

However I do believe many of their members are fanatical and don't really know what they are talking about, their methods doesn't work they only make them look stupid. That's my opinion on most nature preserval groups.

In Denmark we have people against hunting, but they don't think of what will happen if such a legislation is made. We have no predators big enough to take animals such as deers so there will be an overpopulation of them and they will die of diseases, conteminating pets and stock animals. Also I as a hunter pay a sum of money each year for nature preservation and the 'syndicate' I'm in feeds the animals during hard times makes pounds(sp?) for the ducks and shrub and forrests for pheasants, deers etc.

Sorry I couldn't help going alittle Off Topic.

[emprworm]

"However I do believe many of their members are fanatical and don't really know what they are talking about, their methods doesn't work they only make them look stupid. That's my opinion on most nature preserval groups."

they are fanatical and extremists. they have taken love for nature too far. anyone can take something they love and take it so extreme that it becomes harmful.

[Anathema]

They are a bit overzealous, but why is everybody trying to make them look like some terrorist organisation? ::)

I prefer WWF (world wide foundation) because they are more peaceful and more realistic.

[zamboe]

WWF has actually a good reputation and I certanly share their approach.

But Greenpeace, the USE the nature as a TOOL to manipulate and cover their real interest, which is avoid private investment in natural resources in under developed countries, they really don't care about nature ( I mean the leader guys of Greenpeace ) their interest are quite different. They use the cosmetics of nature protection just to spread it's communist propaganda.

[Edric O]

But Greenpeace, the USE the nature as a TOOL to manipulate and cover their real interest, which is avoid private investment in natural resources in under developed countries, they really don't care about nature ( I mean the leader guys of Greenpeace ) their interest are quite different. They use the cosmetics of nature protection just to spread it's communist propaganda.

And I suppose you have...

PROOF?

If not, please refrain from posting such ridiculous statements.

[SurlyPIG]

I have as little respect for Greenpeace as I do for Al Qaeda. THey're both fanatical terrorist organizations that will murder anyone in their path to accomplish their goals. The World Wildlife Foundation is a reputable pacifist organization that protects the needs of the environment. It'd a day and night difference to Greenpeace. I mean, they might as well call themselve's Greenwar.

And Zamboe is absolutely right about how they selectively target underdeveloped countries. Every time someone tears down a woodland around where I live, nobody makes a big deal. I've never seen Greenpeace protest building a road through a Canadian plain. Countries in South America can't even build a freaking highway without terrorists brewing up propaganda, attacking their projects and generally breathing down their necks.

Humans are CONSUMERS. Everyone has to eat. There's an extent I think is absolutely wasteful but most of Greenpeace is full of hypocrits. So is this thread. Here you are eating good food, using electricity, even a computer with internet bitching about how other people are selfish and are destroying the environment. Probably driving a car too. Greenpeace can't seem to reckognize that not everyone wants to be a pot-smoking, unshaven, unwashed, backpack-hoarding naturalist. They're too extreme, both in their ideology and their methods.

[zamboe]

And I suppose you have...

PROOF?

If not, please refrain from posting such ridiculous statements.

This is not a matter to present proof, because you already made up your mind. Please stay on topic.

World demands as much minerals as companies can possible get.

World demands as much wood as companies can possible get.

Wordl demands as much vegetables and meat as companies can possible get.

Therefore is those resources (which are renewable) are going to be get from some place, then I want it to be done where I live, so this place can take advantage from it, it's our right to use what is ours, we don't want some gringo policy of conservation, when they've achieved already a level of development by destroying the enviroment in other places.

If you are consistent with your Greenpeace membership, then act racionally and stop being hypocrit, next time you feel dirsty don't buy a can (because you will increase the demand on minerals) don't buy any product made of wood (cause you will increase the demand of it), walk instead of taking a bus or drive because you will increase the demand of petroleum and so on.

If you really want to accept Greenpeace statments and not being an hypocrit person, then move some other planet or get used to accept how we live in earth.

Something else to add, I remember I read the resume of some of the leaders of Greenpeace, guess what ?, they had a xtreme socialist/comunist past and also some of them participated in some small religious group that advocate the nature as more important than the human being.

[emprworm]

"Greenpeace can't seem to reckognize that not everyone wants to be a pot-smoking, unshaven, unwashed, backpack-hoarding naturalist. "

ROFL. Ace is funny!!! haha I loved that line. :D

[zamboe]

"Greenpeace can't seem to reckognize that not everyone wants to be a pot-smoking, unshaven, unwashed, backpack-hoarding naturalist. "

That's pretty much the description of those rastas (rastafaris) you know, those reggae guys that live mostly in Jamaica, of course total fans of Greenpeace.

[Edric O]

This is not a matter to present proof, because you already made up your mind.

You made inflamatory statements against Greenpeace without any kind of proof whatsoever. Therefore, they are worthless.

World demands as much minerals as companies can possible get.

World demands as much wood as companies can possible get.

Wordl demands as much vegetables and meat as companies can possible get.

Exactly. And that needs to stop. The Earth's environment can no longer sustain our insane destructive economy. We need to change our ways, or we will die. And the worst part is that we'll take the rest of the world with us. If our stupidity was hurting only ourselves, I'd have no problem with it. But it's killing the rest of the world as well.

Something else to add, I remember I read the resume of some of the leaders of Greenpeace, guess what ?, they had a xtreme socialist/comunist past

You have a problem with communists? Please STOP using "communist" as some sort of derogatory term. I feel highly insulted.

And Zamboe is absolutely right about how they selectively target underdeveloped countries.

No, they selectively target countries with extremely valuable ecosystems, such as tropical rainforests. Most of them are underdeveloped, but that's only an unfortunate coincidence.

[nampigai]

[quote author=zamboe link=board=2;threadid=8285;start=30#msg127987

Therefore is those resources (which are renewable) are going to be get from some place, then I want it to be done where I live, so this place can take advantage from it, it's our right to use what is ours, we don't want some gringo policy of conservation, when they've achieved already a level of development by destroying the enviroment in other places.

If you are consistent with your Greenpeace membership, then act racionally and stop being hypocrit, next time you feel dirsty don't buy a can (because you will increase the demand on minerals) don't buy any product made of wood (cause you will increase the demand of it), walk instead of taking a bus or drive because you will increase the demand of petroleum and so on.

If you really want to accept Greenpeace statments and not being an hypocrit person, then move some other planet or get used to accept how we live in earth.

You seem to miss out something Zamboe the rainforest is very hard to 'renew'. And as for accept the way we live why should we? We have the technology to use hydrogene engines instead of the old gasoline engines. I heard a good saying once, we didn't inherit the earth from our parents, we borrowed it from our children, well with your attitude Zamboe it wont take longe before we can't return it to them.

[Caid Ivik]

NaMpIgAi, oil reserves aren't for more than 50 years. With same growth of consumtion as today we have only 20 years. Then your time of hydrogen cells will come. But now it's still ineffective and to dear to become usual. If we'll lost some forests it won't do much. Most photosynthesis is done by alges. Also there are giant untouched forests on Siberia and in Canada.

[Anathema]

Caid, I didn't know that. I've read several times that the rainforests provide over 40 % of our oxygen- I'll look this up.

And hydrogen fuel cells would work for cars, but it is no source of energy, because the hydrogen needs to be extracted from water molecules. You'd still need a way to generate power to do this.

[SurlyPIG]

You have a problem with communists? Please STOP using "communist" as some sort of derogatory term. I feel highly insulted.

Edric, you are a socialist, not a communist. The word "Communist" refers to a member of the bolshevik (Russian word for majority) party that overthrew tsarism in 1917. The Bolshevik party later renamed themselves the Communist party.

No, they selectively target countries with extremely valuable ecosystems, such as tropical rainforests. Most of them are underdeveloped, but that's only an unfortunate coincidence.

HAH. Their "value" is highly unscientific. It seems there is little, if not any scientific knowledge actually possessed by Greenpeace at ANY level. For instance, they utilized misinformation and paranoia over global warming as a justification for protesting rainforest development. Sure, they produce more oxygen than many other ecosystems, but did you know that permafrosted northern boreal forest like in Canada and Russia trap 9 times more carbonites? It's an essential part of the carbon cycle, and it only occurrs in forests that are far enough North.

You seem to miss out something Zamboe the rainforest is very hard to 'renew'. And as for accept the way we live why should we? We have the technology to use hydrogene engines instead of the old gasoline engines. I heard a good saying once, we didn't inherit the earth from our parents, we borrowed it from our children, well with your attitude Zamboe it wont take longe before we can't return it to them.

OOH! OOH! A cute little catch phrase! Too bad Greenpeace needs things like that to make up for their sheer lack of intelligence. You can't even spell hydrogen, but just to be fair, I'll ask you; where, exactly, are we supposed to get this hydrogen from, hmm? And the rainforests are completely sustainable if they are managed properly.

NaMpIgAi, oil reserves aren't for more than 50 years. With same growth of consumtion as today we have only 20 years.

Sorry, but that's crap. Maybe if we completely stop drilling we'll run out within the century, but there's umpteen times more undiscovered. In the 1920s, people thought that there was only 15 years of oil left...

Earthnuker, it makes no sense to make an energy efficient fuel in hydrogen by using electrolosis derived from burning oil or coal. That's makes no sense! You might as well buy an electric car. What we need to develop is an efficient way of passively splitting molecules of water. Scientist in Japan have developed a highly reactive metalloid that does this when placed in water and espoxed to certain types of radiant energy. Namely, sunlight. All energy we use is traceable back to the sun. This is what we should develop.

[Edric O]

First of all, Ace, I don't judge an ecosystem's value by how much oxygen it produces. They are LIVING BEINGS, not oxygen factories.

Rainforests are home to a huge number of animal and plant species. A large part of all land creatures live in the rainforest! That is why it is so valuable.

Hydrogen, of course, can only be used for energy storage, not as a source of energy (because there is no naturally occuring free hydrogen on Earth). But that doesn't make oil any less polluting. We still need to find an alternative energy source. Nuclear fusion has my vote.

[Anathema]

That kinda was my point, but we're far away from developing solar plants that can accomodate our current energy needs. Here in the Netherlands it's pretty clouded here most of the year, so we'd never be able to generate enough solar power for ourselves.

The magical trick they supposedly performed in Japan sounds a bit far fetched, and even if it can be done it wouldn't be productive enough. Our best hope lies in fusion power, if we ever develop it.

Oh yeah, it's true that the rainforests can be preserved by selective lumbering and by replanting chopped trees for the most part, but why would lumbering companies want to do anything that cuts into their profits?

[zamboe]

You made inflamatory statements against Greenpeace without any kind of proof whatsoever. Therefore, they are worthless.

Another unbased post from you.

This is not a court or a trial for me to present proof. I just stand my opinion based on the facts I mentioned before. I could post a bunch of links that say exactly the same as I do, also you can post a bunch of links that say the contrary, but that wont make you change your opinion, neither change mine.

What matters are the conclussion each of us can make, obviously you see the world and intrepret it based on your communist principles, therefore you accept what Greenpeace does.

The Earth's environment can no longer sustain our insane destructive economy. We need to change our ways, or we will die. And the worst part is that we'll take the rest of the world with us. If our stupidity was hurting only ourselves, I'd have no problem with it. But it's killing the rest of the world as well.

Don't say "We", only because you and a others want to change that IN YOUR WAY.

I think stupitity is trying to demonize the sustainable development all nations have right to. Sutpidity is not use a resource you have.

Tell me edrico what do you do on a regular basis to prevent the destruction, besides posting here ?

Tell me edrico do you consume products made with wood, mineral, oil ?

Let me put it this way, in the south of South America we are blessed by good with such an extraordinary land that only takes 7 years to get a pine tree to grow to it's full size, in Canada an Alaska it takes about 15 years, for the same tree. Therefore we have and advantage to sell (export) this to NorthAmerica, I agree that more native forest must be cut in order to put pine trees, cut it after 7 years, and put it again and so on, because the world demands wood and people in this lands can improve their income by doing so, sustainble development.

[zamboe]

[quote

You seem to miss out something Zamboe the rainforest is very hard to 'renew'. And as for accept the way we live why should we? We have the technology to use hydrogene engines instead of the old gasoline engines. I heard a good saying once, we didn't inherit the earth from our parents, we borrowed it from our children, well with your attitude Zamboe it wont take longe before we can't return it to them.

Well when it comes to rational facts, using paralel terms like "hard" is not a good approach in my view. If you mean "some years" with hard, then you should have said, takes long time, in that case it also depends because what you consider long.

There are several kinds of trees and forest that are more efficient in terms of oxigen production and time took to grow. In fact forest are being renewed by the same companies that produce woods, the future of it's business depends on that, in fact they always look for way to renew it faster at it's own cost.

Don't understand bad what I am saying, please. I am saying that we must use the resources we have in a sustainable way, NOT using them will only give to the children the same poor and underdeveloped countries that are present now, I share the view that is better to cut and sell as many trees as necesary to build a school or a hospital.

[Edric O]

This is not a court or a trial for me to present proof. I just stand my opinion based on the facts I mentioned before. I could post a bunch of links that say exactly the same as I do, also you can post a bunch of links that say the contrary, but that wont make you change your opinion, neither change mine.

So it's just a completely subjective and unproven opinion. I'm glad we agree.

Tell me edrico what do you do on a regular basis to prevent the destruction, besides posting here?

Whatever I can do as a person - recycling, not buying products made by companies who damage the environment, using as many bio-degradable products as possible, etc.

Tell me edrico do you consume products made with wood, mineral, oil?

Wood? Very rarely, if you don't count paper, which I need to use for school, etc. That is not my choice.

I fail to see how the other two relate to the issue at hand.

I agree that more native forest must be cut in order to put pine trees, cut it after 7 years, and put it again and so on, because the world demands wood and people in this lands can improve their income by doing so, sustainble development.

In other words, you sell out the good of the Earth for money. You are a greedy, insatiable capitalist who worships money and money alone. You would destroy anything and everything for the sake of your own personal benefit and wealth. You want MONEY, and do not wish to have the environment stand in your way.

Oh, and by the way, you should know that I am from Romania. My country is no more developed than yours. Yet I don't wish to sacrifice the good of the Earth for material gain, like you do.

You disgust me.

[zamboe]

So it's just a completely subjective and unproven opinion. I'm glad we agree.

As ALL opinions in all subjects, I am glad I helped you to realize that. Better late than never.

Whatever I can do as a person - recycling, not buying products made by companies who damage the environment, using as many bio-degradable products as possible, etc.

I do exactly the same, in fact I can add more things, I buy low consumption electrical devices, I don't use regular batteries and so on. But at the same time I want all the countries to use all the natural resources they have to full capacity.

Wood? Very rarely, if you don't count paper, which I need to use for school, etc. That is not my choice.

I fail to see how the other two relate to the issue at hand.

Because those others are non renewable natural resources that come from earth, I fail to see that you fail to see such an obvious fact.

In other words, you sell out the good of the Earth for money. You are a greedy, insatiable capitalist who worships money and money alone. You would destroy anything and everything for the sake of your own personal benefit and wealth. You want MONEY, and do not wish to have the environment stand in your way.

Oh, and by the way, you should know that I am from Romania. My country is no more developed than yours. Yet I don't wish to sacrifice the good of the Earth for material gain, like you do.

You disgust me.

You mentioned Brazil, right, I am not from Brazil, but I will present you a case.

Those really poor people that live in the Amazonas river area (near the city of Manaus), have nothing but it's beatufil lands, they don't have hospital (like you do) they don't have schools (like the one you go to) they don't have computers, they don't have basic items to live, and you are telling them NOT to USE the most valueable resource they have and sell it, it's is right to use it and do whatever they want with it. But for you it's ok that they stay poor and their children died of several tropical diseases. That's exactly the kind of hypocrit policy of Greenpeace.

You disgust them, you disgust the poor people by being against their right to develop by using their resources.

[Edric O]

As ALL opinions in all subjects, I am glad I helped you to realize that. Better late than never.

There is such a thing as an opinion backed by evidence, you know... ::)

Because those others are non renewable natural resources that come from earth, I fail to see that you fail to see such an obvious fact.

So what if they are? That doesn't make them automatically bad for the environment. How is iron bad for the environment again?

Those really poor people that live in the Amazonas river area (near the city of Manaus), have nothing but it's beatufil lands, they don't have hospital (like you do) they don't have schools (like the one you go to) they don't have computers, they don't have basic items to live, and you are telling them NOT to USE the most valueable resource they have and sell it, it's is right to use it and do whatever they want with it. But for you it's ok that they stay poor and their children died of several tropical diseases. That's exactly the kind of hypocrit policy of Greenpeace.

Fighting for the rights of the poor and for social equality is one of the ideals of communism. I'm glad you agree with it.

However, the Earth also has rights. I completely agree that the poor should be allowed to USE those resources, but not ABUSE them. And fortunetaly, they very rarely abuse them. What happens more often is that greedy CORPORATIONS come in and start massive-scale wood-cutting to make huge amounts of money for their corrupt rich overlords. That is what I vehemently oppose!

[Edric O]

And forests are not mere resources. They are living ecosystems and should be treated with respect.

[emprworm]

that is because to Greenpeace,a few shrubs are worth more than those children. when you tell someone "children have no hospital" you expect them to feel sorry and sympathize, but when you say this to Greenpeace, they feel no sympathy- they feel nothing but contempt so long as a tree's life is endnager. There are too many humans on this planet, killing off those kids will probably be beneficial in the long run. That is the kind of attitude they have. So telling Greenpeace "children have no hospital" is like telling an exterminator "the cockroaches have no holes to hide in"

[Edric O]

And when you tell Emprworm "children in Iraq have no hospital", it's like telling him "terrorists have no hospital".

You are a huge hypocrite, Emprworm. You defend the poor when it suits you, and abandon them when they are no longer useful to further your capitalist cause.