Greenpeace’s Taitu confronts oil exploration ship

27 comments on “Greenpeace’s Taitu confronts oil exploration ship ”

• Comments are now closed

1. saveNZ 1

   11 April 2017 at 12:08 pm

   Good on you Green Peace!
2. left_forward 2

   11 April 2017 at 2:54 pm

   I tautoko the mihi to Russell Norman, Greenpeace and the Taitu crew.
3. Sacha 3

   11 April 2017 at 4:01 pm

   Charges have been laid against Mr Norman by MBIE under the Anadarko clause the govt added: https://twitter.com/GreenpeaceNZ/status/851635776387301376
   • saveNZ 3.1

     11 April 2017 at 4:46 pm

     Fuck this government x1000!

     Go Russel Norman speaking up for democracy!

     Go Andrew Little for speaking up for democracy in court against fuckers !

     Natz want to prosecute freedom of speech and protest – what a great use of police and justice resources, NOT!

     I guess the government want the police to give up on keeping the public safe and instead keep the offshore business monetary interest safe with our tax payer funded police resources.
     • saveNZ 3.1.1

       11 April 2017 at 9:41 pm

       Apparently the Natz have got their own police for charging for this ‘crime’, “The Ministry of Oil” (the petroleum division of MBIE) – the Government’s ministry responsible for supporting, subsidising and propping up the oil industry here in New Zealand, using public money.

       Who else wants to throw up!
4. mosa 4

   11 April 2017 at 5:09 pm

   Russell Norman and the crew of Taitu you have my total support and respect.

   Thank you for your guts and courage in this campaign.
   • Tautoko Mangō Mata 4.1

     11 April 2017 at 5:38 pm

     +100
5. red-blooded 5

   11 April 2017 at 6:19 pm

   Kia kaha, Russell!
6. timeforacupoftea 6

   11 April 2017 at 7:09 pm

   Idiot Norman joining the terrorists of the seas.
   Bloody pirates, he will never grow up.
   • Drowsy M. Kram 6.1

     11 April 2017 at 8:46 pm

     Russell Norman is not an idiot.
     Russell Norman is not joining terrorists of the seas.
     Russell Norman is not a pirate (bloody or otherwise.)
     Russell Norman is a grown-up.

     Your comments are childish falsehoods. Take your head out of the sand (or wherever it is) and make mature behaviour your goal.
   • lloyd 6.2

     11 April 2017 at 11:46 pm

     If they find oil and extract it your grandchildren wont have any tea because climate change will have wiped out the tea plantations.
     Timetostopoil
7. Cinny 7

   12 April 2017 at 7:39 am

   Rock on Dr Norman you are a legend.
8. saveNZ 8

   12 April 2017 at 9:20 am

   There is data to suggest that seismic blasting is harmful to marine life.

   A Deaf Whale is a Dead Whale: Seismic Airgun Testing for Oil and Gas Threatens Marine Life and Coastal Economies

   http://oceana.org/publications/reports/deaf-whale-dead-whale-seismic-airgun-testing-oil-and-gas-threatens-marine-life

   There also seems to be correlations to oil company extraction processes and human induced earthquakes.

   http://www.ibtimes.com/does-fracking-cause-earthquakes-oklahoma-energy-group-says-federal-stance-linking-1823868
9. PantWearingFool 9

   12 April 2017 at 10:18 am

   What was Norman using to power that boat? Moonbeams?

   Will you use oil today? How about tomorrow?

   Protest is fine. Disrupting others going about their legal business is not. Nor is a failure to consider what being without oil really means and the misery it would cause.

   I hope he faces the full force of the law and the people on this thread look at their own oil use before cheering
   • KJT 9.1

     12 April 2017 at 12:04 pm

     Fool. Very aptly named!
   • AB 9.2

     12 April 2017 at 12:05 pm

     So because individuals are locked into a particular system of energy use – because they have no readily-available alternatives that would make life tolerable – they are therefore forbidden from criticising that system?
     That is unbelievably authoritarian – just breath-taking.
     • One Anonymous Bloke 9.2.1

       12 April 2017 at 4:00 pm

       Harvard historian Naomi Oreskes told The Nation why the “but we all use fossil fuels argument” is flawed in an April interview.

       “Of course we do, and people in the North wore clothes made of cotton picked by slaves. But that did not make them hypocrites when they joined the abolition movement. It just meant that they were also part of the slave economy, and they knew it. That is why they acted to change the system, not just their clothes.”

       Put in these terms, it’s obvious who is on the right side of history.

       Next question: how many lawyers does it take to screw a fool’s pants on?
10. PantWearingFool 10

    12 April 2017 at 3:25 pm

    What is he trying to say, exactly?

    We shouldn’t explore for oil anywhere?
    In which case, the poverty and suffering as a direct result will be widespread
    We shouldn’t explore for oil here, but it okay elsewhere?
    In which case, that undermines his global warming message.

    It would be wonderful to replace oil with some sci-fi crystal power source, but we don’t have that option.

    He can criticise as much as he likes, but he appears to offer no solution.

    He also didn’t choose a sailboat, I see. Why? Because petrol powered is just better. And he knows it.
    • weka 10.1

      12 April 2017 at 4:06 pm

      He, and Greenpeace, and many many others including almost all climate scientists, are saying that we can’t afford to burn the FF we know about if we want to have a chance of limiting climate change to something manageable. So yes, in that sense, I’d say all new exploration everywhere has to stop now, esp that which carries high risk like deep sea oil drilling.

      “In which case, the poverty and suffering as a direct result will be widespread”

      I don’t see how. It’s not like we are giving up the things that create wellbeing for people (good housing, good food, community, meaning). However we do know that sea level rise and extreme weather events will cause untold misery and deaths.

      “It would be wonderful to replace oil with some sci-fi crystal power source, but we don’t have that option.”

      No, but we do have renewables and we can powerdown. Both of those are eminently more desirable than what will happen if we keep on with BAU.

      “He can criticise as much as he likes, but he appears to offer no solution.”

      He was part of the Green Party for decades, and that included focussing on solutions. Greenpeace actively support ff alternatives.

      “He also didn’t choose a sailboat, I see. Why? Because petrol powered is just better. And he knows it.”

      Diesel actually, and they’re intending to use biodiesel. The Taitu is about is direct action *now, because the situation is so urgent (they didn’t have time to fundraise the extra to retrofit a boat). But GP internationally have just commissioned the building of a boat that doesn’t use fossil fuels.

      http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/about/ships/the-rainbow-warrior/

      Perhaps you can tell us what you are doing to mitigate CC, or just be honest and say you don’t believe in it.
    • One Anonymous Bloke 10.2

      12 April 2017 at 4:08 pm

      He can criticise as much as he likes, but he appears to offer no solution.

      Meanwhile, on Earth, Greenpeace has been publishing its Energy Revolution scenarios since 2005, and you were too dull and lazy to even discover that for yourself before running your mouth.

      If you are having trouble finding further information from Greenpeace, I suggest you acquaint yourself with a thing called “Google”.
11. PantWearingFool 11

    12 April 2017 at 5:09 pm

    Weka,

    >>He, and Greenpeace, and many many others including almost all climate scientists, are saying that we can’t afford to burn the FF we know about if we want to have a chance of limiting climate change to something manageable. So yes, in that sense, I’d say all new exploration everywhere has to stop now

    Will you be going to electorate with that policy? Of course, you’ll have to stop using it, because it’s the use that is driving the exploration.

    What you suggest is implausible. The world will not stop using or drilling for oil UNTIL there is a replacement. So, he and you are suggesting something that will not happen.

    >>I don’t see how.

    You don’t see how taking away that much cheap energy will lead to mass starvation and death?

    >>However we do know that sea level rise and extreme weather events will cause untold misery and deaths.

    You can’t stop the climate changing. It always changes, no matter if you drill for oil or not.

    >>No, but we do have renewables and we can powerdown.

    Not even close. But by all means go and run your life on renewables right now. Nothing stopping you, apart from the fact you’ll be sitting in the cold and dark a lot.

    “He can criticise as much as he likes, but he appears to offer no solution.”

    >>He was part of the Green Party for decades, and that included focussing on solutions. Greenpeace actively support ff alternatives.

    They have no solution to that level of energy replacement at that price point that easy to store. It does not exist, else we would have done it.

    >> *now, because the situation is so urgent (they didn’t have time to fundraise the extra to retrofit a boat).

    Empty grandstanding typical or protestors. I’ll listen to them when they start practicing what they preach. They didn’t have time? Well, isn’t that convenient that fossil fuel enabled them to do what they had to do at that price point.

    >>Perhaps you can tell us what you are doing to mitigate CC, or just be honest and say you don’t believe in it.

    Climate always changes. Perhaps you’d like to name a period where climate didn’t change?

    >>Meanwhile, on Earth, Greenpeace has been publishing its Energy Revolution scenarios since 2005, and you were too dull and lazy

    I’ve heard Greenpeace’s enviro-nonsense. Don’t tell me anyone is so dull as to believe what they preach will be adopted? Yeah, lets all stop driving and flying and shipping ’cause Gweenpeace says so.

    Won’t happen.

    You cannot replace oil energy anytime soon and not collapse world economies.

    No, it’s not a case of “world economies will collapse anyway due to AGW”. We’ll adapt to climate change and stopping oil use now does not stop the climate changing.
    • Andre 11.1

      12 April 2017 at 5:33 pm

      Have a bit of a rummage around on https://cleantechnica.com/ for a bit of a feel on how fast some clean/renewable technologies are coming along.

      That progress is being made in the face of serious opposition and undermining from fossil fuel interests and tepid government support at best. Imagine how much faster that progress could be if governments really got serious about getting off fossil fuels. It would be a hell of a job creator and economic boost.
    • solkta 11.2

      13 April 2017 at 9:00 am

      “You can’t stop the climate changing. It always changes, no matter if you drill for oil or not.”

      How do you know that the climate is always changing?

      I’ll save some time and answer for you: ‘because scientists say so’. To which i would answer: ‘So you are prepared to believe scientists and their science when they say that the climate changes, but not their explanation as to what the current driver of change is?’

      But of course if you were actually listening to scientists you would know that they believe that the climate has actually been very stable for a long time and that the rate of current change is unprecedented.
    • Robert Guyton 11.3

      13 April 2017 at 10:08 am

      “I believe that pant to stand for the entire garment must have come into its own with the introduction of pantsuits for women in the 1960s and 1970s.”
12. PantWearingFool 12

    13 April 2017 at 9:55 am

    “How do you know that the climate is always changing?

    I’ll save some time and answer for you”

    Patronising, much. You don’t need to answer for me. Answer for yourself.

    The science says that even if we stopped today the earth would keep warming for centuries.

    https://princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S38/51/51I69/index.xml?section=topstories

    So don’t tell me what I think. Do you accept the science?

    So, even if we stopped all oil use today, you still have a problem. Of course, stopping oil use today is not a solution it’s just grandstanding. People aren’t going to stop using oil. A constructive approach would be to work on replacements.
    • Robert Guyton 12.1

      13 April 2017 at 10:14 am

      There’s more than enough oil already found, already being extracted, already stored, to wreck the place. Searching for more is sick beyond belief. Russel Norman is entirely correct in his quest to make this point obvious to all, even the fools amongst us.
13. PantWearingFool 13

    13 April 2017 at 10:34 am

    >>There’s more than enough oil already found, already being extracted, already stored, to wreck the place

    Ho ho. Were you a Peak Oilist, Robert? I’m guessing you and most here were. I bet the Peak Oilists are feeling right fools, eh. Well, if they were intellectually honest. Yet they quoted all the science and called people like me Peak Oil deniers.

    Yet I was right. They were wrong.

    Robert, many people don’t believe in your AGW scare stories. They will keep on exploring for oil and using oil UNTIL we have a replacement.

    People arguing that “oh, I use oil because there is no alternative, but I really, really don’t want to” are being ridiculous. EVERYONE can make that argument. Even the most ardent climate change denier can make that argument.

    Is the irony of using a diesel power boat lost on you? “Oh, the alternatives would have been expensive and take time”. Yes, that’s the argument for oil use, as used by oil users.

    So, stopping oil use is not an option. It won’t happen and even Greenpeace demonstrate why it won’t happen, even if the irony is lost on many here.

    They should practice what they preach.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS