Lucy Lawless and Greenpeace take action against Arctic oil drilling

Lucy Lawless, the ‘warrior princess’ and Greenpeace activists have boarded a drilling rig in Taranaki to stop it sailing to the Arctic to commence an exploratory oil drilling programme.

It’s great to see Greenpeace taking a stand against oil drilling in one of the world’s most remote and beautiful places, the arctic and highlighting this important international issue.

Oil companies have pushed the frontier of oil drilling too far and are now risking our coast with proposals of deep sea oil drilling in New Zealand waters. Drilling in the Arctic demonstrates we are at the end of cheap oil and have to go to the ends of the world to get at the last few drops. It’s the same in Aotearoa, where drillers are investigating drilling the Great South Basin, between the ‘roaring forties and furious fifties’ and the seismically active Raukumara Basin, to get that last fix of oil despite the cost, hostile environment and significant risks. Both could see exploratory wells drilled in excess of 1000m down, which could lead to deep, deep trouble.

If there is a leak from a deep sea oil rig there is no easy way to stop it especially in remote, hostile environments like the Arctic or Great South Basin. The consequence for New Zealand’s environment, economy and reputation would be catastrophic.

However we can create a smart green economy by moving away from mining and drilling, and towards renewable energy. If we were to secure just 1 percent of the global renewable energy market in the next 5 years, we’d create a $5.8 billion new industry here with 60,000 more green jobs. The smart money is on renewables and green innovation not risky drilling in remote and beautiful places.

What do you think?


39 Comments Posted

  1. I think I’ve figured why burglary not tresspass.

    The common understanding is that if you are somewhere you shouldn’t be then you have “trespassed”. It seems (on a quick reading of the Tresspass Act 1980) that this isn’t quite the case; you are only criminally trespassing after you’ve been told to leave (or a small number of other circumstances), and there are some reasons why even having been told to leave one can stay.

    Trespass is also a minor crime, with absolute worst case penalties of 3 months clink, and $1,000 fine. Almost not worth prosecuting for.

    Finally, trespass talks about a “place” or “a place or land”. There will probably be case law that refines what such a place is, but it’s possible that it hasn’t been tested in this exact context before, and the defense could play that card.

    Burglary, from the Crimes Act, on the other hand, has decent penaltiess, 10 years clink, and specifically talks about ships.

    All the Crime Act requires (231.1.a) is “…enters any building or ship, or part of a building or ship, without authority and with intent to commit a crime in the building or ship”

    So just being there (hat tip Peter Sellers) triggers the first part, there need be no reliance on being told to leave.

    The only question is the second part, “with intent to commit a crime”. Be interesting to see what that “crime” is.

    I also note that the media have figured out that if Lawless gets convicted then thats her entry to the USA done, which could have a deleterious effect on her career, as I suggested three days ago. I called her ballsy back then. Perhaps naive might be a better term. Given that lawless is a NZ hero she could have used her position to organise and mobilise, rather than getting engaged in a stunt.

  2. In this case, given the charge of burglary that has been laid (not a tolerance for protest, but intolerance signalled in the prosecution), one wonders at the motivation for this.

    The offence is trespass, and there is no known intent to damage property or to commit any theft – so unless the logic is that occupation of corporate property is theft of their time to use the commercial asset, what is the point?

    Is it a government directive to deter protest against planned mining ventures, by signalling the higher level of charge that will be laid against protestors?

  3. …you do not think it possible that drilling/offshore drilling in some areas might be illegal (say Antarctica), and if it was, that this might extend to drilling to other offshore areas, areas designated “special area reserves” where no drilling was allowed?

    It’s possible, sure, it would be difficult due to the international dimension of the issue (“just who ‘owns’ Antarctica and thus has jurisdiction over it?”), but yes, its possible. Probably even desirable.

    However, even if drilling were to become illegal, that would have no bearing whatsoever on the crimes comitted by activists on the way to such a state of affairs.

    To (slightly misue) your example, the repealing of the old laws against prostitution paved the way for working girls to get their records cleared of offenses relating to prostitution. It did not enable them (or their pimps) to have other offenses (such as assault) deleted, despite the fact that for pimps, the occasional assault was an essential part of the business of prostitution.

  4. dbuckley, you do not think it possible that drilling/offshore drilling in some areas might be illegal (say Antarctica), and if it was, that this might extend to drilling to other offshore areas, areas designated “special area reserves” where no drilling was allowed?

    What is seen as a “criminal action” against the legitimate rights of others to use their property for offshore drilling, might change if the drilling was no longer allowed. After all the point of the global “protest” is to seek a change in the law and then have lawful prevention of the said drilling.

    A bit like protest over Mururoa tests, before the French agreed to stop testing.

  5. To BJ – I actually agree with a lot of your post at 8:13am, and fully support that it is your decision and your decision alone in choosing what courses of action you take throughout your life.

    However, you do not get to decide when it is “OK” to break the law, only when to break the law. It is not your decision if it is OK or not, that decision will be taken by others, and you may be held accountable by others, whether you respect them (and their motivations) or not.

  6. To SPC (and sorry about the delay)

    And I did so because you ignored it […after the Prostitution Law Reform of 2003 people with priors had their records cleared.] in your earlier reply.

    I ignored this because it is irrelevant. The reason it is irrelevant is that this is a circumstance in which a change in the law (specifically, a repeal of then existing law) provided a basis on which existing convictions under that law could be deleted.

    Such a thing is not automatic; in a recent British case, Alan Turning was denied pardon for being a homosexual, considered the crime of “gross indecency” according to the Labouchere Amendment of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885.

    Thus the issue you raise of the prostitution Reform Act is irrelevant not because I say so, it is irrelevant because it is irrelevant. For it to be relevant there would need to be some sort of similarity with the current Greenpeace thing, such as a pending or possible change (a repeal) in the relevant law.

    For the authorities to choose not to prosecute a lawbreaker is not a similar circumstance. That is not a change (more specifically, a repeal) in the law.

    You then go on to state:

    Or that actions that would lead to prosecution are ignored when protest action is involved. Because right to protest is being balanced against prosecuting illegal action.

    Which entirely supports the argment I’m making. The action, as you note, remains illegal, but the authorities have chosen not to prosecute, so there is no question of a conviction of some sort. This is an entirely different set of circumstances. And one not unique to protest, the Police will choose not to prosecute when such a prosecution is not supported by “the public interest”.

    So it’s manifestly wrong for investigative reporters or activists to trespass on private property to research a story about abuse of animals in cages – or pollution of a waterway etc …really?

    What the law says is that it’s wrong to do certain things. It’s wrong for a person not authorised to be on the property of another, except under certain specified circumstances. It is wrong to damage another’s property. It is wrong to take another’s property. There are very few shades of grey in there.

    So the same law that stops me walking into your house through the front window, slashing your sofa and walking off with your telly protects owners of lands and buildings in which there are animals and cages.

    So there is no doubt that such actions are against the law. As you suggest above, the authorities may or may not choose to prosecute under the law. That doesn’t affect the legality or otherwise of what was done.

    Of course, in New Zealand we’re quite soft about such things. If you were to raid the animal sheds of an establishment in Texas, then thanks to the happy intersection of the Second Ammendment and the Castle Law, then any citizen with a right to be in the establishment can quite lawfully kill you. And some do, if you find this a stretch google for Joe Horn.

  7. SPC says “I don’t think there is such a thing as new energy companies with decades of experience, a proven record or a customer base.”

    What about the companies who built large scale wind farms in California 30 years ago – so long ago that the wind farms have finished their useful life and are now derelict eyesores (and solar was being built 100 years ago)

    Or Johnson Controls (one of the companies my New Energy Fund) who have been specialising in energy efficient products and services since 1885 – over 125 years ago, when they designed the first electric room thermostat. The turn over $40b per year and employ 160,000 people.

    Even 100 years ago, they were already global. This is the sort of company we have to compete with, when they have all the advantages, location, market, experience, design patents, staff expertise, long term r&d programmes, critical mass, customers – and we have not a single thing on that critical list.

    We may be able to produce the occasional niche product. But it’s a pipe dream by Gareth to think we can take billions of dollars of the green energy market away from these companies.

  8. I don’t think there is such a thing as new energy companies with decades of experience, a proven record or a customer base.

    An existing company (American) is complaining how a Chinese one is set to dominate their local market and cites subsidy by the Chinese government. So much so that it claims that American government subsidy of the take up of the technology is now resulting in Americans buying the Chinese “solar panel” product (rather than their own).

    Your valid point is about mass producing here for offshore markets, you however neglect to note that niche (small sacle) production does occur here, where we have tech lead and a low scale production run is involved. Why not government investment in public research and then some venture capital to private interests (Fast Forward for this new energy sector) for product development – any nation that fails to modernise its economy with the world economy, gets left behind as a backwater. Specialisation for local use (such as in agriculture) that builds a base for export development is an obvious place to start (specialised sectors naturally involve a small market share that overseas competitors may neglect).

    To put the issue in context see

    Stiglitz sees the western conomic problem not so much as the GFC (merely a symptom) as caused by manufacturing sector job loss (akin to the Great Depression caused by agricultural sector job loss) and says the only way out is the sort of investment programme that occured after WW2.…iglitz-depression-201201

    As to investment.

    Homer-Dixon marshals evidence that all great empires rise and fall by controlling the dominant energy supply of their age.

    The Romans used roads and aqueducts to harness solar energy (in the form of food) from around the Mediterranean basin, and used that surplus to fund the most complex society of its time.

    The Dutch empire rose on its superior ability to master wind technologies — the windmill and the ship — to extend its land holdings, run early manufacturing industries, and extend its trading reach around the globe.

    The British empire rose on coal-powered steam engines, which gave it more productive industries, railroads, electrical generators, and faster ships.

    The US eclipsed the Brits due to its vast wealth in oil — a far more concentrated and fungible fuel — and inventions from cars and planes to plastics and fertilizers that allowed it to make the most of its advantages.

    And the Chinese are now making huge investments in renewable energy and safer, more efficient second-generation nuclear power, which they can use to fuel their ascent to global primacy.

    Thomas Homer-Dixon, a Canadian economist who wrote The Upside of Down.…here_we%27re_headed_now/

  9. Gareth says “If we were to secure just 1 percent of the global renewable energy market in the next 5 years, we’d create a $5.8 billion new industry here with 60,000 more green jobs.”

    Why do you think will succeed at green energy for the world (1% is 20 times the world average for our population) when the worlds leading new energy companies struggle to make money, despite many advantages over us –
    – decades more experince than us.
    – are not at the far end of the world from their market
    – have a proven record
    – and a customer base.

    Just becuse you pick a small number like 1% out of the air, doesn’t mean we have a chance in hell of capturing that much market, any more than someone saying we should capture 1% of world
    – car manufacturing
    – appliance manufacturing
    – computer manufacturing
    – ship building

    And just like the above, the rest of the world is trying to do the same thing.

    You repeatedly say we should secure 1% of the world market.

    But that’s completely meaningless without a plan that overcomes all the disadvantages that make us pretty much the worst country in the world to set up manufacturing to supply the worlds markets (read northern henisphere).

    As for your claim that smart money is on Green Energy – yeah right. Anybody who has invested in NZ Green Energy companies will have lost most of their investments. I’ve got shares in a fund of the worlds leading new energy companies, and it’s one of the worst investments I’ve made.

  10. bjchip:

    It’s funny how the Social Credit party was called the “funny money” party. They actually stood for the opposite. We have funny money today, in that credit can be inflated at any point. An ideal monetary system is stable. Economics should have nothing to do with the wildcard of unstable credit volumes, in principle at least!

    And an ideal economy would translate to this: An individuals’ reward will be proportional to their real social productivity. In other words, Traders would be poor and good innovators, scientists and intelligent venture capitalists etc, would be among the richest of us. Alas it doesn’t work that way – yet.

    Post industrial society: No such thing, I agree. It will be just ever more automated, which in itself is a great thing as it makes sustainability and quality-of-life measures more accessible.

    However, I believe we could see some level of de-industrialisation coming from the fact that we might progressively develop our living systems so that we just don’t need to keep producing so much, for a high-quality living standard to be achieved.
    I thought about the engineering of this some time ago – if I may spam my thoughts:

  11. I am sure that there will people here who won’t quite get this, but Andrew has a point. Maybe not the one he intended, but still 🙂

    Unless we control our currency and our borders, industry has the ability to arbitrage wages, environmental regulations, safety, CO2 emissions and every other damned thing globally. My solution to this works through the monetary system (using the word with several meanings). I know there are no few who don’t understand, even now, but the excuses put forth for debt based money do not make it work.

    Basing money on “work done” and requiring equivalent “work done” to enter the country when money does, or to be available to back its creation, is imperative if sanity is to return to economics. This would unquestionably make importing things heaps more expensive than it is now… and making goods here a lot more attractive, even with the size of our market.

    I would say of our economy at present, that nobody on this planet is paying the full price for anything they are consuming. It is ALL subsidized by future generations in some form or other. NZ comes closer because it has more renewable energy, but we don’t have much actual industry for all that.

    … and the post-industrial economy is IMHO a myth.

    The ability to provide energy sustainably is the basis for the money supply and thus the REAL wealth of the country. “Wealth” is “Control of work”. It isn’t a stack of gold, a bank account with more zeros than mine or a pile of Apple stock. Those substitutes are good, but not the core of the definition.

    If NZ institutes “expensive” energy domestically (relative to other places) AND forces the full price of the imports be paid, we will have fewer “things”, but built here by people who are paid here and who work under regulations and conditions we control… and we will not be borrowing from the future to obtain them.

    Globalization is a bad idea. TPP is a HORRIBLE idea. With debt based money travelling at the speed of light, it is impossible to understand just how bad these ideas are. Changing to another monetary concept yields insight into what is wrong with economics and the global economy today. FIXING it is a large task, but thinkable.

    Fixing the global economy? UN-thinkably large job.

  12. Real demand for renewable energy will function like real demand for any other product. Investing in renewables will not generate jobs any more than any other industry, for where there is real demand. So should New Zealand be doing renewables in a global economy, or China or elsewhere? That’s a question for the market.

    If we want to be Green for the sake of being Green, then you attack the problem from the consumer end – not the producer end. The producer end just leads to the outsourcing of your dirty work to other “dirty” nations. If New Zealand institutes expensive energy domestically then industry will move to China (even more so than today), and in turn we will re-import our products made from dirty coal plants back here.

  13. BJ goes for him being Judge Dredd, being in sole charge of when its OK to break the law.

    Don’t think you quite understood.

    The individual is ALWAYS in sole charge of the decision of when it is OK to break the law.

    This is something New Zealanders, and Australians, seldom seem to “get”. I suspect it is a British thing, but do not have the anthropological background.

    What I decide is moral or ethical to do or not do, is a completely separate decision from what is “legal” to do or not do. What I FINALLY do is invariably UP TO ME and also depends on what I can risk doing.

    True of EVERY rational human being.

    At best the law is a reliable guideline, but it is not infallible and is far less reliable once wealth has started tinkering with it.

    Drilling in the Antarctic and in the deep ocean off our shores, is a serious threat to this country. It is a serious threat to the food chain as well, which means lives DO depend on it. Immediacy comes into play because once the ship has sailed it CANNOT be stopped without intervention by someone’s Navy.

    The notion that the Antarctic and Deep Ocean are exploitable and “owned by them” is the fantasy of the wholly owned, corrupt as hell, bastards who are currently running this country into the ground.

    Since they MAKE the laws, there is no legal recourse, and as Thoreau, in jail once asked, “Why are you out there”. Then the issue was slavery which was legal… and ownership of other humans, also legal.

    The moral principle does not contain a requirement of immediate threat to your individual life. It is invoked when inaction causes harm to others… and only moderated when action is ineffective.

    There are not representatives of future generations in Parliament… the Greens come closest to that at present but even this party does not wholly recognize the source of some of its principles. The requirement of sustainability springs from that source. No “ownership” based philosophy can encompass it.

  14. And I did so because you ignored it in your earlier reply. And even now you do not note the paradox of your declaring on the subject, as if you were arbiter of what is relevant or irrelevant?

    It is not irrelevant to note that when law changes, those convicted in the past sometimes have their sentences taken off the record. For law is very much of time and place, and refusal to recognise bad law is part of protest. And society moves on and recognises that when the law is changed.

    Or that actions that would lead to prosecution are ignored when protest action is involved. Because right to protest is being balanced against prosecuting illegal action.

    So it’s manifestly wrong for investigative reporters or activists to trespass on private property to research a story about abuse of animals in cages – or pollution of a waterway etc …really?

  15. SPC goes for the same irrelevant example a second time.

    BJ goes for him being Judge Dredd, being in sole charge of when its OK to break the law.

    I’ll nail my colours to the mast here; the only times when it is OK to break the law is under extreme circumstances and (not or) when the law itself is manifestly wrong.

    Neither of these circumstances apply in this situation. The situation is not extreme. Extreme means something like “necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat”. Neither is the law manifestly wrong; if I climb into your house then you would feel a law had been broken. The law making it unlawful to be on private property against the wishes of the property’s owner is not “manifestly wrong”.

    If someone who owns a gun shop for example shoots someone trying to rob it, then in that case the first test is satisfied (taking action to address a serious and imminent threat, waiting around could have been fatal) and the law is itself manifestly wrong in that you can be arrested and tried for defending your life and/or property.

    If you apply the logic to pretty much any scenario it is soon pretty clear when right is right and wrong is wrong.

    Finally, the row between Greenpeace and Shell is not “peace activist versus corporation” situation, Greenpeace is is a corporation, so this is a “corporation versus corporation” spat, so it’s a bit rich piling on the anti-corporate rhetoric.

    If at the end of this Lawless gets arrested and actually appears in front of a beak, that could be the end of her ability to enter the USA which is the centre of the movie world, so this is actually a ballsy stand on her part.

  16. Go Lucy and the rest of the crew who have taken this brave action to draw international attention to Shell’s plans to drill for oil in the artic.

    It is ridiculous to suggest that anyone who ever uses any petroleum based products shouldn’t comment on the fossil fuel industry. There seem to be people out there who can’t get their head around the idea that we can not continue to burn fossil fuels at the current rate. Greenhouse gas emissions are continuing to rise at a time when the science tells us we should be reducing them (and I’m not going to respond to anyone ignorant enough to try and bring climate change denial into this thread)

    We must rapidly turn to alternative fuels AND reduce current energy wastage. It is wrong to drill deep off-shore oil wells here or in the Arctic, Lucy and the others are right to draw attention to it. I am very proud of them.

  17. The problem dbuckley is that we don’t make a differentiation between a corporation or a country. If the behaviour violates the ethical boundaries we require, then whatever objection can be made, should be made.

    You are, for all intents and purposes, making the rape of the environment, as long as it is “within the law” of a country, unobjectionable, never mind that the law of most countries INCLUDING THIS ONE, is usually obtained as much by consideration of what is best for those selling it, as what is best for the country.

    We don’t recognize that distinction. Bad remains bad whether it is government or corporate or individual’s “bad”. In MOST cases what the corporates do is “legal” in some jurisdiction. They conduct international arbitrage for the least restrictive labor laws, limits, environmental regulations, taxes and bribes required. They have more power than most governments already… and you are arguing that the laws they have a major part in creating, legitimize whatever they do.

    Yet that charade cannot obscure the immorality or properly amorality of the corporation or the immorality of the theft from future generations.

  18. The issue of government and challenge to it, and the issue of government policy and challenge to it are similar.

    In some countries organising and promoting protest against government policy is itself illegal. Of course protest can impact on government policy – such as opposition to mining, if not opposition to asset sales.

    As to an internal example, as to the impact of related activism to change law, after the Prostitution Law Reform of 2003 people with priors had their records cleared. It was never ethical that sex workers were liable for a criminal conviction for doing what their clients could legally do (probably on the basis that it would interfere in the keeping of a mistress, or keeping a secretary on after hours, or prevent a man from buying a trophy wife). Ethically it was either neither or both.

    However public attention and political attention is gained, whether the protest is within the law or not, once the law is changed this fact is recognised in how past activities are seen.

    So much so that protest itself is protected to the extent that actions can be seen as lawful, when otherwise they would not.

  19. SPC, you’ve given a load of irrelevant examples.

    The individuals concerned in Toad’s examples (Mandela, Ghandi) and in yours (Tianamen) were in the process of trying to overthrow a government, ie the argument was with directly the government, and thus the lines between the sides get blurred and subject to “interpretation”, depending on variables including whose side one is on, and when the opinion is formed.

    Greenpeace and the lovely Lucy Lawless are behaving contrary to the law (and the next bit is the important bit) in a jurisdiction where there is no suggestion that the incumbent government power is behaving criminally, and where the incumbent government is not party to the dispute. Lucy and Greenpeace are not trying to overthrow the government.

    Furthermore, the New Zealand government are not rounding up and interning their citizens, running them over with tanks etc.

    Thus there is a very big difference in the situations, there is no comparison, analogue, or metaphor.

    The question you ask “Can repressive regimes be criminal and resistance legitimate?” is not part of this issue. But it is an interesting question, perhaps for another day.

  20. Long term view huh, how does extending WFF ‘in-work’ tax credit to beneficiaries send the right long term signals? That is a short-term fix it by your lot, is it not?

    Pointless having dialogue with an old-timer know it all.

    Ive never voted National, and did vote Greens once, but you did not care to ask.

    Keep smoking your greens, you are the only sad one dude.

    [frog: Relevance? Or have you mistakenly posted on the wrong thread?]

  21. Awesome to see someone doing something about it! I’d rather see celebrities in this sort of thing than advanced hair studio commercials.

  22. Gee K1W1, you apparently don’t read all that well either. I don’t ezpect you are one of the 1%, actually communicating with the classes they control or confronting those who oppose them, is not how they operate. You are one of the “fellow travellers”, an unwitting front man for the people who exploit you and the planet both.

    Which IS sad.

    What people who currently control all the money DO with money is not even usually what SHOULD be done at this point.

    Consider what that money actually is. I KNOW what it is, and using it as a measure of WHO should decide what to do with the remaining resources of this planet, given the manner of its accumulation, is surely insane.

    Moreover, the invisible hand is a hand. It isn’t an eye or a brain or even an ear. It reacts to the IMMEDIATE freezing cold sensation quite accurately but has no means of anticipating catastrophic failure. Using our eyes, ears and brains allows us to make decisions that in the SHORT term the market cannot accept… but which make sense in a longer view.

    National’s ideology will quite happily burn the house down for warmth.

    Greens take a longer view.

    Have a nice day.

  23. SPC asks, “Why the conflation, don’t some people have any better argument?”

    It’s an excellent question. Doesn’t stop the conflator though. Doesn’t prompt them to present a better argument. That’s the Way of the Photon and the K1W1.

  24. “Who is sterotyping(sic)”, asks K1W1

    “People that buy into the 1% stuff are fruitloops.” adds K1W1


  25. bj, Assuming I am in this so called 1% because I may have different views to you shows your ignorance, that is sad. Who is sterotyping – am amd responding to what I have read from the Green party.

    People that buy into the 1% stuff are fruitloops, and the so called 99% only speak for their 1%.

    Part of the current price of fuel goes towards profits, some of which gets reinvested in development, including exploration. Private enterprises cannot grow money on trees like the Green appears to.

  26. Green, if you buy fuel, you indirectly support investment in new exploration.

    No… it means I pay the current price for what is on the market.

    Support for finding new resource is NOT the same as paying the current price. Only someone who mistakes the market for the ONLY way to manage the world and reckons the current markets to be honest could make that mistake.

    The financial requirement to buy that diesel was built into our fleet by the people who bought it the fleet. They, of a certainty, have bunkered supplies of fuel to replenish it, and successive governments have not paid attention to the longer term need to guarantee supply or replace that resource with a renewable.

    Gas Turbines and Diesels are both capable of being run on Bio-Fuels with not a great deal of work.

    WE already know we need to work up the production of that fuel or something similar to handle requirements of the Navy, Fire-Departments, Ambulances and other things that HAVE to run on portable, energy dense fuels. That is a long-term goal, but it is a requirement WE understand K1W1, so you can’t even start to take the piss. You’d have to understand us correctly first and all you understand are the stereotypes.

    We WILL pay more for petrol as time passes, because the resource is in decline. We WILL pay more for Diesel as well.

    That will make us find ways to reduce demand and substitute renewables, far more effectively than drilling for more and paying the price in unstoppable blowouts in the seabed and unusable shoreline.

    The only question is whether we do it now, and do it ourselves, or lay off an even greater burden for our kids. Effectively stealing from them.

    Stealing from the kids is of course the number one strategy of the 1% and their fellow-travellers… I imagine you’d be one of them. Key is of course. The National Party is a wholly owned subsidiary.

    Trying to drill/explore ever more difficult and risky locations without paying the price of the risk however, is a complete non-starter. It is also a favored tactic of the wealthy, lay the risk off on anyone else but make sure to get that reward. If the worst happens, all those sorry b*stard Kiwis are fucked, so sorry, but we got ours.


    That doesn’t work for us. It SHOULDN’T work for you either. So Lucy is doing what she can to get some justice between generations, and you are foaming at the mouth with your eagerness to rubbish the need to do it.

    Moreover, digging it up so we can burn it is just adding to the CO2 burden we are passing on to the next generations. We already have reached levels last seen in the Pliocene, some 3 MILLION years ago. That entails a near certainty of 4+ degrees of warming, and 30 meters of sea level increase. We haven’t even slowed down. Nice legacy we’re leaving the kids.


    Maybe you need to examine your mirror more closely. There is someone your kids won’t really like much (once they understand what you are doing to them) looking back at you.

    Have a nice day.

  27. dbuckley, who were/are the criminals in 1776, Tianamen Square 1989, Tibet 1949-2012, Libya 2011, Syria 2012?

    Can repressive regimes be criminal and resistance legitimate?

    The UN can condemn national regimes – if so, does this change the “facts” on whether resistance is criminal or ethical?

    To cite an internal example, after the Prostitution Law Reform of 2003 people with priors had their records cleared. It was never ethical that sex workers were liable for a criminal conviction for doing what their clients could legally do (probably on the basis that it would interfere in the keeping of a mistress, or keeping a secretary on after hours, or prevent a man from buying a trophy wife). Ethically it was either neither or both.

  28. Why the “pretend” confusion between opposing offshore drilling in some places (imagine for example spending a lot of money on monorail to Milford Sound and also allowing someone to the opportunity to create an oil pollution spill there), and Antartica as a particular example of where not to drill, with opposing the use of oil as a fuel?

    Why the conflation, don’t some people have any better argument.

    The Green position is to reduce use of fuel in energy production (moving to renewables) so that there is less dependence on it and to restrain demand to the transportation sector (while we develop alternatives here as well, dual fuel/power cars, bio-fuel for airlines and helicopters).

  29. Toad – you’re part of the problem, not the solution.

    Criminals can’t (and cannot be allowed to) win – which is exactly what the rest of your post illustrates.

  30. Green, if you buy fuel, you indirectly support investment in new exploration. No different to palm kernal, or cotton soft toilet paper – if you believe Greenpeaces campaigns on those fronts.

    The footage on Stuff today of their protest said it was footage supplied by Greenpeace – it as from a helicopter, I bet it was not powered by electricty that came from a dam!!

    Without the driling the Greens would be saying petrol is too costly and not fair for all these people in poverty, lets push the minimum wage up to $30 an hour to cover it.

    Takes the piss to be anti-drilling/fossil fuels, but want to send a fleet many miles chasing whalers who have a legal quota to catch whales.

    Then when someone boards their boat, and gets taking back to Japan for prosecution, G and his lot want the tax payer to bail them out of trouble.


  31. “G, you want to stop oil drilling but at the same time send a navy fleet down south to police the whalers vs protesters. You cant send your fleet with nuclear power or oil dude.”

    You don’t make sense, K1W1. “G” could send a fossil-fuel-powered fleet down south to police whalers vs protesters. There is oil available for purchase presently -“G” would not have to drill it out of the sea bed offshore of New Zealand before setting out for Antarctic waters. I’m surprised your comment was supported by 4 ‘tickers’ – perhaps they too think wobbly.

  32. @dbuckley 3:57 PM

    There is a difference between something being ethical and it being legal. I would argue that historical figures from the last century such as Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela acted completely ethically, even though some of their actions were illegal under the laws of the oppressive regimes they were supporting their people against.

    On the other hand, military officers under regimes like those of Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Pol Pot acted totally legally in carrying out orders for summary executions or genocidal campaigns. Indeed, they would have acted illegally if they had refused to comply with those orders. But I cannot accept that they acted ethically.

    For people who believe the very existence of our planet is under threat, or at least the existence of a significant number of species, including us, from the extremes of environmental exploitation, illegal actions to challenge those acts will be ethical.

    Genuine civil disobedience, even if crosses the boundaries of the law, is in my opinion ethical.

  33. Pretty much everything Greenpeace does is illegal.

    They cannot be considered part of an ethical environmental movement.

  34. G, you want to stop oil drilling but at the same time send a navy fleet down south to police the whalers vs protesters. You cant send your fleet with nuclear power or oil dude.

    If the $5.8B green industry was a high probability that would be awesome, it really would, it would compare to our meat industry – but you guys in the past have had no integrity with your economic numbers so hard to believe.

  35. Are you condoning illegal activities now, Gareth?

    Because is saying “It’s great to see Greenpeace taking a stand” with said stand being illegal act, it certainly sounds like it!

Comments are closed.