Fracking in Sussex? Fracking Firm Test Drilling in Balcombe

[jakarta]

Have had very little time for Greenpeace since their Brent Spar 'Oops we got it wrong' nonsense almost 20 years ago.

 

[The Merry Prankster]

Greenpeace are on the side of Greenpeace. Oxfam are on the side of Oxfam. The ultimate aim of any charity or pressure group should be to success itself out of existence yet there's not one that's ever managed it.

Of the top of my head -

Society for the effective abolition of the slave trade.
Women's social and political union.
National Campaign for the Abolition of Capital Punishment

 

[Guinness Boy]

Of the top of my head -

Society for the effective abolition of the slave trade.
Women's social and political union.
National Campaign for the Abolition of Capital Punishment

Off the top of your head? Yeah, right. Now google ones that have done it in the last 50 years.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Fancy earning 47K - 62K Euros a year doing something with a very corporate job description? Apply here. for a role with Greenpeace

Your point being?

 

[Guinness Boy]

Your point being?

Really, really obvious.

That an organisation that can pay top dollar to someone to basically do a bit of organizing is far more interested in saving itself than saving the planet.

 

[BadFish]

Greenpeace are on the side of Greenpeace. Oxfam are on the side of Oxfam. The ultimate aim of any charity or pressure group should be to success itself out of existence yet there's not one that's ever managed it.

Fancy earning 47K - 62K Euros a year doing something with a very corporate job description? Apply here. for a role with Greenpeace

Like that dodgy mechanic that breaks something else while they fix your car so you have ot go back eh?

It sounds you suggesting that Greenpeace are someone secretly contributing to ****ing up the planet so their employees can continue to work.

Oxfam are somehow colluding with western governments and mining/resources companies to keep countries in poverty so they can continue as an entity.

I must say we have had some quality conspiracy theories on here, but yours takes the biscuit.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Really, really obvious.

That an organisation that can pay top dollar to someone to basically do a bit of organizing is far more interested in saving itself than saving the planet.

That salary is not top dollar for the job spec which incidentally is a lot more than "a bit of organising." But I think you know this. I presume you think all charity workers should work for free?

Anyway, I don't know why I am replying as your post's stupidity has already been exposed by The Merry Prankster.

 

[Guinness Boy]

It sounds you suggesting that Greenpeace are someone secretly contributing to ****ing up the planet so their employees can continue to work.

Oxfam are somehow colluding with western governments and mining/resources companies to keep countries in poverty so they can continue as an entity.

I must say we have had some quality conspiracy theories on here, but yours takes the biscuit.

I'm not suggesting that at all. But thanks for the huge assumption. What I'm saying is that when you are receiving a massive salary for a basic admin job (or driving round Africa in a white 4x4 like some enormous White God) your priority quickly shifts from saving the world to saving your cool lifestyle.

Suggested reading: Paul Theroux - Dark Star Safari

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

your priority quickly shifts from saving the world to saving your cool life style

So you are suggesting exactly what BadFish mentioned?

 

[BadFish]

I'm not suggesting that at all. But thanks for the huge assumption. What I'm saying is that when you are receiving a massive salary for a basic admin job (or driving round Africa in a white 4x4 like some enormous White God) your priority quickly shifts from saving the world to saving your cool lifestyle.

Suggested reading: Paul Theroux - Dark Star Safari

Doesn't really sound like it works as an expose of greenpeace workers (or aid workers for that matter) so I might give it a miss.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/nov/02/featuresreviews.guardianreview9

Doesn't really sound like it works as an expose of greenpeace workers (or aid workers for that matter) so I might give it a miss.

Throughout the remainder of his account of his trip we are reminded of the uselessness of aid workers and, in particular, the offensive luxury of the vehicles they drive around in. In Malawi we hear of "a white person driving one-handed in his white Save the Children vehicle, talking on a cellphone with music playing loudly - the happiest person in the country". In Tanzania, still in those culpably white cars, they "travel in pairs, in the manner of cultists and Mormon evangelists".

And here is Theroux's coup de grâce: "Aid workers in rural Africa are in general, oafish selfdramatising prigs and, often, complete *******s." Aid workers might, I suppose, be justified in returning the compliment.

I'm not an aid worker, but I was working in Kenya myself at about the time Theroux passed through. And I have a four-wheel drive, though it's neither new nor shiny. Would I have given him a ride? Maybe. But if he started ranting on about aid workers the way he does in this book, I would have had to suggest that he quieten down and do some research.

It's not that Theroux is wrong to criticise the empire of aid. In some ways the situation is even worse than he says. Aid corrupts its recipients and its providers. Sometimes it actively contributes to conflict. The problem is that Theroux knows next to nothing about it. Aid is a failure, he says, because "the only people dishing up the food and doling out the money are foreigners. No Africans are involved". But the majority of employees of international aid agencies in Africa, at almost all levels, are Africans. In some African countries it is international aid agencies that provide the most consistent source of employment.

 

[beorhthelm]

It sounds you suggesting that Greenpeace are someone secretly contributing to ****ing up the planet so their employees can continue to work.

i think the inference is that Greenpeace and their like are businesses in themselves. the green lobby is a extensive industry, while it might pale against the size of the oil and other industries, for the many thousands of people employed and making careers in the industry, its very real and significant. this might lead them to overstate a case, or maintain unobtainable targets to perpetuate a problem needing a solution (hey, just like some businesses). i dont think this applies to all charities before you start beating me, its just something one should consider.

 

[BadFish]

i think the inference is that Greenpeace and their like are businesses in themselves. the green lobby is a extensive industry, while it might pale against the size of the oil and other industries, for the many thousands of people employed and making careers in the industry, its very real and significant. this might lead them to overstate a case, or maintain unobtainable targets to perpetuate a problem needing a solution (hey, just like some businesses). i dont think this applies to all charities before you start beating me, its just something one should consider.

I agree with your theory here and accept that this could be a possibility but as you say this is insignificant in comparison with oil companies and industry who are all about the dollar. As I said earlier Generally given information from Greenpeace or Oxfam and oil companies or industry i believe that the former will give a more independent and balanced view of an issue that the latter.

Our Guinness drinking friend seems to be inferring something a little more sinister than you, by saying that Greenpeace and Oxfam employees are more interested in saving their salaries than saving the world.

I would be very interested in any evidence of corruption that you or he can provide as it would change my view of these organisations enormously.

 

[m20gull]

I agree with your theory here and accept that this could be a possibility but as you say this is insignificant in comparison with oil companies and industry who are all about the dollar. As I said earlier Generally given information from Greenpeace or Oxfam and oil companies or industry i believe that the former will give a more independent and balanced view of an issue that the latter.

Our Guinness drinking friend seems to be inferring something a little more sinister than you, by saying that Greenpeace and Oxfam employees are more interested in saving their salaries than saving the world.

I would be very interested in any evidence of corruption that you or he can provide as it would change my view of these organisations enormously.

It's not about corruption but vested self-interest. I like the idea that Greenpeace work to an unbiased agenda but I cannot believe it.

 

[beorhthelm]

It's not about corruption but vested self-interest. I like the idea that Greenpeace work to an unbiased agenda but I cannot believe it.

precisely, and i find it odd to make a leap from vested interest to corruption.

 

[BadFish]

It's not about corruption but vested self-interest. I like the idea that Greenpeace work to an unbiased agenda but I cannot believe it.

What do you believe Greenpeace's bias is?

I find it hard to think that Greenpeace are worried about working themselves out of exsistence. There are just too many environmental and ecological issues in the world for that to be a concern. The list grows longer not shorter.

I would be interested to know how their percieved self interest manifests itself through their activities. Do you know of any instances where this has compromised the organisation?

 

[BadFish]

precisely, and i find it odd to make a leap from vested interest to corruption.

Surely having a vested interest only becomes a problem if it begins to corrupt the activties of the organisation.

 

[beorhthelm]

Surely having a vested interest only becomes a problem if it begins to corrupt the activties of the organisation.

so only presenting one side, hiding details and facts against your position, not presenting alternative in fair light are not a problem? (or you consider that corrupt?) you really think that greenpeace is unbiased and wouldn't colour their argument to suit their aims? i would expect them to and rightly so, its their purpose after all to promote their cause. but you end up in a situation where their aims contradict themselves (see biofuel promotion) or they wont accept compromise positions. say fracking could be made completely environmentally safe, Greenpeace would still be against it wouldnt they, because it goes against their (current) overriding agenda to reduce any emissions or pollution, despite the fact it might improve the situation. prehaps you see that as corrupt, you dont want to call them that so you pretend they are faultless?

 

[BadFish]

so only presenting one side, hiding details and facts against your position, not presenting alternative in fair light are not a problem? (or you consider that corrupt?) you really think that greenpeace is unbiased and wouldn't colour their argument to suit their aims? i would expect them to and rightly so, its their purpose after all to promote their cause. but you end up in a situation where their aims contradict themselves (see biofuel promotion) or they wont accept compromise positions. say fracking could be made completely environmentally safe, Greenpeace would still be against it wouldnt they, because it goes against their (current) overriding agenda to reduce any emissions or pollution, despite the fact it might improve the situation. prehaps you see that as corrupt, you dont want to call them that so you pretend they are faultless?

I don't consider Greenpeace unbiased they have, as you suggest, a position that they hail from. I also don't consider them faultless. But given the choice between them and industry I will tend to believe them because their base ideology is to protect the environment whereas industries is to make money.

Presenting one side of the argument and the other things you listed in this post do not really concern me as that is the role of these kind of groups. What i am responding to is the suggestion that Greenpeace compromise their ideology and their actions because their vested interest overcomes their core beliefs. Something which has been suggested on this thread but i have no knowledge of.

With the instance of fracking I agree with the position of Greenpeace on this. A whole lot of time and effort is going into something which will ultimately cause more environmental damage through it use (without even taking into account the possible environmental damage caused in it's removal). I think that this time and money would be better spent investing in technology to make clean and sustainable energy more viable. To me this is an example of Greenpeace sticking to it's ideology, which i think is a good thing.

 

[Guinness Boy]

i think the inference is that Greenpeace and their like are businesses in themselves. the green lobby is a extensive industry, while it might pale against the size of the oil and other industries, for the many thousands of people employed and making careers in the industry, its very real and significant. this might lead them to overstate a case, or maintain unobtainable targets to perpetuate a problem needing a solution (hey, just like some businesses). i dont think this applies to all charities before you start beating me, its just something one should consider.

Pretty much what I would have said had I not gone to bed!

Of course Greenpeace isn't evil or corrupt. It is a large organisation with a vested interest however and therefore hardly neutral. I wouldn't trust an oil company report to be unbiased but I trust the report by the Geologists that @cheeserolls posted. The Greenpeace report would have started out with the notion that fracking is bad rather than arrived at it.

 

[CheeseRolls]

Pretty much what I would have said had I not gone to bed!

Of course Greenpeace isn't evil or corrupt. It is a large organisation with a vested interest however and therefore hardly neutral. I wouldn't trust an oil company report to be unbiased but I trust the report by the Geologists that @cheeserolls posted. The Greenpeace report would have started out with the notion that fracking is bad rather than arrived at it.

Accepting that, if you are a geologist, there are plenty of good job opportunities working for oil companies