Greenpeace volunteers storm Cabinet Office
Jim Farrand | 11.04.2002 12:33
Greenpeace volunteers storm Cabinet Office
The 500 rooms of the Cabinet Office were stickered and postered by the protesters, outside hoardings were covered in the words "Crime Scene" while climbers painted the words "Forest Crime" in giant letters down the tarpaulin covering the front of the building.
The protest remained peaceful, despite aggressive actions from security guards. One protester received minor cuts after being thrown to the ground. Riot police later made 37 arrests.
The British Prime Minister Tony Blair promised in March 2001 that the government would only purchase wood from legal and sustainable sources. In March 2002 the Cabinet Office claimed that all wood used in the refurbishment has been procured from certified sustainable sources.
However, a Greenpeace investigation discovered that this was not the case. The sepele wood used in the refurbishment was logged in Cameroon. The UK director of the Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC), an independent body which provides certification for sustainably logged wood stated yesterday that "There is no FSC certified timber available from Cameroon at this time." Furthermore, Drivers Jonas the project manager for the Cabinet Office refurbishment admitted to Greenpeace in a telephone call that the doors in question do not have certification.
Only 20% of the worlds ancient forests now remain. Every second an area the size of a football pitch is destroyed. These forests provide a home not only to forests peoples, but to many species which are already critically endangered. The UK is one of the largest importers of illegally logged wood. Continued inaction by the UK and other governments will result in the extinction of many of these species within our lifetime.
Jim Farrand
e-mail:
jim@farrand.net
Comments
Hide the following 6 comments
Addition
11.04.2002 12:43
Jim Farrand
e-mail:
jim@farrand.net
Good at grabbing headlines !!!!
11.04.2002 17:24
Plenty of publicity which helps them raise cash which they are very good at. But do their campaigns actually achieve anything, are they really interested in getting results.
Greenpeace Int, is full of hooray henrys and the whole operation is an un democratic hierarchy with Irish music mafia including the likes of bono on board ..
apart from that they are doing fucking great
Eco Mafia
What?
11.04.2002 18:13
These folk are a bit like the 'lib dems' of the NGO's and it does not seem as if they are out to achieve much. Maybe they should rebrand themselves as 'green-spectacle' or 'green-circus'.
My gran was barely outraged.
movement_type
e-mail:
against@globalisation.com
The Titanic could have used some attention
11.04.2002 19:42
But Mr. Aster et al were in a hurry to get to the money, and died in the process.
It's is not lost on those of us in the activist community that our efforts help the priviledged as well as the poor. That's OK, that's what were all about-helping because it helps, not because it helps me or mine. That's them, the other guys. Our owners.
Joseph
Joseph Eisenschmidt
e-mail:
jee420@yahoo.com
What have Greenpeace achieved?
11.04.2002 23:56
Quoting a previous commenter
> Plenty of publicity which helps them raise cash which they are very good at.
I assure you, making money is not the aim. Greenpeace are a non-profit organisation - cash raised is spent on campaigning.
> But do their campaigns actually achieve anything
Off the top of my head:
* According to Mori 5% of the UK (that's 3million people) are now boycotting number 1 global warming villain and uber-capitalists Esso. This is down to the Stop Esso coallition - led by Greenpeace.
* Greenpeace have helped obtain and and maintain a ban on whaling.
* Greenpeace have persuaded several companies to remove GMO from their products.
* Last year Greenpeace's occupation of Menwith Hill caused the most public debate about Son of Star Wars the UK has ever seen.
Most of the time, the aim of Greenpeace campaigns is to raise public awareness. How do you achieve that except by grabbing headlines. In fact, why is grabbing headlines a bad thing? Most people are totally unaware of what is happening in the world. Would you rather Greenpeace wasn't grabbing the headlines? Maybe to make room for more column inches on the Queen Mum and David Beckham's foot?
> are they really interested in getting results.
Why else would they go out and get themselves arrested?
> the whole operation is an un democratic hierarchy
What is the problem with this in a voluntary organisation? Everyone who participates in a Greenpeace action does so because they want to. A hierarchical structure has advantages and disadvantages (even you must admit that). How many "autonomous non-hierarchical collectives" have the resources to send ships full of people to stop whalers, oil companies and the like from abusing the environment?
If you don't like hierarchies, join another group. Fair play, that's your choice and I can fully understand why you would want to do so. (I can also see disadvantages in the way Greenpeace is run.) But why try to cast Greenpeace in a negative light when they are working hard to protect the environment?
No offence, but I think you need to stop talking about something you clearly know nothing about.
Cat
puuuuurrrrrrrrrrrr
12.04.2002 17:20
mouse