Skip to content or view screen version

Greenpeace Lose The Plot

Pylon | 29.01.2009 12:51 | Climate Chaos | Free Spaces | South Coast | World

I’ll admit it, I signed up to the Greenpeace “Airplot” scheme, putting my name down to be a joint owner of a piece of land adjacent to London Heathrow Airport which would have to be compulsorily purchased should the airport be expanded. What happened next really freaked me out.




I’ll admit it, I signed up to the Greenpeace “Airplot” scheme, putting my name down to be a joint owner of a piece of land adjacent to London Heathrow Airport which would have to be compulsorily purchased should the airport be expanded. Make no mistake, this is a good idea and I applaud Greenpeace for doing it: one of the few good ideas they have had in the last few years (I think wasting 6 months trying to convince Woolworths to ban incandescent light bulbs might go down as one of their worst).

I mentioned the awful hypocrisy of film actress Emma Thompson speaking on behalf of Greenpeace about the need the prevent airport expansion a few days ago on The Unsuitablog [ http://thesietch.org/mysietch/keith/2009/01/22/emma-thompson-vs-geoff-hoon-vs-planet-earth/]. For a moment, I thought that maybe Greenpeace had not briefed her properly and that her statement “This is not a campaign against flying” was just a foot-in-mouth moment.

Then it got worse…

----------
From: Emma Thompson, Greenpeace
To:  keith@theearthblog.org
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 4:15 PM
Subject: Airplot: Help us swing the vote on Heathrow

My fellow plot owners,

On Wednesday there will be a vote in parliament on a third runway at Heathrow. Ahead of this vote we urgently need your help to put pressure on Labour MPs to vote with their conscience and say NO to a third runway. We already have the support of the LibDems and Tory MPs.

Send a letter to the 57 Labour MPs who have opposed Heathrow expansion.

The government is treating us as if we’re stupid. They’re asking all of us to reduce our energy consumption while they build another runway at Heathrow. ***I think it’s the most egregious piece of hypocrisy I’ve seen in a long time***…
----------

I thought I’d highlight that last bit. I’m not sure what you call a hypocrite who accuses someone else of hypocrisy. Maybe a Hypocrite Squared. I responded in the only way I could.

----------
From: Keith Farnish
Sent: 23 January 2009 16:22
To: Webteam
Subject: Re: Airplot: Help us swing the vote on Heathrow

Great, does that mean Emma Thompson isn’t going to fly any more?

Keith
----------

Well, you would, wouldn’t you? This astonishing reply came back:

----------
From: info
To: Keith Farnish
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 3:45 PM
Subject: RE: Airplot: Help us swing the vote on Heathrow

Dear Keith,

Thank you for your email.

***We are not campaigning to stop people from flying altogether***, but we do want to prevent the number of flights from growing to dangerous levels - the growth in aviation is ruining our chances of stopping dangerous climate change.

This campaign is against airport expansion, and if you would like to find out more please do visit the following pages of our website:

www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/does-economic-case-third-runway-stack-20090114
www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/reports/the-case-against-heathrow-expansion-a-briefing
www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/10-reasons-to-stop-heathrow-expansion

Many thanks for your support and best wishes,

Donna

Donna Hayter
Supporter Services
Greenpeace UK

www.greenpeace.org.uk
----------

Very polite, but horribly naive, and possibly the most concrete evidence so far that ***the environmental mainstream are not trying to save the Earth or the future of humanity, they are merely trying to salvage Industrial Civilization***, whatever hypocrisy it takes, and however pointless and fruitless the task.

My response was hardly worth it, given the incredible denial Greenpeace are now swimming around in, but I made it nonetheless, because if there is a chance that Donna might understand, then she might get out of Greenpeace and do something tangible.

----------
Dear Donna

Flying, and carbon emissions in general are already at dangerous levels; massive reductions in excess of 90% by 2030 are needed to prevent runaway climate change. Are Greenpeace saying that we can leave global carbon levels at 385ppm and still be safe?

If the campaign is not against flying then how are you going to prevent airport expansion - or are Greenpeace staff still flying around the world, as they were when I was a volunteer?

Regards

Keith
----------

I did not get a response.

Pylon
- Homepage: http://www.unsuitablog.com

Comments

Hide the following 8 comments

Greenpeace ...

29.01.2009 13:55

This year Greenpeace got so scared because 2 of it's activists in Japan were arrested that they didn't dare send a ship to stop the Japanese whalers. They have raised millions from people who thought they would try to stop the whaling but they simply banked the money.

Just glad that Sea Shepherd is out there trying to stop the whaling.

Greenpeace are simply a "feelgood" organisation and don't actually do anything to help.

Greenpeace are rubbish


Oh get real

29.01.2009 15:20

The campaign against the runway is an end in itself not a means to propagate deep green ideology, as any sincere environmentalist would see. You knew Greenpeace were moderates relative to your position. Getting involved in a single issue campaign with people you know you disagree with, and then going off on a strop over ideology is childish.

anon


Real?

29.01.2009 16:58

Excuse me, but what do you get when you go to the Greenpeace UK web site? This *is* their big campaign - not fighting the causes of environmental destruction, the root causes, but making a big noise about something when they are not even prepared to say that you will actually have to stop flying if you want to stop the airport expanding. It's like building a bigger wall around a pool that's filling with water: something's gonna give eventually.

Pylon


Hypocrisy

29.01.2009 17:01

No to mention their allegiance with hunter and CA member Zac Goldsmith on this project! Not so 'green' that is is Greenpeace??

anon


If God had meant us to Fly

29.01.2009 18:08

Greenpeace are correct to observe that the State's propaganda for individual austerity is hypocritical when contrasted with the State's support for airport expansion. The problem is that Greenpeace have a false reputation for supporting an environmentally appropriate society. As people become aware that Greenpeace don't oppose flying the impression will be given that people can carry on flying without feeling responsible for deaths resulting from an environmental tipping point being crossed. As a centralised organisation, Greenpeace will tent to develop opinions that the individuals involved know to be wrong. Their decentralised sister, Friends of the Earth, are more intelligent because they respect the autonomy of their members.

He would Never have given us the Railways


I support this campaign...

30.01.2009 18:54

although some people are trying to put me off. Why is that. Is it a case of a defeatist agenda? Who would benifit from taking such a stance?

The fact is this is not a single issue campaign. If this goes ahead the following groups & issues will be involved:

* the residents of Sipson will loose their homes and community.
* the areas wildlife will be disrupted.
* hunters will loose any opportunity to hunt on the land
* many residents of london will have their homes blighted by noise.
* the airport will generate increased local traffic - more pollution locally
* the airport will generate increased air traffic - more carbon globally
etc, etc, etc..

Apoligies if ive left out any 'important' issues. You get the general idea though.

I don't care WHY you oppose the airport just so long as you DO something about it. If all you can bring to the table is a load of bitching about others who oppose this 'development', but oppose it for different reasons then i say "Shame on you". Grow up and look at the bigger picture. Or get a job at NETCU if you dont already work there.

Ok. Rant over.

rogerthefish


Why not accept the hypocrisy?

30.01.2009 19:54

Roger

Clearly I have nothing to do with the government; Greenpeace are far, far more pro the system than I will ever be. The 3rd runway, to be honest, is a smokescreen anyway - more likely it will be suddenly be rejected by the government (aren't they kind) providing a f*ck off airport in the Thames Estuary is permitted, or expansion of Stansted and Gatwick are allowed to go ahead. The village will be saved and Greenpeace will have "won" - or rather, had no effect at all because they played into the hands of the system that must be seen to be expanding and growing at all costs to ensure the citizens of this proud nation(!) remain confident in the economic future.

The other reason it might be rejected is that no-one has the money to build it, because enough people have been successfully convinced (obviously not by Greenpeace) that flying is a really shit thing to do. Now there's a campaign slogan: "Flying: It's A Shit Thing To Do!"

:-)

Pylon


pylon

31.01.2009 13:12

I think we will have to agree to differ. I wish you well in your campaign to expose hypocrisy.

I will continue with my agenda. I don't want that runway built. If i have to deal with the devil himself i will do so if it furthers my agenda and suits my convenience.

rogerthefish