Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Greenpeace in our time

What Greenpeace wants is for us all to go back and live in
caves and thatched huts and scrub ourselves in the creek
with a rock.

The minute we all understand that Greenpeace doesn't
want progress, they want retarded economies, then the
sooner we can make the giant leap forward to all agreeing
or most of us agreeing that we actually do want to dig up
minerals, we want open-cast mining, we want to drill for
oil off the coast and we hope to damn hell that we
discover it.

—Leighton Smith, Newstalk ZB

They don’t want progress, they don’t want jobs, they don’t
want economic expansion—they want none of the things
the rest of us want, they're out to lunch, they're flakes.
Greenpeace was once the friend of the animals, of the flora
and fauna, but they’ve morphed into this ugly extremist
political machine that is increasingly out of step with the

They have no answers. Not real ones. Oh, they'd come up
with us having, you know, a vege plot and a goat and
wearing hemp (that’s if we weren't smoking it as well) but
none of it's realistic, they're out to lunch, they're against
everything and for nothing.

—Mike Hosking, Newstalk ZB

We want a strong economy. We want more jobs. But even
when you look at [the] draft energy plan, that is all focused
on oil, coal and gas, which are where the big emissions
come from in terms of greenhouse gases and where future
liabilities are going to be huge for this country. We are a
country that has enormous opportunities in terms of
renewable energy. Where are the options? There was no
economic analysis done that looked at all the options.

—Bunny McDiarmid (Greenpeace), Close Up


Linuxluver said...

If Leighton Smith and Mike Hosking have to lie about Greenpeace, then Greenpeace has already won and the liars have already lost.

Simple as that. I have no time for Leighton Smith, but I'm sorry to hear Mike Hosking talking shit. That's a shame.

Anonymous said...

it's good to see you back, keeping us thinking1

murrayg said...

Greenpeace, and environmental activists generally, can only be seen as a rearguard action - always reactive. There is only one way that goes, and it's cumulatively backwards - Horatio and all that.
So - it is is only legitimate (worth doing) if one thinks that a parallel education process will alter that cumulative process.
So far, that doesn't appear to be the case.
The mainstream media in NZ - with the exception of Hill and Laidlaw - don't get it at all.
One who is, though, is Bernard Hickey - who'd have though an economics web-site-keeper would 'get' what seniors like John Armstrong repeatedly ignore?
Finance rather than politics? you ask? The sinking, rather than the deckchairs, would be my reply.