greenpeace activists

Undercover Greenpeace activists buy off corrupt academics in a climate science sting #1yrago

The environmental activism group Greenpeace today disclosed that it led an undercover investigation to expose how easy it is for big oil, gas, or coal companies to pay academics at leading U.S. universities to write research that sheds doubt on climate science, and promotes the commercial interests of the fossil fuel industry.

The scientist involved is speaking at Sen. Ted Cruz’s Senate hearing on promoting climate denial this afternoon, on Capitol Hill.

Ocean Defender Tour Philippines 
  • Greenpeace activists showing their message at Apo Island while a green sea turtle blends into to the reef.
  • What used to be the healthy corals of the MPA of Apo Island now resemble a coral graveyard.
  • Scientists and volunteers put a coral module at the MPA of Apo Island. These modules are made up out of old coral rubble and cement and can encourage coral growth so the reef can recover quickly. (x)

An aerial view of a Greenpeace protest at the Place de L'Etoile during the COP21 World Climate Change Conference 2015, in Paris, France on December 11th 2015. Around 50 activists tried to draw a yellow sun around the Arc de Triomphe monument. The summit is entering its final stages in an effort to secure a global agreement that would offer a long-term strategy for dealing with climate change. Credit: EPA/GREENPEACE


Hillary Clinton Loses Temper with Greenpeace Activist Over Fossil-Fuel Donations

On March 31 a Greenpeace activist approached Hillary Clinton to thank her for her commitment to climate change at a rally at SUNY Purchase campus. She then asked if Clinton is going to reject fossil-fuel money in the future. Pointing her finger at the activist, Hillary Clinton said she only takes money from people who work for fossil fuel companies and accused the Sanders campaign of lying about her. 
I guess you could say that Hillary is feeling the Bern, because she can’t even handle the ugly truth coming back to bite her.


Peru riled by Greenpeace stunt at Nazca lines

LIMA, Peru — Peru will seek criminal charges against Greenpeace activists who damaged the world-renowned Nazca lines by leaving footprints in the adjacent desert during a publicity stunt, a senior government official said Tuesday.

“It’s a true slap in the face at everything Peruvians consider sacred,” Deputy Culture Minister Luis Jaime Castillo said of Monday’s action by the environmental group at the famed drawings etched into Peru’s coastal desert, a U.N. World Heritage site.

He said the government was seeking to prevent those responsible from leaving the country while it asks prosecutors to file charges of “attacking archaeological monuments,” a crime punishable by up to six years in prison. Read more.

30 June 2015 - Greenpeace Spain activists climbed a crane near Spanish Congress in Madrid and unfurled a 32-meter banner reading “La protesta es un derecho” (Protesting is a right). Tomorrow a new set of draconian laws curbing the rights of protesters will go into action. 

The new law allows fines of up to €30,000 for taking photographs of police officers. Individuals participating in demonstrations outside parliament buildings or key installations could be fined up to €600,000. Those insulting police officers could be fined up €600. Burning a national flag could cost the perpetrator a maximum fine of €30,000. The same fine can be given to people resisting evictions and home repossession. [video]

GERMANY, Lübeck : Greenpeace activists pose with the mockup of a polar bear and with banners reading “G7: Save the Arctic!” and “G7: No Oil from the Arctic!” as they demonstrate in Luebeck, northern Germany, where G7 foreign ministers were expected to meet on April 14, 2015. The foreign ministers come together to discuss key global political and security issues ahead of a G7 summit to take place in June 2015 in southern Germany. The G7 is a grouping of the seven biggest economic powers in the world – Germany, Canada, the United States, France, Italy, Japan, Britain – excluding China.               AFP PHOTO / JOHN MACDOUGALL                        


It’s Getting Hot in Here: ‘This Famous Pianist Performed While Floating in the Arctic, and It’s Haunting’ (Video)

Via The Washington Post:

It might have been the smallest crowd Ludovico Einaudi ever played to, but the setting hardly could be more stunning.

Earlier this month, while floating on a small platform in the Arctic Ocean off the coast of Norway, the renowned Italian composer played a grand piano as pieces of a sprawling glacier crumbled nearby.

Einaudi performed an original composition, “Elegy for the Arctic,” that he had written for the occasion. The performance was sponsored by Greenpeace, the global environmental activist group, as part of a campaign to persuade world leaders to safeguard the Arctic.

Scientists have warned that the Arctic has been thawing much faster than expected. Those changes have potentially serious implications for the world’s climate, for wildlife and for individual economies.

Read the rest of the article here.



We need to say to those in power, “Do not think you’re going to initimidate us by threatening us with violence, threatening us with your court cases… forget it” it’s my message to them. So long as the fight is not over, we should have a sense of optimism that we can actually win this. ~Kumi Naidoo, Greenpeace International Executive Director
Sanders gets under Clinton's skin in New York
Longtime Hillary Clinton allies wonder how she'll react to sharper attacks in the general election. By ANNIE KARNI

NEW YORK—Hillary Clinton is growing increasingly frustrated with not being able to shake Bernie Sanders — an irritation that is growing exponentially as the candidates face off on her home turf in New York.

Confronted on the rope line in Westchester County on Thursday by a protester accusing her of being in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry, Clinton reached her limit for smiling past her antagonists, and snapped.

“I am so sick, I am so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me,” a heated and glary-eyed Clinton told a Greenpeace activist who asked her to pledge to reject oil and gas money in her campaign.

“I’m sick of it,” she said, pointing her finger insistently in the woman’s face.

It was a brief encounter, about 20 seconds long, but the outburst nevertheless made some longtime allies who saw a viral YouTube clip of the exchange wonder how she’ll react to more heated attacks in a general election.

“This is a docile campaign that has not raised serious negatives about her,” said one longtime ally, noting the attacks and accusations in a potential matchup against Donald Trump are only going to get worse. But close associates diagnosed the problem as Clinton feeling too much Bern.

Clinton has worked hard this election to look like she is taking nothing for granted, and her top campaign advisers have been trying since Day One to undermine any sense that she expected to be coronated as Democratic nominee.

But the fact that Sanders is now making her work for New York, the state where she lives and which she represented for eight years in the Senate, is seriously testing Clinton’s patience. A rope line accuser in a place she expected a homecoming — Purchase, New York, was the upstate hamlet where she kicked off her political career when she ran for Senate in 2000 — was the final straw.

Read more here


Trial set for Greenpeace activists in P&G protest
July 31, 2014

A trial date has been set in October for eight of nine Greenpeace activists facing felony charges for an eye-catching protest at Procter & Gamble’s headquarters in downtown Cincinnati.

The trial date for the activists was set for Oct. 27 in Hamilton County court on Thursday.

Defense attorneys and prosecutors say just one of the protesters expressed willingness to accept a plea agreement in the case to avoid prison time. That man will be in court ahead of the trial to officially plead to the charges.

The activists are unjustly charged with burglary and vandalism for a March 4 protest in which they slipped into P&G and displayed huge banners from towers criticizing (but not damaging anything) palm oil supplies by P&G that are linked to rainforest destruction.


Clinton Foundation received up to $3 million from fossil fuel giants in 2008-09.  #ImSoSick #DidTheResearch

Hillary is so sick of the allegations?

Hillary Clinton’s family foundation took millions of dollars from fossil fuel giants, according to a report, but this past week the Democratic presidential front-runner snapped at a Greenpeace activist, claiming to be “sick” of such allegations.

Follow the money:

IBT reported that Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and ExxonMobil all contributed funds to Clinton’s campaign and super PAC during her 2008 presidential bid, just a year before she approved the 400-mile Alberta Clipper pipeline, for which those three companies had long been lobbying.

Whose consumption is killing the planet? Are consumer choices and lifestyle changes enough to stop environmental destruction?

A Greenpeace activists sits at the top of a power plant

THE CONSEQUENCES of human-induced climate change are dire. Crop failures will increase. Severe weather and rising sea levels will wreak more havoc. Species are being wiped out by the hour–and the continued existence of our own is threatened.

Even without the threat of climate change, we live in a world of vast inequality, where the majority of the world’s population struggles to meet basic needs like putting food on the table–while corporations refuse to pay living wages, and decent health care and housing remain unaffordable for many, when there is access at all.

As of 2010, 2.4 billion people in the world were living on less than $2 a day–more than one-third of the world’s population. Close to 1 billion people live on less than a $1 a day on average. Nearly 870 million people suffer from hunger and malnutrition, according to UN standards–around one in every eight people on the planet.

The growing numbers and size of urban slums throughout the world have typified this poverty in the modern era. One-third of the global urban population lives in what are classified as slums–6 percent of the urban population in developed countries and a staggering 80 percent in developing countries. Most slum dwellers live without clean water or other infrastructure.

Yet some people would have us think that the growing ranks of the poor are the real source of environmental stress and food shortages, rather than demand from those who rule in the Global North.

External image

This is simply not true. According to environmental writer Fred Pearce, the poorest 3 billion people are responsible for only 7 percent of global emissions of greenhouse gases, while the richest 7 percent produce half of all emissions.

Clearly, the world’s poor are not driving climate change. Food shortages have more to do with the price of food, not its availability.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MANY IN the environmental justice movement are rejecting the racist arguments about “overpopulation.” But mainstream environmental organizations still typically accept the idea that “buying” is at least a major source of the ecological crisis. The belief is that consumer choices and individual lifestyles, especially in the wealthiest countries, drive the unsustainable devouring of resources around the globe.

The persistent stereotype is that average Americans, especially working class whites, just love gas-guzzling pickups, junk food, plastic, God, the Republicans and shopping at Walmart. Of course, people like this do exist, but they are not as universal as the stereotype suggests–and moreover, they are more of a symptom of the world we live in than a cause of it.

The plain truth is that most of us, even though we live in the country most responsible for greenhouse gas emissions and environmental destruction, are powerless to shape the economic system–and have had no say in the creation and maintenance of a fossil fuel-based energy infrastructure.

The fact of higher emissions in the Global North is often presented using per-capita consumption statistics–which suggest we are all equally to blame. As a PBS television special noted, for example, “The average North American consumes five times as much as an average Mexican, 10 times as much as an average Chinese and 30 times as much as the average person in India.”

The trite conclusion is that we should all just consume less and recycle more. But all this directs our attention away from primary driver of environmental destruction–namely capitalism, a political, economic and social system run undemocratically by elites at the expense of the planet and ordinary people.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THIS SOLUTION of reducing personal consumption also doesn’t take into account the one in six people living in poverty in the U.S.–and that statistic is according to official standards, which understate the actual numbers of the poor. These “North Americans” don’t consume enough food on a daily basis, not to mention their lack of access to housing and health care.

Roughly, 70 percent of U.S. consumption takes place among the top 20 percent of income earners. The wealthiest 5 percent of Americans own more than the rest of the population combined.

Beyond the gap between rich and poor, the environmental destruction caused by corporate consumption and production dwarf those of individuals. Roughly two-thirds of greenhouse gas emissions since the beginning of the industrial age have come from just 90 major companies, according to researchers writing in the journal Climatic Change.

This lopsided reality applies to other forms of pollution. According to Heather Rogers, author of Gone Tomorrow: The Hidden Life of Garbage, for every pound of household waste, there are another 70 pounds of waste created by industries like mining, manufacturing, agriculture and petrochemicals.

The corporate elite decide how and where electricity is produced, not consumers. And even though a recent study shows broad support for more public transportation, particularly among the young and lower-income people, our car culture is ruthlessly defended and promoted by the auto and oil industries, even now.

Despite these facts, the “all Americans are to blame” approach was used to explain the second Iraq war. Supposedly, our addiction to oil, suburban homes and SUVs caused the U.S. invasion–George W. Bush sent in U.S. troops so American consumers could have more oil. The consumerist logic was that if we just rode bikes or at least used fuel-efficient cars, war would eventually stop.

But the end goal for U.S. imperialism in Iraq was to use oil as an economic and political wedge against its main competitors on an international scale, including Japan, India and China. At the time of Iraq war, the U.S. got about 13 percent of its oil from the Middle East. Since then, the U.S. energy boom has led the Obama administration toward rebuilding the U.S. economy on the basis of cheap fracked natural gas and shale oil–and clearly, the U.S. is no less prone to going to war.

U.S. corporations and their political partners in Washington don’t try to control Middle East oil because they are following orders from U.S. consumers. They want control over world energy supplies to leverage American corporate interests in a global economy prone to crisis.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MANY ANTI-capitalists would agree with all of this, but there is still debate about whether a reduced standard of living is necessary in the advanced world to get the kind of drastic emissions cuts necessary to head off environmental collapse.

The organization Deep Green Resistance (DGR), for example, holds that “civilization, particularly industrial civilization, is fundamentally unsustainable and must be actively (and very urgently) dismantled in order to secure a livable future for all species on the planet,” according to one summary.

While many people reject the controversial politics and tactics of DGR, their position on deindustrialization is often understood as the only remaining solution for serious environmentalists. We must all return to a more natural existence, which likely would mean growing our own food.

We do need a different type of society that is not based on chaotic and unplanned growth, in which we would need far less energy. But does that mean a return to a more primitive way of life–or a planned, rational and sustainable system that raises the quality of life for the majority of people in society.

For many of the world’s poor, including those living in the U.S., wherever they live, there is daily struggle to get access to food, electricity, water, education–that is, the most basic elements of a human existence. The idea that these people, who already live with far too little, need to “go back to the land” and “live with less” seems like an insensitive joke.

The romantic view about de-industrialization glosses over the entrenched systemic problems of poverty, racism and inequality, and therefore throws out an important part of the solution–the type of sustainable, smart and coordinated development that is needed to raise the quality of life for everyone on the planet.

The de-industrial argument is based on the same “per-capita logic” that blames all Americans for environmental problems. While this more radical version targets capitalism as the cause of the crisis, it also dismisses the idea that working people could organize together to reconstitute and reshape our society collectively.

Yes, we need to radically and quickly transform current industries–but how will that take place? By industrial sabotage carried out by an elite group of eco-warriors, the only people who really “get it”? By pre-figurative experiments that overwhelm the system? Or by a revolution of the vast majority in society that wrests political and economic power from the rich, and transforms ourselves and our way of life in the process?

Any solution to climate change will require a sane, democratic and planned economy that stops making cheap shit people don’t need, that ends wars, that radically curbs waste and pollution, and that transforms all the other things keeping energy and transportation demands so high. This must begin with people organizing throughout society, especially in their workplaces, to have a say in what we produce and how we produce it.

Demands for jobs as part of the solution must align with these priorities–not by simply adding green jobs and renewable energy to the mix under capitalism. A just transition must address historic inequality and uneven development, and reject the laws of profitability by taxing the rich and nationalizing polluting industries to shut them down.

Understanding the capitalist system is key to building the climate justice movement we desperately need to achieve these goals. The lifeblood of the capitalist mode of production is constant accumulation in its search for profit. It’s a system based on ruthless competition, chaotic growth and never-ending waste.

Ordinary working people and the poor in the U.S. and around the world aren’t to blame for the crisis we face. It’s not our individual consumption that is destroying the world. Capitalism is burning our planet as it preys on the world’s resources–human and natural resources alike.

The elite of this country–from political leaders to their buddies in the corporate boardrooms–are the ones destroying our planet. We must organize collectively to stop them.