Topic: Greenpeace doesn't care about the environment.
Anonymous A started this discussion 13 years ago#32,575
Their biggest accomplishment is associating environmentalism with radicalism and activism for the sake of drama.
If they had their way they'd eliminate some of the greenest modern phenomena: skyscrapers (Very green compared to urban sprawl, and they act as air purifiers for cities due to their HVAC systems), nuclear power (The very greenest source of clean energy that is viable today- the alternatives are all much worse for the environment).
But riding around in a ship attacking whalers is more fun than forming and participating in rigorous environmental panels, and they wouldn't want to be bothered with that.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 8 minutes later, 46 minutes after the original post[^][v]#454,523
I like it when Greenpeace activists protest oil exploration and fracking, and then drive home. In cars.
squeegee !first/o5zA joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 12 minutes later, 58 minutes after the original post[^][v]#454,524
@previous (D)
because we have so many alternatives to car travel, amirite?
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#454,526
@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)
Helicopters. And bears.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 22 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#454,528
@454,524 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
A lack of alternatives doesn't help their argument. They are protesting against something they are dependent on. Their words might carry more weight if they showed and used an alternative, instead of fighting against something they can't figure out how to live without themselves.
HaikerensGuide420 !dBGi/iH4eY joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#454,529
@454,524 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
You damn dixie cunt. You want to keep the North from having oil so you fucking Texas hicks can keep your damn monopoly.
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 25 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#454,533
@454,528 (A)
That makes about as much sense as laughing at libertarians for driving on public roads.
Triptych !IupsXZPnnU joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#454,548
@454,524 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
Public transit works lovely in cities, and I'd like to see more development of trains and busses between cities, as well.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 56 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#454,558
@454,524 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
There's no need for them to travel at all given the state of modern video conferencing technology. If they truly valued the environment, they'd come to find this an acdeptable alternative.
Anonymous F replied with this 13 years ago, 17 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#454,560
@previous (I) > the state of modern video conferencing technology
The shit state of it, you mean?
@454,533 (B)
Uh, it makes compete sense? They're being hypocrites on a very basic level.
(Edited 11 seconds later.)
Meta joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#454,574
@previous (F)
If you have decent bandwidth, Skype is not bad at all. @454,524 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
So the environmental damage of car travel is okay when Greenpeace does it, but not when ordinary people do? @OP
Not terribly surprised, just like PETA running animal killing "shelters" or Al Gore living in a mansion and running around the world in private jets and limousines telling us all how we desperately need to cut CO2 emissions.
(Edited 28 seconds later.)
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 13 years ago, 35 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#454,579
@previous (Meta)
i didn't make my point clear. my point is that instead of investments in public transportation and walkable cities, the US government instead sinks it's money into investments in infrastructure that benefit cars and drivers of cars. Our cities are not walkable, but they are most certainly drivable. It may take an hour and a half to get anywhere in dallas by bus, but i can drive anywhere in town in 20 minutes. We may not have a robust commuter train service, or even bike lanes for that matter, but we've got nice toll roads and more interstate highways than you can keep track of. This countries economy was built on Highways, 18 wheelers and passenger cars, and if you look at most cities you'll see we're unapologetic about it, we just add more parking spaces High Occupancy Vehicle lanes.
When the big shift from railroads to road ways happened it was the new interstate highway system that made us dependent on cars. cars allowed for business to consolidate into supermarkets and superstores located far from the neighborhoods they serve. Now cars are so entrenched in every day life here that it's difficult living without one.
you cannot say that it is hypocritical to protest a system that you are dependent upon to survive, you may protest it for that very reason if that system perpetuates itself and inhibits other, better systems of taking its place. It doesn't matter if trains and buses are better, cars are so pervasive alternative modes of transportation will have little impact in all but the most accommodating states. that means rethinking how cities are planned.
(Edited 36 seconds later.)
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 day later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#454,712
@454,548 (Triptych !IupsXZPnnU)
Public transit?!? What is this, the fucking 90's?
Robocars of GTFO.
Triptych !IupsXZPnnU replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#454,713
@previous (K)
I don't live in a shit area where public transit is horrible.
Meta replied with this 13 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#454,739
@454,579 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
I agree: massive subsidization of roads and things like the interstate highway system have massively distorted the transportation market in the US and outside of a very few cities like NYC, cities aren't walkable in any meaningful sense of the word.
Fun fact: Hitler's autobahn inspired Eisenhower to push for the interstate highway system.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#454,745
Militant eco-terrorist anarcho-primitivists care, fggt.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#454,751
@454,713 (Triptych !IupsXZPnnU)
I don't live in an area where people are too poor to buy a car.
Triptych !IupsXZPnnU replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#454,752