You can't criticize the oil prospectors, they wheedle, unless you are entirely removed from reliance on oil.
What clap-trap. Suits their argument though, given that we are all enmeshed in oil and it's products. The stupidity of the argument that disqualifies all of us from comment on the activities of the drillers seems to bypass the brains of commentators such as Mr Keeping Stock, whose post today on the Greenpeace action involving Lucy Lawless is a perfect example of the thinking that I find so depressingly shallow.
Following the logic that Mr KS uses, no criticism is valid, therefore we must all just shut up and let the oil boys get on with their legitimate business.
I
don't
think
so.
Here's a sample of the right-thinking Mr Stock's world view:
" After all, can Lucy Lawless and her foolhardy mates personally guarantee that the environment was not harmed by the production of the survival gear they are using, the cellphones with which they are communicating with a meek and compliant news media (hang your head in shame TVNZ), and the means of transport by which they made their respective ways to New Plymouth?
Of course they can't, which merely exposes them as hypocrites of the first order, as well as lawbreakers preventing people from going about their lawful business."
11 comments:
That does seem to be the flavour of many of the comments on frogblog in the last day or so. They probably think they are very clever, cos according to their logic we can't comment cos we are taking part in society which is soaked through with petroleum products, so we have to completely disengage with the modern world before we can have any credibility and then of course no one will hear us. Sorry , no!
Great work Lucy and crew!! This action is getting international attention and the only argument the oil drilling groupies have got is that Greenpeace sometimes use fossil fuels, pretty weak.
What KS is doing Rob is trying to obscure the issue of drilling in the Arctic by squealing about Lawless' 'right to protest'. I don't see any mention of the issue of drilling for oil in vulnerable environments at all.
It's all smoke and mirrors for the rightwing shills!
Yes Viv, that's the ploy. The best way to counter it is to dismiss it outright and speak straight to the core issue, as Callum describes.
Callum - I wonder if some of them are even aware of why they say what they do.
A pox on both their houses as far as I am concerned. I have been on the receiving end of exactly the same logic from greenies trying to tell me I can't be a "proper" environmentalist because of this this and this.
All the while I am actually doing something and they are not.
Why would a proper environmentalist criticize your activities, Shunda?
perhaps they were pretenders.
Anyone can be prejudiced, even those that scream the loudest that they're not prejudiced.
There is very definitely two kinds of environmentalism in NZ, which is actually a huge problem for getting any meaningful change.
Can you describe the type of environmentalist you support?
Perhaps a word or wo about those you don't?
Cheers
I'll give you an example Robert.
My interest in trees has led me to a reasonable knowledge of which trees our native nectar feeding birds frequent, both native and exotic.
I have also noticed that their feeding habits change throughout the year and nectar is at a premium during the colder months.
Most native bird mortality will occur during the winter when food is scarce.
I have an Australian Banksia tree in my garden that flowers throughout the colder months and is of huge value to Tui, Bell bird etc.
I am trying to promote an idea that in highly modified environments (towns, roads and town margins) it is possible that planting certain exotic species will dramatically enhance the over wintering prospects of many of our native birds.
This idea immediately draws the ire of "proper" environmentalists that seem to think all efforts have to revolve strictly around native species.
I find this idea absurd and of huge hindrance to a real solution to our native birds to thrive in a modified environment.
This is just one example I have encountered.
Shunda - I share your experience of running up against the 'native-ist' wall. It's an ideological one and easily overcome. So long as the tree you favour isn't a pest that will spread by its own efforts, you'll be right in planting it where ever you like. You'd not expected all 'environmentalists' to be cut from the same cloth would you? There are those who focus on 'New Zealand as it once was' and those who see biodiversity a different way. I'm a blend of both and feel the conflict in my self and try to compromise. Where it's just a cosmetic thing and someone doesn't like the look of something, I think, tough. Where the professionals say, that plant is a threat to the environment', I concur. Chilean rhubarb is an example. It's a good food and spectacular, but has become a serious pest on Stewart Island, so I don't fling its seeds around as is tempting to do, following my drive to fill the landscape with foragable food plants for all.
I'm not sure how this relates to Lucy and her protest though. It's inevitable that there are different reasons for doing things. Where there are rationales for doing something that are different from mine, but the end is the mutually satisfying, I bite my tongue :-)
I want to know how they go to the loo when stuck together on a 6 x 3 metre platform - now that takes good planning!
It does and they do, animal.
The not-so-glamorous side of non-violent action. Pays to be on very good terms with your fellow protesters, especially if you are chained to something and have taken steps to avoid dehydration.
Post a Comment