Re: The Greenpeace Chronicle
- From: alexterrell@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 21 Oct 2005 06:16:45 -0700
John Beardmore wrote:
>
>
> >Had they been able to dump the Brent Spar in the Atlantic then that
> >would have opened the floodgates.
>
> If opening them is justified, maybe that's what should happen ?
>
The opportunity to create a reef and marine life haven at no cost was
lost. Instead, at risk to life, and at a high cost in energy, the
platform was taken to Norway and painstakingly dismantled.
> I'm not in favour of perpetuating a situation that is not always
> justified just because it is sometimes.
>
>
> > That is why government was so keen
> >to help its friends in big industry by supplying Royal Marines to
> >evict the protestors.
>
The Scientists at Shell were stunned. Their detailed analysis showed
that sinking the Brent Spar was the best option cost wise and
environmental wise. Greenpeace made up some numbers, stuck their
fingers in air, and disagreed. Shell were rather surprised that
everyone believed Greenpeace's guestimates and ignored Shells analysis.
Later Greenpeace quietly backed down.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The Greenpeace Chronicle
- From: John Beardmore
- Re: The Greenpeace Chronicle
- From: David Hansen
- Re: The Greenpeace Chronicle
- References:
- The Greenpeace Chronicle
- From: Andy Baxter
- Re: The Greenpeace Chronicle
- From: John Beardmore
- Re: The Greenpeace Chronicle
- From: Andy Baxter
- Re: The Greenpeace Chronicle
- From: John Beardmore
- Re: The Greenpeace Chronicle
- From: David Hansen
- Re: The Greenpeace Chronicle
- From: John Beardmore
- The Greenpeace Chronicle
- Prev by Date: Re: Parlaiment Committee on Nuclear Power
- Next by Date: Re: The Greenpeace Chronicle
- Previous by thread: Re: The Greenpeace Chronicle
- Next by thread: Re: The Greenpeace Chronicle
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|