What do you think about Greenpeace and their actions? Is it sometimes necessary to break the law in order to bring about positive change? Do you think the oil spill in the gulf of Mexico was a single incident which could be prevented from happening again through adjustments and safety measures, or is it indicative of a greater problem connected with the inherent dangers of off-shore drilling? Finally, should saving the Arctic ecosystem be a priority at the moment? After all, there are not many people in the Arctic and plenty of other environmental problems which effect our well-being to a greater extent. Should the importance of environmental problems be measured by their impact on humans, and if not, by what?
No matter what the topic is, no mater if a solution is reached at all, actions and effort are the only direction one should take, if he really wants to make a change. A simple example of this would be the case, if your friend smokes, you think it’s destroying her health and you would like her to stop. If you really want to see a change you will act according to what is written in the first sentence, i.e. you will do everything you can to make her stop, even if it is probable that you will never achieve the wanted result. The reason why I brought this up is because Greenpeace is of the best role models, when it comes to acting according to the first sentence. Their actions are swift and their effort made for a change is tremendous. Therefore I strongly support the actions of Greenpeace done on the oil rig in Greenland waters. Just as Greenpeace, I also believe that another spill would create even more catastrophic consequences than the BP oil spill did. Thus we have to look at one particular consequence which would be worse than all the others.
ReplyDeleteAs it is stated in the article, Cairn has only 14 vessels capable of reacting to a spill, what means, if a spill actually occurs, it will very likely fail in preventing the oil from reaching the ice bergs. The worst scenario’s first act begins right then. For millions of years there might have been dozens even hundreds of undiscovered bacteria frozen in the ice bergs, but due to the non-decreasing global warming their return to life is very probable. And what can be worse than a bunch of undiscovered bacteria marching fast forward towards us? Well nothing but a bunch of mutated undiscovered bacteria marching fast forward towards us. Believe me it is something that we must avoid of happening, and like we have seen in the article, it is exactly what Greenpeace tries to do. And they do it with each of their action. We might see it as useless, when they want to stop the building of a hotel, just because of few trees, but in the greater picture it is essential. The reason why it is essential is because we see only that one particular case, but there are thousands of them, and if each time Greenpeace would simply let them be, all at once we’d be dealing with an unavoidable environmental disaster.
Branislav Skocek IB3
@Brano_in_peace:
ReplyDeleteBrano, I can't agree more with you on some points that you brought up and I think that you expressed my position towards Greenpeace better than I would myself. Just like you I believe that Greenpeace takes actions to make the world a better place. If everyone just sat on their butt and silently observed what is happening around them I don’t even want to imagine where we would be now. Every little step against the atrocities done to environment is a step towards a healthier world. I am thankful and admire every individual who stands up and acts to save our planet as it is our masterpiece that it’s so destroyed now because we don’t treat it with respect. And that doesn’t apply only to saving the environment but also to every change we want to make just like you said. Some might say that the people from Greenpeace are going far beyond the border but I say aren’t all the companies which are building buildings, drilling for oil and more going far more beyond the border? Therefore I support them with my whole heart in everything they do and I just hope that nothing unpredictable and deadly happens to them as they are the last ones who would deserve it.
One interesting thing you drew attention to which didn’t occur to me before was the thing with bacteria being released after melting of the icebergs. You nicely zoomed out to the greater picture and showed how everything is linked and leads again to the climate change. When I first heard about the drill I didn’t pay enough attention to the number of vessels and how it would affect the icebergs but now it sounds even quite probable if the worst case scenario came on the scene. Therefore I thank you for making me think about the issue more and bringing up some details I haven’t noticed.
RE: Branislav Skocek
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with you on the point about trying the best in order to see the results, but I think that green-peace should focus on one problem after another to achieve the needed results, so that they don't try to solve all the problems at once, with no success at all.
I also have to react to your comment about bacteria waiting at us in the ice-bergs. I don't think that this is the biggest problem the humanity faces when dealing with global warming. Melting of continental ice-bergs will cause rise of ocean water levels, creating a much bigger and an immediate problem for the mankind.
Even though I agree with the point about trying to stop building hotels in tree areas, I don’t think that green-peace can actually solve this problem. They should more concentrate on teaching people the importance of securing and defending the nature, so that they act in environmentally-friendly way without being always monitored by one organization.