[Subjectivist]

Sure sounds like it, when the US prosecutes they do the same thing. If criminal charges are too hard they charge people with civil statutes instead.

[AgentR11]

Sure sounds like it, when the US prosecutes they do the same thing. If criminal charges are too hard they charge people with civil statutes instead.

They could easily justify charging GP for the entire cost of the arrest, detention, and storage of the vessel. We have no inhibition about doing that ourselves. Could be just an easy way to zero out the account, boat worth $x-odd million, op+storage+fine+court cost=$x-odd million + $2.50. Confiscate the boat, cut it up for scrap just to put an end to it; and its all nice and tidy.

[Subjectivist]

Sure sounds like it, when the US prosecutes they do the same thing. If criminal charges are too hard they charge people with civil statutes instead.

They could easily justify charging GP for the entire cost of the arrest, detention, and storage of the vessel. We have no inhibition about doing that ourselves. Could be just an easy way to zero out the account, boat worth $x-odd million, op+storage+fine+court cost=$x-odd million + $2.50. Confiscate the boat, cut it up for scrap just to put an end to it; and its all nice and tidy.

Little problem with that plan, Russia returned the boat to Amsterdam last month.

Amsterdam, 9 August 2014 - The Greenpeace icebreaker Arctic Sunrise today sailed back into Dutch territorial waters after over 300 days in Russian custody. The ship had been held illegally since taking part in a peaceful direct action against state owned oil company Gazprom, as it tried to drill the world’s first oil well in icy Arctic waters.
Several members of the so called ‘Arctic 30’ were there to greet the ship and boarded the vessel in Beverwijk, near Amsterdam.

“This is a joyous day for me, for my friends and for the millions of people around the world who campaigned for the release of the Arctic 30 and the Arctic Sunrise”, says Dutch climate and energy campaigner Faiza Oulahsen, who spent two months in a Russian prison last year on piracy and then hooliganism charges following the protest.

[AgentR11]

Little problem with that plan, Russia returned the boat to Amsterdam last month.

nvm then. I looked in various places, just didn't find a reference to the fate of the boat, so thought it was still in Russia.
Makes the coming report kinda meaningless, no? Unless GP has other assets in Russia?

[EdwinSm]

A professor at a Finnish University says that the International Energy Authority has consistently under-estimated the potential and future growth of renewable energy sources in its annual World Energy Outlook report. The report is used by global policy-makers to help shape decisions that mould the future of energy policy.
....
Researchers in Lappeenranta in collaboration with the Energy Watch Group, tracked IEA reports from 1994 to 2014 and compared their predictions for solar and wind production with the reality that followed. They found the forecasts were misleading, and under-estimated renewable potential.

"It’s a shame, because these two technologies are exactly the technologies that we’ll need in energy production in the future," said Breyer. "It’s becoming clearer every day that these two technologies are the ones we need."

The IEA forecast for 2010 predicted a level of solar energy production in 2024 that had already happened in January 2015. Only oil firms like BP, Shell and Exxon Mobile have forecast levels of renewable production similar to the IEA.

Greenpeace and Bloomberg have up to now offered more accurate predictions of renewable production than the IEA. This matters, because the IEA’s pronouncements have a huge influence on policy-makers worldwide.

http://yle.fi/uutiset/professor_renewable_energy_consistently_under-estimated_by_iea/8377764

[ROCKMAN]

Wasted thread IMHO. Not quantification of the error. Read the entire link: just “we were right and they were wrong” with no data to support the claim. If there is such numerical data then present it. Just because some Finn says it’s so really doesn’t carry much weight.

[Tanada]

For what seems like decades, it has been open season on scientists and corporations by environmental non-profit corporations and the PR groups they fund to be their hatchet men, like SourceWatch and Mother Jones. Libel? No problem, Lisa Graves at SourceWatch will do it. Spinning stolen funding proposals provided by a fired employee as actual conspiracy events? Mother Jones will oblige. When they can't do it directly they will get willing toadies they control to do it for them.

Corporate communications groups are handicapped by their own shame at being in business at all, so they have created a policy of 'do not engage', leaving the cultural discourse to be controlled by activists who spend $1 billion a year making sure science and technology is spun as the enemy of the public.

One group is fighting back.

Resolute Forest Products of Canada is one of the largest producers of newsprint and pulp. Most people know by now that wood is actually a renewable resource and many in the industry are great about sustainability - but not Greenpeace donors and their marketing team. They have been in a war on Resolute for years with their Resolute: Forest Destroyer campaign. And now Resolute is suing them for racketeering.

Greenpeace is a giant corporation. If they were in the private sector, they would be in the Inc 4000 list. Claims are that 94 percent of Greenpeace parent company revenue goes to non-programs, such as salaries, administrative costs, fundraising expenses and other support for the fundraising machine.

Those apparently include black hat Internet terrorism tactics to take down companies who won't play ball with them.

With Resolute, they came to a joint agreement on forestry practices but then Greenpeace found it did not sit well with their base (whereas a Greenpeace executive commuting by plane has been just fine), so they bailed on it and then pressured certification organizations to withdraw Resolute's compliance. Then they threatened companies like Best Buy, Proctor and Gamble, Hearst Newspapers and 3-M with attacks on their brands if they did not stop doing business with Resolute.

If that sounds like mafia racketeering or the sort of corporate conspiracy that would put a private sector CEO in jail, it is. So was their behavior when no one caved.

Best Buy refused to give in to the demands of Greenpeace and their website was hacked on Black Friday, the biggest shopping day of the year, and suddenly there were 50,000 product reviews claiming Best Buy was "fueling the destruction of the Canadian Boreal Forest."

Just coincidence, said Greenpeace, but Best Buy stopped doing business with Resolute.

Eco-terrorism tactics clearly worked and the public has been trained to give an ethical halo to environmental lawyers and activists, at least compared to companies. Though there is no net loss of forest because Resolute replants trees, Greenpeace insists the company is depleting the forest, and its donors believe them.

Who has yet to plant a tree there? Greenpeace.

Hey, when only 6% of your money is actually used to protect the environment, you have to choose your projects carefully. Planting trees won't make the cut most of the time.

Things were going to look bad for Resolute going up against that kind of hate-filled machine. Add in Greenpeace staging fraudulent photos and blaming damage from nature on the company and what do you have? You have Natural Resources Defense Council and Center for Science in the Public Interest taking notes, that's what.

http://www.science20.com/science_20/for ... ing-174121

[Tanada]

Here is the way I see it, Non Governmental Organizations (NGO) like Greenpeace had a very free hand during the latter half of the Cold War and the first decade of the 21st Century.

At first this was because they claimed all sorts of free speech protections in western democracies and friendly prosecutors and judges would either not charge them or let them off very lightly when they did extra legal activities in the interests of their organization. Campaign contributions certainly did not hurt this leniency trend either.

However the world culture has been shifting for decades now, we are becoming an ever more authoritarian. The government is putting CCD cameras in all major cities to help solve crimes, and the average voter is no longer sympathetic with the excuse that a crime was committed by someone 'trying to make the world a better place'. Voters on average see crime as crime with no ends justifying the means logic allowed. In more authoritarian countries like Russia and China i has always been a case of, if you get caught you generally get punished.

Greenpeace has been losing its political cover slowly but surely, and now the tide is turning. The question remains, will they manage to stay in business, or will they keep up their extra legal campaigns and find themselves destroyed by the legal system they have greased their way through in the past?

[dissident]

Yeah, sure, Greenpeace is some innocent "NGO" all about free speech and human rights. BS. Where are the other stunts like the Gazprom oil platform assault from Greenpeace in the case of NATO countries? Interesting pattern there: lots of stink over "Russian genetic wrongdoing" and no attention to "genetic white hats in NATO".

NATO and its "NGO" proxies such as Greenpeace can sod off. The scam is transparent.

[dissident]

https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/cc/Corpora ... Id=9004963

In Canada, the Ukrainian Banderite (neo-Nazi) militant outfit, "Right Sector", is registered as a non-profit corporation. Non-profits are usually about charity or humanitarian work. I'd like to see the Canadian government register Hamas or Hezbollah as non-profit corporations. BTW, "NGO"s are non-profit corporations in Canada.

[SeaGypsy]

I have thought Greenpeace suck it bad since they stacked local greens branches around the developed world in 1990/91, removing locals to replace them with their planted puppets. I was there & watched it happen. To read up, go back to articles relating to the relationship between Sierra Club, Earth First & Greenpeace through the 80s & early 90s.