People send me stuff.
An entertaining row has emerged over the behavior of the director of Greenpeace International Program, Pascal Husting, and the Greenpeace International Executive Director, Kumi Naidoo. It seems they are both are in hot water over airplanes and the troops are sending angry letters, like the one I have below.
Husting was criticized for living in Luxemburg and travelling to his Greenpeace office in Amsterdam by the dreaded evil airplane, like the one above that is causing a “climate emergency”. Even the Guardian took Greenpeace to task for it.
The “row” that is now emerging is about the official response to this criticism, as seen in this newspaper The Netherlands Times. It seems Greenpeace members want both of them to resign now, because there was some sort of under the table agreement between the two on the air travel thingy, going against what the troops say they stand for.
An excerpt from the article:
Greenpeace staff want director dismissed
More than 40 staff members and campaign leaders from Greenpeace Netherlands are still demanding that international program director Pascal Husting be dismissed.
The staff members penned a letter to Greenpeace director Kumi Naidoo and Husting, writing that Naidoo should “considerate his position”, adding that the damage they have caused to the environmental organization can only be remedied by their departure, the paper writes.
The letter was not published, but spread amongst employees and signed by almost all important campaign leaders and staff members.
…
According to the paper, Husting’s commute to Amsterdam two times a month was his own choice, as a measure to keep his family happy as he did not want to move to Amsterdam due to the disruption to his young children’s lives. Being more environmentally friendly and taking the train to Amsterdam and back is also not an option for Husting, as that would take 12 hours. Husting’s salary has also come into the spotlight. At €6075 per month, the staff members argue that “that amount is multiple times the average income and a lot of money for most of our supporters.:”
The staff explain that there is no chance Greenpeace could recover from this scandal unless Naidoo and Husting are dismissed, as keeping them on would undermine the credibility of the environmental organization. “It will come back every time as soon as we criticize politicians or organizations. Like is actually happening now already. If Greenpeace can’t do it right, who can?”, they tell the Volkskrant.
Well, it is published now.
Dear Pascal, Dear Kumi,
In this letter we would like to express the deep concern that a great number of GPNL staff have regarding the reaction of you both on the issue of you Pascal, commuting to the Greenpeace International office in Amsterdam by plane. We are gravely disappointed by the role you both played in this matter.
Furthermore, we feel that you are not dealing with this disaster in a pro‐active manner and to the benefit of the whole organization. The lack of an appropriate external response is seriously undermining the campaign, mobilization and fundraising work our organization is doing. We find it shocking that our International Programme Director has been commuting by plane and that there was an agreement made between you both about it, even though this goes against the official Greenpeace code of conduct.
In your positions you should have the moral compass to know this crosses the line of what is acceptable, and you should also have the understanding that this would create a scandal if discovered by the media. As we know, the scandal was discovered by the media. Following that, the reaction you both gave in the media made matters worse. Kumi you used argumentation in the media about the difficult situation Pascal is in. This should never be a defense and in public opinion this will obviously not be accepted as an excuse, as campaigners, press and comms officers know from experience. It is exactly the kind of argumentation that governments and companies use when we ask them to do more to save our planet. And that line of reasoning is something we do not accept.
In an interview with the Dutch Press Agency (ANP) Pascal you explicitly drew the conclusion that Greenpeace cannot always live up to its own standards2. By saying that, you project your own misbehavior onto the whole Greenpeace organization. It is a remark that is extremely damaging for Greenpeace campaigns and a slap in the face to all the employees that do follow the code of conduct. You decided to further state in the Dutch media that you do not have a luxurious lifestyle because you earn a mere 6.075 euro per month and do not like airports or flying. You compared your income to what can be earned in industry, as to convince the audience of the modest salary you receive. Obviously, 6.075 euros a month is multiple times the average income and therefore a huge amount for the majority of our supporters.
Thus, this statement only made things worse. It is disrespectful to our fundraising staff, who work very hard to increase our fundraising results and then see hundreds of supporters leave us in one week because of the behavior of our IPD. It is also an insult to our supporter services staff, who have to deal with hundreds of angry phone calls, and to our social media team who had to react on many angry tweets and posts. And most importantly it is offending our volunteers who give us their time and energy and are confronted on the streets and festivals with questions about the flying behavior of our IPD.
Pascal you also stated that nobody within the organization had ever raised this issue before, which we understand is not true. Besides this, that statement implied that everybody within Greenpeace agrees with this behavior, making it seem a mistake of Greenpeace as a whole. We find this unforgivable. Of course everybody makes mistakes and there should be room for making mistakes within Greenpeace. However, this is more than a mistake. It was discussed, thought through and went on for two years. But it was only after the story broke to the media that you acknowledged it as a mistake. Apart from the ethical boundaries that have been crossed, the media statements that you gave Pascal completely disqualify you as a programme director.
The whole flying scandal undermines the motivation of many dedicated people that work for GPNL. It is an affront to all the hard‐working professionals within Greenpeace who are committed to the goals Greenpeace is trying to achieve and who are proud of our organization. We feel that the least you could do Pascal is apologize in writing, or preferably in person. While Kumi and Bunny took the time to come and talk to the Dutch staff, you did not even take the effort to write an email. Externally, this flying scandal seriously undermines our credibility as an organization. Every time we criticize politicians or companies, this story will come back, as we are already experiencing.
Campaigners are getting questioned by companies and politicians. If Greenpeace does not walk the talk, why should others do so? You do not seem to grasp how public opinion works and do not seem aware of the magnitude of the long term reputational damage that has been caused by commuting by plane and the chosen media response. It could have been, at least partly, repaired by presenting a quick and strong reaction showing what Greenpeace will do to prevent this from happening in the future. We understand that you are working on internal measures that will be communicated externally, but until now this response is lacking, and hence solidifying the damage to our organization.
By not reacting appropriately, you display a lack of understanding of integrity and reputational management. Pascal if you keep your position while externally no measures of improving our own behavioral standards are communicated, we cannot repair our loss of credibility. We will surely lose effectiveness in our campaign work. Therefore, we urge you to take measures that improve our behavioral standards very soon and we urge Pascal to leave the organization and take public responsibility for the mistakes that have been made, including the given media statements.
Kumi your position has been severely damaged as far as we are concerned, among many in our office your integrity is debated. We urge you to reflect on this. We are willing to further express our concerns in a conversation.
Best wishes,
Kim Schoppink ‐ Gerda Horneman ‐ Berit Soolsma ‐ Pelle Berting ‐ Caco Verhees – Rebecca van Scheijndel ‐ Christien de Jong ‐ Maarten Slagter ‐ Jorien de Lege ‐ Anne Boon – Femke Nagel ‐ Leon Varitimos ‐ Milo Laureij ‐ Michiel van Geelen ‐ Willem Wiskerke ‐ Tom Grijssen ‐ Danielle van Oijen ‐ Anne Nasveld ‐ Frederieke Velk ‐ Nora van der Hoeven ‐ Sanne van Keulen ‐ Hilde Stroot ‐ Faiza Oulahsen ‐ Joris Wijnhoven ‐ Bart van Opzeeland ‐ Sandra van den Brink ‐ Jeroen van Heijningen ‐ Ellis Hageman ‐ Michiel de Brieder ‐ Heleen Blesgraaf ‐ Tellu Lausas ‐ Gabrielle van der Ham ‐ Roy de Hair ‐ Marleen Zwartkruis ‐ Yuri Gunther Moore ‐ Simone Langley ‐ Joost Hostman ‐ Madeleine van Wensen ‐ Carin Bazuin – Frits Meuleveld ‐ Paul Baars – Marjolein Buissen – Pavel Klinckhamers
Source:
http://static3.volkskrant.nl/static/asset/2014/brief_43_stafleden_Greenpeace_Nederland_5721.pdf
Over 6000 euros a month, plus cost for air travel, plus no apparent purchases of carbon credits to offset their evilness.
Gosh, this seems like the sort of thing that evil capitalist executives or trough feeding government pork-barrelers might do.
If anyone thinks that Greenpeace isn’t just like any other large organization, complete with moral turpitude, sloth and excess, and behind the scenes dealings to prevent the workers from knowing what is really going on, now is the time for eye-opening.
Do as we say, not as we do..
Bunch of hypocrites…
It is good to start the day laughing.
Eugene WR Gallun
The credibility of the environmental organization?
When has any environmental organization ever been credible?
Greenpeace members should also stop using anything made from or that is powered by fossil fuels.
The end justifies the means. Or the means justifies the end? Or is it, the bed justifies the Airbus? Or something to that effect. I wonder how the frequent flyer miles are used.
From Bing Maps:
Luxembourg to Amsterdam 225 miles, 3hours 46 minutes driving a car.
A small European car can do 70+ miles per Imp. gallon, i.e about 3 gallons to do the trip. At GB prices that is about £19 worth of diesel.
“…Being more environmentally friendly and taking the train to Amsterdam and back is also not an option for Husting, as that would take 12 hours…”
Actually it’s 2 hours 54 minutes each way…
GREENPEACE NEEDS EDUCATING ABOUT THE TRAINS THEY WANT US ALL TO USE
Amsterdam to Luxembourg and back by train
In order to get from Amsterdam to Luxembourg by train, you need to make a connecting in Brussels. It is very easy to do by regular train. There is an hourly intercity train (Not Thalys which is more expensive) that leaves Amsterdam Central to Brussel-Noord. It leaves at 23 minutes past each hour, journey time is 2.51, cost is €34.40 second class single. Likewise, from Brussels there is an hourly Intercity train that leaves at 36 minutes past each hour. Journey time is three hours.
There is no need to pre-book either train. Go to the ticket office and buy one for each leg of the journey or just go to an NS international ticket office the day before and ask for a through ticket.
Step 1 Take the Eurostar Thalys train from Amsterdam Centraal to Brussels Midi. There are daily departures at 6:16 a.m., 9:16 a.m., 1:16 p.m., 2:16 p.m., 3:16 p.m., 6:16 p.m. and 7:16 p.m. Single adult fares start at €82 (£72.00). The travel time is 1h 54 min.
Step 2 Take the Intercity Train from Brussels Midi to Luxembourg. During the weekdays, the first train departs Brussels at 10:33 a.m. and the last one at 8:36 p.m; while over the weekends, the first train departs at 6:33 p.m. and the last one at 8:33 p.m. The travel time is 3 hours and the single adult ticket costs €65 (US$89)
See? Green hypocrites don’t need to fly after all.
These Greenpeace hypocrites really make me chuckle. If they truly believed in even 1% of the absolute tripe they spout about ‘sustainability’ and ‘renewable’ this and that then none of them should be using electricity, modern medicine, any form of fossil-fuel powered transport nor any form of modern powered communications device. And while they are at it, they should renounce all forms of currency and eat nothing but raw vegetables grown by their own hand (organically, of course). In fact, they should be toiling in the fields 12 hours a day beneath the giant windmills they insist on inflicting on us all.
Meanwhile, the rest of us, living longer and more healthily than ever in a fossil-fuel powered world of wonder and opportunity, can get on with our lives free from their constant idiocy.
Hypocrites and morally bankrupt, the lot of ’em.
He has children (plural) too!?
For shame.
I wonder what the total carbon footprint is foir Greenpeace and all the celebrities it gets to support it.
According to its own website: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/about/ships/
it has 3 boats: Rainbow Warrior, Arctic Sunrise, & Esperanza, plus inflatables, as well as a balloon.
I wonder how many flights Greenpeace as a group are responsible for per annum? How many car journeys, how many boat journeys and how many car journeys!
After a scathing criticism, the Greenpeace employees end their letter with “best wishes.” LOL
The only effective way to deal with this crisis is to fly the entire GreenPeace management team to a conference in Tahiti this January. If an agreement cannot be reached there, fly them to Carnival in Rio. Failing that, perhaps a luxury cruise?
It’s about a 4 hr drive from Luxembourg City to Amsterdam, according to Google Maps. Pascal could probably have saved a lot of time compared to the train, or money compared to the plane, by simply driving to Amsterdam for the work week and returning home on weekends, although resorting to the evil automobile might be an even worse sin for Greenpeacers.
Perhaps they should burn Pascal and kumi in effigy, or release their addresses to their supporters so that they can go and trash their places. Oh no wait, that was just for Owen Patterson.
I’m afraid that this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to international charities/NGO’s.
The Chief Exec of ‘Save the Children’ takes home £250K per year, and ten other ‘Save the Children’ execs get £100k per year. I refuse to donate to this cosy club any more.
Executive spelling please
Come on folks, Al Gore takes the cake on this very issue.
I think they meant ‘best wishes and good riddance’.
It is amazing to me that they bunk these guys purvey on a daily basis is not considered to be an ethical slip of far grater magnitude than Failing to Live the Life.
Greenpeace is (by far) best described by former members who have seen perverted what was originally a sensible call to environmental action to clean up after the excesses of industrialism in the 50’s and 60’s. I have, long ago, walked the decks of the Rainbow Warrior II and they were a pretty interesting bunch who accomplished much.
Leaping on the free-wheeling bandwagon of disaster known as CAGW has not helped the environment nor the organisation. It has only served to provoke unnecessary stress and conflict in people’s lives and to raise the leadership to political pork-barrel status. The worst excesses are not flying to work. The real sins include promulgating false claims, bandwagoning with the mob, fundraising under false pretenses, falsification of data and engaging in the character assassination of opponents who try to being public scrutiny to the poverty of their scientific and other credentials.
My how times change.
Looking at actions instead of words, I don’t believe there are 10 people on this entire planet who believe in CAGW.
When Greenpigs fight, we all win.
But I’m sure GreenPeace execs have often cited compensation and travel expenditure accounts of peer organizations to justify their largess, probably to themselves and a very select group of Board members on the compensation committee. After all, one cannot maintain cutting edge science and policy distortion on a shoestring budget. In this context there is a co-determined escalator relationship between radicalization and compensation with perks. The drop outs of original Green Peace founders apparently never understood this opportunity for money and power derived from behavioral style choice.
Not al is lost. There are three hour long Greenpeace propaganda programmes on the Beeb this evening. I turned off the first one on clouds last week when I heard the presenter ‘scientist’ intone that 1) increasing sea temperatures are 2) leading to more clouds, which are 3) causing more and 4) stronger hurricanes. We know 1) is true, 2) is probably true, but that 3) and 4) are just lies.
The hypocrisy is evident in British Columbia, Canada as well. Greenpeace recently made a big deal about “Welcoming Home” the oil powered Rainbow Warrior. The Rainbow Warrior was now free to burn many many, many tonnes of oil fuel to protest the Northern Gateway Pipeline which carries, you guessed it, oil.
“Hypocrisy only works if those that you are trying to fool can’t see it” – Geology Joe
I find it amusing that symbolism has such sway over substance and practicality.
Just that much more evidence that this is a faith based political movement and not a scientific movement
The end justify the means.
/sarc
Robert W Turner says:
“Greenpeace members should also stop using anything made from or that is powered by fossil fuels.”
I think that means starvation, freezing to death and other assorted fatal or near-fatal events.
Like every other? I do not think so. All of them do it. Some others do not pretend that it is anything but wasteful- but they do not care.
The term “morally bankrupt” come to mind.
It was all covered by George Orwell in his “Animal Farm”. Even if these two palookas walk the plank whoever takes over will soon be munching away in the trough as, despite the fact that we are all equal, some are more equal than others.
Greenpeace is a typical donation harvesting organisation. Every act it takes is just designed as a marketing event to generate donations. Oh, and obviously fascist in its structure.
The solution is really quite simple:
The eco-loons perennially claim that they are in the majority . . . so they all get together and live in yurts or wigwams and sustain themselves off of rainwater, tubers and berries.
Assuming their claims aren’t utter crapola – and they have courage in their convictions – that would immediately cut mankind’s carbon footprint by about 50%.
As an added bonus they’d presumably be facilitating the spread of various debilitating and/or terminal diseases via their primitive sanitation which would help to remove large swaths of the “cancer” they claim is afflicting the planet.
No effing surprise; even teleconferencing isn’t on the table for such degenerate, profligate hypocrites.
While all this is very amusing, what should be noted is that the fuel consumption for air travel is far better than a normal car. The fuel consumption per revenue passenger mile for aircraft like modern Boeing 737 and Airbus 320s is better than 120 miles per gallon and even better for some of the newer aircraft types. The efficiency is obviously more once the distance is greater. Older aircraft types with 4 engines are less efficient but even they have fuel consumption per revenue passenger mile of the order of 60mpg which matches one person driving somewhere in a Prius. Aircraft also do not need any ground infrastructure between departure and destination like rail ways which must be continually maintained and the cost of maintaining the rail ways is never included by greens.
The rules for me are different than the rules for thee. If anyone thinks the double-standard will change if these eco-warriors get their way then I have some prime oceanfront property to sell to you in Montana, cheap too. Funny how people who want power always exclude themselves from the rules they want to put into place.
Now dear George Monbiot moved to the wilds of Wales because his wife came from there and wants their children to learn Welsh in school. He had to purchase a car, poor thing, being ever so stuck out in the wilds. It was second hand though so probably emitting more than a new one
What is the point of doing good, if you can’t do well?
Oldseadog says:
July 23, 2014 at 8:35 am
From Bing Maps:
Luxembourg to Amsterdam 225 miles, 3hours 46 minutes driving a car.
A small European car can do 70+ miles per Imp. gallon, i.e about 3 gallons to do the trip. At GB prices that is about £19 worth of diesel.
========
“Being more environmentally friendly and taking the train to Amsterdam and back is also not an option for Husting, as that would take 12 hours.”
=====
So cars can do in about 4 hours what it takes a train 12 hours and with check-in etc a plane in 3. Wow progress.
Sasha says:
July 23, 2014 at 8:38 am
“…Being more environmentally friendly and taking the train to Amsterdam and back is also not an option for Husting, as that would take 12 hours…”
“Actually it’s 2 hours 54 minutes each way…”
I think it is closer to 5-6 hours each way. It seems there is no fast train to Bruxelles even though it is closer to Luxembourg and driving takes nearly 4 hours.
This comment was posted here are while back – seems relevant with respect to these green organizations…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/24/the-scandal-deepens-ipcc-ar4-riddled-with-non-peer-reviewed-wwf-papers/#comment-298859
Daniel H says:
January 24, 2010 at 8:19 pm
I worked at WWF as a programmer back in my early 20s and I was still sort of naive about global warming and environmentalism in general. The job was located at their Washington, DC headquarters and I was hired to create a new database for their “Climate Savers” program. The idea was to keep better track of the enormous revenue streams that they’d extort from Fortune 500 companies in exchange for not waging organized media campaigns against them (Nike, HP, Dupont, etc).
Their Climate Change Department was staffed by creepy fanatics who would run around screaming about how Bush stole the election and other crazy things about whales and “climate justice”. I was young and didn’t know what to make of it all so I just shrugged it off. Anyway, the head of the Climate Change Department was this freaky woman named Jenifer Morgan. We just called her “the forehead” because of her massive forehead[1]. She threatened to leave DC if Bush was not impeached for war crimes. She kept her promise and got transfered to Bonn, Germany along with her personal assistants.
Last I heard, she no longer works for WWF but continues to fly all around the world on behalf of her new environmentalist NGO.
The WWF headquarters building was a state of the art corporate complex with lots of plants but of course they kept the AC cranked up full blast during the hot DC summer months. In the basement there was a modern gym that employees were encouraged to use so I started using it after work. A lot of these guys who were “campaigners” would blatantly hit on me but I’d just ignore them and keep to myself. Later I stopped going to the gym after I personally witnessed some sort of lurid gay sex going on in the locker room.
I left WWF shortly thereafter.
Anyway, the shocking fanaticism and hypocrisy that I’d witnessed made me curious to learn more about the issue of climate change and what it was all about. That was when I officially became a skeptic.
True story.
I’m not surprised about that sick 9/11 exploitation campaign they ran because many of them were openly anti-American and seemed to think Bush was the Anti-Christ. The young activists were mostly rich white kids whose parents were well connected with DC politics and/or old money families. They grew up in privileged environments completely insulated from the world at large. For some reason they were all obsessed with people like Noam Chomsky. That’s pretty much it.
Whew…It felt good to get that off my chest! 🙂 Any questions?
1. http://www.feem-web.it/potsdam/images/morgan.jpg
@ZT – did you have to include the picture? Now I am having nightmares!
Yet more proof that the people who run Greenpiece don’t believe in the AGW scam either.
Ian W says:
July 23, 2014 at 9:51 am
“While all this is very amusing, what should be noted is that the fuel consumption for air travel is far better than a normal car… ”
I don’t think those opposed to aviation are interested in this type of information. In addition one the IPCC reports used aircraft performance data of aircraft from the 60s and 70s.
Having been a supporter of trains I now think there is something perverse in trying to get a train up to a speed where it would be better putting a pair of wings on it and remove all the surface infrastructure that it needs. A plane can ‘clean up’ by putting away its under carriage and gain greater efficiencies. A train travelling over 200mph has to keep all of its wheels and any pantographs out in the slipstream causing significant drag.
Isn’t Luxembourg a tax haven? I would commute from there too if I could.
I have what I call the studio, but it’s really my man cave. Anthony, shame on you. I have been rolling around howling with laughter all morning. You are a comedian and don’t know it.. The antics of these Al Gore want to be’s is beyond stupid. It’s just plain funny
So Husting lives in Luxembourg but works in the Netherlands. I wonder where he pays tax.
In The Wizard of Oz, the residents of Winkie land also got fed up with the flying monkeys.
To the folks signing this letter, I refer you to the two chapters of the Greenpeace employee handbook titled, “Those More Equal Than You” and “Because, Shut up!”, respectively.
The ends justify the means.
Or
The mean justify their ends.
I can’t be the first person who’s ever thought of that but if I am; copyright Me – Now
Keitho says:
Greenpeace is a typical donation harvesting organisation. Every act it takes is just designed as a marketing event to generate donations. Oh, and obviously fascist in its structure.
^Worth repeating^. The real chumps are the millions of credulous fools who donate part of their meagre incomes to these organizations, with the hope that they are ‘doing something to save the planet’.
Every public action by these enviro groups is done with the thought of how it will affect donations. That is priority #1, far above any other concern.
“A fool and his money are soon parted” applies here in spades. Donating to Greenpeace is a measurement of stupidity. It provides for a very rich lifestyle for the lucky few who control the funds. As for ‘saving the planet’… Pf-f-f-ft.
Do I need to join Greenpeace before I can write a letter of outrage?
I’m pretty sure the plane flies whether he is on it or not. So, this is kind of silly. But, as the Greenies take this stuff seriously and they are the ones complaining, I’m ok with it.
I think everyone will most likely agree. They should use bicycles 🙂
“Apart from the ethical boundaries that have been crossed, the media statements that you gave Pascal completely disqualify you as a programme director.
Best wishes, …. ”
Best wishes and we wish hope you soon find an equally well paid position elsewhere.
Just like Al Gore- can’t walk the talk.
Green = Hypocrite
In Heinlein’s Dichotomy, the controllers write rules that are intended to control everyone ELSE – rules which they themselves are not bound to follow. Just like royalty.
“We are willing to further express our concerns in a conversation.”
Sounds like a modern invitation to be guest of honor at a necktie party…
Col Mosby says:
July 23, 2014 at 9:35 am
Robert W Turner says:
“Greenpeace members should also stop using anything made from or that is powered by fossil fuels.”
I think that means starvation, freezing to death and other assorted fatal or near-fatal events.
********
and the down part of that is?
jolly farmer says:
July 23, 2014 at 10:27 am
So Husting lives in Luxembourg but works in the Netherlands. I wonder where he pays tax.
====
NO, no,no . It was for his “young family” that he did not want to move, not his tax status. You’re so cynical.
Just how “young” are they BTW, that phrase always sounded a bit like spin, now I think of it.
Bill – Jets use more fuel the heavier they are.
If he has a “young family” he’s a late starter. He was born in 1961, that makes him over 50.
I’ve looked for this story on the BBC.
And looked, and looked . . . .
You get three guesses.
Sad, isn’t it?
Auto
TobiasN says:
July 23, 2014 at 11:12 am
Bill – Jets use more fuel the heavier they are.
Any spare capacity due to low passenger numbers is made up by high priority freight to approximately the same weight.
The letter looks fake to the extent that it refers to a “disaster” as in media coverage. Radical membership at any level would not admit to something like that even in an internal communications to management. They might use “serious matter” or “perception failure” but not disaster. Notice how I left out the other possible word choice of “inconvenient.”
Maybe they should strap them to a chair and force them to watch the PlaneStupid polar bear video over and over again. I guess they need a new one now, showing white ringtail possums raining down.
f****** luddites.
Wonder how long he stays in Amsterdam each time he is there. Twice a month can mean 2 weeks, back for a weekend and another 2 weeks or twice a month for a day, 2 or 3, stay and anything in between.
In the meantime I assume he does not sleep on the street and will not go without food. Each time he goes to Amsterdam that would add a multiple of his flight cost to the bill, dwarfing the cost of the flight. Wonder who pays for that? Ok, we all know the answer.
If he stays for a week at a time or longer perhaps GP rent him an apartment somewhere and he can claim his grocery bill too, surely he would do his own cooking. That might make it a bit more economic.
Or does GP do what churches do? Investing in real estate, so they own the place where he stays. “Sorry madam, the $50 you donated did not save the whale but we now have a nice pad for our campaign manager in Amsterdam”.
In real green fashion I would expect the various office colleagues of his in Amsterdam to have him stay with them and feed him some home cooked meals. Sort of on a rotating basis.
Not likely though.
For these people GP stands for GreenPeace, for others it stands for Gross Profit. There is a link here somewhere.
http://news.yahoo.com/greenpeace-left-red-faced-top-official-travel-expose-171202581.html
“I haven’t flown in five years for any personal reasons,” he added.
OH, that’s cool then. He only flies to ‘save the planet’.
Does not one of the signatories to the letter realise that by “earning” salaries, ALL of them are complete hypocrites, insofar as they are participating in the capitalist-driven earn-and-spend economy.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha hah hah Hagh hagh ha ha ha.
Bruce Cobb says:
July 23, 2014 at 11:29 am
Maybe they should strap them to a chair and force them to watch the PlaneStupid polar bear video over and over again. I guess they need a new one now, showing white ringtail possums raining down.
====
Crap, I’d never bothered watching that before. It’s worse than I thought !
Is it just me or is there a nasty hint of the poor bastards jumping out the windows of the WTC buildings? Especially with the sound track of a plane going overhead.
A few nice bits of blood and gore ( sorry Al ) in a subtle cinematographic ‘reference’ to the 10:10 exploding school children scene.
I bet the “twice a month” claim would not stand to an audit of his expense account either.
“I haven’t flown in five years for any personal reasons…”
Visiting his ‘young family’ isn’t a personal reason?
Clipper ship.
Wooden clipper ship.
Wooden clipper ship with no engine or steam winches.
1850’s wooden clipper ship with no refrigerator, showers, toilets, or laundry.
1850’s wooden clipper ship with all-natural sails and 100% natural fibre ropes (that rot) and no winches or iron anchors or iron cleats or halyards or pulleys or lights or motors or lifeboat engines or radios or tar and grease to pollute the water.
And no icky iron harpoons or fishhooks or cooking oils or spatulas and pots and pans and tanks and ballast and nails and bolts and nuts and masts …….
Perhaps he should apply for a pilots license, then someday he could be popping around Europe in his very own GulfStream 4. Now that could save a lot of valuable time and be fun in a Larry Ellison sort of way, and Greenpeace could continue to look the other way.
dbstealey says:
July 23, 2014 at 12:04 pm
“I haven’t flown in five years for any personal reasons…”
Visiting his ‘young family’ isn’t a personal reason?
===
Isn’t earning 6k a month “personal reasons”? Hardly an ‘intern’ was he.
You really want to stuff him? Ensure that he never works in Greenery again? Then here’s what you do…
Just send him an open letter – from someone like Watts or Monckton (who are seen as the devil incarnate by the greens) – congratulating him on his good sense in not falling for all the idiocy he pushes, and for taking full advantage of all the technology our civilisation has to offer.
If there’s anyting that would enrage a green, it’s the thought of someone like Monckton approving of the actions of one of their leaders. He’ll be branded a traitor and thrown off the gravy train…
This hypocrisy goes well beyond some flashier case like this. Imagine if even half of the people that think the earth and its vital systems are in DANGER truly changed their lifestyles beyond paper bags, more efficient lighting and other near token items. I keep hearing about how various “others” are blocking us from a green future, but I dont really see to many people making truly paradigm shifting changes to their own lifestyles. Ive met a few, but not many. I always found this a bit odd.
I know several families more then wealthy enough to put up solar panels or windmills. Most of them will mock someone or another for stop the US from moving towards this, but heck if all those that claimed to care changed, it would not only take us a long way down that path but also make it somewhat cheaper for others to follow.
Randy, windmills are a very ecologically friendly way to grind grain into flour, but may break the roof struts.
I think you meant wind turbines.
Interestingly jet engines are at their most efficient at high altitude. It can even make sense to taxi a twin with only one engine running. Adding a third runway may actually reduce pollution if it means planes waiting less to land or take off.
Amsterdam-Luxembourg train journey times
“Being more environmentally friendly and taking the train to Amsterdam and back is also not an option for Husting, as that would take 12 hours”
Actually, it’s 5 1/2 to 6 hours each way…when you add it all up.
There are no direct services to Luxembourg. The quickest way to travel by train is to take the Thalys train to Brussels and then take an intercity service from Brussels to Luxembourg – this takes just under 5 1/2 hours and costs from about €70 one-way. You could also choose to take the conventional intercity services between Amsterdam and Brussels. The trip can also be done in 6 hours by taking an intercity train from Amsterdam to Maastricht and then further intercity connections in Liege (Belgium) and Namur (Belgium).
A small European car can do 70+ miles per Imp. gallon, i.e about 3 gallons to do the trip. At GB prices that is about £19 worth of diesel.
A Mazda 6, Mercedes 220, and a few other larger cars will do 70mpg and diesel in europe is about 30% than the UK thanks to the Brown/Blair labour gov. Incidently, the new new labour are just as nasty and just as stupid.
Terence Corcoran: How Greenpeace landed itself in serious legal trouble with its campaign against a forestry company
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/07/16/greenpeace-resolute/
Greenpeace Hypocrites. New name for the organization.
Speaking of eco-NGOs, a climate change conference that just ended in Venezuela has called for an end to capitalism to deal with climate change:
http://www.cityam.com/1406127764/climate-change-conference-calls-end-capitalism.
Don’t know if Greenpeace was represented there, but I have a question for the conferees: How exactly is the alternative to capitalism (communism? socialism?) supposed to be an effective solution to the CO2-climate change “problem”?
Notice how this apparent violation of “the official Greenpeace code of conduct” is “disrespectful to our fundraising staff”. As always, follow the money.
A salary of €6075 per month is pretty low. €73,000 a year is not that much more than a Luxembourg school teacher (though their teachers do rather earn more than most), so being from there he would have no reason to think it even slightly unreasonable. It would compare reasonably to a senior UK secondary school teacher. It would be well below a school principal.
I am a school teacher and I would not take a job like his for that money.
At that sum, I would have to guess that there are some sizable perks. It would be delicious to discover that the had a “company” car.
Mark says:
Interestingly jet engines are at their most efficient at high altitude.
===
Which makes short haul flights like Lux-Amsterdam the most wasteful and “carbon intensive” of all.
Like religions, like government, like big business, like all organisations the self interest of the apparatchiks starts to show itself just like it is with the utter desperation of the loonier and loonier CAGW claims and denialism regarding the pause. Talk about hoist by their own petard. Could not happen to a more self important, narcsissistic and vicious pack of so and so’s. They remind me so much of the sanctimonious and utterly unchristlike swine in the RC Church and their treatment of unwed mothers and orphaned children. LOL
On the same thread, there was a meeting recently organised by an environmental pressure group, in the city where I live to discuss how people should use their cars less and cycle, walk, use public transport more.
Most of the attendees the meeting who were concerned environmentalists traveled there by car !
The Science Geek
Give a thousand dollars to the Amish and you get back fine wooden furniture. Give a grand to Greenpeace grandees and they fly around create videos trying to recruit the next Unabomber:
http://youtu.be/BY7875_rv1s
So what’s their reaction to Uncle Al’s private jet? They must have dispatched a hit man
for him.
Oh dear, the righteous want their pound of flesh – not a good career move for Pascal and Kumi.
Lots or people live in Switzerland and work in France to , by ‘lucky chance ‘ tax for Swiss residents is cheaper than for those in France. Now anyone want to guess which has higher tax levels , the Neanderthals or the country famous for having more business registry there than people living there ?
Dodgy Geezer says:
July 23, 2014 at 12:20 pm
…
If there’s anyting that would enrage a green, it’s the thought of someone like Monckton approving of the actions of one of their leaders. He’ll be branded a traitor and thrown off the gravy train…
___________________________
You mean gravy plane?
Why should they care about whether their code of conduct is followed or not? It’s not like they’re known for internal consistency of positions. For example, they claim to be pro-science when it comes to climate yet they go full anti-science inquisitor when it comes to genetics.
“Together let’s stop our corn from being contaminated by genetic engineering”
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/getinvolved/no-GMO-maize-sowings/
Oh the tragedy that Greenpeace wasn’t around 9,000 years ago in Mexico to stop those first geneticists from genetically engineering teosinte via selective breeding into corn.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/science/25creature.html?_r=0
Obviously, they are scientifically illiterate.
If you believe Greenpeace cares about climate change because of the science, then I have a bridge I’d like to sell you (cheap).
Dodgy Geezer says:
July 23, 2014 at 12:20 pm
You really want to stuff him? Ensure that he never works in Greenery again? Then here’s what you do…
Just send him an open letter – from someone like Watts or Monckton (who are seen as the devil incarnate by the greens) – congratulating him on his good sense in not falling for all the idiocy he pushes, and for taking full advantage of all the technology our civilisation has to offer.
If there’s anything that would enrage a green, it’s the thought of someone like Monckton approving of the actions of one of their leaders. He’ll be branded a traitor and thrown off the gravy train…
Right you are Dogy. I would also suggest a similar missive from Willis. Hopefully he would add “something extra.” His language skills are prodigious and his wroth formidable.
PaulH says at July 23, 2014 at 1:02 pm
In fairness to Greenprace activists… the fundraisers are the bottom of the ladder..
They are the krill that the senior activists save up to provide their meal ticket.
The workers are right to be angered by the wasteful profligacy of the bosses.
Especially as their bosses pretend to be “better than the average bourgeoisie”.
Apparently Pascal Husting great innovation and managerials skills were responsible for a policy of focusing on two core issues ( OGM and CO2 ) and to stop wasting effort in too many diverse issues ( like real industrial pollution for example ).
This strategic genius is responsible, almost single handedly it would seem for the Greenpeace dropping efforts against REAL pollution issues to focus on a colourless, odourless, non toxic gas that is the basis of life on Earth.
“Chapeau” ! Pascal.
“Adizes Corporate Life Cycle”
http://www.adizes.com/corporate_lifecycle.html.
Quoted from; “Understanding the Corporate Life Cycle”
Intro;
It is a fundamental truth that every organization, like a living organism, has a natural lifecycle, and it goes through predictable and repetitive patterns of behavior as it grows and develops.
At each new stage of development the organization faces a unique set of challenges.
How well or poorly management addresses these challenges, and leads a healthy transition from one stage to the next, has a significant impact on the success or failure of that organization
Stages ;
Courtship
Infancy
Go-Go
Adolescence
Prime
Stable
Aristocracy
Early bureaucracy
Bureaucracy
DEATH
*************
Early Bureaucracy; [ Greenpeace ? ]
When an Aristocracy is unable to reverse its downward spiral and the artificial repairs finally stop working, management’s mutual admiration society abruptly ends.
The good -old-buddy days of the Aristocracy are gone, and the witch-hunts of Early Bureaucracy begin.
Companies in this stage focus on who caused the problems, rather than on what to do about them.
There has been a lot of gnashing of teeth about a purported 12-hr train trip vs an actual ~3-5 hour trip, but many of you seem to have missed that the 12-hour figure is for a round trip:
“… taking the train to Amsterdam and back … would take 12 hours”
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Also omitted from some comparisons is the time spent by any air traveler driving to the airport, parking, shuttle, queuing up for security, check-in, and “arriving early” etc. so any time comparisons need to be apple-to-apples, say, front door of the home to office door and the reverse. When door-to-door is considered for short-hop flights, air travel almost always loses out to driving an automobile, assuming a reasonable highway system.
@Brian356
Absolutely correct! My mother lives 12 hours (by car) from me. When I went to visit her, my wife did not want me to drive, so she made me fly. From the time I left the house until I walked into my mother’s house was almost 11 hours. So if it takes less than a day, usually driving is easier.
So much for using ^^^^ to underline – leading white space ignored. ;-(
A nice bunch of people to prosecute in the near future for crimes against humanity.
“leading white space ignored.”
Hey bud, this is HTML all multiple spaces display as a single space. If you wnat hard spaces use ampersand nbsp semicolon sequence. Since it is likely to display in a proportional font you may need to
.. and hope the wordpress does not remove what you were trying to do like it most probably will do here.
MikeTheDenier says:
July 23, 2014 at 10:47 am
I think everyone will most likely agree. They should use bicycles 🙂
—————————————–
I really like that idea.
And if he’d hike it just one time oh what a lesson he could learn.
He could try horseback. I hear that’s fun.
Save the planet, may arse.
cn
1) who thought that Greenpeace had any credibility left to lose?
2) what is this nonsense about 12 hours on the train?? Does he mean he must visit Paris (London?) on every trip?
3) Dodgy Geezer says:
July 23, 2014 at 12:20 pm
that is a brilliant idea, send and publish (here?) congratulatory letters to both officials from as many “skeptics” as possible, especially prominent ones. Praise both officials and Greenpeace for abandoning nonsensical hysteria about “carbon”…. sit back and enjoy the fracas among rabid Greens.
4) can someone with Photoshop skills create any parodies of this situation?
e.g., an ad for one of the Euro airlines praising Greenpeace for supporting airline “carbon” emissions….
or a banner for WUWT congratulating Greenpeace now that they have “seen the light”??
You can get a copy of the Greenpeace 2003 annual report at the following link:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/about/how-is-greenpeace-structured/reports/#a0
Total 2013 income is reported at 288 million euro. That’s about £266M or $362M. Not bad business if you can get it.
From Page 46, Greenpeace worldwide GHG emissions in 2013 are reported at 22,656 (in CO2 equiv. metric tonnes) Among these….
Direct emissions for marine transportation 6,848 tonnes
Indirect emissions for business travel 11,250 tonnes
Direct emissions for vehicles 850 tonnes
Assuming the vehicles were mostly cars (0.35 kg/mile CO2), the reported 850 tonnes (850,000kg) suggests 2.4 million vehicle miles. Probably quite a bit less than this as vehicles would include truck journeys with more emissions per mile. Nevertheless, it would be a big number which goes to show it’s hard to spend £Millions without travelling around on FF-propelled wheels.
From the same page: “We continue our efforts to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Using the same DEFRA methodology to calculate our emissions as we did in 2012 would show a total of 23,824 metric tonnes (942 metric tonnes, or 4.1%, more than the previous year). Despite the increasing size of our activities during the year (2013 total expenditure being 7% more than the previous year), we have managed to control any increase in our greenhouse gas emissions.”
By its own admission, Greenpeace demonstrates that controlling CO2 emissions is not easy. Not while spending all those millions of $$$. Well done Greenpeace – you are pursuing your goals, and as you do so you are helping to make the point that your economic activity is dependent on CO2 emissions.
Now how about Greenpeace setting itself a goal of zero emissions and a binding trajectory to get there. No? I thought so!
skiphil says:
July 23, 2014 at 3:06 pm
“can someone with Photoshop skills create any parodies of this situation?”
I think it should have the obligatory plume of black smoke coming out of the engines.
That never bothered 350.org. They love flying campaigns against global warming. Just do the math. In fact their fellow activists just can’t leave planes alone. It’s that convenience thingy, like gas central heating, and tropical delicacies flown in.
DO AS WE SAY, AND NOT AS WE DO.
What is telling is that they didn’t even see the value in purchasing eco-indulgences (aka carbon credits) to save their souls from enternal composting.
Is all this money that people hand over for ‘carbin credits’ actually audited, or is it another eco scam that goes straight to profits.
Oops – you can get a copy of the Greenpeace *2013* annual report at the link above…
The distance between Luxembourg to Amsterdam is 197 miles. The distance between London to Scotland is 382.32 miles. The 197 miles can be considered an internal flight if done in the UK. Now check this out from Greenpeace.
Greenpeace has a point, they have to resign.
Greenpeace annual income is around $336 million a year. That’s more than the American Petroleum Institute. Now that’s what I call s well funded activist machine. Vrooooom.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/greenpeace/2012/AnnualReport2011.pdf
http://www.thegwpf.org/greenpeace-inc-336-million-a-year-multinational-behemot/
M Seward says:
July 23, 2014 at 1:29 pm
…….. Could not happen to a more self important, narcsissistic and vicious pack of so and so’s. They remind me so much of the sanctimonious and utterly unchristlike swine in the RC Church and their treatment of unwed mothers and orphaned children. LOL
————————————-
Sanctimonious and utterly unchristlike swine are apparently not restricted to either of the religions you anathematize. Plank, splinter, etc.
RACookPE1978 says:
July 23, 2014 at 12:04 pm
Clipper ship.
Wooden clipper ship.
Wooden clipper ship with no engine or steam winches.
1850′s wooden clipper ship with no refrigerator, showers, toilets, or laundry.
1850′s wooden clipper ship with all-natural sails and 100% natural fibre ropes (that rot) and no winches or iron anchors or iron cleats or halyards or pulleys or lights or motors or lifeboat engines or radios or tar and grease to pollute the water.
And no icky iron harpoons or fishhooks or cooking oils or spatulas and pots and pans and tanks and ballast and nails and bolts and nuts and masts …….
Why wish him on an innocent clipper ship? They were awesome vessels and many ship hulls stull owe a great deal to the clipper hull. Besides, being very high tech for the time, that would probably not go well with GP views.
The Flying Cloud was launched in 1851. Designed by Donald McKay, it would be an 1850s clipper ship. It held a record for the fastest New York to San Francisco run around Cape Horn (89 days plus some hours) that stood for more than a century. Since the roaring 40’s blow west to east, the trip from NY to SF tends to be slower than vice versa since it requires some close hauled tacking against the wind. The Northern Light, another clipper, still holds the record of 79 days from San Francisco to Boston around the horn.
Clippers and other ships of the time had either copper-plated, wooden hulls, or iron hulls – lots of wood not much iron till after the Civil War (the Balclutha at San Francisco, built in the 1880s, has a steel hull). Wire rope was invented in the 1830s so reliance on hemp or sisal cable probably had to do with manageability and maintenance. Wire rope or cable rusts and was expensive. Life boats? The Flying Cloud probably carried at least four boats, one or two inverted on the deckhouse roof and two on davits. The Flying Clouds record, made on a commercial voyage carrying passengers and freight to California, was broken by the Maserati, a yacht with a gaff rig, making a useless voyage with the sole purpose of breaking the Cloud’s record. A halyard is a line and would not be iron (it’s one of those “ropes”).
The word “head” for toilet comes from sailing ships. You went to the head because the wind not carry unpleasant substances back aboard. Except when close hauled up wind, the bow (near the figure head) is the most down-wind point on the vessel and thus, where the toilet (such as it was) was placed. An 1850s clipper would have had a large number of metal fittings and tackle elements including the anchor, pulleys and blocks, parts the binnacle, wheel, rudder mountings and so on. The Cloud ran aground on St Jonhs and was condemned and burned for the copper and metal fittings. Harpoons were carried by whaling and sealing ships, none of which were clippers. The Charles W. Morgan, now docked in Mystic Sea port in Connecticut is a purpose-built whaler. It was launched in 1841 so it was an elder contemporary of the Cloud’s.
“still” not “stull”
Did you know that Greenpeace actually has HOT AIR BALLOONS! Oh the shame. Now here are their boats.
I propose a new Greenpeace motto:
“YOU must fight climate change, and the causes of climate change.” It’s all for the grandchildren dontcha know.
@Jimbo
We know – they commute via airplane from Luxembourg to the Netherlands.
No Greenpeacer should commute on anything other than a unicycle carved from sustainable wood with a stone knife they have chipped themselves, which may not be ridden on any surface that involves petrochemicals in any way in its construction or materials. Or they could just ride their unicorns, I guess.
Greenpeace’s inflatable boats are powered by wind and solar I presume. ;-P
We have a planetary emergency. We must act now and fight climate change by burning fossil fuels. Or did they use ethanol?
If Greenpeace stopped using anything powered, derived or delivered from fossil fuels this year they would cease to exist next year. That is a fact. I challenge anyone to challenge my assertion. Think rubber boats, metal ships, going to headquarters, clothing, medicines, food supplied to their ships and so on. It is an impossible undertaking this year, or next, or the year after that.
For anyone commenting on the rubber boats you must remember delivery and refinement. The boats don’t just pop out of the trees. Processing et al takes place using fossil fuels.
I think Pascal should also wear a hair shirt while doing this commuting. By the way, is this letter a translation, or do the staff or whomever need a course in remedial writing? God, what a poorly constructed, insipid document that is. Pascal and Numi are probably still nearly catatonic from reading it.
Paul Driessen’s encounter with a Greenpeace activist;
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog
Countless jobs, living standards and lives hang in the balance. The eco-imperialist crimes against humanity must end.
“I haven’t flown in five years for any personal reasons…”
But I have racked-up a tremendous amount “elite status” frequent flyer points allowing me to travel around the world in first class with my family, when this gig is up.
Happy travels.
M Courtney says: (July 23, 2014 at 8:24 am) “When has any environmental organization ever been credible?“. Some environmental organisations were credible once. See, for example, the references to Philip Toyne of the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) in this document: http://landcarecentral.org/References/LC%20in%20Australia.pdf
IMHO we do need responsible environmental organisations, and there don’t appear to be any at the moment.
I would have thought working at home and video-conferencing when necessary would have been sufficient.
Hey, they are just trying to make a living – things are tough all over.
/sarc, kind of
But…..he has a shield of sanctimony and a cloak of hypocrisy……both green on the outside and red on the inside…..
Al Gore should apply for the position of International Executive Director.
The pigs needed all the milk in animal farm to ensure their brains were working properly.
Perhaps give him a sincere award for Father of the Year for putting his family above all else. He could hardly protest – how could he explain that to his family? Perhaps a lightbulb would come on that that’s all any if us are really trying to do. Then suggest he could more than make up his lost salary by writing a tell-all book about GP.
If you think about it, GP has a lot more to lose than he does.
I bet the tax rate in Luxembourg is much less than in Holland. Which might be real reason for this scam.
I bet none of these “fellows” has any idea that on a typical day there are some ~90,000 flights that take off and land transporting thousands of people around the world.
I’m sure many of the rank and file GPers have pure motives in their desire to do what they think is good.
Maybe many of them will now take the next step.
“These guys told me I should do ‘this’ to prevent ‘that’…. But they don’t do ‘this’…. Maybe what they told me is ‘scat’?”
I looked at a variety of schedule combinations for trains between Luxembourg and Amsterdam.
All are between 5:22 and 6:15 in length of travel
the Greenpeace “12 hours” nonsense is fatuous dishonest disinformation
ok, the Greenie prefers to fly
given the politics of his career and employer, he can’t admit the simple facts
Kevin King says:
July 23, 2014 at 11:33 am
f****** luddites.
Concur.
Mac
Duster says:
July 23, 2014 at 4:05 pm
RACookPE1978 says:
July 23, 2014 at 12:04 pm
Clipper ship.
Wooden clipper ship.
Wooden clipper ship with no engine or steam winches.
1850′s wooden clipper ship with no refrigerator, showers, toilets, or laundry.
1850′s wooden clipper ship with all-natural sails and 100% natural fibre ropes (that rot) and no winches or iron anchors or iron cleats or halyards or pulleys or lights or motors or lifeboat engines or radios or tar and grease to pollute the water.
And no icky iron harpoons or fishhooks or cooking oils or spatulas and pots and pans and tanks and ballast and nails and bolts and nuts and masts …….
Why wish him on an innocent clipper ship? They were awesome vessels and many ship hulls stull owe a great deal to the clipper hull. Besides, being very high tech for the time, that would probably not go well with GP views.
The Flying Cloud was launched in 1851. Designed by Donald McKay, it would be an 1850s clipper ship. It held a record for the fastest New York to San Francisco run around Cape Horn (89 days plus some hours) that stood for more than a century. Since the roaring 40′s blow west to east, the trip from NY to SF tends to be slower than vice versa since it requires some close hauled tacking against the wind. The Northern Light, another clipper, still holds the record of 79 days from San Francisco to Boston around the horn.
******************************************************************************************************************
Slow mate slow.
The Lightning did London to Melbourne in 78 days and returned to London in 63 days.
http://www.bruzelius.info/Nautica/Maritime_History/Passages/USNM-3%281855%29_p291.html
I’m with Jimmy Finley @ 4:35 above. Many cases of verbosity involve thinking of different ways to say the same thing. These people thought of the same way to say the same thing, over and over.
==============
skiphil says:
July 23, 2014 at 9:16 pm
I looked at a variety of schedule combinations for trains between Luxembourg and Amsterdam.
All are between 5:22 and 6:15 in length of travel
…
______________________________________
It’s not just that. How much of his precious time might this sparkling emerald of professional begging devote to his unique company whilst traveling by train? A lot more than by air! But, on the other hand, the more time he spends doing nothing, the better for the rest of the world…
Breaking News: Stray mongrel driven to distress by chronic flee infestation barks constantly at nothing.
Greenpeace members should follow the example of their wise leader. The airline will fly to Amsterdam with or without their leader. Pascal’s body mass is negligible compared to the weight of the jumbo jet. Maybe the staffs think he is flying a single-seater jet. Or maybe they think he weighs 10,000 lbs.
Jimbo says:
July 23, 2014 at 4:24 pm
“If Greenpeace stopped using anything powered, derived or delivered from fossil fuels this year they would cease to exist next year.”
—
Dear Jimbo,
You know as well as others that conservation was never the long term goal, but to fulfill the de-industrialization of Gaia via the leftist environmentalist agenda as was also explicitly laid out by Ted Kaczynski (for most of the same reasons).
The amusing thing is not that there’s anything implicitly wrong with jet travel, which there isn’t. As that’s just the presumption wanted green-washed everyone to group-think, and as you see above many constructed their remarks in those terms.
No, the more amusing thing is to watch them tie themselves in knots with their own propaganda then rip themselves in the attempt to deny their own incapacity to span the gulf between their bullsh*t and their now problematic reality. And the intransigent persistent factor in this whole artificial ‘problem’ is solely their own unrecantable nonsense.
But this can easily (if temporarily) be resolved, if they installed a green ‘Pope’ as sort of vicar of Gaia who sells indulgences to the ‘Saints’ in good standing, or else excommunicate anyone flying without a pre-paid indulgence credit. This can of course be extended to cover a multitude of other self-imposed sins, and may be thought of as a more enlightened form of carbon-credits. Thus peace would reign in Heaven and Earth once more.
Release the Cherubs!
What I find interesting is that the complaints Greenpeace Staff have levelled at their Director could just as easily be made against Greenpeace Staff by the 3rd world. Sidebet that they are completely clueless re their hypocrisy.
Also of interest is the fact that Greenpeace has at least 40 paid employees in Amsterdam (in fact, they are a minority, the actual number is more like 100 or over). Now, let’s assume that they on average on a salary of E25K, a relatively modest amount if you have to survive in Amsterdam. That would give an annual salary bill of at least a million Euro, probably a multiple of that.
Now have a look at the Greenpeace annual financial report and try to find the post “salaries”. It ain’t there. Nothing in those reports about how many people make their living out of activism and by how much. Nichts, nada, zilch. The only thing you can find (in e.g. the 2011 report for Greenpeace worldwide) is this:
Total income Greenpeace 2011 (annual report, page 47)
—————————————————–
Total global income : 241.114 MEuro
Expenditure Climate Change Activism : 28.747 ME
Organisational support : 37.257 ME
I surmise that the last two posts actually include the salaries. It is really quite scandalous that a multinational like Greenpeace can get away with such obfuscation.
Currently up on Drudge, another glimpse into the minds of the eco-Nazis …
130 Environmental Groups Call For An End To Capitalism
No surprise to anyone with a brain. They have been at this since the beginning, but now they feel free to come out of the closet.
BTW, I wonder what Mosher would think if any of his ‘work’ ends up on their propaganda slideshows used to fleece the suckers in the west. We know people like Mann would be overjoyed to find the same.
” he did not want to move to Amsterdam due to the disruption to his young children’s lives”
Meanwhile the policies his hypocritical ilk would implement if given half a chance, would disrupt lives worldwide. What a maroon.
John West says:
July 23, 2014 at 2:03 pm
Why should they care about whether their code of conduct is followed or not? It’s not like they’re known for internal consistency of positions. For example, they claim to be pro-science when it comes to climate yet they go full anti-science inquisitor when it comes to genetics.
“Together let’s stop our corn from being contaminated by genetic engineering”
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/getinvolved/no-GMO-maize-sowings/
Oh the tragedy that Greenpeace wasn’t around 9,000 years ago in Mexico to stop those first geneticists from genetically engineering teosinte via selective breeding into corn.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/science/25creature.html?_r=0
Obviously, they are scientifically illiterate.
If you believe Greenpeace cares about climate change because of the science, then I have a bridge I’d like to sell you (cheap).
================
dont use that crap line re natural plant crossing being the same as the GMO splicing for pesticide and herbicide or any of the other traits INSERTED into a gene, Thats the Monmen and their shills best line for the gullibles.
a STABLE natural variant will breed true
nothing the GM mobs have fiddled does and even they were supposed?? to be surprised when the genes they said were in some of their strains were found to be rather different than stated,
when examined over in europe.
———–
do I like greenpees? No since they went to warmist agenda its made all their other efforts farcical.
Blade:
Environmental activists met in the oil producing, socialist country of Venezuela as part of a United Nations-backed event to increase civil engagement in the lead up to a major climate conference. But environmentalists surprised U.N. officials by offering up a declaration that not only seeks to end capitalism, but one that also opposes U.N.-backed efforts to fight global warming …
—
Presumably everyone looked at them, blinked, squinted, blinked again then burst out laughing? Forty years of cold war and some enlightened geniuses and former psych-ward escapees show up at the UN General Assembly demanding total global surrender, to their list of bed-wetting backed demands that amount to disbanding civilization? …
“Would you like fries with that?”
Unmentionable says:
July 24, 2014 at 1:07 am
“The amusing thing is not that there’s anything implicitly wrong with jet travel, which there isn’t. As that’s just the presumption wanted green-washed everyone to group-think, and as you see above many constructed their remarks in those terms.”
Quite so, but it is the casual way in which unproven emotive sentiments have become part of everyday conversation without any scrutiny, such as; “flying is 10 times worse than taking the train. It’s responsible for 13 per cent of the UK’s impact on the climate ”
This statement is even worse: “We’re working to put an end a completely reckless response to climate change and drag the aviation industry into the 21st Century.”
The 21st Century to a large extent can be epitomised by aerospace and all its advances and I do not want Greenpeace to take any credit for advances in efficiency or technology because doing more with less is a mindset that is embedded in this industry and has been from the very first flights.
Anyway, I enjoyed your description of all this especially: ‘Release the Cherubs!”
Unmentionable says:
July 24, 2014 at 1:07 am
……But this can easily (if temporarily) be resolved, if they installed a green ‘Pope’ as sort of vicar of Gaia who sells indulgences to the ‘Saints’ in good standing, or else excommunicate anyone flying without a pre-paid indulgence credit. This can of course be extended to cover a multitude of other self-imposed sins, and may be thought of as a more enlightened form of carbon-credits. Thus peace would reign in Heaven and Earth once more.
————————————
But then they might get their act together. Better they remain a protest movement.
Standard Issue GreenPiece Moral Compass.
N
^
|
W E
||
+
$
Ian W at 9:51 am said:
“…Aircraft also do not need any ground infrastructure between departure and destination”
Wrong Sir. There is a very extensive air traffic control ground infrastructure without which flying would be impracticable, if not impossible. Sure, no roads or rails but ground infrastructure nonetheless.
Dear Rebecca et al:
Come on, people, don’t you see?! That plane would be flying from Luxembourg to Amsterdam, whether I was on it or not, and the fuel savings resulting from the absence of my 200 pound weight would be negligible. If I drove a car to Amsterdam and back, THAT fuel usage would be real, since it would not occur if I did not drive. So, as long as that plane is flying anyway, it’s actually more green to ride on the plane than to drive. What we, as Greenpeace, need to do is convince all the OTHER people fllying from Luxembourg to Amsterdam that their flying is causing dangerous climate disruption, so fewer and fewer people will be on that flight, and the airline cancels it due to lack of passengers. THEN I can start driving to work, knowing that my efforts have caused that plane to stop flying, and therefore my fuel usage in the car will be justified.
As for the train option, it’s true that the train would be going from Luxembourg to Amsterdam whether I was on it or not, so it would seem that my logic above for flying would apply equally to riding the train. However, by the time you factor in arriving at the airport early, waiting for baggage pickup, etc., the train ride takes, on average, 3 minutes, 37 seconds longer than the flight. That’s 3 minutes, 37 seconds that I could be guilting others into not flying on that evil airplane.
Moreover, you are missing the big picture here. Whatever we can do to solve the climate crisis will be WASTED if it is not carried over to the next generation. If we do not teach our CHILDREN to respect the climate and care about the planet, then we will never solve the problem. If I were to pack my family up and move to Amsterdam, just to avoid having to take this flight, then my children would be angry with me for disrupting their lives and separating them from their friends. And as they grew into adulthood, their resentment toward me would transform into a rejection of my ideals, and they would become the very carbon polluters that we, Greenpeace, object to. And so, by taking the plane, I am ensuring that my children grow to accept my environmental morality out of their love for me.
Best wishes,
Pascal
Have to disagree, Pascal. If I were the child, I would be angry, but grow up to respect the commitment my parents made to the environment, and follow in their footsteps. Afterall, moving woukd be a hardship on them as well. Otherwise, when I grew up I would realize how hypocritical my father had been, and the lesson would be that the environmental movement was a farce.
David Chappell says:
July 24, 2014 at 7:23 am
Ian W at 9:51 am said:
“…Aircraft also do not need any ground infrastructure between departure and destination”
“Wrong Sir. There is a very extensive air traffic control ground infrastructure”
Perhaps incorrect to say no ground infrastructure but It is not extensive. In your travels (anywhere) how many times have you seen aviation ground infrastructure (non airport)? I think I know where such ground features are in the UK but I seldom come across them, because they are rare compared to all other man made features, even compared to Roman or Iron Age features. .
It took them how long to spot this?
At least 5 years.
A good old-fashioned flogging is in order. If he doesn’t renounce his sins, we’ll give him the choice of a noose or guillotine. That is the way we solved these problems, before the “evil” of society based on low cost access to energy.
Well others have already pointed out that a plane actually uses less fuel per person-kilometer than a car with one person in it.
But, can we put Greenpeace together in a cage with that British shocktroop “Plane Stupid” that wants to make sure the British Isles are only accessible via ships and maybe the Channel Tunnel?
Do they even still exist?
Resourceguy says:
July 23, 2014 at 11:28 am
“The letter looks fake to the extent that it refers to a “disaster” as in media coverage. ”
See. Greenpeace has a military-like structure. Volunteers are told in which action to participate and what to do. All of them know perfectly well that its all about media impact.
OF COURSE they would perceive this as a “disaster”.
Those who find this pure media-shock tactic despicable LEAVE. I talked to one, that’s how I know.
I wonder, does Gene Hashmi know where his children go to school?
but aren’t the writers of the letter using capitalist tools? you know, PCs, software, smart phones, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube etc …? if they had any morals they’d stop using these tools and give up all modern conveniences now …. hypocrites really …
Reblogged this on Flying Tiger Comics and commented:
Elite behaviour and eternal hypocrisy – the lasting legacy of the New Left. Dinosaurs from the 1960s teaching new generations to be trough pigs whilst claiming environmental causes as their fig leaf
Greenpeace members on no account should ride bicycles. They’re made from non-renewable metal ores ripped from the bosom of the earth by rapacious, evil, capitalist, plutocratic miners and smelted in fossil-fuelled, energy-guzzling, satanic smelters spewing forth toxic pollution and planet-melting greenhouse gases.
Since airliner will fly to Amsterdam with or without Pascal, how much extra energy needed to fly Pascal? Let’s say he weighs 170 lbs (77 kg), airplane flies at 500 mph (223 m/s) and 10,000 ft (3,049 m) altitude.
Change in potential energy = 77 kg x (9.81 m/s^2) x (3,049 m) /1000 = 2,311 kJ
Change in kinetic energy = ½ (77 kg) x (223 m/s)^2 /1000= 1,927 kJ
Total change in energy = 4,238 kJ
How much energy consumed if Pascal drives a Prius to Amsterdam? Distance Luxembourg to Amsterdam = 362 km, equivalent gasoline mileage of Prius = 21 km/L
Equivalent gasoline consumption = 362 km / 21 km/L = 17.2 L
Energy density of gasoline = 35,475 kJ/L
Energy consumed = 35,475 kJ/L x 17.2 L = 611,521 kJ
Prius consumed 144 times more energy than airliner. Jumbo jet ain’t so evil. Hybrid car ain’t so good.
@ Dr. Strangelove says:
July 24, 2014 at 7:22 pm
The problem with your calculations (nothing mathematical) and all of those who proudly proclaim “it was going there anyway” is that if there are not enough people to MAKE the run, the flight is cancelled. So how many times is a flight NOT cancelled because someone jumped on board due to it “going there anyway”?
Their stated objective is to reduce fossil fuel use. By patronizing and using air travel, they not only encourage others to use it, they save routes that would perhaps die for lack of passengers. And that is the hypocrisy of their actions.
When a mob beats up a person, it matters not who actually landed the lethal blow. Everyone getting in a punch is guilty of his death.
Dr Strangelove says:
“Prius consumed 144 times more energy than airliner. Jumbo jet ain’t so evil. Hybrid car ain’t so good.”
That was a joke I hope? If not, please google “induced drag”, “profile drag” and “parasitic drag”. As a matter of fact modern aircraft and cars tend to be approximately equally energy-effective counted per passenger kilometer.
“Husting’s commute to Amsterdam two times a month was his own choice”. A commute which takes ~4 hours driving. What’s the big deal? There are thousands of Australians who make a one day 4 hour round trip just to visit a medical specialist in a major city. If he gets the flick into the real world the poor darling is about to find the going very tough.