digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at reuters.com

Greenpeace crashes coal meeting using phony front

reuters.com — Posing as a pro-coal organization, activists infiltrated an industry conference yesterday. At a booth and in official conference materials the Greenpeace team promoted a fake url that redirects readers to www.coal-is-dirty.com. They also distributed asthma inhalers and business cards declaring their phony front group is a joke, as is clean coal.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Surferess, on 06/27/2008, -49/+34Go Greenpeace! Keep up the good work!
    • mike17032, on 06/28/2008, -14/+16Ya, keep wasting more money protesting and doing stupid stunts each year than it would cost to buy enough land to save all the endangered species in the country! Nice work *****, keep pushing your backwards views on everyone else and pretending you give a ***** about the world.

      Its also quite funny how stupid most of the GP members are, mostly confused 19 year olds and old brain dead hippies.
      • mecharabbit, on 06/28/2008, -2/+10Come on now, it's all about balance. Sure, the Greenpeace activists are crazy , but so are the Neocons. Yin and Yang, man.
  • Scruffydan, on 06/27/2008, -21/+37Greenpeace certainly isn't the best poster child for the environmentalist movement but I can't fault them for this
    • ICSU, on 06/28/2008, -2/+3They do a lot of good and serious research. Of course, they also attract a lot of hot-blooded young people that are not ecologists (i.e. educated scientists).
    • ZenMojo, on 06/28/2008, -4/+1They should have done it in V masks holding signs saying, "We know where you ba$tard$ dig. We are many. We are powerful."
    • Naieve, on 06/28/2008, -1/+1This is the group that decided to change directions on nuclear power, finally realizing that it is a lot cleaner then the pollution and co2 currently being sent into the air.

      On this issue they are correct.

      Instead of putting filters on coal plants, they switched to a cleaner coal and said screw the filters.

      The fact that burning high pollution coal with filters is better then clean coal doesn't matter, they can charge the 10 times more expensive clean coal to the customer.
      • mnocket, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2Sorry to burst your bubble...... Greenpeace has not changed their position on nuclear energy. I think you probably read about Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore's change of heart regarding nuclear energy, which he now supports. His dissatisfaction with Greenpeace's continued opposition to nuclear power was a strong motivation for his split from the organization he helped found. No, unfortunately Greenpeace is still nothing more than an ideology driven activist group who's good deeds pale in comparison to their publicity stunts, egos and self-righteous attitude. Kinda like PETA.
      • blabbabel, on 07/01/2008, -1/+0Greenpeace doesn't support nuclear power, it supports sensible clean energy technologies. We dont' need nuclear power, heaps of countries are switching over to renewable energy.
    • NSResponder, on 06/28/2008, -1/+2So, you have no issue with trespassing and fraud?

      -jcr
      • Myonosken, on 06/28/2008, -1/+1As part of a peaceful protest? No.

        Also, fraud? They posed as a pro-coal group, but never said they were. They simply didn't mention they were anti-coal and that all their stuff redirected you to anti-coal sites.

        Edit: -jcr-
  • alapoet, on 06/27/2008, -30/+17I love these guys.
  • OffPiste, on 06/27/2008, -44/+42I fully support the killing of Greenpeace members by the French Government. SINK GREENPEACE!!!!
    • yukevster, on 06/28/2008, -2/+8and the death of an innocent New Zealander?
    • RetlawST, on 06/28/2008, -1/+13"I don't agree with their politics or practices, so I condone the killing of people who are different than me."
    • defwheezer, on 06/28/2008, -2/+3OffPiste ~ Sociopath
      • Myonosken, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1sociopath? No psychopath is the word you want.
  • dha07030, on 06/27/2008, -3/+39Why at an industry conference? I am guessing they are not the most receptive audience.
    • mike17032, on 06/28/2008, -0/+33To make a scene, the only reason GP does anything.
  • SquareEnix, on 06/28/2008, -6/+44they wasted their time, it's not like anyone took them seriously.
    • mike17032, on 06/28/2008, -1/+15Does anyone? Ever?
    • sirbeta, on 06/28/2008, -1/+11Since when has Greenpeace ever really been taken seriously?
    • Netwatcher, on 06/28/2008, -1/+6And yet were talking about them right now?

      Hrm... seems like they got their money's worth after all.
      • Naieve, on 06/28/2008, -1/+4We are talking about them, but umm, look at these comments.

        Very little discussion on the issue they were trying to raise, more discussion on their pathetic group.
      • defwheezer, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2Interesting that nobody on here has actually stated what Greenpeace did to piss them off so much- did they raid your Oil Company Executive meeting? Hang a banner on a bridge? Boat-but a whaling ship or two? They seem committed to raising awareness of important environmental issues through confrontation, (but not violence?). Is Greenpeace considered a "Terrorist Group" by the ever vigilant US Gov?

        Where is the truth?
    • nycmac247, on 06/28/2008, -1/+3they did not get on reuters.com where many people will see and learn about their points?
    • Devin, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Actually, if you'd read the article you'd discover that the guy who runs the conference seemed pleased that they were there presenting their argument and wanted to have an open dialogue with them. I'd say they were taken pretty seriously.
  • Fangsinmybeard, on 06/28/2008, -16/+10Man! The coal industry realy does have massive mercury poisoning. The don't know their own ass from massive brain dysfunction. I wonder how many twitchers and MS sufferers were in the sponsors audience. Thanks for nothing idiot coal.
  • mike17032, on 06/28/2008, -21/+41Eco-terrorists at their finest. Greenpeace is such garbage that one of their founders even speaks out against them now. Cant say its a big shock to see so many diggtards lapping their nuts, but at least the rest of the world is smart enough to know ***** when they see them.
    • MacParrot, on 06/28/2008, -1/+5I can't speak in one way or another about this particular stunt, but they were at MacWorld in 2007 upset because Apple (and every other computer maker) uses harmful chemicals in the manufacturing process (well derr).

      So lot's of "WHAT DO WE WANT?"

      "CLEAN COMPUTERS AND AN END TO WHATEVER YOU SAY WE'RE AGAINST (and a pastrami sandwich)!"

      "WHEN DO WE WANT IT?"

      "RIGHT AFTER YOU TELL US SO!"

      That in itself wasn't a big deal, though they were extremely pissed that Macworld officials wouldn't let them have their booth and be a disruptive presence. Then they set up an inflated green apple outside the conference keep inflated with...a big loud gas generator. That evening they set up a green search light focused on the Apple symbol at a local store keep powered by...yep, a big gas generator.

      They spent most of the conference handing out paper leaflets protesting Apple's manufacturing processes which most people that they managed to thrust them upon promptly either threw them on the floor or in a nearby trashcan.

      Way to green it up Greenpeace
  • MadOgre, on 06/28/2008, -16/+25Buncha attention whore a-holes. We have skyrocketing energy prices and they are doing anything they can to disrupt developement. ***** these guys.
  • rationalbeats, on 06/28/2008, -10/+15Those clean coal commercials are an affront to civilization.
    • chispito, on 06/28/2008, -4/+5Coal isn't clean, but there is a cleaner way to burn it.
      • Netwatcher, on 06/28/2008, -0/+5LOL!
        I seem to recall one of the first things the Bush administrations EPA did was absolve a bunch of coal plants from having to upgrade filters and scrubbers, to 1970 standards? Ouch!

        These guys have had years just to make 'moderately' dirty coal, and they would even do that.

        What makes anyone believe they'll actually make clean-'er' coal.
  • Anth, on 06/28/2008, -11/+8Wow, I'm surprised the coal folks were accommodating as they were. I at least give them credit for respecting greenpeace and not getting the security guards to beat and taze them. I guess I'm used to the gestapo tactics the current administration uses.
    • bewareofmoose, on 06/28/2008, -4/+7Gestapo? Really? You're going to compare our current administration to the ***** Nazis?
    • Netwatcher, on 06/28/2008, -2/+1Hitler no.... No matter how bad the Bush administration he's not a Hiltler, or even Stalin.

      But a Musilini? Well now, maybe there you got an argument.
      • patpl22391, on 06/28/2008, -1/+2If you could spell "Mussolini", I might have taken you seriously.
      • MacParrot, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2Isn't Musilini one of those really tasty Italian desserts?
      • Myonosken, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Wth? Mussolini was still far worse than Bush. Stop being so ***** self-centered and realise that your country is going down the ***** because you keep voting in morons rather than decreasing the horror of past leaders who were ACTUAL dictators.
  • sfacets, on 06/28/2008, -10/+3Pretty cool - Greenpeace can be creative ...sometimes. (When they aren't being eco terrorists)
  • gta3uzi, on 06/28/2008, -1/+19Just remember, if push comes to shove over energy the US has the world's largest supply of coal. We could fuel the entire country with the stuff for a very, very, very long time if need be.

    Do not underestimate coal. It is not the best option, but it could really help us out if our oil supply goes south.
    • Netwatcher, on 06/28/2008, -2/+3Why stop at coal, how about hardwood, hell we can grow trees.

      But since were giving into outmoded and horribly polluting industries to fuel the country, can't we just get real retro... and burn something that's really cool?

      Like Mummies!!!!

      After all they did it in Egypt back in the steam age, and it worked for them.

      I bet if we started digging up grave yards right now, we could power the country on congealed lard of the Midwestern candle mummies for centuries.

      That would be just as environmental, and economical as coal; and be a lot cooler too!
      • pagno, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Yeah! We can replace cemeteries with giant crematoriums. All that real estate back into circulation may help the housing crisis. Along with voter registration, you can opt-out of the "Ashes-to-Ashes Energy Program"(working title), itll co-inside with that organ donor thing. Thousnds of people die every day, thats renewable energy if I ever saw it.
      • MacParrot, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1SOYLENT ENERGY IS PEOPLE!
      • bosssmiley, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Dugg for the macabre imagery.
    • Willinois, on 06/29/2008, -0/+0You know what energy source we have an even larger supply of than coal?
      The sun and wind. It will always be there. And if it isn't around then there won't be human life on earth anyway.
  • chispito, on 06/28/2008, -6/+14As someone who is, to be honest, too conservative to be hanging out around here, it warms my heart to see that most of you care for Greenpeace about as much as I do.
    • ZenMojo, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2Libertarian zerg rush. Don't get your hopes up.
    • bosssmiley, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2On the metaphorical holed vessel that is our modern, post-industrial society Greenpeace are just a bunch of idiots who run around screaming "We're all gonna die!" instead of doing something useful about patching the leaks or helping fix the pumps.
  • l800LEMMINGS, on 06/28/2008, -4/+8Greenpeace seems like its the environmental Peta that while i appreciate the basic idea of what they are trying to do, take it to a level that does more harm then help and hurts the legitimacy of other groups that are being pro-active about the situation
    • Netwatcher, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4Greenpeace had their day...
      ...but the days of the radicals are over.

      Ramming whaling ships and spiking red woods, might have seemed like a good idea to baby boomers in the 70's, and retro hippies in the 90's, but those days are as gone as dollar a gallon gas.

      These days most civil action groups would kick your ass to the curb if you even mentioned, violence.

    • pagno, on 06/28/2008, -1/+2P.eople
      E.njoying
      T.asty
      A.nimals
  • PHiZ187, on 06/28/2008, -0/+6Haha, http://www.theyesmen.org/ perfected this.
    http://www.theyesmen.org/en/hijinks
  • dupems, on 06/28/2008, -10/+13***** Greenpeace.
  • i38warhawk, on 06/28/2008, -4/+7Fuels that are cheap and have no impact on the environment are just not ready for mass production. Coal is plentiful, domestic, and cheap to extract. It is the perfect bridge the get us to a future where the U.S. doesn't have to rely on OPEC and oil companies.
    • nathanww, on 06/28/2008, -0/+6There's no such thing as a "no impact" power source. With current technology, it is impossible to obtain the kind of energy density that would be needed for this.

      IMO, nuclear is the best "bridge to the future". It's actually much safer than coal power, and is also cheap and a mature technology(in France 77% of the power generated is nuclear)
      • Naieve, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2Greenpeace agrees now, after spending decades doing their best to stop nuclear power.

        Why would I listen to radical environuts that are admittedly idiots.
      • i38warhawk, on 06/29/2008, -0/+0I agree on Nuclear, we need it and fast, but it takes time and money to build new plants. Plus hardly anyone owns an electric car. By using Coal to oil we can provide fuel that will help insulate our economy by strengthening the dollar. We need something the bridge the cap between oil and electric. Hybrids are a good start but not everyone can afford a new vehicle right away. It's a fact that 95% of car on the road today burn petrol. If we have to rely on oil for the short term then we might as well produce more of our own.
    • Netwatcher, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2Bah! We already have coal, and it sucks!

      Coal isn't a bridge, its a ravine! One that alternative energy needs to cross, (price wise), to be competitive.

      The sooner we dump it and move onto nuclear, solar, and wind, the better.



    • Azerael, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3Solar radiation is free, plentiful and simple to extract.
  • tian2992, on 06/28/2008, -5/+13***** Coal, Atomic FTW!
    (This is the main reason why I dislike them, Atomic is the Best choice!)
    • i38warhawk, on 06/28/2008, -3/+5I agree, Nuclear energy is the near future. Just look at Western Europe who produce almost 60% of their power with Nuclear plants. The problem is we have a generation of environmentalists who were raised on The China Syndrome and just can't get over it.
      • Netwatcher, on 06/28/2008, -2/+2It wasn't just the China Syndrome, though that being released the same week that "Three Mile Island" dumped didn't help.

        Nuclear energy was closely tied to nuclear bombs back in the day.

        Just as people were afraid that "Regan vs. Russians" was going to blow us into infinity, they were afraid that Nuclear reactors were going to melt down and kill them too.

        In the end it was the DOE's fault. They actually built the first set of reactors as a PR campaign to show how Nukes were good. Directly attaching them to the publics growing apprehension of nuclear war backfired in the end.
    • KingGorilla, on 06/28/2008, -1/+1For now
    • fluffythekitten, on 06/28/2008, -2/+2DEFINITELY not best - Transitional at most. Nuclear fuel wil probably last another 60 years with the present consumption, 30 years when fully developed. Regarding CO2: Mining, refining and reprocessing of nuclear fuel (at the moment) leads to CO2 emission distinctly less than burning coal, but equal to burning gas.
      • bosssmiley, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2Least bad commercially viable option?
    • Naieve, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3Greenpeace recently said they were wrong, nuclear power is a good option.

      Unfortunately they are one of the reasons why we haven't built a nuclear plant for 30 years.

      3 Mile Island was a disaster, but it had little to do with the technology, and more to do with human idiots, like greenpeace.
  • Acer800, on 06/28/2008, -5/+11Greenpeace is up there with PETA in my eyes. They have good intentions, but ***** them up with the tactics they use to get their opinions across. There are better organizations out there that support the same issues without the stunt pulling.

    Buried for stupidity.
    • Azerael, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4Only religious fundamentalists can reach PETA's level of crazy...
    • Myonosken, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2They're nowhere near PETA crazy.

      Anyway, you're burying this case where they used very good tactics?
  • Coolkid11, on 06/28/2008, -7/+15Greenpeace is the most disgusting anti-progressive environmentalist movement out there. I am by no means an environmentalist, but if I was, I'd be embarrassed to have these dickfaced morons in some part representing me. They hate petroleum, ok so use nuclear. Oh *****, Greenpeace hates nuclear power too. Don't complain that there is a problem and then refuse to allow the solution, Greenpeace.
    • Netwatcher, on 06/28/2008, -1/+1No "Clean Coal" is the most anti-progressive environmental movement, right after the "Healthy Forest Initiative", but before "Green Peace".


      That said, there all ass hat crazy.
  • cheezintern, on 06/28/2008, -1/+2nice
  • Barackalypse, on 06/28/2008, -5/+8I'd love for them to crash a coal miners union meeting so their little hippie selves see what real men look like and maybe then they'd learn something about what makes this modern world of ours run. I'll give you a hint, it isn't activists.
    • Netwatcher, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3That would be the UMWA. Last time I checked they thought that coal mining needed a major overhaul (something about dead mine workers).

      There's not a whole lot of coal workers in the union though, as most of them live in union busting "Right to Work" states. Thats one of the reasons why coal is so cheap.

      On a side note the UMWA just supported Barack Obama.



    • Willinois, on 06/29/2008, -0/+0Hey, guess who formed the coal miners union? Union ACTIVISTS!
  • glacious, on 06/28/2008, -2/+5damn hippies... all malnourished and hopped up on granola.
  • koft, on 06/28/2008, -5/+7Go ahead and ***** on coal. Who's gonna keep the lights on until we get fusion plants? Coal is the only realistic cheap power we have until tech can catch up and provide a better solution. Nuclear is great, I love it, but it's got the same problem as oil too, actually its kind of worse, demand has exceeded production for the past 10 years on uranium ore. Fossil fuels are on the way out, but coal is a good plenty source of energy that will last beyond oil for a good number of decades and we need to keep the machine running if we are going to get that green energy stuff working. Wind isn't enough, solar isn't enough and geothermal isn't practical in the US and hydro can't meet the nations needs though it helps a lot. Ethanol is a net loss.

    It's like green peace idiots want us to starve to death. The typical green peace moron is basically identical to any other middle class individual only they have a weird bumper sticker on their car about pandas or some *****. They might eat a lot of tofu too. Meanwhile they flush the toilet 10 times a day and sit in air conditioning watching TV in their off time while bitching about the energy production they consume.

    A note for the hippies here in the USA, you guys won't live in teepes and cook your food with solar cookers so quit the bs campaigns against the energy you consume. We can't get green if we pull the plug now. It's gonna take some time for tech to exceed the cheap energy we discovered in the 1800's. Pull the plug now and it just takes longer to get "green".
    • Netwatcher, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2***** that noise, I'm burning mummies instead.
    • pagno, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Yeah, I like the mummy thing. Maybe we can just burn hippies...
  • wildrice128, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Anyone else think Tobias dressed up for the Blue Man Group from that picture stub?
  • B08ama, on 06/28/2008, -2/+2This is badass, but Greenpeace needs to treat respectfully those who will listen.
  • phreak79, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1I appreciate that they probably feel they need to do this kind of thing but using underhand methods like this isn't the best way to get the message across. It would be so nice of environmental organisations like Greenpeace spent all of their time promoting solutions.
  • ysss, on 06/28/2008, -1/+4If they wanna make a change, they should contribute in making alternative energy that works and economical. Whining and fighting without bringing a proper solution does not contribute to the cause.
  • bincoder, on 06/28/2008, -6/+2Their typical retarded behavior
    Oh my! coal is black
    Oh dear coal makes me choke
    get a life this is the 21st century, it is not 1734.
    Take coal, apply some chemistry, get clean liquid fuel, cleaner than light sweet saudi crude.
    Next project, get a job.
  • bincoder, on 06/28/2008, -4/+2And...
    The 'hillbillies' (no offense mean't) in west virginia happen to like america, unlike the other 90 percent of the world.
    So more wealth to them.
  • Olfster, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4I heard about how they infiltrated an oil company meeting of top executives not to long ago in Houston. When the people at the meeting started to ask who is that person, the person revealed himself. Don't recall what company it was. They called in the head of security and fired him/her on the spot. I don't agree with everything greenpeace does, but it is entertaining hearing how they can get into so many places.
  • Tourney3p0, on 06/28/2008, -4/+2I just burned like 8 tons of coal in protest after reading this article..
  • an0n1m0us, on 06/28/2008, -2/+3Yeah I agree, Greenpeace are crap. It's much better to invade a country, kill innocent civilians including children, and steal that country's oil. That's a much better way to deal with the need for clean energy. Better still, dig up Alaska or mine the oceans for every last drop of crude. Whist we're at it, let's put our heads in the sand about clean energy solutions because "they are not ready yet" so let's sit on arses until someone magically improves them.

    Interrupting a meeting? Oh my, that's second only to genocide! How dare Greenpeace and PETA use non-violent action to promote change? Let's accept the status quo. Actually, what the hey, let's bring back slavery, racism and take the vote away from women! We were such a better society before change was suggested, let alone acted upon. Let's burn Mike Moore at the stake! He's clearly a witch after all.
  • BillE3, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1So typical of the enviro freak mindset. BANANA build absolutely nothing around or near anything. Let them go find a cave to live in, how about Afghanistan.
  • thecoolestguy, on 06/28/2008, -1/+2I wonder what greenpeace is doing about China's rapid expansion of coal powered plants.
  • hempydave, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Green Peace should grow up and work to make things better.
    Not break the law just for fun.
    • blabbabel, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0Um... we can't keep burning coal or life on earth will be devastated by climate change. So working to stop that is about trying to make things better, that's the point. And anyway, did they break the law? Even if they did, how? Trespassing? To tell an industry that could devastate life on earth it's time is up...fair enough!!
  • vladimirpoopen, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Clean Coal = Sweeping your dirt under the carpet
  • Willinois, on 06/29/2008, -0/+0Funny and important. Clean Coal is a complete joke. Its nothing but a desperate attempt by the coal industry to stay alive and get taxpayer subsidies.
    The simple fact is that real clean energies like wind and solar are more economical and are more scientifically viable than the "clean" coal pipe dreams and fairy tales. Even if carbon capture technology is someday shown to be reliable (it hasn't yet), it will cost far more than cleaner alternatives and will drive energy prices through the roof.

    Clean coal is the new corn ethanol. Just another industry scam to cash in on federal pork in the deceptive guise of helping the environment.
  • Rich711, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Why is this news? Greenpeace does everything with phony documents.
  • blabbabel, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0We can get energy AND stop using coal. Good stuff Greenpeace.
  • tojojo, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0Hello? Has anyone heard of wind or solar? Sure we have coal and nuclear as possible options, but they're not the best nor the safest ways to generate energy. Greenpeace's tactics may suck, but their message does not: coal, which pollutes even more than oil and requires mountaintop removal of pristine wilderness to extract, is NOT the solution to our energy crisis.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.