/ NEWS: Patagonia and Sea Shepherd

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Michael Ryan - on 19 Jan 2008
There have been several discussions on the forums this week about the Japanese Whaling ships in the Southern Ocean and the anti-whaling activists on board the Greenpeace ship Esperanza and the Sea Shepherd ship Steve Irwin. In one forum thread it was asked if the outdoor company, Patagonia, founded by climber Yvon Chouinard and based in Ventura, California, provided corporate sponsorship to Sea Shepherd.

David Hooper emailed Patagonia and asked them.

Jonathan Petty of Patagonia responded.

Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/older.html?month=01&year=2008#n42235
David Hooper - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:
Nice work Mick - thanks for highlighting this.

Its actually quite saddening how mainstream and conservative the climbing community (as reflected in the whaling thread) seems to have become.

Im sure that up until the 1990's at least it would have been a no brainer to have expected the climbing community to be right behind the Sea Shepherds action - my, how times and attitudes have changed.

Maybe something to do with climbers starting their careers in an artificial environment (the wall) rather than us oldies who maybe started by walking in the country and mountains which embued them with a love and appreciation of environment.

Once again thanks for highlighting this in the news section Mick.
Michael Ryan - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to David Hooper:

You are welcome David and thanks for all your efforts and words.

Mick
djviper on 19 Jan 2008 - cpc2-hatf3-0-0-cust384.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to David Hooper: remember dave, climbing is now the middle class fasion accesory, and there fore its comunual political views reflect this
Jonno on 19 Jan 2008 - user-54461b7d.lns1-c12.dsl.pol.co.uk
In reply to David Hooper:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC)
> Nice work Mick - thanks for highlighting this.
>
> Its actually quite saddening how mainstream and conservative the climbing community (as reflected in the whaling thread) seems to have become.>>>


You and me both mate !

It's like the young conservatives on here these days !


biped - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to David Hooper:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC)
>
> Its actually quite saddening how mainstream and conservative the climbing community (as reflected in the whaling thread) seems to have become.
>
> Im sure that up until the 1990's at least it would have been a no brainer to have expected the climbing community to be right behind the Sea Shepherds action - my, how times and attitudes have changed.
>

My thoughts exactly.
biped - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Jonno:
> (In reply to David Hooper)
> [...]
> It's like the young conservatives on here these days !

Young???
Enoch Root on 19 Jan 2008 - host86-148-28-10.range86-148.btcentralplus.com
In reply to David Hooper:

Cut the self-congratulatory crap.

I came into this game through a long and deeply traditional apprenticeship but strangely enough this only served to further reinforce the need think for myself. Don't dare presume to speak or think for me just because you think I ought to be like you.

Sea Shepherd. Their cause is just, their methods abhorrent. Violent unilateralism is deeply dangerous in a pluralist society and no, I don't support it.
djviper on 19 Jan 2008 - cpc2-hatf3-0-0-cust384.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to Enoch Root: why do you feel the need to attack someone to put your point accross, can you not do so without using insults?
Michael Ryan - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Jonno and djviper:

Amazing how you two can generalise about the readers and people who post at UKClimbing.com....and about the climbing community in general.....often from a handful of posts and people.

Still par for the course.... some love to demonize others.

I'll leave you to it.
Jonno on 19 Jan 2008 - user-54461b7d.lns1-c12.dsl.pol.co.uk
In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:


What was Millican Dalton's philosophy...'don't waste words...jump to conclusions'...as carved into his Borrowdale cave.

Sometimes you can evaluate a person by a single utterance.
Enoch Root on 19 Jan 2008 - host86-148-28-10.range86-148.btcentralplus.com
In reply to djviper:

> why do you feel the need to attack someone to put your point accross, can you not do so without using insults?


Because Hooper's claim to speak for 'his sort' of climbers was arrogant, presumptuous and needed a 'brisk' rebuttal. Next question.
djviper on 19 Jan 2008 - cpc2-hatf3-0-0-cust384.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to Enoch Root: i must have read it differently to yourself as i didnt find the post anything like you describe, as i read it dave mearly suggested that moddern climbers seam to be less concerned with there enviroment and believe they have some kind of "right" to do what they do, however i still dont see the need to attack him with vulgarity when the point could have been articulated in a different manner that would have caused no offence, unless of course offence was your intention, in which case i find daves comment to be accurate in full
David Hooper - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Enoch Root:
> (In reply to David Hooper)
>
> Cut the self-congratulatory crap.
>
> I came into this game through a long and deeply traditional apprenticeship but strangely enough this only served to further reinforce the need think for myself. Don't dare presume to speak or think for me just because you think I ought to be like you.
>
> Sea Shepherd. Their cause is just, their methods abhorrent. Violent unilateralism is deeply dangerous in a pluralist society and no, I don't support it.

Hi Enoch

Its not really self congratulatory crap - more sad dis-illusioned crap.

I dont presume to speak for you, I speak my own truth - and I feel like an outsider minority on this issue. On the main thread the majority seem to be against Sea Shepherds actions.

Re Sea Shepherd - surely it is the whalers who are acting abhorrently, violently and unilaterally. AFAIK Sea Shepherd has never hurt anyone, ever had alaw suit bought against them for any illegal activity.

The whole issue seems to have touched a raw nerve on UKC - I guess if we times this accross other internet forums, pub discussions , chattering classes luncheons etc then both Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace have done a f*ckin good job of raising awareness of whaling in the public eye this year - which has to be a good thing :o)

Cheers

David
Mick Ward - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Enoch Root:

> Sea Shepherd. Their cause is just, their methods abhorrent.

Are we quite sure that we know what their methods actually are?

It's interesting that the title of the original thread proved incorrect. As the Patagonia spokesman said, 'As far as Sea Shepherd goes we are not a corporate sponsor as wikipedia suggests.'

Mick
Jonno on 19 Jan 2008 - user-54461b7d.lns1-c12.dsl.pol.co.uk
In reply to Enoch Root:
> .
>
> Sea Shepherd. Their cause is just, their methods abhorrent.>>>


What's abhorrent is your twee Daily Mail take on the slaughter of Whales.

F*ck them...one whale has to be worth a hundred Jap whalers!

David Hooper - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:

Hi Mick

On a tangent - the link you have given to the Sea Shepherd website is down at the moment.
Dominion - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to David Hooper:

> Maybe something to do with climbers starting their careers in an artificial environment (the wall) rather than us oldies who maybe started by walking in the country and mountains which embued them with a love and appreciation of environment.

Oh, dear.

Did it also imbue you "oldies" the magical ability to make ludicrously judgemental blanket statements like that, too? Or is it just you that is ignorant, prejudiced and judgemental against indoor climbers?

Anyway, aside from that ludicrous statement, thanks for contacting Patagonia, and getting a statement on this issue from them.
Michael Ryan - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to David Hooper:

Yes I know. Earlier it was working but showed photos of a slaughterhouse and some odd music.
punter - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Jonno:

> one whale has to be worth a hundred Jap whalers!

I know you're trying for a rise, but I'll give it to you anyway.

You're a complete and utter arse.

Cheers, Jim
(a supporter of complete ban on whale hunting, and of direct action in principle to disrupt whaling.)
David Hooper - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Dominion:
> (In reply to David Hooper)
>
> [...]
>
> Oh, dear.
>
> Did it also imbue you "oldies" the magical ability to make ludicrously judgemental blanket statements like that, too? Or is it just you that is ignorant, prejudiced and judgemental against indoor climbers?
>
> Anyway, aside from that ludicrous statement, thanks for contacting Patagonia, and getting a statement on this issue from them.

Hi Dominion

Sadly Im mainly an indoor climber myself at the moment (until I get to Scotland and Norway anyways)

I guess its not just climbers - I think its more a a pre and post "Thatchers Children" kind of thing. People just used to be more radical about issues - there doesnt even seem to be much in the way of "student politics" these days.

People seem to be more out for them selves, toeing the line and less interested in making the world a better place.

Obviously my views are a gross generalisation and very subjective but hey this is a quick response internet forum and Im writing from my impressions and emotiuons as much as from my intellect.

I still hold that the "Trail" reader generation is very different from the "Crags" reader genereation in their world view, their perception of their ability to change things for the better and for their general aspirations which I would see as more blinkered and self serving and less radical and "alternative".

Apologioes for the rambling but I have housework to do :o(

David
BrianT - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Mick Ward: I blogged about Sea Shepherd a while back and had a reply from a bloke who was involved...
http://brianlt.blogspot.com/2007/02/no-need-for-whaling.html

Their methods definitely included chucking Butyric acid onto the decks of the japanese ships. What I don't know is whether it was concentrated or dilute. I suspect the latter, as I believe Sea Shepherd are pretty responsible people. In its concentrated form it's a moderately corrosive acid, like glacial acetic or phosphoric, and will blister the skin if not washed off. Dilute, it's pretty innocuous - might hurt if you get it in the eye, but if dilute enough, wouldn't cause any serious harm. What it does though, is STINK! It smells absolutely revolting, and is a greasy, oily sort of liquid, so tends to cling to surfaces. I think Sea Shepherd intended to make the decks stomach-churningly bad smelling places to be, in the hope the whalers wouldn't be able to work in such an environment. In that, I'm right there with them.

I agree with Dave. As someone who's climbed since the end of the 70s, I think that the old school climbers, the EB and woolly jumper brigade who WERE climbing when I started, would have pretty much unanimously supported Sea Shepherd's actions, and stronger actions too, including ramming or sinking of ships. Climbing was populated with anarchists, people who weren't averse to sabotage themselves, vis a vis the Snowdon railway, for one example.

Nowadays, climbing is mainstream. As mainstream as jogging. I don't thing Dave sought to speak for the likes of Mr Rude, sorry, Root...but he is right, in that the climbing community has moved more to the right over the years. Not everyone of course; climbers run from the far left to the far right, but Blair's Britain and Thatcher's Children are reflected in the main mass of climbers as they are in society in general. The days of climbers being outlaws, outsiders, radicals, people on the fringes of society, are long gone, notwithstanding the small percentage of individuals who still might fit that bill. Climbing is a lifestyle, a marketing phenomenon, a <shudder> sport. It's taught in schools alongside tennis and football. It no longer attracts people for its anarchic extremism. It attracts many people for the same reasons as any other sport.

I've seen people on here moaning about walk-ins, about birds preventing access to 'their' cliffs. People who obviously don't care much about the environment they climb in, just about the climbing. Sad but true, and something you wouldn't have got 30 years ago. So David's right, generally speaking. If Enoch Powell isn't part of the herd, fair enough, same for anyone else, but I've been a climber long enough to have a sense of the demographic.

Oh and Enoch. Get off yer high horse sweetheart and be a bit more polite.
Jonno on 19 Jan 2008 - user-54461b7d.lns1-c12.dsl.pol.co.uk
In reply to BrianT:

Good post and a nice riposte to the prissy tosspots who litter UKC and offer their tame establishment views on threads like this.

Climbing has become the domain of the middle class Thatcher's children ...the Me generation...who wouldn't say boo to a goose and who are content in their cosy little Trail/Climb worlds.
Michael Ryan - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to BrianT:

> Nowadays, climbing is mainstream. As mainstream as jogging.

Uhhhh no it isn't mainstream at all. Participation is tiny - tens of thousands of active climbers compared to millions who jog.

I'll say it again, climbers views are diverse, they always have been, it's no different today as it was in the black and white days.

You cannot say that the majority of climbers are this or that.

Nor can you say that because climbers enter the sport via climbing walls that there views are right wing or anti-environment.

It might make you feel good, and high and mighty to say that, but I'm afraid there are no facts to back up your opinions.
BrianT - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC: I don't mean mainstream in terms of numbers. I mean in terms of acceptance. It's no longer an 'extreme sport', a crackpot loony fringe activity. To anyone under 30 it's just another sport. Most people don't play tennis either.
And Mick, I do think that climbers are just society in miniature these days, whereas 30 years back, it was, in my opinion, definitely and very obviously skewed to the leftward end of the spectrum.
Do you really think, had this forum existed in 1978, that there would have been climbers defending the rights of 4x4 drivers to f*ck up Mastiles Lane? Of course not. You've climbed as long as I have Mick, you must have seen the changes too.
Jonno on 19 Jan 2008 - user-54461b7d.lns1-c12.dsl.pol.co.uk
In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:

You must be living on Cloud 9 if you haven't noticed the drastic change in the make up of the climbing constituency in the last twenty/thirty years.


Who could forget the Newbury by-pass situation where climbers were being paid silly money by the private security companies to drag crusties and a few eco climbers out of trees and kick them in the balls if they got the chance.

You should read Jim Perrin's 'The Judas Tree'.
David Hooper - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Jonno:
Ah yes Jonno - do you remember that video footage of Ben Moon up a tree or crane ? trading punches with the "climbing bailiffs".

To be fair AFAIK those climbers who sold out at at Newbury were in a minority, were roundly condemned by the climbing press at the time and were ostracised by the Sheffield set and climbing establishment
BrianT - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Jonno: Absolutely. The climbers of yore would have been up the trees defending the crusties, not evicting them. I couldn't believe it when I heard that climbers were working for The Man at Newbury and Abbotsford, participating in the unwarranted violence heaped on the protesters. Bastards. May their fingers rot off.
Jonno on 19 Jan 2008 - user-54461b7d.lns1-c12.dsl.pol.co.uk
In reply to David Hooper:

Didn't Ben Moon go down there as a security goon before he saw the light ?
David Hooper - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Jonno: Not heard that - Im sure someone will be along with the full story
Michael Ryan - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to BrianT:

I can make no generalisations or judgement calls on the opinions of the climbing community, nor do I look back with rose-tinted spectacles.

I knew climbers back in the day who had no interest in the environment and some that did. I knew some who were punks and others who were bankers, same today.

What I do know is that the environmental movement is stronger today than it has ever been - on a personal level - recycling, energy use, using organics, charitable giving - to more direct action and activism.

I most certainly do not judge the UK climbing community by the odd post on these forums.

Karl Rove (USA Republican spin doctor) would love some of the attitudes on this thread - so decisive rather than pulling together for the environment. Climbers slagging off climbers

I will make one generalisation; getting climbers to pull in one direction is a bit like herding cats.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4489792691916029599&q=cowboys+rounding+up+cats&total...

Mick
Will Hunt - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to David Hooper:
I cant say I agree with you, Dave. Whereas I am sure that this "research program" is merely a front for illegal whaling which is abhorrent I think the activists were incredibly naive in how they meant to go about their protest.

To have a battering ram on the front of the ship signals an intent to damage or even sink a vessel. Had the Japanese ship been sunk lives could have been lost which, even in the name of protecting a beautiful and endangered creature such as the whale, is inexcusable. To actually board a vessel is also a ridiculous idea. If they wanted to deliver a message there are countless other ways it could have been done. A radio transmission or a banner written in Japanese are just two that spring to mind. Obviously Sea Shepherd are not stupid and had ulterior motives on boarding the vessel.

They have already shown with the battering ram that they would be willing to harm the craft so perhaps sabotage was their goal? This may well have been what the Japanese captain was suspecting and you can hardly expect a captain to take no action if his ship is threatened in this way.
Personally, I doubt this is what the activists had in mind. I think they knew exactly how the Japanese would react and sought to get that reaction in the hope of demonising the crew and drawing attention to their cause which they have been quite successful in.

I think that both parties should have charges brought against them. The Japanese for illegal whaling (research program my arse!) and the activists for boarding another state's ship.
Bruce Hooker - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Jonno:

> It's like the young conservatives on here these days !

I strongly object to that, and may well report you to the modoraterers, after taking legal advice, of course!


I am neither young nor conservative and defy you to produce proof of your accusations... smartly, or else!
Michael Ryan - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to BrianT:
> (In reply to Jonno) Absolutely. The climbers of yore would have been up the trees defending the crusties

They were Brian.

You and Jonno....honestly. Anything for a good old rant!

"Richard Turner Ltd. [4]of Chesterfield, a firm specialising in industrial rope access, was hired to provide climbers to evict protesters from the trees. The UK climbing community condemned the actions of the climbers from Richard Turner Ltd., questioning the safety of the procedures they were using,[3] and presenting the company with a special 'downside' award at the first British Mountain Festival held at Llandudno on 17 February 1996.

Andy MacNae of the The British Mountaineering Council said "Climbers have an enviable environmental record, and the vast majority will be outraged at being associated with actions of this kind." Climber and writer Jim Perrin said "If we, as a community, do not disown and ostracise these mercenaries and renegades, we are undermining the reason for our own existence and helping accelerate the destruction of places we hold most dear"

Jonno on 19 Jan 2008 - user-54461b7d.lns1-c12.dsl.pol.co.uk
In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:

How do you do italics and bold type. Not something I've mastered on here. Perhaps I need a new keyboard ?
David Hooper - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Will Hunt:

Hi Will

You back at Leeds?

You state in Para 1 that you think the activists are naive and then in parea 3 you imply that they had a calculated plan and know exactly what they are doing.

I believe in general the actions of Sea Shepherd are researched, well considered and calculted, but of course in the context of watching a whale being blown up, passions will run high and actions will probably be taken in an emotional state.

Para 2 You state that Sea Shepherds actions are inexcusable - well you are entitled to your view obviously - but i agree with Jonno . If the Japs go hunting whalke they deserve to suffer the consequences of thier actions - they are acting illegally - they are murdering a rare and beautiful animal - they have blood on their hands. If Sea Shepherd has the means to stop a whale being agonisingly killed by ramming the whaler, then maybe they see it as their moral duty to do so and inexcusable to just stand by and watch.

If you was climbing at Pex and you saw some scallies torturing a dog - would you not wade in with a big stick?
David Hooper - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Jonno:

Use HTML Jonno you cyber illiterate old fart :o)

start with this < then insert b for bold or i for italic then close with >

to ref
vert to normal writing do this </ followed by b or i followed by >

like this
ebygomm - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to David Hooper:

<b>bold</b>
<i>italic</i>
Will Hunt - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to David Hooper:
> (In reply to Will Hunt)
>
> If you was climbing at Pex and you saw some scallies torturing a dog - would you not wade in with a big stick?


Back at Leeds now, yeah. When the weather picks up you must come up to Almscliff.

Of course I would get in there but I think theres a difference between me seeing off some kids and attempting to sink a ship in the polar seas when there are many people on board. One could result in a few bruises and the other could result in some fatherless kids back in Japan. I'm firmly of the opinion that justice, while perhaps not being as quick, could have been done in courts.
David Hooper - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Will Hunt:

Perhaps you had better scan through the thread that kicked this all off Will - save me repeating things

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=281063

There ya go
David Hooper - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Will Hunt:
> (In reply to David Hooper)
> [...]
>
. I'm firmly of the opinion that justice, while perhaps not being as quick, could have been done in courts.


In in the meantime whales continue to be slaughtered and die an agonising death

GO SEA SHEPHERD GO
Michael Ryan - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Jonno:
> (In reply to BrianT)
>

>
> Climbing has become the domain of the middle class Thatcher's children ...the Me generation...who wouldn't say boo to a goose and who are content in their cosy little Trail/Climb worlds.

A bit like Mike Robertson.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=646

jrjamus - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:
>

Sea Shepherd. Their cause is just, their methods abhorrent. My feelings exactly! I will not be giving patagonia any more of my money.
Jonno on 19 Jan 2008 - user-54461b7d.lns1-c12.dsl.pol.co.uk
In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:
> (In reply to Jonno)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> A bit like Mike Robertson.
>
> http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=646


Is he a Trail reader or something ?
Michael Ryan - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to jrjamus:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC)
> [...]
>
> Sea Shepherd. Their cause is just, their methods abhorrent. My feelings exactly! I will not be giving patagonia any more of my money.

You've read the news report right?

"As you all may know, at Patagonia we give 1% of our sales to grassroots environmental organisations...to date we have given away $29 million. This is only one aspect of the many actions we do to fulfill our mission statement of "build the best product, cause no unnecessary harm to the environment". For example we have have been using 100% organic cotton since 1996 in all our cotton products; recycled polyester since 1996 in our synchilla fleece; and our goal is to be 100% by 2010 (Yvon Chouinard's aim for us).

As far as Sea Shepherd goes we are not a corporate sponsor as wikipedia suggests. We have supported them over the years, but we haven't given them a grant ie $s for 15 years."

http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/older.html?month=01&year=2008#n42235
ben b - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC: What, check facts before posting? That would be a dangerous precedent.
Having recently made a t*t of myself in a similar vein however, I can highly recommend it.

Ben B
jrjamus - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC: So maybe i am a bit thick compared to the great political minds on here. So do Patagonia give the Sea Shephard money? if not what support do sea shepherd get off them? i cannot condone acts of violence. i agree with their cause but there are other ways to confront this abhorrent whaling trade than violence which could leave men and women floating in the arctic sea. What is their motto? save the whales kill the japs?
Jonno on 19 Jan 2008 - user-54461b7d.lns1-c12.dsl.pol.co.uk
In reply to jrjamus:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC)
> [...]
>
> Sea Shepherd. Their cause is just, their methods abhorrent. My feelings exactly! I will not be giving patagonia any more of my money.>>

I bet you go to bed with a teddy and suck your thumb !

Graeme Alderson on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Jonno:
> (In reply to David Hooper)
>
> Didn't Ben Moon go down there as a security goon before he saw the light ?

Not that I am aware of.

There was far more climbers in the trees than there was working as baliffs. Most seemed to be from Sheffield or N Wales. There was 6 climbers working there plus a couple of cavers.
jrjamus - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Jonno:
> (In reply to jrjamus)
> [...]
>
> I bet you go to bed with a teddy and suck your thumb !

whay the personal attack? just because i dont agree with your views?
Michael Ryan - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to jrjamus:
> (In reply to Jonno)
> [...]
>
> whay the personal attack? just because i dont agree with your views?

It's the old way of doing things jrjamus.

I apologise for Jonno's slagging off of some people who don't agree with him.

David Hooper - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to jrjamus:
Why is a violent whalehunters life more sacrosanct than that of the whale.

No one has forced them to illegally sail to a whale sanctuary to slaughter whales - they are responsible for the consequences of their own actions.

Plus the japs are quite happy to hose Greenpeacers into the sea.

Im sure that both greenpeace and Sea shepherd woulkd be happier if the japs turned around and sailed home - noone wants to put lives at risk and when Nissum Maru(sic) caught fire last season, all hostilities stopped and Greenpeace and Seashepherd stoodf by to assisit if needed - code of the sea and all that.

Please do a minimum bit of research before you post and do check out Mick Ryans links to Patragonia website

Cheers

David
Graeme Alderson on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to jrjamus: Who you going to give your money to? TNF? Berghaus? Marmot? see http://www.planetfear.com/news_detail.asp?n_id=5788
jrjamus - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC: Cheers Mick, if everyone agreed there would be no need for a discussion forum!
Michael Ryan - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to jrjamus:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC) Cheers Mick, if everyone agreed there would be no need for a discussion forum!

Be nice to stick to the issues though and discuss those rather than schoolyard taunts.

Michael Ryan - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:

.....and agree to disagree...

Seems everyone is all for not killing whales - it's the methods achieving that which are in dispute.
David Hooper - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
> (In reply to jrjamus) Who you going to give your money to? TNF? Berghaus? Marmot? see http://www.planetfear.com/news_detail.asp?n_id=5788

I think Marmot donate monies to a kind of Mountain Peoples of the World Trust thingy to provide education/clinics that kindsa thing - I like Marmot

jrjamus - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to David Hooper:
> (In reply to jrjamus)
> Why is a violent whalehunters life more sacrosanct than that of the whale.
>
> In the same context what makes a humans life any less valuable than a whale's?
>
> Im sure that both greenpeace and Sea shepherd woulkd be happier if the japs turned around and sailed home

Stating the obvious slightly. (wouldnt we all be happier?)
>
> Please do a minimum bit of research before you post and do check out Mick Ryans links to Patragonia website

Thanks for the advice.
>
> Cheers
>
> David

David Hooper - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:

Ah...go and suck on some whale blubber Ryan you...you.. fence sitter you :o)
Jonno on 19 Jan 2008 - user-54461b7d.lns1-c12.dsl.pol.co.uk
In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:
> .
>
> I apologise for Jonno's slagging off of some people who don't agree with him.>>>


And I object to UKC taking ads off Prana at the top of the board. Promoting the destruction of the upland/island and coastal environment from wind power stations.

How is that environmentally sound ? Digging up peat bogs..pouring in half a square acre of concrete..erecting 300' power plants + infrastructure.

Prana like everyone from HSBC to BP are using the pretence at being Green as a vulgar advertising tool.

If the prissy anti Sea Shepherd brigade are boycotting Patagonia then I'm boycotting Prana.



jrjamus - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Jonno:

>
> If the prissy anti Sea Shepherd brigade are boycotting Patagonia then I'm boycotting Prana.


And you say i go to bed with a teddy and suck my thumb. That is one of the most peurile statements i have read on this forum! well educated and informed decision? i think not.
Michael Ryan - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Jonno:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC)
> [...]
>
>
> And I object to UKC taking ads off Prana at the top of the board. Promoting the destruction of the upland/island and coastal environment from wind power stations.

Energy consumption and pollution as you know is a real environmental issue. Declining oil reserves, increased energy consumption, global warming and a rising world population mean that alternative and renewable energy sources and energy conservation must be sought.

These include wind power, solar power, biofuels, hydro-electric power, wave and tidal power and biomass power - recycling, taking less trips in your car, car sharing, more efficient cars (still got your landrover Jonno?) - a whole host of energy conservation measures both personal and community based.

A price will have to be paid by all of us and sometimes the land we live on - but better than a complete melt down of the planet.

I can assure you that Prana are sincere in their efforts, as are Patagonia's - they are all trying to do their bit as committed environmentalists.

Jonno on 19 Jan 2008 - user-54461b7d.lns1-c12.dsl.pol.co.uk
In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:
.
>
> A price will have to be paid by all of us and sometimes the land we live on - but better than a complete melt down of the planet.>>>

If you think the above will prevent 'melt down' then you must have come down with the last shower of rain !

Some random words...you fill in the blanks....

China...Capitalism...economic growth...gridlock...air travel...population explosion...rampant consumerism...etc

Prana are as deluded as the rest.


The New NickB - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Jonno:
> (In reply to David Hooper)
> [...]
>
>
> You and me both mate !
>
> It's like the young conservatives on here these days !

Bought that holiday cottage in Cornwall yet comrade.
jrjamus - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to The New NickB:
> (In reply to Jonno)
> [...]
>
> Bought that holiday cottage in Cornwall yet comrade.

Hmmmmmm! (starts to wonder)
Michael Ryan - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Jonno:

If you like to contact Prana either here in the UK or in California I will pass on your email Jonno.

You will then be able to discussion their delusion with them.

jrjamus - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:

Why would he want to Have a sensible discussion when he much prefers attacking anyone on UKC whose opinion differs from his.
Mike Stretford - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Jonno:
> (In reply to David Hooper)
> [...]
>
>
> You and me both mate !
>
> It's like the young conservatives on here these days !

From the man who thinks Nigel Lawson is an 'eminent scientist'

Dominion - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Jonno:

> Climbing has become the domain of the middle class Thatcher's children ...the Me generation...who wouldn't say boo to a goose and who are content in their cosy little Trail/Climb worlds.

I'd suggest that it's mainly that we have forums like RockTalk means that you see a wider variety of views from people other than the small circle that you know personally.

In the 70's this discussion would not have been possible, and so people were largely isolated from the wider divergence of views. There might have been a bit of a row in the pub over whether you were going to boycott Patagonia over this issue, but you wouldn't have had input from people from all over the world, like we have right now.

This almost instant communication has a massive influence on the way we can express ourselves, and also how we can hear - or sneer at - others.

It's broadens our small circle into a worldwide talking shop.

Of course you will hear a lot more views that you don't like, or agree with.

It's not that more people are selfish, or middle classed, or stuck in their Trail/Climb worlds. It's just that places like this forum means you are in contact with more of them.
Bruce Hooker - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Dominion:

I think you may have hit the nail on the head here. I would have said as above that climbers I knew in the 70s were more "left wing", to simplify, than today, but, as you say, this is probably just because those were the ones I knew... and the most vociferous! It's the same on all the religious discussions, I just didn't know anyone who was religious, and now on these threads I am confronted with people who are, and it shocks me somewhat! Probably they were always around but we moved in different circles.

This works both ways, of course, and must be a good thing (the contact that is)... we just all have to come to terms with biodiversity amongst humans.
Michael Ryan - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Dominion:

Spot on Dominion.

People must learn to think beyond the sphere of their own friends and experiences.

Mick
Mick Ward - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to BrianT:

Bloody brilliant post!

> The days of climbers being outlaws, outsiders, radicals, people on the fringes of society, are long gone, notwithstanding the small percentage of individuals who still might fit that bill.

Jim Perrin wrote a great essay once, 'Outlaw Heart', I think, about the 'awkward brigade', who are going to take their staunch individualism to the grave. Doesn't make them right, of course, and should not preclude civilised discussion with others of differing (more mainstream?) views.

Mick
Michael Ryan - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Mick Ward:
> (In reply to BrianT)
>
> Bloody brilliant post!
>
> [...]
>
> Jim Perrin wrote a great essay once, 'Outlaw Heart', I think, about the 'awkward brigade', who are going to take their staunch individualism to the grave.

You mean like David Brower....who founded Friends of the Earth

http://www.earthisland.org/brower/sub_bio.cfm

And other climbers like Yvon Chouinard, Doug Scott and Ed Hillary who actually made/make a difference.

Or here's another, Greg Mortenson, a member of a 1993 K2 expedition who builds schools for young girls in Pakistan & Afghanistan. When you educate women, their sons don't grow up to be suicide bombers.

Mick Ward - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:

> When you educate women, their sons don't grow up to be suicide bombers.

Well, hopefully they don't. There were some pretty well educated Nazis... with similarly well educated mothers.

Mick

Jonno on 19 Jan 2008 - user-54461b7d.lns1-c12.dsl.pol.co.uk
In reply to Mick Ward:
>.
> Jim Perrin wrote a great essay once, 'Outlaw Heart', I think, about the 'awkward brigade', who are going to take their staunch individualism to the grave. Doesn't make them right, of course, and should not preclude civilised discussion with others of differing (more mainstream?) views.
>
> Mick>>>


except that people who sit on the fence eventually fall off !

Mick Ward - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Jonno:

Couldn't agree more.

'For the triumph of evil, all that is required is that good men do nothing.'

Sadly, have experienced this in my own lifetime.

Mick
Michael Ryan - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Jonno:
> (In reply to Mick Ward)
> >.
> [...]
>
>
> except that people who sit on the fence eventually fall off !

David Brower, Yvon Chouinard, Doug Scott, Greg Mortenson and Ed Hillary and other climber environmentalists patently did not. Doers as well as sayers.

If you want to learn more about Beaver Theodosakis, founder of Prana

Read this:

http://www.grist.org/comments/interactivist/2006/01/17/theodosakis/

"Value success in increments. We would all like more good things to happen faster, but real progress is just that: progressive. I am proud that prAna as a whole has adopted a more process-oriented approach; it has been a steady march toward softening our impact on the environment."

Jonno on 19 Jan 2008 - user-54461b7d.lns1-c12.dsl.pol.co.uk
In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:

I refer you once again to the founder of Sea Shepherds' statement regarding Greenpeace being 'the Avon ladies of the environmental movement.

Prana..yet another yuppie outdoor apparel manufacturer with what over here would be an urban Guardianist approach to green politics.

Michael Ryan - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Jonno:

Out of interest Jonno - what do you do to "soften your impact on the environment?"
TRNovice on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:

If only I could be an anarchist, anti-establishment, child-of-the-60s climber who served their apprenticeship seconding Diffs for 20 years, then - and only then - could I fully appreciate the environment and engage in trashing anyone else who is not like me. I think "tribalism" is the word that I am looking for to describe this behaviour, or possibly the phrase is "holier than thou" - either way it is pretty unpleasant to read.

Whaling is a blot on humanity's record, whalers endangering activists is a blot on humanity's record; but then so is activists endangering whalers. Not exactly taking the moral high-ground is it?

As an aside when I was a total beginner I made the mistake of mentioning to a pretty well-known climber and mountaineer that there seemed to be an aura of anarchism around climbing. He laughed a lot and said that he had never seen anyone more preoccupied with rules, "ethics", committees and bureaucracy than climbers and he couldn't think of a group further from anarchy than them. I tend to agree with him.

--- TRNovice, wall-bred climber and therefore equivalent to Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot rolled into one

*walks away shaking head*
Mick Ward - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to TRNovice:

There are anti-establishment children of the 1960s on here who believe in civilised debate.

Mick

Bruce Hooker - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to TRNovice:

> If only I could be an anarchist, anti-establishment, child-of-the-60s climber who served their apprenticeship seconding Diffs for 20 years..

I think there may be a slight error in the grade you mention here!

I suppose you like indoor walls and can't understand those who don't? I'm not sure it is a very valid argument though, in fact it's hardly an argument at all, more indication of something of a complex :-) You don't have to be ashamed of your secret habit though, it doesn't necessarily make you a bad person.
TRNovice on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Mick Ward:
> (In reply to TRNovice)
>
> There are anti-establishment children of the 1960s on here who believe in civilised debate.

Glad to hear it.

--- TRNovice (b. 1966)
TRNovice on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to TRNovice)
>
> I think there may be a slight error in the grade you mention here!

Perhaps I was employing litotes? They don't like it up 'em you know.

> I suppose you like indoor walls and can't understand those who don't?

I don't like indoor walls that much, but I like not climbing even less. Given the choice between climbing indoors or outdoors, I'd stump for the latter, but we inhabit a very rainy island.

Anyway, the statement was about climbers being "wall-bred", not whether they like them or not. In actual fact, as we all know, the statement was really all about the age-old human hobby of singling out two groups; one of which you belong to and the other one of which you don't. The real fun is then saying how awful the other group is and how saintly your one is. This makes the person issuing the statement feel much better about himself for some reason.

Apparently this is acceptable in some circumstances (generalisations about wall-bred climbers example) and less so in others (generalisations based on race for example). However from a dispassionate point of view it is the same thing in both cases; ill-informed bigotry and it should be pointed out as such whenever possible.
John Wood - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to TRNovice:

This, sir is a gem of a post.
brothersoulshine - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:

Thanks, Mick for summarising the whole thing. Jonathan Petty's answer was very good.

I will echo Enoch's statement though:


I came into this game through a long and deeply traditional apprenticeship but strangely enough this only served to further reinforce the need think for myself. Don't dare presume to speak or think for me just because you think I ought to be like you.

Sea Shepherd. Their cause is just, their methods abhorrent. Violent unilateralism is deeply dangerous in a pluralist society and no, I don't support it

johncoxmysteriously - on 20 Jan 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC: >When you educate women, their sons don't grow up to be suicide bombers.

I thought it was a truth universally acknowledged that most suicide bombers whether male or female come from educated middle-class families?

I have only been climbing since 1982 or so but I don't think my friends in 1982 were any more left wing than climbers today. That might have had something to do with starting climbing at Oxford, but I doubt it - students are students.

jcm
johncoxmysteriously - on 20 Jan 2008
In reply to TRNovice:

>However from a dispassionate point of view it is the same thing in both cases; ill-informed bigotry and it should be pointed out as such whenever possible.

Oh, what pious twaddle. Honestly. This straw man of stating that any generalisation about a class implies that every member of that class has the same views makes me tired.

jcm
Keith Jones - on 20 Jan 2008
In reply to Enoch Root:

> Sea Shepherd. Their cause is just, their methods abhorrent.

Especially if you might be an uninformed crew member on the ex-Westra.
I would not be happy ramming anything out of sight of land in that old wreck, check the hull history.
TRNovice on 20 Jan 2008
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
> (In reply to TRNovice)
>
> This straw man of stating that any generalisation about a class implies that every member of that class has the same views makes me tired.

Too tired to make much sense you mean?
ads.ukclimbing.com
tobyfk - on 20 Jan 2008
In reply to Mick Ward:

> There are anti-establishment children of the 1960s

Could we just get one thing straight on this thread of confused and nonsensical over-generalisation: 'children of the 1960s' is a phrase usually taken to mean people who were at least teenage or older in the late 60s and therefore 'participated' (1967 was The Summer of Love). They are now nudging retirement age.

Being born in the 1960s doesn't qualify; indeed those of us who were are far more usually typified as the 'yuppie' generation.
tobyfk - on 20 Jan 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:

A few random observations on those horrid slanty-eyed Japs and the environment:

- Japan's C02 emissions per capita are about 15% below the OECD average, despite retaining an industrial economy. http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2007/key_stats_2007.pdf

- global recycling statistics are hard to find, but visually no other major developed country has as thorough a recycling infrastructure as Japan. All public waste disposal across the country is set up for separation of PET, aluminium can and paper.

- A MORI poll in Japan showed only 11% supporting whaling, whilst only 1% eat whale as often as once per month. So Patagonia's sales - almost certainly higher in Japan than the UK - are not at risk.
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/1999/whaling.shtml

jim robertson - on 20 Jan 2008
In my view the climbing community mirrors society and always has. As has been said already, the advent of the www and forums such as this one has meant that we are exposed a vast array of opinion. Previously our view of the climbing community was essentially myopic in the sense that we generally communicated with other climbers through friendships which were nurtured through affinities.
I am sure that if this forum had existed during the seventies and eighties we would have seen a very similar diversity of views. You only need to scratch the surface to see that. Look at the use of chalk.... what about bolts? They represent the tips of icebergs, dig deeper and these issues reveal more fundamental differences of opinion.
Environmentalism was seen as a bit "rad" in the seventies and eighties. Whilst being genuinely concerned as individuals, there was also a hint of being de rigeur.... a lot of masquerading was going on. Anti-Nazi League badges and black homeknits. Punk route names. Today we have different "rad" thats all. It's the same under the skin. A buzz that people feel needs a more meaningful, almost spiritual raison d'etre, and is personal to them and them alone (...and maybe a few select mates who happen to see things similarly).
To think that climbers are/were a breed apart is quite a scary stance in my opinion.
Jonno on 20 Jan 2008 - user-5af23376.tcl111.dsl.pol.co.uk
In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:
> (In reply to Jonno)
>
> Out of interest Jonno - what do you do to "soften your impact on the environment?">>>

The usual shit...recycling everything...refusing to fly...driving a little Ka. The Landy is now an 18 year old Fourtrak that my partner uses for towing a horse box occasionally.

To get back to the issue in question. Re Sea Shepherd...I'm only sorry that Sea Shepherd aren't using exocet missiles against whaling ships.

Re Prana and companies like Patagonia. It's good that they put something back into society and put out a positive message. At the end of the day though they still use 'Green' as an advertising ploy.

Even HSBC and British Petroleum are using wind turbines in their advertising !

My objection to Prana's telly-tubby wind turbine is that for me it does not symbolise a 'clean green future; but the destruction of the rural upland environment and the industrialisation of wild places.

That's not just the view of some rambling out of touch bum in north Wales, it happens to a view shared by people like Chris Bonington,Jim Perrin,Ed Douglas and Robert McFarlane

Mick Ward - on 20 Jan 2008
In reply to tobyfk:

> ...this thread of confused and nonsensical over-generalisation

Even by UKC standards, it's an absolute gem! For instance, I remain entirely unsure how militant these shepherds of the sea actually are. The general assumption on here is that SS... might as well be the (better known) SS. Are they??


> 'children of the 1960s' is a phrase usually taken to mean people who were at least teenage or older in the late 60s antherefore 'participated'

That is the sense in which I used it.


> (1967 was The Summer of Love).

Gosh Toby, I'd almost forgotten. Must be the onset of, err... something.



> They are now nudging retirement age.

Think you'll find many of the real 'outlaws' still working their knackers off (for lots of reasons, not just money).


> Being born in the 1960s doesn't qualify; indeed those of us who were are far more usually typified as the 'yuppie' generation.

Is that bulge your tongue in your cheek, or...


Banter aside, thanks for your post. All attempts to rescue something worth preserving from this multiple pile-up car crash of a thread are to be greatly welcomed.

If ole Ludwig ("What can be said at all can be said clearly") had come on these forums, he'd soon have run off screaming.


Mick (born 1952)



tobyfk - on 20 Jan 2008
In reply to Mick Ward:

> > In reply to tobyfk:
> > 'children of the 1960s' is a phrase usually taken to mean people who were at least teenage or older in the late 60s antherefore 'participated'
> That is the sense in which I used it.

I guessed so. But there were suggestions of confusion elsewhere. This kind of thing for instance: I still hold that the "Trail" reader generation is very different from the "Crags" reader genereation in their world view ... I had a subscription to Crags and I resent the implication that I might be less odiously-vacuous and materialistic than a younger man.
SI A on 20 Jan 2008 - 82-46-29-104.cable.ubr03.hawk.blueyonder.co.uk



omg --- how the prejudice's come out.

i wish i could be an older climber so i could look down on all the younger climbers and tell them how they aren't as wild and crazy as us older climbers.

and im trying to decide which political party to establish myself with do i become a lefty as thats cool as being a righty supporter is of course just wrong. hhhmm maybe the older climbers know as they're all right on. maybe because they are so right on they chose a viewpoint that was cool when they were young and that was conserative hating. i bet it wasnt cool to say you liked thatcher back in the day.

i wish i could have grown up without walls or any other modern invention like the deeper understanding and the growth of education that modern communication has provided. that way it would be easier for me to stick to my own correct view point.

that way people would just support a cause and all the ways of achieving it. not just support a cause but disagree with the actions of a minority.


Sorry for the rant. this is aimed at the self righteous bile in the top of this thread. xx
brothersoulshine - on 20 Jan 2008
In reply to David Hooper:
>
> Im sure that up until the 1990's at least it would have been a no brainer to have expected the climbing community to be right behind the Sea Shepherds action - my, how times and attitudes have changed.

Call yourself a climber??

lol

<sheeesh>

<eyeroll>

link to webpage showing photo of boy holding large frog.
Mick Ward - on 20 Jan 2008
In reply to tobyfk:

> I had a subscription to Crags

That's the difference, Toby - the rest of us didn't.

Mick
Mick Ward - on 20 Jan 2008
In reply to brothersoulshine:

A lovely pastiche... but David's point remains.

Mick
Fat Bumbly2 - on 20 Jan 2008
In reply to Jonno:
"but the destruction of the rural upland environment and the industrialisation of wild places."
Are these the denuded overgrazed monocultures or alternatively industrial forests that I usually encounter in the hills?
In reply to Jonno:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC)
> [...]
>
> The usual shit...recycling everything...refusing to fly...driving a little Ka. The Landy is now an 18 year old Fourtrak that my partner uses for towing a horse box occasionally.
>
> To get back to the issue in question. Re Sea Shepherd...I'm only sorry that Sea Shepherd aren't using exocet missiles against whaling ships.

What I can't understand about your stance on this issue is why killing whalers should be acceptable, whilst killing whales is morally repugnant? I'm sure you can enlighten me?

Likewise I fail to see how refusing to fly and recycling aren't futile gestures, when wind turbines obviously are. Presumably there is some perfectly clean, green alternative to wind power that I'm unaware of?

I'm sure your personal philosophy isn't a poorly reasoned rag-bag collection of musings, but its hard not to see it like that on the basis of your posts...
Hotbad Peteel - on 20 Jan 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:

The reply from patagonia is incredibly well worded and i'm surprised that nobody has put together what the patagonia sales manager avoided saying, in my opinion with a very carefully worded reply that made clear the exact extent of the denial. Patagonia have stated that they are not a corporate sponsor, and by that I assume they mean they do not sponsor them for their own good, i.e. for marketing or lobbying purposes. They have also denied giving sea shephard any money, but they are very specific about stating the they do not give them any money. One of the articles i read said that patagonia had donated clothing to sea shephard, clothes are not money, i've not seen anything saying they gave money to sea shephard so I assume that this article as well as the denial are absolutely correct.

It seems a shame that a company with a record of helping out these organisations to uphold their own beliefs, are not prepared to stand up and say that they support the actions, but in some circumstances it might be the correct thing to do in the short term if it maintains patagonias profits and allows them to give away more in the future. That view is based purely on my opinion that they are supporting sea shephard but with goods rather than money. If that is not the case and they have given money in the past but do not support them in any way at the moment then fair enough, no story.
p
tracy.m - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to Hotbad Peteel: Patagonia on their website say they have given over $29 million to various environmental causes. One percent of sales or ten pre cent of pre tax profits, whichever is more. Perhaps if anyone wants to consider whether they don't want to buy Patagonia gear because they might have supported Sea Shepherd in cash or in kind, they might also want to consider all the other $$ that Patagonia have given to other environmental organisations and whether on balance they would rather buy their gear from a company that doesn't have a "one percent for the planet" or similar public good ethos.

Personally, even making allowances for the quagmire of green marketing, I wish that more companies did things like that.

Andy posting from Tracy's computer
Jonno on 21 Jan 2008 - user-54429bce.l1.c6.dsl.pol.co.uk
In reply to midgets of the world unite: #

Think locally..act globally. Recycling and refusing to fly are not futile gestures as far as I'm concerned.

Industrialising the uplands with wind farms is a futile gesture whichever way you look at it. A) Technologically inefficient, unreliable and producing expensive electricity and making a miniscule contribution to reducing Co2 emissions. With the global population explosion,rampant economic growth...not least in China and India -1000 car anyone? -explosion in air travel etc etc. UK wind farms are like building sandcastles on the shore as a Tsunami rushes in !

Re Whalers V Whales. As far as I'm concerned a whale is a more valuable species on this planet than a homo-sapian. There's feckin billions of us..there's a relatively few whales.

I don't swallow the Christian crap that 'God gave man dominion over the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth' or words to that effect.

Sea Shepherd can use anthrax shells against whalers as far as I'm concerned !
Bruce Hooker - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to Hotbad Peteel:

It seemed to me that the bloke from Patagonia (company, not place) made it quite clear that he, at least, did support Sea Shepherd.

No big deal for me, unusual for a smallish company to support any causes, let alone controversial ones like trying to enforce bans on the extermination of endangered species... but in the end you pays yer money and you takes yer choice. Wouldn't put me off their products but it wouldn't really do much the other way either... I look at the gear and the price tag, don't pay much attention to the label (unless it's too big and visible which puts me off a bit).
Bruce Hooker - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to Jonno:

> Sea Shepherd can use anthrax shells against whalers as far as I'm concerned !

Are you sure these are still available? Not seen none down our way for yonks.
Jonno on 21 Jan 2008 - user-54429bce.l1.c6.dsl.pol.co.uk
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

While you're on. Brilliant stuff in the Observer review yesterday on the 1968
riots. Stunning photograph across two pages of a student rioter in Paris in 68 hurling a missile at the riot police. Really beautifully constructed and poetic image.... I'd love to see the original.

As you're in France you must have an idea where images from the 68 Paris student riots can be accessed ?
lummox - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to The New NickB:
> (In reply to Jonno)
> [...]
>
> Bought that holiday cottage in Cornwall yet comrade.

LOL ! No response to that one, funnily enough...

Jonno on 21 Jan 2008 - user-54429bce.l1.c6.dsl.pol.co.uk
In reply to lummox:
> (In reply to The New NickB)
> [...]
>
> LOL ! No response to that one, funnily enough...>>

No...veering towards the Lakes one day maybe?

lummox - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to Jonno: ... but it`s okay for you to have a second home but not those nasty wasty Tory types ?

I love it.
Nevis-the-cat - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to lummox:

I think Jonno's politics are best described as "Hattonesque".
lummox - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
> (In reply to lummox)
>
> I think Jonno's politics are best described as "Hattonesque".

LOL ! I almost imagine him having a greying Degsy perm.

Jonno on 21 Jan 2008 - user-54429bce.l1.c6.dsl.pol.co.uk
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
> (In reply to lummox)
>
> I think Jonno's politics are best described as "Hattonesque".>>

Funnily enough when I was active in the Labour Party I was a sworn enemy of the Militant Tendency who I correctly perceived as a right wing reactionary movement.
The only thing I would have in common with Hatton is a devotion to EFC !

MJH - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to David Hooper:
> (In reply to jrjamus)
> Why is a violent whalehunters life more sacrosanct than that of the whale.

I don't think anyone is saying it is.

> No one has forced them to illegally sail to a whale sanctuary to slaughter whales - they are responsible for the consequences of their own actions.

Sorry that is just a cr*p argument. Ever heard the saying two wrongs don't make a right?

Spare us the bleeding heart nonsense about climbers in your day.

I would like nothing better than for the Japanese whalers to b*gger off home, however to go round with a battering ram and boasting about how many whalers you have run into etc is not the way to do things and is ultimately completely counter-productive.
In reply to Jonno:
> (In reply to midgets of the world unite) #
>


> Re Whalers V Whales. As far as I'm concerned a whale is a more valuable species on this planet than a homo-sapian. There's feckin billions of us..there's a relatively few whales.
>

Well OK. That is at least perfectly consistent. Harsh, but fair. I'm surprised that you're surprised that most people don't agree with you, and prefer a pacifist approach.

> Think locally..act globally. Recycling and refusing to fly are not futile gestures as far as I'm concerned.
>
> Industrialising the uplands with wind farms is a futile gesture whichever way you look at it. A) Technologically inefficient, unreliable and producing expensive electricity and making a miniscule contribution to reducing Co2 emissions. With the global population explosion,rampant economic growth...not least in China and India -1000 car anyone? -explosion in air travel etc etc. UK wind farms are like building sandcastles on the shore as a Tsunami rushes in !
>

But this just isn't even consistent. The contribution of flights to UK GHG emissions is circa 6%, compared with electricity generation, which is 40%, or thereabouts. So doing something about 40% of our emissions is futile, whilst doing something about 6% of our emissions is not (global population increase, china, india, blah, blah, blah).

An approach which makes sense is that in the face of china, india, blah, blah, either it is worth doing something about our own emissions or it isn't. If it isn't worth doing anything, then why refuse to fly? If it is worth doing anything, then why not get 20% of our electricity from windfarms, as this would reduce our emissions by about 8%, compared to reducing our emissions by 6% if we all stopped flying tomorrow?

The only logical explanation for your position is that you don't think preventing global warming is important enough to be worth spoiling your view on a few walks. Given the consequences of your position is the extinction of many rare species of animal, I suggest your position on windfarms is as morally repugnant as being pro-whaling.
lummox - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to midgets of the world unite: your first mistake was assuming there was any consistency to the aspirant holiday home ownning class warrior`s views...
Jonno on 21 Jan 2008 - user-54429bce.l1.c6.dsl.pol.co.uk
In reply to midgets of the world unite:

All bollox from you I'm afraid. I refer you to this posted on another thread.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2243828,00.html
Only science can save us from climate catastrophe | Comment | The Observer
Nevis-the-cat - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to Jonno:

I knew you would bite.

I take that back, I see you more as T Dan Jonno.
MJH - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to Dominion: What Jonno also objects to is any idea that climbing is becoming more popular and mainstream (though I am not convinced it is) or that "certain types" can now get involved in it that wouldn't have done in "his day"....

As you say greater flows of information means that publicity about climbing gets into ever greater areas and media.
MJH - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to Jonno: That is hardly a rebuttal of midgets point about where the majority of our carbon emissions comes from...
In reply to Jonno:

I'm beginning to believe that you are actually unable of thinking properly. Have you even read the article you link to? I have.

It has the following criticisms of wind farms contained within it.

1) They are unsightly.
2) They are inefficient.
3) They will not allow us to give up fossil fuel.

Well, duh! Of course all that is true. None of it alters the fact that they will allow us to make a 10% or so cut in UK emissions. You've got to be a total dunce not to see that will help matters. Obviously we'll need to do other things as well. Not flying will help, so cheers. But if we all halved our flights, that's a cut of 3%. Puny compared to wind farms, eh?
Jonno on 21 Jan 2008 - user-54429bce.l1.c6.dsl.pol.co.uk
In reply to MJH:

We waste 37% of energy in the UK . I think energy saving has to be a more worthy target that cluttering up the uplands and coastlines with ugly,inefficient,technological junk .
MJH - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to Jonno:
> (In reply to MJH)
>
> We waste 37% of energy in the UK . I think energy saving has to be a more worthy target that cluttering up the uplands and coastlines with ugly,inefficient,technological junk .

I suspect the true figure is even higher than that but the point still stands why not go for the easiest wins?

As it happens I tend to agree with you I don't think cluttering up the countryside with turbines is the answer (for all sorts of reasons that I have posted on here previously).
Jonno on 21 Jan 2008 - user-54429bce.l1.c6.dsl.pol.co.uk
In reply to midgets of the world unite:

The whole point which is emblazoned in letters as high as Nelson's column is...

We face a global population explosion,a huge surge in economic growth which demands massive increases in energy demands. What is happening in China,the USA,India and even South America totally negates any puny contribution UK wind farms can make to Co2 saving. Why destroy our few remaining fragile environments in the UK to line the pockets of the shareholders of United Utilities,Enron,General Electric ?
Wind power is the biggest green con of our generation
In reply to Jonno:

If i suggested to you that no single action we can take will reduce our emissions by enough would you not concede that energy saving and carbon capture and nuclear and recycling and cutting down on frivolous usage (flights) and, shock horror, wind farms are worthy targets?

It's not an either or question, you know.

Can you please explain to me why maintaining "the view" is worth 10% of our carbon emissions? I think it is.
Michael Ryan - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to Jonno:
> (In reply to midgets of the world unite)
>
> The whole point which is emblazoned in letters as high as Nelson's column is...
>
> We face a global population explosion,a huge surge in economic growth which demands massive increases in energy demands. What is happening in China,the USA,India and even South America totally negates any puny contribution UK wind farms can make to Co2 saving. Why destroy our few remaining fragile environments in the UK to line the pockets of the shareholders of United Utilities,Enron,General Electric ?
> Wind power is the biggest green con of our generation

Mmmmm....that's George Bush's attitude to Jonno.



Ridge - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to midgets of the world unite:
> (In reply to Jonno)
>
> It has the following criticisms of wind farms contained within it.
>
> 1) They are unsightly.
> 2) They are inefficient.
> 3) They will not allow us to give up fossil fuel.

You forgot:

4) They affect Jonno's property value.
In reply to Jonno:

Oh god, are we back here? I refer you to the post I made earlier.

"in the face of china, india, blah, blah, either it is worth doing something about our own emissions or it isn't. If it isn't worth doing anything, then why refuse to fly? If it is worth doing anything, then why not get 20% of our electricity from windfarms, as this would reduce our emissions by about 8%, compared to reducing our emissions by 6% if we all stopped flying tomorrow?"

Can I ask another question. Are you actually thinking about the points I put to you, or are you so sure your point of view is right, as to not need to test it and see whether it withstands argument?
Jonno on 21 Jan 2008 - user-54429bce.l1.c6.dsl.pol.co.uk
In reply to midgets of the world unite:
>.
>
> Can you please explain to me why maintaining "the view" is worth 10% of our carbon emissions? I think it is.>>


Because the more we rely on unreliable wind farms the more conventional power plants we need to turn to when those turbines just aren't producing electricity which is 60/70% of the time.

Coal,Nuclear,Gas,oil power plants are not like turning the key in a car and starting it up. They have to operate at all times albeit at reduced output.
There there sit...ticking over as it where.In the case of coal and oil power stations producing Co2...which is instantly negating the Co2 savings of turbines.

The more we rely on wind the more power stations we need back up our energy demands...that's the paradox which simple urban greens don't get.

Bruce Hooker - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to Jonno:

> As you're in France you must have an idea where images from the 68 Paris student riots can be accessed ?

There must be books and books of them, especially as the student "rioters" of the time were from well off families and now occupy positions of power that their birth destined them to! I knew someone who spoke to factory workers at the time, family I think, and they had no time for the students... "they're all revolutionary today but tomorrow they'll be our bosses and kicking our arses" was what they said (liberal translation), and he was right. But just because of this there is a sort of myth attached to '68 in France which lead to much artistic coverage... I'll try and see what I can find if you are really interested.

I'm not saying it wasn't a significant period, there was enormous disruption and quite a few more dead than was admitted too... someone told me as a squaddie they had been sent to deal with the backlog of corpses in coffins, dead from natural causes mostly but left unburied by striking gravediggers... he spoke of tottering mountains of coffins, all bubbling away, not a pleasant memory! No photos of that about either, but in the end the population had had enough and voted right just after.

The strikes and Grenelle negotiations afterwards made a big change in social relations in companies, I was told, and it gives the overweight oldies something to reminisce about too... have you seen Kohn Bendit lately? Ex Danny le Rouge!
Mick Ward - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> ... have you seen Kohn Bendit lately? Ex Danny le Rouge!

< pause for hollow laughter >

Mick

Bruce Hooker - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to MJH:

Lets not go from "oldism" to "youngism" if you don't mind! None of can help the date we were born on.
Michael Ryan - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to Bruce Hooker and Jonno:

Try these guys out...Weather Underground: radical 60's group

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-6078589535743610981&q=weather+underground&total=2...
Bruce Hooker - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:

> Mmmmm....that's George Bush's attitude to Jonno.

Are you sure Bush has even heard of Jonno (or any of us)? Or did you forget an "o" and a comma? :-)
In reply to Jonno:
> (In reply to midgets of the world unite)
> >.
> [...]
>
>
> Because the more we rely on unreliable wind farms the more conventional power plants we need to turn to when those turbines just aren't producing electricity which is 60/70% of the time.
>
> Coal,Nuclear,Gas,oil power plants are not like turning the key in a car and starting it up. They have to operate at all times albeit at reduced output.
> There there sit...ticking over as it where.In the case of coal and oil power stations producing Co2...which is instantly negating the Co2 savings of turbines.
>
> The more we rely on wind the more power stations we need back up our energy demands...that's the paradox which simple urban greens don't get.

Your point is semi-valid. Yes - we need to idle power stations to provide backup to wind power, but you fall into two traps here, which mean your conclusions are wrong.

Trap 1) We have more generating capacity than we need. Building more wind generation means extra power stations can be moved from fully operational to idle, thus saving CO2.

Trap 2) The wind doesn't stop blowing all over the UK at once, particularly offshore.

If you properly consider these two factors, and model the expected savings from wind power, you'll find it's in line with the 10% of emissions I gave you earlier. I accept it's not cheap power, and I accept it's not pretty. I still think it's worth doing.

BTW, I'm a research fellow in a physics dept. and have a keen interest in these things. I wouldn't class myself as a "simple urban green", as I am none of those things.
Bruce Hooker - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to Mick Ward:

I cite him to illustrate my use of the word "overweight" with reference to "ex-soixantehuitards" :-) There's Serge July too... today editor of a daily newspaper... no longer the slim youth of 68, now an overindulged conceited pudding - always on the telly too.

An remarks about kettles and pots are not necessary!
Bruce Hooker - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to midgets of the world unite:

How much CO2 is used making and installing these whirring horrors? I think someone gave some figure once which didn't back up your position too well.
Jonno on 21 Jan 2008 - user-54429bce.l1.c6.dsl.pol.co.uk
In reply to midgets of the world unite:

Futile discussion given that we on different planets as far as our approach to 'environmentalism' is concerned.

I'm off for a wet walk in Capel Curig...see ya.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I'm sorry, I can't argue against "someone gave some figure once". CO2 is produced when building everything.

Wind turbines usually repay the energy used to construct them in about six months, which is the same as coal power stations. They use a lot less concrete too - which is a major contributor to our emissions (the construction industry is right up there in terms of environmental impact).

I think the someone who once gave a figure had an axe to grind. The best reference I can find at short notice to back myself up is

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2W-498TWWV-4&_user=128590&_r...
In reply to Jonno:
> (In reply to midgets of the world unite)
>
> Futile discussion given that we on different planets as far as our approach to 'environmentalism' is concerned.
>
> I'm off for a wet walk in Capel Curig...see ya.

Sure. It's been fun debating.

I guess the reason we'll never see eye-to-eye is that we have a different idea about what is worth preserving when we talk about the environment. You've got your mind fixed on the visual impact of your local area. I've got my mind fixed on the ability of the planet to support life. There's going to be no solution to both at once I fear.
Bruce Hooker - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to midgets of the world unite:

I thought perhaps you, or someone else, would know as you seem interested in the subject. I'm in favour of nuclear power personally.
Bruce Hooker - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to midgets of the world unite:

> There's going to be no solution to both at once I fear.

The problem with many who profess to be "ecologists" is precisely this totally pessimistic and defeatist attitude! There is absolutely no reason to assume the two things are not compatible.

If population is stabilised and research into viable hydrogen reactors stepped up a bit then there is no reason to worry in the developed world. The big problem will be in poor countries who are not at present capable of handling nuclear technology... which happen also be the ones where people are the most irresponsible about population growth.
In reply to Jonno:

> While you're on. Brilliant stuff in the Observer review yesterday on the 1968 riots. Stunning photograph across two pages of a student rioter in Paris in 68 hurling a missile at the riot police. Really beautifully constructed and poetic image....

Lets see your hands on the table please Mr Jonno.... Both of them!
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to midgets of the world unite)
>
> I thought perhaps you, or someone else, would know as you seem interested in the subject. I'm in favour of nuclear power personally.


Hang on - the article I linked to is a pretty detailed simulation of CO2 savings from wind power. It has a clear figure of around 700 g CO2 saved per kWh of electricity used, if wind power makes up 10% of the nordic energy generation mix.

The number for the UK is going to be higher, as we don't have norway's vast hydro-electric infrastructure...

So I'd say that pretty much refutes your vague assertion of "some figure".

I'm curious by "hydrogen reactors" do you mean nuclear power? The big problem with nuclear is the timescale of construction, and we need be cutting CO2 as soon as possible. Nuclear will be an eventual part of the solution, but wind and CO2 capture are where it's at for now.
In reply to midgets of the world unite:
> You've got your mind fixed on the visual impact of your local area. I've got my mind fixed on the ability of the planet to support life.

It's nice to have you back Midgets. :-) Although as you might have guessed by now when debating with Jonno, facts rarely seem to change his mind!
pat m - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to David Hooper:
> (In reply to Enoch Root)
> [...]
>
> >
> Re Sea Shepherd - surely it is the whalers who are acting abhorrently, violently and unilaterally. AFAIK Sea Shepherd has never hurt anyone, ever had alaw suit bought against them for any illegal activity.
>
Firstly Dave I am one of the old gits - in fact you were my "grandad" at I.M. Marsh. Secondly you seem to be lumping SS and Greenpeace in the same boat - they're not. Greenpeace parted company with Paul Watson because of his violent ways, he has done time and he has injured people. I have, and continue to support Greenpeace for more than 20 years, I could never support SS.

I would draw an analogy to supporting Irish Republicanism but not supporting the methods employed by the IRA to achieve it.

Pat
In reply to TobyA:

nice to be back! Jonno has his point of view. He shouldn't let the fact that it's wrong stop him from defending it vigorously... ;-)
David Hooper - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to pat m:
Hi Pat - I.M.Marsh - gosh - before I answer your poost did you know that there are a few old I.M.Marsh people getting together on Facebook - mail me if you would like details.

Now to your post

- firstly I realise that I am a minority in my views on this issue.
- I certainly dont lump Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace together - they do not work together - Greenpeace definately wants to distance itself from SS and will not share info such as co-ordinates for the whalers - SS seemingly has only (sadly) contempt for Greenpeace.

I have read some articles and seen a couple of documentaries recently on both orgs activities - and I can only go by what these represent - Im not the most well researched on these issues.

I support FoE Greenpeace and SS with regular standing orders - to my mind they all have a role to play - in the bigger (slower)picturer Greenpeace has the ear of politicians, state leaders and industry - they do an awful lot of good, they have credibility and influence and I am sure that in time their campaigning metthods will have positive results regarding whaling.

BUT in the short term whales are still being hunted and blown out of the sea and for me personally stopping just one whale being slaughtered justifies the methods of SS. In the last documentary shown on TV where the Esperanza had an "embedded" reporter the captain of the Greenpeace vessel had little time for SS but an awful lot of the crew secretly seemd to support what they were doing.

One good thing to come out of the Greenpeace v SS issue this year is the vast amount of awareness it has raised about whaling across all the media - surely that has to be a good thing.

Re the IRA - yes I also supported Republicanism but also did not agree with killing civilians to achieve it - BUT it is a comnplex issue for me.

Mandela - was once perceived as a bomber and terrorist - now along with the Dalai Lama he seems to be perceived as one of the greatest living humans on earth.

Ireland was an occupied country albeit for 100's of years.

What if the nazi's had won the second world war and occupied Britain. Should we have aquiesced and become a conquered people or should we have taken to the hills, forest and city cellars and fought back with guns and bombs, blowing up our nazi occupiers when ever we got the chance? If we were still occupied and oppressed after 2 centuries would it still be morally right to wage a violent campaign to liberate britain?

Im not comfortable with the IRA bombing civilians - but I think I think I would support violent acts in the context of my above paragraph re the nazis - trouble is Im not clear what the moral distinctions are about the Irish situation and my hypothetical nazi occupation that amkes violence accepatable for me in a particular situation.

I guess Im the same with these animal issues. Whales - SS actions acceptable
Battery farming and vivisection - ALFs actions understandable but misguided and wrong.

I guess its just a complicated old world and we all have to make difficult moral calls and not just mindlessly follow some party line.

Cheers

David
Bruce Hooker - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to midgets of the world unite:

Our posts crossed a bit. The hydrogen reaction is, of course nuclear power, the same reaction as used in the hydrogen bomb. It is not yet stabilized though but it'll come... there's no shortage of water on the planet to provide hydrogen and no waste products so they should dovetail in with the coming rarity of uranium that's easily available.

The other hydrogen reaction in fuel cells will replace petrol in cars and so the present level of personal mobility which we all enjoy at present can be maintained.

All dependent on stabilization of population though, and hopefully a redistribution towards less populated zones which will enable a lifestyle that uses less energy than commuting into cities. I think the future looks very bright for humanity, apart from the religious nutters blowing us all up and trying to drag us back to the dark ages, but that's another subject :-)
ads.ukclimbing.com
MJH - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to midgets of the world unite:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
> The big problem with nuclear is the timescale of construction

Simple cut the delays in the planning/permitting process (as the Govt is trying to do) and you will speed up construction time.

> and we need be cutting CO2 as soon as possible. Nuclear will be an eventual part of the solution, but wind and CO2 capture are where it's at for now.

Not really - the two aren't really competing. We are desperately going to need both renewables and nuclear both to decrease CO2 emissions and replace the vast amount of nuclear and coal power generation that will go offline from 2015.

Carbon capture is probably an even longer timescale than nuclear at the moment, though frustratingly the technology exists.

Rob Hannah - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:

Good reporting!
mdearman - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

>The hydrogen reaction is, of course nuclear power, the same reaction as used in the hydrogen bomb. It is not yet stabilized though but it'll come... there's no shortage of water on the planet to provide hydrogen and no waste products so they should dovetail in with the coming rarity of uranium that's easily available.
>

Well why didn't you say so, thats all sorted then. They said that in the 50's about nuclear fission, i'm sure this time they're right.

Also there's this theory called the law of conservation of energy. you can't create it from nowhere, and pretty much all the enrgy we use ends up a s heat eventually, still i guess we just buy bigger air conditioners.
In reply to MJH:
> (In reply to midgets of the world unite)
> [...]
>
> Simple cut the delays in the planning/permitting process (as the Govt is trying to do) and you will speed up construction time.
>
> [...]
>
> Not really - the two aren't really competing. We are desperately going to need both renewables and nuclear both to decrease CO2 emissions and replace the vast amount of nuclear and coal power generation that will go offline from 2015.
>
> Carbon capture is probably an even longer timescale than nuclear at the moment, though frustratingly the technology exists.

The point is that even with expedited planning the nuclear power stations will be 10 years in the future at least. It is important to be taking action immediately, hence wind, which can be online much quicker than this.

tracy.m - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to Jonno:

>
> Because the more we rely on unreliable wind farms the more conventional power plants we need to turn to when those turbines just aren't producing electricity

I know this is a long way from Patagonia and Sea Shepherd - but this point about all those conventional power plants that we need when wind turbines aren't producing electricity also applies to the reserve generating capacity that we need when conventional plants aren't producing electricity. "Security of supply" is a concept that has always been around in electricity generation, not something that only came into being at the same time as wind turbines. Hunterston (nuclear power station in Scotland) hasn't been generating much over the last year, so other power sources have been used to make up for the shortfall. Slightly ironic given that nuclear power is usually cited as the power source that is best suited for constant, stable baseload, but every installation is going to have some down time eg for maintentance be that nuclear, wind or anything else.

Ironically with wind turbines the fact that you operate with a larger number of smaller plants means that if one breaks down here or there it has much less impact than if a big conventional power station breaks down, so arguments over stability of supply actually go both ways.

Andy at Tracy's computer.
MJH - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to midgets of the world unite:
> (In reply to MJH)
> [...]
>
> The point is that even with expedited planning the nuclear power stations will be 10 years in the future at least.

Construction time of the latest designs is reckoned to be in the region of 4.5-5 years. Planning and permitting shouldn't take that long if the projects are permitted jointly (under a type approval scheme assuming all same design) and called in to Sec State as projects of national importance.

>It is important to be taking action immediately, hence wind, which can be online much quicker than this.

I agree, but wind is not going to replace the large amount of nuclear and coal capacity that will start to go offline by 2015/16. If flue gas desulphurisation isn't fitted to many of the coal plants then the LCP Directive will shut many by 2015/16 and around the same time many of the remaining nuclear plants will start to go offline.

As I said it isn't a case of either/or.

knudeNoggin - on 22 Jan 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan:
You say that Patagonia's reply is well worded and perspicuous?
I found it quite the opposite--confusing. To wit, it reads:

"As far as Sea Shepherd goes we are not a corporate sponsor
as wikipedia suggests. We have supported them over the years,
but we haven't given them a grant ie $s for 15 years.

The 'official' word from Ventura our HQ is:
"Patagonia has supported Sea Shepherd's overall efforts
to protect our ocean's biodiversity at times over the past 15 years"

----- ???

Huh, "we haveN'T given them a grant i.e. $s FOR 15 YEARS"
and "HAS SUPPORTED S.S.'s overall efforts ... over past 15 YEARS"

Sounds like double-talk to me. What other support are they giving if not "$s"?
That was the question, wasn't it?

*kN*
mdearman - on 22 Jan 2008
I agree,

Reads to me that they've never given them money, but have given them something else, which i guess is clothing.

i have no problem with sea shepherd or patagonia though.

I would love to have the option of boycotting patagonia (although i wouldn't), but i can't afford it anyway.

Mike
Genevieve on 29 Jan 2008 - gw2.sesahs.nsw.GOV.AU
Well it's good to see this topic has generated so much heated debate!
I think climbers are entitled to hold whatever political views they want to, as everybody else can. I would like to offer mine.
I am a fervent environmentalist and used to be a pacifist, but have started to wonder whether that may be erroneous. As to what the Sea Shepherd guys got up to, it was hardly that violent, chill out. They got on a boat. Big deal. And I really don't understand why whaling (bad as it is) attracts so much activist attention when other illegal/legal fishing activities are screwing up our oceans with much more devastation.
I'm starting to wonder whether pacifist action on the environment has had its day. It's been going on for thirty years and almost every measure of environmental health is worsening, and things have become critical. People the world over are successfully using violence and corruption to pursue much less tangible or useful ends (e.g. religion, drugs) - are environmentalists just too good?
MJH - on 29 Jan 2008
In reply to Genevieve:
>
> And I really don't understand why whaling (bad as it is) attracts so much activist attention when other illegal/legal fishing activities are screwing up our oceans with much more devastation.

You raise a very interesting and important point. I fear the answer is the same as why large animals eg big cats/apes etc get more attention than say rare insects - that the public considers them more "sexy".

Whale hunting is a drop in the ocean (no pun intended) compared to the millions of sharks that are killed each year either for just their fins, as by-catch or for food.
brothersoulshine - on 29 Jan 2008
In reply to Genevieve:

Here's some violence and corruption

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7214558.stm

Why not join in?
Anonymous on 30 Jan 2008 - 88-104-162-158.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com
In reply to David Hooper:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC)
> Nice work Mick - thanks for highlighting this.
>
> Its actually quite saddening how mainstream and conservative the climbing community (as reflected in the whaling thread) seems to have become.
>

that said, you'll be glad to know that one of boarders is a fellow climber and good mate

Well done Sea Shepherd
Greenpeace- could do better
David Hooper - on 30 Jan 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:

Just seen on the news that both Esperanza (Greenpeace) and Steve Irwin (Sea Shepherd) have had to turn around and sail; home due to low fuel. Unlike the whalers which has a big fuel tanker/supply vessel in their fleet.

So it would now appear sadly that they can carry on blowing up and slaughtering whales unmolested and unwitnerssed.

Wouldnt it be great if next whaling season Greenpeace and SS could forget their differences and fund their own joint supply vessel so that they can harass the whalers for the whole season. Cant see it happening though :o(

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.