Home | About | Donate

My Reasons for Climbing Up Shell’s 100-Meter High Oil Rig


#1

My Reasons for Climbing Up Shell’s 100-Meter High Oil Rig

Zoe Buckley Lennox, Greenpeace Staff

Before I head off, I want to share with you my reasons for climbing up a 100-meter high oil rig, perched on the back of a cargo ship, swaying in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Just so we’re all on the same page.

This isn’t just a protest against Shell drilling in the Arctic. I didn’t make the decision to do this ambitious act in a zen-style instant of clarity. For me, taking action like this comes from a deep frustration with something that is bigger than me. And after years of feeling deeply disheartened and completely powerless, I finally found the conviction to step up.


#3

Dear Zoe,

I send you my heartfelt appreciation for your courageous fight on behalf of humankind and all life! You article is erudite, sagacious, and eloquent and it radiates your loving-kindness. I wish you safety and success and will hold you and your compadres on this quest in my thoughts and prayers. May the Great Spirit protect you all!


#4

Someone--is it a think tank funded by the Koch Brothers?--is paying you to keep repeating your End Times prophecy of imminent ecological doom.

"Enter here only those fools who think they can avoid Hell."

Nice work.


#5

Good on you Zoe! Important action and I'm impressed with your skill. I like the way you've described our dilemma (to be polite). But just one correction.
We can't burn 80% of fossil carbon we already know about in the ground. That is we can burn 1/5 to experience the horrors of 2degC hotter planet and leave 4/5 of the fossil carbon in the ground - that's 4 times or 400% more than we can burn (not 80% more than we can burn).

Alan


#6

How much does this Greenpeace publicity stunt cost? What was the carbon footprint in getting all the actors from far corners of the globe to it? Couldn't money have been better spent in allotting the money to local organizing? Most workers are very much aware of the environmental issues of climate change, but their current worries are about feeding and sheltering themselves. 60-70% of the US population has absolutely no savings and lives paycheck-to-paycheck. This action of yours is farther away from their concerns than Mars.


#7

I have copied your "stuff".... and researching it... I think you give great info.... really ...however, Is it you that also believes we should be using nuclear power... or rather, new and improved nuclear power?...... Love your over all orientation... but absolutely cannot figure out if you are worried about our survival along with other species, why in the hell would you want anything to do with nuclear anything. ?.....


#8

Thank you my dear... thank you my two girls are not oriented in this direction yet.... guess it's because it's their mother, that they heard it all from first... you know... parents know nothing.... they do understand on a very basic level, what is happening, but do not want to hear about it much or talk about it .... I am modeling much of the behavior they will need for the future... I grow food.... hoping it will rub off on them.... .YOU GO GIRL..!!!


#9

I like her.


#13

Hansen adheres to a naive economic libertarianism. What formula will be used to allot the carbon tax dividend back to the people? And who will apply this formula? How can there even be a carbon tax unless it is collected and allocated to various uses by a government? Putting the carbon tax back in the people's pockets can take lots of forms - free public transportation, low-fare intercity rail, and low cost renewable publicly-owned electric generation for starters.

If we simply put it as cash back in people's pockets before we build alternatives it will just go to...new cars and gasoline. That will do a whole lot of good!

But yes, I agree that nuclear power - which has a suburb safety and environmental record when compared to ANY industrial activity - must be a key part of the global warming solution.