Home | About | Donate

'Requiem for Arctic Ice': Fight Against Shell Crescendos with Musical Protest


#1

'Requiem for Arctic Ice': Fight Against Shell Crescendos with Musical Protest

Deirdre Fulton, staff writer

Shell employees arriving to work at the corporation's London headquarters on Monday morning were greeted by the soaring strains of a musical protest, as a string orchestra performed the Greenpeace-commissioned "Requiem for Arctic Ice" to mark the first day of a month-long protest outside oil giant's UK offices.

"This protest is about reaching into the hearts of Shell employees, and asking them to help Shell avert disaster," said Mel Evans, the protest's artistic director.


#2

Appropriate considering 2015 is likely to match the 2012 record for lowest ice cover.


#3

The power of the people to use publicity. This kind of protest earns a newspaper photo ... gets talked about by the employees as well as passers by. This kind of elegant protest resonates because it cannot be dismissed with a casual remark.


#5

..(sigh...) Only in California... oh, wait....


#6

I agree and disagree with you. I also question why are we drilling for oil in the arctic but I also know that we have more oil than we can use already so why are we drilling for more oil?

It is like a split personality has taken hold. We on one hand say we need to get off fossil fuel use and on the other hand we keep drilling for oil and fracking as if we need to guarantee another century's worth of fossil fuel use in the future!

We don't need more oil yet we act as if we are facing an oil shortage. How does that work?


#7

"Nobody should expect the oil companies to stop drilling for oil"
but:.... Uh, um... I think that is the whole point of our protests.... the whole point of CHANGING our energy system... AND our economic system.... and OUR THOUGHTS OR CULTURE... so that we CAN STOP THEM FROM DRILLING ALL TOGETHER....
If .... we want to keep SOME oil.... the companies could not be private .... as they would not make enough money to put into drilling.... they would have to be government owned.... PUBLICALLY OWNED...that little bit of oil would be used sparingly for maybe making medical equipment or some thing really valuable like that....

AND yes we do have a shortage of oil.... just because there is currently a glut on the market... doesn't negate this fact.... in other words... THAT GLUT.... is there because WE CHEATED.... we cheated by RAPING the earth even more than we already have.... in the past... Fracked oil... and tar sands.... comes from the cheating, lying, Bullsh*tters that won't and do not care about anything but profit....


#8

No one should ever buy shell oil! Boycott them out of business. Of course, that would be true for almost all oil. GO SOLAR!


#9

You need to do more research friend. There is no shortage of oil whatsoever. The known proven reserves that we have already discovered and are holding/in use are far more oil than can safely be burned without destroying our biosphere. That oil shortage/age of peak oil was a con game. We have more oil than we can use right now. They manipulate prices and say oh dear we will have to charge you more but if you help subsidize our discovering new sources of oil then prices will go do for a little while. For example. Middle east oil keeps flowing day in and day out. See anybody running out of oil? Tell me where oil in is short supply? Sure some older wells like in oklahoma and california get tapped out but that is not the same as saying oil is running out elsewhere in the planet. We have more oil already than we can ever use.

And please stop capitalizing so much because that is YELLING AT PEOPLE and not placing emphasis on the words. Maybe Italicizing them too but please stop yelling because it makes it hard to keep reading.

BTW - Is there some rhyme or reason that you punctuate sentences by interrupting every few words with an ellipsis (...)?


#10

With all due respect Wereflea.... you're full of crap.... I HAVE DONE MY RESEARCH ON THIS.... that is I have learned about Return on investment, Energy returned on energy invested.... that it is the Light Sweet Crude that was the point of the Peak Oil... theory.... and we ARE OUT OF THAT FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES..... so, the "excess" oil that we have now... came from cheating.. .by scraping the earth ... and killing the earth even more than we already were.... I mean, the practices of the old oil drilling were bad enough... the new practices of fracking and tarsands mining .... that IS DESPERATE... WOULDN'T YOU SAY?????
Sorry for the caps... but, I am only trying to emphasize..


#11

There are proven reserves of oil in the ground. The Saudis pump, as does Iraq, Indonesia, Nigeria, Venezuala etc. etc.! Peak oil was not about light sweet crude (which went by the by some time ago. Pennsylvanian oil was light sweet crude). Our known proven reserves world wide have not changed since the most recent oil crisis when peak oil first became a byword and gas prices then hit the roof. Ask why the prices per barrel of oil were so high? Was there a shortage? Wouldn't there continue to be a shortage now? Why isn't there still a shortage? Why did prices come down if there were a desperate situation?

There is more oil than can be used safely without heating up the planet to extremely dangerous and perhaps lethal levels.

It isn't desperation... it is just greed. You look at the sudden surge in car ownership in China... millions of new cars. Oddly there seems to be enough oil with no shortages elsewhere to compensate for all those new cars. You want to believe there is a shortage of oil when there isn't.

Just one more point. Your belief that there is a shortage makes you more willing to pay more for gas and oil since you 'understand' that there is a shortage.

But where is this shortage? See any? Not desperation... greed.


#12

Of Course it's greed.... and you are leaving out the part about how the ratio of Energy Returned on energy invested... is quite different now than it was before say 1960's... they could get 100 barrels of oil using one barrel to get it out of the ground... that ratio now, world wide average... is about 11:1... last time I check... there may be "plenty" of oil in the ground .... but it takes more oil to get it out .... and more money... lots more money... that is why prices went so high for a while... there was a gap between the now oil "glut" and the then, yes, "shortage".... For decades... there has been about a 4 million barrel a day "cushion" of oil to keep prices from being so volatile.... but during those really high price days... the cushion went down to about 1. something.. perday... so, prices began to fluctuate... mostly up... there are MANY FACTORS that govern the price of oil... not just whether there are "plenty" of reserves in the ground... and YES... there is too much under the ground for us to burn... it should stay there anyway... damn it... to H*ll... damn them all to H*ll.... (Greedy Oil Barons and their ilk"


#13

I have used the ... (ellipse) far too much over the last couple of decades and have often endured the righteous outrage of those who make it known to the world that they know when a semicolon should and should not be used - i. e. the grammar police!

However...

you are the living proof that some of them actually did (do) have a point to their complaints. Your comment is actually more difficult to read because you ignore the value of commas and periods to separate sentences and phrases. Moreover you seem to think that every few words of any kind need extra emphasis. Here are a couple of examples >>>

Damn it ... to H*ll... <<< This actually works better as one phrase not two >>> 'damn it to h*ll'.
Why you thought two words >>> For decades <<< needed emphasis at all escapes me. For decades there has been <<< is a clear thought (maybe you could work in a comma somewhere but I doubt it. You might be risking a summons for excessive comma usage by the grammar police if you do but we all do it.)

All kidding aside, you are actually making what you say more difficult to read because you create a single sentence out of all your thoughts. That actually serves to deemphasize rather than emphasize.

In all honesty, periods and commas as well as sentence structure clarify thoughts for the reader. They permit the reader to understand the writer's thinking and intent. People try to 'talk' their intent using vocal inflection as well as body language (like a shrug or a nod or shake of the head) but when writing these means of conveying emphasis are not available.

So we use more precise vocabulary, parse sentences properly by arranging thoughts and ideas with commas and periods AND...

we cheat a little sometimes with a word emphasized in bold text ... in CAPITALS (a word in all caps = yelling when used online) or in italics (which for some reason practically no one ever seems to use anymore!

I am grammar challenged and know it but even such a grammar lazy bones as I... WILL USE A F'K'N PERIOD ONCE IN AWHILE!!!...

That's right I said > ...