Greenpeace: “New Zealanders want to end oil exploration”

I really really don’t like it when activist groups claim to represent “New Zealanders” without providing any evidence of their claim. In this case I’m certain that not all New Zealanders “want to end oil exploration”.

Stuff: Greenpeace says Ardern has ‘the benefit of the doubt’ over end to oil

Environmental group Greenpeace says a failure to end oil exploration would put Labour in the same camp as National, but for now Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has “the benefit of the doubt”.

Greenpeace climate campaigner Kate Simcock, who delivered the petition to Ardern, said the Prime Minister’s attendance at the rally was taken as a positive sign.

“The petition was designed to send a strong message that the public want her to rule out any new permits going forward and we took it as incredibly positive that she came. For now we’re giving her the benefit of the doubt and we’ll continue to send a strong message that New Zealanders want to end oil exploration.”

Making unsubstantiatable claims like that really weakens their argument.

Simcock said if Ardern’s Government awarded new exploration permits “she’s probably in the same boat as [National leader] Simon Bridges when he put all of this into action. Our position on that was we’ve got a Government that’s not listening to the people and not taking climate change seriously.”

A warning to Ardern – but Ardern has many more things and people to consider than Greenpeace.

Leave a comment

25 Comments

  1. Kitty Catkin

     /  20th March 2018

    I detest having people speak on my behalf. How arrogant is that ? It’s like women speaking on behalf of all women.

    I wonder if Greenpeace will stop using phones, computers and other things that are made using oil. They probably won’t, which means that they don’t mind it being drilled elsewhere.

    Much as I hate to agree with Trump, I would have to say that clean coal IS possible. It’s a shame that PC is wasting this resource. I am no fan of coal and loathe the smell and mess of coal fires, but it can be used commercially in a clean way.

    Reply
  2. David

     /  20th March 2018

    I hope Greenpeace have a crack because they will lose badly against her and then hopefully be marginalized as a fringe group forever.
    Having said that she took a punt in accepting the petition to take the sex scandal off the front page and avoiding answering any questions on Indonesia,s public flogging of gays, smart short term move Ardern but lets not pretend she thinks there is any sense in stopping hydro carbons being extracted or she could do without the billion odd a year in royalties and taxes.

    Reply
    • Griff

       /  20th March 2018

      The upstream oil and gas sector contributes over $2.5 billion to New Zealand’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the Government collects approximately $500 million in royalties and income tax from the sector annually, and oil exports are worth approximately $1.5 billion per annum.

      Arse facts yet again.

      Reply
  3. Alan Wilkinson

     /  20th March 2018

    Blackmailing low lives. But that is the Greenpeace modus operandi in everything they do.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  20th March 2018

      Just a small point – I reckon used in this context “low lives” is wrong & that it would be more correct to say “blackmailing low-lifes”.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  20th March 2018

        It sounds odd either way. But low-lifes sounds less odd.

        It’s like mongooses or mongeese, and the proper plural of mongoose – mongoose* – doesn’t sound right, either.

        * mon-gooze.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  20th March 2018

          Hmm. From Google it appears lexicographic opinion is mixed, and you can really use either for the plural of low life, so I’ll let him off this time.

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  20th March 2018

            Low lives sounds as if the lives are low, not the people. If you see what I mean.

            Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  20th March 2018

            The majority favour lowlifes. Like me, they think that low lives refers to actual lives. It’s grammatically all right, but it’s a different meaning.

            Reply
            • Kitty Catkin

               /  20th March 2018

              Would you say computer mice or computer mouses ? That’s another one that sounds odd either way. The correct plural is mouses, but I bet that many people say mice.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  20th March 2018

              I googled it, and people usually say mice.

  4. oldlaker

     /  20th March 2018

    Banning oil/gas extraction in NZ means we’re happy to let other countries do it on our behalf, as Kitty said, which is the height of hypocrisy. I have never met a single Greenpeacer (and I have known quite a few, including “campaigners”) who doesn’t drive or fly long distances. Usually it’s to get to some remote area or beach here or overseas to experience “nature”.

    Reply
    • Strong For Life

       /  20th March 2018

      I have seen them protesting at New Brighton beach demanding an end to oil exploration. I noticed that the majority of the protesters arrived in large SUVs. Hypocrites all….

      Reply
    • Blazer

       /  20th March 2018

      on yer..bike!

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  20th March 2018

        I can never see the logic of James Shaw refusing to drive himself because cars pollute * but gladly being driven by other people.

        * a simplified version of his reason

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  20th March 2018

          How is it less harmful to the environment to be driven by someone else who has to come to where he is and go back there later ? It means one less car on the road, of course, but the effect of that would be minuscule.

          Reply
  5. Gezza

     /  20th March 2018

    I do think it would have been more accurate to say over 45,231 New Zealanders want to end oil exploration (or whatever the actual number of signatures was) because that’s all Ms Simcock can really bsck her claim up with.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  20th March 2018

      (minus the ‘over’. Also bsck means back – ok?)

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  20th March 2018

        1% of NZ. Hardly a majority.It’s not like saying ‘New Zealanders eat Vegemite.’ which would just mean that those eating Vegemite are New Zealanders. This is very misleading, if the petition was only signed by such a small number.

        Reply
  6. PartisanZ

     /  21st March 2018

    @Pete – “I really really don’t like it when activist groups claim to represent “New Zealanders” without providing any evidence of their claim.”

    I agree, and it’s not just activist groups. No person or group *full stop* can claim to represent all New Zealanders … Governments certainly don’t …

    … So then it all becomes ‘TRIBAL’ … and ‘IDENTITY POLITICS’ …

    Hmm, how have I painted myself into this corner?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: