It's our birthday and we'll go beyond oil if we want to

Posted by lisavickers - 15 September 2010 at 4:58pm - Comments

The first Greenpeace ship - the Phyllis Cormack - in 1971 © Greenpeace / Robert Keziere

Today is the 39th birthday of Greenpeace and we have just arrived in Aberdeen on the Esperanza. Back in 1971 on September 15th, the first Greenpeace ship set sail to protest against a US nuclear test zone and peacefully prevent the destruction of Amchitka, a pristine island ecosystem off the coast of Alaska. They didn't make it all the way to Amchitka but what followed was a wave of public support that ultimately shut down the US nuclear testing program, won Amchitka designation as a wildlife sanctuary and gave birth to the Greenpeace movement.

Serendipitously, we have just returned to the UK on Greenpeace's birthday from a mission to the Arctic where we peacefully stopped offshore drilling for 40 hours to minimise the chances of an oil strike before drilling stops for the winter. But while Cairn Energy continues dangerous drilling in the Arctic, we're hoping that together with our supporters we've helped to catalyse the movement to go beyond oil.

We've taken this movement to one of the most remote places in the world and shone a spotlight on a company that thought they couldn't be reached. And after we resupply in Aberdeen, the Go Beyond Oil tour will start a new chapter. There are many places in the world where dangerous oil drilling is threatening our environment and climate and Greenpeace is heading for the OSPAR meeting in Bergen next week.

The OSPAR Convention is an international treaty charged with preventing and eliminating pollution of the marine environment in the north east Atlantic. We think this requires an immediate moratorium on deepwater drilling in this area.

Today is also special because Tony Hayward, ex-CEO of BP, is being grilled by lawmakers here in the UK about safety violations for BP's North Sea oil platforms.

The Financial Times reports:

"All but one of BP’s five North Sea installations inspected in 2009 were cited for failure to comply with emergency regulations on oil spills, raising questions about the company’s ability to manage a disaster in the area."

BP's shares dropped by 1.6 per cent in London after this report.

To go beyond oil, we will need to transform our transport systems, energy production and distribution, and greatly improve efficiency - but the first step is to stop the immediate danger to our environment that comes with deep water oil drilling.

Let's keep this movement going!

-- Lisa

Article tagged as: amchitka, arctic, cairn energy, climate change, esperanza, go beyond oil, oil

Comments Commenting is now closed

lisa you stopped the stena don operation for 4(four) hours to allow a risk assessment to be done to continue operations with you clows tied off below the rig! drilling continued at 10 am that morning! (I know this as I was involved with the risk assessment as I was aboard the don at the time!) you did occupy the rig for 40 hrs but did not stop the operation for 40 hrs! why report this lies to the media, I know for a fact cairn never told the press how long the operation was stopped for! how much diesel did your ship burn on the return trip to Greenland from the UK? and where is your helicopter now? ha ha???

By westillneedoil - 16 September 2010 at 1:29pm

From a former full-believer in the greenpeace cause: In the spirit of your beyond oil campaign I presume you are using either a sailing ship or a solar powered vessel? Perhaps its hydrogen powered? Look, the point is all of our economies are basically built on fossil fuels and consumerism. I agree that we should burn less of them but targeting the production/exploration facilities will do little to change things. Instead you need to put forward good arguments for the alternatives. Once alternative reach a critical volume of production there will be a natural shift away from fossil based I'm sure but it will never cease. If you want things to change you need to lobby for much much better mass transport sytems. In the UK we are grossly underserved. People don't like taking buses because they are slow, you get cold waiting, unreliable, too infrequent and you are left with less of your day. In addition most people own a car so why would they take a bus when they offer no advantage. I mention this only because this is a huge demand for oil. Underground systems by comparison are hugely popular and infact encourage many people to do without cars where they exist. Yet these are expensive projects up-front so our governments lack the balls to do more of them. My point is that you need to use the same influences that have made oil so poular to make alternatives popular and there will be a natural uptake. Governments need to subsidise and the technology has to be accessible and affordable. In essence: market forces will prevail. Its perhaps a sad reality that your efforts to prevent drilling etc will all be in vain. Only one of two things will stop it: Extinction of the human race; its depletion. In time one of those will occur and any 'damage' done to the planet on-the-whole will be reversed (apart from other life made extinct in the process of course) I work in Oil and Gas Exploration these days and I know first hand that on the most part environmental considerations are taken very seriously. Our companies incurr millions and millions of costs each year in complying with regulations. But they abide by them.

By getreal - 16 September 2010 at 4:20pm

Welcome to the granite city and happy birthday. I was interested to find out how much diesel the Esperanza uses and also which oil company you feel it is acceptable to buy from. Does Greenpeace have a stance on which oil companies are more ethnical and which ones we should buy our petrol, oil products etc from.

By Aberdeen Chap - 16 September 2010 at 10:30pm

' To getreal 'I work in Oil and Gas Exploration these days and I know first hand that on the most part environmental considerations are taken very seriously.' When you mention that you are working in O & G 'these days' it seems to imply that on other days you were maybe working at something else ....a brickie maybe. You say that companies incur millions of costs in complying with regulations but you can look up for yourself the horrendous cost cutting corners BP took recently which caused the disaster. You sound like you are new to the industry GR and stand wide eyed at the foreman when he bombards you with all the latest environmental rules which must be adhered to, but try and understand they are token gestures. You don't seem to have a clue what goes on in the boardroom unfortunately.

By NoBrand - 17 September 2010 at 8:29am

To change the world, to develop a low carbon economy, and to ensure that the our civilization survives the ongoing climate crisis will require a huge effort by government, business and individuals who are willing to stand up to the reactionary corporate interests who are very happy screwing every last drop of oil out of the planet. If you’re suggesting that people can’t have an opinion, express a desire to see change, or take any kind of action, unless they live the life of a ‘pure and holy’ medieval monk, then you are an idiot. Yes we live in a society where we rely on fossil fuels way too much, and yes I’m sure the Esperanza runs on diesel, and yes I’m sure the electricity to this computer comes from a coal power station. However It is still entirely acceptable and necessary to argue for change, and to take action to achieve that change.

By candleflame99 - 17 September 2010 at 11:51am

Arguing for change is all well and good. The problem comes when there is no viable solution, just arguing and guilt-tripping people who have no other choice. People can't afford the options that top 10 online casino are out there. Where is the real solution?

By MyaR - 19 September 2010 at 6:29pm