View Full Version : Greenpeace Shut Down line at Solihul

05-16-2005, 10:40 AM
Greenpeace got onto the Range Rover production line, handcuffing themselves to unfinished cars.<p>They say that Land Rover is making urban gas guzzlers that are damaging the environment.<p>Wonder how much the temporary shutdown cost Ford?<p>Mitesh<p><A HREF="http://www.channel4.com/4car/news/news-story.jsp?news_id=12280" TARGET="_blank">http://www.channel4.com/4car/n...12280</A><br><A HREF="http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/range-rover-shut" TARGET="_blank">http://www.greenpeace.org/inte...-shut</A><BR><BR>
<i>Modified by MitzXJ220 at 11:09 AM 5/16/2005</i>

05-16-2005, 11:42 AM
I hate Greenpeace. I cannot politely express how much I detest their sanctimonious pseudo-scientific, self-publicising crap.<p>They're a business too and their product is publicity. More publicity means job security for themselves. "Never mind the facts; what looks good?"

05-16-2005, 06:18 PM
Perhaps. But aren't they right? Range Rovers ARE gas guzzlers that damage the environment.<p>The attention is due, IMHO.<p>

05-16-2005, 06:58 PM
Greenpeace like being martyrs for the cause. The self-riteous often fall the hardest in the end, however. What I would like to know is who died and made Greenpeace God? One has to wonder how much money Greenpeace has contributed to the terrorist group Earth Liberation Front?

05-17-2005, 02:21 AM
probably not as an organisation, but I don't for one moment doubt that some of its contributors have done so.<p>Viz the gas guzzling argument Uberwagen made; the fule consumption figures they were quoting on radio interviews were wrong. They were massaging the figures to make them sound worse. OK, Range Rovers don't run on angel tears and fairy dust, but this is one political band-wagon (unavoidable pun) that this group of blatant egotrippers are just too happy to jump on.

05-17-2005, 03:19 AM
They may have a point but the industry doesn't need this at the moment.<p>I do agree that if you don't need a 4x4 you shouldn't buy one. There's a private school close to Uni, and every morning shiny Chelsea tractors go in and out of the gates ferrying their kids- these people don't need SUVs and they cause congestion because the fools don't know how to drive.<p>If you read the pdf on the Greenpeace site they say that Ford spent 18m advertising Land Rovers in the UK, but people's jobs are at stake here the public need to know about the company's products.<p>They also compare Landies to the Prius, but it won't be too long before they get hybrid technology. Ford's environmental track record isn't good, but they do a lot of research into future fuels and will even start leasing fuel celled Transits to business customers soon.<p>Mitesh

05-17-2005, 05:33 AM
A person should drive whatever he chooses to drive whether he needs it or not. It's called freedom. The flip side of automotive decisions is not to whine if you choose something that gets poor mileage. No one needs a Range Rover for example, when a Jeep Wrangler will do all of the off-road duties and get better mileage. No one needs a Bentley Continental when a Hyundai Azera is very luxurious and gets double the mileage. Free society is not predicated on making one's automotive choices based on what others think we should do. I am 100% for protecting the environment, but Greenpeace is a terrorist organization. They are zealots of the worst kind. It's their way or the highway. No room for any discussion or negotiation.

05-17-2005, 07:08 AM
I wonder if greenpeacers live in stone or wood houses, powered by wind and sun, make their own clothes, and grow their own food (fertilized by the poop of the horses they use to go everywhere). It seems kind of self serving when one tells everyone that the earth is being destroyed, yet using the products of said destruction is ok.

05-17-2005, 11:38 AM
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>mzoltarp</b> &raquo;</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">A person should drive whatever he chooses to drive whether he needs it or not. It's called freedom.</TD></TR></TABLE><p>You're right, maybe I shouldn't have said if you don't need a 4x4 don't buy one, but I do see too many 4x4 drivers acting like idiots.<p>I don't know if anyone saw 5th Gear a few weeks ago but they drove a Shogun into a Civic at 60 mph, the dummy inside the Civic ended up on the other side of the cabin in the rear seat with his arms, leg and head torn off- scary.<p>Mitesh

05-17-2005, 12:31 PM
I get too much abuse in my everyday life to defend Greenpeace here! <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://images.zeroforum.com/smile/emwink.gif" BORDER="0"> Their tactics are questionable and often interpreted as "eco-terrorism" which is counterproductive to everyone. But I do believe their cause - bringing attention to wasteful and harmful use of natural resources - is right. The exploding economies of the east and the need for more middle-eastern oil is causing increasing havoc in the world, ecologically and politically. Since auto companies and governments are either not addressing or actively working against addressing this issue, I appreciate the need for outside pressure.<p>To be clear, I too believe we should be free to choose what cars we want. But at the same time, there is such a thing as "the tragedy of the commons." Since free markets always act in their own self-interest (as our individual choices of car reflects), there may have to be some sacrifice. Given the delayed affects of pollution (global warming, etc.) and the increasing economic pressure to support not-so-nice oil-producing nations (asian economies, stable growth, etc.), it may soon become difficult to justify certain consumer freedoms which, ultimately, will confine us. Environmental damage caused by excessive fossil fuel consumption simpy comes with an economic and political price. <p>Honestly, this all may seem hypocritical coming from a car enthusiast who creates cars for a living. But I think some corporations are much more guilty than others of abusing their economic power to maintain their self-interest. Automotive lobbying groups (of which my company is not a member) consistently use their economic sway in government to work against the public's interest in environmental concerns. That concerns me.<p>Greenpeace's methods are definitely not right. But their goal of bringing attention to this as an issue that affects us all and needs to be addressed by governments, industry and us individuals, is not a bad one. I appreciate that.<p>Oh boy, I'm about to get slammed, aren't I?! <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/1zhelp.gif" BORDER="0">

05-18-2005, 05:37 AM
I too think greenpeace's goal of attempting to protect the environment is admirable BUT their tactics are repellant and sometimes murderous. For this reason they can be given no quarter. When you protect the environment by killion people you deserve to be repudiated. I'm referring to Greenpeace's practice of driving spikes into trees that are desined for logging. When the guy goes to saw the tree and hits a spike, the saw will kick back. This has caused repeated injury and in several cases death. The econinnies think this is a case of the bad multinational company getting its just desserts, when in reality it's the loss of an income to a family that is blue collar at best. I would love for groups like Greenpeace and PETA to be declared domestic terror groups and have the FBI take them out. We can accomplish their goals without their violence.

05-18-2005, 11:56 AM
Not to defend Greenpeace but I believe the driving of spikes into trees was done by a different group; ELF, I think. They also burned down a lodge in Vail's backcountry and torched some Hummers. That IS terrorism, for sure, and it only brings ill-will and negative attention to their cause. Greenpeace is a peaceful, if disruptive, organisation. Many of their members have been killed doing what they do (France sinking the Rainbow Warrior, shootings, beatings, etc.).<p>This is an important point that you have brought up: Tactics. Sometimes no matter how right the objective is (say, environmental preservation), the tactics some of these groups choose get in the way. I believe that some environmental leaders (or any leader for that matter) are clouded by rage and emotion rather than smart, strategic thinking about how to best acheive their goal. It's frutstrating because rather than taking these issues seriously, the public and press finds it all too easy to call them "ecoweenies" or some other marginalizing label. If the groups had taken their audience and objectives into account more realistically, they might choose a different means of communicating with them, bringing the issue, credibly, into public discourse.<p>In this case, I appreciate the non-violent minor economic disruption to bring attention to the issue. That said, I hope no one at Land Rover loses their job over this and that the point was heard. But environmental damage WILL cost the planet BIG economically so, for the sake of many more jobs down the road, I hope everyone takes a step to plan for it now. Perhaps that's the angle they should be putting forth? That environmental destruction will soon devastate us financially and destablize markets (which is true, sadly)? Economics are certainly more immediately relevant to corporations, governments and individuals, after all...<p>Regardless, while Greenpeace certainly isn't my cup of tea, I appreciate their commitment and willingness to end up in jail or hurt for an issue that, like it or not, will soon affect us all.<p>Good debate here. Appreciate the civility. Cheers! <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://images.zeroforum.com/smile/emthup.gif" BORDER="0">

05-19-2005, 05:12 AM
Frankly I have no sympathy for the greenpeacers that have been hurt in the line of duty. They are not martyrs. Greenpeace has decided to achieve its goals outside of the law if they so desire. Instead of using their $$ to lobby politicians, they choose to pull stunts, and to funnel money to the ELF. Both Greenpeace and PETA are under scrutiny by the office of homeland security for their ties to domestic terrorism. Because they are not willing to work toward a compromise, I for one cannot support a thing they do. There has to be a middle ground where the environment and the economy can coexist. Greenpeace does not have the capacity to listen, only to shout. I predict that the Democrats will distance themselves from the ultra-lefters like Greenpeace in the '08 election as they attempt to become more centrist in hopes of winning the White House. This will be especially true if the democrats suffer a bloodbath in the '06 elections and currently they are quite worried. The Kerry campaign already moved away from some of the more radical elements of the party. Unfortunately, the Green party is Democrat but farther left (i.e. they take votes away from the Democrats). Politically the greenies are up a creek and they are largely there because of Greenpeace's inflexibility and extremist stance. This conspires to defeat their purpose. This is simple puplic relations 101. Middle of the road (MOR) Americans are people to whom they need to appeal. MOR Americans have families. MOR families have minivans and large SUVs to transport their families. There are no fuel efficient alternatives to transport a family. Even a lauded vehicle like the Honda Odyssey is a gas hog. It's a 4700 pound vehicle that might get 18mpg on a good day. Two friends of mine bought new Odysseys and they get about 12mpg in town. So to these people Greenpeace says the end is coming because of SUVs and MOR voters tune out. Greenpeace needs to do an about-face and do much better PR and better marketing to the average Joe Bag-O-Donuts. Greenpeace would never open dialog with multinational corporations over environmental issues, but that is precisely what they should be doing. They are anti big business because being against big business was a cool thing in the sixties and they are wannabe sixties protesters. They need to partner up with big business and work with industries to bring change. It's a radical concept that they are unable to contemplate. In the meantime we all lose because the environment will continue to be polluted. How ironic is it that Greenpeace itself is a major part of the problem? Sane people want a clean environment. Sane people fear zealots and with good reason.

05-19-2005, 03:54 PM
Thanks uberwagon for such an eloquent post. You certainly voiced my views on the subject in a very coherent way. To add my 2p worth, I do find the argument that it is a demonstration of freedom to go out and buy a gas guzzling V8 to take the kids to school rather like a child trying to explain away its bad behaviour. With freedom of choice comes responsibility. Just because you can do something doesnt necessarily mean you SHOULD do it. There are many examples of things we humans can do, but society has decided that for the common good it is best we dont. I think (at the moment) the cause and effect of our consumer choices are not linked closely enough  by that I mean, nobody is made to think about all the additional barrels of oil that will need to be imported over the life of a vehicle if it does 18mpg as opposed to 40mpg together with all the implications for the nation for that additional consumption. I think if we could actually SEE the difference in volume (say for 10 vehicles) we would be horrified. Maybe in years to come we will look back at this age and think how foolish and wasteful we were. I love Land Rovers and Range Rovers  but there appears to have been no attempt made during the development phase of these vehicles to trim their weight and therefore consumption, knowing as they must, at least 80% of their vehicles would never leave the street. I hope this protest wakes the designers, engineers and marketeers at LR up because when consumers do finally start linking lifetime environmental costs to their purchasing decisions if LR havent had the foresight to change they could find the economic road ahead very bumpy indeed. Maybe Greenpeace has done them a favour.

05-20-2005, 05:43 AM
Freedom is an absolute. Freedom does bring responsibility. Spannersuk, please name the 40mpg vehicles that will carry a family of 5-7 people that are available in the United States. Heck name the 30mpg ones. There ARE NONE. Therefore if you have a family, you have no choice but to drive a vehicle that gets low MPG. My family is small so we have a Honda Element with a 4 cylinder and a 5 speed. It struggles to get 18mpg in town and 20 on the freeway. I consider it to be a gas hog because a 4 cylinder should get better mileage. I agree that people should not drive low MPG vehicles because they can, but that IS their option in a free society. Using disruption of commerce to argue for greener vehicles is criminal. Protest is not a form of protected speech when it disrupts a business by invading a plant for example. If Greenpeace campaigns peacefully against Land Rover and sales slide, fine. The plant invasion was not peaceful protest under the laws of this country and I would assume in England as well. Forcing people to drive high MPG vehicles (i.e. removing their choice) is socialism. A socialist society is not free. A sentiment that keeps coming up in the threads here from Europeans is to sneer at Americans driving low MPG SUVs and pretend that somehow the Euros are better because they drive high MPG vehicles. The reality is that if fuel prices were one half of what they are in Europe, Europeans would drive more powerful and lower MPG vehicles. It's pure market dynamics. If gas is $1.00 a gallon that Phaeton looks good, but at $5.00 a gallon, I'm going for the Lupo. Unless and until a 30-40mpg minivan materializes, it is incorrect to call families irresponsible for driving gas guzzlers. I agree that vehicles should be better designed. <br>

05-22-2005, 11:08 PM
Gee thats odd, Greenpeace has this nice fleet of ships ran on diesel, half on dual diesel engines. Why dont they chain themselves to there sulfur belching ships? <p>By the way mzoltarp, my moms pontiac vibe seats 5 fat people and gets 30 mpg!<p>Ford Escape hybrid has a third row seat option and gets around 36/31 AND the Toyota Highlander Hybrid also seat 7 people and gets 33/28. Do research instead of spouting off crap about there not being any cars or anything that can cary 5-7 people. Who the hell has 7 people anyway? Excluding mormons(no offence)<p>I find it stupid when retards get huge excursions and then complain about global warming, yeah, you arent really advancing the cause are you? Does anyone really need to seat 10 people and does anyone really need a 6 lires V10?<p>Maybe if America wasnt so fat maybe we wouldnt have to seat "7 people" if we werent as wide, thats what some people do. Since they cant get there lard asses in a normal seat, they take up two. Sad.<p>-Chris

05-23-2005, 06:01 AM
Get back to me when you have a family. A Vibe will NOT handle 4 people if two of them are children. Strollers, toys, diaper bag, etc. etc. etc. Kids take up more space than you realize. Kids also have to be in carseats which would make the Vibe a 4 seater at most.

05-23-2005, 03:38 PM
I don't support Greenpeace either. But I believe Uberwagon's posts were very, very well put and reflect the complex reality of how tied we are financially to environmental damage. I don't think it is a "liberal" or "left-wing" idea at all (I think I am a moderate, right-leaning independant), it is economics and science -- We will all pay a HUGE economic price for our so-called "freedom" as consumers. Unfortunately this "freedom" has not been wielded responsibly at the individual level so, as a society, it has to be one of the things we need to regulate better. <p>My problem is that car manufacturers (one of which I am dependant upon financially, I will admit) and oil industry (in which my family works) spend huge amounts of money to lobby governments to NOT mandate better mileage or clean air requirements. This is technically legal but, to me, morally bankrupt and wrong. It is the single biggest reason why we, as consumers, don't have higher-mileage choices to date and why the American government fights against better oversight of resources. If we wanted, we could do MUCH better. While Greenpeace's actions are technically illegal (and thus "criminal") I believe they are morally justified (I can't believe I'm supporting them!). Jail-worthy, yes, but they are right to fight non-violently for that cause. <p>As a father and an engineer, I (respectfully) don't agree that the "need" for low-mileage vehicles holds water. Some sacrifice has to be made, as Uberwagon said, at the individual level and that might include space and comfort. Large European and Asian families get by without large SUVs with heavy 4WD systems that aren't used. Can't we too? I think so. Should our government help the cause with regulation, incentives, etc.? IMHO, unfortunately, yes. I think my children will be paying a large price if we don't make an effort. And I'm not talking about trees and birds. The cost to our economy will be massive and will be a drag on quality of human life for generations. That future isn't worth the "freedom" to choose a big car and use inexpensive government subsidized gasoline today. <p>It is great to see a rational debate on such an emotional topic!

05-23-2005, 04:36 PM
Vector: Name SPECIFICALLY the vehicles that will hold two parents, 3 kids and all of the things that go with kids (3 car seats, two strollers, diaper bag, toy bag, and parents luggage) that get in excess of 20 or 25 mpg. We're talking real world so use the "city" estimate which tends to be more accurate for most vehicles. The Euros rely on public transpartation a lot more EEW! As for the industry "could do better" if Toyota or Honda could make a 40mpg minivan they would do it and corner the market. I'm not saying that gas hogs are justified, I'm saying there is precious little choice out there for how Americans live.

05-24-2005, 04:49 AM
There was a reaction in Topgear: Clarckson, James and Hammond chained themselves to a red bus: Protesting against the pollution of it, not enough people on it....<br>It was hilarious

05-24-2005, 05:43 AM
top gear rules

05-24-2005, 04:23 PM
Wow, I didn't know greenpeace did this kind of stuff. May I just say that Land Rover's use a lot of fuel because they are heavy vehicles. They are heavy vehicles because they a re true offroaders, and true offroaders need a lot of strength and a lot of strength means a lot of weight. Therefore there is at least the certainty that the car is good offroad - you can take it places outside the highway. I wonder if Greenpeace would prefer Excursions, Expeditions, Suburban's, Tahoes, Escallades cruising along highways instead. OK maybe Range Rover owners don't do any rough stuff, but that's their choice and it's not what the cars were intended to be doing. Therefore you can't blame a product of what its customers do with it so these actions are ignorant not to say anything else.<p>Just another thought. What type of people would care more about the earth, the guy in a Land Rover that goes out to the wild and contamplates nature, or the guy in a compact SUV that has such car just to feel imponent?

05-24-2005, 04:33 PM
I can't speak for Vector but I do agree that some sacrifice of space and comfort is needed given the imminent problems from fossil fuels. Perhaps you could be interested in a Prius with a roof rack! Or (as I do when I need the space) rent on the periodic occaision when you need more capacity. Most people don't need to carry all that extra weight when they commute by themselves. But, if you do in fact have THREE children, all in car seats, a minivan or other such vehicle might be necessary. This is one reason why "MPV's" are growing in popularity in Europe. They're smallish and efficient, yet can carry a small family comfortably. The Mazda 5 is coming soon...<p>Regardless, I would gently and politely disagree that Americans have precious little choice in this matter given how we live. We are a country with more money than we know what to do with and have, possibly, too many choices as consumers. We've grown accustomed to an unsustainable existence, demanding that we take everything with us everywhere we go. With our fuel heavily subsidized by foreign aid, we Americans have developed (IMHO) a skewed perception of what is okay to drive. This won't last.<p>Europe has taken a very deliberate and politically brave stance on fossil fuel consumption, taxing it heavily as an incentive against harmful waste. This is a time-honored way for governments (including the US) to encourage socially responsible consumption habits (ie, tobacco & alcohol taxes). Yes, it stings a bit and it didn't make some manufacturers or oil companies happy but it is the right thing to do and they found the courage to maintain a policy of thrift (dating back to the Suez crisis).<p>Unfortunately, as has been discussed, our government is far more prone to follow the sway of well-funded lobbying groups (Greenpeace is not in the "well-funded" camp and I've personally never heard of any affiliation with terrorists, PETA, ELF or others). This and America's spread-out geography and lack of viable suburban public transport infrastucture make serious gas taxes politically impossible. Thus, it falls on individuals and corporations to step up and take on the responsibility.<p>So far, that hasn't happened in the slightest. <p>Hence, Greenpeace messing up a nice, drizzly day at work in the UK to bring some attention the issue. No, the tactic they chose in this case is annoying and disruptive. But jeez, someone's got to disrupt the path we're on!<br><BR><BR>
<i>Modified by Uberwagon at 4:42 PM 5/24/2005</i>

05-25-2005, 06:07 AM
Uberwagon: I was referring to VEHICULAR choice. A family of 5, 3 of whom must be in car seats, have a certain amount of space requirement even if going across town. A Pontiac Vibe was mentioned earlier, but it cannot accommodate 3 car seats. The front seat is off limits to kids by law. This pretty much leaves Civics, Accords, Camrys, Corollas out. As for your Prius idea, given that only two car seats will fit in it, shall I strap the other kid to the roof? Mazda 5: same basic problem 3 car seats will not fit. Your illustration of a Prius with stuff on the roof is wildly humorous. The Prius is widely known to scarcely get better mileage than a Corolla. People in the real world are getting 40mpg not anywhere near 60mpg. Moreover that luggage on the roof would sharply reduce mileage both because of the extra weight but even more from an aerodynamics standpoint. This pretty much forces a vehicle with 3 rows of seats. A Highlander would work for across town, but anything more and there is insufficient luggage space left over. Ever look at the size of one stroller? Let's not even talk about the Highlander hybrid. The local dealer sells them for 5k over list which makes them 40k. Ridiculous. So I again ask people to name the SPECIFIC VEHICLES that will take a family of 5 as outlined above that get over 20 mpg.

05-25-2005, 06:47 AM
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>Uberwagon</b> &raquo;</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I can't speak for Vector but I do agree that some sacrifice of space and comfort is needed given the imminent problems from fossil fuels. Perhaps you could be interested in a Prius with a roof rack! Or (as I do when I need the space) rent on the periodic occaision when you need more capacity. Most people don't need to carry all that extra weight when they commute by themselves. But, if you do in fact have THREE children, all in car seats, a minivan or other such vehicle might be necessary. This is one reason why "MPV's" are growing in popularity in Europe. They're smallish and efficient, yet can carry a small family comfortably. The Mazda 5 is coming soon... </TD></TR></TABLE> <p>I am speaking seriously when I say that these cars were meant to go out in the wild, not just take a paved road. If not used for it, that's another question. Take my case - I own a Land Rover. We carry 6 people arround through tropical rainforest, sometimes with mud door deep or even in 3 wheel mode, the other hanging arround in the air. All constantly throughout 20 years (+ another 15 years of heavy use under another owner) . Tell me if there's any car out there that will make it without needing the weight the Land Rover has, hence the consumption.<p>That's exactly what Land Rovers are made for, you know...<p>Rental's hardly exist here and we need the car constantly, and they're not likely to have a car to suit us even if we wanted to. You know these cars are workhorses, I wonder WTF does Greenpeace expect, for us to trash them and use horse powered carts?<p>Sorry but your "suggestions" completely ignore that some people actually use the car for something else that going shopping or to the saturday football game in school...<p><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote &raquo;</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"><br>Hence, Greenpeace messing up a nice, drizzly day at work in the UK to bring some attention the issue. No, the tactic they chose in this case is annoying and disruptive. But jeez, someone's got to disrupt the path we're on!<p><i>Modified by Uberwagon at 4:42 PM 5/24/2005</i></TD></TR></TABLE><p>Wait lemme get this straight. IN USA you use fuel irresponsibly, so U agree with Greenpeace paralysing a factory in EUROPE that sells cars in the whole world, not only USA?

05-25-2005, 04:41 PM
Have you ever driven a Vibe? Or owned one for that matter? If it can carry 10 pieces of plywood then you can carry your two brats in there carseats.

05-25-2005, 04:51 PM
A Vibe, when set up with two car seats, has insufficient space for a compact stoller let alone any other cargo. Been there, seen that, speak from reality.

05-25-2005, 04:55 PM
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>check</b> &raquo;</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Have you ever driven a Vibe? Or owned one for that matter? If it can carry 10 pieces of plywood then you can carry your two brats in there carseats.</TD></TR></TABLE><p>A Vibe? What the hell???? It carries nothing, tows nothing, It's gay, It cannot take 6 people and all their luggage in a highway let alone in the rough stuff, It's expensive like hell, It aint economical either and it's for people living in the suburbs who just need to drive to work and its a perfect example of the type of car that trully pollute, because It's heavier than a car, but can't do anything a good car can't. Instead a Land Rover might pollute a little more if compared side by side, but it's meant to go out in the rough, and that doesn't allow it to be lighter.<p>I might have heard a more ridiculous suggestion, but I can't remember when.