Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Greenpease activists

P

Polibios

Jan 1, 1970
0
On June 23, 2004, six Greenpeace activists hung a banner from a smokestack
at the Hatsfield's Ferry power plant in Masontown, Pennsylvania, protesting
the Bush administration's failure to keep communities safe from the dangers
of coal-fired power plants. As a result of this peaceful protest, these
activists now face felony charges and up to seven years in jail.

As you well know, your plant is one of the dirtiest and most dangerous power
plants in the country. In fact, it's the country's second largest emitter
of sulfur dioxide, the pollution that causes acid rain and smog. It also
releases immense amounts of nitrogen oxide and mercury, both dangerous
pollutants. According to a recent study by the same researchers that the
Bush administration commissioned to evaluate its energy plan, pollution from
this plant causes 237 premature deaths each year. With all of this
evidence, Allegheny Energy still chooses to put its corporate profits ahead
of the health and safety of the community surrounding Hatfield's Ferry.

The four women and two men who participated in this peaceful act were
motivated by sincere concern for the community around your plant, as well as
communities in the shadow of dirty power plants throughout the country.
Felony charges for peaceful protests are not the norm and are unjustified in
this case.

For over 30 years, Greenpeace has worked around the world, through research,
advocacy and action, to protect our Earth's fragile environment and climate.
Greenpeace follows in the venerable U.S. tradition of civil protest, from
the Boston Tea Party to the modern civil rights movement, a tradition that
Allegheny now threatens.

As a responsible corporate citizen, Allegheny Energy should clean up this
dirty plant and immediately demand that these unwarranted and heavy-handed
felony charges be dropped. I pledge to continue taking action against
Allegheny Energy until you do so.
 
D

daestrom

Jan 1, 1970
0
Polibios said:
On June 23, 2004, six Greenpeace activists hung a banner from a smokestack
at the Hatsfield's Ferry power plant in Masontown, Pennsylvania,
protesting
the Bush administration's failure to keep communities safe from the
dangers
of coal-fired power plants. As a result of this peaceful protest, these
activists now face felony charges and up to seven years in jail.

Last time I checked, the first amendment did not include trespass, and
climbing up smokestacks. If one of the peaceful protestors fell and died
from their 'peaceful protest', their kin would have undoubtedly sued the
power company.

Activists knowingly break the law because it's the only way they can get
their names/faces in the news. It is also interesting to note that most
such 'peaceful protestors' do *not* live in the community they are
'concerned' about. They blow into town, pull some illegal stunt to get on
the six o'clock news, pay their fines and leave. The local folks who's
livelyhood depend on the plant are annoyed. The local folks who genuinely
want to change conditions are given a bad reputation. The 'peaceful
protestors' move on, bragging to each other how they've helped 'save the
planet'.
As a responsible corporate citizen, Allegheny Energy should clean up this
dirty plant and immediately demand that these unwarranted and heavy-handed
felony charges be dropped. I pledge to continue taking action against
Allegheny Energy until you do so.

Your efforts would be better served by pursuing these issues through
legitimate government avenues instead of deliberately committing felony
crimes. Did you, or did you not break the law???

daestrom
 
W

Windsun

Jan 1, 1970
0
Yeah, good old GP.

They blow into town, stage an uproar in a town they live 1000 miles from,
get their pictures taken, and leave to go back to their upscale yuppy
California homes.

Now they are whining because they found out they are subject to the same
trespass rules that the rest of us are.

Cry me a river.
 
R

Robert Morien

Jan 1, 1970
0
Windsun said:
Yeah, good old GP.

They blow into town, stage an uproar in a town they live 1000 miles from,
get their pictures taken, and leave to go back to their upscale yuppy
California homes.

Now they are whining because they found out they are subject to the same
trespass rules that the rest of us are.

Cry me a river.

Not until you provide the eir for that.
 
G

Gymmie Bob

Jan 1, 1970
0
So their leaders, so knowledgeable don't tell the pawns they will get
arrested and have criminal records. Sounds like a case for Perry Mason to
take some of these "leaders" down same as in labour practices. the
management is guilty first. Does a paycheck make a difference under labour
laws?
 
W

World Peas

Jan 1, 1970
0
<sigh> the demonization of environmentalism continues...

daestrom said:
Activists knowingly break the law because it's the only way they can get
their names/faces in the news.

Yeah, Tiananmen Square 1989 was an illegal protest....
They blow into town, pull some illegal stunt to get on
the six o'clock news, pay their fines and leave. The local folks who's
livelyhood depend on the plant are annoyed.

Boo hoo....
The local folks who genuinely
want to change conditions are given a bad reputation. The 'peaceful
protestors' move on, bragging to each other how they've helped 'save the
planet'.

The "local folks" as you call them, are probably the same people who rely on the plant for income
and probably don't want to raise their voice too loudly... lest they have no way to pay for their
SUV's....
Your efforts would be better served by pursuing these issues through
legitimate government avenues instead of deliberately committing felony
crimes. Did you, or did you not break the law???

I think "the ends justify the means" comes to mind right about now... obviously pursuing thru
"legitimate government avenues" wasn't working. They got their attention, they paid their fine,
moved on, and now you and I know there is a dirty plant existing somewhere in the USA, and people
like you are dissing them in Usenet forums while completely ignoring the real issue of the story.
I'd have to say their tactics worked pretty well.
 
N

News

Jan 1, 1970
0
daestrom said:
Last time I checked, the first amendment did not include trespass, and
climbing up smokestacks.

Does it actually prevent it?

In history those that went outside the law of the land as it stood at the
time, made change. If no one ever did, we woud still be in the dark ages.
It is also interesting to note that most
such 'peaceful protestors' do *not* live
in the community they are 'concerned' about.

Poisonous smoke rising affects every, even those many, many 1000s of miles
away.

The Kennedy man who died in a plane accident about 10 years back. It was
clear he should not have been flying the plane, but that was not the reason
for the plane crash. Pollution blowing in from Pennsylvania and the likes
lowered/obliterated visibility.
 
D

daestrom

Jan 1, 1970
0
News said:
Does it actually prevent it?

The first amendment? No. But we are supposed to be a nation of laws. To
disregard the law just because you disagree with another's viewpoint leads
to anarchy.
In history those that went outside the law of the land as it stood at the
time, made change. If no one ever did, we woud still be in the dark ages.

Our forefathers chose revolution after all other forms of redress were
exhausted. You do remember that the colonies tried for years to have their
issues resolved before the king of England.

Tell me, if those elected officials representing the locals feel the matter
is being addressed within the law, does this give some GreenPeace
demonstrators, living hundreds of miles away, the right to break the law?
Poisonous smoke rising affects every, even those many, many 1000s of miles
away.

The Kennedy man who died in a plane accident about 10 years back. It was
clear he should not have been flying the plane, but that was not the
reason
for the plane crash. Pollution blowing in from Pennsylvania and the likes
lowered/obliterated visibility.

A silly lie. "The Kennedy man" (JFK's son) died because he was only VFR
(Visual Flight Rules) rated and flying over water at night in cloudy
weather. With no lighting on the ground and no moon, the poor guy became
disoriented and couldn't tell which way was 'up'. It had nothing to do
with 'pollution blowing in from Pennsylvania'.

Trying to blame such a tragedy on 'pollution blowing in from Pennsylvania
and the likes..." detracts from the real issues of pollution. Such a
transparent lie as blaming coal plant pollution for a tragedy that it is
*not* responsible for dilutes the real issues of their pollution. Simply
ruins your credibility about the *real* affects of air pollution.

Far better to stick to the real facts about air pollution, and the affects
of the acid rain caused by it.

daestrom
 
D

daestrom

Jan 1, 1970
0
World Peas said:
<sigh> the demonization of environmentalism continues...



Yeah, Tiananmen Square 1989 was an illegal protest....


Boo hoo....


The "local folks" as you call them, are probably the same people who rely
on the plant for income
and probably don't want to raise their voice too loudly... lest they have
no way to pay for their
SUV's....

So you assume all the 'local folks' are just as guilty, driving SUV's and
that the imported GreenPeace protestors are the only folks that care about
the environment? Can you possibly find a broader brush to paint with??

Most people's health declines when they are unemployed. What will be the
impact of shutting down this plant on the health and welfare of the 'local
folks'?
I think "the ends justify the means" comes to mind right about now...
obviously pursuing thru
"legitimate government avenues" wasn't working. They got their attention,
they paid their fine,
moved on, and now you and I know there is a dirty plant existing somewhere
in the USA,

Many of us already know of various dirty plants existing in the US. Their
stunt did nothing but garner attention for GreenPeace (probably its true
purpose). Their stunts are getting so mundane that it's more 'ho hum,
another enviro-wacko story', rather than any serious debate about the
environment.
and people
like you are dissing them in Usenet forums while completely ignoring the
real issue of the story.
I'd have to say their tactics worked pretty well.

Considering the original post was about 1/5 about the plant's pollution
(unverifiable 'facts' quoting an unnamed 'study' from unnamed
'researchers'), and 4/5's about GreenPeace and the protestors being
arrested, I'd say it did a pretty *poor* job of covering the 'real issue'.
More grandstanding than addressing the 'real issue's surrounding coal plant
air pollution.

Where's the reference for the levels of sulfur dioxide, NOx and mercury
emissions? If that plant is the 'second largest emitter...', where is the
first? How did they arrive at '237 premature deaths each year'? Who
exactly were these 'same researchers that the Bush administration
commissioned'? And not to get too cynical, but who called for and funded
the study?

daestrom
 
G

Gymmie Bob

Jan 1, 1970
0
Read the NG name. This is alt.energy.homepower, not world pollution or
environmental issues.

Do you only post things OT here?

tit for tat?

Have a great one! ... LOL
 
G

Gymmie Bob

Jan 1, 1970
0
Clouds form on dust and pollution particles.
Perhaps you should only spoeak on things you know something about.

tit for tat smartie pants?

LOL
 
G

Gymmie Bob

Jan 1, 1970
0
That's correct. If the lawns got looked after better and kept greener we
would still have a Royal Family in the US....LOL
 
D

Dave Hinz

Jan 1, 1970
0
Does it actually prevent it?

No, it also doesn't make speeding, murder, or assault illegal. That's
not what it's about. It's about not having the government say what
you can or can't say; it says nothing about allowing you to violate
other laws in order to do so.
In history those that went outside the law of the land as it stood at the
time, made change. If no one ever did, we woud still be in the dark ages.

Right, so we should abandon millennia of precedent regarding private
ownership of land vs. trespass now?
Poisonous smoke rising affects every, even those many, many 1000s of miles
away.

Not relevant to first amendment rights, sorry.
The Kennedy man who died in a plane accident about 10 years back. It was
clear he should not have been flying the plane, but that was not the reason
for the plane crash. Pollution blowing in from Pennsylvania and the likes
lowered/obliterated visibility.

Bullshit. He was a VFR pilot flying in IFR conditions. This means:
he wasn't allowed to be doing what he was doing. Just like every other
Kennedy, he thought he was above the law. He won't do that again.
You really need to find someone other than a Kennedy to try to prop up
your point.
 
D

Dave Hinz

Jan 1, 1970
0
oh sure, now you blame the dusty plains states, how far back do you
want to go?

Perhaps if more of us humidified in the winter, there would be less
dust, and less plane crashes... ;)

Yeah, but there'd be more Kennedies around, and I'm not sure it's worth
the trade-off.
 
M

Me

Jan 1, 1970
0
Gymmie Bob said:
Clouds form on dust and pollution particles.
Perhaps you should only spoeak on things you know something about.

tit for tat smartie pants?

LOL

Perhaps, you should refrain from from making statements, like the above,
for which you know little about.

It is your contention that if there were no dust or pollution, then
there would be no "Clouds"? This is a very GIANT oversimplification,
and anyone making such a statement is either: 1. a DUFUS of the First
Order... or 2. Blowing so much smoke, he should be fined under the Clean
Air Act..... Which are you?..........


Me
 
G

Gymmie Bob

Jan 1, 1970
0
Most of us are thinking the same thing about you!
Did you have to change your name because:
a) you are afraid people will know what a moron you are by your real nick?
b) you don't want people to know what a troll you are by your real nick?
c) you are afraid nobody will here your ranting because they have all
killfiltered you.
d) all of the above.

BTW: Cloud do form on particles in the air. This is why rainwater is so
dirty. Go back to grade 7 science.

....and get off my screen one more time you asshole.
<PLONK>
 

Similar threads

D
Replies
0
Views
872
David Williams
D
Top