As they say in the article, Greenpeace has to get its fuel from somewhere:
Sure, it needs fuel to run; I guess I just always assumed it ran off Gaia’s milk.
… and yet the point still stands:
Chuckles suggests it’s “sleeping with the enemy”, while I just call it the tyranny of reality.
To me, it’s a bit like vegetarianism or its extreme form – veganism. When you start placing constraints on what we’re designed to do or to go further, when we deviate from the instruction manual for any length of time, it either must lead to compromise or to trouble, often difficult to spot trouble.
I knew a girl whose parents insisted [and she agreed] they were all Vegan. She was anaemic and lifeless on the whole and she’s not the only one I’ve known. And as for not killing, well don’t you kill plants each time you pick or root them out? How does a poor cabbage feel being macheteed in half?
Politically, being lumbered with all this PC narrative guff can only have led to what it has. And each new problem with it they try to fix with a tweak or amendment which makes it worse than it was before.
Onto sailing – there’s a reason yachts and sails look like they do and are arranged as they are. When they dropped the traditional gaff sail, the new pointy sail could go upwind but downwind, they had to have a new, unwieldy thing to compensate. When you deviate from the tried and tested, you pay for it in the long run.
It’s bizarre being seen as extremist or loony by supporting the traditional ways – I should have thought it was just common sense and logical.
So Greenpeace say they’re not against fuel – just the “right” fuel. Ah yes – like BP.