Going on strike means something entirely different in France

[Josquius]

Makes sense I suppose, striking lorry drivers is just part of life in France, no one cares.
But still...awful.

[KRonn]

 Going to dump toxic fuel into a river as a protest. Sounds like a rational reaction to a grievance...NOT.      

Maybe these enviro-terrorist types will be spending some time in France's version of Gitmo?   

[Valmy]

Antoine Faucher, campaign director of Greenpeace France, said the threats, though worrying, were in fact a reflection of growing concern for the environment. "It's significant because today, perhaps unlike previous years, the environment is recognised in itself as a resource," he said. "To take it hostage may be of greater value now than it was before."

Wow I never heard a Greenpeace dude so happy somebody is dumping toxic waste in a river before.

Wahoo!  This means people care about the river now that they are commiting eco-terrorism!

[Valmy]

Maybe those lorry drivers should go work for a profiteable company.  Or form their own.  Just saying the one they work for seems to be unable to pay them.  Dumping toxic waste in a river is not likely to magically make money appear.

Or maybe the government swoops in to pay salaries in France, maybe that trucking company is too big to fail.

[Josephus]

I thought polluting rivers was what the businesses do.

Which goes to show that organized unions these days are in the pockets of Big Business.

[Valmy]

I thought polluting rivers was what the businesses do.

At least they do it to make profits.

[Martinus]

Um, not really at all.  He is actually quite right.

And I generally have disdain for Greenpeace.

It sounds like he's partially excusing the threat, though that may just be because of the way the journalist presented his remark.

Yeah, that's my point.

[Martinus]

Antoine Faucher, campaign director of Greenpeace France, said the threats, though worrying, were in fact a reflection of growing concern for the environment. "It's significant because today, perhaps unlike previous years, the environment is recognised in itself as a resource," he said. "To take it hostage may be of greater value now than it was before."

Wow I never heard a Greenpeace dude so happy somebody is dumping toxic waste in a river before.

Wahoo!  This means people care about the river now that they are commiting eco-terrorism!

Yeah. By that logic Holocaust was the highest affirmation of human life.

[Tonitrus]

Um, not really at all.  He is actually quite right.

And I generally have disdain for Greenpeace.

It sounds like he's partially excusing the threat, though that may just be because of the way the journalist presented his remark.

Yeah, that's my point.

I read the quote over a few times, looking for that.  And I concede one can read that into it...but I think that takes a great leap of bias on the part of the reader.

But, it still mostly looks to me as if he is making the point that becasue we place a higher value on ecology and the environment today, than we used to (and this is undeniably true, I think), that threatening to pollute something carries more weight than it would have in the past.

[The Minsky Moment]

Nothing here a little whiff of grapeshot couldn't fix.

[Martinus]

Um, not really at all.  He is actually quite right.

And I generally have disdain for Greenpeace.

It sounds like he's partially excusing the threat, though that may just be because of the way the journalist presented his remark.

Yeah, that's my point.

I read the quote over a few times, looking for that.  And I concede one can read that into it...but I think that takes a great leap of bias on the part of the reader.

But, it still mostly looks to me as if he is making the point that becasue we place a higher value on ecology and the environment today, than we used to (and this is undeniably true, I think), that threatening to pollute something carries more weight than it would have in the past.

Well, seeing how Greenpeace usually goes into hysterics over environmental issues, their "matter-of-fact" "it's-swell-people-are-threatening-to-destroy-an-ecosystem" approach can only be seen as a tacit approval (which I assume is for political reasons).

[Josquius]

I really don't see a problem with what the Greenpeace person said here...It is a bit of a good sign for the environment that people are taking this as a major threat these days wheras in the not too distant past it would only be the loss of the fuel that would concern people, screw the river.
That Greenpeace would disprove of actual dumping is taken by default.

[Valmy]

I really don't see a problem with what the Greenpeace person said here...It is a bit of a good sign for the environment that people are taking this as a major threat these days wheras in the not too distant past it would only be the loss of the fuel that would concern people, screw the river.
That Greenpeace would disprove of actual dumping is taken by default.

Him spinning the dumping of toxic waste as a good thing was not strange to you?

[Josquius]

Him spinning the dumping of toxic waste as a good thing was not strange to you?

He's not doing that though.

Antoine Faucher, campaign director of Greenpeace France, said the threats, though worrying, were in fact a reflection of growing concern for the environment. "It's significant because today, perhaps unlike previous years, the environment is recognised in itself as a resource," he said. "To take it hostage may be of greater value now than it was before."

Though this incident is quite obviously bad (I bet the journalist cut a lot of what he said out down into 'worrying') it does act as a sign for people holding better respect for the environment these days;.

[Eddie Teach]

Him spinning the dumping of toxic waste as a good thing was not strange to you?

I wouldn't call it "strange." Remember, he's not simply a radical environmentalist, he's most likely a radical lefty on all sorts of issues. Denouncing striking workers is something that would give him great consternation, even when they merit it according to his other principles.