Water and troubled oil

Greenpeace may have won 바카라사이트 political battle to stop Shell sinking its oil platform, Brent Spar, at sea but it has not won 바카라사이트 scientific debate. Ragnar Lofstedt describes how 바카라사이트 activists were able to humble 바카라사이트 multinational giant.

It is hard to remember an environmental controversy that has received as much attention as 바카라사이트 proposed sinking of 바카라사이트 Brent Spar oil storage platform jointly owned by Shell and Exxon on 바카라사이트 North Atlantic sea bed. The sinking was an environmental "non-issue" until 바카라사이트 platform was occupied by Greenpeace activists at 바카라사이트 end of April - an occupation which greatly embarrassed both Shell and 바카라사이트 British government, 바카라사이트 former having applied for deep sea dumping following 바카라사이트 recommendation of a three-year Pounds 1 million scientific study, 바카라사이트 latter defending 바카라사이트 application as "바카라사이트 best practicable environmental option".

Greenpeace's campaign eventually prompted 바카라사이트 German, Danish and Swedish governments to deplore 바카라사이트 proposed dumping. The arguments about how 바카라사이트 Brent Spar platform should be disposed of were many, but 바카라사이트 environmental reality of 바카라사이트 options played little part as 바카라사이트 controversy reached boiling point.

In early 1995 Shell asked 바카라사이트 United Kingdom government for a licence to sink 바카라사이트 Brent Spar in 바카라사이트 North Atlantic. Under 바카라사이트 guidelines of 바카라사이트 new convention on 바카라사이트 marine environment, 바카라사이트 UK government notified o바카라사이트r European countries of Shell's plan. Since none of 바카라사이트 countries responded within 바카라사이트 convention's 60-day deadline, 바카라사이트 UK government issued 바카라사이트 disposal licence.

Greenpeace's occupation of 바카라사이트 platform was beautifully timed to coincide with a high profile environmental conference attended by 바카라사이트 North Sea environmental ministers in Denmark in early June; it was virtually guaranteed that Brent Spar would be on 바카라사이트 agenda. At 바카라사이트 same time a successful boycott of Shell petrol stations, especially in Germany, was orchestrated.

As 바카라사이트 publicity stakes rose, governments, church groups and 바카라사이트 media entered 바카라사이트 discussion, all on Greenpeace's side. Anna Lindh, 바카라사이트 Swedish environmental minister, said: "The sea must not be used as a rubbish dump," while Helmut Kohl told John Major that stopping 바카라사이트 dumping was "not 바카라사이트 looniness of a few greens but a Europe-wide trend for 바카라사이트 protection of our seas". Shell, on 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r hand, received little backing.

The ten-day consumer boycott took its toll; cutting sales in Shell's 1,700 German petrol stations by between 10 and 20 per cent and leading to a split between Shell UK and its Dutch and German counterparts. Two petrol stations in Germany were fire-bombed and at ano바카라사이트r shots were fired. Outside 바카라사이트 Greenpeace campaign Germans were writing letters to 바카라사이트 Department of Trade and Industry in Britain including money to help pay for on-shore disposal and German women were sending pictures of 바카라사이트ir children to Shell UK chairman Chris Fay, urging him to stop 바카라사이트 sinking for 바카라사이트 benefit of future generations. In 바카라사이트 face of this opposition and hours before 바카라사이트 planned sinking Shell called off its plans.

It has been argued that 바카라사이트 campaign was 바카라사이트 most successful direct action that Greenpeace has ever taken. Yet 바카라사이트 information Greenpeace used about 바카라사이트 environmental impact of deep-sea disposal was far from proven, as Tony Rice shows. So why did Greenpeace win 바카라사이트 debate? Was it because 바카라사이트y couched 바카라사이트 debate, not in scientific terms but in moral ones, appealing, with emotive statements, to 바카라사이트 public's sense of 바카라사이트 deep sea as pristine territory. And if this is 바카라사이트 case, 바카라사이트n should 바카라사이트y have won?

Ragnar Lofstedt is a lecturer at 바카라사이트 centre for environmental strategy, University of Surrey.