Greenpeace Found Guilty of Breaking Environmental Laws

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,171
18,808
146
Greenpeace Found Guilty of Breaking Environmental Laws

KETCHIKAN, Alaska (May 10) - A jury found Greenpeace guilty Monday on two misdemeanor criminal negligence charges that were filed after the group's ship entered Alaska waters for an anti-logging campaign without required paperwork.

Greenpeace's ship came to Alaska to conduct an anti-logging campaign in the Tongass National Forest. The ship was carrying more than 70,000 gallons of "petroleum products" at the time, court papers said.

Under state law, a large non-tank vessel must file an oil spill response plan application five days before entering state waters. Greenpeace had not, but said the oversight was quickly corrected.

State regulators charged Greenpeace, ship Capt. Arne Sorensen and ship agent Willem Beekman with multiple counts of misdemeanor criminal negligence last July for not filing the spill plan or having proof of financial responsibility in case of a spill.

The six-person state District Court jury convicted Greenpeace on two counts of failing to have the oil spill prevention plan and acquitted the group on the two counts of failing to obtain a certificate of financial responsibility.

Sorensen was convicted on three counts, and Beekman was acquitted on all charges.

Criminal negligence carries a maximum $200,000 fine for an organization, and a year in prison and a $10,000 fine for an individual.
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
25,470
10,071
136
They are probably behind that piece of legislation...I bet they cried for it after Exxon Valdez. Oh well, at least they didn't appeal and paid up without bogging down the legal system.
 

Demon-Xanth

Lifer
Feb 15, 2000
20,551
2
81
Originally posted by: StrangerGuy
What the heck are they doing with 70k gallons of petroleum anyway?

Wanting the ship to move? Ships like that don't usually move without fuel.
 

Calin

Diamond Member
Apr 9, 2001
3,112
0
0
Originally posted by: StrangerGuy
What the heck are they doing with 70k gallons of petroleum anyway?

Fuel tanks for a ship.
USS Permit (SS-178), launched in October 1936 had a fuel capacity of 92,801 gallons of diesel fuel. This is for a submarine 300' long, with 2000 tons displacement submerged.
No wonder a ship would have 70000 gallons of fuel onboard
 

StrangerGuy

Diamond Member
May 9, 2004
8,443
124
106
Originally posted by: Calin
Originally posted by: StrangerGuy
What the heck are they doing with 70k gallons of petroleum anyway?

Fuel tanks for a ship.
USS Permit (SS-178), launched in October 1936 had a fuel capacity of 92,801 gallons of diesel fuel. This is for a submarine 300' long, with 2000 tons displacement submerged.
No wonder a ship would have 70000 gallons of fuel onboard


Ok. Got pwned. :)
 
May 31, 2001
15,326
2
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: sonambulo
you beat off to this...didnt you?

Nope.

Now if they had been caught clubbing baby seals...

I am glad this is making national news and not just the local media. I have been following it in the local paper with some amusement, no pun intended.

As for the clubbing baby seals bit... while not quite up there, a couple of years ago some Greanpeace folks were in Anchorage which was to be the jumping off point for their visit to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). They visited a shop in Anchorage with their parkas which all had the Greenpeace logo on them. What did they want?

Well, it seems they wanted some ruffs sewn onto the hoods of their parkas. The ruff is the fuzzy material of varying lengths sewn around the edge of the hood to help protect the face from extreme cold and wind, when a mask is not enough by itself. What kind of ruffs did they want? They wanted wolf fur ruffs. It seems they had heard that the synthetic fur that was used for such things on mass-produced parkas was generally known to be crap.

The business owner decided to exercise his right to refuse to do business with them, turned them out on the street, and contacted all of the other people in similar businesses encouraging them to treat them the same way which is when the media found out about the whole thing, if I recall correctly.

Almost forgot, in regards to the case. Greenpeace was quoted in a local article as saying that they should not be held liable because they didn't know about the law.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Is'nt this the same org that is basically a vigilante force blocking trade routes, impeeding naval vessels and other stuff? I'm suprised they still around and not been sunk.
 
May 31, 2001
15,326
2
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
Is'nt this the same org that is basically a vigilante force blocking trade routes, impeeding naval vessels and other stuff? I'm suprised they still around and not been sunk.


Rainbow Warrior. :p
 

43st

Diamond Member
Nov 7, 2001
3,197
0
0
HAHAHAHAHA!!!11! They had fuel on the ship, stupid hippys, so funny.