[com]

He's not being sarcastic, I think. I've got a somewhat similar background and I agree with his stated view.

Citizen and consumer activism keeps the bastards (more) honest. One thousand motivated and angry citizens with a plan can act as a very good counterweight to hundreds of millions of dollars of marketing (and lobbying). Really!

Mundane jokes seem trivial, occupation of capped oil wells in the North Sea seem like a bit of a jape. But the effect of these and all the (cute) Greenpeace donation collectors is consciousness-raising and creation of citizens and consumers who ask hard questions, and that scares the politicians no end. It scares Big Oil too and keeps them (more) honest.

The status quo that you speak of is vastly different to that during the 80's and totally alien to the status quo in the 50's, at least in the rich West. Perhaps you've not really noticed the change. I've worked on and off in the oil and gas industry since the 80's and I see a vast, vast change both in the public's attitude, and also in the mentality within the companies themselves.

[lunarscape]

I'm by no means suggesting that citizen/consumer activism short of violence is useless. In the past the 'Yes Men' and other groups have dragged the 'forgotten' issue of the Bhopal incident back into the news, generated significant bad PR and gotten politicians attention. I just fail to see the value of this particular stunt. Have people learned anything new? I doubt it. Are people writing to their elected officials, organizing petitions or boycotts? Not that I see. It's actionless preaching to the choir - "oil companies are evil" etc.

[com]

A lot more people have seen one of these banners via social media than the real Shell advertisements. Some of them will have talked about it. Some more will look at the cute animals and hate Shell. I suspect that Greenpeace will be able to count on some of these people next time a cute fundraiser knocks on their doors...

[gaius]

Here's the thing tho': pranks are fun. Developing alternative energy sources is hard work, and what sponsorship does Greenpeace do in that area? Not much...

That, and not any conspiracy theory, explains everything.

[com]

I agree: I don't give money to Greenpeace because they're a marketing organisation that raises cash to do more marketing.

But: there is a school of thought that without broad community support, all the hard work won't add up to much.

They might be partly right, I pay more for "green power" than my neighbours do for "glowing-in-the-dark power", and don't own a car despite how much easier it'd make my life. I guess someone's marketing worked on me...

[wahsd]

You don't give money to Greenpeace because you are ignorant.

[jbooth]

Explains everything?

There are people working on alternative energy. They get less subsidy money from the government than the oil industry, which is plenty profitable on their own. You can re-read that sentence if you didn't believe it the first time.

It takes all kinds. Science and PR to protect the science. The political can be very connected to the scientific when the industry threatened with displacement is very politically active.

[snowwrestler]

I'd be really interested to see a detailed accounting of the oil industry subsidies you refer to. When I've looked into this in the past, all I've been able to find are things like the depreciation of capital assets, which, while it could be considered a subsidy, is not specific to the oil industry. The numbers are very big, but that is because the oil industry makes some of the largest capital investments in industry.

[leot]

Oh look, Google: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0309/Budget-hawks...

[gaius]

Here in the UK, of every pound you spend on petrol, 80p of it is tax. 400% tax. You'd have to do a hell of a lot of subsidizing to override that.