Greenpeace uses real oil-covered dead birds in ads to warn of dangers of deep sea oil drilling

MV Rena

It’s OK, we know Wikipedia is down so you couldn’t check 😉

Isn’t this like showing bodies from a plane crash, to demonstrate the problem of speeding?

Adgrunt – The point is that Rena showed how impossible it is to clean up oil once it’s in the water – even from a relatively minor spill in an easy to get to place and how damaging it is … and therefore shows what a bad idea it is to embark on risky deep sea oil drilling where the danger of spills is high.

@ Nick… I think the bigger problem is we’ve run out of oil in the easy to get places. The ad’s all nice and pretty and stuff, but sadly occasional oil spills are a consequence of a planet dependent on oil. It’s a very PC/left-wing view of the oil industry. I can think of hundreds, if not thousands of amazing benefits of oil. For every dead seabird, what about every human life that was saved by being raced to hospital in an ambulance, etc, etc, etc… Rather than harping on the negative, could Greenpeace offer an alternative?

I can see what you’re trying to say, but the leap in your “and therefore” is an irreconcilably large one. But that is the weakness of most Greenwashing from GP. It lazily relies on half-truths and questionable assertions.

Reasonable estimates from the Audubon Society peg bird deaths from the Deepwater Horizon incident at just over 20,000 – about the same as the MV Rena spill. So why the need for the ominous “1000 times worse” bullshit?

Worth noting for comparison that an estimated 30,000 birds die a year in Denmark from wind turbines. [Lomborg, 2001]

That’s a bit awkward, isn’t it.

PS – do you own a cat?

@Keith – You’re dead right but the point I think is that since we are running out of oil , and climate change dictates that we need to stop burning so much oil anyway, we should put our efforts into finding alternatives rather than searching for every last drop no matter what the risk. Our heavy reliance on oil does mean that inevitably there will be the odd oil spill through its use, shipment extraction and discovery but when we start talking about deep sea oil drilling we risk those spills being far more likely and far more devastating. One of the main reasons the Gulf of Mexico spill was so hard to deal with was that it was at an extreme depth of 1500 meters. Around NZ now, oil companies are beginning top prospect at depths of 3000 meters. The (deepest wells in NZ waters currently are only about 300m). So let’s race people to hospital in electric ambulances powered on renewable energy. Greenpeace has proposed a solution to fossil fuel addiction: http://greenpe.ac/mF3pHj

@AdGrunt I don’t agree that it’s much of a leap at all. It’s all estimates of course – only a fraction of the harmed birds are ever found, and we’re talking about a hypothetical deep water drilling accident in NZ waters but the NZ coastline is more pristine than the gulf of Mexico so has more to lose and the Deepwater Horizon spilled well more than a thousand times more oil than did Rena. So a Deepwater Horizon spill in NZ would in all livelihood be far far worse than the Rena.

How woudl you have worded the ad?

(Disclaimer in case it’s not obvious, I work for Greenpeace)

Don’t worry. It was entirely clear you work for GP.

I wouldn’t have even written a brief for the ad, as the proposition has no support.

The material you have could lead to a proposition around maritime training and safety, flags of convenience, wind-powered freighters and post-wreck oil recovery procedures, but *absolutely nothing* about deep water oil exploration. But I presume that was a bit dull.

No oil exploration or production activity was relevantly involved in the death of those birds. Like pretty much every Greenpeace campaign of late, the evidence for your claims is a distortion and misrepresentation of unrelated facts.

Now back to the vastly greater number of birds dying from wind turbines (30,000 in Denmark) and cats (55,000,000 – yes 55 million – in the UK). That I could write you a supportable brief on.

But the mad-cat-lady GP donors would likely baulk at that, wouldn’t they.

@adgrunt – I think you’re being a tad rigid in the way you’re looking at this.

The blindingly obvious similarity/connection between the Rena shipwreck, the Exxon Valdez, Deepwater Horizon and every other oil spill at sea whether past or future is oil in the water, dead and dying sea creatures, poisoned seafood, economic loss and large corporations hiding from responsibility.

Luckily not everyone has such a narrow view as yourself – we’ve had in excess of 6500 SMS messages as a result of airing the ad on TV for one week using money donated specifically for that purpose by people of NZ who do support he proposition (-;

(Of course there are many other threats to birds but this campaign is about oil drilling.)

No, Nick.

Your connection is blindingly loose, sweeping and broad, with flimsy and mendacious support. But that’s Greenwashing for you.

I’m pleased for you that there are 6,500 suckers who have been hood-winked by your emotional distortions. Whatever helps you sleep at night and pays your bills, I guess.

Whilst a measure of success for your campaign, it isn’t going to help New Zealand gain greater economic or environmental security. You can’t export beautiful views, and tourists and freight aren’t going to arrive by sailing boat or electric plane.

It’s hard to deal with the deeper issues, isn’t it.

Now back to those cats killing birds, which can be easily dealt with…

Apparently NZ has one of the highest cat ownership rates – about a million to conservative, it would seem. Now studies vary, but a conservative average kill would be 50 birds killed per year, per cat. Some suggest upwards of a hundred, but I’ll be cautious.

So some brief sums suggest that 50 million birds, including the adorable kiwi, are being killed every year by domestic cats. That, my friend, is a fucking big number. And I didn’t have to make stuff up to get to it.

Any chance Greenpeace is going to deal with this environmental disaster that is literally sitting on your doorstep, licking its lips?

idea brilliant, execution superb

this is a marketing blog, Adgrunt, not a politcal site

you’re starting to sound like one of those rabid Abbott supporters

Archie, this is a political ad, on a marketing site. So it gets the political lens cast across it. Greenpeace also have long form for being “economical with the actualité” – see Mumbrella articles passim.

I’d agree about the execution, art direction and production.

However, a fundamental of such NGO ads is a truth in the support of their proposition. This doesn’t have that. At all.

I have also helpfully outlined a way this Greenpeace could actually make a difference to New Zealand birds. Aren’t I nice.

Dear AdGrunt,

You are a tosser.

Cheers, Jacques

Adgrunt – I believe you can export beautiful views and that’s through tourism. New Zealand as a brand has an image of environmental purity and that image would be under threat if they experienced more disasters such as the MV Rena let alone a serious deep water oil spill.

Almost, Sam.

But as I noted earlier, tourists and freight don’t arrive on magic carpets.

This myopic skit isn’t going to help New Zealand gain greater economic or environmental security. And I’m afraid the economic security needs to come first.

AdGrunt,

The ‘30,000 birds’ figure is often misquoted and used without context.

A better measure is deaths per Gigawatt hour of power generated – if we’re going to generate electricity, we should do so in the way that has the lowest environmental impact…

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.....wind_power

A study[31] estimates that wind farms are responsible for 0.3 to 0.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while fossil-fueled power stations are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh. The study therefore states that fossil fuel based electricity causes about 10 times more fatalities than wind farm based electricity, primarily due to habitat alteration from pollution and mountain-top removal for coal mining.

Strange that the death of wildlife has never been considered a negative for coal or gas power plants…

Saying no to drilling oil at crazy depths will do wonders for our environmental and economic security @adgrunt.

Ps there will be no birds on a dead planet , climate change is the real issue here and renewable energy such as wind farms are far better than coal or oil.

Craig,

Don’t quote selectively from Wikipedia you dolt. Read the rest of the whole piece at least. It ain’t all roses. Then have a quick squiz here http://snipurl.com/21tsaal which dissects your source reference.

Suddenly nuclear seems a wise option.

None of this diminishes the loose, sweeping and broad assertions, with flimsy and mendacious support of this otherwise elegant ad.

James,

What exactly is “crazy” about the depth? What is a “sane” depth? You’re making stuff up again, aren’t you.. 120 years ago drilling in 2 feet of water was bleeding edge. Provide support for your baseless assertions.

Once again, neither of you have addressed how:
a) New Zealand would get the tourists and freight in / out in this nirvana of which you speak. Pot-rattling, with no practical solution. Greenpeace greenwashing at its best.

b) How NZ fills the standard of living gap that causes thousands to cross the ditch to Oz.

c) You’d score a far greater goal with the 50 million odd birds dying annually in NZ alone, from cats…

That would be one hell of an environmental victory. Not up for a real challenge, boys?