LIMA, PERU –The environmental activist group Greenpeace has long stood for defending the Earth and all of its creatures, a mission which earth-centered Pagans are likely to support. The organization has been on the front lines of fights against whaling, the toppling of ancient trees, the single-minded pursuit of oil without regard for secondary damages, and has also lobbied for full nuclear disarmament, sought safer alternatives to toxic chemicals, and encouraged sustainable agriculture over genetically modified organisms.
On Dec. 8, however, a group of Greenpeace activists, seeking to attract the attention of United Nations delegates attending the climate talks in Lima, wound up attracting the world’s attention in a bad way. They placed a large message in support of renewable energy adjacent to one of the nearby Nacza Line drawings. While the words themselves were formed using large pieces of yellow cloth, the footprints left by the Greenpeace members irreparably damaged this UNESCO Heritage Site, according to Peruvian authorities.
It’s not difficult to imagine how this publicity stunt came to be planned. Environmentalists the world over have been focused on the talks in Lima, with hopes that substantive progress might be made towards addressing the growing crisis of climate change. As more extreme weather events shake the support of climate-change deniers, stronger calls for developing renewable energy sources have surged. With the talks being held in Peru, so close to the highly visible, very recognizable line drawings made by the Nazca people centuries ago, placing a non-permanent message near these iconic symbols must have seemed a perfect choice for those involved in the stunt’s planning.
What Greenpeace members apparently did not know about this highly restricted area is that the drawings were made by scratching into the dark ground to reveal the lighter soil underneath. They have been preserved for the 1,500-2,000 years since their creation largely by the dry desert climate of the region. To prevent footprints, which would similarly last for centuries, those few people who are authorized to walk near the site wear special shoes; shoes that the activists did not use.
This was a case where leaving only footprints and taking only pictures was not enough to leave no trace, and a firestorm has erupted over the action. Peruvian Deputy Culture Minister Luis Jaime Castillo said, “Peru has nothing against the message of Greenpeace. We are all concerned about climate change,” but he denounced the stunt as a “true slap in the face at everything Peruvians consider sacred.” Those involved were able to leave the country, but Peru’s government has demanded to know their identities and is considering legal action; attacking archeological monuments can carry a penalty of up to six years. One of those involved has been identified as Mauro Fernandez, an Argentine who coordinates the Andean Climate and Energy Campaign.
Greenpeace did issue an apology. However, it did little to quell the mounting criticism, because the apology focused on the “moral offense” inflicted on Peruvians, rather than the damage caused by the mile-long trek made through the desert to lay the message out. This is damage for which there is no known way to repair. After pictures made that damage evident, a more remorseful statement was published on Dec. 12:
The decision to engage in this activity shows a complete disregard for the culture of Peru and the importance of protecting sacred sites everywhere. There is no apology sufficient enough to make up for this serious lack of judgment. I know my international colleagues who engaged in this activity did not do so with malice, but that doesn’t mitigate the result. It is a shame that all of Greenpeace must now bear.” — Greenpeace U.S. Executive Director Annie Leonard
Executive Director Kumi Naidoo has since stated that Greenpeace will cooperate with the investigation, saying that “There cannot be any defense for what happened.”
![Drawing of a colibri [Photo Credit: BjarteSorensen]](https://wildhunt.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Nazca_colibri-500x216.jpg)
Drawing of a colibri [Photo Credit: BjarteSorensen]
Unfortunately, the general Pagan reaction to the Greenpeace incident has been somewhat muted. Many individuals and groups reached for this story declined to comment on the situation and the implied conflict of interest. How far should we go, as Earth stewards or activists, to protect the planet’s resources and the future of our environment? Activism at what cost?
The Wild Hunt is not responsible for links to external content.
To join a conversation on this post:
Visit our The Wild Hunt subreddit! Point your favorite browser to https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Wild_Hunt_News/, then click “JOIN”. Make sure to click the bell, too, to be notified of new articles posted to our subreddit.
Conflict of interest? Seriously? This action is no different than had they decided to spread their message by spray painting Stonehenge. At least spray paint can be cleaned off relatively easily, unlike the damage done to the Lines. Good gods, the Pagan community gets its panties in a twist over the idea of a visitor’s center being build in proximity to Stonehenge, whining that is might change the “sacred energy” of the site. But they have a “conflict of interest” over this desecration by Greenpeace?
This is environmental vandalism at the very least and demonstrates a total lack of respect for a non European culture’s heritage by a bunch of disrespectful morons with nothing better to do for their vacation. By this action Greenpeace has, in my opinion, lowered itself to the level of PETA claiming the end justifies the means. This kind of action does not take place in a vacuum. I do not believe for an instant that the upper echelons of Greenpeace knew nothing about the plan to desecrate the Nacza Lines and are now simply trying to engage in damage control to save what is left of their questionable reputation.
That the general Pagan community is holding itself mute, hiding behind some B.S. notion of “conflict of interest,” is disgraceful. There is no conflict. You cannot protect the Earth by desecrating her most sacred sites.
yes yes yes! “Activism at what cost”?? NEVER at the cost of desecration. I’m shocked this isn’t an “easy call” for most pagans.
Well put Kelly. From the point of view of what this incident really means; I would say that, if it wasn’t Greenpeace who did it (as in some organization trying to damage their reputation), then this stunt was masterfully performed as it has destroyed any credibility the organization had. But, as the stunt was performed by Greenpeace THEMSELVES then it sends a pretty clear message to the world: the end justifies the means, like Kelly said, regardless of who or what they have to trample to achieve it. In this regard, they are no better than the people the so zealously persecute.
As some have expressed in other comments, Greenpeace has a documented history of similar “blunders”. What is worrisome, is that Greenpeace is one of the “faces” of environmentalism (if not THE face), because when people in general think about environmentalism they normally associate it with “Greenpeace”. What happens then when that “face” is spoiled by stupid acts like this? What image those it portray regarding environmental protection and those involved in it?
There are such concepts as “acceptable losses” and “calculated risks”; yet as the end justifies the means, also the means can pervert the end.
What SHOULD happen this the activists home nations have them extradited back to Peru to face trail.
I don’t see any implied or overt conflict of interest. It was an ignorant action which no-one is defending. Any institution, even Greenpeace, can blunder because it consists of human beings.
Greenpeace has a long and storied history of similar blunders. At what point do we stop letting them off the hook for making them?
In this case I could care less about any “conflict of interest.”Actions such as this only encourage the perception of environmentalism as the bastion of the arrogant and the privileged. How could they pick a location for a protest without investigating the environmental impact? It makes no sense.
if only the ire raised across the globe for Greenpeace’s actions at Nazca was so easily marshalled for 1001 other acts of environmental vandalism.
Not sure what’s difficult about saying “Good message, terrible execution.”
No good message survives a criminal act that cannot be redeemed. In this case it becomes doubly criminal because the good message becomes buried by the aftermath of the execution.
This was a bozo stunt. It has certainly undermined my support of Greenpeace. And it sustains my ambiguity about (some sorts of) environmental activism. That may harm features and qualities of the environment, such as unperturbed persistence.
One circumstance that we–Pagans and non Pagans alike–encounter every day is the sheer complicatedness of the world we live in. It’s easy to miss the possible effects of changes made by things or acts we take casually for granted, such as the foot gear we wear as we walk from here to there.
Change is always going on everyplace.
I feel no need at all to close ranks around Greenpeace, especially when they’re clearly in the wrong. They are not infallible, and they are not the whole of the environmental movement. They are one voice, and arguably not even a particularly effective one.
I’m not sure it’s fair to say the “general Pagan reaction” has been muted. That may be true for the usual suspects among the Big Name Pagan crowd, but I never hired them to speak for me.
I think in this case it’s more, well, general. There’s not been much in the way of publicity for/or people condemning these actions. I don’t see anyone really writing about it and having their blog article being put on W&P, Witchvox, Patheos, or even come across my Facebook feed.
The fact that they did this should not surprise anyone.
Greenpeace has long been known as environmentalism by dummies. The organization has a long history one boneheaded, poorly thought out, reckless criminal stunt after another. This is not the first time they did something approaching this level of stupid.
The perpetrators of this outrage need extradition and to serve some serious jail time.
I asked green peace recently what they were going to do to raise awareness around the Fukushima disaster, they replied “nothing as an organization, it’s too complicated.”
So wait, hold up…
Everyone here is mad because they left some footprints…
and NOT because the Climate Summit left us hanging?
I know that our childrens’ children will look back and say “Wow, I wish our parents hadn’t let those people walk around in Peru that one day ~ now we lack clean food, clean water or air! THANKS GREENPEACE!”
#PRIORITIZEPEOPLE
jeux999 though you are right about the priorities; this goes beyond merly being mad about their trespass. It’s not the fact that they protested in such a stupid way for something as significant as climate change. It’s the repercussions it has to the image of activism. It’s covering a hole by making another. Such blatant disregard almost seems deliberate and it’s not the first time they do things like that.
Also, as Kieth Silvas pointed in his comment: why are they not doing anything regarding the Fukushima disaster? And, if the answer they gave him is legit (as I think it is) then they are not only a bunch of extremist hooligans, but also a bunch of hypocrites. The fact that they won’t pursue a cause because it’s “too complicated” says as much.
Besides, sending messages like that, while it generates awareness, is also controversial; and when you are fighting for the environment the last thing you need is controversy.
And all this without taking into account the damage to peruvian heritage.
What do you see as the ’cause’ with Fukushima that needs pursuing? The nuclear plant blew up after being hit by an earthquake and the ensuing tsunami, the damage is done, any nuclear material is out there. Oh and ….
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/safety/accidents/Fukushima-nuclear-disaster/
ta-da…they are pursuing it.
As Hecate said below: “Good message, terrible execution” is what we should be saying before moving on to the FAR more important issue of the climate summit and the damage inaction will do.