Letter: Greenpeace and Brent Spar: a propaganda victory that raises more questions

Mr David Gee
Wednesday 21 June 1995 18:02 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Sir: The Greenpeace victory in alerting the public and politicians to the Brent Spar disposal problem, which was necessary, must not mask the main decision that has now been taken, which is to put the broad moral principle of "not dumping waste at sea" above the narrower, technical "best practical environmental option" (BPEO).

It is particularly important for environmental campaigners to recognise that this is the decision which they have helped European governments and now Shell to take - and to accept the implications of this decision. These include the real possibility that the extra occupational and environmental risks that are likely to be involved in land disposal (and which human failures and fate could easily turn into significant disasters) are being accepted as part of the price of the "no dumping at sea" principle.

It should also be clearly stated that the positive economic advantages of land disposal (jobs, income, probable technical innovations, cleaner production methods, "life-cycle" thinking, etc) are part of the sustainable development idea which is also wider than BPEO.

Clarifying these different principles and concepts will not only help Shell to improve the management and communications of complex environmental problems but will also give environmentalists a firmer base for their position. If storms or human error do precipitate a disaster, then at least Greenpeace will have a defensible position.

Yours faithfully,

DAVID GEE

London, SW11

The writer is former director of Friends of the Earth.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in