TYPED BY THE TWINS OF TRILOGY R A I N B O W W A R R I O R ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SPREAD BY MIDNIGHT MANIAC INTRODUCTION Planet Earth is 4,600 million years old. If we condense this inconceivable time-span into an understandable concept, we can liken Earth to a person of 45 years ot age. Nothing is known about the first seven years of this person's life, and whilst only scattered information exists about the middle span, we know that only at the age of 42 did the Earth begin to flower. Dinosaurs and the great reptiles did not appear until one year ago, when the planet was 45. Mammals arrived only eight months ago; in the middle of last week man-like apes evolved into ape-like men, and at the weekend the last ice age enveloped the Earth. Modern Man has been around for four hours. During the last hour, Man discovered agriculture. The industrial revolution began a minute ago. During those sixty seconds of biological time he has multiplied his numbers to plague proportions, caused the extinction of 500 species of animals, ransacked the planet for fuels and now stands like a brutish infant, gloating over his meteoric rise to ascendancy, on the brink of a war to end all wars and of effectively destroying this oasis of life in the solar system. Direct action campaigns by Greenpeace have alerted the world to major environmental damage. Greenpeace has sailed its ships into nuclear test zones, made itself the target of the whaler's harpoon and thrown itself in the path of chemical dump ships. When these non-violent direct actions were first seen by the world on television screens and in headline newspaper stories, they were greated with both applause and disbelief. The applause was for the courage of the protesters, the disbelief - that they could take the plight of the natural world so seriously they would risk their lives to save it. But now the world understands. Humankind has begun to realise its own future is bound up with the survival of the natural world. As a result, governments and industries are obliged to respond. Enviromental issues which they would have preferred to keep complicated, and unameable to public pressure have been reduced by Greenpeace actions to simple matters of right or wrong. When a Greenpeace volunteer places herself or himself between a hunted whale and the harpoon or between a barrel of toxic waste and the sea, the time for talking is over. It is time to act. Then the public can decide. Against all odds Greenpeace has helped to force the environment on to the political agenda. Now the tide is beginning to turn. Wilderness and wildlife can be preserved, acid rain can be stopped, contamination by chemicals and radioactivity can be brought under control. Peaceful persuasion is proving it can make effective change. P A R T I N U C L E A R P O W E R A N D R A D I O A C T I V E W A S T E Nuclear Power is an inefficient, uneconomic, highly dangerous and unnecessary way to generate electricity. We have been using nuclear reactors to generate domestic electricity for over thirty years. We have invested huge sums of money to build an industry which is based on inherently inefficient and dangerous processes, and which supplies only about 4% of the world's primary energy requirement. In doing so, we have created large quantities of radioactive wastes (for which no safe management techniques exist), have leaked and discharged radioactive materials into the enviroment, and have put ourselves at risk from numerous accidents, some of them disastrous. We have also increased the risk of atomic war, since the development of nuclear power inevitably results in the production of plutonium, an ingredient of nuclear weapons. NUCLEAR ACIDENTS Reactors operate at high temperatures and continue to generate heat even after shutdown, so they must be cooled efficiently. A loss of coolant could allow the reactor core to overheat and melt. The molten mass could then breach the reactor's concrete base and burn down into the soil - the so-called "China syndrome" This could contaminate groundwater, rivers and streams and spread radioactivity over thousands of square miles. A loss of control could allow steam or water or enter the core and result in an axplosion, breaching the surrounding containment and releasing large volumes of radioactive gas and radioactive particles into the atmosphere. Large areas of land would be contaminated and high numbers of cancers and leukaemia fatalities would result in the local population. ACCIDENTS HAPPEN The most important aspect of nuclear plant safety is the prevention of the highly radioactive materials in the core being released. Nevertheless, many serious accidents and radioactive releases have occurred at nuclear plants, including: Windscale (Sellafield, U.K.), 1957. Fuel in the reactor caught fire. Radioactivity contaminated large areas of farmland, millions of gallons of milk had to be disposed of, and the estimates of cancer fatalities range from 13 to over 1.000. Three Mile Island (USA),1979, where a partial meltdown destroyed the reactor. By 1986 the clean up operation had barely got underway and had cost $1 billion. Chernobyl (USSR),1986. Control of theatomic chain reaction was lost at one of the Russian RBMK reactors leading to fuel disintegration. The vast amounts of heat produced led to an interaction between molten fuel and water in the reactor's pressure tubes. The resultant explosion breached the pressure tubes and destroyed the reactor. The core remained on fire for several days and released a radioactive cloud that spread right across Europa. Immediate casualties: hundreds, mostly on-site, including over 30 firefighters who died after massive radiation exposure. Radiation- induced cancers and fatalities: 24,000 to 500,000 (estimates vary), which will take decades to show. Among these are leukaemias (especially in children), and body cancers (including breast, thyroid and bone) and possible increases in Down's Syndrome. NUCLEAR FREE FUTURE For over a decade Greenpeace has campaigned worldwide against nuclear power on the grounds of safety to the individual and the environment. Greenpeace seeks a 'nuclear free future' and commissions scientific studies on the hazards of nuclear power to health and the enviroment. Greenpeace lobbies international commissions which regulate pollution, opposes plans for new nuclear plants and has engaged in 'direct actions' to raise public awareness on this urgent issue. CAMPAIGN 1 : RADIOACTIVE WASTE Introduction The objective is to stop the discharge of "low level" nuclear waste into the sea by blocking the four unterwater pipe outlets. Displayed at the bottom of the screen are the number of pipes blocked, air remaining and the divers energy level. The player controls a dolphin who must collect and guide a Greenpeace diver around sixteen screens to the outlets, dealing with various hazards: sharks, giant squids, jellyfish, seaweed and crabs. Poisonous plants can suddenly stretch out and kill the diver. The dolphin may defend the diver by nudging the mutant with its snout, but must resurface to replenish air. Setting: Beneath the Irish Sea Objective: To block up 4 pipelines to stop radioactive waste from a nuclear power station polluting the sea. Method: The player controls the dolphin. The dolphin must guide the diver to the pipelines, so that he can block them. Once the diver is positioned at the end of one of the pipelines, he will begin to block it. At this stage the dolphin can leave the diver, and swim to the surface, to replenish it's air supply. The dolphin must return to the diver, and when the pipeline is blocked the diver will rejoin the dolphin, ready to find another pipeline. Both the diver and the dolphin must take care to avoid various radio actively-mutated nasties and hazards. THE MUTATED NASTIES......... Sharks: The sharks will chase and instantly kill the dolphin. The sharks are found only near the surface. Giant Squid: The giant squids chase the dolphin, but do not kill it instantly. Instead, they slowly suck out the air from the dolphin. Starfish: The starfish, on contact with the diver, causes him to swim away from the dolphin, so the dolphin has to follow the diver and collect him. Jellyfish: The jellyfish sting the diver, and cause his energy to decrease. There are 3 types of jellyfish, each type cause the divers energy to decrease at a different rate. The lower the divers energy the slower he can swin. The dolphin can push away the jellyfish with it's nose to protect thediver. Crabs: The crabs live on top of the pipelines, when a diver is blocking a pipe, the crab scuttles along and nips him, causing him to stop work on the pipe. The dolphin must then collect the diver and place him back on the pipe. Net: If the dolphin swims into a net, he will become entan gled. The dolphin must then swim in the opposite direction to be free of the net. Seaweed: The seaweed is fixed onto the rocks. These are contaminated by the discharge and are thus poisonous, but only when fully upright, so the diver can sometimes swim through them. Project Nuclear Discharge This game simulates the activities of Greenpeace divers who successfully blocked the outflow pipe of the Sellafield nuclear re-processing plant (in the UK). The pipe was discharging 10 million litres of radioactive water into the sea every day and Greenpeace was determined to stop it. The exact position of the pipe was discovered by the divers who set to work on a device that would plug it. On November 14,1983, four divers taking samples of silt and vegetation near the pipe were contaminated by the oily radioactive slick that poured from it. The dosage of radiation was 50 times the normal background level. Over the next four days, the prevailing winds blew the slick, containing highly radioactive debris, onto the beach, and 40 kilometres (25 miles)of the coast had to be closed to the public for eight months. When divers returned on the 18th November to plug the pipe, they discovered that two metal devices had been welded to the diffuser at the end of the pipe making it impossible to seal. After this incident Greenpeace was pursued through the Courts and application was made for the sequestration of all Greenpeace assets in Britain and overseas. Greenpeace in turn filed notice to contest the claim and planned a counter claim for the contamination of its divers. Greenpeace was eventually fined 50,000 pound costs and the sequestration was set aside. The matter did not stop there. The oily radioactive discharge that the Greenpeace divers had encountered was caused by a combination of operator effort and equipment malfunction, resulting in an emission wellabove the legal level set for the plant. The event might have gone unnoticed if the divers had not been there at the time. There were obvious legal implications. The matter was referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions and, at a hearing in July 1985, BNFL were found guilty on four criminal charges and fined a total of 10.000 Pounds - the first public utility in the UK to be charged in this way. P A R T I I D U M P I N G A T S E A The nuclear industry produces an immense amount of radioactive waste. No safe solution has been found to the disposal of this waste - indeed, when the nuclear industry began, no serious or detailed thought was given to the eventual task of manging radioactive wastes. No strategy emerged, nor was the issue even formally recognised as a problem until after many years. After 20 years, the best solution that the industry could come up with was to dump their wastes into the oceans. Up to 1983, European countries alone disposed of some 60.000 cubic metres of low and intermediate level wastes in the Atlantic Ocean. More wastes were dumped by the USA and Japan. The dumping of radioactive wastes in the ocean is currently banned by an international moratorium. However, burying the wastes in landfill sites, exporting them to poorer countries desperate for hard currency, or disposing of them irretrievably into underground shafts where groundwater and geological changes can speed the return of the hazards to the surface, present only the same complacent "out of sight, out of mind" approach. RADIOACTIVE DISCHARGES Nuclear plants routinely discharge small but measurable quantities of radioactivity into the atmosphere and bodies of water. New cases of radiation-induced illness at statistically higher than normal rates are continually being identified in populations living near nuclear plants. For every cubic metre of classified high level waste that arises as a result of reprocessing, a further 240 cubic metres of low level waste (LLW) and 16 cubic metres of intermediate level wastes (ILW) are also produced. These amounts do not include the quantities of low and intermediate wastes discharged into the living environment by power stations during their life-time, nor the wastes arising from the decommissioning of nuclear plants. Equally important, it does not include the huge amount of radioactive mine tailings that are dumped at uranium mine sites - over 1000 cubic metres for every cubic metre of classified high level waste produced. Even without nuclear accidents, the sheer quantity of radioactive waste produced by nuclear power and nuclear fuel reprocessing is a major world environmental problem. All these wastes, to varying degrees, present real health risks. Many of the radionuclides contained in these wastes are so long-lived (remaining lethal for hundreds of thousands of years) that it is impossible to be certain that any engineered containment system, or natural geological formation, will effectively contain and prevent their migration back into the living enviroment, until they have decayed to natural background levels. The continued production of these wastes is passing on unquantified health risks and awesome responsibilities to future generations. It is impossible to remove the radioactivity from these wastes. After 40 years of nuclear power, the industry has still not come up with a method of guaranteeing their safe management. The only solution is to cease their prodution immediately. CAMPAIGN II: OCEAN DUMPING OF NUCLEAR WASTE The objective is to occupy the three cranes on the dumping ship "Gem" to halt the deep sea disposal of radioactive waste. Displayed at the bottom of the screen are the number of cranes occupied and the campaigners energy. There are three screens depicting the complete ship. The player controls a campaigner in a dinghy, who must run the gauntlet of barrels, hoses and other missiles to reach a ladder on the side of the boat. The campaigner must jump on to the ladder and reach each of the three cranes, avoiding ships crew and missiles, thereby rendering them useless. Accurate jumping and quick dodging are required to achieve success. SETTING: Aboard the dumping ship "GEM" OBJECT: To occupy the 3 cranes which drop the barrels of radioactive waste into the sea. METHOD The player first controls the dinghy, which contains a Greenpeace campaigner, by using the firebutton, the player must make the Greenpeace campaigner jump onto the ladders. Now the player controls the campaigner. He must be guided along the deck, and up the crane ladders to the top, then he has occupied that crane. He must repeat this for each crane. LEVELS: 0 CRANES OCCUPIED: Barrels fall. Crewmen throw objects from the masts. Crewmen patrol base of cranes. 1 CRANES OCCUPIED: As above. Captain patrols main deck. Man sprays dinghy with hosepipe. 2 CRANES OCCUPIED: As above only faster. THE NASTIES: OBJECTS: Bottles, anchors, bones and cans are thrown from the masts. All the objects reduce the greenpeace workers energy when they hit him. CREWMAN WITH HOSE: This crewman squirts the dinghy with his hosepipe if the dinghy is hit, it will sink. CREWMEN ON MASTS: These crewmen throw the objects listed above. CREWMEN ON CRANES: These crewmen patrol the base of each crane. If they catch the Greenpeace campaigner they will push him in the water. CAPTAIN: The captain patrols the main deck. If the Greenpeace campaigner is captured by the captain, he will be arrested. BARRELS: The barrels are dropped from the cranes at random. If the barrel hits a dinghy the dinghy will sink. If the barrel hits the Greenpeace campaigner it will knock him into the sea. PROJECT "GEM" On 19th June 1978 the Rainbow Warrior set sail for the North Atlantic. Her mission: to intercept a British ship, the GEM, which was enroute to dump 2,00 tonnes of radioactiv waste from the UK in international waters. Greenpeace had discovered that several European nations had been dumping nuclear waste, 1,000 kilometres (600 miles) south-west of the Cornish coast, into a 3-kilometre-(2 mile-) deep trench in the seabed, for the past 20 years. Such ocean dumping had been abandoned by the USA in 1972 on environmental grounds. Greenpeace had been monitoring the situation for some time but was spurred into action when, on the day before the GEM left Sharpness Docks near Bristol, a Royal Navy articulated lorry delivered two yellow drums, which were loaded on board. Information was leaked to Greenpeace that the drums contained spent nuclear fuel rods from submarines. If true, this consignment would breach The London Dumping Convention, an international agreement that prohibits the disposal of highly radioactive materials at sea. The exact nature of the material in the drums was never revealed but, whatever the truth of the matter, when the GEM set sail for the dumping zone the Warrior was six hours behind. Greenpeace planned to position its inflatable under the tipping platforms of the GEM to prevent the barrels of waste being dumped off the ship's side. In fact Greenpeace arrived hours too late to document the disposal of the two large drums, but the inflatables were soon in position around the GEM as her crew began dumping the rest of the cargo, hoisting barrels onto the platform two at a time. As the first of the two drums pitched over the side, a wave swept the nearest inflatable away from the GEM momentarily and the barrel crashed into the sea. But the second 270-kilogram (600 pound) barrel smashed onto the dinghy, narrowly missing its two occupants, deflating one of the craft's air panels and destroying the transom and outboard motor. Breaking off the action, the second inflatable took the first in tow and returned to the Warrior. The entire incident had been filmed from the bridge of the Greenpeace vessel and was subsequently shown on television around the world. During this incident high pressure water hoses were also turned on a Greenpeace inflatable as the crew attempted to hold its position beneath the dumping platform. P A R T I I I S A V E T H E W H A L E INTRODUCTION Whales are perhaps the most remarkable creatures on earth, evoking awe and fascination in us. They belong to a unique class of marine animals called cetaceans that have lived on earth far longer than humankind (some 50 million years). but humanity has hunted and systematically killed these creatures, driving them to the edge of extinction. WHALE LIFE There are about 80 species of whale, dolphin and porpoise that make up the "cetaceans". They evolved from land-dweliing creatures to animals which are remarkably adapted to the marine environment. Among them are the largest creatures evr to have inhabited the earth. The blue whale is bigger than the largest of the dinosaurs and can weigh up to 136 tonnes. Whales use "echo location" a type of sonar, to assist in navigation and the detection of objects. Despite the huge size of some species, whales appear to have gentle natures with little natural aggression, and a tendency to enjoy play. There is also every indication that the whales are highly intelligent. In addition to having highly developed brains, there is evidence that they communicate through a complex system of sounds. The "song" of the humpback whale, for instance, weaves an intricate, evolving pattern. Studies also reveal complex behaviour. Groups of whales (usually called schools) exhibit coordinated feeding behaviour and gregariousness. A school will protect the young and wounded - a tendency which has been used by professional whalers to increase their kill. In some species, a calfless female will assist a mother in caring for hers. It remains to be determined how the removal of pod members or changes in sex and age ratios through indiscriminate killings disrupts social patterns and reprodution. Cetaceans are divided into two suborders, the mysticetes or baleen species and the odontocetes or toothed species. The baleen whales have fibrous plates suspended from their upper jaws which act as sieves and they feed on plankton and small fish. When a whale swins into a school of crustacea it takes a large gulp of water; the tongue then expels the water, the plates acting as a filter mechanism. Baleen whales include the gray, right, blue, bowhead, sei, fin, humpback, minke and Bryde's whales. In the odontocetes group belong the sperm, pilot, orca, beluga and beaked whales. These toothed cetaceans feed primarily on squid and fish, though the orca also eats sea mammals and sea birds. The brain of the sperm whale is the largest of any creatures on earth. WHALE DEATH A modern steel harpoon is fired from a cannon at around 60 mph. It penetrates the whale's body whereupon a grenade explodes, forcing steel barbs to open within the whale and anchoring the creature to the whaling ship via a cable. In this way, a whale can take up to half an hour to die, in agony. Originally, whales were hunted for the oil their bodies contained. Until comparatively recently, the whales were completely at the mercy of those who viewed them as an exploitable resource. The first commercial hunting, with hand-held harpoons, began in the ninth century. The "industry" spread through Europe, becoming a substantial part of some nations' economies, and to the East coast of North America. Technology in the shape of faster steam engines and exploding harpoons enabled the whalers to cause a hugely increased destruction. Many species have been severaly depleted by whaling, some to the extent that a population recovery is unlikely. The right and bowhead whales, large and slow moving, were hubted extensively in the ninetenth century. The once common right whale, despite being officially protected fo decades, has shown no sign of recovery. The bowhead haunts inaccessible arctic waters, but has still been reduced to 5% of its original population. Nowadays it is prime cuts of whale meat and whale 'ivory' (called scrimshaw) that are sought after, with much of the remaining carcass simply dumped. The continuing trade in whale meat is due to Japan's consumption. Although the Japanese claim that whale meat is a traditional food, widespread consumption hardly existed apart from a handful of coasttal fishing villages until it was promoted in the 1950's. Yet it provides far less than 1% of the protein in the national diet. This minority taste is sufficient to perpetuate the hunting of the last whales. In addition to the tragic loss of the creatures we may be interfering with a delicate natural balance. Just as in other ecosystems, the depletion of a significant species may have unforeseen effects on the whole food chain. Scientists, too, mourn the killingsl. We still have much to learn from the whales. THE IWC In the 1940's an international body was formed to deal with whaling issues. The international Whaling Commission (IWC) met annually from 1949 to regulate world whaling activities. Since it was composed entirely of whaling nations, the IWC did little more than serve as a cartel to stabilise whale oil prices and ensure the survival of the whaling industries. Although one principle guiding the IWC was the conservation of whale stocks, this was qualified by the second principle of regulating their commercial exploitation. During the first 15 years of the Commission, whaling 'quotas' were so high that the period is now referred to as the 'whaling olympics'. Commercial whaling peaked in 1961-2 when 67.000 whales were slaughtered. Many immature and nursing whales were taken from endangered species. It was only when the depleted stocks began to threaten commercial availability that some protection ensued for certain species, but the quotas set were still dangerously high. Fortunately for the whales, the 1970's was a time for change in the Commission towards conservation efforts. The period marked a time of increased pressure to end whaling by new non-government organisations such as Greenpeace and a strong anti-whaling sentiment was born in the public. A number of non-whaling nations joined the IWC, some with a decidedly conservationist stance, and many whaling nations stopped hunting. And in 1972 the United Nations recommended a ten year cessation of commercial whaling (which was rejected by the IWC). Eventually the balance of influence within the IWC was tipped and, in 1982, the Committee voted by 25 to 7 to halt commercial whaling for four years, to begin in the 85/86 season. The IWC had changed its focus from exploitation to conservation. The 'Save the Whale' movement celebrated what appeared to be a landmark victory. It proved to be an empty victory. The IWC has no enforcement powers, and any nation that objects to a decision can exempt itself by filing an objection. Japan, Norway and the USSR objected, and continued as before. Since the commercial moratorium, at least 11.000 whales have been killed. Despite worldwide opposition, a handful of nations was determined to continue whaling at any price. As most species are already recognised to be "commercially extinct" due to short-sighted greed, this means hunting down the last of the whale stocks. This is particularly ironic in the case of Japan, whose whaling industry is running at a loss despite huge government subsidies and loans. 'SCIENTIFIC' WHALING Besides the objection to the IWC decision, another strategy has emerged for continuing to whale. The IWC allows for any nation to take whales if it is done for the purpose of scientific research'. By taking a few measurements and noting the age and sex of the whales killed, the whaling nations can claim that they are providing scientific data, while they still sell the meat gained. Most members of the IWC Scientific Committee have concluded that there is no basis for this claim. Indeed, over a million whale carcasses have been 'cut up' this century and further dissections will yield nothing new to scientific research. The only useful new data on whales can come from non-lethal methods like sightings surveys. In short, scientific whaling is simply a loophole allowing nations to disguise their commercial whaling. It features the same whaling ships firing the same exploding harpoons at the same whale stocks as before. And it allows the whalers to keep their whaling fleets in operation until the expiration of the moratorium, when they will press for a resumption of commercial whaling. The USSR has now given up commercial whaling, but Iceland has led the field in exploiting the scientfic loophole. Their first research programme called for an annual kill of 200 whales (80 fin, 80 minke and 40 sei) and are determined not to be restrained by the IWC rulings. When a resolution of 1986 tried to remove the commercial incentive from whaling by ruling that meat from scientific whaling should be "primarily for local consumption", Iceland, who normally export 90% of their meat to Japan, declared they would increase their domestic consumption to five times its previous level, so that 51% would be consumed, the rest exported. And since most Icelanders do not eat whale meat, it mainly went as feed to fur farms. In 1987 a resolution was passed at the IWC meeting stating that research whaling could only be conducted if it did not adversely affect the overall whale stocks and if added to the scientific body of information on whale stocks were such information could not be obtained from existing data or non-lethel methods. The scientific whaling proposals of Iceland and Japan were completely rejected under these criteria. Despite this rebuff, both nations sent their whaling fleets to sea: Iceland killed 100 whales and Japan slaughtered 273 in the Antarctic. WHALE WARS From the beginning, Greenpeace has been in the frontline of the battle to save the remaining whales. On 27th June 1975 the 150ft. Russian whaling ship, Vlastny, was in pursuit of a pod of sperm whales when the harpoon gunner found three small inflatable boats carrying six activists who had decided to form a human barrier between the whales and the whalers. The gunner fired the 90 mm cannon loaded with a 160lb exploding grenade harpoon. It passed over the centre inflatable, striking a whale with deadly accuracy - the steel harpoon cable slicing the water like a guillotine, feet from the tiny boat. This was the first of many Greenpeace actions to oppose the whalers on the open sea (from the Soviet Union, Japan, Iceland, Spain, Peru and others) which involved risk of death and injury to activists and seizing of Greenpeace ships on several occasions. In June 1975, a Greenpeace cameraman was present to record the confrontion, and the issue made front page news around the world. In July the following year, Greenpeace repeated the action but this time the gunner didn't fire and the harpoon boats retired. More success came from Greenpeace exposing pirate whaling operations in Peru, Taiwan, Spain and the Philippeines. These operations recognise no quotas or protected stocks. The most notorious pirate ship, the SIERRA, scandalously changed, quite regularly, its owners, its flags and registration documents to avoid investigations into its true ownership and funding. Greenpeace is also active within IWC as an officially-recognised non-goverment organisation, working to convince the government representativesto adopt further conservationistmeasures. NO FISH FROM A BUTCHER In its campaign against "scientific" whaling Greenpeace has launched its international boycott of Icelandic fishproducts. Iceland is dependent on its fish exports, and its main markets lie in countries of great Greenpeace support. Hundreds of thousands of signatures have been collected urging Iceland to stop whaling and asking retailers, supermarket and restaurant chains to stop doing business with Iceland. In addition, the public has been asked not to buy their fish "from a butcher". There have also been whale days of action around the world. The means of stopping the whalers through legislation exists, but only on paper. The US has two pieces of domestic legislation which allow economic sanctions to be applied against countries whose whaling operations "diminish the effectiveness" of the IWC. Those laws can place an embargo on fish imports from offending countries and withdraw fishing rights from US waters. The Japanese hunt, in defiance of two IWC resolutions, prompted Greenpeace and other environmental groups to take the US government to count, urging that the maximum possible sanctions be brought on Japan. The response was too slow and too limited to have am impact. However, Japan's permits to fish in US waters have been turned down, but not the import of $500 million worth of Japanese fish products into the US. FUTURE THREATS In addition to research whaling, Japan is eager to have some of its smaller scale whaling operations reclassed, allowing nine coastal whaling boats to continue, totally exempt from the commercial whaling moratorium, killing over 200 minke whales. Norway submitted a proposal to the 1988 IWC meeting to kill 35 whales for 'research' purposes. This is particularly disturbing since it proposes to study the relationship between whales and the fish they eat. In this way, 'protecting' fish stocks could be the next disguise for commercial whaling. Norway's 'research' could expand to kill 200 whales per year. VIOLENCE MUST BE KEPT TO BRING AN END TO THE WHALE SLAUGHTER. CAMPAIGN III: SAVE THE WHALE The objective is to publicise the illegal killing of whales, by building up the Greenpeace "Save The Whales" picture. The player controls a whale moving along the bottom of the screen. By bouncing balls of water around the screen, small sections of the posters are displayed. When the picture is complete, then this mission is accomplished. Careful aiming, anticipation and quick reactions are an essential part of the challenge on this campaign. Whales and dinghies aid progress, while whale "products" can wipe out large parts of the poster if hit. Catching a fish provides a "super ball" which, if carefully aimed can fill in the picture. Object: To fill in a hidden picture by firing balls of water from the killer whale. Method: The player controls the killer whale at the bottom of the screen, the whale moves left and right along the screen. By pressing the fire button, water can be fired which bounces off the blank spaces as it fills them in with a portion of the picture. The whale starts off with 3 balls of water, but these are reduced when the whale is hit by a harpoon from the whaling ships. The whale will die when it has been hit by a harpoon 3 times. THE NASTIES..... Whaling Ships: The whaling ship moves from left to right. Everytime one is hit by a water ball, it fires a harpoon at the whale. Margarine Tubs: When the margarine tubs are hit by a ball of water, they fall down towards the whale, wiping out part of the picture in their path. Perfume Bottles: Have the same action as the margarine tubs. Harpoon: Harpoons are fired from the whaling ships. If they hit the whale, the whale loses a ball of water. Three hits and the whale dies. Whale Steaks And A Harpoon Gun: Both of the flags wipe out large parts of the screen when they are hit. GOOD OBJECTS: Dinghy: When the dinghy is hit by a ball of water. It fills in the parts of the picture that are in its path. Sperm Whale: Has the same action as the dinghy. Fish: The fish will float down to the bottom of the screen. If the whale can eat the fish, he will then have a 'super ball', which moves very fast as it fills in the picture. The super ball does not hit any of the nasties. PROJECT AHAB Greeenpeace has been synonymous with saving whales - one of its most noted campaigns took place back in 1975. Two Greenpeace boats: the Phyllis Cormack and the Vega sailed from Vancouver to interrupt Soviet Whalers 100km off the Californian coast. Within days, Japanese newspapers were filled with stories about the protest and the Japanese Government threatened legal action if Greenpeace interferred with its whaling operation. Within a few days the Soviet ships were in sight about 80km due west of Eureka, California, so was a dead baby sperm whale. The whalers had attached a marker beacon to the corpse to return later. Shortly after the inflatable had made a randezvous with the stricken whale a harpoon boat bore down on the inflatable threatening to spray it with a high pressure hose. The inflatable withdrew - but soon the Greenpeace crew headed for a confrontation with the giant factory ship. As two of the Zodiacs buzzed around the factory ship Dalbiy Vostock, with cameramen Easton and Weyler filming the whales being fed into the bowels of the ship, blood gushing from a waste outlet in its hull, the Cormack pulled alongside. To the astonishment of the Soviet crew lining the deck, the Greenpeace people took up their guitars and sang anti- whaling songs, then serenaded them with tape-recordings of the songs of humpback whales, played at full volume through the loudspeakers. Phyllis Cormack then chased after another harpoon boat, the Vlastny, which had just unloaded six whales onto the factory ship and was now hunting for more. Soon whale spouts were clearly visible directly ahead of the Soviets. Within minutes the Zodiacs were in the water. In one, Hunter and Korotva raced to position themselves between the harpoon guns and the whales. Patrick Moore fought to keep his Zodiac alongside them while Rex Weyler was frantically snapping pictures. In the third craft, Watson and Fred Easton pounded across the waves to join them. Suddenly a harpoon was fired just over the heads of Hunter and Korotva, plunging into a whale right next to them, the grenade on the harpoon exploding in the back of the defenceless animal. The harpoon cable lashed down less than 1.5 metres from Korotva and Hunter. "They didn't give a damn whether they blasted us out of the water or not," fumed Korotva. This close call was captured on film and was soon to be famous. "For the first time in the history of whaling, "reported the New York Times, "human beings had put their lives on the line for whales." Although that unfortunate creature died, Greenpeace's actions allowed at least another eight whales to escape the Soviet harpoons. As the Dalniy Vostock moved off towards the horizon, the Comack headed for San Fransisco, where the press was waiting along with a huge crowd of supporters and well-wishers. P A R T I V S T O P A C I D R A I N Acid rain is with us all the time, wheneverwe are. It is in the air we breathe and in the soil beneath us. It is a pollution "cocktail" that is damaging our health, endangering our forests, lakes and wildlife and causing millions of pounds worth of damage to buildings. The phenomenon was first identified more than a century ago. Not long after, Norwegian scientists were blaming industrial Britain for the appearanceof black snow in their country. Acid rain's effects have been known since the 1960s. We have the technology to deal with it, but precious little is being done. A COCKTAILOF CHEMICALS Acid rain is caused by severe air pollution from power stations, factories and cars. When fossil fuels like coal or oil are burnt they give off a mixture of chemicals, chiefly sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. If these chemicals are discharged into the air in sufficiantly large quantities they combine to from a dangerous pollution "cocktail" which will sooner or later return to earth. Acid rain is ever present in the air around us in many guises. In heavily industrialised areas much of the pollution leaves the air as fine dust or gas particles and settles close to its source. Airborne pollution is also carried by the weather and can travel distances of more than 2,000 km, returning to earth as rain, snow, hail, mist or fog. This type of "wet deposition" varies enormously in its acidity and can be anything between four and 1,000 times more acid than normal precipitation - and as sharp as vinegar. THE POLLUTANTS The quantity of pollution discharged into the air every year has risen dramatically since the early days of the induatrial revolution. Vast quantities of sulphur dioxide (principally from fossil-fuel power stations), nitrogen oxides (from power generation and traffic) and other hydrocarbons (from vehicle exhausts, industrial processes and certain solvents) and ammomia (mostly from intensivefarming) are emittedinto the atmosphere every year. ACID WATERS During the early 1900s the fish population of Norway's lakes began noticeably to decline. In 1949 a Scandinavian biologist identified a particular species of a microscopic plant (diatom) which thrives in waters so acidic that many plant and animal species cannot survive. In lake sediments skeletons of this species of diatom were found to be rare or absent from mud layers predating the 1940s. From then on they are found to proliferate and today they exist in abundance. Britsh research reveals similar evidence in Scottish lakes. Mud layers of the Round Loch of Glenhead at Galloway show the appearance of diatoms only after the time of the industrial revolution in the mid-1800s. The toll of acidified lakes is huge: by 1982 Norway had 5,000 lakes suffering from acidfication, and 1,750 had lost all their fish. In Sweden, 90,000 km of rivers and 18,000 lakes were acid by the same year. In thousands of lakes in Europe and North America, fish have died or failed to breed, though acidity itself is not often the direct cause. All soils contain large amounts of aluminium, normally insoluble. But acid rain can "mobilise" and wash the metal into rivers and lakes where it interferes with fish's breathing. The combinationof acid and aluminium has a profound effect on freshwater ecosystems. As wildlife species sensitive to acidity die out, then those species reliant on them for food also disappear. HEALTH EFFECTS In Sweden, acid rain turned fair hair green. This strange phenomenon was caused by unnaturally high levels of acidity in well water dissolving the inside of copper pipes and contaminating drinking water. Apart from turning blondes into greens, the presence of copper in drinking water had more serious effect on health, including diarrhoea in infants. In southern Norway, acid rain has been linked with abnormally high levels of aluminium in drinking water and an exceptionally frequent incidence of Alzheimer's Disease, a form of senile and presenile dementia associated with high levels of aluminium in the brain. Glasgow, in Scotland, has also suffered from contaminated drinking water, through to be caused by the high acidity of Loch Katrine, from which the city draws its water supply. This time the acid water was dissolving the inside of old lead pipes and tanks. Leadconsumption is known to represent a serious health risk, particularly when children are exposed to unnaturally high levels. FOREST DAMAGE It was not until the late 1960's that scientists finally agreed that the evidence linking the acidity of lakes with acid rain pollution was conclusive. It took longer to wake up to the devastation acid rainwas causing to forests. Forest decline caused by acid rain was first identified in the silver fir (Europe's original Christmas tree)in Germany in the 1970s. At first the decline was put down to natural growth cycles. But the problem continued to escalateand other species of tree began to show the same symptoms includingthe spruce, beech, oak and mountain ash. The blame for the Waldsterben (forest decline) fellon pollution. Soon it was discovered in Switzerland and Holland and by 1987 it was found throughout Europe. The exact mechanisms of decline remain unclear, but symptoms include damage to the metabolism of the tree resultingin abnormal leaf loss, distorted branching, mineral imbalance and pests. These indications of chronic stress are generally preceded by long periods of reduced growth which is revealed in ever denser growth rings (when a cross section of the trunk is examined) and, in case of beech, in the spacing of the annual scars on the uppermost twigs. In 1982 a survey was carried out in Germany to assess the extent of tree decline in certain sections of forestry. The survey estimated that just 8% of trees were affected. In 1983 a revised survey was carried out on a national basis and found that 34% of trees were affected. Then in 1984 the survey revealed that halfthe trees were affected. The rate at which forests were declining had far outstripped the rate at which the process could be monitored. Intensity of defoliation in European Countries 1987, for all species, or onlyconifers, based on national and regional surveys. INTENSITY OF DEFOLIATION COUNTRY INTENSITYOF DEFOLIATION IN % None Ireland* 4.1 ------------------------------------------------------- Low Hungary 15.0 Italy 15.3 Bulgaria 18.3 ------------------------------------------------------- Moderate Sweden* 32.7 Yogoslavia 32.2 France 31.7 Austria 33.5 Finland** 33.4 Luxembourg 34.6 Norway* 35.9 Spain 37.0 German Dem. Rep.* 37.0 Belgium 46.5 ------------------------------------------------------- Severe Czechoslovakia 52.3 Germany, FR of 52.3 Liechtenstein 55.0 Switzerland 56.0 United Kingdom 56.0 Netherlands 57.4 USSR* 58.5 Denmark 61.0 ------------------------------------------------------- * conifers only ** preliminary estimate Source: UNIECE ------------------------------------------------------- CAMPAIGN IV: STOP ACID RAIN SETTING: Muckybridge power station OBJECT: To attach 12 letters to the chimneys To form the words "stop acid rain" METHOD: The player controls the Greenpeace campaigner.He must collect a letter from the dinghy that floats by, and then climb up one of the ladders to fix the letter in place. He must avoid various nasties. Once he has placed all 12 letters in the right order he has completed this level. NASTIES MISSILES: The spanner and the coal are thrown by the power station workmen. Both objects cause the Greenpeace campaigner to drop the letter he is carrying. WORKMEN: The workersrun upand down the ladders. If a workmen catches the Greenpeace campaigner will be pushed off the ladder. POLICEMAN: The policeman patrols the baseof the chimneys. If a Greenpeace campaigner is caught by the policeman, he will be arrested. SECURITY GUARD: The security guard also patrols the base of the chimneys. If a Greenpeace campaigner is caught by the security guard he will be pushed into the sea. ACID RAIN CLOUDS: The acid rain clouds float past the chimneys. The clouds cause the Greenpeace campaigner to fall offthe chimney. STOP ACID RAIN CAMPAIGN This game simulates the spectacular events of the morning of April 2, 1984. In this campaign, Greenpeace teams simultaneously climbed smokestacks in Belgium, West Germany, Austria, the United Kingdom, Denmark, the Netherlands, France and Czechoslavakia. From each one they hung a banner with a single letter on it, so that a composite photograph of all the smoke stacks would show the banner reading "STOP", twice over. Preparations for the protest in Czechoslovakia were made in West Germany. When the came, the Greenpeace activests - including Lena Hagelin of Sweden - drove into Czechoslovakia and secretly painted their banner in awood. "We went into the factory and went right up the chimney and the workers just stood staring at us," said Hagelin. "The secret police came out and thought we were terrorists. And so they started to shoot - [a bullet] hit just a hand's length from my head on the chimney! I don't know if they were real bullets, but they started to shoot and we ran up as quick as we could! But we wanted to hang that banner, and we didn't get scared till afterwards... They stopped shooting and we unfolded the banner. Then the fire brigade came. They took hoses and began climbing up. We didn't wantto mess with them, and we already had a photograph of us taken for the protest picture, so we went down. There were police cars and we were taken to the police station. Greenpeace put pressure on the various embassies, and the embassies put pressure on Prague, and so we were expelled the same day with a small fine." P A R T V O Z O N E D E P L E T I O N CFC's or chlorofluorocarbons do not occur in the natural environment, they were invented in the late 1920's. By the 1930's they began to be used as cooling liquids in refrigerators, instead of ammonia. CFCs are various compounds built up from atoms of chlorine, fluorine, and carbon. Non-toxic they do not react with water, animal, or plant matter, and are non-flammable. Use of CFCs was relatively limited for the first 30 years of their existence. The two best-known CFCs - CFC11 and 12 - have always dominated the market, and now account for almost 80% of CFC manufacture. From 1960 to now, production of CFC11 and 12 has mushroomed: MANUFACTURE OF CFC 11 AND 12, IN TONNES 1931 5.000 1941 6.600 1951 45.000 1961 169.000 1966 357.000 1971 604.000 1976 750.000 1981 638.000 1984 694.000 2. 1973 - THE FIRST INDICATIONS OF DANGER Fears about CFCs - the wonder chemicals - began in the 1970's, after scientists Sherry Rowland and Mario Molina worked out that CFC releases of 800.000 tonnes a year (the rate of release in 1972) would result in half a million tonnes of chlorine being deposited in the atmosphere over 30 years, destroying between 20 and 40 per cent of the ozone layer. This was an extremely serious prospect, as the ozone layer is an essential protection against ultraviolet radiation (UV-B) coming from the sun. Because of their fears for the ozone layer, the US government banned CFCs from all aerosols (with a few minor exceptions) in 1978. Similar action was taken by Sweden, Norway, Finland, Switzerland and Canada. 3. OZONE AND THE OZONE LAYER Ozone is a minor constituent of the earth's atmosphere, found in varying concentrations between sea level and a height of some 60km. Most of the atmosphere's ozone is found in its two lowest layers: the troposhere, which extends up to 12 km above the earth's surface, and the strtosphere above it, which extends up to about 50 km. The majority of ozone is found between 20 and 50 km above the ground, with the highest ozone concentrations occurring between 20 to 25 km - but evenhere onlyabout one molecule in every 100.000 is ozone. If all the ozone in the earth's stratosphere were brought down to ground level and spread evenly around the globe, it would be a layer only about 3 millimetres thick. The ozone layer shields the world from harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun, in particular screening out most UV-B radiation. This, even at the low levels that currently reach Earth, causes eye damage and skin cancer in humans. Increased radiation of this type would be detrimental to human health. Ozone in the atmosphere is broken down when it absorbs UV-B radiation. This natural process can be disrupted by the presence of pollutants. Chlorine speeds up the breakdown of ozone molecules, thus leading to a depletion of the ozone layer. Chlorine is one of the constituents of CFCs. 4. 1982 - THE DISCOVERY OF THE ANTARCTIC OZONE HOLE The aerosole ban dented the market for CFCs, but production picked up as other CFC usage took up the slack. As the graph shows, production of CFCs 11 and 12 began to approach the peak years of the 1970s. Meanwhile evidence of ozone layer depletion began to be seen. In 1982, British Antarctic Survey Scientists detected a fall in ozone concentrations above the southern ice cap. The results were so unexpected as to be almost unbelievable. For two years the scientists checked and rechecked their findings. By October 1984 the 'hole' over Halley Bay showed a 30% reduction in ozone. Checks on the NASA Satellite monitoring the area showed that it too had detected the ozone reduction, but the data had been automatically discounted by the computer as not credible. While there was little doubt as to the existence of the Antarctic hole, controversy raged as to the cause. Was it a natural event or caused by CFCs? The producers of CFCs defended their ground fiercely, and there was little in the way of conclusive evidence to prove the case either way. Then in 1986 a number of scientists proposed the idea that Polar Stratospheric Clouds (PSCs) may be linked to ozone depletion. These clouds, forming at high levels over the Antarctic during the winter, could be implicated in the release of ozone-eating chlorine. Experiments in late 1986 appeared to bear this out. 5. N A S A' S ANTARCTIC FLIGHTS, 1987 On 30 September, 1987, preliminary results from NASA's Antarctic flights were released. The NASA flights found that: a) the hole was about the size of the USA and the height of Mount Everest; b) in the centre of the hole at certain altitudes, 97.5% of the ozone was missing; c) chlorine monoxide - one of the breakdown products from CFCs - was present at up to a thousand times the 'background' concentration at lower altitudes. 6. LIKELY EFFECTS OF OZONE DEPLETION i) A small thinning of the ozone layer will have a large impact on the rate of skin cancers - a 1% decrease in ozone is likely to lead to a 2% increase in ultra-violet radiation, which is estimated to raise skin cancers in white-skinned people by 8%. Also eye cataracts are likely to increas - a global problem for animals as well as humans. ii) Ultra-violet radiation damages protein and DNA. The united Nations Enviroment Programme believe that yields of sensitive crops such as cotton, peas, soya beans, cabbages and many species of trees and grasses are vulnerable. iii) Crucial links in the food chain could be affected: algae right at the bottom of the aquatic food chain, is susceptible. An immediate threat is that the Antarctic ozone hole now spreads into the Southern Ocean which is one of the last great fishing areas of the world. Damage to algae would have severe effects. Uv light could also damage fish larvae, killing them outright or causing mutations. Damage to krill, also near the bottom of the food chain, will mean very hungry whales, seals, dolphins, etc.. iv) Extra UV light will make the greenhouse effect worse by increasing production of the greenhouse gases. For instance, tropospheric ozone is created from nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons (from e.g., cars and power stations) in sunlight. Less ozone protection means more ozone depletion and so on... GREENPEACE AIR POLLUTION CAMPAIGN Greenpeace actively campaign for the follewing in order to protect the environment from ozone depletion: 1. Emergency measures to control 'greenhouse gases' to halt the spiralling trend of climatic change and return global warming to its natural level. The leading pollutants are chloroflouro-carbons (CFCs) - which also destroy the ozone layer - carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, nitrous oxide and methane from fossil fuel burning and agricultural sources, and ground-level ozone - a dangerous pollutant in the lower atmosphere - formed mainly from car pollution and linked to acid rain. 2. Full protection for ozone layer; and end to the production and use of all ozone-depleting chemicals which will, in time, allow levels of ozone-depleting chemicals to return to their natural levels. The first stop is an immediate halt to production and use of CFCs, HCFCs and halons. Oppose the introduction of substitute chemicals which further damage the ozone layer, contributing to global warning or those which are base on synthetic chlorinated substances which are long-lived in the enviroment and have no place in natural cycles. 3. An end to industrial air pollution. As a first step, Greenpeace are calling for air pollution to be cut to levels which are currently known not to harm the enviroment. This means a 90% reduction Europewide in emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which together from acid rain. We also demand a cut in hydrocarbon pollution sufficient to reduce ground- level (pollutant) ozone by 75% to protect human health, crops and forests. CAMPAIGN V - STOP OZONE DEPLETION The objective is to prevent destruction of the ozone layer by CFC products. The action takes place over eight screens of Antarctic scenery with the Greenpeace, French and American bases. The ozone layer is displayed at the top of the screen. Setting: Antarctica Object: To destroy the aerosol cans before they destroy the ozone layer. Method: The player controls the Greenpeace campaigner. He must throw snowballs at the aerosol cans as they head towards the ozone layer. The Greenpeace campaigner must destroy the cans before they spray the ozone layer. Otherwise, if they break through the layer, rays of radiation will shine through. The Greenpeace campaigner must not touch these rays, or his radiation level increases. Too much radiation and he will die. The worker must avoid nasties on the ground by throwing snowballs at them. NASTIES: Radiation Rays: These rays penetrate the ozone layer. If the campaigner touches them his radiation level increases. Aerosol Cans: There are four types of aerosol can, each with a different colour. Each of these cans destroy the ozone layer at a different rate. Penguins: The penguins are harmless until they touch a ray of radiation. They then become "killer" penguins, and will attack the Greenpeace campaigner. Base Workers: There are two types of base worker. Both will attack the Greenpeace campaigner. Flying Objects: These include various items, such as, fast food cartoons. All will destroy the ozone layer and may require more than one hit to destroy them. GOOD OBJECTS: Clouds: The clouds float along in the sky and block out the radiation rays. The Greenpeace campaigner can move under a cloud to get past the harmful rays. Greenpeace's activities to halt the production of CFCs have generally centered around political lobbying and utilising the power of the press to put their message across. However, there have been occasions that direct action has been taken to deal with continuing CFC production. On Sunday March 5, 1989, two Greenpeace climbers, Joe Simpson and John Stevenson, attempted to scale the House of Commons in an effort to hang a 20ft x 6ft banner protesting at the continued production and use of ozone-eating CFCs. The climb began at 10.30 a.m. as delegates from 120 countries arrived at the 'Saving of the Ozone Layer' Conference at the nearby Queen Elizabeth Conference Centre. Three Greenpeace inflatables deposited the two climbers at the sea wall of the House of Commons. One inflatable was held in place at the wall by the other two boats as a ladder was extended for the climbers to reach the first foothold. One climber was already thirty feet above the Thames when a police launch arrived. A police officer caught hold of the climbers' ropes, preventing them from climbing without danger to themselves and damage to the building. The climbers managed to unfurl a banner, demanding '100% NOW, CUT CFCs' before the police tore it from their grip and took them away in a police launch. P A R T V I B L O O D O N T H E I C E T H E G R E E N P E A C E S E A L C A M P A I G N INTRODUCTION Seals belong with sealions and walruses in a group of marine mammals called pinnapeds. There are 20 different species of seal with populations scattered across the globe, from Arctic to Antarctic waters. But human interference, brutal or simply careless, has become a serious threat to the seals and many of the world's species have been reduced; some driven to the edge of extinction. Every species of seal to which humanity has access has been or is being systematically slaughtered. SEALS AND HUMANITY Seal species vary considerably in size, coat marking and general appearance: the largest, the male elephant seal, may be 4-5m from nose to tail and weigh 3.6 tonnes: the pups of hooded seals and harp seals have a beautiful coat of silvery blue and white which has made them a prime target for hunters from the fur trade. Well adapted to their aquatic environment, seals are able to stay under water for a considerable length of time. The Weddell seal, for example, is recorded to have been under water for at least 73 minutes. The fore flippers used for propulsion are streamlined for efficiency in swimming and a seal's sight and hearing are much sharper under water than on land. SEAL SLAUGHTER There are three distinct populations of harp seals. One inhabits the White Sea/Barents Sea; the second lives in the Jan Mayen area between Norway and Greenland; the third is found off Canada's east coast. Scientists believe the three populations originally were over 9 million. Intense hunting has reduced this to some 3 million. Pups are born in February/March on the sea ice and weaned at 9-15 days, when their 'valuable' white coat is replaced by a silvery-grey pelt. The Canadian harp seal hunt peaked between 1820-60 when 'catches' averaged 500.000per year. As petrol ad vegetable oil replaced seal oil, there was less incentive to kill, but a method of processing the white coats into a soft luxury fur was developed and large sealing fleets descended on Canada. By 1947 the sealers had decimated stocks in the north east Atlantic and were starting on the Newfoundland population. Between the 1950s and '60s the seal herd was reduced by half, only to be followed by a new acceleration of the kill as light aircraft permitted the sealers to reach the main nurseries. Average kills were 278.000 annually. It involved the clubbing of newborn pups with spiked gaffs. SAVING THE SEALS A wave of public outrage over the carnage on the ice in the 1960s led to the Canadian government introducing a quota system, but this was ineffectual. No serious attempt at responsible management was made and Greenpeace decided that the best way to stop the sealing was to send teams to the culling sites. CAMPAIGN VI - SAVE THE SEALS From 1976-85, Greenpeace activists delayed sealing ships and used their bodies to shield pups from the clubs and used harmless dye to render their bodies to shield pups from the clubs and used harmless dye to render their coats commercially useless. Many activists were arrested, but public outrage grew stronger by the year. In 2983, Greenpeace launched a campaign to ban the import of the white-coat pelts and products from harp seal pups and of 'blue black' hooded seals. The European public and politicians responded - lobbying and demonstrations brought a temporary ban on the import of white pelts. The market was greatly reduced for this period, and the slaughter dropped fom 150-200.000 to an annual toll of 15-40.000 taken mainly by Canadian 'landsmen' on foot or operating from small boats. Despite this great achievement, the sealers have not been stopped. As well as those still taken by the landsmen, the commerial sealers have found a way to continue their trade. They defy the spirit but not the letter of the ban by killing pups after they have modulted and developed a darker coat. The Canadian government has stooped the 'large vessel' hunt but loop- holes and uncertainties exist and the formal declaration of a protective policy hides the fact that older seals can still be killed. The total permitted seal catch for 1988 was almost as high as before 1983: 186.000 seals. The hunt is being caaried out quietly; few people realise that it continues. WHY SEALING CONTINUES In the late 1970s some 90% of the seal pelts taken by Norway and Canada were turned into trifles like trinkets, apres-ski boots and glove trimmings. The majority of the profits went to one huge Norwegian corporation. When the EEC ban took effect the industry searched for alternative markets: aphrodisiac trade for seal genitals in the far east; seal meat as feed on fur farms. In addition, the governments of the sealers provide large subsidies to support them. The fishing industry, too, largely supports sealing and makes repeated calls for renewed culls, arguing that seals have reduced the stocks of commercial fish. There is very little scientific evidence to corroborate this claim, however. Seals are made the scapegoats for a localised problem with no study made of the complex factors involved in the ecological balance of the sea. The seals are in the firing line due to the fisheries' refusal to see their own over-exploitation of fish stocks. The lack of responsible long-term management of marine resources is causing problems worldwide. In 1987 hundreds of thousands of hungry harp seals invaded the coast of Norway. Tens of thousands of seals drowned, entangled in fishing nets. Although the environmental lobby was blamed for the invasion - the European import ban being responsible for the increase in seals, allegedly ruining the fisheries - the decimation of fish stocks due to overfishing in the Barents Sea is the root of the problem. This is supported by the scientific community who see the problem as that of seals moving to non-traditional areas in search of their depleted food supply. There is no evidence to suggest seal numbers have increased since the ban. Indeed, Soviet scientists have stated that the White Seal population is in decline. In addition, calls for a cull of grey seals in eastern Canada in 1988 had to be called off by the authorities when they conceded that there was no scientific evidence to justify a cull. In the UK, repeated calls have been made for seals culls. In 1978, for instance, Greenpeace was successful in preventing a grey seal cull in the Orkneys. More recently, there have been calls for culls due to supposed interference by seals with salmon farms. These farms are developed rapidly in the Scottish Highlands, and an unknown number of seals (thought to be at least 1000) are being shot each year. Seal interference in such farms could be easily avoided. Fish farmers site their farms in regions were seals are already active. And the installation of correctly designed 'bag netting' would prevent seals from taking caged fish, enabling fish farmers and seals to co-exist. CAMPAIGN VI - SAVE THE SEALS FROM CULLING Setting: The arctic Object: To save the seal cubs from the hunters by spraying their pelts with dye. Method: The player controls the Greenpeace campaigner must first collect a can of dye. He must then reach the seal cubs by running and jumping across the ice floes. He can jump onto the moving ice floes, but he must be careful as he may slide off the other and, or miss altogether. He must reach the seal cubs before the hunters do. NASTIES: Hunters: The hunters attack the sealcubs and bludgeon them. Every time a seal cub is killed the player loses points. If 2 or more hunters are on the same ice floe as the Greenpeace campaigner, they will push him off. Nuclear Submarine Or Helicopter: The nuclear submarine arrives when 16 seal cubs have been saved. It shoots missiles through the gaps in the ice floes, and will kill the Greenpeace campaigner if he is hit by them. Greenpeace's activities to save Seal pups have been many and diverse. Such as is simulated in this game, pups were sprayed to render the pelts wothless. In others, Greenpeace members have put themselves bodily in front of the pup. This is one such event. On March 2, 1976, the first Greenpeace expedition to save the seals left Vancouver to travel cross-country by train to Nova Scotia, by ferry to Newfoundland, and by road up the length of the island to the port of St.Anthony. There they were met by two helicopters, chartered to take then to the ice floes where the hunt took place. It was late winter and snowstorms were raging. At several points the van swerved off the narrow and slippery road to St.Anthony, where the temperature had plunged to -20C. As if the treacherous weather were not enough to contend with, Greenpeace was met by a gang of angry Newfound- landers, blocking the road into town. As the Greenpeace van drew slowly to a halt, the crowd pressed against it, trying to push it over. But the violence was short-lived, and a meeting was arranged for later that evening, enabling each side to put its case. The Newfoundlanders were not the only ones anooyed at Greenpeace's interference. The Canadian government had hastily drawn up a new law making it illegal to spray seals and had banned anuone from moving a pup or placing themselves between a seal ad a hunter. On March 15, the Greenpeace helicopters set out from the base camp on Belle Isle, some 50 kilometres (30 miles) north of St Anthony, ready for the first encounter with the Norwegians. Prohibited from landing within 800 metres (half a mile) of the seals, the protesters had to make their way on foot across the shifting ice to the hunting grounds. HUMAN SHIELD As they approached, the air was filled with desperate wails and screams, the mother seals standing by helplessly as their offspring were brutally clubbed and skinned. (The blood had been visible even from a helicopter more than 600 metres [2,000feet] above the ice.) Greenpeace member Al "Jet" Johnson wrapped himself around a pup, shielding it bodily from a sealer with his raised hakapik. Time and again that day the same action was repeated. Once more, Greenpeace had succeeded in placing itself between the hunter and the hunted. As night fell, the helicopters whisked the protesters back to Belle Isle. There the storm worsened, the wind gusting to nearly 160 kilometres per hour (100mph), forcing Greenpeace to evacuate the base camp and return to St Anthony to wait for three days until the weather improved, before resuming the protest in earnest. The following day they flew 130 kilometres south of the last encounter with the sealers and landed on the ice. The only cause of action seemed to be try and prevent the sealing vessel from moving further into the ice. The action was successful forcing the ship to retreat but at a cost: Paul Watson suffered a dislocated shoulder and was dumped back on board the ship face down in the bloody pelts on board. Greenpeace helicopters were grounded and placed under the guard of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Greenpeace had to pay a bond of $10.000 on each helicopter before the aircraft were freed pending a trial. P A R T V I I T H E S P I R I T O F R A I N B O W W A R R I O R GREENPEACE - 18 YEARS OF MAKING WAVES "We want peace and we want to make it a green one" - words attributed to the original Greenpeace protesters who sailed into the US nuclear weapons test zone at Amchitka in the Aleutian Islands. The test programme was eventually abandoned. Today, the island is a bird sanctuary. Greenpeace began by hiring one battered boat and now owns a sophisticated fleet of ocean-going vessels and river craft. It began by opposing one nuclear test and has now expanded its campaign coverage to include a range of issues such as toxic waste, atmospheric pollution, kangaroo slaughter, nuclear weapons at sea, whaling, ocean and river pollution, deforestation, the preservation of Antarctica, and many others, as the threats to the natural environment have proliferated. Now firmly established in the Western world, it is busy setting up bases in Latin America and moving into the Soviet bloc. It even has a small research station in Antarctica. The last fifteen years have seen the transformation not only of Greenpeace, but also of the world in which it operates. Ecological issues, which were once on the fringe, have now become the central questions of our time, ranking high on both national and international agendas, and a major topic of public concern. The Greenpeace story is not a neat and orderly oe. It sprawls, loops, twists ad expands in every direction as if in defiance of any attempt to contain or define it. This is history written on the run. News is constantly being made. Greenpeace's most public face, the one for which it is most well known is direct action. It is this approach that has consistently marked it out from other environmental groups and one that has gained it press and television headlines around the world. "THE OPTIMISM OF THE ACTION IS BETTER THAN THE PESSIMISM OF THE THOUGHT" (Harald Zindler - Greenpeace) is the philosophy which underpins this approach. Direct action remains the central theme of Greenpeace operations. This needs to be stated clearly because there is a current media cliche that Greenpeace is turning its back on such tactics and is becoming more bureaucratic, softer version of its earlier radical self. This is demonstrably untrue; the number of direct actions continues in an upwards spiral. What is true is that in recent years, such actions have been backed up by sophisticated political lobbying and scientific enquiry that have added strength to the organization's dramatic calls for change. Greenpeace's continued insistence on non-violent tactics, even when faced with violence, reflects both its cultural origins and its links with the other great movements for social change in the twentieth century. Greenpeace encourages us to see the world as an indivisible whole, to cherish life on Earth, to recognise that national boundaries are false divisions on a natural landscape, to stand up and say enough is enough. By placing itself between the natural world and the forces that seek to destroy it, Greenpeace is acting for all of us. The bombing of the Rainbow Warrior by the French in 1985 transformed the organization, making it headline news around the world and reminding everyone of the forces that are arrayed against it. Consistently working in the face of danger, Greenpeace holds the thin green line. It seeks to transform, radically, both our understanding of the world and the direction in which it is heading. Its message is simple and powerful: everyone has the right to clean water, fresh air and a safe future. This campaign is dedicated to Fernando Pereira who died when the Rainbow Warrior was bombed in 1985. CAMPAIGN VII: FREE THE SPIRIT OF THE RAINBOW WARRIOR Object: To create a picture of a pollution free world and thus free the spirit of the Rainbow Warrior. Method: The player controls the ship Rainbow Warrior. He guides the ship across the screen, and can fire missiles at various objects. Every time he hits a good object, a part of the screen will appear. If he hits a nasty object, then these will react as below. When he has filled in the entire screen, and collected all the letters he has completed the game. NASTIES Radiation Symbols: These symbols wipe out part of the screen when hit. Toxic Signs: These signs wipe out large areas of the screen. Nuclear Power Signs: The same as the toxic signs. Injuction: These will sink the Rainbow Warrior if they hit it. Barrel: These will also sink the Rainbow Warrior. H-BOMB: These will blow up the Rainbow Warrior. GOOD OBJECTS: Sun And Moon: These objects will fill in parts of the picture when they are hit. When they are flashing they will fill in a larger area of the screen. Dove: When the doves are hit they will fill in the screen as they fly along. Letters: The letters must be hit to complete the wording in the borders of the picture. When complete, Mega-Scoring is possible. ----- AGAIN ANOTHER 100% POWER-TYPING ---- --- DONE BY THE TWINS OF TRILOGY --- -- IN NOVEMBER --