Greenpeace Mars Peruvian Nazca Lines Site, Just in Case You've Never Heard of Renewable Energy


In connection with the UN Climate Change conference in Peru (Ronald Bailey writes about that here) Greenpeace activists marched across the off-limits Peruvian site of the world-famous Nazca Lines, near its iconic hummingbird, leaving foot marks which the Peruvian government says marred the site, in order to lay out huge yellow cloth reading "TIME FOR CHANGE The Future is Renewable Greenpeace."

The Nazca Lines are, as Washington Post aptly described them:

one of South America's most storied archeological wonders, a mysterious series of huge animal, human and plant symbols that were carefully etched into the ground between 1,500 and 2,000 years ago. Tourists typically view them from the air.

A Peruvian culture minister complained to the BBC that:

"You walk there and the footprint is going to last hundreds or thousands of years…They haven't touched the hummingbird figure but now we have an additional figure created by the footsteps of these people," Mr Castillo told local radio.

The Peruvian government is taking this seriously, threatening to press charges against the activists who stepped across the off-limits historical site so they could shout at the world, rather vaguely, via world media they knew their desecration would attract, about something the world knows plenty about already.

Did this embattled scrappy activist group have no other means to get their message out other than casual vandalism of a historical site and the accompanying "earned media"? Guess not with their meager total assets, according to their financial reports for 2013, of just 54 million euros.

NEXT: Sheldon Richman Loves Loosies and the People Who Sell Them

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The ends justify the means!!

    1. That's basically Greenpeace's excuse here, as far as I've heard.

      Hope Peru throws the book at the people that did this.

      1. "We had to cut down the rain forest in order to save it."

    2. "Dickishness is excused if you goal is noble" - Shakespeare

    3. Well, the people who made the lines clearly violated the 7th generation rule, leave no trace wilderness ethics and a bunch of other stuff too, I'm sure.

  2. the Nazca lines are man made so they must be eradicated so as to not offend mother earth!

  3. I'd be okay if all $54 million euros of assets were given to the Peruvian government. Fuck Greenpeace.

  4. Self-righteous fucks. A couple years in a Peruvian jail might be in order.

    1. Have you ever been in a Peruvian jail, Jimmy?

  5. Yeah, piss off the people that beat the Sendero Luminoso... nice job, Swampies.

  6. They haven't touched the hummingbird figure but now we have an additional figure created by the footsteps of these people,"

    And isn't that glorious? Isn't it only appropriate? That new figure is a symbol of our savior!

  7. Here's hoping they resist arrest.

  8. Greenpeace Mars Peruvian Nazca Lines Site

    We didn't send Greenpeace to Mars? I am disappoint.

    1. Their one-way mission: to explore a strange new world...

  9. Being a progressive means never having to say you're sorry.

  10. Greenpeace is almost as dumb as PETA. Not quite, but they're getting there.

    1. I see more women naked because of PETA than because of Greenpeace. Greenpeace loses the stupidity contest but my evidence only lends creedance to the notion of PETA being way more batshit crazy.

    2. Way dumber. PETA at least accomplishes something - they get dumb famous broads to get naked at stupid fur protests and they kill tons of adoptable cats and dogs. What does Greenpeace do besides get fucked up by Japanese whalers?

  11. What is the problem? It is just graffiti!

    1. Rural dirt art.


    In this case, i think they really 'compel discussion' by putting their inane slogan on top of a 1000s yr old archeological wonder. Because, like, Man is totally not the point, dude = its the *earth*, you know? Man is just like a temporary phenomenon. Big Thinking Stuff.

    1. You SF'd the link

  13. Where's the French Navy when you need it?

  14. Reminds me of the Taliban blowing up that Buddhist temple.

    1. I had the same thought.

      And it wasn't a 'temple' so much as a 400 ft high archeological wonder

      but yeah, the 'wanton disrespect for human history'-angle for petty religious reasons seems the same

      1. I immediately wondered what the rage level would have been if these idiots had been working towards a conservative cause. From what I've seen the media response has been rather muted.

        1. Remember when those Boy Scouts disrupted that pile of rocks and it was treated like the crime of the century?

        2. Remember when those Boy Scouts disrupted that pile of rocks and it was treated like the crime of the century?

          1. No, and no. What was that?

            Also = How much would it cost to skywrite "FUCK GREENPEACE" over Lima?

              1. They were certainly assholes.

                I used to rock climb a bit, and would catch all kinds of shit from "greens" about the potential for damage that *some climbers* posed to natural formations

                *some climbers retro-bolted the more-extreme routes (5.12 and up) in order to make them more 'climbable'/less likely to kill anyone; this was quasi controversial even among climbers.

                The greens reacted by insisting every climber was a 'threat' to the natural habitat and consequently got lots of state parks to ban climbers. Its still an ongoing issue. but the issue was basically using some small # of people as an excuse to tar everyone as 'damaging the environment'. They knew how dishonest the case was but pushed it anyway for their own reasons.

                1. That Wikipedia entry about retro-bolting made my brain hurt. Apparently the climbing community has an etiquette that says that every climbing location "belongs" to the first person ever to make the assent. Anyone who climbs after the initial descent must use the same style of climbing as the original assent. If the first guy free-climbed without any safety, well, screw you if you want a safety line and bolts.

                  Dumbest thing I have ever heard.

                  1. As long as climbers are happy to self regulate and just bitch when people violate their rules and don't try to get a law passed or something, I'm OK with it.

                    It may be that climbing is popular enough now that that just won't work, but the more old school climbing culture is kind of cool and interesting, I think.

                  2. " Anyone who climbs after the initial descent must use the same style of climbing as the original assent."

                    That isn't really the most accurate explanation of it; in fact, there's no truth to the "do it the same way" point at all. It was more about "do not add new permanent bolts" to existing routes.

                    I linked to wikipedia because people might not know anything about climbing and needed some basic reference.

                    The more-important element is that over-bolting any climbing area eventually results in erosion/destruction of the site and blowback from the greens which can result in the place being closed for everyone forever. It has happened.

                    In general, the rule is = you don't place new bolts unless you're leading an entirely new route. And even then, it depends on the local rules.

                    If its an old route and its too dangerous for you, either attempt it using temporary protection (chocks, cams etc), or top-rope it (pre-descend and place protection in advance).... but DO NOT change the route and add new permanent bolts for your own convenience

                    Many sites have a 'no new bolts at all' policy which is basically self-enforced. Where I climbed in the Gunks (new paltz NY) this was a big deal.

                    if you don't get it, fine, but trust me that it makes more sense than you're grokking from the wikipedia entry

                  3. ". If the first guy free-climbed without any safety, well, screw you if you want a safety line and bolts."

                    This specifically i wanted to point out is a complete mis-read.

                    'Soloing' is even more controversial practice than over-bolting, and is banned almost everywhere. At the very least, 99.9% of climbers think its fucking stupid.

                    ('free climbing' is the term for all 5.0+ rock climbing - read: 'you fall, you die' - that isn't 'alpine style climbing with axes and crampons and pitons';

                    i.e. 'free climbing' uses 2 people and safety equipment, but not 'aids' like hammers, pins, petzl ascenders etc.)

                    Soloing/'Free soloing' is when people climb without protection. Its basically insane and no one does it outside of a small cabal of highly-skilled nutjobs.

                    Absolutely no one thinks that a 'solo'd' route requires anyone else to do something dangerous.

                    FWIW, i think someone solo'd El Cap a few years back. Maybe this guy

        3. I immediately wondered what the rage level would have been if these idiots had been working towards a conservative cause.

          Well, the Taliban was when they blew up that Buddha thing. I guess there was some noise about it at the time, but the Taliban was our ally in the war on drugs at that point, so there wasn't much official response.

    2. Bingo.

      "There is no goddess but Gaia, and Rachel Carson is her prophet."

      1. ... and we (Greenpeace) have the God-given right to destroy public, private and historic properties simply because our Beliefs are The Most Righteous.

        Most of the comments here demonstrate that, whether it's PETA or Greenpeace, they, and others like them, are simply cults, and deserve the support and respect that cults like them should get.

        None. (and then sue the shit out of them...)

  15. This should be enough to get every employee of greenpeace declared persona non grata in Peru for the next couple of decades.


    1. It should be enough to get every employee of Greenpeace declared a threat to self and others.

  16. BTW, I'm going to throw out this old comment thread:

    Brickbat: Everyone Is a Critic

    And say you're all a bunch of hypocrits.

    1. Because thinking that "Its not a crime to write something in Chalk on a small rock in a public park" somehow the same as Desecrating a 1000+ year old Archeological Site with gigantic letters for political reasons?

      Are you high, a moron, or a moron on drugs?

      1. If it was anyone else being arrested and the government was arguing some footprints and some plastic tarp qualified as "descration", you all would be throwing a fit.

        1. again - you're comparing a kid writing *chalk on a rock in a public park*....

 gigantic letters RIGHT ON TOP of a 2000yr old, extremely delicate archeological site

          ...and pretending that you can somehow project an opinion on one onto the other...

          ...and YOU'RE NOT THE ASSHOLE?

          Please, keep trying. I want to see how long you try and maintain this.

          1. I'd rather not... isn't that horning in on Bo's shtick?

            1. Bo is a vacuous needler who has no real opinions but rather engages in pointless, endless tete a tetes where he pretends to introduce 'complexity' to any view by offering potential qualifiers and caveats that suggest that there are possible other interpretations to be considered that might be equally valid if one simply considered alternatives that suggest that our linguistic approaches may require us to presume positions that may alternatively shed light on dimensions that hitherto were unconsidered.

              whereas 'Stormy Dragon' is just a sandy-vagina whiner.

              1. So, what you're saying is that they share certain similarities.

            2. Stormy Derp certainly has Bo-Bo tendencies (well, more accurately Bo-Bo has Stormy tendencies as Stormy came first) in that he is basically Blue John and an arbiter of what constitutes "libertarian," but his bullshit doesn't usually have the self-licking ice cream cone spiral of fucktardery that Bo-Bo brings to the table.

              1. "self-licking ice cream cone spiral of fucktardery "


        2. So, I guess Stormy would have no problem with Greenpeace chiseling their message into the Pyramids?

          Because that's essentially what they did to the Nazca site. Their footprints and other markings are permanent, in the sense that they (a) won't fade by themselves and (b) can't be removed without causing further damage.

          1. Well you must just be one of those Koch oil-money-funded Earth Destroyers who has no soul and thinks all Rapes are lies. RAPIST!

    2. Stormy, I read the linked article and come to just one conclusion: The mom's 'punishment' didn't fit the crime.

      How about 'sentencing her' to scrub off the chalk marks on the rocks and then explain to her child that doing stuff like that to 'public property' isn't nice?

      What's the 'teachable moment' in pulling weeds around fence posts? Vengeance? Slavery to save money on the groundskeeping costs?

  17. Greenpeace--the only naval power defeated by the French since the 19th Century.

    I hope the Peruvians take 'em up in a helicopter to see their handiwork, then shove them out the door.


  18. Man, those Chariots of the Gods/Ancient Aliens people must be pissed right now.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.