You are here

Updated: Greenpeace Climbers Arrested for Climate Change Protest at Mount Rushmore National Memorial

Share

Published Date

July 8, 2009

Greenpeace protesters unfurled a huge banner on Mount Rushmore to protest climate change and U.S. policy. Greenpeace photo.

Eleven Greenpeace members were arrested Wednesday for mounting a protest on the granite presidential faces of Mount Rushmore National Memorial to urge President Obama to "show real leadership on global warming."

Park staff were alerted by security systems at 10:11 a.m., local time that a number of individuals had breached a controlled area and accessed the top of the monument. While the climbers were able to unfurl a 65-foot-by-35-foot banner next to Abraham Lincoln's face, they were arrested shortly thereafter and taken to Rapid City, South Dakota, and jailed. Possible charges range from trespass to destruction of government property.

Park workers planned to assess the monument for any damage and were to remove the banner as soon as they could safely do so.

National Park Service officials would not say how the 11 managed to evade Mount Rushmore's security systems, reach the top of the monument, and rappel down its face, nor would they describe what security measures are employed at Mount Rushmore.

The banner draped across the front of the monument featured an unfinished portrait of President Obama with the message, "America honors leaders not politicians: Stop Global Warming."

The demonstration comes as President Obama met with other G8 leaders in L'Aquila, Italy, on Wednesday to discuss the global warming crisis in the lead-up to UN climate treaty negotiations in Copenhagen this December.

"This monument celebrates leaders who rose to the great challenges of our past. Global warming is the greatest crisis humankind has ever faced and it is the defining test of leadership for this generation. It's an open question whether President Obama will pass that test," said Greenpeace USA Deputy Campaigns Director Carroll Muffett.

According to a Greenpeace release the activists were trained in rock and industrial climbing and took special care not to damage the monument, using existing anchors placed by the National Park Service for periodic cleanings.

The demonstration followed a series of protests in Italy earlier Wednesday where other Greenpeace activists hung banners on coal plant smokestacks calling attention to the collective failure of leadership on global warming at the G8.

"We're at a moment in history where President Obama must show real leadership on global warming, not only for Congress and the American people, but for the world. Unfortunately, the steps taken to address the crisis so far have been grossly inadequate," said Muffett. "While President Obama's speeches on global warming have been inspiring, we've seen a growing gap between the president's words and his actions."

According to Greenpeace, "the best science shows that to avoid catastrophic global warming, governments must take action to keep global temperature rise as far below 2 degrees Celsius as possible.

"Given President Obama's pledge to follow the science, it's troubling that his administration has not yet endorsed emission targets strong enough to keep us below that critical threshold," the activist group said.

Furthermore, the group, said, the experience earlier this year "with climate legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives, which was drastically weakened by lobbyists for the oil and coal industries and other big polluters, showed that unless the president provides strong leadership on this issue, special interests will win out over the common interest."

"Doing what it takes to solve global warming demands real political courage," Muffett added. "If President Obama intends to earn a place among this country's true leaders, he needs to show that courage, and base his actions on the scientific reality rather than political convenience."

Greenpeace is calling on President Obama to use every tool at his disposal, both within and outside Congress, to strengthen U.S. climate policy with scientific integrity, and to take that policy to Copenhagen in December as evidence the U.S. will do what it takes to solve the climate crisis.

Specifically, Greenpeace is calling on President Obama to:

* Strive to keep global temperatures as far below a 2 degrees Celsius increase as possible, compared to pre-industrial levels to avert catastrophic climate change;

* Set a goal of peaking global emissions by 2015 and be as close to zero as possible by 2050, compared to 1990 levels;

* Cut emissions in the U.S. by 25-40 percent by 2020, compared to 1990 levels;

* Join and encourage other members of the G8 to establish a funding mechanism that provides $106 billion per year by 2020 to help developing countries adapt to global warming impacts that are now unavoidable and halt tropical deforestation.

Greenpeace is also calling on President Obama to attend the Copenhagen conference personally to ensure a strong, science-based agreement is reached.

Comments

People looking for attention do stupid things sometimes. And by the way, has anyone actually "proved" that there is man made global warming besides the guy that invented the internet?


The global warming cult almost rivals the geocentric views held by the holy [Catholic] Church during the Dark Ages. Galileo was punished. Are global warming skeptics next?

Frank, please tell me that I'm confused when I interpret this to mean that you're suggesting that those who disagree with the IPCC will be subjected to the sort of horrors that my church perpetrated during the Middle Ages or that you're comparing those with your belief to Galileo. I'm hoping this is hyperbole on your part...

And I would pose another question: Ignore the idea of human-caused climate change, and the predictions of global doom, then ask yourself: Should we be blowing up the Appalachian mountains in search of cheap coal, a fuel that is cited as a cause of climate change? Can we afford to? Is the stopping of mountaintop removal mining, something that I know all too well, having lived my life among it (the Kingston/TVA ash spill last December was less than a half-hour drive from home), not worth our time and attention?

If cap and trade, and the resulting decrease in carbon-belching, mountain-destroying, filthy coal plants, stops Big Coal from running roughshod over Appalachia, then more power to President Obama. I'll pay through the nose for the safety of my friends and neighbors rather than watch our land blown up and our homes swept away by toxic sludge again.


>>the IPCC determined it is likely that nothing we do now can stop or even slow future warming.<<

Frank, got a source for that? Here's what I found on the IPCC site:

Renewable energy resources can play a key role in meeting the growing energy demand while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As shown in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, in association with energy-efficiency measures, they can make a substantial contribution to climate change mitigation as early as 2030.The Special Report on “Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation” aims to provide a better understanding and broader information on the mitigation potential of renewable energy sources: technological feasibility, economic potential and market status, economic and environmental costs&benefits, impacts on energy security, co-benefits in achieving sustainable development, opportunities and synergies, options and constraints for integration into the energy supply systems and in the societies. It will also assess resources by region and impacts of climate change on these resources.

That certainly sounds like it's highly likely we can turn things around....if we have the desire;-)


God bless these brave Greenpeace folks.


Frank, are you still a school teacher? Where's your analytical, open-minded approach?

As for the AP story, how could a 2007 report be reported on by the AP in 1997? Furthermore, the language I offered you came from the latest IPCC website and is not interpreted by anyone else but rather from the horse's mouth, as it were, so it's not been filtered or massaged.

As for your link about IPCC admitting they could be wrong, my reading of that site you linked to seems to indicate you're taking things a tad out of context to forward your position. Rather, the author of that post -- Roy W. Spencer -- makes that inference, which you repeat. Again, massaging the message. Frankly, I don't think you could find any scientist who would guarantee something 100 percent, unless it's that they'll die some day, and then they would make that posthumously via a close relative.

More specifically to the 90% likelihood that humans are driving climate change, here's a tidbit from www.realclimate.org (granted, from February 2007):

The conclusion that large-scale recent warmth likely exceeds the range seen in past centuries has been extended from the past 1000 years in the TAR (Third Assessment Report), to the past 1300 years in the current (ie. 4th assessement) report, and the confidence in this conclusion has been upped from “likely” in the TAR to “very likely” in the current report for the past half millennium. This is just one of the many independent lines of evidence now pointing towards a clear anthropogenic influence on climate, but given all of the others, the paleoclimate reconstructions are now even less the central pillar of evidence for the human influence on climate than they have been incorrectly portrayed to be.

Finally, first you imply that I'm a hypocrite, and now imply that I'm a fundamentalist. Or, to cover your bases, you're using the editorial "you," and not directing it directly at me. But I digress. I think the science is well-founded that humans are driving climate change; right now we're mainly quibbling over the percentages.

As I noted in an earlier comment, If you believe that tens of thousands of scientists are colluding in a massive conspiracy, nothing anyone can say is likely to dissuade you.


Jim, I agree that people should have the right to voice their opinions, but shouldn't that be done in a place that they are responsible for? Why do they, or anyone who does something similar, think it is ok to use public dollars, public places, or other places that I happen to pay for? I am a conservative and think everyone should choose their places carefully for their protests. If they would have fallen, they would have sued the US for their injuries. Fair? I think not.


Once again the enviornmentalist have shown how far out of touch they are. They scream and whine file frivolous lawsuit because the bleeding heart liberals have set up so they can do it at no cost to them. They are destroying the world with their stupidity. If they as I am were conservationists and wanted to use our natural resources in a proper way we would all be better off.


Greenpeace is well known for staging the wild & wacky. I live near D.C. and they routinely show up at protests, usually costumed as the critter of the hour. Their favorite activities include the usual march and chant, street theatre, blocking Metro stations at rush hour, bizarre stunts, and burning effigies. It's all very entertaining but often seems shallow and shrill. There's so much hullabaloo the true message gets lost. And what we need now is clarity. The IPCC report spells it all out very well without all the extra noise.

Greenpeace could have gotten a good photo op at Mt. Rushmore and gotten their point across without risking life and limb. I'd be interested to know how they managed to bypass security; it seems someone did his homework. I hope we can all agree that what they did was colossally stupid and reckless in the extreme.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Your support helps the National Parks Traveler increase awareness of the wonders and issues confronting national parks and protected areas.

Support Our Mission

INN Member

The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.

Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.

You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

FREE for iPhones and Android phones.