Forcing the P5 to withdraw troops and pay reparations—can environmental organizations really be this hardcore?

Sweden produced an interesting young girl. So here’s the question: Why have environmentally effective organizations ended up in such a politically charged (ZZ) state today? Beyond skipping class, holding up protest signs, dancing awkwardly on airplanes, or gluing themselves to roads—what else can ordinary people actually do to contribute meaningfully to environmental protection? In fact, compared to this Swedish girl, the so-called 'extreme environmental organizations' that have recently flooded headlines—and been widely mocked and ridiculed by Chinese netizens—are mutant offshoots splintered from mainstream Western environmental groups. These are the real entities we should watch closely and remain vigilant against. They share neither ideology nor goals with traditional Western environmental organizations—or even with Greta Thunberg herself—and must never be conflated with them. In their early days, mainstream environmental groups like Greenpeace advanced their cause through peaceful resistance and electoral lobbying, pushing governments and corporations to take environmental issues seriously and enact reforms. But this 'engaged negotiation' approach opened the door for capital to infiltrate these organizations: more and more corporations began funding them via donations, thereby gaining influence over organizational decisions and pressuring them to compromise on fundamental principles. As a result, many Western environmental organizations were gradually softened and commercialized—transformed into opportunistic entities adept at exploiting environmentalism as a publicity stunt to extort concessions. Not only did radical members within these groups grow furious and disillusioned, but ordinary citizens—long fatigued by such activism—grew increasingly weary of these groups, which disrupted daily life while harboring ulterior political motives. This pervasive sense of disappointment triggered fragmentation across national chapters of mainstream environmental organizations. Many broke away—taking staff and funding—with splits forming along moderate and radical lines. Learning from their predecessors’ experiences, numerous radical offshoots began cross-border financing of militant environmental movements abroad, interfering in foreign governments’ and corporations’ infrastructure projects. They used slogans like 'extreme confrontation', 'rejection of the mainstream', and 'black-or-white moral absolutism' to attract young recruits. Such extreme behavior first surfaced as early as 1997, when Greenpeace activists—citing oil drilling’s climate impact—sabotaged exploration equipment aboard an oil-and-gas survey vessel in the Atlantic. In 2011, they scaled cooling towers at a Spanish nuclear power plant under the pretext of nuclear pollution, forcing a full shutdown. In 2012, they torched genetically modified wheat (designed to lower blood sugar) at an experimental farm in Canberra, Australia. Domestically, in 2011, animal rights activists ('dog lovers') forcibly intercepted dog-transport trucks on expressways and coerced low-price purchases; in 2017, over ten members of Greenpeace’s Hong Kong branch climbed onto the Central Harbourfront Ferris wheel to protest pollution—delaying construction of a bridge by two years and inflating building costs by billions of HKD; and under the banner of environmentalism, they colluded with opposition forces to obstruct Hong Kong government land requisition for public housing, driving up property prices... Clearly, mainstream Western environmental organizations have lost much of their authority and control over these ideologically radical splinter groups. And these radicals—using environmentalism as a cover, holding the public hostage, and hiding behind political correctness and moral high ground—recklessly vandalize public and private property. Their politically charged (ZZ) tactics are essentially indistinguishable from those of Hong Kong’s radical protesters. Yet many environmental organizations still uphold principles of peaceful resistance and rational advocacy—and this fact must not be overlooked or denied. Thus, whether it’s the Swedish girl skipping school to raise climate awareness, or Green parties campaigning for zero emissions—distinguishing their constructive, reasonable approaches from the ZZ extremism of radical factions helps us see reality more clearly and identify our true adversaries.

How do you view the growing extremism of Greenpeace’s actions?

Police quickly identified two French agents—Captain Dominique Prieur and Commander Alain Mafart—and named them suspects. They were recognized by a local neighborhood watch group and swiftly arrested. Holding Swiss passports, their true identities were soon uncovered, linking them directly to the French government. The fates of other team members were comparatively less severe. One was identified but fled to Israel before being apprehended. New Zealand police requested Israeli authorities detain her—but she received an anonymous tip and escaped prior to extradition. The fugitives who smuggled the bomb onto the Rainbow Warrior also fled aboard the same yacht. At New Zealand’s request, Australian authorities intercepted them near Norfolk Island—but Australian law prohibits detention without evidence, so they were released. Fortunately (for them), the French submarine Rubis arrived to extract them—and scuttled the Rainbow Warrior en route. But the damage was already done. Though New Zealand failed to capture all perpetrators, France’s cleanup operation could not prevent accusations of culpability. Initially, France—posing as New Zealand’s ally—denied any involvement and condemned the bombing as an act of terrorism. Even France’s ambassador to Washington declared: 'The French government would never treat its adversaries in this manner.' Backlash What followed was a political storm. Once New Zealand confirmed France’s role, it reclassified the attack as 'a criminal act violating international law on state responsibility, committed on New Zealand’s sovereign territory.' This phrasing lacked the sensationalism of 'terrorism'—but served strategically to block France’s attempts to justify itself at the United Nations. Prieur and Mafart, the two agents arrested by Auckland police, each pleaded guilty to manslaughter and received ten-year prison sentences. France responded by threatening economic sanctions against New Zealand—including banning all New Zealand exports to the European Union. Such a move would severely strain this trade-dependent nation, especially given its historical reliance on UK trade. For France, this was hardly a favorable turn of events. France then launched its own internal investigation, concluding all agents were innocent—claiming they had merely been monitoring Greenpeace. Someone else, it asserted, must have bombed the ship. Yet this finding was fiercely contested by The Times and Le Monde, both reporting that President Mitterrand himself had personally authorized the bombing. The scandal forced Defense Minister Charles Hernu to resign and led to the dismissal of the DGSE’s director. Finally, on September 22, Prime Minister Laurent Fabius—realizing the truth could no longer be concealed—publicly admitted the existence of a conspiracy. He read a 200-word statement acknowledging France’s guilt and its subsequent cover-up. France ultimately paid millions in compensation—to Greenpeace, to New Zealand, and to the family of the deceased filmmaker. But by then, it was too late. New Zealand revised its foreign policy—distancing itself from both France and the United States (which it perceived as unsupportive)—and deepened ties with other South Pacific nations, particularly Australia.

Greenpeace activists occupy Woodside gas project unit off Western Australia

23 hours ago

Greenpeace activists temporarily halted operations at Woodside's $12.5 billion Scarborough gas project by occupying a floating production unit off Western Australia. Woodside stated it is managing the situation safely following the unlawful access incident linked to environmental protests.

reuters

2026-02-25

Low-carbon ammonia demand lags amid strong conventional ammonia prices: Woodside

2026-03-26

Woodside Takes Over US Low-Carbon Ammonia Plant, Expects Output Delay Beyond 2026

2026-04-01

Woodside Takes Over Texas Ammonia Plant

2026-04-22

Australian Pension Fund Votes Against Woodside CEO Pay Package

2026-05-14

Labor Unrest Threatens Australian LNG Export Projects