Drone Footage Shows Extent of Damage From Greenpeace Vandalism at Nazca Lines

Eco-terrorists Greenpeace are probably more trouble than they have ever been in before, and they are issuing grovelling apologies.

The damage they have caused at Nazca is considerable despite their claims and Peruvian authorities are going to slam them.

A drone has been used to record the damage without causing further damage.

VICE reports:

Greenpeace angered the Peruvian government last week when some of its activists trekked through Peru’s ancient Nazca Lines — a UNESCO World Heritage site — to stage a publicity stunt timed to coincide with UN climate change talks being held in the South American nation’s capital of Lima. The stunt resulted in calls for legal action, and officials have since released new drone footage showing the extent of damage caused at the site.  

Released exclusively to PBS NewsHour, the video provides visual evidence of the impact the early morning operation had on the centuries-old geoglyphs, which have been preserved thanks to the arid climate of the desert site located 200 miles south of Lima.

While a spokeswoman for Greenpeace said the group was “absolutely careful” when rolling out the banner, the video proves otherwise. Provided by Peru’s Culture Ministry, the footage depicts an aerial view of new lines that showed up after the activists laid their “Time for Change!” sign next to a hummingbird etched into the desert. These new path lines were created after 20 members of the environmental group hiked their way to the site, which is not open to the public, the government said.

Also visible in the drone video are lines around where the message was laid out, and what appears to be the outline of the  letter “C” that forms part of the word “Greenpeace” included in the banner. According to NewsHour, the footage could be used in legal proceedings, if the government decides to pursue action.

The widely discussed publicity stunt follows a separate Greenpeace project executed in early December, when the group projected a message promoting solar energy on the ancient Incan ruins of Machu Picchu in Peru.

Nazca is a notoriously sensitive ancient site, where a single step can cause irreversible damage. The unique look of the lines is attributed to the contrast of the black rocks that rest atop white sand. Typically, tourists have to pay for flight tours if they want to get a view of the giant drawings that take the form of various animals and plants etched into the ground.

I think it is time for Greenpeace to shut up shop.

Peru might just be the country that finally deals with these eco-terrorists.


– VICE News


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Reid

    making a show of being morally superior to other people.
    “what happened to all the sanctimonious talk about putting his family first?”
    synonyms:self-righteous, holier-than-thou, churchy, pious, pietistic, moralizing,unctuous, smug, superior, priggish, mealy-mouthed, hypocritical,insincere, for form’s sake, to keep up appearances, lefty, Wussel, Metewia, Lucy Lawless, Keisha Castle-Something, the NZ maintstream media; More

  • Cadwallader

    I imagine a Peruvian gaol isn’t a particularly nice place to be for a Greenie. No hemp mattresses, no herbal teas, and (especially) no government largesse.

    • Cadwallader

      Oh and nearly forgot: Daily showers with non-bio soaps and in the company of large humourless men called Sancho or Pedro!

  • Mark Schmid

    Who cares about a few lines y can see from the sky – they got the whole world talking, even if its in a negative light, people are talking about it – Mission accomplished!

    In a way it is crazy how we are going n about irreversible damage of some ancient site – yet we don’t give a damn about the damage we cause to the climate that is crucial to human survival on this planet – go figure….

    • ex-JAFA

      They broke the law, but the ends justifies the means – right? The only “talking about it” that’s happening is that people are more aware of what a crooked organisation Greenpeace is. I won’t even bother with your nonsense about the climate.

      • Mark Schmid

        Since they became as crooked as any normal mainstream corporation they have gone bigger and more successful than ever – I personally prefer smaller more extreme groups like the sea shepherds but that last stunt was pretty outrageous.

        • Sea Shepherd are pirates, criminals and terrorists, nice to see where your sympathies lie though.

          • Mark Schmid

            They currently interrupt illegal poachers in the Antarctica – they are the only people fighting to preserve threatened fish stocks down there – in my view their unconventional means justify the results they produce to preserve some biomass for future generations.

          • Ahh ends justifies means…the argument to excuse criminal activity.

          • Mark Schmid

            Actually if you get to the bottom of it they move well within their rights with their current campaign – how can you defend poaching?

    • Pita

      In the arrogant pursuit of controlling the climate would we
      rather subject millions to suffer and die from abject poverty? – go figure.

      • Mark Schmid

        We can’t control the climate – we can reduce output of CO2 though.

        • Franco.Prussia

          Better off looking at mitigation measures than prevention… Copenhagen Consensus is very clear on that. Put another way, we have to invent our way out of trouble not ban our way out of it.

          • Mark Schmid

            I like your thinking! Best response I have read!

        • If we can’t control the climate why bother reducing CO2…do you hate plants?

          Being unable to control the climate makes reducing CO2 relevant how?

          • Mark Schmid

            Eventually CO2 will prevent life – by reducing emissions we could very likely prolong human survival.

          • Actually it won’t…you clearly failed school boy science.

            Plants thrive on CO2, they consume it, they sequester the C and release the O2…which we breathe.

            Oxygen gas constitutes 20.8% of the volume of air. Where as CO2 is a trace gas with a concentration of 0.04 per cent of the earth’s atmosphere.

            It is lack of CO2 that will prevent life you idiot.

            But, hey you on making silly unfounded claims and I will keep educating you.

          • Mark Schmid

            Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not toxic in itself. Nevertheless, the higher the CO2 level, the more the human breathing and brain functioning are affected.

            Lets just stick to the Facts Cam as you don’t get censored unlike my posts.

    • BlitzkriegNZ

      Our ancestors lived through ice ages, I’m sure we can live though our ice creams melting 2 minutes faster in 100 years…. Oh wait, no need to worry, it hasn’t been warmer on average for nearly 20 years, lucky us, we’ll have time to eat our ice creams before they drip down our hands!

      • Mark Schmid

        The numbers are very dynamic – depending on what you read and believe there are many theories out there – besides all that it seems logic that 36 billion metric tons of man made CO2 per year does have an impact on our atmosphere –

        • BlitzkriegNZ

          Dynamic, as in easily rigged to get the result you decided on before you start your study to ensure endless funding hoping you’ll be long dead before being proven wrong.

          • Mark Schmid

            Some is just cold science – part per million measurements of co2 captured with accurate equipment seems pretty believable to me.

          • Pita

            Of the 400 ppm of co2 in atmosphere…96% contributed by Oceans and biomass… 4% by humans…remind me again why we should jeopardise human development, that lifts underdeveloped countries out of their poverty cycle, by caping co2 emissions?

          • Mark Schmid

            We can still develop with capped emissions – its just a bit slower and requires more innovation and creativity.

            There are more poor people on this planet than ever – that development you talking about might not quite work as it is.

          • Another myth, there are actually less poor people, India and China have massively reduced poverty through industrialisation.

          • Mark Schmid

            Numbers don’t lie – 3 Billion survive on less than 2.50 per day.
            If you compare that to 20 or more years ago it will become obvious.

          • david

            The measure of poverty used to be $1 per day. Now much more complicated measures that only sociologists understand are used, such as relative depravation which seem designed to ensure that poverty is always with us. I have worked in places with very high poverty levels as defined by UN, but food was abundant.

          • Mark Schmid

            So are you saying 2.50 per day is not considered living in poverty?

          • david

            No, I was responding to your claim that there were more poor people on the planet than ever and pointing out that the UNICEF $2.50 standard is higher than the original World Bank $1.00/day (which now stands at $1.25). According to a World Bank Paper “Extreme poverty-as judged
            by what “poverty” means in the world’s poorest countries-is found to
            be more pervasive than we thought. Yet the data also provide robust evidence of
            continually declining poverty incidence and depth since the early 1980s. For
            2005 we estimate that 1.4 billion people, or one quarter of the population of
            the developing world, lived below our international line of $1.25 a day in 2005
            prices; 25 years earlier there were 1.9 billion poor, or one half of the
            population. Progress was uneven across regions. The poverty rate in East Asia
            fell from almost 80 percent to under 20 percent over this period. By contrast
            it stayed at around 50 percent in Sub-Saharan Africa, though with signs of
            progress since the mid 1990s. Because of lags in survey data availability,
            these estimates do not yet reflect the sharp rise in food prices since 2005″

          • And strangely when presented with the evidence Mark disappears.

          • Mark Schmid

            From your angle I can see you are right – still in my view 2.50 per day is poor and to say otherwise seems ignoring the realities of those people surviving on this money.

          • david

            We do seem to be straying off the topic, but most people still on $1.25 or less are in rural areas where food rather than money is often given in exchange for work. Yes they do suffer in times of poor harvest. The $2.50 figure includes shop and manual workers in half the world – many of whom would not consider themselves poor, even if we would. Where I am currently, I suspect most unskilled workers earn less than $2.50/day. They are poor, but there is little evidence of deprivation. I get by with a per diem of $15, but then I like to have coffee at the European style mall. That’s $3.40 a cup.

          • You must be easily convinced then. 400ppm is light compared some part of the earth’s history…you do know that plants thrive on CO2?

        • Edward Bufe

          There is a sure fire way to cut carbon emissions and if the Greenies are so all fire concerned about the Co2 maybe they should step up first and try stop breathing themselves. I am positive that will really help.

          • Mark Schmid

            To suggest I and the greenies should die because we have a different view is saying alot about your character.

  • Reaper

    People certainly need to rethink their ‘charity’ donations.

    Having spent several years in Africa, you wouldn’t even want to get me started about World Vision.

  • Coffee Connoisseur

    The irony of ths incident is well and truely impressive.

  • oldmanNZ

    must have cost thousands of greepeace e to produce that stunt. To tell a few lies.

    Would never support greepeace now (did many many many years ago). along with all the other eco terrorist.

    The damage damage they cause I s not the main concern, it’s the lies they spread and the disrespect of how they spread the message.

  • Captain Darling

    Filthy peaceniks, forget the grovelling apology, a stint in a Peruvian jail would give them time to reflect on their brainless vandalism.

  • metalnwood

    Greenpeace are the first to say a corporate should pay whatever it takes to fully restore nature after an accident, e.g. an oil spill that GP would call an act of environmental vandalism.

    Well, GP, here is what I hope. You also have large coffers full of donated money. I hope that the courts order you to pay whatever it takes to fully restore a real act of vandalism. Even if that means people spending months laying small black rocks on the sand one by one to cover the mess you made.

    It’s about time you practice what you preach.

  • This whole incident reminds me of some people I knew back in South Africa.
    I used to be a member of the KZN-Ezemvelo Wildlife (formerly the Natal Parks Board) honorary officer corps (so volunteer staff). For obvious reasons this grip also had a lot of Greenies in it.
    The Natal Drakensberg has a number of caves with bushman paintings in them. Some of the paintings are rather faded, but if you chuck water on them it brings them back up while damaging the as the water washes away some of the paint. (ie you don’t do this as these are archaeologically significant sites.
    Well a friend was hiking with two of these Greenies, and they wanted to take some photos of paintings, so they threw water on them. My mate asked them why (they knew better) and the answer was “we’re allowed to because we’re trying to protect them”

    • Tom

      Leopard cave etc. Beautiful place, I miss it a lor

  • wooted

    It’s heartening that countries (Russia and Peru) are finally starting to make these sanctimonious twits actually pay for what damage and costs they cause in their attention seeking stunts.

    When Lucy Lawless and her friends last acted up in NZ they should have faced serious criminal charges and actual costs incurred, instead of the ritual slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket.

    • I.M Bach

      Yes, that was appalling. If I remember correctly her (and her cohorts) little stunt cost Shell about $100k didn’t it? That’s a cost that will be passed onto consumers, so thanks Lucy, thanks a lot, very constructive. These people should think before they act (up).

      • Mark Schmid

        To imagine that Shell averages roughly 20 billion us$ in yearly profit – a 100’000 is like me buying one pint less in the pub per month.
        I doubt that makes any dent in their coffers…

        • I.M Bach

          I get your point but those profits still belong to them. Big business is just that; big business, so the figures are huge. However, to inflict loss on someone’s business (however large or small) isn’t kosher in my book.

  • steve and monique

    Hope they get what they deserve. And hearing some have fled the country, and are to gutless to front up shows them up as cowards as well.

    • InnerCityDweller

      at least some are clearly to be seen in the footage, so tracking them down might be easy

  • Lance Ralph

    hysterical and disrespectful vandals

  • Sgt Nussel Rorman

    So Greenpeace are supposedly very sorry. Meanwhile, their activists flee the country.

    First step: return them
    Second step: throw the book at them
    Third step: Greenpeace pay for all damages and costs

    Else, what does sorry really mean?


  • Aucky

    Perhaps Maori will take this into consideration the next time they align themselves with the Greenpeace terrorists for a mining protest. How would they like their sacred sites desecrated for the sake of a gratuitous protest message?

    • Mark Schmid

      Terrorists seems a bit out of proportion don’t you think?
      The guy that walked into the cafe in Sydney is worthy of that title for sure.

  • Jdogg

    Slammed the door on Greenpeace reps last week, I’m not usually a door slammer but in this case, was so enraged at what’s been done here.

    There is no way to justify the disrespect.
    And the “apology” for “offending people around the world” isn’t actually an apology for vandalising a historic site for a message.

  • Whitey

    It stuns me that these people could look at the Nazca monuments and see only a blank canvas for their own self-indulgent attention seeking. That’s poverty of the soul.

  • andrew carrot

    I wouldn’t be surprised if GP’s core defence is that their actions merely affected changes humans had already made to the previously pristine and fragile desert environment.