                      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  --