Criticism of Greenpeace

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Criticisms 1.1 Other charges 1.2 Anti-GMO campaigns 1.3 Greener Electronics campaign 2 References

[edit] Criticisms

During its history, Greenpeace has received criticism from government, industry and environmental groups. Its members have been arrested for offenses including trespassing.^{[citation needed]} The organisation's system of governance and its use of nonviolent direct action (which is considered by some to be illegal acts of civil disobedience) have caused controversy.^{[citation needed]}

Critics have said the organisation is too mainstream. Paul Watson, who left to found Sea Shepherd, once called Greenpeace "the Avon ladies of the environmental movement," because of their door-to-door fund-raising that relies on the media exposure of deliberately orchestrated and highly publicized actions to keep the name of Greenpeace on the front pages. Bradley Angel, who organized communities in California and Arizona for Greenpeace, split to found Greenaction in 1997. Greenpeace had summarily shut down its community-building operations, terminating more than 300 employees in the US alone, in what Mr Angel called "a betrayal".^[1]

Two of Greenpeace's critics are Icelandic filmmaker Magnus Gudmundsson, director of a documentary Survival in the High North, and former Greenpeace founding member, Patrick Moore. Gudmundsson's criticisms have focused largely on the social impacts of anti-whaling and anti-sealing campaigns, while Moore's main criticisms have been leveled at the campaign to protect the forests of British Columbia. Supporters of Greenpeace assert that, like many of the organisation's most outspoken critics, Gudmundsson and Moore receive considerable funding from the very industries that have been subjected to Greenpeace campaigns.^{[citation needed]} Gudmundsson's documentary was judged libellous by a Norwegian court in 1992 and he was ordered to pay damages to Greenpeace. Similarly, a Danish tribunal held that the allegations against Greenpeace about faking video materials were unfounded. Many media that published Gudmundsson's allegations have subsequently retracted and apologized (e.g. the Irish Sunday Business Post and TVNZ).

The factual basis of particular campaigns has been criticized, for example over the Brent Spar oil platform affair in 1995, in which Greenpeace mounted a successful campaign (including occupation of the platform and a public boycott) to force one of the platform's co-owners, Royal Dutch/Shell, to dismantle the platform on land instead of scuttling it. A moratorium on the dumping of offshore installations was almost immediately adopted in Europe, and three years later the Environment Ministers of the countries bordering the North East Atlantic agreed with Greenpeace, and adopted a permanent ban on the dumping of offshore installations at sea (PDF). After the occupation of the Brent Spar it became known that Shell had not misled the public as to the amount of toxic wastes on board the installation. Greenpeace admitted that its claims that the Spar contained 5000 tons of oil were inaccurate and apologized to Shell on September 5. However Greenpeace also dismissed the issue that it was one of wider industrial responsibility, and as the first offshore installation to be dumped in the North East Atlantic, the Brent Spar would have been followed by dozens or hundreds more, thereby setting what Greenpeace considers to be a dangerous precedent. It also pointed out that the decision by Shell to scrap the Brent Spar had been taken before the incorrect amount of toxic waste was published by Greenpeace, and therefore that its mistake could not have influenced Shell's decision.

In September 2003 the Public Interest Watch (PIW) complained to the Internal Revenue Service claiming that Greenpeace tax returns were inaccurate and a violation of the law.[21] PIW charged that Greenpeace was using non-profit donations for advocacy instead of charity and educational purposes. PIW asked the IRS to investigate the complaint. Greenpeace rejected the accusations and challenged PIW to disclose its funders, a request rejected by the then PIW Executive Director, Mike Hardiman, because PIW does not have 501c3 tax exempt status like Greenpeace does in the U.S.[22] The IRS conducted an extensive review and concluded in December 2005 that Greenpeace USA continued to qualify for its tax-exempt status. In March 2006 the Wall Street Journal reported that PIW had been funded by ExxonMobil prior to PIW's request to investigate Greenpeace [23]. Exxon has been labelled 'No.1 Climate Criminal' by Greenpeace for its role in denying climate change. The charitable status of Greenpeace has been revoked in Canada (since 1989).

[edit] Other charges

More recently, Greenpeace was fined for damaging almost 100 square meters of coral in Tubbataha Reef. The group accepted responsibility for the act, and paid a fine of approximately $7,000 equivalent in Philippine pisos, while claiming that maps provided to them by the Philippine government were outdated and inaccurate. ^[2] In June 2006 : The Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise was banned from attending the 58th International Whaling Commission meeting in St. Kitts by the St. Kitts and Nevis Government citing national security concerns.^[3] Greenpeace's protests were discussed at the same IWC meeting with agenda item IWC/58/3, relating to their protest actions against Japanese whaling in the Southern ocean in December 2005 / January 2006, during which a collision occurred between a Japanese whaling ship and a Greenpeace ship, resulting in this resolution from the IWC. ^[4] Videos of the main incident can be seen here ^[5] here, ^[6] and here ^[7].

In June 1995, Greenpeace stole a stock of a tree from the forests of Metsähallitus in Ilomantsi, Finland. Warriors of Greenpeace moved it to exhibitions held in Austria and Germany. They claimed in a press conference that the tree was originally logged by local people from an ancient forest. That was misinformation. The truth is that tree was crashed over road during storm some weeks ago, was not from endangered forest or neither from protected area. The tree was from a normal forestry area which was to be harvested in a commonly accepted way. The incident received much publicity in Finland, for example in largest newspapers Helsingin Sanomat and Ilta-Sanomat, [24], [25]

In Summer 2005, German Greenpeace Magazin 6/2005 [26] was showing a photo with one alone scots pine tree on several kilometers wide snowy area which was said to be a result of clear cutting of Finnish forest (in German "Kahlschlag am nordfinnischen Peurakairasee"). That was disinformation and not true. Area which can be seen on photo has never been a forest. It's a snowy wild bog and behind that most probably ice covered lake [27], [28]

[edit] Anti-GMO campaigns

Dr. Patrick Moore, ecologist and an early member of Greenpeace, has broken with the group over a range of issues, including its campaign against genetically modified crops. He stated that "the campaign of fear now being waged against genetic modification is based largely on fantasy and a complete lack of respect for science and logic."

Greenpeace spends roughly $12 million annually on campaigns against genetically modified crops, and have thereby encouraged the establishment of regulation claimed by many experts to be overly restrictive ^[8].

Among other anti-GMO campaigns, Greenpeace opposes golden rice, The alternative proposed by Greenpeace is to discourage mono-cropping and to increase production of crops which are naturally nutrient rich (containing other nutrients not found in golden rice in addition to beta-carotene). The Golden Rice Project acknowledges that "While the most desirable option is a varied and sufficient diet, this goal is not always achievable, at least not in the short term." ^[9]

Although it had admitted efficacy to be its primary concern as early as 2001 ^[10], Statements from March and April of 2005 also continued to express concern over human health and environmental safety ^{[11] [12]} despite the fact that these sorts of fears have been widely discredited^[13]. While calling for human safety testing, Greenpeace has also opposed the field trials which would provide the needed material ^[14]. Field trials were not conducted until 2004 and 2005 ^[15].

Interestingly, the renewal of these concerns coincided with the publication of a paper in the journal Nature about a version of golden rice with much higher levels of beta carotene.^[16] This "golden rice 2" was developed and patented by Syngenta, which provoked Greenpeace to renew its allegation that the project is driven by profit motives ^[17].

Dr. C.S. Prakash, who is the director of the Center for Plant Biotechnology Research at Tuskegee University and is president of the AgBioWorld Foundation expressed the opinion that "Critics condemned biotechnology as something that is purely for profit, that is being pursued only in the West, and with no benefits to the consumer. Golden Rice proves them wrong, so they need to discredit it any way they can." ^[18]

[edit] Greener Electronics campaign

In August 2006, Greenpeace released a "Guide to Greener Electronics," which ranked fourteen consumer electronics vendors in environmental issues. Greenpeace encouraged manufacturers to clean up their products by eliminating hazardous substances and to take back and recycle their products responsibly once they become obsolete.

The Guide to Greener Electronics^[19] stated "the ranking is important because the amounts of toxic e-waste is [sic] growing everyday and it often ends up dumped in the developing world. Reducing the toxic chemicals in products reduces pollution from old products and makes recycling safer, easier and cheaper." It ranked Nokia and Dell near the top, but essentially gave failing grades across the industry, ranking Toshiba thirteenth, and Apple Computer in last place out of the fourteen brands. The report singled out Apple for its low rank, saying: "Already, many of the companies are in a race to reach the head of the class - that is, except for Apple, who seems determined to remain behind rather than be the teacher's pet we'd hoped for." This caught the attention of tech media news sites, and was widely reported.

Daniel Eran of RoughlyDrafted Magazine criticized the guide in an article ^[20], saying the Greenpeace guide's "ranking puts far more weight upon what companies publicly say rather than what they actually do. It is also clear that Greenpeace intended the report more as an attention getting stunt than a serious rating of corporations' actual responsibility." Daniel Eran's own objectivity has also been called into question, as his website is supported by Apple advertising. In addition, Roughly Drafted has been called "the lunatic fringe of Mac fandom."^[21]

Greenpeace responded to the criticisms in a rebuttal also published by RoughlyDrafted. Along with the Greenpeace rebuttal, the article ^[22] further presented the results of a second Greenpeace report, called "Toxic Chemicals in Your Laptop Exposed," which Roughly Drafted called an 'apology' for the initial claims Greenpeace made in the Greener Guide rankings. While Greenpeace itself has never used the word "apology", they did restate several of their initial claims in a response to Keith Ripley, another reviewer of the report ^[23]. For example, the data reported findings of minimal traces of TBBPA, an unregulated fire retardant in the Apple computer; the Greenpeace press release said Apple "appears to be using far more of this toxic chemical than its competitors". This is despite the fact that the EU Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks concluded in March of 2005 that TBBPA "presents no risk to human health" ^[24] and "the World Health organisation conducted a scientific assessment of TBBPA and found that the risk for the general population is considered to be insignificant." ^[25]

More criticism of the statements in the Greenpeace press release followed in ^[26]: "The most recent report, 'Toxics in Your Laptop Exposed,' did credible scientific tests, but then threw out the data to instead present a lathered up, misleading and deceptive press release that was simply a lie. No amount of credible science is worth anything if you ignore the findings and simply present the message you wanted to the data to support."

Greenpeace published an article on its website, addressing the criticism so far, with a special focus on scientific issues.^[27]

[edit] References

1. ^ The Village Voice, 26 August 1997
2. ^ [1]
3. ^ [2]
4. ^ [3]
5. ^ [4]
6. ^ [5]
7. ^ [6]
8. ^ [7]
9. ^ [8]
10. ^ [9]
11. ^ [10]
12. ^ [11]
13. ^ [12]
14. ^ [13]
15. ^ [14]
16. ^ Paine JA, Shipton CA, Chaggar S, Howells RM, Kennedy MJ, Vernon G, Wright SY, Hinchliffe E, Adams JL, Silverstone AL, Drake R (2005) A new version of Golden Rice with increased pro-vitamin A content. Nature Biotechnology 23:482-487.
17. ^ [15]
18. ^ [16]
19. ^ Guide to Greener Electronics (PDF)
20. ^ Top Secret: Greenpeace Report Misleading and Incompetent
21. ^ [17]
22. ^ Greenpeace Apologizes For Apple Stink
23. ^ [18]
24. ^ [19]
25. ^ [20]
26. ^ Greenpeace Lies About Apple
27. ^ response