Hi there,
Dear Reader, this blog has been inactive for quite sometime,, but here this is an old presentation made for a meeting with our detractors,, as you might be very well knowing by now,, talks with the detractors have failed,,
but here read on for our side of the story,,
Amlan
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Criticism of Greenpeace
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (July 2008)
This article contains weasel words, vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed. (March 2009)
During its history, Greenpeace has been criticized by a number of groups. These include governments such as Germany, industries such as BP and political groups such as the US republican party . The organization's use of non-violent direct action has also caused controversy.
Contents [hide]
1 Criticisms
1.1 Anti-DDT Campaign and Resurgence of Malaria
1.2 Anti-GMO campaigns
1.3 Nuclear power
1.4 Greener Electronics campaign
2 Blunders
2.1 Coral destruction
2.2 Removal of ancient tree
2.3 Mistaken deforestation
2.4 Press release blunder
3 References
[edit] Criticisms
Some critics have said the organisation is too mainstream. Paul Watson, who was pushed out of Greenpeace in the 1970s and later founded 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]
A prominent critic of Greenpeace is Icelandic filmmaker Magnus Gudmundsson, director of a documentary Survival in the High North. Gudmundsson's criticisms have focused largely on the social impacts of anti-whaling and anti-sealing campaigns which have had disastrous affects on the native people of Iceland, Greenland and Canada who depend on these activities to make a living. Due to extensive efforts on the part of Greenpeace[clarification 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).
visit https:www.blogger.com/comment.do
please post your opinion after going through the link
By PATRICK MOORE
In 1971 an environmental and antiwar ethic was taking root in Canada, and I chose to participate. As I completed a Ph.D. in ecology, I combined my science background with the strong media skills of my colleagues. In keeping with our pacifist views, we started Greenpeace.
But I later learned that the environmental movement is not always guided by science. As we celebrate Earth Day today, this is a good lesson to keep in mind.
At first, many of the causes we championed, such as opposition to nuclear testing and protection of whales, stemmed from our scientific knowledge of nuclear physics and marine biology. But after six years as one of five directors of Greenpeace International, I observed that none of my fellow directors had any formal science education. They were either political activists or environmental entrepreneurs. Ultimately, a trend toward abandoning scientific objectivity in favor of political agendas forced me to leave Greenpeace in 1986.Sadly, Greenpeace has evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas. Its antichlorination campaign failed, only to be followed by a campaign against polyvinyl chloride.
Greenpeace now has a new target called phthalates (pronounced thal-ates). These are chemical compounds that make plastics flexible. They are found in everything from hospital equipment such as IV bags and tubes, to children's toys and shower curtains. They are among the most practical chemical compounds in existence.The European Union banned the use of phthalates in toys prior to completion of a comprehensive risk assessment on DINP. That assessment ultimately concluded that the use of DINP in infant toys poses no measurable risk.
The antiphthalate activists are running a campaign of fear to implement their political agenda. They have seen success in California, with a state ban on the use of phthalates in infant products, and are pushing for a national ban. This fear campaign merely distracts the public from real environmental threats.
We all have a responsibility to be environmental stewards. But that stewardship requires that science, not political agendas, drive our public policy.
Mr. Moore, co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace, is chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies.
visit http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120882720657033391.html
pls post your opinion after going to the web link.
International green peace movement can be more benificial to the mass if the resources are directed to the poor and needy in 3rd world countries. What is it to save the world when millions are dying at present.green peace have become more of a political agenda .
Criticism of Greenpeace.
----------------------------------
Does anyone know if this report is accurate ?
Rick
"Activists Attack Greenpeace over Anti-GM Tactics," Reuters (news
service), July 31, 1999, by Simon Gardner
======================================================================
=====
Greenpeace came under fire from fellow environmental groups on July
29, accused of damaging the credibility of anti-GM campaigns by
destroying a genetically modified crop earlier in the week.
Both Friends of the Earth and organic farming group the Soil
Association were cited as condemning Greenpeace's attitude towards GM
crops, saying the group was not giving science a chance.
Greenpeace protesters wrecked half a test crop of genetically modified
maize in Norfolk on July 26 by flattening the crop with a tractor.
Helen Browning, chairman of the Soil Association, was quoted as
telling the British Broadcasting Corporation [BBC] current affairs
program Newsnight that, "You cannot go around trashing crops and
breaking the law. We can protest in other ways. Being destructive is
only going to turn the farming community in on itself."
A Friends of the Earth spokesman was quoted as saying, "What
Greenpeace has done here is wrong. The principal reason for
supporting or opposing the use of GM crops must be scientific. The
price that we will pay for not allowing proper science to underpin the
decision making process is a very high one indeed. I don't believe
Greenpeace has taken into account the loss of credibility [to] the
environment movement as a whole."
visit and post after viewing the web link.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/a-founder-explains-why-he-left-greenpeace
Greenpeace recently released their "Guide to Greener Electronics," rating fourteen consumer electronics vendors. Following in the same tradition as the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, Greenpeace issued a press release that specifically called attention to Apple and assigned the company a failing grade. Do the claims have any merit?
The Claims
Unlike the SVTC’s Toxic Trash Attack on Apple, Greenpeace focused less on where e-waste might be ending up, and drew more attention to the toxic chemicals used in manufacturing, since these would tend to make any recycling efforts more dangerous. The report explained:
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.
The stated goal of the report was to encourage manufacturers to:
1) clean up their products by eliminating hazardous substances; and 2) takeback and recycle their products responsibly once they become obsolete.
Greenpeace ranked Nokia and Dell near the top, but essentially gave failing grades across the industry, ranking Lenovo last, and Apple in eleventh place out of the fourteen brands. The report singled out Apple for its low rank, saying:
It is disappointing to see Apple ranking so low in the overall guide. They are meant to be world leaders in design and marketing, they should also be world leaders in environmental innovation.
Reality Check
While the Greenpeace report attempted to rank vendors based upon useful and practical criteria, the actual scorecard and the methods used to collect information for their report were sloppy and incompetent. This should come as no surprise to anyone aware of Greenpeace activities.
Greenpeace has worked to create awareness of important environmental issues since the 1970's, but their methods, accuracy, and effectiveness have ranged from controversial to comical to scandalous.
Greenpeace activism is based upon the simplification of complex political issues into epic battles between good and evil. Rather than devoting a lot of resources into educating the public, Greenpeace, like most political activist groups, tries to create sensationalist drama to grab attention and put simplistic issues in the headlines.
This is pretty commonplace in politics; however, Greenpeace has an established history of playing fast and loose with facts in order to intensify their stories, and in some cases their pursuits' careless disregard for the truth has caused more damage than the evil they attempted to target.
This happened quite literally last fall, when Greenpeace divers aboard the Rainbow Warrior II entered the Tubbataha Reef Marine Park, off the coast of the Philippines, in order to assess the effect of global warming.
While discovering that the protected coral reef appeared to be healthy, Greenpeace managed to run their ship into the reef, damaging over a thousand square feet (100 sq m) of the protected coral.
More famously, in 1995, after Shell oil obtained UK permits to sink their Brent Spar oil platform in the North Sea, Greenpeace activists boarded the platform and demanded Shell move the ocean platform to shore for dismantling, rather than dispose of it into deep ocean waters.
visit the below site and post u r comment http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/29C5599A-FCD8-4E30-9AD5-5497999ABA1B.html
Hon. William M. Thomas
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Thomas:
On behalf of the Center for Individual Freedom, I write to ask that the Committee on Ways and Means investigate and hold hearings on abuses of tax-exempt status by non-profit organizations in general, and violations committed by the group Greenpeace in particular.
While tax violations by for-profit corporations have for some time captured legislative, regulatory, media, and public attention, similar violations by non-profits have gone largely unnoticed. Because of the magnitude of the budgets involved — and the magnitude of the corresponding impact on taxpayers — it would be prudent to bring this issue to the forefront.
To explain how non-profits routinely circumvent federal tax laws, Public Interest Watch, a non-profit watchdog, recently issued a report on the financial practices of Greenpeace. The report documents how during a three-year period Greenpeace Fund, Inc., diverted over $24 million in tax-deductible contributions to related entities for use in non-qualifying programs. In doing so, Greenpeace Fund, Inc., violated both the letter and the spirit of the law under which it was chartered, IRC Section 501(c)(3), cheating taxpayers in the process.
What makes the practice illegal is the way in which Greenpeace collects money required by law to be applied toward "educational" programs, and then shifts that money for use by groups that instead conduct "advocacy" and "direct action" programs. These other groups, known as 501(c)(4) organizations, are allowed to conduct such activities, but not using tax-deductible funds.
Public Interest Watch explains that during the period examined, Greenpeace Fund, Inc., illegally made contributions to 501(c)(4) organizations as follows:
$3.8 million to Greenpeace, Inc., in 1998;
$4 million to Greenpeace International and other affiliates in 1998;
$4.25 million to Greenpeace, Inc., in 1999;
$3.8 million to Greenpeace International and other affiliates in 1999;
$4.5 million to Greenpeace, Inc., in 2000;
$3.7 million to Greenpeace International in 2000; and
$0.8 million to Greenpeace affiliates in foreign countries in 2000.
Examples of "advocacy" and "direct action" activities conducted by Greenpeace, Inc., and Greenpeace International that do not qualify under 501(c)(3) include:
Campaigning against genetically-modified crops;
Blockading a naval base in protest of the war in Iraq;
Boarding an oil tanker for a "banner hang";
Breaking into the central control building of a nuclear power station; and
Padlocking the gates of a government research facility.
In light of the scandals perpetrated in the corporate world, it follows that those with the authority should work to eliminate similar misdeeds in the non-profit world. If specific actions are not taken against specific violations, then those non-profit corporations that strive to operate within the letter and spirit of the law which governs our status are put at a deficit. We therefore urge the Committee on Ways and Means to hold hearings on the matter and take appropriate action to bring Greenpeace into compliance with the law.
We thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Mazzella
Executive Director
cc: Speaker Dennis Hastert
cc: Majority Leader Tom DeLay
visithttp://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/investigate_greenpeace.htm
and post u r comment
Are we against Greenpeace?
Until a few years ago, we were admirers of Greenpeace, until we discovered that even if their targets are legitimated, in all cases they use lies, halftruths and exaggerations to reach their target. And in the case of chlorine and PVC, even the target is wrong.
By saying that Greenpeace uses lies, we are in good company: Paul Crutzen, recent Nobel Prize winner for his work on the ozone layer, has cancelled his membership of Greenpeace:
"They have cheated the case and I am angry about that, because that will come to our account. They use bad data, as well as for the Brent Spar as for the French nuclear tests. I am against nuclear tests, but one should use scientifical sound arguments... ...No, Greenpeace has harmed the environmental case."
The actions of environmental groups, including Greenpeace, of which many Chlorophiles are (in the case of Greenpeace: were) members, were necessary in the past to awake the managements of factories and the government, that pollution was going too far. But nowadays, most factories are polluting much less than traffic or agricultural or domestic activities.
Some environmental groups, like Bellona in the Nordic countries, have done actions at PVC-factories, but they didn't ask for the closing down, they worked out how to reduce the pollution to acceptable low amounts. This was followed by investments at the factories and now PVC is an accepted product for them. This is not the case for Greenpeace, they are against PVC, only because it contains chlorine, even if they lose a lot of credibility for themselves and, even worse, for the environmental ideas in general.
We think that environmental groups are still necessary to be a watchdog for factories and government to keep them aware of the consequences of what they are doing. But that must be groups that use sound science and valuable arguments, not this Greenpeace.
VISIT THIS BELOW LINK TO KNOW MORE ABOUT IT.
http://www.ping.be/~ping5859/en/en_gp_cl2.html
Exposure Of The Greenpeace Lies About GM Foods
Letters To The Editor
The Courier-Mail, 16th February,2005
Ed Newbigin, School of Botany, University of Melbourne, Victoria.
Greenpeace's Jeremy Tager (Letters, Feb 15) refers to the myths of the genetic engineering industry, but then produces his own myth by saying that animals that eat GE [Genetically Engineered] food "frequently show serious effects". Wrong. Numerous studies attest to the fact that animals that eat GE food as part of a normal diet do as well as animals that eat conventional food. Greenpeace does the community a great disservice by spreading such myths.
Tony Coulepis, executive director, AusBiotech, Richmond, Victoria
Greenpeace will lose any claim to represent consumers if it continues to misinform them. GM [Genetically Modified] crops and foods, derived from biotechnology, are the most rigorously tested foods in history. Any GM crop on the market, and many have been available for 10 years, has been shown by independent government regulators to be safe for animals and humans alike.
Greenpeace Reacts to Ecoterrorism
----------------------------------
Ecoterrorism is an outrage to groups like Greenpeace, who promote environmentally healthy practices without the arson.
Greenpeace USA does not endorse the Earth Liberation Front. National director John Passacantando says they oppose violence in any form whether it's directed towards people or property.
Passacantando doesn't think the public or government will lump Greenpeace with other more radical groups. He says they've never had that happen, but they're very careful to make sure people know the difference. He says they're very public in stating they oppose all forms of violence whether it's foreign wars by the US government or destruction of property by people with agendas here in the US.
Could the people of Greenpeace reach out to ELF and act as a sort of mentorship for peace? Passacantando says there's no occasion for reaching out and he wouldn't even know who to contact.
Passacantando believes educating people about the environment is the best tool of persuasion. He says the greats have taught us that love is the force more powerful, so burning down someone's house for any reason is not going to advance anyone's cause.
visit the site below to know more about it.
http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=33056
Economy versus Enviroment. Let us be aware that environment is not stable, Its on changes and natural compitition and section. Economy is one of everyone right to live a good life. Therefore a group like one of greenpeace may serve more a way of employment rather than save the future.
Terrorism in the Name of the Earth
Flush out eco-terrorism money
-----------------------------------
.
On Sept. 22, the charitable oversight group Public Interest Watch filed a complaint with the IRS charging Greenpeace with making such illegal transfers. In a report entitled "Green-Peace, Dirty Money: Tax Violations in the World of Non-Profits," Public Interest Watch found that Greenpeace Fund, a 501(c)(3) transferred more than $10 million in exempt funds to nonexempt Greenpeace organizations such as Greenpeace, Inc. , between 1998 and 2000. Greenpeace, Inc., and other nonexempt Greenpeace entities benefiting from these transfers have committed numerous acts of eco-terrorism. They have blockaded a U.S. naval base, broken into the central control building of a nuclear power station in England, overrun the Exxon-Mobil corporate headquarters in Texas, and rammed a ship into the French sailboat competing in the 2003 America's Cup,
permanently damaging the vessel.
In April 2002, Greenpeace activists forcibly boarded a cargo ship in Florida carrying Brazilian wood. In connection with this incident, federal prosecutors indicted Greenpeace in July for violating an 1872 law prohibiting the unauthorized boarding of "any vessel about to arrive at the place of her destination." (The trial is scheduled for December).
Greenpeace isn't alone in funneling tax-exempt dollars into eco-terrorism efforts. According to the Center for Consumer Freedom, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has donated at least $70,000 from its tax-exempt coffers to the ALF. Assistant U.S. Attorney Timothy Verhey, who prosecuted the 1992 ALF firebombing of a Michigan State University laboratory, has noted the challenge of prosecuting eco-terrorists because of "a lack of witnesses and the group's 'cell' structure that lacks centralized leadership or a membership roster."
The difficulty in nabbing individual eco-terrorists is precisely why it is critically important that the IRS do its part to immobilize eco-terrorism groups by investigating the illegal use of tax-exempt funds to bankroll their crimes. Eco-terrorism is a scourge on society and a sordid stain on the wholesome causes of nonviolent environmentalists. Let's put the peace back into Greenpeace and protect the environment through vigilance, not vigilantism.
visit this below site for further details.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/10/19/EDGM82CQO01.DTL
movement of any kind require motivation and implementing its goals and not just highlighting issues of miniscule proportion when there are far vital ones to be addressed around the globe. Each organization should learn to introspect and learn of thier limitations.
Greenpeace and the Hidden Truth about Dhamra
Greenpeace is a well known Non-Government Organization across the Globe. For the last couple of years, there has been talks and attempts made by Greenpeace with TATAs on the issue of Dhamra Port construction. Though there had been a speculation that the Turtles which come for breeding once in a year to Orissa would get affected by building this Port, Scientists, Researchers and Government bodies have made a thorough analysis on this issue and have come to a clear conclusion that there is no harm for Turtles due to the Port construction.
When we look back to the last years focusing the talks Greenpeace had with TATAs office regarding Port and Turtle issue, following are the actual facts in chronological order, we can judge Greenpeace –
In the year 2004, after discussing with WWF- India, BNHS, Mr. Kartik Shankar, Mr. Bittu Sehagal and others, Tata Steel signed the Joint Venture agreement with L&T to build the port at Dhamra. In this regard, Tata Steel also agreed upon a proposal to make a further study on the impact of the Port on turtles and monitoring the impact of the Dhamra Port of the marine and island eco-system.
In the year 2005, BNHS and WWF-India agreed to study on the above issues. But, since there were no reasons specified to make this study they expressed their inability to do this without assigning a specific reason.
In March 2006, Chairman of TATA Sons replied to Executive Director, Greenpeace India, stating commitments have to be honored from both ends. As per the earlier discussions, construction of the port was withheld which was suppose to start in November 2005 and completed in March 2006. But, since Greenpeace didn’t come forward to jointly do this research, the study never saw light. Infact, The Managing Director of TATAs had met Greenpeace officials in their Bangalore office.
In January 2008, a meeting was organized between Greenpeace and TATA Steel and the list of concerns regarding Dhamra Port and Turtles were listed. On 8th March 2008 DPCL gave a detailed point wise reply to the list of concerns raised by Greenpeace and subsequent points were also clarified on 3rd May 2008.
On 23rd October 2008, MD, Tata Steel along with senior executives of Tata Steel, L&T and DPCL met Greenpeace, BNHS, WPSI, Wild Life Society of Orissa, Sanctuary Asia and other environmental organizations to discuss the concerns related to Turtles and Dhamra Port and discuss how to take this issue further.
On 20th Feb 2009, a fourth meeting was organized in Kolkata. Tata Steel, L&T and DPCL agreed to conduct the additional biological impact assessment in close collaboration with NGOs and environmental organizations. This team was lead by mutually agreed upon scientists.
On 27th August 2009, 102nd Annual General Meeting of Tata Steel was organized in Mumbai. During the meet Greenpeace succeeded to bring in Retd. Admiral Ramdas and his wife Mrs. Lalita Ramdas to discuss issues related to Turtle and Dhamra Port.
Earlier in 2008, around 40 Indian Parliament Members (MPs) had written a letter to MOEF and Orissa Assembly to bring in a resolution to stop Greenpeace from doing any anti-Government activities and ban Greenpeace in the State of Orissa as false allegations were made on construction of Dhamra Port. Soon after this incident, Greenpeace started blaming TATAs without having any scientific data as evidence.
TATA Group and TATA Steel are always ready to openly discuss with Greenpeace or any other Non-Government/Environment Organization on any issue related to Environment and their company. Since, Greenpeace didn’t have any authentic document/evidence to prove against Dhamra Port issue, they were not ready to go forward to discuss with TATAs. Instead, Greenpeace started posting anti-TATA write-up on their blog and twitter postings
Hope the visit of Admiral Ramdas and Mrs. Lalita Ramdas to the site and understanding of the ground situations will facilitate constructive progress on this matter.
I have also posted a reply post to the post I had made on my blog regarding the oil spill in bhtarkanika. Have you checked that? This was a minor spill into the sanctuary. The post included a quote from a news report. I have only mentioned abt the possible consequences if measures are not taken. Not that they are not being taken.
It may seem like a big pain to pursue a personal injury lawsuit; however, but it’s worth it later on. You may even help keep things safe for the next person.
bestessays4u |
blog-sardinefactory |
buzzineintl |
californiavacationpackages |
chautauqualakeboatrentals |
Post a Comment