What's your opinion on Greenpeace?

Discussion in 'Every Day Debating' started by Foinikas, Jul 6, 2012.

  1. Overread

    Overread Wolfing it up! Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,537
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    UK
    Ratings:
    +342 / 1 / -0
    Far as I know there are very few true "barren" landscapes where anyone actually lives or would ever bother moving to. Desserts are not lifeless, for example. Yes not as diverse as rainforests, but not lifeless and a surprising amount happens in them.

    Furthermore affecting one ecosystem affects the next. They do not operate in isolation. Just take the example of beaches, build sea defences to protect your down and further down the coast another area, previously never affected by erosion, suddenly gets eaten away by the sea.


    As for control - bleh. You'll always have escapees of some kind; and if the hybrid is designed to resist natural predators and be big, healthy and produces lots of seeds - well then you don't need many escapees to cause a major problem.
     
  2. Sparrow

    Sparrow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,823
    Likes Received:
    159
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    here and there
    Ratings:
    +251 / 3 / -1

    Sorry, but that's nonsense.

    The tomato plant was not found in most parts of the world, it sure is now.
    Every crop that is grown commercially is already a hybrid, indeed we've been genetically fiddling with plants and livestock for thousands of years via preferred mutations and cross breeding. These plants and animals we rely on for food have been continually introduced to new regions of the world, and have been ever since trade between people began. Please google "the history of wine" and you'll see just how long humanity has been "domesticating" plants. Do you have any idea how long ago mankind began domesticating goats? The nice plump fast growing insect tolerant tomato is not at all natural, nor is a goat that produces milk with the right amount of fatty acids for making cheese that people would want to eat.
     
  3. Overread

    Overread Wolfing it up! Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,537
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    UK
    Ratings:
    +342 / 1 / -0
    surely that helps prove my point ;)

    Just look at some other examples - Japanese knotweed in the uk for example - a swine to remove and very destructive (originally we just had it cause it was pretty).

    Yes humanities influences are great enough that there is, likely, not a single ecosystem that is totally unaffected by their activities (certainly on land). Many are even the product of generations of human activity (its suspected that many savannah are actually only preservable as an ecosystem if they are regularly slashed and burned and that removing human burning clearing can start to destroy savannah).


    Just because we can does not mean we should; furthermore in an age where you can go around the world in 3.5 days; go to the moon there should be no need to extend the boundaries of non-native species into other ecosystems. Heck most of the worlds starvation is artificial as a result of human politics more than anything else (many starving nations are doing so because nomad cultures are forced to live in sedentary habitats and to farm with western farming methods on soils that cannot support such -- furthermore many developed nations overproduce on food to a massive extent).
     
  4. Lord Yuan

    Lord Yuan Death-Thousand+

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Messages:
    4,068
    Likes Received:
    125
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Crystal Prison (space crime)
    Ratings:
    +162 / 0 / -0
    True, we produce enough grain to feed the world over but be give it to livestock instead. I still think that within human facilities we should continue with this science if not practice it in isolated farming plants.

    The ability to make nature do our will could help us undo our marking even. I think we are at a point in history where we will do rapid harm to the environment as long as we develop until we develop enough to know how to undo it. Abandoning what we have so far won't reverse the effects.
     
  5. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    I think we already have a topic covering genetically modified foords :p

    Returning to the discussion, I don't trust Greenpeance. They have a huge agenda, and work in a take-it-or-leave-it way. They are against nuclear energy and expansion of carbon-based electricity production. They are against whaling. They are against genetically modified foods. They against illegal dumping and deforestation. All rather broad spectrum. The connecting factors are all rather flimsy.

    I think it's pretty much a proven that they will do lots of things just to gain attention, so as to gain more donations. There has been, for instance, the Brent Spar incident in the 1990's. They pressured Shell not to sink off an abandoned oil rig because Greenpeace said they knew there would be a huge pollution toll. It was all rather blown up in the media and in the end, Shell had no choice but to have it dismantled on public pressure. Afterwards, it transpired that the whole pollution jibe was mostly hot air. This all happened in a period in which Greenpeace lost foothold in the US and sought to expand in Europe, especially Germany.

    It has been known for years that Greenpeace plans their actions in such a way that media coverage will be maximized. Their actions are rated a success when they make evening news. Whether or not they were able to hinder targeted companies is of much less importance, apparently. When it comes down to it, it's all about the money. I can understand that, but then please don't act as if you're upholding green values.

    I can also remember several incidents in which Greenpeace destroyed testing fields for GM foods. This way years, if not more, of research and investment has been destroyed with it. Now, I can imagine that Greenpeace has an active agenda against GM foods - but I can't understand how a legitimate NGO could get away with these deliberated attempts of sabotage and vandalism.

    With one thing and another, I can't respect or support Greenpeace. That's my two cents :)
     
  6. Foinikas

    Foinikas Playing backgammon!

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Messages:
    7,802
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    VDNH Station,Moscow
    Ratings:
    +97 / 0 / -0
    Very interesting post,you got my attention.Those two pargraphs of yours are interesting and I could say a bit eye-opening.How many of you think there's a big possibility that Greenpeace is kind of corrupted?Or maybe corrupted enough to care more about the money and less about nature?
     
  7. Running Wolf

    Running Wolf Join the Madness

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    6,485
    Likes Received:
    200
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Bittersweet Hell
    Ratings:
    +231 / 0 / -0
    I think I counted three cents :p

    On one side: destroying GM food testing fields is indeed a huge scandal. How is it ever supposed to become "save" if no one can research that stuff because of greenpeace destroying it.
    On the other side: I heard that those "testing fields" are simply fields, planted with GM crops - and next to those fields are 'normal food' fields. For security there's like 2 meters of unused soil between the two fields, but seriously: there's wind to spread stuff. Who guarantees that they don't mix? So I kinda get the 'get rid of these fields- part as well.

    I have nothing against Greenpeace getting media attention. They sure are an attention seeking Wh... ;) I'd rather have them in the news than stupid scandals about celebrities personal lives. And even IF Greenpeace as an organization wants to get public attention for the sake of donations - it still makes the viewer/reader think about the issue at hand for at least 1 second before turning the page. And 1 second is more than none.

    If Greenpeace is evil, there being nothing like Greenpeace is the bigger evil of the two, so I chose Greenpeace. Because Ghandi is dead and Mother Theresa as well. And as much as I 'like' Obama and Merkel: they're politicians, so they won't do sh... to save the world.
    Ergo, in the absence of a hero, I chose them
    *thunderous applause* :p
     
  8. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    Well, that depends on your definition of corruption. To expand media coverage, they sometimes have news teams tag along with some of their actions. From what I've seen, there's a huge sense that they fight a war by media. They're not too secretive about that, but the real question is whether they want people (benefactors) to understand that they're looking at a more or less staged media event.

    I suppose it's a complicated game Greenpeace is playing. They need money to keep executing their agenda. And to do so they need donations. You're not getting donations by doing anonymous work. Greenpeace, however, perfected the way in which they have actions and media time optimized. I think people supporting Greenpeace do need to understand that.
     
  9. ~Elladan~

    ~Elladan~ A Elbereth Gilthoniel

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    4,908
    Likes Received:
    215
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    England
    Ratings:
    +225 / 0 / -0
    I thought their action against Cairn Energy's oil rig drilling off Greenland, highlighting the risks, was positive especially so soon after BP's disaster in the GoM ~ BP had problems capping the well in deep water off the US, what chance in hell capping a well in the more extreme & remote environment of the Artic? In the end Cairn did drill but found nothing so that's stopped that for now.

    My negative towards Greenpeace and similar action groups is that they rarely suggest reasonable/affordable solutions or divert their campaign donations to actually build small demonstrative examples of what they deem to be the future/ a working alternative. Wind power for example is often held up as an example of 'green energy' but a recent Dutch study found that in most locations they can only generate for 30% of the time so needed backup conventional power stations which were less effective because they're having to be switched on and off ~ so do environmental groups still think wind is the answer?

    Greenpeace supporters support wind power as part of the solution but would be the first to complain if their countryside was spoilt with wind turbines or they had to pay higher energy bills or taxes to pay for them. They also don't like landfill sites but object to incinerators for non-recyclable waste.... it's easy to object but much harder to come up with solutions.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2012
  10. Overread

    Overread Wolfing it up! Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,537
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    UK
    Ratings:
    +342 / 1 / -0
    I suspect part of the problem is that Green Peace isn't an organisation that strikes me as being highly unified. That is to say its grown large enough that its got its own local sub-groups which do not all see eye to eye with each other. Mix in the extremists through to your local supporters as well and I suspect a lot of the lack of a unified approach or plan is because the title "greenpeace" is more an ideal than a unified front.

    That is not to say that they lack organisation, but more that they might have grown too big and broad to retain a unified front. It might also explain why a fair few of their schemes are more kneejerk reaction than the result of a more planned campaign.
     
  11. Sparrow

    Sparrow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,823
    Likes Received:
    159
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    here and there
    Ratings:
    +251 / 3 / -1

    People who believe Gandhi and Mother Theresa were good people serving humanity, don't actually know anything except the myth about them. As much as I'm not keen on Greenpeace, the members of Greenpeace deserve better than to be mentioned alongside two animals like Gandhi and Mother Theresa. ;)
     
  12. Running Wolf

    Running Wolf Join the Madness

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    6,485
    Likes Received:
    200
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Bittersweet Hell
    Ratings:
    +231 / 0 / -0
    Sorry, you're right I must have messed up. Psh what did Ghandi ever do that deserves mentioning?
     
  13. Sevi

    Sevi Pocałunek!

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,525
    Likes Received:
    100
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Girisha
    Ratings:
    +100 / 0 / -0
    Thats what I also heard, WWF were sponsored by companies while greenpeace only gets money from the people. Which is nice, because that means that they are independent. Also greenpeace is very active, taking actions against things that they beleive should change. while WWF mostly sells those cute cuddle animals (which are very cute btw..)
     
  14. Foinikas

    Foinikas Playing backgammon!

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Messages:
    7,802
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    VDNH Station,Moscow
    Ratings:
    +97 / 0 / -0
    I have two of them!!!They are sooo cute and nice.

    Well anyway,Greenpeace I think has a good presence in our country.Not like in other European countries but yeah.I remember walking downtown years ago and some gals and guys from Greenpeace were giving out leaflets and stuff,information etc.That doesn't sound like much but I think they do have a good presence in Greece.


    And although I would be more pro-WWF....unfortunately there are rumors of their corruption.
     
  15. Running Wolf

    Running Wolf Join the Madness

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    6,485
    Likes Received:
    200
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Bittersweet Hell
    Ratings:
    +231 / 0 / -0
    There's data about the WWF corruption as well. A whole Doku infact (though it's in german). WWF really is messed up, seriously messed up
     
  16. Foinikas

    Foinikas Playing backgammon!

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Messages:
    7,802
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    VDNH Station,Moscow
    Ratings:
    +97 / 0 / -0
    Darn...and those people were supposed to be the benevolent good guys who try to save the nature and the wildlife of the planet.
     
  17. Running Wolf

    Running Wolf Join the Madness

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    6,485
    Likes Received:
    200
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Bittersweet Hell
    Ratings:
    +231 / 0 / -0
    yup they're supposed to be those guys.
    But it turns out (as always ^^) if we want something to be done correctly we have to do it ourselves -.-
     
  18. Crouton

    Crouton New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2012
    Messages:
    3,523
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0
    I have mixed opinions on Greenpeace. I do believe in some of the same ideals that they appear to hold but don't always agree with their methods.