Embed Size (px)
Transcript of Environmental Colonialism
CONSUMERS ALLIANCE FOR
GREENPEACEAN UNETHICAL AND VERY UN-CIVIL SOCIETYGreenpeace proclaims a superior moral purpose for its goals. It uses this to justify methods and tactics that are legally questionable, morally bankrupt and show a disrespect for property and the rights of individuals. Greenpeace uses its self-proclaimed, high moral purpose to pressure businesses, organizations and governments to pursue courses of action which harm the underprivileged in rich and poor countries. Greenpeace tactics more often than not reduce economic growth. Its core strategies rest on the presumption that economic growth per se harms the environment. In developing countries, these tactics, if applied, would reduce standards of living and hinder, if not reverse, strategies to reduce poverty. When businesses, organizations and government bodies donate to or ally with Greenpeace, they not only give credence to its unethical and anti-humane strategies, but also endorse and legitimize them. For example, earlier this year Greenpeace lobbied the U.K. Government to block a World Bank loan to South Africa to finance a range of energy measures, including a new coal-fired power plant and renewable power sources. Greenpeace argued that the risk to the worlds climate from the [coal] plants emissions outweighs the benefits of the secure electricity it would supply.1 This is despite the fact that in some provinces in South Africa as many as one-third of all households has no electricity supply. In 2008, electricity prices rose almost 30 percent.2
Greenpeace has attempted to undermine the fight against malaria in Africa through its political objection to the use of pesticides.South Africas Government lashed out at the group following the lobbying action. South African Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan stated, It is regrettable that [a] very small group of NGOs are putting their environmental concerns above the economic needs of South Africa and our need to grow the economy so that all the people benefit.3 Greenpeace has attempted to undermine the fight against malaria in Africa through its political objection to the use of pesticides. It has also lobbied European companies and governments to boycott or ban the import of African forest products. Greenpeaces blind purpose is to advance its narrow view of how to protect the environment. It pays little regard to the economic consequences of its damaging strategies. It contends that consumerism, economic growth and excessive populations are core threats to the environment and that efforts to promote these must be curtailed.
It pays little regard to the economic consequences of its damaging strategies. It contends that consumerism, economic growth and excessive populations are core threats to the environment and that efforts to promote these must be curtailed.
1 2 3
Ben Webster, Britain may block World Bank loan for coal plant in South Africa, The Times Online (UK), April 6, 2010. Polya Lesova, South Africa raises electricity prices by 27.5%: In response to crippling power shortages, regulator allows price hikes, Wall Street Journal MarketWatch, June 18, 2008. Ben Webster, Britain may block World Bank loan for coal plant in South Africa, The Times Online (UK), April 6, 2010.
GREENPEACES UNETHICAL APPROACHSeveral years ago Greenpeace subscribed to a non-governmental organization (NGO) code of ethics. However, this has not inhibited it from using unethical methods to raise funds and run its campaigns. Greenpeace signed on to the NGO Accountability Charter on June 6, 2008, which calls for the group to take all possible steps to ensure that there are no links with organizations, or persons involved in illegal or unethical practices. Within four weeks, Greenpeace had violated St. Kitts territorial waters, illegally offloaded passengers and defied law enforcement officials by refusing to accompany them to police headquarters.4 highlighted inconsistencies between the ships stated intention and the visa applications of the Greenpeace activists onboard. Government officials noted that the activists stated they were heading to one of the most politically sensitive and war-torn parts of Indonesia, which was clearly at odds with their environmental mandate. News reports referred to the Greenpeace vessel as a warship.9
Creating disturbance and destroying private propertyGreenpeace boasts that it uses direct action to advance its goals. Direct action, a protest method of the hard left, involves breaking the law and causing disturbance in order to generate publicity. This is often misleadingly described as peaceful civil disobedience. 1989: Greenpeace lost its Canadian charitable status amid concerns that it was not a true charity and was not providing a discernible benefit to the public.7 1995: Greenpeaces second Canadian guise lost its charitable status after an audit revealed that the charity had failed to devote all its resources to charitable activities.8 Greenpeace regularly engages in the destruction of scientificallycontrolled trials of experimental crops that could potentially provide higher food yields and lower malnutrition levels in developing countries.10
Misrepresentation A charitable or political organization?Greenpeace portrays itself as a campaign organization and has avowed its pursuit of political goals. Yet it represents itself as a charitable organization to attract tax free donations from supporters. Greenpeace has had its charitable status revoked on a number of occasions:5 2010: Greenpeace New Zealand lost its charitable status after being deemed a political organization whose members have acted illegally, thereby making it uncharitable.6
TrespassingGreenpeaces most commonly-committed crime is trespassing.11 A recurring tactic of theirs is to climb public monuments or enter private property without approval to hang posters and slogans. The following are some examples:
An environmental or political mandate?In 2010, the Indonesian Government refused to allow the Rainbow Warrior, Greenpeaces flagship, to dock at the main port in Jakarta, the nations capital. The Indonesian Government
4 5 6 7 8 9
Nick Nichols, Make Greenpeace live up to its own book of rules, Townhall.com, June 28, 2006. Roger Bate, Its Official: Greenpeace serves no Purpose, IPA Review, December, 1999. New Zealand Charities Commission, Registration decision: Greenpeace of New Zealand Incorporated, April 14, 2010. Deroy Murdock, The IRS may board the Rainbow Warrior, National Review Online, October 07, 2003. Ibid. Agence France Presse, Greenpeace says Rainbow Warrior Denied Entry to Indonesia, The Jakarta Globe, October 14, 2010.
10 Michael McCarthy, Lord Melchett and company back in the dock to deny GM crop damage, The Independent (UK), September 5, 2000. 11 Greenpeace four charged over ANZ stunt, Brisbane Times, October 21, 2010.
Twice in five years, Greenpeace has abseiled the Christ the Redeemer statute atop the Corcovado Mountain overlooking Rio de Janeiro to hang banners and advertise Greenpeace campaigns from the statues outstretched arms.12 In 2006, Greenpeace activists illegally climbed to the roof of the British Cabinet office to hang posters claiming illegal timber from Papua New Guinea was being used on the site.13 In 2010, Greenpeace activists boarded coal ships awaiting loading in Australia.14
Greenpeace has just boasted that this campaign helped pressure the European Union to adopt measures aimed at reducing imports of illegally logged timber.
around the world of widespread illegal logging; the public record has shown this to not be the case.
Concoction of events Distortion of factsGreenpeace has a long record of distorting facts and making wrong or misleading claims. It campaigned against Royal Dutch Shells plans to sink the Brent Spar offshore oil storage facility in the North Sea, claiming vast quantities of oil would be dumped into the ocean. Once plans were abandoned, Greenpeace admitted its assessment of the amount of oil still stored in the Bren Spars tanks was greatly overestimated.16 Greenpeace also claims high rates of deforestation in South America, Southeast Asia and the Pacific, which greatly exceed proper estimates. It regularly accuses forestry companies Greenpeace has concocted events to make false allegations against foreign companies. In countries as far apart as the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Papua New Guinea (PNG), Greenpeace has falsely accused foreign companies of abusing human rights, using armed force against employees and disregarding local laws. The company in DRC was Germanowned and that in PNG was Malaysian.
PiracyIn 2008, Greenpeace engaged in piracy in the Gulf of Papua by seizing a ship and wrongly claiming it belonged to a particular company before stating that the timber on board was illegal.15 (Both claims were demonstrated to be incorrect within 24 hours, yet Greenpeace continued to repeat them publicly.)
Slander and pressureGreenpeace engages in public slander and defamation. It has accused leading European business figures of being forest criminals, and published photographs of them because their businesses were importing products that Greenpeace claimed contained illegal timber.17 Business law prohibits this type of corporate pressure in many countries.
12 Ana Cecelia Brignol, Greenpeace Activists unfulred a banner from the Christ statue in Rio de Janeiro, Greenpeace.org, March 16, 2009 and; Marcio Pena, Greenpeace activists hung a banner across the arms of the Christ statue on Corcovado in Rio de Janeiro to protest against the world leaders failure to secure the future of the planet, Greenpeace.org, September 5, 2002. 13 Victory! How ten years of activism helped protect the worlds forest