Why I Left Greenpeace

[adrian jaye]

explains it all really

[Jim Richards]

Who's gonna protect the camel toe?

[red-beard]

How did my post get deleted?

[red-beard]

Why I Left Greenpeace

By PATRICK MOORE
April 22, 2008; Page A23

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.
The breaking point was a Greenpeace decision to support a world-wide ban on chlorine. Science shows that adding chlorine to drinking water was the biggest advance in the history of public health, virtually eradicating water-borne diseases such as cholera. And the majority of our pharmaceuticals are based on chlorine chemistry. Simply put, chlorine is essential for our health.
My former colleagues ignored science and supported the ban, forcing my departure. Despite science concluding no known health risks – and ample benefits – from chlorine in drinking water, Greenpeace and other environmental groups have opposed its use for more than 20 years.
Opposition to the use of chemicals such as chlorine is part of a broader hostility to the use of industrial chemicals. Rachel Carson's 1962 book, "Silent Spring," had a significant impact on many pioneers of the green movement. The book raised concerns, many rooted in science, about the risks and negative environmental impact associated with the overuse of chemicals. But the initial healthy skepticism hardened into a mindset that treats virtually all industrial use of chemicals with suspicion.
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.
Phthalates are the new bogeyman. These chemicals make easy targets since they are hard to understand and difficult to pronounce. Commonly used phthalates, such as diisononyl phthalate (DINP), have been used in everyday products for decades with no evidence of human harm. DINP is the primary plasticizer used in toys. It has been tested by multiple government and independent evaluators, and found to be safe.
Despite this, a political campaign that rejects science is pressuring companies and the public to reject the use of DINP. Retailers such as Wal-Mart and Toys "R" Us are switching to phthalate-free products to avoid public pressure.
It may be tempting to take this path of least resistance, but at what cost? None of the potential replacement chemicals have been tested and found safe to the degree that DINP has. The Consumer Product Safety Commission recently cautioned, "If DINP is to be replaced in children's products . . . the potential risks of substitutes must be considered. Weaker or more brittle plastics might break and result in a choking hazard. Other plasticizers might not be as well studied as DINP."
The hysteria over DINP began in Europe and Israel, both of which instituted bans. Yet earlier this year, Israel realized the error of putting politics before science, and reinstated DINP.
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.

[onewhippedpuppy]

I'm glad to see my opinion of them as left-wing nutjobs is being correct.

[CRH911S]

I wouldn't use "nutjobs" to describe ALL of them but the article sort of hits the nail on the head. I would add that often extreme measures are needed to achieve positive results but not in the following example or the one after that.
For example, early in the previous century it was believed that reductions in salmon runs in the north pacific was due to whales using them as a food source. And so whaling ships descended upon the migrating whales in what was believed to be an effort to turn the salmon fishery around to its once mighty levels. Unfortunately over-consumption by the whales wasn't the problem. With the declining whale population the salmon fishery remained flat and in some cases continued to decline. The problem was too many fisherman and not enough salmon.
Fast forward to today and look at the declining Cook Inlet Beluga population. At one point they numbered nearly 1300 and last years most recent count put the Beluga at somewhere between 320-370. At the same time the salmon fishery in the inlet is feeling pressure from something as well as escapement numbers are declining resulting in some of the areas best fisheries being closed or seriously curtailed. The solution to bringing both species back up to historical numbers will be reduced hunting pressure from the various native groups, havesting and sport angling and a second look at development that is expanding into their habitat. Not to mention Anchorage dumps raw sewage into the inlet. Which by the way I don't eat anyting that comes out of the inlet for that reason. Cooper River reds and halibut from Prince William Sound...is okay with me.
I'm not a scientist but whales on this planet are feeling the pressure just like the beluga and the polar bear and serious efforts needs to be undertaken or we're going to loose them forever.

[red-beard]

No, it shows that most of these organizations start out sane, achieve thier goals (which usually are good decent, correct things,like pollution, etc), then go extreme.

[RWebb]

he can join EDF or NRDC - chock full o' scientists...

you should see what the old timer Earth First guys say about that one nowadays...

[M.D. Holloway]

A great example of an interesting idea that went bad. This is a great example of way so many organizations fail - loss of focus.

[red-beard]

Yes, but what happends when you have a good organization, that achieves its goals? You need to re-focus on something else. But, if the organization only gets more extreme, it will lose the majority of the followers.

[RoninLB]

"Mr. Moore, co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace, is chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies."



wow..

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by red-beard

Yes, but what happends when you have a good organization, that achieves its goals? You need to re-focus on something else. But, if the organization only gets more extreme, it will lose the majority of the followers.

that sounds suspiciously like the US govt...

[RoninLB]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

Who's gonna protect the camel toe?

Greenpeace

[mattdavis11]

I represented one that turned on the people. It should have never happened, but it did. The fight was for more in-stream flow into the bays and estuaries so fish can do the nasty, while screwing the people of San Antonio out of drinking water. Transfer of H2O might be the biggest fight down here. We did what we could, but the image they have now is of one that sleeps with the Sierra Clubbers. Bad move, IMHO.

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by nostatic

that sounds suspiciously like the US govt...

No doubt in my mind the decline was inspired by greedy voters who want something for nothing, and are willing to trade their votes for reward, and by those who would trade rewards and influence for money.

Way too many people nowadays who would gladly trade personal gain for the welfare of the country.

Our founding fathers believed that this greed and immorality would be balanced out by those with higher morals, and it worked for a long time. Only problem is, the moral side is getting as corrupt as the immoral side.
We're screwed.


As far as the eco-terrorists go, anything carried to excess becomes evil.
Tree-huggers took their ideals to an extreme. They started out as people who cared for a cause and tried to lead by example. Then they realized that other people weren't doing exacly what they thought they should do, so they because more vocal.
They became frustrated when they realized they couldn't tell others how to live their lives, so they resorted to civil disobedience (which is also evil AFAIK). Then they took it even further, resorting to criminal acts. That made them criminals and terrorists, and anyone who supports them is a co-conspirator.

The danger is when people adopt a cause, they are still people and are still irrational, confrontational, and basically stupid. They don't realize this and their arrogance leads them to think they know better and have the right to decide what everyone else should do. that makes them dangerous.

In 1983 I was involved in organizing the Barstow to Vegas off-road motorcycle race.
It had been stopped for several years prior by these nutjobs. Most of them had never seen the desert before, but they claimed we were endangering the habitat of the desert tortoise.
We obtained permission to run the race provided the trail was limited to 100 feet wide, following the freeway most of the time, and we could only run about half the normal distance.

The wackos showed up en-mass the night before the race without our knowledge and tore down most of the course markers and re-directed the rest sending riders every direction, even into dangerous situations. The result was riders were scattered all over the desert and they had a much greater impact to the environment because of the enviro-wackos. Some riders got lost and spent the night in the desert stranded. Some were inured and had to be airlifted out after they crashed going off a cliff or some other object that would never have been on a course.

The next year the wackos protested saying that we didn't follow the rules, even thought they were the reason we didn't.
Greenpeace sucks. Sierra club sucks. People suck.

[red-beard]

I've been reading "Recipes for Disaster", which is a training manual for these types. Interesting read, but it also spells out how a small group, using terroristic tactics can achieve political change. Scary!

[RoninLB]

I joined the Sierra Club & some other National Forest something. Cost me $30/ea. I won't renew till next ride.


The Colorado river rights is a major issue afai know.


In S Calif desert, real close to Palm Springs, is City of La Quinta. It has it's own private water supply... cool