|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Suwoner10
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 6:43 pm Post subject: Why I Left Greenpeace |
 |
|
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120882720657033391.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
| Quote: |
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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Moore wrote: |
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. |
With all due respect, Mr. Moore's statement seems to be a little disingenuous. Although I don't know firsthand, I suspect that Greenpeace's decision to "support a worldwide ban on chlorine" is based on the fact that chlorinated hydrocarbons are one of the nastiest chemical compounds one can put into the the environment. Chlorine in the environment is not caused simply by adding chlorine to drinking water; it is caused largely by chlorine chemical products, such as Drano, and industrial uses of chlorine such as PVC (polyvinyl chloride) piping.
In addition, there is a safe alternative available to chlorinating drinking water: disinfection by ozonation. I agree with Mr. Moore's position that chlorinating drinking water supplies in developing countries is warranted, but there is no reason why chlorinating drinking water in the developed world shouldn't be phased out.
Last edited by Manner of Speaking on Wed Apr 23, 2008 9:53 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well said, MOS.
I'm also very glad that there are organisations out there, like Greenpeace, warning us of environmental disasters and trying to do something about it. And if the members of the board don't have science degrees, it shouldn't matter if they employ people that do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks BB!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 5:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
Well said, MOS.
I'm also very glad that there are organisations out there, like Greenpeace, warning us of environmental disasters and trying to do something about it. And if the members of the board don't have science degrees, it shouldn't matter if they employ people that do. |
Yes, it's good. But at the same time they should understand the issues. Greenpeace has missed the boat on a lot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nobbyken
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Location: Yongin ^^
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
In addition, there is a safe alternative available to chlorinating drinking water: disinfection by ozonation. |
In a water supply network, lesser amounts of chlorine are normally added after ozonation to provide a residual to stop bacterial regrowth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with Patrick Moore- banning chlorine was stupid.
There are far more, way more pressing issues for an environmental group to be involved in. Conservationists, backed by scientists should be calling the shots.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
merkurix
Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Location: Not far from the deep end.
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 1:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Julius wrote: |
I agree with Patrick Moore- banning chlorine was stupid.
There are far more, way more pressing issues for an environmental group to be involved in. Conservationists, backed by scientists should be calling the shots.. |
Agreed. Greenpeace people (though not as extreme as PeTA tards), are also guilty of insensitive cultural suppression. I take issue with the fact that Greenpeace's goals undermine the fact that their pushes for blanket bans on certain practices affect the survival of groups. For example, Greenpeace has actively sought to suppress ALL whale and seal hunting. While this sounds quite noble in many respects, this has drastically affected the survival of Inuit groups in Alaska and Northern Canada who depend on whale and seal meat to survive. They have depended on this form sustenance for thousands of years. They have no sense of discretion and there can be no exceptions for these guys.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/41/408.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
Well said, MOS.
I'm also very glad that there are organisations out there, like Greenpeace, warning us of environmental disasters and trying to do something about it. And if the members of the board don't have science degrees, it shouldn't matter if they employ people that do. |
Yes, it's good. But at the same time they should understand the issues. Greenpeace has missed the boat on a lot. |
Big time. Ultimately, Left Wing environmentalism is a religion, not a science. It makes statements totally contrary to demonstrable fact.
Moore's a good guy though....
| Quote: |
| Moore today supports nuclear power, along with renewable energy sources such as hydroelectric, geothermal, biomass, and wind.[3] He argues that any realistic plan to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and the emission of greenhouse gases should include increased use of nuclear energy |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Justin Hale is right. Greenpeace and other environmental organizations (and virtually all NGO's that deal with human rights) are dominated by hypnotized zombies and their fundamentalist hippie masters.
Anyways, how is the global warming fight going? Have we starved enough third-world'rs to appease the guilt of white Western hippies yet? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
julian_w
Joined: 08 Sep 2003
Location: Somewhere beyond Middle Peak Hotel, north of Middle Earth, and well away from the Middle of the Road
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:16 pm Post subject: Haa ha... |
|
|
Haa... I get it:
this is a troll convention here, right?
Heh. Very nice.
Especially that one about Greenpeace on whaling being insensitive to cultural practises. I hung out with the Greenpeace camp in Daegu in 2005 when the international whaling convention was there in 2005. Tented with them for a couple of weeks. I met a representative there from one of the first nations peoples from part of the land that some people now call Canada. He spent some good time there and we got to have a great talk. Still have his card around here somewhere.
The Greenpeace spokespeople and all the rest were often saying that they had no comment about traditional cultural whaling practices, but that modern industrial/ commercial whaling was unsustainable. He sure seemed pretty comfortable hanging out amidst them all, too.
ie. ( - and this is my example - ) there is a difference between traditional whaling practises (like Japanese and Koreans) who may have caught whales in local off-shore environments in small wooden boats and with hand-held spears/ harpoons, just like we did in Aotearoa - New Zealand too, compared with chasing them down all over the world's oceans with steel-hulled deep-ocean going ships equiped with high-powered exploding-tip harpoons for the sake of some notion that it's an inalianable cultural right.
I don't know much about the rest of what Greenpeace says or does. I think the question of how much science is behind any statement is a valid one, and should be asked. It seems to me though that some people are good at obscuring the issues, like some do with statistics, to spin things their own way. And we can all be assured that this is standard practise for big business and the government representatives who sit comfortably in their pockets.
To that extent that balance is required to counter their effect on the general population then, I can see that strong action is useful sometimes to wake people up from blindly following accepted practices.
Good recent examples of such actions
are here,
and here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
