View Full Version : Why I Left Greenpeace... the story of Patrick Moore
29th May 2011, 13:22
The Sad Truth About Greenpeace
The sad and dangerous truth about Greenpeace, and (I claim) the same applies to all of the Environmental Industry. They need to clean up their act! As jon_troll-del is fond of saying, they need to be "called out" about their myth of man-caused global warming. Please read the following letter. It offers a revealing look at the Environmental Industry from an "insider".
Why I Left Greenpeace
By PATRICK MOORE,
Noting particularly the scientifically nonsensical attacks on chlorine and PhthalatesIn 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.
29th May 2011, 13:24
The Truth about Greenpeace and Whaling
Commentary by Paul Watson
Founder and President of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
"It does not matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."
- Dr. Patrick Moore, President of Greenpeace Canada 1981
Enough is enough. The Greenpeace fraud about saving the whales must be exposed. For years, I have been tolerating their pretense of action and watching them rake in tremendous profits from whaling.
Greenpeace makes more money from anti-whaling than Norway and Iceland combined make from whaling. In both cases, the whales die and someone profits.
I just received two urgent emotional appeals from Greenpeace to save the whales. The first was from Melanie Duchin and the second from Nathan Santray.
Melanie, who describes herself as a Greenpeace ocean campaigner, wants money so she can go down to the Southern Oceans to save the whales. She says she will be fighting to help the whales escape and states that for every dollar you donate it will mean another hour, day, or week that Greenpeace can stay on the water "saving" whales.
Their success according to Melanie will depend on YOU sending a donation NOW. She's right, of course. The Greenpeace campaign is not about looking for whaling ships. Success to Greenpeace is about recruiting memberships.
What Melanie does not tell you is that Greenpeace has already raised tens of millions of dollars this year to "save" the whales, and tens of millions of dollars the year before, and the year before that.
In fact, Greenpeace has raised a mind-boggling hundreds of millions of dollars pretending to save whales over the years and yet they have not stopped the Japanese from killing a single whale.
Nathan Santray describes himself as the Action Director for Greenpeace. He reports that last year he was instrumental in saving the whales and now he is heading back to the Southern Oceans to defend the whales again. BUT he can't do it without your support so please send him a donation right away. They absolutely must raise $50,000 by the end of the year.
What he does not tell you is that Greenpeace raises more than $50,000 in donations every day. But Nathan assures us that he will be there "fighting to save every whale we can and we urgently need your help."
Nathan and his crewmates will maneuver their little rubber Greenpeace boats into the path of the fire hoses where they will be filmed being "attacked" with high power hoses. They will do that for hours and it looks very dramatic. But it's all just ocean posing folks. Last year, my crew quite easily avoided the fire hoses. In fact, the only way they could have been hit would have been to steer directly into the path of the water. The Japanese whalers stupidly participated in the charade not realizing that they were playing right into Greenpeace's hands. They haven't realized yet that the best tactic to deploy against Greenpeace is to simply ignore them because they are harmless.
The Greenpeace plea also states that, "only Greenpeace stands between the harpoons and the whales." And "Greenpeace is the only hope for the whales."
This, of course, is a direct slap in the face to my 70 international volunteers who are on their way to actually physically intervening against illegal Japanese whaling. Unlike the paid Greenpeace crew, the Sea Shepherd volunteers are not going down to the Southern Oceans to take pictures of whales dying, they are going down to there to stop illegal whaling activities.
Greenpeace simply ignores the efforts of other groups opposing whaling including Sea Shepherd, the only organization to have actually shut down whaling operations. The fact that Sea Shepherd chased the Japanese whalers away last year while Greenpeace was filming the whales dying seems to have been forgotten. That was where Greenpeace turned off their cameras.
This year's annual appeal to save whales by Greenpeace is just the latest public relations strategy in a global campaign to fleece money from people of good conscience. The Greenpeace Foundation, of which I was a co-founder back in 1972, is today simply a multi-million dollar feel-good organization. They are selling the illusion of making a difference to a gullible public.
Greenpeace is a major international corporation. Over the years, those of us who envisioned and founded Greenpeace way back when, have watched in frustration and anger as faceless bureaucrats turned ideals into profits, secure in their understanding that the media myth of Greenpeace cannot be tarnished irreparably within the mass media culture. For every person who gets wise to their scam, two more are recruited. Greenpeace is a massive direct mail publicity machine utilizing media and psychology to part people from their money.
Together many of us from the early days feel like modern-day Dr. Frankensteins. We created a large green corporate monster that has forgotten where it came from and is now busy feeding frantically at the trough of public guilt. Greenpeace has become the world's largest multinational "feel-good" corporation. People join to feel that they are a part of the solution and not part of the problem. So Greenpeace hangs banners, calls boycotts, knocks on doors, and sends out direct mail solicitations. Consequently, they haul in tons of cash, supporting an army of eco-bureaucrats and fueling a global public relations campaign which postures on the myth that Greenpeace is saving the world.
Greenpeace is posing and marketing the illusion of saving the planet and they have an army of gullible volunteers and paid canvassers who have been talked into believing that Greenpeace is really, really saving the environment and saving whales in particular.
When I left Greenpeace in 1977, I could have set up another knock-on-the-door-direct-mail- telephone-soliciting group to chase the green dollars. The problem is that I left Greenpeace to actually do something and that meant taking to the high seas to directly intervene against the slaughter of whales and the destruction of the ocean.
The last time I saw a whale die in agony before my eyes was on my last Greenpeace whale campaign in 1976. When Sea Shepherd shows up, the killing stops and the whalers run.
We don't look for photo opportunities; we look for opportunities to shut down illegal whaling operations. We have shut down whaling ships permanently in Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Iceland, and Norway. We've sunk nine of them without injuring anyone and without being convicted of a single felony. The reason is that our targets are criminal operations.
Greenpeace does not even oppose whaling.
These are actual quotes from Greenpeace spokespersons:
"Greenpeace is not opposed to whaling in principle."
- John Frizell, Director of Greenpeace International. From the Greenpeace Policy Paper 1994
"As a natural scientist I cannot accept that Greenpeace is opposed to whaling. One must be allowed to harvest a renewable resource. To me, this is an important principle."
- Leif Ryvarden, former Chairman of Greenpeace Norway. From an interview with Dagbladet, August 2, 1991
"The 1993 Minke whale harvest did not constitute a threat to the stock."
- Ingrid Bertinussen, Greenpeace Norway Director. From an interview on Norwegian radio (NRK), October 22, 1993
"The Norwegian catch is not a threat to the Minke whale stock,"
- Kalle Hesstvedt of Greenpeace Norway in a remarkable interview with the Norwegian newspaper, "Nordlys" on May 21. Hesstvedt does not rule out the possibility that Greenpeace might accept commercial whaling when catch quotas are allocated by the International Whaling Commission (IWC). He repeated the statement on Norwegian radio (NRK) on the same day.
In 1997, I had Greenpeace investigated by the National Marine Fisheries Service of the United States for participating in a whale hunt. Greenpeace crew on the Arctic Sunrise actually towed a slaughtered bowhead whale to shore as a favour for the Inupiat whalers in the Bering Sea. In doing so, they violated both U.S. and international law. The incident was reported widely in the Alaskan media and the whalers used the incident to ridicule Greenpeace at the 1997 International Whaling Commission meeting in Monaco.
And it is not just whales that Greenpeace is betraying.
The same Melanie Duchin who needs your money to "save" the whales said only last month that Greenpeace is not opposed to the hunting of polar bears. She was quoted in the Alaskan media as saying, "If the species of certain populations against the backdrop of global warming can sustain a commercial hunt, than we're not going to oppose it."
And Greenpeace raises millions of dollars from people concerned about the cruel slaughter of seals in Canada, yet Greenpeace has not opposed the Canadian seal hunt in more than two decades. The official Greenpeace position on the harp seal slaughter, the largest massacre of marine mammals on the planet is that the hunt is "sustainable."
There are many who lament that it is a sad thing that different groups cannot work together. Sad though it might be, it is a fact. The objectives of an organization with highly paid executives is far different from an organization of volunteers. We have different objectives. While we look for whaling ships, Greenpeace looks for memberships.
Nonetheless, I have approached Greenpeace for years with offers to work in cooperation with them. They responded with insults or simply ignored us. They even tried to deny that I was a co-founder of their own organization.
A volunteer organization like Sea Shepherd is in business to put ourselves out of business. A large eco-corporation like Greenpeace is in business to keep itself in business, and whaling, sealing, over-fishing, global warming, and other assorted issues are simply the raw material that Greenpeace uses to turn people's concerns into profits.
I know that I am taking a risk in publicly exposing Greenpeace as a fraud. I know it shatters people's illusions, but some illusions need shattering. The real strength of the environmental and conservation movements lies in the diversity of individual activists and small grassroots organizations that large corporate organizations like Greenpeace parasitically rob energy and support from.
And to be fair, it is not just Greenpeace. While Francois Hugo struggles by himself to save South Africa fur seals with a meager budget, using his own money and volunteering his time, the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) raises millions on appeals for the same seals yet spends nothing on protecting them. In fact a $10 million dollar bequest recently received by IFAW is being spent on building a new IFAW office building in Cape Cod.
In my opinion, it is completely immoral for organizations to be paying six-figure salaries to desk-bound bureaucrats sitting in multi-million dollar office buildings as real, dedicated activists struggle in the fields to rehabilitate injured seals or are arrested trying to stop the slaughter of dolphins in Japan.
This entire movement is held up on the blood, sweat, and tears of tens of thousands of individuals struggling for ecological justice with minimal resources while a small, elite group skims the vast amounts of money from the public purse to be spent on large salaries, public relations posturing, and fund-raising.
It's obscene, and it is high time that people woke up and saw these large green organizations for what they really are - high-powered public relation machines designed to fleece the public.
Greenpeace will not save any whales again this year. They will accuse us of being eco-terrorists for intervening to defend the whales. They will be spending mega-bucks on TV ads, direct mail appeals, and internet banner advertising. All this as the whales continue to die in horrific agony, choking on their own blood as Greenpeace cameramen record every emotional tear-jerking moment to beam back to the head office to aid in the never-ending quest for money, money, and more money.
It is now the Green Piece organization. They have become very successful and efficient with their incredible corporate skills in turning hot red blood into cold green cash.
29th May 2011, 14:10
Thanks for this Jendayi.
This info does not surprise me in the least.
It reminds me of my little "thing" with the WWF..World Wildlife Fund.
I had sent donations of $10 here and there over a couple years to them. They kept sending me monthly donation solicitations...with calendars, address labels, Xmas wrapping paper, etc.
Then they started calling me at least twice a month...going on and on about the polar bears, blah,blah,blah.....I finally got so sick of it and told the nice lady on the phone that maybe if that stopped sending millions of people calendars and cards and crap, they wouldnt need my measly ten dollars a month..and how much are they paying you to call me constantly?
That was the end of that....never heard from them or got mailings ever again.
29th May 2011, 17:09
Good Posts Jendayi, thanks for putting them up.
Once Green gets corporatized and profitable thats it. They end up polluting more than what they are curing.
3rd June 2011, 12:23
Thank you for your visit please find out more about the WWF and take action if you like... don't forget to tell your friends and invite them to discover the truth!
Millions of people have no idea about the WWF they think that they care about animals!!!!! Well they don't!
The WWF was the driving force in pressuring the U..S.. Congress to legislate the screening of chemicals for "endocrine (hormone) disrupting" effects and has subsequently been heavily involved in establishing the framework for the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) massive chemical-testing program now under development. . As its Web site points out: "WWF invested substantial resources in the EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee," which "agreed upon a set of tests to form the foundation for the screening and testing program.." What the WWF neglects to mention, however, is that 10 of the 15 recommended screens and tests are animal-poisoning studies, some of which kill hundreds or thousands of animals at a time.. According to scientific estimates, the WWF-backed endocrine testing program will kill up to 1..2 million animals for every 1,000 chemicals tested, and with environmental organizations pressing for tens of thousands of chemicals to be retested under this program, the toll in animal suffering and death will be staggering.. The WWF is also pressuring government agencies in Europe to embark on a similar animal-testing program..
In addition to lobbying for more chemical testing, the WWF has teamed up with Procter & Gamble, S..C.. Johnson, and other chemical companies to create an institute to pursue "basic research" on endocrine disruptors.. On top of this, the WWF is now pushing the U..S.. Congress to pass a bill that would pour additional millions in public funds into endocrine research--much of which would likely be used to fund experiments on animals..
Unfortunately, the "endocrine disruptor" issue is not an isolated example.. The WWF has been a major force in pressuring the European Union to amend its Chemicals Policy to require companies to test and retest as many as 30,000 new and existing chemicals.. The British Institute for Environmental Health estimates that this process will kill upwards of 45 million animals if the standard battery of animal-poisoning tests is used.. The WWF's U..S.. and Canadian offices are also calling for more testing of pesticides, despite the fact that more than 9,000 animals are already killed for each pesticide product on the market.. The organization has called for certain pesticides to be tested for "developmental neurotoxicity" (DNT) using a test that kills upwards of 1,300 animals each time it is conducted.. This test has been heavily criticized by scientists, including the EPA's own Scientific Advisory Panel, which concluded that "the exposure of rat fetus/pups was not shown to be equivalent to human fetus/infant during equivalent stages of brain development" and that "the current form of the DNT guideline is not a sensitive indicator of toxicity to the offspring.." In other words, WWF is calling for thousands of animals to be killed in a test that scientists admit is not relevant to humans!
In its defense, the WWF says that "in the absence of effective, validated alternatives, WWF believes that limited animal testing is needed for the long-term protection of wildlife and people throughout the world.." However, there is nothing "limited" about the massive amount of animal testing that the WWF is endorsing.. Dr.. Joshua Lederberg, Nobel Laureate in Medicine, pointed out in 1981: "It is simply not possible with all the animals in the world to go through chemicals in the blind way we have at the present time, and reach credible conclusions about the hazards to human health.." Now more than 20 years later, millions of animals are still dying in agonizing chemical toxicity tests, and we are no closer to getting dangerous chemicals out of the environment. . In fact, despite killing hundreds of thousands of animals in painful chemical toxicity tests, the EPA has not banned a single toxic industrial chemical in more than a decade!...
The WWF Endorses the Killing of Wild Animals, Too!!!
The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) gives special meaning to the word "conservation. ." The organization, founded in 1961 by a group of wealthy trophy hunters, apparently believes that conserving animals means keeping them around long enough for well-heeled "sportsmen" to blast them out of the woods, oceans, skies, plains of Africa, and jungles of Asia.. Past WWF chapter presidents include C..R.. "Pink" Gutermuth, who also served as president of the National Rifle Association, and trophy hunter Francis L.. Kellogg, who is legendary for his massive kills.. In its early days, the WWF even used fur auctions to raise funds...
Since then, the WWF has learned that most people are appalled by hunting and trapping, so today, the organization veils its true stance under phrases like "sustainable development, " arguing that killing is acceptable under some circumstances. . When answering difficult questions about its policy on hunting, trapping, and whaling, the WWF is careful never to state outright that it approves of all these activities.. But don't be fooled, the WWF's intentions are all too clear and deadly!!
According to the Web site of the WWF's Canadian office, "WWF is not an animal welfare organization. . We support the hunting and consumption of wild animals provided the harvesting does not threaten the long-term survival of wildlife populations. . WWF has never opposed a sustainable seal hunt in northern or eastern Canada.." However, despite the WWF's portrayal of the situation, the Canadian seal hunt is anything but a "subsistence" hunt--it is the largest slaughter of marine mammals in the world.. Quotas established by the Canadian government have soared to an all-time high: 350,000 seals per year for the next three years.. Not since the mid-1800s, when unrestricted slaughter saw a million seals per year killed, has so much blood been shed on the ice off Canada's East Coast...
Worse is that the Canadian government has stated in internal documents that having the WWF's support for any raise in seal quotas is important, and the WWF's position statement suggests that it had been working with the Canadian government before the quota was announced.. In other words, the WWF had the power to help avert the largest quota of harp seal pups in history but chose, instead, to let it happen without so much as a word of opposition!! !
While the WWF states that it opposes "commercial whaling," it does support the slaughter of whales by native tribes and under some other conditions.. When asked directly about its policy, WWF is vague, stating: "WWF's views on whether sustainable whaling should be permitted derive from its mission 'to conserve nature and ecological processes and to help build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature..'" In the past, WWF officials have clearly stated that "WWF International has the national WWF organizations behind it in the view that as soon as one can ensure a sustainable commercial harvest of the great whales under secure international control, then whaling will no longer be a WWF concern...."
As one would expect of an organization founded by hunters, the WWF does not oppose the slaughter of animals with guns and other weapons for sport.. Rather than working to stop the killing, the WWF believes that hunting should be regulated, arguing that wealthy trophy hunters can bring income to poorer nations.. The WWF claims that it has no power to stop hunting, stating, "The decision to allow trophy hunting is a sovereign one made entirely by the governments concerned. -- We will continue to monitor governments' enforcement of important trade laws to ensure that trophy hunting is done within the legal standards of that area...."
The WWF believes that culling--another way of saying "killing"--elephants is acceptable, as is the trade in ivory, because the profits that it brings spur governments to keep elephants from going extinct.. In 2000, U..S.. News & World Report reported that WWF representatives traveled to Nairobi to ask the United Nations to lift the ban on the ivory trade in order to allow a "sustainable harvest of ivory for horns and hunting trophies..."
The WWF's bizarre view--that we must kill some animals now in order to save animals to kill later--has proved false time and again.. The trade in ivory has only encouraged rampant poaching, the senseless slaughter of elephants.. The WWF tries to duck the issue by falsely stating, "The decision to cull, or to select animals from the herd for removal or death, is indeed an agonizing choice, but it is one made entirely by the governments concerned and there is no international involvement in those decisions.."
As with hunting and whaling, the WWF refuses to condemn the massive killing of animals with steel-jaw leghold traps.. While calling itself a "preservationist" organization that "seek[s] to be the voice for those creatures who have no voice," the WWF stands back from the issue, stating that "the trade in furs, skins, and other products of animals that are not endangered isn't the focus of our campaign.."
But no matter how hard the WWF tries to "greenwash" its support of animal slaughter, its real message rings out loud and clear: Animals are ours to hunt, trap, kill, poison, and use as we see fit.. And although appeals to preserve genetic diversity, ecosystems, and the planet sound good on paper, they mean little if what the WWF is really advocating is more efficient killing fields...
Despite an ongoing international tourist boycott that was called in response to the wolf "control" program in Alaska, in which at least 100 wolves have been shot as of March 2004, the WWF is promoting several trips to Alaska throughout June, July, and August 2004 as part of "WWF Travel," an "ecotourism" program.. When asked why the WWF was sending its members to Alaska, effectively undermining efforts to save wolves in the state, the WWF travel desk representative stated that the WWF did not consider the matter of wolf-killing a priority..
WHAT YOU CAN DO?
Please write to the WWF and express your opposition to its involvement in the slaughter of millions of animals in laboratories. . Let the WWF know that you contribute only to organizations that oppose outdated animal-poisoning tests and that there is no such thing as conservation through killing..
James P Leape, Director General WWF-International
Ave du Mont-Blanc
Fax: 41 22 364 5468
E-Mail: jleape@wwfint. org
Carter S Roberts, President and CEO WWF-US
1250 24th St NW
Washington, DC 20037
Fax: 202- 778-9637
E-Mail: patricia.. gvozdich@wwfus. . org
MJ Russill, President and CEO... WWF-Canada
245 Eglinton Ave E, Ste 410
Toronto, ON M4P 3J1
Fax: 416-489-3611. ..
E-Mail: mrussill@wwfcanada. org...
Elizabeth Salter Green, Head...
European Toxics Programme...
Panda House, Weyside Park
Godalming, Surrey GU7 1XR
Fax: 011 44 148 342 6409
E-Mail: esaltergreen@ wwf. org. uk
3rd July 2011, 11:32
Excellent articles Jendayi - Thanks for posting.
I've been having a moan about all the Green Squeeze propoganda being posted by bots on this site. They either need challenging or removing because most of it is clearly following an agenda - mainly climate change nonsense.
Green Peace is owned - I think someone whould look at their funding sources.
3rd July 2011, 16:14
Well its the same old infiltration the elites use on all big movements... They saw this will gain millions of people and get widespread media cover so they hijacked it and now its totally screwed ... but guess what the people that follow GreenPeace still think its the same as when it started ... wrong.
20th July 2011, 03:29
“It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true”
— Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.