Greenpeace

src: www.itsgoa.com

Greenpeace is a non-governmental environmental organization with offices in more than 39 countries and with international coordinating bodies in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Greenpeace was founded by Irving Stowe and Dorothy Stowe, environmental activists from Canada and Canada in 1971. Greenpeace stated its goal is to "ensure Earth's ability to preserve life in all its diversity" and focus its campaign on global issues such as climate change, deforestation, overfishing, commercial fishing, genetic engineering, and anti-nuclear issues. It uses direct action, lobbying, research, and ecotage to achieve its goals. Global organizations do not receive funding from governments, corporations, or political parties, depending on 2.9 million individual supporters and grants. Greenpeace has a general consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations and is a founding member of the INGO Accountability Charter; international non-governmental organizations that intend to enhance the accountability and transparency of non-governmental organizations.

Greenpeace is known for its direct action and has been described as the world's most visible environmental organization. Greenpeace has raised environmental issues into public knowledge, and has affected the private sector and the public sector. Greenpeace is also a source of controversy; his motives and methods (some of which have been illegally) have received criticism, including open letters from more than 100 Nobel laureates urging Greenpeace to end his campaign against genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The organization's direct action has sparked legal action against Greenpeace activists, such as fines and reprieve for destroying a plot of genetically engineered grain and destroying the Nazca Lines, a UN World Heritage site in Peru.

Video Greenpeace

Histori

Origins

In the late 1960s, the US had plans for underground nuclear weapons testing on the unstable torn island of Amchitka in Alaska. Due to the 1964 Alaska earthquake, the plan raised concerns about a test that triggered an earthquake and caused a tsunami. A 1969 demonstration of 7,000 people blocked the Cross-Border Peace Shield between British Columbia and Washington, carrying signs that read "Do not Make Waves. It's Your Fault If Our Mistakes Happen." Protests do not stop the US from detonating bombs.

Although no earthquake or tsunami is taking the test, the opposition grows when the US announces they will detonate five times more powerful bombs than the first bomb. Among the opponents were Jim Bohlen, a veteran who had served in the US Navy, and Irving Stowe and Dorothy Stowe, who recently became Quakers. As members of Sierra Club Canada, they are frustrated by the lack of action by the organization. From Irving Stowe, Jim Bohlen learns about the passive form of resistance, "testifying", in which unpleasant activity is protested only by mere presence. Jim Bohlen's wife, Marie, came up with the idea of â€‹â€‹sailing to Amchitka, inspired by Albert Bigelow's anti-nuclear cruise in 1958. The idea ended in the media and linked to The Sierra Club. The Sierra Club did not like this relationship and in 1970 the Do Not Make Wave Committee was formed for protest. Early meetings were held at Shaughnessy's home, Robert Hunter and his wife, Bobbi Hunter. Furthermore, Stowe's house at 2775 Courtenay Street became headquarters. As Rex Weyler explains in chronology, Greenpeace , in 1969, Irving's and Dorothy Stowe's quiet homes on Courtenay Street will soon become the center of a monumental global meaning. Some of the first Greenpeace meetings were held there. The first office opened in the back room, a storefront at Cypress and the corner of West Broadway SE in Kitsilano, Vancouver. Within half a year Greenpeace will move to share office space upstairs with The Society Promoting Environmental Conservation at 4th and Maple in Kitsilano.

Irving Stowe arranged a charity concert (endorsed by Joan Baez) which took place on October 16, 1970 at the Pacific Coliseum in Vancouver. The concert created a financial base for the first Greenpeace campaign. Amchitka, a Greenpeace 1970 concert published by Greenpeace in November 2009 on CD and also available as a downloadable mp3 through the Amchitka concert site. Using the money raised with the concert, the Wave Ship Committee, Phyllis Cormack is owned and sailed by John Cormack. The ship was named Greenpeace to protest after a term coined by activist Bill Darnell.

In the fall of 1971, the ship sailed to Amchitka and faced the US Coast Guard vessel Faith that forced the activists to return. Due to this and the worse the weather, the crew decided to return to Canada only to find out that the news about their trip and reporting support from the crew of Beliefs have generated sympathy for their protests. After this Greenpeace tried to navigate to the test spot by another ship, until the US detonated the bomb. The nuclear test was criticized and the US decided not to proceed with their test plans at Amchitka.

Founder and founding time of Greenpeace

The environmental historian Frank Zelko dated the "Do not Make a Wave Committee" form for 1969 and according to Jim Bohlen the group adopted the name "Do not Make a Wave Committee" on November 28, 1969. According to the Greenpeace website, The Do not Make a Wave Committee was established in 1970. Certificate of incorporation of the Do Not Make Committee Waves the merger date to the fifth of October 1970. Researcher Vanessa Timmer dates its official incorporation into 1971. Greenpeace itself calls the voyage of protest in 1971 as "the beginning". According to Patrick Moore, who was an early member but has since alienated himself from Greenpeace, and Rex Weyler, the name "The Do not Make a Wave Committee" was officially transformed into the Greenpeace Foundation in 1972. Since the initial phase spanning several years, different views about who can be called the founders of Greenpeace.

Vanessa Timmer has referred to the early members as "a small group of freely organized protesters". Frank Zelko commented that "unlike Friends of the Earth, for example, which appears entirely from the brows of David Brower, Greenpeace evolves in a more evolutionary way. Greenpeace itself says on its website that "there is a joke in every bar in Vancouver, British Columbia, you can sit next to someone who claims to have set up Greenpeace.In fact, there is no single founder: the name, the idea, the spirit and the tactics all can be said to have separate lineage ". Patrick Moore has said that "the truth is that Greenpeace is always an ongoing work, not something definitively established like a country or a company.Therefore there are some gray nuances about who might claim to be the founder of Greenpeace." Early Greenpeace director Rex Weyler said on his homepage that people inside Greenpeace had been arguing about the founders since the mid-1970s.

The Greenpeace website currently lists the founders of The Do not Make a Wave Committee as Dorothy and Irving Stowe, Marie and Jim Bohlen, Ben and Dorothy Metcalfe, and Robert Hunter. According to Patrick Moore and interviews with Dorothy Stowe, Dorothy Metcalfe, Jim Bohlen and Robert Hunter, founders of The Do not Make a Wave Committee are Paul Cote, Irving and Dorothy Stowe and Jim and Marie Bohlen.

Paul Watson, founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society stated that he is also one of the founders of The Do not Make a Wave Committee and Greenpeace. Media sources about Watson report he became one of the founders of Greenpeace, with many articles reporting he became founder in 1972. Patrick Moore has denied Watson being one of the founders of The Do not Make a Wave Committee, and Greenpeace in 1972. According to Moore's organization who had been campaigning "just changed the name" in 1972. Greenpeace has stated that Watson was an influential early member, but not one of Greenpeace's founders. Since then Watson has criticized Greenpeace for rewriting their history.

Since Patrick Moore was among the crew of first and early protest voyages often referred to as Greenpeace's birthday, Moore also considers himself one of the founders. Greenpeace used to list Moore among "founders and first members" but later stated that while Moore was a significant early member, he was not among the founders of Greenpeace in 1970.

After Amchitka

After the office at Stowe's house (and after the first concert fund raiser), Greenpeace's functions were transferred to other private homes and held a weekly public meeting on Wednesday night at Kitsilano Neighborhood House before settling, in the fall of 1974, in an office sharing with the SPEC environmental group at the 2007 West 4th in Maple in Kitsilano. When the nuclear test at Amchitka ended, Greenpeace shifted its focus to French nuclear weapons testing at Moruroa Atoll in French Polynesia. Young organizations need help for their protests and are contacted by David McTaggart, a former entrepreneur living in New Zealand. In 1972, the Vega vessel, a 12.5 meter (41 feet) jug owned by David McTaggart, was named Greenpeace III and sailed in an anti-nuclear protest to an exception zone in Moruroa to try to disrupt French nuclear testing. The voyage is sponsored and organized by the New Zealand branch of the Nuclear Disarmament Campaign. The French navy tried to stop the protests in several ways, including attacking David McTaggart. McTaggart should be beaten to the point where he lost sight of one of his eyes. However, one of McTaggart's crew members photographed the incident and became public. After the attack was published, France announced it would stop atmospheric nuclear testing.

In the mid-1970s some Greenpeace members started an independent campaign, the Ahab Project, against commercial whaling, as Irving Stowe opposes Greenpeace which focuses on issues other than nuclear weapons. After Irving Stowe died in 1975, Phyllis Cormack sailed from Vancouver to confront the Soviet whalers on the California coast. Greenpeace activists disrupt whaling by placing themselves between spears and whales, and footage of protests scattered around the world. Later in the 1970s, the organization expanded its focus to include toxic waste and commercial seals hunting.

The "Greenpeace Declaration of Interdependence" was published by Greenpeace in Greenpeace Chronicles (Winter 1976-77). This declaration is the solidification of a number of ecological manifestos that have been written by Bob Hunter for years.

Organizational development

Greenpeace evolved from a group of Canadian and American protesters into a less conservative group of environmental activists that better reflected the counter-cultural and hippie youth movements of the 1960s and 1970s. The social and cultural background from which Greenpeace emerged marks a period of de-conditioning away from Old World antecedents and seeks to develop new codes of social, environmental and political behavior.

In the mid-1970s an independent group using the name Greenpeace began to appear worldwide. In 1977, there were 15 to 20 Greenpeace groups around the world. At the same time the office of Greenpeace Canada is deeply in debt. Disputes between the office on fundraising and the direction of the organization split the global movement because the North American office was reluctant to be under the authority of the Vancouver office and its president Patrick Moore.

After the Moruroa Atoll incident, David McTaggart moved to France to fight in court with the French state and help develop the cooperation of European groups Greenpeace. David McTaggart lobbied the Canadian Greenpeace Foundation to receive a new structure that will bring Greenpeace offices scattered under the auspices of a global organization. Greenpeace Europe pays Greenpeace Canada office debts and on October 14, 1979, Greenpeace International appeared. Under the new structure, local offices will contribute a percentage of their earnings to international organizations, which will be responsible for setting the overall direction of the movement with each regional office having one vote. Several Greenpeace groups, London Greenpeace (dissolved in 2001) and the US-based Greenpeace Foundation (still in operation) but decided to remain independent of Greenpeace International.

Maps Greenpeace

Organizational structure

Government

Greenpeace is comprised of Greenpeace International (officially Stichting Greenpeace Council) based in Amsterdam, The Netherlands and 26 regional offices operating in 55 countries. Regional offices work autonomously under the auspices of Greenpeace International. The executive director of Greenpeace was elected by Greenpeace International board members. The current directors of Greenpeace International are Bunny McDiarmid and Jennifer Morgan and the current Board Chair is Ana Toni. Greenpeace has 2,400 staff and 15,000 volunteers worldwide.

Each regional office is headed by a regional executive director elected by the regional board of directors. The regional council also appoints a trustee for the Annual General Meeting of Greenpeace International, in which the guardians elect or remove the board of directors of Greenpeace International. The role of the annual general meeting is also to discuss and decide on the overall principles and strategic issues that are important for Greenpeace in cooperation with the trustees of the regional office and the board of directors of Greenpeace International.

Funding

Greenpeace receives its funding from supporters and individual foundations. Greenpeace screened all major donations to ensure it did not receive any unwanted donations. Organizations do not receive money from governments, intergovernmental organizations, political parties or companies to avoid their influence. However, Greenpeace received money from the National Postcode Lottery, the largest government-sponsored sweepstakes in the Netherlands, and some for profit companies such as Ben & amp; Jerry's partners and show that they donate a percentage of sales to the Greenpeace campaign. Donations from foundations funded by political parties or receive most of their funds from government or intergovernmental organizations are rejected. Foundation contributions are also rejected if the foundation attaches unreasonable conditions, restrictions or constraints on Greenpeace activities or if donations endanger Greenpeace's independence and objectives. Since the mid-1990s the number of supporters has begun to dwindle, Greenpeace pioneered the use of face-to-face fundraising where fundraisers are actively seeking new supporters in public places, subscribing them for monthly direct debit donations. In 2008, most of the EUR202.5 million received by the organization was contributed by some 2.6 million regular supporters, mainly from Europe. In 2014, Greenpeace's annual income is reported to be around EUR300 million (US $ 400 million) even though they lost about EUR4 million (US $ 5 million) in currency speculation that year.

In September 2003, the Public Interest Watch (PIW) complained to the Internal Revenue Service that the tax refund of Greenpeace USA was inaccurate and illegal. The IRS conducted an extensive review and concluded in December 2005 that Greenpeace USA continues to qualify for its tax-exempt status. In March 2006 The Wall Street Journal reported that "PIW federal tax filing, covering August 2003 to July 2004, stated that $ 120,000 of the $ 124.095 received by the group in contributions during that period came from Exxon Mobil". In 2013, after the IRS conducted a follow-up audit, which again was clean, and, after IRS's politically motivated claims from groups affiliated with the Tea Party Movement, Greenpeace USA Executive Director Phil Radford called for a Congressional inquiry into all motivated audits politics - including those allegedly targeting the Tea Party Movement, the NAACP, and Greenpeace.

src: 1000logos.net

Priority and campaign summary

On its official website, Greenpeace defines its mission as follows:

Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning organization that acts to change attitudes and behavior, to protect and preserve the environment and to promote peace by:

Catalyze the energy revolution to address the number one threat facing our planet: climate change.

Protecting our oceans by challenging wasteful and destructive fishing, and creating a global network of marine reserves.

Protect the ancient forests remaining in a world that depends on many animals, plants, and humans.

Work for disarmament and peace by reducing dependence on limited resources and calling for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.

Create a toxin-free future with a safer alternative to hazardous chemicals in products and manufacturing today.

Campaign for sustainable agriculture by encouraging socially and ecologically responsible farming practices.

src: www.goodcompany.com.au

Climate and energy

Greenpeace was one of the first to formulate a sustainable development scenario for climate change mitigation, conducted in 1993. According to sociologist Marc Mormont and Christine Dasnoy, Greenpeace played an important role in raising public awareness about global warming in the 1990s. The organization also focuses on CFCs, because of the potential for global warming and its effects on the ozone layer. Greenpeace is one of the leading participants advocating the abolition of ozone depleting substances in the Montreal Protocol. In the early 1990s, Greenpeace developed the CFC free refrigerator technology, "Greenfreeze" for mass production along with the refrigerator industry. The United Nations Environment Program provided Greenpeace for "outstanding contributions to protect the Earth's ozone layer" in 1997. In 2011, two-fifths of the world's total refrigerator production was based on Greenfreeze technology, with more than 600 million units in use.

Greenpeace currently considers global warming the biggest environmental problem facing Earth. Greenpeace called for global greenhouse gas emissions to peak in 2015 and to reduce as close to zero by 2050. To achieve these figures, Greenpeace calls on industrialized countries to cut their emissions by at least 40% by 2020 (from 1990 levels ) and to provide substantial funding for developing countries to build sustainable energy capacity, to adapt to the inevitable consequences of global warming, and to stop deforestation by 2020. Together with EREC, Greenpeace has formulated a global energy scenario, "Energy [R ] evolution, "in which 80% of the world's total energy is produced with renewable energy, and energy sector emissions decrease by more than 80% from 1990 levels by 2050.

By using direct action, Greenpeace has been protesting several times against coal by occupying coal-fired power plants and blocking coal shipments and mining operations, in places like New Zealand, Svalbard, Australia and the UK. Greenpeace is also critical of extracting oil from oil sands and has used direct action to block operations in the Athabasca oil sands of Canada.

Kingsnorth court case

In October 2007, six Greenpeace protesters were arrested for breaking into the Kingsnorth power plant, climbing a 200-meter chimney, painting Gordon's name on the chimney, and causing damage of around 30,000 pounds. In subsequent trials, they claimed to try to close stations, but argued that they were justified legally because they were trying to prevent climate change from causing greater damage to property elsewhere around the world. The evidence is heard from environmental adviser David Cameron Zac Goldsmith, climate scientist James E. Hansen and Inuit leader of Greenland, all saying that climate change has greatly affected lives around the world. The six activists were released. This is the first case in which preventing property damage caused by climate change has been used as part of the defense of "legal defense" in court. Both The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian describe the release as an embarrassment to Brown Ministry. In December 2008 The New York Times enrolled the release on its annual list of the most influential ideas of the year.

"Go Beyond Oil"

As part of their stance in the commercialization of renewable energy, Greenpeace has launched a "Surpassing Oil" campaign. The campaign is focused on slowing, and finally ending, world oil consumption; with activist activity occurring against companies pursuing oil drilling as a venture. Most "Oil Surpassing" campaign activities have focused on oil drilling in the Arctic and the affected areas of Deepwater Horizon. Greenpeace's activities in the Arctic mainly involve Edinburgh-based oil and gas exploration company, Cairn Energy; and ranged from protests at Cairn Energy's headquarters to scale their oil rigs in an effort to stop the drilling process.

The "Over the Oil" campaign also involves the application of political pressure on governments that permit oil exploration in their territories; with the group stating that one of the main goals of the "Go Beyond Oil" campaign is "work to expose the long-standing oil industry that is willing to squeeze the last barrel off the ground and put pressure on industry and government to move beyond oil."

Nuclear power

Greenpeace opposes nuclear power because it considers it 'dangerous, polluting, expensive and non-renewable'. The organization highlighted the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster and the Fukushima nuclear disaster of 2011 as evidence of the risks that nuclear power can inflict on people's lives, the environment and the economy. Greenpeace sees the benefits of nuclear power as relatively small compared to the main problems and risks, such as environmental damage and risks from uranium mining, nuclear weapons proliferation, and unresolved questions about nuclear waste. The organization believes that the potential for nuclear power to reduce global warming is marginal, referring to the IEA energy scenario in which the increase of world nuclear capacity from 2608 TWh in 2007 to 9857 TWh in 2050 will cut global greenhouse gas emissions by less than 5% and require 32 units 1,000 MW nuclear reactors built annually through 2050. According to Greenpeace, slow construction time, construction delays, and hidden costs all eliminate the potential for nuclear power mitigation. This makes the IEA scenario technically and financially unrealistic. They also argue that tying up large amounts of investment in nuclear energy will take funding from more effective solutions. Greenpeace views the construction of the Olkiluoto 3 nuclear power plant in Finland as an example of building a new nuclear power.

Anti-nuclear ads

In 1994, Greenpeace published an anti-nuclear newspaper advertisement that included claims that Sellafield's nuclear facilities would kill 2,000 people in the next 10 years, and the image of a child affected by hydrocephalus is said to be a victim of nuclear weapons testing in Kazakhstan. The Advertising Standards Authority views claims about Sellafield as unfounded, and the ASA does not accept that the child's condition is caused by radiation. This resulted in banning ads. Greenpeace did not recognize the error, stating that a Kazakh doctor said the child's condition was caused by a nuclear test. Greenpeace's Adam Woolf also stated that, "fifty years ago there were many experts who would march and swear there was no link between smoking and ill health." The UN estimates that a nuclear weapons test in Kazakhstan causes about 100,000 people to suffer for three generations.

EDF spy on confidence and appeal

In 2011, the French court ruled lectricitÃƒÆ' Ã‚ Â© de France (EDF) EUR1.5m and imprisoned two senior employees for spying on Greenpeace, including hacking Greenpeace's computer system. Greenpeace was awarded EUR500,000 in damages. Although EDF claims that a security company is only employed to monitor Greenpeace, the court disagrees, by imprisoning the head and deputy head of EDF's nuclear security operations for three years each. EDF appealed against the belief, the company was freed from conspiracy to spy on Greenpeace and the fine was canceled. Two employees of a security firm, Kargus, run by a former member of the French secret service, each received sentences of three and two years respectively.

Cool IT Leaderboard

In May 2009, Greenpeace began evaluating IT companies through Cool IT Leaderboard. The central role played by this company provides an opportunity to drive changes in the energy sector and achieve significant reductions in the greenhouse gases that cause climate change.

Leaderboard examines how leading IT companies can use their influence to drive this change, which in the 6th edition of this sector demonstrates a slow but steady improvement in offering new solutions that can achieve significant progress. There are companies that are willing to invest heavily to encourage the spread of clean energy and the number of companies that increase their commitment, betting on renewable energy, is also growing.

Large companies such as Google, Wipro, Sprint and Softbank have prioritized changes to laws and policies governing energy systems and encouraging investment in advanced energy efficiency technologies and renewable energy that will have important impacts in many countries to determine meaningful energy breaks. Policy.

In Leaderboard we can find one main rank with an overall score and three other ratings for each of the evaluated areas where we can find the top companies contributing in each.

Ozone Layer and Greenfreeze

The Ozone layer that surrounds the Earth absorbs significant amounts of ultraviolet radiation. A 1976 report by the US Academy of Sciences supports the "ozone depletion" hypothesis. The large losses of chlorine and nitrogen compounds were reported in 1985. Previous studies have led some countries to impose aerosol spray bans, so the Vienna Convention was signed in 1985, the Montreal Protocol was signed in 1987 to take effect two years later.. The use of CFCs and HCFCs in refrigeration is and is among the prohibited technologies. A German technology institute developed a safe alternative to safe hydrocarbon ozone which was the focus of the Greenpeace campaign around 1992. The rights to the technology were donated to Greenpeace, which maintained it as an open source patent. With industrial endurance, Greenpeace was able to save and engage former East German producers ahead of closing. The broad reach and marketing of Greenpeace produces rapid and widespread production technology in Germany, followed by the prohibition of CFC technology. They then managed to get Greenfreeze used in China and elsewhere in Europe, and after several years in Japan and South America, and finally in the US in 2012.

src: www.thenation.com

Forest campaign

Greenpeace aims to protect intact primary forest from deforestation and degradation with a zero deforestation target by 2020. Greenpeace has alleged that some companies, such as Unilever, Nike, KFC, Kit Kat and McDonald's have links to deforestation of tropical rainforests, resulting in policy changes in some companies under criticism. Greenpeace, along with other environmental NGOs, also campaigned for ten years for the EU to ban imports of illegal timber. The EU decided to ban illegal timber in July 2010. As deforestation contributes to global warming, Greenpeace has demanded that REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) be included in the climate agreement after the Kyoto agreement.

Other Greenpeace movements about the rainforest make the palm oil industry discouraging. This movement is the most active in Indonesia where 6 million hectares are already used for oil palm plantations and have plans for another 4 million hectares by 2015. Recognizing that mass production of palm oil could be disastrous for forest biodiversity, Greenpeace is actively campaigning against production, urging industry and government to switch to other forms of energy resources. One of the positive outcomes of this campaign is GAR (Golden Agri-Resources), the world's second largest palm oil production company, which decides to commit to forest conservation. The company signed an agreement that prevented them from developing plantations in areas where large amounts of carbon were locked up. An example of Greenpeace's success in this region is the viral video protesting the use of NestlÃƒ Â© Ã‚Â® palm oil in the Kit Kat bar. The video received more than 1 million views, and generated public statements by NestlÃƒÆ' Ã‚ Â© claimed to no longer use such practices in their products.

Removal of ancient tree

In June 1995, Greenpeace took a tree from the forest in Koitajoki's proposed national park in Ilomantsi, Finland and displayed it at an exhibition held in Austria and Germany. Greenpeace told a press conference that the tree came from a logged-over area in an ancient forest that should have been protected. MetsÃƒÆ'Ã‚Â¤hallitus accused Greenpeace of stealing and saying that the tree came from a normal forest and was left standing by old age. MetsÃƒÆ'Ã‚Â¤hallitus also said that the tree actually fell over the road during a storm. The incident received publicity in Finland, for example in the major newspapers of Helsingin Sanomat and Ilta-Sanomat . Greenpeace replied that the tree had fallen because the surrounding protective forest had been cleared, and that they wanted to highlight the fate of old forests in general, not the fate of a particular tree. Greenpeace also highlights that MetsÃƒÆ'Ã‚Â¤hallitus recognizes the value of the forest thereafter as MetsÃƒÆ'Ã‚Â¤hallitus currently refers to Koitajoki as a distinctive area due to its long growing forest.

src: powerm1985.files.wordpress.com

Tokyo Two

In 2008, two Greenpeace whaling activists, Junichi Sato and Toru Suzuki, stole a case of whale meat from a delivery depot in Aomori Prefecture, Japan. Their intention is to express what they consider to be the embezzlement of meat collected during whaling. After a brief investigation of their allegations ended, Sato and Suzuki were arrested and accused of stealing and entering without permission. Amnesty International said that arrests and raids at the Greenpeace Japan office and the home of five Greenpeace staff members were aimed at intimidating activists and non-governmental organizations. They were convicted of theft and violations in September 2010 by the Aomori district court.

src: www.woodworkingnetwork.com

Genetically modified organisms (GMO)

Greenpeace has also supported the rejection of GM foods from the US in famine-ravaged Zambia as long as the supply of genetically engineered grains exists, stating that the US "should follow the footsteps of the European Union and enable beneficiaries to choose their food aid, buy it locally if they This practice can stimulate the developing economy and create stronger food security, "adding that" if Africans really have no alternative, controversial GE corn should be milled so that it can not be planted, it is a condition that allows Zambian neighbors, Zimbabwe and Malawi to accept it. "After Zambia outlawed all transgenic food aid, the former Zambian agriculture minister criticized," how international NGOs who have spoken to agree with government actions will calculate the number of bodies with their various conscience. " Regarding Zambia's decision, Greenpeace has stated that, "it is clear to us that if there is no non-GM aid then they should really accept GM's food aid.But the Zambian government decides to refuse GM food.We offer opinions to the Zambian government and, like which many governments do, they ignore our suggestions. "

Greenpeace about golden rice

Greenpeace opposes plans to use gold rice, various Oryza sativa rice produced by genetic engineering for beta-carotene biosynthesis, pro-vitamin A precursor in edible parts of rice. The addition of beta-carotene to rice is considered as prevention of loss of vision in poverty-stricken countries where gold rice is meant for distribution. According to Greenpeace, golden rice has not managed to do anything about malnutrition for 10 years where alternative methods have overcome malnutrition. The alternative proposed by Greenpeace is to prevent mono-planting and to increase the production of naturally rich plant nutrients (containing other nutrients not found in gold rice other than beta-carotene). Greenpeace argues that resources should be spent on programs that already work and help alleviate malnutrition.

This renewal of concerns coincides with the publication of papers in the journal Nature on the golden version of rice with a much higher beta-carotene content. This "gold 2 rice" was developed and patented by Syngenta, which provoked Greenpeace to renew its allegations that the project is driven by profit motives and serves as propaganda aimed at improving public opinion on GMO products.

Although Greenpeace has stated that the true efficiency of the golden rice program in caring for malnourished populations is a major concern in early 2001, statements from March and April 2005 also continue to express concerns about human health and environmental safety. In particular, Greenpeace has expressed concern over the lack of security testing conducted on transgenic crops such as gold rice and "playing with people's lives... using Gold Rice to promote more GMOs".

In June 2016, a conglomerate of 107 Nobel Laureates signed an open letter urging Greenpeace to end its campaign against genetically modified crops and Golden Rice in particular. In the letter, they also called on world governments to "do everything in their power to oppose Greenpeace's actions and accelerate farmers' access to all modern biological tools, especially improved seeds through biotechnology." The letter states that "Opposition based on emotion and dogma as opposed to data must be stopped." Greenpeace responded by stating that "The accusation that anyone hinders genetically engineered 'Golden' rice is fake" and that they support "... investing in climate-resilient ecological agriculture and empowering farmers to access balanced and nutritious food, rather than pouring money down channel for GE's 'Gold' rice. "

src: thumbs.dreamstime.com

Toxic waste

In July 2011, Greenpeace released a Gross Laundry report that alleges some of the world's leading fashion and sport brands are releasing toxic waste into Chinese rivers. Report the profile of water pollution problems resulting from the release of toxic chemicals associated with the country's textile industry. Investigations focus on wastewater disposal from two facilities in China; one belonging to the Youngor Group located in the Yangtze River Delta and the other for the Good Immersion Factory located at the tributary of the Pearl River Delta. Scientific analyzes of samples from both facilities reveal the presence of dangerous and persistent chemicals from the confounding hormone, including alkylphenols, perfluorinated compounds and perfluorooctane sulfonate.

The report goes on to confirm that Youngor Group and Well Dyeing Factory Ltd. - two companies behind the facility - have commercial links with major brands of clothing, including Abercrombie & amp; Fitch, Adidas, Bauer Hockey, Calvin Klein, Converse, Cortefiel, H & amp; M, Lacoste, Li Ning, Metersbonwe Group, Nike, Phillips-Van Heusen and Puma AG.

In 2013, Greenpeace launched the "Detox Fashion" campaign, which listed several fashion brands to stop the disposal of toxic chemicals into the river as a result of their clothing production.

Guide to Greener Electronics

In August 2006, Greenpeace released the first edition of the Guide to Greener Electronics, a magazine in which mobile and PC manufacturers were ranked for their green performance, primarily based on the use of toxic materials in their products and electronic waste. In November 2011, the criteria were updated, as the industry has grown since 2006, with the goal of making the company set greenhouse gas reduction goals, up to 100 percent renewable power, producing durable products free of harmful substances and improving sustainable practices. To ensure the transparency of corporate ratings is judged solely on the basis of their public information. To prove the company's policies and practices, Greenpeace uses product chemical testing, reports from industry watchers, media reports and consumer program testing to check if they match their actions. Since the Guide was released in 2006, along with other similar campaigns have driven many improvements, as ranking companies remove toxic chemicals from their products and improve their recycling schemes. The latest edition of the Guide for Greener Electronics is in 2017. The 2017 version includes 17 major IT companies and ranks on three criteria: energy use, resource consumption and chemical elimination.

src: i.ytimg.com

Save the Arctic

In the continuity of successful campaigns to achieve the Antarctic Environmental Protocol, in 2012 and 2013 protests with the "Save the Arctic" banner began. To stop the oil and gas drilling, industrial fishing and military operations in the Arctic region completely, a "high global arcade in the Arctic" is demanded from World leaders at the UN General Assembly: "We want them to pass UN resolutions expressing international attention to the Arctic. "Resolutions to protect highly vulnerable animals and ecosystems. 30 Arctic Sunrise Activist was captured in the Pechora Sea, September 19, 2013, witnessed oil drilling and protests at the Gazprom Prirazlomnaya platform by the Russian Coast Guard. Greenpeace members were initially accused of piracy, which was later revealed to be hooliganism, before being dropped altogether after the amnesty law was passed by the Russian government.

In July 2014, Greenpeace launched a global boycott campaign to persuade Lego to stop producing toys that carry the Shell oil company logo in response to Shell's plan to drill for oil in the Arctic. The Lego partnership with Shell began in the 1960s, although the LEGO company created a fictional oil company called Octan. Octan has appeared in countless sets, computer games and consoles, can be seen in the Legoland park, and is featured as a company headed by Business Criminals President at The Lego Movie.

In Norway

There is conflict over oil rigs in the Arctic Sea between the Norwegian Government and Greenpeace. In 2013, three Greenpeace activists broke into the Statoil oil rig, wearing bear clothes. According to a spokesman from Greenpeace Russia, they remain on the rig for about three hours. Activists wearing bear suits are "escorted" to the beach. Statoil reportedly did not intend to file a lawsuit against them.

Greenpeace argues that Statoil's drilling plans pose a threat to Bear Island, an uninhabited wildlife reserve that is home to endangered species including polar bears, as the oil spill is virtually impossible to clean in the Arctic due to harsh conditions. Greenpeace regards Statoil's petroleum activities as "illegal". Statoil denies Greenpeace's statement. According to The Maritime Executive (2014), Statoil said "Statoil respects the right of people to make legal protests, and we feel it is important to have a democratic debate over the oil industry." We have set a strong plan for operations, and feel confident they can be done with safe and without accident. "

On May 27, 2014, the Greenpeace ship, MV Esperanza, took over Transocean Spitsbergen, the Statoil oil rig in the Barents Sea and was unable to operate. After that, Norwegian Greenpeace Norwegian manager Truls Gulowsen answered a telephone interview, stating that "Five protesters left the rig by helicopter last night and three returned to a nearby Greenpeace vessel." There were seven more protesters on the rig at the time, but the Norwegian police could not remove them immediately because the rig was the flag of a convenience vessel registered in the Marshall Islands and thus was considered a ship in the open sea, as long as it did not start drilling. On May 29, the seven activists from Greenpeace were arrested peacefully by Norwegian police on the rig. Soon after, according to Reuters, all activists were released without penalty. On May 30, the Coast Guard of Norway eventually withdrew Esperanza , though in the morning, Greenpeace submitted an application in which more than 80,000 signatures for Norwegian Environment Minister Tine Sundtoft in Oslo were written. The Norwegian government and police reportedly allowed coast guards to withdraw Greenpeace ships.

Norwegian police said Statoil asked Greenpeace to stop preventing its activities, but Greenpeace ignored the warning. Police have stated that Greenpeace's disturbance with Statoil's petroleum activities is against Norwegian law and ordered Greenpeace to leave the Barents Sea site. Statoil said a delay at the start of drilling had cost the company about $ 1.26 million a day.

According to Reuters, Statoil is scheduled to begin drilling "three oil wells in Apollo, Atlantis and Mercury prospects in the Hoop region, [approximately] 300 km from mainland [Norway]" in summer 2014. Greenpeace continues to criticize major oil companies for "green washing "they, on the grounds of Statoil hiding the truth that they are doing a risky drilling of oil by holding Lego League with Lego and diverting people to the company's project, and it is also argued that Statoil should change his attitude towards the environment (Norwegian News in English 2014).

src: static.greenwire.greenpeace.org

Ship

Since Greenpeace was founded, sailing vessels at sea have played an important role in his campaign.

In the service

Rainbow Warrior is the third ship to bear the name. Launched in 2011, it is sometimes referred to as Rainbow Warrior III .
MV Arctic Sunrise
MV Esperanza

Previous in service

First Rainbow Warrior

In 1978, Greenpeace launched the original Rainbow Warrior, a 40 meter fishing truck (130Ãƒ, ft), named for the Warriors of the Rainbow book, which inspired activists beginning of Robert Hunter on the first voyage to Amchitka. Greenpeace purchased the Rainbow Warrior (originally launched as Sir William Hardy in 1955) at a cost of Ãƒ, Ã‚ Â£ 40,000. Volunteers are restored and reassembled for a period of four months. First deployed to disrupt the hunt for the Icelandic whaling fleet, the Rainbow Warrior will quickly become a mainstay of the Greenpeace campaign. Between 1978 and 1985, crew members were also involved in direct action against the disposal of toxic waste and radioactive oceans, gray hunting at Orkney and nuclear testing in the Pacific. In May 1985, the ship served for 'Output Operation', the evacuation of about 300 Rongelap Atoll islanders whose homes had been contaminated with nuclear fall from US nuclear tests two decades earlier that had never been cleaned and still had severe health. effect on the local population.

Then in 1985, the Rainbow Warrior was leading a fleet of protest vessels to the waters around the Moruroa atoll, the site of French nuclear testing. The sinking of the Rainbow Warrior occurred when the French government secretly bombed ships in Auckland harbor on orders from FranÃƒÆ'Ã‚Â§ois Mitterrand himself. This kills Dutch freelance photographer Fernando Pereira, who thought it safe to enter the boat to get his photographic material after the first small explosion, but was drowned by a second larger explosion. The attack was a public relations disaster for France after which it was quickly exposed by New Zealand police. The French government in 1987 agreed to pay New Zealand compensation of NZ $ 13 million and officially apologized for the bombing. The French government also paid 2.3 million compensation to the family of photographers. Then, in 2001, when the Institute of Cetacean Research of Japan called Greenpeace an "eco-terrorist", Gert Leipold, then Executive Director of Greenpeace, hated the claim, saying "calling for non-violent terrorism protests insulting those who wounded or killed in a real terrorist attack, including Fernando Pereira, killed by State terrorism in the 1985 attack on Rainbow Warrior.

Second and Second Rainbow Warrior
In 1989 Greenpeace commissioned a replacement Rainbow Warrior ship, sometimes referred to as Rainbow Warrior II . It retired from service on August 16, 2011, to be replaced by a third-generation ship. In 2005 Rainbow Warrior II ran aground and damaged Tubbataha reefs in the Philippines while examining corals for coral bleaching. Greenpeace was fined US $ 7,000 for damaging coral and agreed to pay a fine saying they felt responsible for the damage, although Greenpeace stated that the Philippine government has given it an outdated graph. Tubbataha's park manager appreciates the quick action Greenpeace has taken to assess damage to coral reefs.

MV Sirius
MV Solo
MV Greenpeace
MV Gondwana
MV Beluga (in German)

src: collections.rmg.co.uk

Reactions and responses to Greenpeace activities

Lawsuits have been filed against Greenpeace for loss of profits, reputation damage and "sailormongering". In 2004 it was revealed that the Australian government was willing to offer subsidies to Southern Pacific Petroleum on condition that oil companies would take legal action against Greenpeace, who had campaigned against the Stuart Oil Shale Project.

Some companies, such as Royal Dutch Shell, BP and ÃƒÆ'Ã¢ â‚¬ lectricitÃƒÆ'Ã‚ Â© de France have reacted to the Greenpeace campaign by spying on Greenpeace activities and infiltrating Greenpeace offices. Greenpeace activists are also the target of phone tapping, death threats, violence and even state terrorism in the case of the Rainbow Warrior bombing.

src: ppcorn.com

Criticism

The Canadian ecologist Patrick Moore, an early Greenpeace member, left the organization in 1986 when, according to Moore, decided to support a universal ban on chlorine in drinking water. Moore argues that Greenpeace is currently motivated by politics rather than science and that there are no "fellow directors with formal science education". Bruce Cox, Director of Greenpeace Canada, replied that Greenpeace never demanded a universal chlorine ban and that Greenpeace was not opposed to the use of chlorine in drinking water or in the use of pharmaceuticals, adding that "Mr. Moore is alone in his memory of the fight against chlorine and/or the use of science as the reason leaving Greenpeace. "Paul Watson, an early member of Greenpeace has said that Moore" uses his status as a so-called Greenpeace co-founder to grant credibility on his allegations.I am also a founder of Greenpeace and I have known Patrick Moore for 35 years. ] Moore makes accusations that have no basis in fact ". Moore has recently been very critical of Greenpeace's stance on golden rice, a matter in which Moore has joined other environmentalists like Mark Lynas, claiming that Greenpeace has "fueled a misinformation campaign, destroying scientists working to bring Gold Rice to people people who need it, and support the forced destruction of the Golden Rice trial. "

Patrick Moore also reversed his position on nuclear power in 1976, first against it and now supporting him. In the Australian newspaper The Age , he wrote "Greenpeace is wrong - we must consider nuclear power". He argues that any realistic plan to reduce dependence on fossil fuels or greenhouse gas emissions requires increased use of nuclear energy. Phil Radford, Executive Director of Greenpeace USA responded that nuclear energy is too risky, takes too long to build to cope with climate change, and claims that most countries, including the US, can switch to nearly 100% of renewable energy while gradually halting nuclear power by 2050.

A French journalist under the name of Olivier Vermont pen writes in his book La Face cachÃƒ Â© de Greenpeace ("Greenpeace Hidden Face") that he has joined Greenpeace France and has worked there as a secretary. According to Vermont he found fault, and kept finding it, from Amsterdam to the International office. Vermont said he found secret documents that he thought half of the company's $ 180 million revenue was used for salaries and organizational structures. He also accused Greenpeace of having unofficial agreements with companies that contaminate where companies pay Greenpeace to keep them from attacking the company's image. Animal People Protection Magazine reported in March 1997 that Greenpeace France and Greenpeace International had sued Olivier Vermont and its publisher Albin Michel for issuing "libelous, untruthful, distorted facts and senseless allegations" statements.

Writing in Cosmos, journalist Wilson da Silva reacts to the destruction of genetically modified wheat crops in Ginninderra by Greenpeace as another sign that the organization has "lost its way" and has turned into "sad, dogmatic, reactionary". phalanx fanatic anti-sciences who care not for proof, but for publicity ".

Brent Spar tanker

The study, published in the journal Nature science accused Greenpeace of ignoring the facts, while criticizing the dumping of the Brent Spar tanker, and accused the group of exaggerating the volume of oil stored on tankers. Greenpeace has claimed that the tanker contained 5,500 tons of crude oil, while Shell estimates it contains only 50 tons. However, measurements have been made under pressure during platform occupation platforms, as Shell refused permission, and Greenpeace activists have been attacked by water cannons and the like. The BBC issued an apology to Greenpeace for reporting that the NGO was lying.

Shell UK took three years to evaluate the disposal option, concluding that deep-sea tanker disposal was the "Best Practical Environmental Option" (BPEO), an option that gained support in some parts of the scientific community, as it was discovered by some to be environmental impact " ". The UK Government and the Oslo and Paris Commissions (OSPAR) accept the solution.

The NGO campaigns generated against Shell's proposals include letters, boycotts that even escalate into vandalism in Germany, and lobbying at intergovernmental conferences. Binding a moratorium that supports Greenpeace, ecosystem protection, and prudential positioning is issued in more than one intergovernmental meeting, and at the OSPAR Convention 1998, WWF presented research into toxic effects on deep-sea ecosystems. The meeting confirmed the general ban on oceanic discharges. Shell has moved the rig to the dump, but in the final hours canceled the operation and announced that it has failed to adequately communicate its plans to the public, admitting that they have underestimated the power of public opinion. In January 1998, Shell issued a new BPEO showing rig recycling as a dock in Norway.

In 1999, the Brent Spar container was switched off and one side of the problem that arose was that the structural legs were found to contain cold coral species ( Lophelia pertusa ). As a result, it is probably advisable to keep the platform's feet on the seabed in the future, to function as a habitat. Greenpeace representatives opposed the suggestion, citing the fact that corals formed by corals are at risk, not the rock itself, and that such a move would not encourage the development of such reefs, and expose coral species into poisonous substances found in oil.

Pascal Husting back and forth

In 2013 the report noted that Pascal Husting, director of "international program" Greenpeace International traveled 250 miles by plane, although Greenpeace activism reduced air travel due to carbon footprint. Greenpeace has said "in-flight growth is damaging our chances of stopping dangerous climate change". After the "public uproar" Greenpeace announces that Husting will commute via train in the future.

Nazca Lines

In December 2014, Greenpeace activists destroyed stones associated with the Nazca Lines in Peru while installing banners on the lines of one of the famous geoglyphs, and there were fears that the danger might be irreparable. Activists ravaged the area around hummingbirds by walking near a flying machine without regulation boots. Access to the area around the line is strictly prohibited and special shoes should be worn to avoid damaging the UN World Heritage site. Greenpeace claims activists are "really careful to protect the Nazca line," but this is contrary to videos and photos showing activists wearing conventional shoes (not special boots) while walking on the site. Greenpeace has apologized to the Peruvians, but Loise Jamie Castillo, Peru's Deputy Minister of Cultural Heritage called the apology a "joke", as Greenpeace refused to identify the troublemakers or accept responsibility. Culture Minister Diana ÃƒÆ'larez-CalderÃƒÆ'Ã‚Â³n said that evidence gathered during a government inquiry would be used as part of a lawsuit against Greenpeace. "The damage done can not be fixed and the apology offered by the environmental group is not enough," he told a news conference. In January 2015, Greenpeace has presented statements from four NGO members involved in the action.

Anti-whaling campaign in Norway in the 1990s

During the 1990s, Greenpeace undertook many anti-whaling hunting expeditions in Norway. His criticism is that Greenpeace is only campaigning against the pope to get an economic contribution from the US economy, and it has nothing to do with saving the environment. For example, shark hunting is a much bigger problem for the environment, but because sharks are hated, they are not big money makers in the US. Greenpeace has always rejected this claim. However, in Dagbladet Norwegian newspaper on April 11, 2015, Kumi Naidoo acknowledged that the anti-pope campaign was "miscalculated". Greenpeace stated that whaling was only followed by Norway after the IWC ban due to political election motives, and faced many explicit obstacles, including a fall in demand in Japan and the contamination of toxic chemicals.

Open letter from Nobel recipient

In June 2016, 107 Nobel laureates signed an open letter urging Greenpeace to end its opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The letter states: "We urge Greenpeace and its supporters to reexamine farmers and consumers' experiences around the world with improved crops and foods through biotechnology, recognize the findings of competent scientific bodies and regulatory bodies, and abandon their campaign against" GMO "in general and Golden Rice in particular, Scientific and regulatory bodies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found enhanced crops and foods through biotechnology to be as safe, if not safer than those from other production methods.Nothing has ever been confirmed cases of negative health outcomes for humans or animals from their consumption.Their environmental impact has been shown repeatedly so as not to be too damaging to the environment, and a boon to global biodiversity. "Nobel laureates also called on world governments to" do everything in their power to menent the actions of Greenpeace and accelerate farmers' access to all modern biological tools, especially seeds that are enhanced through biotechnology. " The letter goes on to say that "Opposition based on emotion and dogma as opposed to data must be stopped." Greenpeace responded by stating that "The accusation that anyone hinders genetically engineered 'Golden' rice is fake" and that they support "... investing in climate-resilient ecological agriculture and empowering farmers to access balanced and nutritious food, rather than pouring money down channel for GE's 'Gold' rice. "

The Nobel Nobel letters were criticized by Silvia Ribeiro of the ETC Group, calling it more "artificial propaganda from GMO companies than scientists presenting positions," and arguing against the benefits it claims.