"Hey, do you want to help save the world?" asks the green poncho outside the Little Building.
Sure we do. We go to Emerson College. We all want to save the world. But before stopping to chat with a Greenpeace representative, take a moment for consideration.
Despite conventional Greenpeace wisdom, there is more than one way to go about protecting our planet. Just because Greenpeace is an organization devoted to the safety of the environment and just because they are the only ones bothering students and faculty outside the Little Building in four-degree weather, does not mean they are doing what is appropriate and necessary to help.
Upon first observation, Greenpeace seems like every other well-intentioned environmental group. Their brand of
conservationism, however, is unique, as it is based on the principles of civil disobedience and absolutism. For these reasons, their attention-getter should be phrased differently: “Do you want to help save the world, the Greenpeace way?” If unsuspecting Emerson students had more time to gather the facts, perhaps their
responses would be different.
What we’re dealing with here is a philosophy that validates acts of trespassing, vandalism and other rabble-rousing in reckless pursuit of a solitary aim. Greenpeace’s violations of the law are numerous. Last year, six activists painted Prime Minister Gordon Brown's last name on a smokestack at a power plant at a cost of
50,000 dollars to the plant. Just last month a Greenpeace vessel broke international maritime law when it chased away a Japanese whaling fleet from its hunting grounds in the Southern Sea. Rather than resorting to methods of lawful protest, Greenpeace members often venture outside the rules and focus their efforts on spectacle and self-promotion rather than reasonable public debate.
Other groups seek the same ends as Greenpeace but do it through legal means. National Geographic, for instance, focuses on public education about the environment. The National Resource Defense Council tries to lobby Congress for a public policy that promotes conservation. The Sierra Club advocates the enjoyment
of nature as much as its protection. Their efforts are arguably more respectable and peaceful and deserve our support.
Greenpeace, on the other hand, is notoriously uncompromising. Consider Greenpeace's stance that DDT should
be universally banned. What Greenpeace may declare a simple issue, is actually much more nuanced. DDT is a pesticide that has been proven harmful to the environment. However, it can be to greatly reduce the spread of Malaria, particularly in Africa. As a 2002 New York Times article states, "the evidence about DDT's effects on humans is inconclusive. The uncertainties must be weighed against a demonstrated effectiveness in fighting a disease that now kills 1 in 20 African children." Greenpeace’s stance actually risks millions of lives in the short term. This is just one example of their unilateral judgments made at the sacrifice of rationality.
In instances like these, temporary solutions must outweigh larger ones. If this idea seems inconsistent with liberal
environmental dogma, let us remember President Obama's recent support of offshore drilling, not because it's a perfect fix but because it's what we need. It's important to make sure our children have a world to live on but it's equally important that we have children alive to see that world. The most authoritative wisdom of our time deems this true.
Other considerations in evaluating Greenpeace are their marketing and enlistment strategies. The very manner in which our participation is solicited is a form of guilt tripping and money hustling many view as hostile and invasive. In our thoughts, these methods must not be removed from Greenpeace’s overall ideology. Of course, Greenpeace has the potential to provide honorable and charitable services to the world, and in many instances they have done so. But as an organization it also has major flaws. The people in green ponchos we see outside every day have noble intentions, but we should not believe them wholeheartedly simply because they seek our support more directly than other organizations.
So let us keep our wallets safely in our pockets for the moment and stand resolved that we could save the world but still say no to Greenpeace.
No comments:
Post a Comment