Slashdot Mirror

No, the attention is the means to the end. The end they seek is getting money they didn't earn.

You have made this allegation several times in this thread. Please see here for the sources of Greenpeace's funding.

Can you point to Greenpeace taking any of the communist governments to task for their appalling environmental record?

How about any peep of protest when Saddam Hussein ordered the burning of the Kuwaiti oil fields?

Can you point to Greenpeace taking any of the communist governments to task for their appalling environmental record?

How about any peep of protest when Saddam Hussein ordered the burning of the Kuwaiti oil fields?

but seriously... how exactly is it hypocritical?

Alright, most people use hypocritical when they mean "holding a double standard." The standard example is of Sen Craig who attacked gays while secretly soliciting sex from men in bathrooms.

But the simple meaning of it is when you say something without believing it, which is pretty clear in this case. They're bringing these charges without caring in the slightest whether or not they're true.

And this isn't just hypocrisy. It's also short-sightedness: they're sacrificing their long term credibility and that of an entire movement for some short term publicity.

That said, if anyone can show me exactly where Greenpeace stated or even implied that they would not selectively target companies for maximum publicity, I will retract my previous statement.

That's ridiculous. So I can't trust the NRA to wrongly harass someone and make me look like a fool for pledging to them just because they didn't explicitly say they aren't publicity whores?

It's implied that any organization has certain principles, Greenpeace states there's and they even have a mission statement on the Canuck site. Publicity whoring will generally destroy your credibility, thus it is implicit in the fact that they have a mission that they are not going to behave like imbeciles.

Reasonable people might disagree as to what constitutes publicity whoring, but Greenpeace is an example of an organization that has clearly crossed that line a long time ago. PETA is even worse... they're self-parodying.

but seriously... how exactly is it hypocritical?

Alright, most people use hypocritical when they mean "holding a double standard." The standard example is of Sen Craig who attacked gays while secretly soliciting sex from men in bathrooms.

But the simple meaning of it is when you say something without believing it, which is pretty clear in this case. They're bringing these charges without caring in the slightest whether or not they're true.

And this isn't just hypocrisy. It's also short-sightedness: they're sacrificing their long term credibility and that of an entire movement for some short term publicity.

That said, if anyone can show me exactly where Greenpeace stated or even implied that they would not selectively target companies for maximum publicity, I will retract my previous statement.

That's ridiculous. So I can't trust the NRA to wrongly harass someone and make me look like a fool for pledging to them just because they didn't explicitly say they aren't publicity whores?

It's implied that any organization has certain principles, Greenpeace states there's and they even have a mission statement on the Canuck site. Publicity whoring will generally destroy your credibility, thus it is implicit in the fact that they have a mission that they are not going to behave like imbeciles.

Reasonable people might disagree as to what constitutes publicity whoring, but Greenpeace is an example of an organization that has clearly crossed that line a long time ago. PETA is even worse... they're self-parodying.

...and when Apple stock starts to drop, you'll drop them no matter how socially responsible they are.

Don't try to act the martyr; you own stock to make money just like all investors, socially responsible or not.

If you really wanted your money to help people, you'd give it to charity.

BTW- if you were actually socially responsible, instead of just a troll, you wouldn't be investing with Apple.

wind (kills birds)

bullshit. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/copy-of-wind-power/cape-wind

someone below said not to lump all the greens together. there are *many* shades.

Incomplete list without Toxic Town and our world class PCB contamination.

However as a non American I must ask what did you think of the treatment of the French. Who disagreed with US policy and have the American media and public ridicule them as a country of cowards and idiots.

Let me begin with it is really the French government and elites that many Americans have problems with, as is the case with many of those who have problems with the US. It is not simply the disagreement over Iraq. It is a persistent notion among French elites that it is France's role to oppose the US, as publicly admitted by the previous administration. While Americans understand France's desire to regain a position of respect and leadership in the world community, many find this particular strategy to be rather insulting given the American blood shed for France, twice. Competing on superior ideas would be one thing, riding anti-American sentiment is another. Given the results of the French presidential elections it seems that the French people were not too fond of anti-American elitists either. :-)

The French government also lost moral credibility to Americans by continuing to arm Iraq after their use chemical weapons on civilians. The previous French government seemed to be "in bed" with Saddam. France's willingness to use lethal military force against Greenpeace - killing one member, but not Saddam, is the sort of hypocrisy many American's expect.

"The sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, codenamed Operation Satanic[1], was a special operation by the "action" branch of the French foreign intelligence services, the Direction Générale de la Sécurité Extérieure (DGSE), carried out on July 10, 1985. It aimed to sink the flagship of the Greenpeace fleet, the Rainbow Warrior, while she was docked in the port of Auckland, New Zealand, to prevent her from interfering in a nuclear test in Moruroa.
Fernando Pereira, a photographer, drowned on the sinking ship. Two of the French agents were subsequently arrested by the New Zealand Police on passport fraud and immigration charges. Following questioning, they were subsequently charged with arson, conspiracy to commit arson, willful damage, and murder. As part of a plea bargain, they eventually pleaded guilty to manslaughter and were sentenced to ten years, just over two of which they served.
The ensuing scandal resulted in the resignation of the French Defence Minister Charles Hernu, and the subject became so touchy that it was not until twenty years afterward that the personal responsibility of French President François Mitterrand was officially admitted."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/rainbow-warrior-bombing/spy-story

IIRC, France requested that their agents be allowed to complete their 10 year prison sentences in French territory. France violated the agreement and freed them soon after arrival.

Even tho I dont like the French(Ive had to work with them :) ) I found this behavior fairly appalling.

I've worked with the French for many years. While Parisians have a certain reputation/stereotype, much like New Yorkers, I've had friendly business relationships with them. I had noticed that those from the country side were more willing to engage in off-time recreational activities. However these activities were predominantly outdoor activities and perhaps it was simply an urbanite thing.

While traveling in Paris, and only being able to speak a few words of French - poorly, I've always been treated very well. This includes fancy restaurants and random bars off the tourist tracks. I don't rule out good luck. However I keep in mind something I heard at a marketing seminar, people are three times more likely to share negative experiences compared to positive experiences.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/solargen/a bout-solar-energy/solar-electricity/production-and -recycling

"The environmental impact and the safety risk of solar cells are infinitesimally small compared to conventional sources of energy like coal, oil, gas or atomic energy. With the latter, the danger is global (emission of carbon-dioxide) and longterm (for example the problems of disposal of nuclear energy). This is regarding regular operation already. If we think about solar panels running for 30 years that don't produce any pollutants, the environmental damage is obviously kept very limited.

The process of production for solar cells is well developed and tested. From the chemical and toxin point of view, even a mass-production of solar cells will not implicate any significant environmental or health problems."

Where is your counter evidence?

1. Round up some cute looking children.

2. Smudge some dirt onto the children and rip their clothes a bit.

3. Take them to a place where computers are dumped, or in this case a place where paper is dumped.

4. Show the kids rubbing themselves into the pile of trash, and holding the trash with a sad look on their face.

5. Create a website.

6. Get more misled members who think the kids are actually affected by the waste in their daily lives, and get media attention.

7. Profit! (Literally)

This should be an important item in green apple campaign. After all, packaging material is used only once, while a bill repeats every month. iPhone owners should get online bill only through their iTunes account.

"You'd think a company with as good of a reputation as Apple wouldn't make 'bricks' out of their latest offering, being the "green" company that they are^H^H^Hsupposed to be..."

Apple, green? You are joking, I hope. Ok, they aren't actually last in Greenpeace's Green Electronics guide this time around but they are not great. I guess "more joy in one sinner who repenteth".

While some claim that the pollinating bees are not being wiped out by genetically-modified (GMO) crops, keep in mind that many of these "foods" have been intentionally engineered to have high levels of "natural" pesticides; in other words, pesticides that plants evolved as a defense against insects.

However, what is new is the introduction of genetic codes so the plants now generate new, never-before developed pesticides. Should we assume the multi-national corporations have done their due diligence to test the effects of these toxins in our food supply?

Actually, they are *suppressing* the scientific evidence of significant toxicity. And keep in mind, they are testing only *one* single added toxin -- do you eat only one type of food? It is common to find synergy in similar toxins; where one + one poison equals three times the danger. OK, enough of the reality; let me just skip to the links:
    Scientific American; March 13, 2007; GMO corn causes liver, kidney problems in rats: study
    http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=A 1018BD684F0C6A62F01999A180E764B
    (interestingly, link is dead, search on "GMO Corn" now finds editorial "no harm from GMO has ever been demonstrated")

    GreenPeace; Regulatory systems for GE crops a failure: the case of MON863. March 2007
        http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/internationa l/press/reports/gp_briefing_seralini_study.pdf
        (this links to dozens of newspaper and magazine articles tracing this latest unethical
          attempt to suppress scientific findings about health risks of GMOs)

Actually, I agree that better seeds are a good thing, and that finding crops which require less pesticides is wonderful.

I would just like to see advanced cross-breeding used to achieve those results, rather than splicing poison into our food supply.

To those who claim "no harm has been done" (aside from destroying the crops and lives of those attempting to live GMO-free!) let me pose one question. What is next?

Sure, adding these two toxins here, and those four poisons there hasn't killed anyone just yet....

But what happens in a few years, if we learn that after 3 years of exposure to those man-made chemicals the human liver gets turned to pudding? Several hundred thousand people start going jaundice and dying? And all our food sources are irretrievably contaminated? Do we start regulating then, in the midst of the plague?

No. We need to impose minimal levels of testing, as we would for new drugs being given to humans, immediately.

And *immediately* we need labeling of any foods containing GMOs.

Your state legislature, congressperson, senator, political action committee; and vote with your dollars by buying organic and non-GMO right now.

I think you as the farmer growing normal crops could sue (IANL) for cross pollination but from what I can gather genetically modified plants should not cross pollinate. I do think that the "law" would require the farmer to prove he was innocent since it very easy for the producer of the genetic strain to prove that the farmer has their strain.

On a side note, From what I can gather the patent on GM grain is from 1994 (I thought it went further back than that) so there is still 7 years to go, however there are many groups and even nations opposing GM grains and other GM products. Monsanto really comes across as a company that does not care about anything except being a monopoly that controls all the world's food supply. It has even gone so far as patenting pigs http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/monsa nto-pig-patent-111.

hmmm, how about people who die from heat stroke during the summer, or asthmatics having an attack due to smog, or i don't know people who die in a tornado or hurricane that is more intense due to it being 1 degree hotter. Do you work for Exxon? You might as well :( Stuff: Exxon Still Funding Climate Change Deniers $900 BILLION OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS PRESSURE EXXON MOBIL ON GLOBAL WARMING Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science EarthTalk: Exxon/Mobil's Climate Change Contrarions Report: ExxonMobil Spends Millions Funding Global Warming Skeptics ExxonSecrets

I write this as a life-long environmentalist, Sierra Club member, and huge liberal.

Greenpeace is evil.

They rate companies not based on their impact on the environment, but rather what they say they will do at some future point. Their website rates Apple last, not because they polute or because they're killing baby seals, but because they refuse to tell Greenpeace what they're doing. We now know that Apple was innovating in a green way, they just didn't brag about their future plans. Despite this, Greenpeace still rates Apple as the worst company in the list.

Meanwhile, companies are rated 'good' based on their statements, and not their actions.

Greenpeace was not trying to get elected to office, true, but they are raising money. And that's what drives the organization these days, not saving the planet.

coyote

From TFS "Apple is also introducing mercury-free displays with some models." This is the first wave of new green-friendly products from Apple following their surrender to greenpeace.

Well done Greenpeace (with Apple's partnership) for bringing us these mercury-free displays.

Well done Apple for committing to a timeline to eliminate BFRs & PVCs!

For those looking for a PDF of the leaked document...go here :-)

http://weblog.greenpeace.org/makingwaves/G8%20Summ it%20Declaration%20-%20US%20comments%20May%2014-1. pdf

The US stance is purely because the US government knows it would ruin its own fragile economy by doing something about our global ecology. The US government would rather make a buck, and screw the world, than save the world and lose economical face. Funny eh?

The world now needs to recognise the US stance and take full economic sanctions against the US government and US industry. Sadly, this will hurt the average American, but this is your own fault for allowing the type of government to lead your people. You've had one revolution in the past, it is time for another, so that true democracy is returned to the people of the United States of America. That's my honest appraisal.

Cheers,

Dave

Theres an excellent report booklet here http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/internationa l/press/reports/recycling-of-electronic-waste.pdf

First, I need something to refute :-) As to my real opinion on the matter I have none. I do not drive a car, and I simply use prices as a base for speculation when making wagers at the bar for free drinks. Your post merely struck me as funny, that's all. If you're interested, I suppose I could make up a theory as to why gas prices are cheaper in the US as opposed to elsewhere as I type a response. But I think it might have to do with the heavy subsidization of the oil industry by the government. This could be accomplished though attractively priced land leases, tax breaks, or outright subsidies for "research", and of course using military force to just go and take what's needed at taxpayer expense(the euphemism, I believe, is called "protecting our interests"), or using the host government for that purpose to assure plausible deniability(Nigeria might be an example of this). It's a very complicated mess that I won't pretend to understand beyond the point of trying to win the bet. And fortunately for me I frequently stagger home with most of my money still in my pocket. I really am not trying to seriously offend you in any way. Please don't take it such.

Feel free to take this, or this with all the necessary sodium you wish. I have no idea what it means, but it may, or may not help make my point. I like Dos Equis Ambar. It doesn't give me such a nasty hangover like Negra Modelo. Which it too bad, because the latter tastes much better.

In order to maintain its independence, Greenpeace only accepts money from individuals. Greenpeace does not take money from corporations or governments.

More info available here...

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/faq/ questions-about-greenpeace-in

um....

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/vict ories


And here's a good article about a recent achievement.

Not that it would do much good, but for anyone caring to see what the Greenpeace fans think of this story and to interact witht them, go here:

http://forum.greenpeace.org/int/forumdisplay.php?f =12

Can you link to such a demonstration in a commercially planted forest? I'm honestly curious, and not asking rhetorically, as I've not heard of this before. I highly doubt that they are against the commercial use of wood entirely.

Actually, it's funny: I went to look up their opinion on this, and it starts by expounding on how forest preservation is important to the quality of human life. I've looked across their site, and I can't find anything about commercial forests. I guess if their opinion is, as you say, that we shouldn't have such forests, then they're certainly not voicing it very loudly.

Wow, aren't you a bundle of joy?

Seriously though, I'm pretty sure they don't say an animal's life is more important than a human's life... Not even the PETA says that, though they're a bit more extreme on that matter as far as I'm concerned. Greenpeace is more about environmental issues... that and they don't seem big proponents of clubbing baby seals (no not baby (navy) SEALS) to death, which I can get behind. (And any non-food and non-medical abuse of animals.)

I can't agree with everything they stand for (especially on the nuclear power issues), but what you're suggestion is pretty much insane ("...consider them a terrorist support organization").

Seems my rant pushed a few people's buttons, and I'm a bit sorry for that. I won't launch a full counter-argument, but I would like to at least explain the language I used.

I called the Greenpeace Green Electronics Guide presumptive and snide because much of it was presumed without actual information. Big flashy "score cards" ranked Apple and Lenovo as environmentally evil, prompting media outrage, with only fine print to prevent libel lawsuits against Greenpeace. Both Apple and Lenovo have since been revealed to be a lot more green than Greenpeace reported.

Greenpeace assumed the worst of Apple and other companies when no information was offered on a specific topic. The degree to which the resulting score card is flawed and misleading will be further emphasized in the next review, where Apple will jump from "holding firmly in last place" with "low scores on almost all criteria and no progress" to somewhere near the top of the score card without having made any changes to its plans or manufacturing process. (This already happened with Lenovo.)

But Greenpeace is a 501c4, not a 501c3. They are not inherently doing anything "good" themselves, but rather spend their money fueling their ships for publicity and lobbying.

If Greenpeace really cared about the environment, they'd dock their fleet.

In reality, they thrive purely on the controversy they imaginatively create.

a. Forest depletion and destruction of anything and anyone related to depleted forests,
b. Destruction of ocean life
c. Global warming
d. Toxic wastes
e. Volatility of nuclear waste
f. Degradation of food supplies thru genetic engineering

Wow, they've created so many myths...
PS. I guess you're from the US, so I listed those issues that you'd rather think are myths created by Greenpeace in order to ...
???

I can understand why they oppose nuclear power. What I don't understand is their opposition to fusion power research.

In their own words:

Fusion energy - if it would ever operate - would create a serious waste problem, would emit large amounts of radioactive material and could be used to produce materials for nuclear weapons. A whole new set of nuclear risks would thus be created.

I don't agree with the moderator who marked your comment Flamebait. I don't think that's how you intended it, anyway.

Yes, I believe Jobs is telling the truth about Apple's current manufacturing standards. I'm sure you have read in full the Greenpeace report that stirred this storm in a teacup, and therefore realize that Greenpeace assumed Apple's manufacturing standards weren't up to snuff simply because Apple hadn't explained in brightly colored crayons what friendly, earth-loving folk they are. Greenpeace's "scoring" of Apple and the other electronics companies reviewed was based solely on PR information available from company websites. Greenpeace had no reason to doubt the information published on Lenovo's, Nokia's, or Sony's websites, and neither they nor I have any reason to doubt the information now posted on Apple's.

Sorry if I made Greenpeace sound evil to you. Their actions were executed with trademark thoughtlessness and irrationality, but I'm sure their intentions were honorable. Their review was flawed, but not biased, and I'm sure Apple will be properly represented in the next Greenpeace Electronics Guide.

I wouldn't say Greenpeace is entirely devoid of profit either...

Interestingly, Greenpeace has responded already, demanding more action, specifically, the products being green from the outset. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/tastygreenapple

RTA. Throughout, Jobs makes comparisons to other companies in the Greenpeace Electronics Guide. He then writes:

Dell, HP and Lenovo all scored higher than Apple because of their plans (or "plans for releasing plans" in the case of HP). In reality, Apple is ahead of all of these companies in eliminating toxic chemicals from its products.

• PROOF that Roughly Drafted is SPAMMING/Gaming Digg with multiple accounts
  Photographic evidence of AlexaW and RoughlyDrafted gaming Digg just to get moron Daniel Eran's articles to the front page. (Where they promptly get buried for being inaccurate.) Several users who ONLY digg AlexaW's submissions, all of whom signed up in the last 3 weeks. Coincidence? Not a chance. This needs to be stopped immediately.
• RoughlyDraftedBUSTED
• RDMBusted2
• Greenpeace response to Roughlydrafted

Actually, Dell's environmental initiatives are quite laudable:

Is Dell the brand for EcoGeeks? -- http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/543/

For once in my life I found the only thing that made me ashamed about using an Apple computer; that being, their lack of vision regarding the environment. Funny, this coming from a company domineered over by a CEO portrayed by popular media as being some socially conscious, acid-dropping, wannabe hippie.

http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/

Pebbles nukes do have their problems: http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/internationa l/press/reports/nuclearreactorhazards.pdf , page 41 (see the authors references page 4) During the soviet era, before the Chernobyl disaster, local "powers that be" claimed that "those nuke plants are so sure we may build one on the Red Square!". Do we really have total confidence in the guys who, here and now, claim the same? Where is the large group scientist declaring "we analyzed those blueprints and are absolutely sure it is not dangerous as a whole" (in any other case, after a disaster, there will be the usual bunch of "I checked my part, it was OK, I could not knew that another part was not, so let's devise a complete new architecture")

This seems to be part of a campaign bend apple into more of a green product.

On their own page, they go as far as manipulating the truth to make it appear that
Apple is doing less work than it is actually doing: http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/about.html

"Apple finally came around to a limited recycling program in the US, but they can do better."

This is worded as if it just happened recently. Except that the US (and Japan) take-back program started
up in 2002. (Announced in 2001) It includes not only recycling of its own computers, but also other
vendor's computers and monitors. I wonder which way they consider this to be "limited"?

http://www.apple.com/environment/recycling/
http://www.apple.com/environment/

The images at the top of the Greenpeace site show Chinese children holding color iMac keyboards dating
before 2000.... before recycling programs in the US and Asia actually existed.

The page is designed to get Apple to do two things:
        * Remove the worst toxic chemicals from all their products and production lines.
        * Offer and promote free "take-back" for all their products everywhere they are sold.

The question here is, is it reasonable to persecute Apple for not meeting an arbitrarily set "worst toxic chemicals" goal? And I say this because "worst toxic chemicals" is fairly ambiguous.
They recycle plastics, foam, paper and whatnot from their products, they follow a number of environmental standards in the US and Europe and maintain their own.

Should Apple offer free "take-back" worldwide? Even Levono doesn't do so.
http://www.pc.ibm.com/ww/lenovo/about/environment/ ptb_us.html

However, in the very least, it should be reasonable for Apple to accept recycled equipment worldwide, if at
a fee.

Wrong. Read the report.

The article you linked to was fluff. To summarize, it says "I feel Apple is green, Steve Jobs is a vegeterian and Michael Dell eats meat. Why is Apple ranked so low?"

Read Greenpeace's report here.

It's quite simple why Apple's on the bottom of the list. All the other companies have done something to green up. Sony Erricson's eliminated PVC & BFRs. Dell's adopted a worldwide takeback policy & committed to a date for elimination of PVC & BFRs. Lenovo's also got a takeback policy & reports on recycling as a percentage of sales (as opposed to Apple's "just trust us" policy.

I had such a conversation with friends recently... does such analysis includes:
- The time computers can be effectively used (Apple computers have a significantly longer lifespan on my desks than the PCs)
- The waste of time / energy required to manage the computer (security, virus, etc)
- The user-efficiency related to the operating system itself
- The differences in sleep modes and energy consumption at low usage
- The longevity and eco-friendliness of laptop batteries
- etc etc etc.

See also this previous /. story and Green My Apple. In short, I believe not everything is black or white, it's rather grey. Of course, I agree that all computer producers should improve their eco-friendliness, but measuring this eco-friendliness is not a simple task.

Ditto. Spun's point of view is one that is appealing to hear, but false.

Here is the founder saying he was wrong to oppose nuclear energy: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html
Here is Greenpeace's site saying that nuclear energy is evil: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/ nuclear

Here is John McCarthy (a famous computer scientist) touting the benefits of nuclear energy, and why most of the concerns against nuclear power are not as valid as one would think: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclea r-faq.html

Umm... Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth oppose nuclear power, and support renewables instead. I wouldn't call either of them NIMBY groups. I'd put this one down to different people making different conclusions based on uncertain risks.

• PROOF that Roughly Drafted is SPAMMING/Gaming Digg with multiple accounts (97 diggs)

• RoughlyDraftedBUSTED
• RDMBusted2
• Greenpeace response to Roughlydrafted

And Monsato's agenda is making money. Something heavily associated with making money is advertising and public relations, also known as "lying".

I'm sure others have said this, but Greenpeace actually do a lot of studies (or fund studies) such as this.

Sure the whole "witness the slaughter" thing gets them publicity (I prefer the Sea Shepard method my self, but hey), but they actually put a lot of money into studies on not just GM stuff. A quick look at their home page (do a search http://www.greenpeace.org/international/footer/sea rch?q=research ) revels fisheries and whaling research among others.

I happen to like this Greenpeace sponsered study: http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/renewables/r eports/kpmg8.pdf which is currently transforming the solar power industry.
--
Be a part of Solar: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Why do they oppose Ethanol production in Brazil? I can't imagine why they would believe that continuing to burn fossil fuels and polluting the air is preferable to clearing some rain forest land.