First, you should know that I am an environmental advocate, but not a “fringe nutcase”. I actively look for ways to use less water and energy, recycle more, and otherwise run a responsible household. At the same time, I don’t cover my cars or house with solar panels, pour vegetable oil into my vehicles, or expect others to go far beyond reasonable efforts in trying to avoid energy waste.
Now, despite my interest in many of the organization’s goals, I have never held a particularly high opinion of Greenpeace – but I will stress that this was an untested opinion, not a strenous evaluation of the organization and its principles. That has changed recently, as I have stumbled upon factual and detailed articles that show Greenpeace as an incompetent organization out to increase donations and political influence, rather than attempting to effect real change in areas that really matter.
I still think Greenpeace could have a good mission, and possibly good intentions. But they have destroyed or damaged much of their credibility through their demonstration of their belief that “the ends justifies the means”. Rather than being a trusted, relatively unbiased source, they are acting like an extremely biased organization in pursuit of their short-term goals at the expense of anything, facts and even their stated long-term purpose.
I particularly don’t understand why they aren’t being smarter in applauding companies that are taking steps to meet Greenpeace’s stated goals – this seems like an obviously good strategic weapon, yet Greenpeace doesn’t seem to use anything other than negative hype.
What I really wonder is whether Greenpeace is, in the end, helping or hurting the quest for a more eco-friendly world? In fact, are they helping or hurting every one of their stated goals? I’m not even going to get started on their position toward nuclear energy….
).
)
