FREE ESSAY ON GREENPEACE: THE ENVIRONMENT'S LOBBYISTS

GREENPEACE: THE ENVIRONMENT'S LOBBYISTS

The greenhouse effect, nuclear contamination, toxic chemicals, oil spills, air pollution,
water pollution: these are all issues that affect every single living being on this
planet we call home. The environment and issues pertaining to the environment apply
directly to the entire world. Greenpeace, an international environmental organization
that is dedicated to preserving the earth's natural resources, addresses these numerous
environmental issues through peaceful campaigning and demonstrations. 
Members of the "Don't Make a Wave Committee" founded Greenpeace in Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada in 1971. The "Don't Make a Wave Committee" was a small group opposed to
nuclear weapons testing by the United States military in Alaska. Later, the committee
changed its name to Greenpeace to echo its greater goal of creating a green and peaceful
world. Greenpeace has more than forty offices in 30 countries with its headquarters in
Amsterdam, Netherlands. It is a growing organization that has dedicated a lot of time and
manpower to making this world a better and safer place for its inhabitants. Through
peacefully lobbying and demonstration, Greenpeace has affected change for the better and,
hopefully, will continue to do so in the future. The main issues that Greenpeace concerns
itself with include climate changes, toxic chemicals, and nuclear disarmament and
contamination.
Greenpeace has acknowledged that one of the greatest threats to the planet is global
climate change. Scientists and governments alike have all established that the problem is
serious and real. In 1997, industrialized countries agreed at the climate summit in Kyoto
to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases they pump into the
atmosphere. However, little real action is being taken to address the problem. The
efforts of Greenpeace on this issue include campaigning for governments to face up to
their responsibilities and address the problem.
Greenpeace believes that governments should be leading the way to a new energy direction
based on renewable energy like wind or solar power. At present many governments are
instead using taxpayer's money to support companies that spend billions of dollars on
development of coal, oil or gas. These fossil fuels, by releasing carbon into the
atmosphere, are the leading cause for climate change. Scientist estimate that there is a
"safe" limit for climate change and that we can only release a limited amount of carbon
into the atmosphere. Greenpeace calculated this amount of carbon within the range of
112.5 to 337.5 billion tons of carbon over the next 100 years. They claim that industry
has already four times this amount of carbon in reserves of fossil fuels. If fossil fuels
continue to be burned at the present levels, the "safe" limit will be reached in about 40
years. That is why Greenpeace advocates reducing carbon dioxide emissions and phasing out
the use of fossil fuels. Greenpeace believes that we are in a second world oil crisis.
The first crisis in the 1970s was a shortage of oil. Presently, the crisis is that we
have too much oil. 
Greenpeace claims that instead of spending money on new oil exploration, corporations
should instead spend money on converting to renewable energy sources such as wind and
solar energy. Oil companies like Exxon, Shell, Mobil and BP continuously expand their
search for oil, exploring remote areas previously too expensive or too harsh to consider.
Greenpeace, in an effort to stop this, campaigns against new oil exploration. They lobby
governments to stop encouraging oil companies to extend their reach. They also challenge
oil industries to stop exploring for more oil and switch to investment in renewable
energy. Greenpeace is concentrating its efforts on halting oil expansion on two fronts:
the Arctic in Northern Alaska and the Atlantic Frontier in the wild ocean to the north
and west of Ireland, Scotland and Norway. Greenpeace has strong convictions and believes
firmly that it is possible to change to renewable energy. 
Toxic chemicals are a second concern for Greenpeace. The Greenpeace International Toxics
Campaign is the campaign of Greenpeace that seeks to end the manufacture, use, trade, and
disposal of hazardous toxic chemicals. Greenpeace Toxic activists raise the awareness of
toxic pollution and encourage governments and industries to convert to clean modes of
production. 
POPs, or persistent organic pollutants, are the worst toxics in the environment today.
These substances are toxic in small amounts and travel long distances in the air
currents. Therefore, they endanger people and wildlife all over the world. POPs are also
carried into polar environments where they condense and are deposited. This accounts for
the high concentrations of POPs in arctic environments. Another problem with POPs is that
they are persistent. That is, they cannot easily be broken down and if they are,
chemicals that are even more hazardous are created. Dioxin is an example of one of the
most poisonous POPs. 
Plastics are another concern for Greenpeace. PVC (both soft and hard) is one of the most
widely used types of plastics. It is used in everything from packaging in cling film and
bottles, to credit cards and audio records, for construction in window frames and cables
and in pipes, flooring, and wallpaper. It is also used by manufacturers in cars, and in
hospitals for medical disposables. The problem with these plastics is that in the
production of PVC, dioxins are created and released and, over their lifetime, PVC
products can leak harmful additives. In addition, the only way to dispose of PVC is to
either burn or bury it. In burning PVC, dioxins and other chlorine-containing compounds
are released and these contaminate the environment. Recycling attempts have proven
difficult. Another problem with PVC lies in the addition of phthalates, which makes PVC
flexible and soft. Laboratory testing proves that these chemicals are hazardous to the
health of individuals and children can ingest these hazardous chemicals from PVC toys.
Greenpeace has lobbied governments to take action and the results are that some
governments are restricting PVC use. Hundreds of communities are eliminating PVC in
buildings and many companies like Nike, IKEA, and the Body Shop have committed themselves
to eliminating PVC from their products. 
Toxic trade is another issue involving Greenpeace. Greenpeace has documented several
cases where industrialized countries have traded toxic waste problems to newly
industrializing countries. This trade is environmentally destructive to countries and
their people, not to mention immoral. To combat this type of trade, Greenpeace has sought
a ban on toxic trade and achieved it through an international treaty called the Basel
Convention. 
The third greatest issue that Greenpeace concerns itself with is the use of nuclear
power, nuclear testing, and nuclear waste. Greenpeace believes that nuclear power should
be phased out globally, starting with the immediate closure of the most dangerous
reactors. According to Greenpeace, nuclear power is dangerous, dirty, uneconomic and has
not provided any energy independence or security. A problem with nuclear power stations
is that they create plutonium and other nuclear waste. One of the biggest problems the
nuclear industry faces is what to do with that nuclear waste. When fuel rods have
finished their life inside a nuclear reactor, they become high-level radioactive waste.
Some countries, such as the United States and Sweden store these spent fuel rods in the
form in which they come out of the reactor. Other countries like Britain attempt to
reprocess these fuel rods, which creates even larger volumes of waste. The mining of
uranium for reactors is another problem with the nuclear fuel cycle. In the countries
where the mining occurs, radioactive waste and pollution is the byproduct. Uranium mining
is also a serious threat to miners' health if ventilation is inadequate. 
Of course, shutting down all nuclear reactors, like Greenpeace advocates will only create
more nuclear waste. Shutting down a nuclear reactor produces large quantities of nuclear
waste. This is caused by the fact that many of a reactor's components have become
radioactive. Therefore, they cannot simply be thrown away and must be dealt with in some
other way. The process of dealing with a nuclear reactor after it is shutdown is called
"decommissioning." 
Nuclear waste is produced at every stage in the nuclear fuel cycle, from the mining of
uranium to the reprocessing of irradiated fuel and even to "decommissioning." Nuclear
waste remains hazardous for thousands of years. Although this is certainly an
environmental issue, the total shutdown of all nuclear power, as Greenpeace advocates, is
an idealistic and unreal solution to the problem of nuclear waste. 
Another stage of the nuclear fuel cycle that Greenpeace believes is trouble is the
transport of nuclear materials. Nuclear waste is transported by sea, land and air. The
transport of nuclear materials poses significant risk to human health and the
environment.
Nuclear weapons and the testing f nuclear weapons is another part of this issue that
Greenpeace strongly opposes. Greenpeace is against nuclear testing of any kind. Since the
first nuclear test at Alamogordo, New Mexico in July 1945, the five nuclear weapons
states - the United States, Russia, The United kingdom, France and China - have conducted
over 2,000 tests. Each of these tests cost somewhere around $70 million and helped add to
new generations of nuclear weapons. Finally, in September 1996, the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty (CTBT) was scripted and in October that same year, 125 countries had signed.
This was the first step in stopping nuclear testing. However, it is not the end-all
answer. Stopping testing is not the only thing Greenpeace wants. Greenpeace believes that
all nuclear weapons production, modernization and deployment should be halted
immediately. Greenpeace also wants an agreement to destroy all nuclear weapons. 
The achievements of Greenpeace reflect its great impact on the world. Greenpeace's main
principle is to prevent harm to the environment using the concept of non-violent direct
action. As Greenpeace has grown and developed it has backed up this direct action with
political lobbying and scientific enquiry and the results speak for themselves. In 1999
alone, nine countries banned the use of harmful phthalates in soft PVC toys for children
under three; the European Union introduced an emergency ban on soft PVC teething toys; a
major worldwide medical supplier, Baxter International, announced plans to replace PVC in
its products; furniture store IKEA announced it will phase out all wood from ancient
forests unless it is certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC); and, following
lobbying by Greenpeace, the Environmental Crimes Law in Brazil is now being applied:
fines against companies using illegal timber from the Amazon increased dramatically.
Other successes include safely storing an abandoned dioxin stockpile at Homebush Bay,
Australia. 
While Greenpeace's aggressive style has earned criticism from many sources and led often
to conflicts with governments and corporations, its cause is worthy and its philosophy
sound. However, Greenpeace seems to over-simplify the problems and solutions. Nuclear
power is not as evil as Greenpeace makes it out to be and the demands of Greenpeace to
shut down nuclear reactors would cause great economical reparations. The use of
phthalates is also not as harmful as Greenpeace claims. In the article "What drives scare
science? Phthalates," Greenpeace is ridiculed as being overly sensitive and is accused of
undermining the credibility of scientists. According to the article, the most common
phthalate, DEHP, is considered non-toxic and non-irritant. It is approved for use in food
packaging materials and PVC that contains DEHP is the only flexible material approved by
the European Pharmacopoeia for use in blood and plasma transfusion equipment. 
Greenpeace is a worthy organization, but it needs to reevaluate its tactics and get back
to earth. The world will not change as easily as Greenpeace seems to believe.
Greenpeace's high ideals blind it to reality. Its intentions are good, but sometimes its
actions are not. 
Using scare tactics is not the way to go about effecting changes and that is what
Greenpeace sometimes resorts to. Scare tactics only needlessly scare the general
population and cause governments to react. When using this tactic, Greenpeace undermines
its own mission to effect change through peaceful campaigning. This is an issue tat
Greenpeace needs to deal with and modify. Greenpeace should continue to lobby governments
to address these environmental issues. The environment and the negative effects of
pollution, nuclear waste and climate changes affect everyone on this planet.