There are thousands of NGOs licensed in Canada, many of which profess philanthropic intentions. However, certain organizations such as Greenpeace and PETA have attracted media attention and criticism for their controversial methods. Although we can all agree that protecting the environment and preventing animal abuse are admirable goals, does this negative press do more harm than help for these organizations’ causes? Does the stereotyped representation of activists from these groups as “tree-huggers” and radicals damage the message they are trying to send? And who is more at fault: the mass media for their part in creating this negative image, or the groups and activists themselves for the approach they choose to take?
Some attention-grabbing stunts (or awareness-raising events, depending on your side of the fence) can be outright illegal. The recent Kingsnorth case is an excellent example. In October 2007, six Greenpeace activists in the UK climbed a coal station smokestack and wrote “Gordon” on the side, causing almost US$50,000 in property damage; however, in the ensuing court case, they were acquitted on the grounds that they were preventing greater damage which would result from coal pollution and climate change. This decision is intriguing but also sets a dangerous precedent, as it could be used by other activist groups to justify criminal and damaging actions. To what extent can we allow criminal actions to escape punishment because they serve the environment?
There’s a long list of incidents involving Greenpeace that have generated PR backlash. For example, in August 2006 Greenpeace released a “Guide to Greener Electronics”, which was quickly slagged by several groups for their dubious research and rating methodology. In another incident, in a 2006 press release prepared in response to the U.S. government’s nuclear policy, a line was accidentally left in stating “In the twenty years since the Chernobyl tragedy, the world's worst nuclear accident, there have been nearly [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE]." Greenpeace also came under fire for its treatment of the Chernobyl disaster when it claimed in a 2006 report that up to 90,000 may die in the long term from radiation, a significant increase from the 4,000 estimated in 2005 by the UN; the Chernobyl Forum and several prominent scientists all spoke against Greenpeace’s allegations, explaining that it’s very difficult to disentangle deaths due to Chernobyl’s influence from other causes.
Sometimes, environmental activism has caused environmental damage: in 2005, the Rainbow Warrior II, a Greenpeace vessel, accidentally ran into the Tubbataha reef in the Phillipines while trying to inspect the reef for bleaching damage due to global warming. An estimated 100m2 of the reef was damaged in the accident and the organization was fined US$7,000. In other cases, it’s unwelcome: after the discovery of a potential oil source off the coast of Greenland, the Greenpeace ship Esperanzaentered into a standoff with the Danish navy in order to protect the region and prevent another disaster along the lines of the BP oil spill. However, the local reception has been frosty, as Greenpeace members discourage seal and whale trade and consumption which are integral parts of Greenland fishing culture; this latest embargo also blocks a massive infusion of investment into the local economy. Incidents like these are particularly thought-provoking: does activism harm more than it helps? Do controversial campaigns by environmental groups damage more than just their own image? Do these initiatives damage the very things they try to protect?
It’s true that over the course of their nearly 30-year history Greenpeace, and environmental organizations just like it (many of which it inspired), have greatly increased the profile of environmental issues in the public forum. In the world of environmental advocacy, it is a leviathan. Offices can be found in more than 40 countries and it boasts over 2.8 million members. Each office reports back to the headquarters in Amsterdam, but arranges its own events and initiatives. The organization has also been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize – twice. Greenpeace itself claims many victories: convincing several top companies to stop using palm oil, a May 2010 moratorium on logging across 28 million hectares of caribou habitat in Canada, an August 2009 change in policy by tissue company Kimberly-Clark after the five year Kleercut campaign, the March 2009 suspension of construction of a coal mine in Poland – the list is, frankly, immense. While I personally wonder about the ramifications of some of these claimed “victories,” I acknowledge that Greenpeace has had enormous direct and indirect influence on environmental policy and thinking worldwide.
But how aware are we of the successes NGOs have generated compared to the controversy? Do controversial incidents, whether intentional or mistakes, serve to spread the message of these organizations, or do they decrease their credibility and public interest in what they have to say? When we become aware of a major controversy, are we inclined to hear both sides of the argument, or only what confirms what we already believe? When these groups are publicized, does it encourage people to find out more about their causes and achievements, or to condemn activists?
No comments:
Post a Comment