Greenpeace and the Environmental Movement

­-Gandhi

In the world of environmental activism, there are two prevailing schools of thought. The first is that of the radical, militant environmentalist, and the second is the mainstream activist. The militant environmentalist, sometimes labeled the "eco-terrorist" by governmental organizations, espouses the belief that environmental preservation can only be accomplished through direct, concrete, and oftentimes violent methods to stop environmental destruction in its tracks (Wapner, In Defense of Banner Hangers). The militant environmentalist generally denounces the political process as a slow and ineffective tool, frequently opposing the concept of government in its entirety (Wapner, In Defense of Banner Hangers). Paul Wapner, in his book Environmental Activism and World Civil Politics defines such an activist as a "sub-statist," in that he attributes environmental destruction to large societal bodies like government, and views the solution to environmental problems to be the destruction of such structures. As sub-statist Theodore Roszack wrote in his book, Person/Planet, "...both person and planet are threatened by the same enemy. The bigness of things." Such groups as EarthFirst! and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) make up the militant, sub-statist environmentalist movement, and are often portrayed negatively in the media for sabotaging and destroying private property in the name of environmental protection (Wapner, In Defense of Banner Hangers).

The other environmental activists are the "light green" environmentalists, a term used by their adversaries in the radical wings. "Light green" or mainstream environmental activists lobby the government to implement policy that will improve the environmental situation, eschewing environmental direct action-militant or not-as an alienating practice that generates more resentment than sympathy towards the environmental movement (Wapner, In Defense of Banner Hangers). Such activists make up the statists and supra-statists in Wapner's essay, as they believe that an increase in local, national, or even international governing will solve the environmental dilemma (Wapner, Environmental Activism).

Within every duality, however, there tends to exist a maverick force-not necessarily a "moderate," that takes a little from either side-but a full-fledged rebel of the system. The rebel of the environmental movement is Greenpeace. Unlike the supra- and sub-statists, Greenpeace is neither against governmental solutions to environmental problems nor overtly in favor of them. Greenpeace, writes Wapner, is globalist (Wapner, Environmental Activism). Globalists seek to save the environment by heightening public concern; "Globalism is, in short, the attempt to infuse all people's practices with a conscience about environmental well-being. It seeks to instill an ecological sensibility so deeply into the human psyche that it will act like a norm or predisposition" (Wapner, Environmental Activism). Greenpeace's uniqueness lies in its efforts to disseminate this "ecological sensibility" via non-violent direct action (Wapner, Environmental Activism); while the efficacy of such an objective is difficult to gauge, there are concrete and abstract indicators that prove that, in accomplishing its objectives, Greenpeace is a successful public interest group.

Like many large organizations, the history of Greenpeace is a humble one. Greenpeace began in the basement of a Unitarian church in Vancouver in 1971. A group of peaceniks and environmentalists had formed the "Don't Make a Wave Committee" and had been holding regular meetings to discuss how to stop the United States from conducting a second nuclear bomb test on Amchitka in the Aleutian Islands. Amchitka lies in one of the most earthquake-prone areas of the world, and, as it is home to numerous endangered species, the activists feared that another explosion could have devastating effects on the environment and fault lines of the island. A previous earthquake had killed 115 residents and caused massive waves across the globe. During one of their meetings, future Greenpeace founder Marie Bohlen exclaimed, "Why the hell doesn't somebody just sail a boat up there and park right next to the bomb? That's something everybody can understand." The idea caught on. As the members were leaving the church, somebody flashed two fingers and shouted, "Peace!" Founder Bill Darnell replied, "Let's make it a Green Peace!" Later, a member of the group had trouble fitting the two words onto a button, and, shortening them to Greenpeace, created the committee's new name (Hunter).

The group organized a boat, the Phyllis McCormack, to sail over to the test site. The first time, the boat retreated after the test was postponed. The second sail was intercepted before it made it to Amchitka. Despite the failure of the boats to stop the actual detonation, the adventures were immensely successful. The United States and Canadian news had been covering the voyages extensively; people were joining Greenpeace by the thousands in opposition to the test. After conducting only three of the seven planned nuclear explosions, the United States halted its tests and declared the island a bird and game sanctuary (Hunter).

Over time, the organization grew to be one of the most well-known and controversial environmental groups in the world. Today, Greenpeace has over 2.7 million dues-paying members and a worldwide budget of over $202 million dollars (Greenpeace annual report). In order to retain political integrity, the organization refuses to accept donations from any government, corporation, or political party (Greenpeace annual report). Funding is generally received in the form of small donations of $15 to $50 by individual members, with very few large grants (Richardson). The organization holds offices in 38 countries throughout the world; its main office is located in Amsterdam, and its US office is near Chinatown in Washington, D.C. (Greenpeace annual report). Greenpeace has expanded its concerns from opposing nuclear energy and weaponry to focus on the environment as a whole. Currently, it campaigns to stop climate change, defend the oceans, protect ancient forests, promote peace through disarmament, prevent the spread of genetically modified organisms, eliminate toxic chemicals, end nuclear power, and encourage sustainable world trade (Greenpeace campaigns).

Though located in the District of Columbia, the United States Greenpeace office-a 100 percent eco-friendly workspace, complete with PVC-free carpeting and countertops furnished out of recycled yogurt containers-does not generally hire lobbyists, nor does it frequently engage in litigation or file amicus curiae briefs (Richardson). Members of Greenpeace USA are called frequently to give testimony to Congress, however, as their expertise is appreciated by our representatives (Richardson). The US office also brings in a number of college interns every summer and holds a semester-long environmental leadership program during the school year for college credit (Richardson). Of the Greenpeace USA $24 million dollar budget, about 3 percent goes to administrative costs such as employee payroll and office upkeep, and 20 percent goes to fundraising; the rest goes to campaign activism (Greenpeace USA annual report).

The work of Greenpeace varies slightly from country to country; while the US office barely lobbies at all, the UK office is somewhat more engaged in the political sector (Greenpeace political corner). Each office tends to retain a small amount of its country's environmental "flavor" in its activism (though all offices focus on international environmental issues) and countries utilize their grassroots base to varying extents. For example, the US office has helped establish over 100 grassroots Greenpeace student groups in college campuses throughout the nation, providing their student leaders with training and materials (Richardson). The office also assists local, grassroots Greenpeace activists in forming community groups, and sponsors Greenpeace "house parties" and other events to raise awareness and support for the organization (Richardson). Every Greenpeace country has a website where visitors are encouraged to participate in "e-activism," sending e-mails to governments and corporations in opposition to environmentally destructive practices. Overall, however, it is clear that Greenpeace places less emphasis on organizing its members into grassroots activists than do organizations like Amnesty International; Greenpeace's actions, which will be discussed later, depend more on a compact group of organized activists than a worldwide grassroots base.

As a transnational organization, Greenpeace has a complex organizational structure beyond the hierarchy of its US office, including a Board of Stitching Greenpeace Council, which approves its annual budget; an International Executive Director; and a group of trustees, representative of each Greenpeace chapter, who meet once a year to discuss Greenpeace strategy, and governmental structure (How is Greenpeace structured?). The Chair of Board is currently Australian journalist and author Anne Summers (Questions about Greenpeace). The Greenpeace trustees also set a ceiling on the Greenpeace International budget (How is Greenpeace structured?). Greenpeace International is a chapter unto itself, responsible for coordinating worldwide campaigns, monitoring the development and performance of national and regional Greenpeace offices and providing services to the whole organization (How is Greenpeace structured?). The Executive Director is currently German activist and advisor Gerd Leipold (Questions about Greenpeace). The scientific research Greenpeace uses to support its campaigns comes from a team of scientists who work both in the field and in the Greenpeace laboratories at the University of Exeter in the UK (Greenpeace research laboratories). Greenpeace's international reputation for scientifically sound environmental campaigns has earned it UN observer status, and it is an accredited nongovernmental organization in most international environmental negotiations (Richardson).

At the heart of Greenpeace's work-what makes the organization "globalist" as defined by Wapner-is a commitment to "bearing witness," mainly in the form of non-violent civil disobedience. A practice originating from the Quakers, "bearing witness" seeks to "link moral sensitivities with political responsibility" (Wapner, Environmental Activism). Having witnessed moral injustices, the public is forced to either take action or sit by guiltily (Wapner, Environmental Activism). By exposing environmental wrongs to the eyes of the public-by "bearing witness"-Greenpeace works to alter the views and behaviors of everyday people. Some of its more attention-getting actions have included "climbing nuclear smokestacks, spraying Newfoundland harp seals with paint, plugging industrial sewage pipes, delivering dead fish to annual meetings of corporations accused of polluting rivers and lakes, and sailing inflatable boats into nuclear test sites" (Orr). Indeed, as deputy director of Greenpeace USA Bill Richardson stated, the "signature of Greenpeace is nonviolent, creative confrontation" (Richardson).

This sort of confrontation finds its roots in the work of the leaders of the United States civil rights movement, Martin Luther King Jr., and Rosa Parks; and the peaceful civil disobedience of the Indian hero Gandhi. Transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau's famous essay, "Civil Disobedience," closely relates the work of all peaceful actions to combat injustice as a moral necessity. Activists who practice civil disobedience choose to deliberately, but non-violently, break certain laws with the understanding that they may be arrested. Usually there is a greater societal good that activists hope to obtain by practicing civil disobedience, although it can be practiced simply because an individual feels morally opposed to a certain law. The point is that, for the moment, the activist is the change he wishes to see in the world, as Richardson stated. Unique from the work of more militant, "sub-statist" environmentalists, Greenpeace follows these principles of civil disobedience in the spirit of King and Gandhi by using its actions not to violently halt environmental destruction in its tracks, but rather to cause temporary, peaceful disruption that bears witness to the public, leading to a ripple effect of long-term change.

An apt example of such an action is one Greenpeace took several years ago as part of its campaign to stop ozone depletion. Members of the organization infiltrated a DuPont manufacturing plant in Deepwater, New Jersey. At the time, DuPont was the leading producer of ozone depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFS) in the US, and was responsible for 25% of the CFCs produced worldwide. The Greenpeace activists climbed the plant's 180-foot water tower and hung a gigantic blue ribbon awarding DuPont for being the world's number-one ozone destroyer. The next day, Greenpeace staged an 8-hour blockade of Dupont CFC delivery by bolting a steel box with two people inside over the plant's railroad tracks. Draped over the box was a banner that read, "Stop Ozone Destruction Now!" 44,000 gallons of CFCs were halted in the plant's rail cars (Wapner, Environmental Activism).

As Greenpeace expected, within minutes of removing the blockade, business continued as usual. CFCs were delivered to their final destinations and eventually sent into the stratosphere, where they contributed to the thinning of the ozone, increasing the power of the sun's ultra-violet radiation. Regardless, Greenpeace had succeeded; though DuPont workers continued production of CFCs, they made them knowing that the public was now aware of their environmental misdoing. Furthermore, through Greenpeace's extensive media distribution, the world was now aware of the connection between the production of chlorofluorocarbons and ozone depletion. They hadn't stopped DuPont right then and there, but they had alerted the public. Their actions would later contribute to the formation, enforcement, and strengthening of the Montreal Protocol, a treaty phasing out CFC production and responsible for the restoration of the ozone layer; one which Kofi Annan noted was, "Perhaps the most successful international treaty to date..." As Greenpeace activist Paul Watson said, "When you do an action it goes through the camera and into the minds of the people. The things that were previously out of sight and out of mind now become commonplace. Therefore you use the media as a weapon" (Wapner, Environmental Activism).

A crucial component to the success of Greenpeace's campaign to save the ozone layer was how visually spectacular their actions were. Indeed, the stunning images produced from the campaign excite the public and awaken the dormant idealist. The long-haired hippie activist suddenly became the environmental hero, fighting the forces of evil for the betterment of the globe. These novel images of adventure and heroism are necessary to bear witness and incite outrage-without them, campaigns attract little media attention and fail to "stick" in the minds of the public (Wapner, Environmental Activism).

Consider, for example, the various actions Greenpeace has taken numerous times to prevent the extinction of whales. One such action involves sending activists aboard one of Greenpeace's famous inflatable boats to block the shots of harpoon canons from whale "catcher ships." The activists typically divert the shots by putting their lives on the line in front of the harpooners and by using high-powered water canons to spray a thick fan of water, obscuring the catchers' line of sight. Each action often saves the lives of hundreds of whales. Photographs and video footage, made available to the public through Greenpeace's website and the media, serve to change the public's attitude about whale hunting. From the original, Moby Dick version of the whaler as David and the whale as Goliath, the gigantic whaling ship suddenly becomes Goliath, and the brave activist in his small inflatable boat is David fighting to protect the endangered. These actions, which have taken place for over 30 years, have lead to a ban on most whaling by the International Whaling Commission (IWC). Greenpeace still fights the whaling that the IWC has allowed some countries to participate in (Wapner, Environmental Activism).

Not all of Greenpeace's eye-opening action is so confrontational, however. In addition to disrupting "business as usual," Greenpeace partakes in unique and creative forms of activism that are sometimes just as powerful in altering the public to environmental injustice. On the subject of whaling, Greenpeace unveiled the world's first "virtual march" in South Korea, the host city of the 57^th International Whaling Commission. Days before the closed-door meeting of the IWC was supposed to take place, Greenpeace activists projected a slideshow of 51,161 individuals holding up banners opposing all forms of whaling onto a nearby building. Delegates attending the conference, passers-by, supporters, and the media all gathered around the slideshow to witness public opposition to whaling (World's first virtual march).

Yet another component to Greenpeace activism and subversion is their "re-branding" of environmentally destructive corporations. Throughout history, Greenpeace has singled out corporations for their environmentally destructive practices, and through direct action, boycotts, petitions, supporter e-mails, postcards, detailed reports, and media coverage, Greenpeace takes a corporate brand and changes its association from popular and benign to undesirable and evil. Once the corporation dedicates itself to changing its practices, the campaign is declared a victory and the corporation is no longer an enemy of Greenpeace (Richardson).

The most recent example of this form of activism is Greenpeace's "McAmazon" campaign. After a year-long investigation using satellite imagery, aerial surveillance, previously unreleased government documents and on-the-ground monitoring, Greenpeace discovered that the Amazon had been illegally deforested numerous times to make way for massive soya monocultures. The product was then sold to soya traders, who sold them to farms that fed them to the livestock McDonalds purchased for its menu items. Following an extensive campaign that targeted McDonalds for assisting in the destruction of the Amazon, Greenpeace declared "McVictory," as McDonalds had pressured its traders into declaring a two-year moratorium on the purchase of soya from deforested area while the traders change their practices to assure McDonalds that they are not involved in the destruction of the Amazon (McVictory).

Examples such as Greenpeace's McVictory abound, but have led many to question why Greenpeace doesn't focus more on tightening government regulation of corporations, as this statist policy would ostensibly initiate long-term change. While Greenpeace does practice a limited form of this sort of policy advocacy, as Richardson explained, "We're dealing with moving goalposts...it's hard to pin down real change on a policy deal." Indeed, in the world of global markets, it is increasingly easier to simply move an environmentally destructive, profitable practice from one country to another when the environmental policies of a country get stricter. With the major world trade organizations holding closed-door, undemocratic meetings, it has become hard for Greenpeace to have much of a say in how world trade affects the environment. As such, Greenpeace has taken the position that, "The most powerful vote people can cast is how they spend their money" (Richardson).

Another particular concern that many individuals bring up regarding Greenpeace is that their controversial actions "do more harm than good" (Wapner, Ecological Resistance Movements). In violating laws via direct action and focusing too little on the political process, many feel that Greenpeace is out of touch mainstream environmentalism, undermining legitimate attempts to protect the environment (Wapner, Ecological Resistance Movements). Greenpeace's response has been that of nearly all movements that practice occasionally unpopular acts; that hatred of an organization is a testament to the influence of that movement (Richardson). Just as the famous eight Alabama clergymen were morally wrong when they wrote their letter of opposition to Martin Luther King, Jr., so are the people opposed to Greenpeace in the wrong, and, just as the public eventually saw the righteousness of the civil rights movement, so too will they all come to agree with the actions of Greenpeace. It is not Greenpeace's position that they should abandon their traditionally successful means of pursuing environmental change in favor of a more "watered-down" approach. As Bill Richardson stated, "If you try to appeal to everyone, you won't appeal to anyone."

In addition to Greenpeace's ideological reasons for supporting acts that some disagree with, there is a significant amount of evidence to show that their actions actually do fare positively in the eyes of the public. Notwithstanding their vast membership and supporter base and their relatively large budget, many sociological scholars contend that, when the public witnesses an organization willing to go to the extreme to fight for a cause, they tend to believe that such a cause must be a worthy one (Kamieniecki, Coleman, and Vos). In fact, a recent study conducted by a University of Washington sociology doctoral student, Jon Agnone, showed that each environmental protest that occurs in a given year increases the amount of pro-environment bills passed in Congress by 2.2 percent (Schwarz). "Social movements do matter, sometimes," said Agnone (Schwarz). "Politicians are responsive, but this happens by going to the streets, not by schmoozing elected officials" (Schwarz). Finally, according to an extensive international study conducted in 2000 by Strategy One, major non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as Greenpeace, Amnesty International, and the Sierra Club, "have earned a far greater level of trust than some of the most well-respected global multinational companies such as Ford, Microsoft, G-7 governments, and global media" (Maté). The survey discovered:

NGOs are trusted nearly two to one to "do what is right" compared to government, media, or corporations. Nearly two-thirds of respondents say that corporations only care about profits, while well over half say that NGOs "represent values I believe in."

NGOs ranked significantly higher as a source of credible information than media outlets or companies on issues including: labor and human rights; genetically modified food; and environmental and health issues (Maté).

Though some may disagree with the organization-and disagreement varies in intensity from region to region and from political landscape to political landscape-it seems evident that, for the most part, Greenpeace is a well-respected organization in the movement to save the environment, and its many accomplishments have not been overlooked by scholars, the media, and the public. As Richardson put it, "When you have people calling the Greenpeace executive director to complain that their neighbor is putting pesticides on their lawn, you know you've made an impact in the world."

In closing, Greenpeace is a public interest group like no other. Through its unique method of globalist, non-violent confrontation, it "bears witness" to environmental atrocities and changes the tide of public opinion. Its history is rich with success, and until the last environmental injustice is overcome, it will continue to shine a beacon of hope on a planet in desperate need of its defense.

Works Cited

"Greenpeace: Annual Report 2005." 2005. Greenpeace. 4 Aug 2006

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/annual-
report-2005.pdf

"Greenpeace Campaigns." Greenpeace. 4 Aug 2006

.
"Greenpeace Political Corner." Greenpeace UK. Greenpeace. 4 Aug 2006

.

Greenpeace Research Laboratories. 22 June 2006. Greenpeace. 4 Aug 2006

.

"Greenpeace USA Annual Report." 2004/2005. Greenpeace USA. 4 Aug 2006

2004-05.pdf>.

"How is Greenpeace Structured?." Greenpeace International. Greenpeace.

4 Aug 2006 .

Hunter, Robert. Warriors of the Rainbow: A Chronicle of the Greenpeace

Movement. New York: Hold, Rhinehart, and Winston, 1979.

Kamieniecki, Sheldon, S. Dulaine Coleman, and Robert O. Vos. "The

Effectiveness of Radical Environmentalists." Ecological Resistance

Movements (1995):

Maté, John. "Making a Difference: a Non-Governmental Organization's

Campaign to Save the Ozone Layer."Greenpeace International. 2000.

"McVictory." Greenpeace 25 July 2006 04 Aug 2006

.

Orr, Shanon. "The Left."Encyclopedia of Politics. 2005.

"Questions about Greenpeace." Greenpeace International. Greenpeace.

4 Aug 2006 .

Richardson, Bill. Deputy Director, Greenpeace USA. Personal interview.

03 AUG 2006.

Schwarz, Joel. "Research shows protests get action on the environment."

University Week 19 Aug 2004 04 AUG 2006

.

Wapner, Paul. Environmental Activism and World Civic Politics. Albany: State of

University New York Press, 1996.

Wapner, Paul. "Greenpeace."Encyclopedia of Global Change. 2001.

Wapner, Paul. "In Defense of Banner Hangers: The Dark Green Politics of

Greenpeace." Ecological Resistance Movements (1995):

"World's First Virtual March for the Whales unveiled in South Korea."

Greenpeace 19 June 2005 04 Aug 2006 .