Greenpeace are at it again!

[Mournblade1]

Activism is counterproductive

My biggest beef with environmental organizations is that they are frequently so interested in rallying their members by being as polarized as possible that they alienate possible valuable allies. I believe that a great deal of positive progress can be made on environmental issues by reaching out to people who have sound sensibilities, but aren't (and don't want to be) "environmental zealots." Rather than embracing an "us vs. them" attitude, I think it's a great idea to educate the fishermen about the truth, and get their support in effecting change!

I think (although perhaps I am naive) that a lot of people in the fishing and forestry industries are very much like your friend-- but often, they have been brought into the "group think" of their communities to think that environmentalists are all unrealistic and idealistic and "out to get them." And likewise, many environmental groups seem to raise money and energize their members by vilifying fishermen, foresters, corporate leaders, and the like.

Because I agree with Greenpeace's stance with respect to bottom trawling, I haven't been inclined to mention this, but I think Greenpeace has frequently been guilty of taking political and strategic positions that are part of the problem more than part of the solution, frequently because of internal factions and a need to pander to their supporters idealized and romanticized positions on issues, even when those are at odds with what's actually good for the environment or what would make the most effective impact on the problems. I know a number of very smart people who care deeply about the evironment who have left Greenpeace in various degrees of disgust, as well as some people who have been attacked by Greenpeace as "the enemy" who actually would have been open to being (or even had been) Greenpeace supporters!

I feel mildly guilty for this rant, because I also respect Kat and enough that I don't want to come across as saying supporting Greenpeace is bad or anything, but I really think that Greenpeace and other environmental organizations are stuck in a bad, intellectually inbred place that makes them much less effective than they could be. I'm also curious if other people have not seen these problems with Greenpeace, or if they just tolerate them because they believe in the cause? "

===>Hey, don't feel in the least bit guilty about your opinion. Hey,
we live in free countries, don't we? Anyhoo, I happen to agree with
you, in that organizations such as Greenpeace tend to take a "radical"
approach to their stances. In fact, I would argue that they do far more
harm than good.

Activism as a means to promote change tends to be counterproductive,
as it absolutely DOES alienate those who would otherwise side with
their points of view. I myself am a prime example--at one point, I
sided with organizations such as Greenpeace, PETA, et al., until I
discovered the tactics utilized by them to achieve their goals. Now,
I stand nearly 100% opposed to them--at least in terms of their
single-minded approach to problems, and their grand sweeping
generalizations of said problems. (I realize that I, too, run the risk
of making a grand sweeping generalization here, but. . . .)

The fishermen are NOT evil people, at least not as a whole. And
corporations, too, are not inherently evil. Hell, capitalism for that
matter is not evil. Just because THEIR goals and objectives at times
conflict with those of Greenpeace make them (in Greenpeace's eyes)
"sinners" who need to be stopped at all costs.

I feel that this viewpoint is ludicrous, because the folks at Greenpeace
are NOT taking into consideration the fishermen's (and corporations')
needs. They are in those particular businesses to make a profit,
which enables them to feed their families. I don't know about any
of you, but I put my family FIRST *before* any environmental
concerns.

I also reject the notion of "buying off" the fishing industry--i.e., giving
their money NOT to fish, for several reasons: 1. Who is going to
pay them? It had better not be MY government that does--after all,
the government's money is MY money. That is known as corporate
welfare, and it already exists too much, at least here in the States.
2. If they don't fish, then the supply of their product will decrease,
which will lead to shortages and higher prices. That's simple
capitalism. 3. The fishing industry will learn nothing from such
a tactic, and worse, will keep them from determining alternative
methods of harvesting their product (e.g., ways other than
bottom trawling).

I guess to sum up, I agree that there are genuine (and very
important) concerns about this method of fishing; however,
an activist response is NOT the way to go about it.

My solution: let the capitalist market sort it out. Give them
a financial incentive to come up with a safer (and more efficient)
method, such as (for example) through technological innovation.
Abandon Greenpeace and its unproductive methods, and utilize
your new-found time, energy, and resources by coming up with
a better solution--AND SELL THOSE IDEAS AND/OR RESULTING
TECHNOLOGIES TO THE FISHING COMPANIES. You make money
in the process, the fishing companies make money in the process,
and bottom trawling ends--everybody wins!

I fully understand that most folks in Greenpeace are NOT
capitalists (quite the opposite); however, the free world is,
and as the free market economy is the most powerful, making
enemies with them is foolish, and ultimately, counterproductive.

It's late, so I don't have much time to make a more coherent
argument, but I sign off with a quote from _Atlas Shrugged_,
"The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality."

(Incidentally, one of the founders of Greenpeace has stated on
Penn & Teller's show, _Bullshit!_, that Greenpeace no longer
represents what the organzation was founded for, and that most of
its initial goals were achieved, and that it now stirs up "new" problems
to justify its own existence--much like Jesse Jackson here in the
U.S.)

Flame away!

Vincent

 

[monty]

....
I guess to sum up, I agree that there are genuine (and very
important) concerns about this method of fishing; however,
an activist response is NOT the way to go about it.

My solution: let the capitalist market sort it out. Give them
a financial incentive to come up with a safer (and more efficient)
method, such as (for example) through technological innovation.
Abandon Greenpeace and its unproductive methods, and utilize
your new-found time, energy, and resources by coming up with
a better solution--AND SELL THOSE IDEAS AND/OR RESULTING
TECHNOLOGIES TO THE FISHING COMPANIES. You make money
in the process, the fishing companies make money in the process,
and bottom trawling ends--everybody wins!

The hard part of this approach is to make sure that the economic structure reflects all of the actual costs. I'm continually annoyed by the fact that some industries seem to have convinced the public that they have a right to make short-term profit by using up public resources without compensation... which is really just putting a differnt spin on "corporate welfare." So it's important to somehow establish an incentive structure that reflects the true costs of various practices.

Weirdly, I heard some timber lobbyist on the radio recently, who for some reason tried to counter the arguments that his company's practices were causing various problems by saying "but if we stop doing it, our company won't remain solvent," as if the company has some inalienable right to have a bad business model, but still be solvent. Certainly, forcing companies out of business is bad for employment and the economy in general, but if their business is based on a bad business model, then they need to "evolve or die"-- they shouldn't be allowed to manipulate the system to allow them to exist as parasites on the public interest (where long-term environmental interests are part of that public interest). But what really bugged me is that this guy seemed to think it was an accepted fact that the company's survival was more important than any other concerns... very odd.

Anyway, since the fishing companies can make a big short-term profit on exploitative practices, should the long-term and public-interest costs be forced into their economics in order for laissez-faire capitalism to incentivize the bottom-trawling companies to stop? I'm not saying it can't be done; I'm just not sure how....
Generally, I find it more aesthetic to allow markets' to be self-regulating, but particularly since the 80s or so, wall street investors have been only interested in short-term profits and continuation of proven business practices, so any the markets favor companies that exploit any resources they have access to for short-term profit, even if it's a losing strategy in some longer term.

Not so much applicable to fishing, I'm also disgusted at how companies are manipulating legislation on patents and copyrights in order to maintain their archaic business model... record companies, in particular, used to have a lot of value-added by providing expensive recording equipment to artists, by mastering records, pressing records in factories, and distributing them through a large trucking network. Now, all of this can be done at almost zero cost with modern computers and networks, yet the record companies are establishing justifications for controlling "intellectual property" and now charging even more for music, even though they are essentially spending nothing on anything except lobbying and promotion, are adding no value added over what the artist produced, yet getting the lion's share of the profits.

(Incidentally, one of the founders of Greenpeace has stated on
Penn & Teller's show, _Bullshit!_, that Greenpeace no longer
represents what the organzation was founded for, and that most of
its initial goals were achieved, and that it now stirs up "new" problems
to justify its own existence--much like Jesse Jackson here in the
U.S.)

Penn and Teller are great. Sometimes they do a little more showmanship than science in their "demonstrations," though...

 

[sorseress]

I have to admit that there are a few posts that I didn't read, just skimmed, but there are a couple of things that I want to say. RE Erich's comments about Tom Clancy...not only did he chase people off the beach (I know some of them) he's a total #*+#^E@)(%^ in a lot of other areas too. He cut down all the trees on the front of his property because they obscured his unobstructed view of the Chesapeake Bay. For that action he was heavily fined by the county and he also had to replant a whole range of plants, (trees, shrubs, ground covers) because he had violated the county's regulations designed to prevent erosion. Another point about his jerkiness. He had an Abrams tank in his front yard as a lawn ornament! I say had, because he divorced his wife (and mother to his huge litter of children) of many years to marry a blond bimbo and no longer lives here, but that's another issue.
On the subject of bottom trawling...in the bay we have had a variation of the same problem. For years some of the oyster fishers have dredged the bay in order to catch as many oysters as possible. The oystering in the bay is now so bad that fisheries are now discussing bringing in non native varieties of oysters to enable the watermen to continue to make a living. The very major downside to that is that no one knows how the introduction of an alien species will impact the overall health of the bay, which is already pretty lousy. For those few of you who may not know this, the Chesapeake Bay and it's tributaries are essential to the health of the fauna of the Atlantic. Even after years of intense efforts to clean up the bay, it's still in dire straits. SAV is in really bad shape, oxygen levels are low, non point source pollution is getting worse, not better, and although major efforts to clean up point source pollution have yielded some results, overall, the situation is pretty grim. So while bottom trawling is going on, the oceans nurseries are getting less productive because of human activity.
By the way, for those of you who may be interested, Oceans Alive has a web site discussing health risks from eating certain kinds of fish. Orange Roughy is one of the fish that, probably because of it's long life span, is considered a dangerous fish to ingest because of the mercury accumulations. Maybe that could also be used as a talking point against bottom trawling...eat them and your kids will be born dullards (major leaping to conclusions there). Hey, whatever works. A lot of the young and affluent would rather die than risk the chance that their kids wouldn't be bright enough to get into the most prestigious colleges. It's really late and I'm probably typing gibberish now...sorry if I rambled.

 

[chrono_war01]

Re: Abrams Tank on front lawn

I like it...but it does sound dumb. What's next? A Stealth bobmber balanced on the roof?

Re: Cutting down trees

Shame on him! Serves him right to be fined and forced to plant stuff back.

And about the oysters:
It's not only about the dredging, it's also becuase of polution from the farms, houses, industry...etc. and there was a oyster disease back in the 80's that killed the oysters. A think there was this pic of a person with tongs pretending to catchs oysters but the person actaully admitted that there was no oysters there when they took it.

Above in info is from reading NG too often.
Heh. I think there's an article about this in one of the books, not sure if it's online though...



And now, back to bottom trawling.

 

[Infusoria]

I have reports that describe levels of toxins in orange roughy:

Mormede, S.; Davies, I.M. 2003. Horizontal and vertical distribution of organic contaminants in deep-sea fish species. Chemosphere 50: 563–574.

Fenaughty, C. M.; Tracey, D.M.; Lock, J.W. 1988. Heavy metal and organochlorine concentrations in New Zealand aquatic fish, crustaceans, and molluscs. New Zealand Fisheries Data Report 34:

 

[chrono_war01]

must be all that industrial waste that is dumped into the sea.

 

[monty]

Bottom trawling and related legislation in the US

Although I get most of my information on NZ bottom trawling from this thread, I have been hearing about positive-sounding things in the US legislation quite a bit recently. Apparently, Governator Schwarzenegger signed a bill "banning" (although maybe just limiting) bottom trawling in California waters last year, and some new federal bill is imposing limits on it (I didn't get enough details about that one to know if it's a significan ban or more of a token "spin" environmental bill that just bans it somewhere no one wants to do it anyway, though). There was also some federal project announced to set up susainable fish farms off the northern Atlantic coast somewhere-- the National Public Radio folks brought in some people who were concerned about the details, but they seem to be trying.

So anyway, my misgivings about Greenpeace notwithstanding, discussion and/or activism does seem to have served to get new marine ecology concerns onto the radar screen of US politicians in the past year or so.

(don't know enough politics in or , but I wanted to use all the flags... No Aussie flag, but I had to look up the difference between it and the NZ one, they're so similar... one of you should sue the other in a "look and feel" lawsuit about that!)

 

[Steve O'Shea]

So anyway, my misgivings about Greenpeace notwithstanding, discussion and/or activism does seem to have served to get new marine ecology concerns onto the radar screen of US politicians in the past year or so.

Unfortunately, people holding hands on beaches, singing psalms, praying for coral, doesn't make the headlines. Unless it makes headlines people don't care. You need activism in this day and age to get your message heard. It's not the fault of the environmentalists - it's the fault of the press.

Watch the news every night; what do you see. Global current affairs, a little domestic current affairs (usually politics), sports and weather. There should be a 5-minute section dedicated to environmental issues. Then these people wouldn't have to be extreme to get their message heard.

 

[chrono_war01]

If poeple just listened, then a lot of things wouldn't have happened, would they? ANd that goes for enviromental issues, politics and a lot of other stuff.

 

[TPOTH]

If poeple just listened, then a lot of things wouldn't have happened, would they? ANd that goes for enviromental issues, politics and a lot of other stuff.

Amen to that!

TPOTH

 

[monty]

If poeple just listened, then a lot of things wouldn't have happened, would they? ANd that goes for enviromental issues, politics and a lot of other stuff.

Yeah, a lot of bad things stem from the fact that many people would much rather talk than listen...

 

[chrono_war01]

and after they finally finished, they would say, "Let's have a vote." then, "Let's do a recount." When that's done, it's time for "Let's do a questionarrie and ask the general public.". And finally, l"et's see what the industry thinks." And if anyone disagrees or thinks of something new, then we can do it all over again!

 

[monty]

and after they finally finished, they would say, "Let's have a vote." then, "Let's do a recount." When that's done, it's time for "Let's do a questionarrie and ask the general public.". And finally, l"et's see what the industry thinks." And if anyone disagrees or thinks of something new, then we can do it all over again!

Yeah, maybe things would be better if we just made me the dictator of the world, and then I could issue an edict to stop bottom trawling. Of course, I'd make reasonable decisions about everything else, too, except things I don't care about or that bug me or I don't have time to think about. And then we could be over-and-done with all this voting and opinion polling entirely; if someone wanted me to know their opinion, they could just make an appointment, and, just so people wouldn't eat into my free time making appointments to talk about boring or stupid things, the rule could be that anyone who talks to me about something stupid is put to death.

Does that sound better? It works for me...

 

[erich orser]

Yeah, maybe things would be better if we just made me the dictator of the world, and then I could issue an edict to stop bottom trawling. Of course, I'd make reasonable decisions about everything else, too, except things I don't care about or that bug me or I don't have time to think about. And then we could be over-and-done with all this voting and opinion polling entirely; if someone wanted me to know their opinion, they could just make an appointment, and, just so people wouldn't eat into my free time making appointments to talk about boring or stupid things, the rule could be that anyone who talks to me about something stupid is put to death.

Does that sound better? It works for me...

Sorry, Monty, that job is mine.

 

[monty]

Sorry, Monty, that job is mine.

I called it first