Guyana Community Discussion Forums

Amnesty International contacted me three times this  month to join them during the summer and advocate for climate change, human rights, and the rights of LGBTQA. When I examined the abbreviation of LGBTQA, it has more letter beyond "A" that represents people that are not heterosexual. Not that I don't care about climate change and human rights, but I was afraid to get entangled in a wed of confusion with each group. My answer was absolutely NO. Just when I thought I knew everything, I came face to face with a variety of sexuality in America.

Last edited by Cobra

Greepeace behaves like a criminal organization:

Prominent critics[edit]


 
Patrick Moore has reversed his positions on forests, nuclear energy, and more since he left Greenpeace staff[1]
 
Phil Radford disputes Moore by claiming that the U.S. does not need nuclear energy.[2][3]

Canadian ecologist Patrick Moore, a former Greenpeace founding member, is a critic of the organization.[4] In addition, Patrick Moore had once spoken out against nuclear power in 1976,[5] but today he supports it, along with renewable energysources.[6][7][8] In Australian newspaper The Age, he writes "Greenpeace is wrong β€” we must consider nuclear power".[9] He argues that any realistic plan to reduce reliance on fossil fuels or greenhouse gas emissions need increased use of nuclear energy.[6] Phil Radford, Executive Director of Greenpeace US responded that nuclear energy is too risky and takes too long to build to address climate change. Radford asserts that the U.S. can shift to nearly 100% renewable energy while phasing out nuclear power by 2050.[2][3]

In 2016, 107 Nobel laureates signed a letter urging Greenpeace to end its opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMOs).[10][11] The letter stated: "We urge Greenpeace and its supporters to re-examine the experience of farmers and consumers worldwide with crops and foods improved through biotechnology, recognize the findings of authoritative scientific bodies and regulatory agencies, and abandon their campaign against "GMOs" in general and Golden rice in particular. Scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved through biotechnology to be as safe as, if not safer than those derived from any other method of production. There has never been a single confirmed case of a negative health outcome for humans or animals from their consumption. Their environmental impacts have been shown repeatedly to be less damaging to the environment, and a boon to global biodiversity."[11]

Criticisms[edit]

Internal party structure[edit]

According to Wyn Grant, Greenpeace is a hierarchical and undemocratic organisation which allows very little control of its members over the campaigns the organisation embarks upon. For example, the criticisms Grant has given include: Greenpeace has a strictly bureaucratic and borderline authoritarian internal structure; a small group of individuals have control over the organisation in both international and local levels; local action groups are totally dependent on the central body; and the rank and file are excluded from most decisions.[12]

Shell oil storage buoy[edit]

In 1995, Greenpeace mounted a successful campaign to force Royal Dutch Shell, co-owner of the Brent Spar oil storage buoy, to dismantle the platform on land rather than scuttling it at sea, which involved the platform's occupation by Greenpeace members. A moratorium on the dumping of offshore installations was adopted in Europe soon after the affair, and three years later the Environment Ministers of countries bordering the northeast Atlantic sided with Greenpeace, (PDF) adopting a permanent ban on the dumping of offshore installations at sea.

After the affair, it came to light that Greenpeace had miscalculated the amount of toxic waste present aboard the Brent Spar. Greenpeace admitted that its claims that the Spar contained 5000 tons of oil were inaccurate, apologizing to Shell on September 5.[13] However, Greenpeace dismissed the importance of the amount of oil on board, pointing to wider industrial responsibility as the main issue at hand, as the Brent Spar was to be the first offshore installation to be dumped in the northeast Atlantic ocean; Greenpeace claimed that it would likely have been followed by the scuttling of dozens or hundreds more platforms, setting what they consider to be a dangerous precedent. The organization went on to point out that Shell's decision to scrap the platform had been taken before Greenpeace announced the existence of an incorrect amount of toxic waste, and that their mistake therefore did not influence Shell's decision.

Anti-DDT campaign[edit]

Greenpeace supports the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, a legally binding international agreement which aims to phase out substances such as DDT.[14] Both the Stockholm Convention and Greenpeace allow DDT to be used for malaria control.[15][16] However, according to Roger Bate, a libertarian critic of Greenpeace, the organization's campaign to shut down the last major DDT factory in the world located in Cochin, India, would make the eradication of malaria more difficult for poorer countries.[17] Robert Gwadz of the US National Institutes of Health said in 2007, "The ban on DDT may have killed 20 million children."[18]

Greener Electronics campaign[edit]

In August 2006, Greenpeace released its first "Guide to Greener Electronics," which ranked leading mobile phone, PC, TV, and game console manufacturers on their global policies and practice on eliminating harmful chemicals and on taking responsibility for their products once they are discarded by consumers. Greenpeace encouraged manufacturers to clean up their products by eliminating hazardous substances and to take back and recycle their products responsibly once they become obsolete.

The Version 1 Guide to Greener Electronics[19] stated "the ranking is important because the amounts of toxic e-waste is [sic] growing everyday and it often ends up dumped in the developing world. Reducing the toxic chemicals in products reduces pollution from old products and makes recycling safer, easier and cheaper." It ranked Nokia and Dell near the top, but essentially gave failing grades across the industry, ranking Toshiba thirteenth, and Apple Computer in eleventh place out of the fourteen brands. The report singled out Apple for its low rank, saying: "Already, many of the companies are in a race to reach the head of the class - that is, except for Apple, who seems determined to remain behind rather than be the teacher's pet we'd hoped for." This caught the attention of tech media news sites, and was widely reported. Greenpeace gave Nintendo a score of 0.3 / 10 based on the fact that Greenpeace has almost no information on the company, which, by Greenpeace's grading system, automatically results in a zero for the affected categories.

Daniel Eran of Apple news blog RoughlyDrafted criticized the guide in an article,[20] saying the Greenpeace guide's "ranking puts far more weight upon what companies publicly say rather than what they actually do. It is also clear that Greenpeace intended the report more as an attention getting stunt than a serious rating of corporations' actual responsibility." In response, Greenpeace attacked RoughlyDrafted's credibility, pointing out that it has in the past been called "the lunatic fringe of Mac fandom" by other bloggers after comparing the cost of Microsoft Windows and Apples' Mac OS X.[21][22]

It was alleged that Greenpeace had no factual evidence, instead relying on unsubstantiated official company information for the report in order to garner publicity, as well as political and monetary support. The United States Environmental Protection Agency's 2007 report Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) showed Apple leading the ranks in all categories. The Ars Technica website said the report "should make Greenpeace red-faced",[23] after factual substantiation was questioned.

Greenpeace responded to the criticisms in a rebuttal also published by RoughlyDrafted. Along with the Greenpeace rebuttal, the article[24] further presented the results of a second Greenpeace report, called "Toxic Chemicals in Your Laptop Exposed," which RoughlyDrafted called an 'apology' for the initial claims Greenpeace made in the Greener Guide rankings. While Greenpeace itself has never used the word "apology", they did restate several of their initial claims in a response to Keith Ripley, another reviewer of the report.[25] For example, the data reported findings of minimal traces of Tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA), an unregulated fire retardant in the Apple computer; the Greenpeace press release said Apple "appears to be using far more of this toxic chemical than its competitors". This is despite the fact that the EU Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks concluded in March 2005 that TBBPA "presents no risk to human health"[26] and "the World Health organisation conducted a scientific assessment of TBBPA and found that the risk for the general population is considered to be insignificant."[27]

More criticism of the statement in the Greenpeace press release followed in Greenpeace Lies About Apple on RoughlyDrafted:[28] "The most recent report, 'Toxics in Your Laptop Exposed,' did credible scientific tests, but then threw out the data to instead present a lathered up, misleading and deceptive press release that was simply a lie. No amount of credible science is worth anything if you ignore the findings and simply present the message you wanted the data to support."

Greenpeace published an article on its website, addressing the criticism so far, with a special focus on scientific issues.[29]

The Guide to Greener Electronics has been continually updated with new rankings of the electronics manufacturers, and as of May 2010, 15 editions have been produced.[30]

Greenland indigenous complaints[edit]

In 2010, when Cairn Energy found initial traces of natural gas in one of its test wells that indicate the possibility of much larger hydrocarbon deposits, Greenpeace sent its ship, the Esperanza, into a stand-off with the Danish navy near Cairn's oil platforms. Many members of the community were angry with Greenpeace telling youngsters not to eat whale or seal, which the Inuit have eaten for centuries. As a result, Cairn Energy has gotten a warmer welcome than many environmentalists have hoped for. One person said this was "because it is for the greater good." A reference to the potential revenue energy exploration could bring to offset the $500 million annual grant from Denmark which could transform the economy and lead to Greenland independence.

However, Aqqaluk Lynge, from the Inuit Circumpolar Council, said an influx of foreign companies and workers could mean the natives "risk being a minority in our own country." He added that "One thing is for sure, yes Greenland has a chance to be rich, it's something that is essential for the people of Greenland to discuss and then decide if we want forced industrialisation." Greenpeace also stopped the trade of sealskin, something Greenlanders have never forgotten.[31]

Neo-luddism[edit]

Several publications have accused Greenpeace of being anti-technology. In an editorial in the Register,[32] Andrew Orlowski cites Greenpeace's opposition to research on nuclear fusion. Orlowski points out the incoherent and contradictory argument by Greenpeace that nuclear fusion is non-viable but then warns of the dangers that commercial nuclear fusion posed on the environment despite their claims that nuclear fusion is an impractical, technological deadend. Other publications also criticized Greenpeace's stand against genetically modified crops[33][34] and the unlawful destruction of those crops by its members.[35]

Opposition to golden rice[edit]

In September 2013, several prominent scientists published a letter condemning Greenpeace and other NGOs for their opposition to golden rice. In the letter they state, "If ever there was a clear-cut cause for outrage, it is the concerted campaign by Greenpeace and other nongovernmental organizations, as well as by individuals, against Golden Rice."[36]

Mismanagement of funds[edit]

In June 2014, media outlets reported that one employee lost 3.8 millon euros by betting on fixed rate concurrency exchange when the euro was gaining against foreign currency[37]. Internal leaked communications by Kumi Naidoo, executive director of Greenpeace, indicates a "huge problem" and that the staff have "good reason" to be upset [38] . At the same time Pascal Husting, one of the top executives of the organization, was shown to commute several times a month during a two year period between Luxembourg, his home residence, and Amsterdam, the Head Quarters of Greenpeace [39] . This is against the company's view that short flights add to the CO2 emissions and internal policies regarding short flights. Pascal later apologized publicly [40] .

Damage to Nazca Lines[edit]

In December 2014, Greenpeace came under criticism following a publicity stunt within the Nazca lines, a UN World Heritage Site inside Peru. Demonstrators entered the restricted area surrounding the Hummingbird lines and laid down banners that spelled out "Time for Change! / The Future is Renewable / Greenpeace". In doing so, they tracked multiple footprints and damaged both the line itself and the area surrounding it.[41] Peru's deputy minister for culture criticized the actions, calling them "thoughtless, insensitive, illegal, irresponsible and absolutely pre-meditated."

Greenpeace responded with apologies, claiming that demonstrators took care to avoid damage, but this is contradicted by video and photographs showing the activists wearing conventional shoes (not special protective shoes) while walking on the site.[42] The organization stated they were surprised that this resulted "in some kind of moral offense." Conversely, they stood by "...history of more than 40 years of peaceful activism [which] clearly shows that we have always been most respectful with people around the world and their diverse cultural legacies." [43] Greenpeace members were allowed to leave Peru without being charged.[44] Despite Greenpeace offering to take "total responsibility", the president of the Maria Reiche Association Anne Maria Cogorno stated that the damage was "irreparable".[45]

Greenpeace and Indian government controversy[edit]

The Greenpeace India Society has been accused by the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs of a violation of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act. As per the FCRA act, no NGO can use more than 50% of received funds for administrative purposes, and Greenpeace India is alleged to have used 60% of these funds for administrative purposes.[46] Greenpeace India is challenging these allegations, and specifically the inclusion of campaign staff salaries as admin expenses.[47]

The Intelligence Bureau of India allegedly leaked a report accusing Greenpeace of anti-development activities.[48] The Delhi High Court overturned the governments decision to offload an Indian citizen from her travel to London - saying you cannot muzzle dissent.[49]

Last edited by Former Member

typing is not activism….

environ mentalism, fresh articles, interviews & checkitouts from Sydney.

Greenpeace is lying and stealing your money

with 36 comments

by Captain Paul Watson of Sea Shepherd, first posted at Counterpunch, and properly titled

How Greenpeace Cashes In on the Suffering and Death of the Great Whales

The Other Whaling Industry

By Captain PAUL WATSON

On board the Sea Shepherd ship Steve Irwin.

β€œIt does not matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”

β€” Dr. Patrick Moore, President of Greenpeace Canada 1981

As the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society struggles to borrow and raise enough funds to return to the Southern Ocean, we feel incredibly frustrated by the fact that tens of millions of dollars have already been raised to defend the whales yet this money is not being spent for that purpose and it will not help put fuel in our tanks to resume our defense of the whales.

Enough is enough. The Greenpeace fraud about saving the whales must be exposed. For years, I have been tolerating their pretense of action and watching them turn their ocean posing photo ops into tremendous profits from whaling. And now they say they can’t return to the Southern Oceans with their ship the Esperanza because they don’t have the budget for it and because they are going to direct their energies into lobbying for change inside Japan.

Yet they still continue to collect money to save the whales. Greenpeace has booked all online advertising in the major Australian and New Zealand newspapers. Their ads are splashed across the internet from Google to MySpace. Send money, send more money. Television ads, millions of pieces of direct mail.

Greenpeace International raised 127 Million Euros last year. Greenpeace Australia has about 18 million dollars in the bank. Greenpeace USA sits on tens of millions of dollars. Yet they claim they do not have the budget to return to the Southern Oceans yet they also claim they stopped the whalers for two weeks in January, and if such a claim is true then they should go back and stop them again.

But they will not. They have surrendered the Whale Sanctuary to the whalers yet the ads keep popping up and the contributions keep flowing into the Greenpeace coffers. It is incredibly frustrating to see stories about Sea Shepherd’s successful interventions against illegal Japanese whaling usually sprinkled with criticisms by Greenpeace about our methods. And right beside these articles pops up an ad asking the public to send money to support Greenpeace. Even if Sea Shepherd wanted to invest in these ads, we cannot because Greenpeace has booked all the ad space for three months.

Greenpeace makes more money from anti-whaling than Norway and Iceland combined make from whaling. In both cases, the whales die and someone profits. We continue to receive reports from people who have received highly emotional appeals from Greenpeace for money to save the whales including appeals to help refuel their ship.

This is simply out and out fraud.

Greenpeace ocean campaigners, are begging for money saying they will be fighting to help the whales escape and they claim that for every dollar donated they will be able to stay out another hour, another day, or another week β€œsaving” whales. Their success will depend on YOU sending a donation NOW. Of course the word success means something different to Greenpeace. The Greenpeace campaign is not stopping whaling ships. Success to Greenpeace is about recruiting memberships and raising money.

What the fund-raising appeals do not say is that Greenpeace has already raised tens of millions of dollars this year to β€œsave” the whales, and tens of millions of dollars the year before, and the year before that. In fact, Greenpeace has raised a mind-boggling hundreds of millions of dollars pretending to save whales over the years and yet they have not stopped the Japanese from killing whales.

Last year Nathan Santray described himself as the Action Director for Greenpeace. He reported that he was instrumental in saving the whales and that he would be heading back to the Southern Oceans to defend the whales again. BUT he can’t do it without your support so please send him a donation right away. They absolutely must raise $50,000 by the end of the year.

What he did not say was that Greenpeace raises more than $50,000 in donations every day. But Nathan assured us that he would be there β€œfighting to save every whale we can and we urgently need your help.”

Nathan and his crewmates maneuvered their little rubber Greenpeace boats into the path of the fire hoses where they were filmed being β€œattacked” with high power hoses. They did that for hours and it looked very dramatic. But it was all just ocean posing. My crew quite easily avoided the fire hoses. In fact, the only way they could have been hit would have been to steer directly into the path of the water. The Japanese whalers stupidly participated in the charade not realizing that they were playing right into Greenpeace’s hands. They haven’t realized yet that the best tactic to deploy against Greenpeace is to simply ignore them because they are harmless.

The Greenpeace pleas state that, β€œonly Greenpeace stands between the harpoons and the whales.” And β€œGreenpeace is the only hope for the whales.” This, of course, is a direct slap in the face to my international volunteers who have been actually physically intervening against illegal Japanese whaling. Unlike the paid Greenpeace crew, the Sea Shepherd volunteers did not go down to the Southern Oceans to take pictures of whales dying, they went down to there to stop illegal whaling activities.

Greenpeace simply ignores the efforts of other groups opposing whaling including Sea Shepherd, the only organization to have actually shut down whaling operations. The fact that Sea Shepherd chased the Japanese whalers away last year while Greenpeace was filming the whales dying seems to have been forgotten. That was where Greenpeace turned off their cameras.

This year’s annual appeal to save whales by Greenpeace is just the latest public relations strategy in a global campaign to fleece money from people of good conscience. The Greenpeace Foundation, of which I was a co-founder back in 1972, is today simply a multi-million dollar feel-good organization. They are selling the illusion of making a difference to a gullible public.

Greenpeace is a major international corporation. Over the years, those of us who envisioned and founded Greenpeace way back when, have watched in frustration and anger as faceless bureaucrats turned ideals into profits, secure in their understanding that the media myth of Greenpeace cannot be tarnished irreparably within the mass media culture. For every person who gets wise to their scam, two more are recruited. Greenpeace is a massive direct mail publicity machine utilizing media and psychology to part people from their money.

Together many of us from the early days feel like modern-day Dr. Frankensteins. We created a large green corporate monster that has forgotten where it came from and is now busy feeding frantically at the trough of public guilt. Greenpeace has become the world’s largest multinational β€œfeel-good” corporation. People join to feel that they are a part of the solution and not part of the problem. So Greenpeace hangs banners, calls boycotts, knocks on doors, and sends out direct mail solicitations. Consequently, they haul in tons of cash, supporting an army of eco-bureaucrats and fueling a global public relations campaign which postures on the myth that Greenpeace is saving the world.

Greenpeace is posing and marketing the illusion of saving the planet and they have an army of gullible volunteers and paid canvassers who have been talked into believing that Greenpeace is really, really saving the environment and saving whales in particular. When I left Greenpeace in 1977, I could have set up another knock-on-the-door-direct-mail- telephone-soliciting group to chase the green dollars. The problem is that I left Greenpeace to actually do something and that meant taking to the high seas to directly intervene against the slaughter of whales and the destruction of the ocean. The last time I saw a whale die in agony before my eyes was on my last Greenpeace whale campaign in 1976. When Sea Shepherd shows up, the killing stops and the whalers run. We don’t look for photo opportunities; we look for opportunities to shut down illegal whaling operations. We have shut down whaling ships permanently in Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Iceland, and Norway. We’ve sunk nine! of them without injuring anyone and without being convicted of a single felony. The reason is that our targets are criminal operations.

Greenpeace does not even oppose whaling. These are actual quotes from Greenpeace spokespersons: β€œGreenpeace is not opposed to whaling in principle.”

– John Frizell, Director of Greenpeace International. From the Greenpeace Policy Paper 1994. β€œAs a natural scientist I cannot accept that Greenpeace is opposed to whaling. One must be allowed to harvest a renewable resource. To me, this is an important principle.”

– Leif Ryvarden, former Chairman of Greenpeace Norway. From an interview with Dagbladet, August 2, 1991 β€œThe 1993 Minke whale harvest did not constitute a threat to the stock.”

– Ingrid Bertinussen, Greenpeace Norway Director. From an interview on Norwegian radio (NRK), October 22, 1993 β€œThe Norwegian catch is not a threat to the Minke whale stock,”

– Kalle Hesstvedt of Greenpeace Norway in a remarkable interview with the Norwegian newspaper, β€œNordlys” on May 21. Hesstvedt does not rule out the possibility that Greenpeace might accept commercial whaling when catch quotas are allocated by the International Whaling Commission (IWC). He repeated the statement on Norwegian radio (NRK) on the same day.

In 1997, I had Greenpeace investigated by the National Marine Fisheries Service of the United States for participating in a whale hunt. Greenpeace crew on the Arctic Sunrise actually towed a slaughtered bowhead whale to shore as a favour for the Inupiat whalers in the Bering Sea. In doing so, they violated both U.S. and international law. The incident was reported widely in the Alaskan media and the whalers used the incident to ridicule Greenpeace at the 1997 International Whaling Commission meeting in Monaco.

And it is not just whales that Greenpeace is betraying. Melanie Duchin of Greenpeace Alaska who also sent out a personal appeal to raise money to β€œsave” the whales said last year that Greenpeace is not opposed to the hunting of polar bears. She was quoted in the Alaskan media as saying, β€œIf the species of certain populations against the backdrop of global warming can sustain a commercial hunt, than we’re not going to oppose it.”

And Greenpeace raises millions of dollars from people concerned about the cruel slaughter of seals in Canada, yet Greenpeace has not opposed the Canadian seal hunt in more than two decades. The official Greenpeace position on the harp seal slaughter, the largest massacre of marine mammals on the planet is that the hunt is β€œsustainable.”

There are many who lament that it is a sad thing that different groups cannot work together. Sad though it might be, it is a fact. The objectives of an organization with highly paid executives is far different from an organization of volunteers. We have different objectives. While we look for whaling ships, Greenpeace looks for memberships.

Nonetheless, I have approached Greenpeace for years with offers to work in cooperation with them. They responded with insults or simply ignored us. They even tried to deny that I was a co-founder of their own organization.

A volunteer organization like Sea Shepherd is in business to put ourselves out of business. A large eco-corporation like Greenpeace is in business to keep itself in business, and whaling, sealing, over-fishing, global warming, and other assorted issues are simply the raw material that Greenpeace uses to turn people’s concerns into profits.

I know that I am taking a risk in publicly exposing Greenpeace as a fraud. I know it shatters people’s illusions, but some illusions need shattering. The real strength of the environmental and conservation movements lies in the diversity of individual activists and small grassroots organizations that large corporate organizations like Greenpeace parasitically rob energy and support from.

In my opinion, it is completely immoral for organizations to be paying six-figure salaries to desk-bound bureaucrats sitting in multi-million dollar office buildings as real, dedicated activists struggle in the field to rescue injured animals or to try and stop the horrific slaughter of seals, dolphins and whales. This entire movement is held up on the blood, sweat, and tears of tens of thousands of individuals struggling for ecological justice with minimal resources while a small, elite group skims the vast amounts of money from the public purse to be spent on large salaries, public relations posturing, and fund-raising.

It’s obscene, and it is high time that people woke up and saw Greenpeace for what it really is – a high-powered public relation machines designed to fleece the public. Greenpeace has secured their story and photos for this year. No need for them to return. It would not be a cost effective strategy for them to do so. They will accuse us of being eco-terrorists for intervening to defend the whales as they continue to spend mega-bucks on TV ads, direct mail appeals, and internet banner advertising. All this as the whales continued to die in horrific agony, choking on their own blood as Greenpeace cameramen record every emotional tear-jerking moment to beam back to the head office to aid in the never-ending quest for money, money, and more money.

And to add insult to injury – when Sea Shepherd returns, every news story that gets posted online will be accompanied by Greenpeace ads asking for money. Why return to the Southern Oceans when Sea Shepherd will be available to generate stories to keep the online ads popping up.

As the Sea Shepherd ship Steve Irwin prepares to return to the Southern Ocean alone to resume the pursuit of the Japanese whaling fleet, Greenpeace will be making trips to the bank to deposit millions of dollars raised under the false pretense of saving whales. It is obscene, fraudulent and scandalous. Yet as long as whaling continues Greenpeace will continue to milk the issue as a cash cow.

All the more reason for Sea Shepherd to shut down the Antarctic whaling operation. We need to put the whalers out of business and we need to put the people profiting from whaling out of business also.

Captain Paul Watson is founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society www.seashepherd.org

Advertisements

https://typingisnotactivism.wo...stealing-your-money/

Everything Wrong With Environmentalism In 11 Minutes Or Less!!

 
 

Most people care about the environment…at least enough to say they do on a study, and at least Millinneals at that. And most people have faith that the top environmental agencies in the world are fighting the good fight to remedy the wrongs of humankind, certain that they’re focusing on the core issues with the greatest impact. Well, today we’re going to look at the top issues championed by environmental agencies and the vast majority of environmentalists and see why they’re wrong. So…very…wrong. [tweet this]

Welcome to the first of the β€œeverything wrong with” series. Way back in the day I did a video comparing the effectiveness of all the common β€œgo green” tips to eating a vegan diet. Unfortunately it was before I was very rigorous with citing my sources and I haven’t had time to cobble them back together for that post. So today is a bit of a revamp with new numbers, many even more incredible.

All the citations for every fact I state are notated throughout this text and below. I will also track any errors that I or anyone else finds in this video at the bottom as well.

I will also be far more sarcastic and snarky in this video post but do not mean to say that other environmental issues have no importance. (you have been warned.)

In the video above you'll see a tally of wrongness (which you’ll see is more of an art than a science) and a timer.  And now…

Everything wrong with environmentalism in 11 minutes or less

[tweet this]

 

Issue one: climate change

Environmental agencies focus on fossil fuels as the big bad baddy of greenhouse gas emissions leading to global warming, suggesting alternative energy, carpooling, hybrid cars, and biking, but animal agriculture accounts for more carbon dioxide per year than all transportation methods combined. [1][2][3]

A conservative 2006 study by the United Nations food and agricultural study placed animal agriculture at 7,516 million tons per year or 18% of annual global green house gas emissions with a far more thorough 2009 WorldWatch Institute study taking into account overlooked livestock respiration, land use, methane and other oversights of the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations with the ultimate outcome of at least32,564 million tons of carbon dioxide per year coming from animal agriculture. That’s 51 percent of all global emissions compared to the 13 percent of all combined transportation. [tweet this]

And what do the environmental agencies point to? Reducing fossil fuel usage.

If we completely stopped all use of gas, oil, fuel, electricity et cetera, and never used them ever again, we would still exceed our carbon equivalent greenhouse gas emissions of 565 gigatons by the year 2030 just with the impact of livestock alone. [10][11]

So not using fossil fuels at all, which would be the wet dream of every environmental agency, we’re still gassing out the planet with the one contributor–the main contributor–which they refuse to even address.

In a similar vein, the focus is always almost exclusively on carbon dioxide but methane is 25-100 times more destructive than carbon dioxide [4] and has 86 times the global warming power. [7]

If we do reduce the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as all the organizations call for, it will take around 100 years to see an actual decline, whereas reducing methane shows results almost immediately with significant results within decades. [6][56] So the proposed solutions are even farther from the mark of actual constructive change.

Additionally, livestock is responsible for 65 percent of all emissions of nitrous oxide–a greenhouse gas that has 296 times more destructive than carbon dioxide and which stays in the atmosphere for 150 years. [8]

Put in comparative terms, your average car produces 3-12 kg/day of carbon dioxide. [16][17] to clear rainforest to produce beef for one hamburger produces 75 kg of carbon dioxide.[16] Eating one pound of hamburger does the same damage as driving your car for more than three weeks. [16]

But is animal agriculture ever mentioned by any of the top environmental organizations or environmentalists in relation to global warming? Nope. They focus on alternative energy when converting to wind and solar power will take 20-plus years and roughly 43 trillion dollars, [52][53] and going vegan takes seconds and can be even cheaper [96] than being non-vegan.

 

Issue two: water conservation

Environmental protection agencies recommend to use less water, take shorter showers, use a low flow shower head. Now here is where you’ll find the greatest variation from my original calculations based on a 5 gallon per minute shower head. This time around, I found that the typical shower head after 1980 emits 2.5 gallons/minute with the low flow emitting no more than 2galons/minute. [31]

If you take daily 15 minute showers with a low-flow shower head you’ll be saving 2,737.5 gallons per year. If, instead, you forgo one pound of beef one time, you’ll save 2,500 gallons of water [15] for one pound of beef. This is a conservative number as figure range all the way to over 8,000 gallons of water for one pound of beef. [11][32][33][34][35][36]

477 gallons of water are required to produce 1lb. of eggs; [35] almost 900 gallons of water are needed for 1lb. of cheese; [35] and 1,000 gallons/liters of water are required to produce 1 gallon/liter of milk respectively.[37]

Environmental agencies focus almost exclusively on curbing home water usage, but only 5 percent of waterconsumed in the U.S. is by private homes while 55 percent of water consumed in the U.S. is for animal agriculture, [11][38] and 20-33 percent of all fresh water consumption in the world today. [39][40][41][42] That’s up to a third of the planets water.

If you didn’t consume beef, eggs, milk, or cheese, not even counting other meats or dairy items, based on American consumption habits from 2000 [97] (64.4lbs beef down from 80.9, 250 eggs down from 374, 29.8lbs cheese at an all-time high, and 22.6 gallons milk down from 36.4 galons) and the conservative figures of water per pound, you’d save 222,345 gallons of water that year. (161,000 gallons from beef; 11,925 gallons from eggs using the average weight within egg size variation; 26,820 gallons from cheese; 22,600 gallons from milk.)

But the environmental agencies prefer saving 1,825-2,737.5 gallons a year by using a low flow shower head.

Oh and the trendy little Greek yogurts out there? 90 gallons of water for a single 6 oz. serving. [43] [tweet this]

And one stick of butter takes 109 gallons. [43]

If we added in all forms of dairy and meat for the average American in 2000 (593 pounds dairy down from 703; 195.2 pounds meat at an all time high), which is less dairy and more meat than the data I had for my first video, and use a very conservative average of 1,500 gallons per pound for the remaining meat as each type varies (derived from the average of 552 gallons per pound proposed for chicken and the already conservative 2,500 gallons per pound beef), and an even more conservative 600 gallons for the remaining dairy (derived from the lower average of 436 per pound of butter [43] and 900 gallons per pound of cheese), a vegan year would save approximately 724,925 gallons. (355,800 gallons from dairy; 161,000 gallons from beef; 196,200 gallons from other meats; 11,925 gallons from eggs using the average weight within egg size variation.)

Not only does that blow every water conservation recommendation out of the water, but with the new calculations, forget what I’ve said about not showering in the past–you would have to not shower at all for over 66 years if you took daily 15 minute showers or close to a 100 years if you took daily 10 minute showers, both with a water saving shower head. [tweet this]

And the advice of the supposed environmental champions: shower less, turn off the water while soaping your hands, run your sprinklers at night. Because that’s how we’re going to change the world.

 

Issue three: fracking (and no, I did not just curse)

Fracking is the new golden child of environmentalists and their leading organizations. Fracking is destroying the planet! It’s polluting the waters!

In the united states alone, fracking uses from 70-140 billion gallons of water. [44] Keep in mind for the big numbers that a thousand seconds is 17 minutes, a million seconds is 12 days, a billion seconds is 31.7 years, and a trillion seconds is 31,709.8 years.

In the United States alone, animal agriculture uses 34-76 trillion gallons of water annually. [45][46]

Taking into account the exponential difference between a billion and a trillion, animal agriculture in the united states consumes anywhere from 486 to over 1,000 times (1,086) more water than fracking, the largest threat to water according to environmentalists. [tweet this]

 

Issue four: ocean dead zones and over-fishing 

Some of the worst human-created devastation is in our oceans. Three quarter of the world’s fisheries are exploited. [47][48]

90 million tons of fish are pulled from our oceans each year. [50]

For every one pound of fish caught, up to five pounds of unintended marine species are caught and discarded as by-kill.[51]

We could see fishless oceans by 2048. [49]

And what’s suggestion of the major ocean protection organizations? Sustainable fishing.[64] there’s no way to make 100 million tons of fish by 2050 sustainable, especially given the 5 pounds of by-catch for every one pound of fish.

Animal agriculture is the leading cause of ocean dead zones [30][20][21][18][27] with livestock operations on land having created more than 500 nitrogen-flooded dead zones around the world in our oceans. [11][65]

 

Issue five: waste management

Environmental agencies focus on industrial waste and the disposal and sanitation of human waste while a farm with 2,500 dairy cows produces the same amount of waste as a city of 411,000 people [29] and it is entirely untreated. [tweet this] In fact, every minute, 7 million pounds of excrement are produced by animals raised for food in the US. This doesn’t include the animals raised outside of USDA jurisdiction or in backyards, or the billions of fish raised in aquaculture settings in the US [22][66][67] and it all has no proper management system leading to ground water and ocean pollution.

Perhaps they don’t want to address the fecal issue because they themselves are full of…moving on.

 

Issue six: species extinction

10,000 years ago, 99% of biomass (i.e. zoomass) was wild animals, today, humans and the animals that we raise as food make up 98% of the zoomass, with wild animals comprising only 2%. [57]

Up to 137 plant, animal and insect species are lost every day due to rainforest destruction [87][88], the leading cause of which, as we shall see, is animal agriculture.

We are currently facing the largest mass extinction in 65 million years. [78][79]

According to an interview conducted by Dr. Richard Oppenlander with Dr. Simon Stuart, chair of the International Union for Conservation of Nature species survival commission:

β€œHabitat loss from grazing livestock and feed crops is far and away the most pervasive threat to terrestrial animal species, impacting 86 percent of all mammals, 88 percent of amphibians, and 86 percent of all birds.

One in every eight birds, one in every three amphibians, and one in every four mammals is facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the near future.”

The Alliance for Global Conservation estimates 36 percent of all species on our planet are in danger of extinction. And what are the major species protection organizations recommending? wildlife rehabilitation and conservation, fighting poaching, and breeding programs. Way to throw a bandaid on an open artery. I'm sure it will hold.

 

Issue seven: habitat destruction, land usage & deforestation

A third of the planet is desertified, with livestock as the leading cause. [11][68][69][70][71][72]

Nearly half of the contiguous united states is devoted to animal agriculture. [74][75][76]

1.5 acres can produce 37,000 pounds of plant-based food and only 375 pounds of meat. [11][80][81][82]

The land required to feed 1 vegan for 1 year is 1/6th acre. It’s 3 times as much for a vegetarian and 18 times as much for a meat-eater. [80][83] [tweet this]

You can grow 15 times more protein on any given area of land with plants versus animals. [86] [tweet this]

136 million rainforest acres have been cleared for animal agriculture with 1-2 acres of rainforest are cleared every second. [89][90][13][14]

In fact, animal agriculture is responsible for up to 91 percent of Amazon Rainforest destruction. [11] [12]

A single quarter-pounder burger takes 55 square feet of rainforest to produce. [93][94]

But what do the major rainforest protection agencies focus on primarily? Palm oil and pulp production.

 

Now for the too long didn’t watch/read version:

Animal agriculture is:

  • The leading cause of greenhouse gas emissions leading to global warming,[3]
  • Uses a third of the earth’s fresh water, [9]
  • Up to 45 percent of the earth’s land, [10]
  • Is responsible for 91 percent of Amazon Rainforest destruction [12] with 1-2 acres being cleared every second,
  • And is a leading cause of species extinction [8][28][26][24][19], ocean dead zones [30][20][21][18][27][22][29],
  • And habitat destruction [26][24][18].

Environmental agencies not only do not focus on animal agriculture, the absolute most devastating and pervasive single cause of multi-dimensional environmental destruction, but they actually refuse to even acknowledge it.

And individual environmentalists, by and large, perhaps as a consequence or by their own social indoctrination, aren’t even aware of this issue despite devoting themselves to championing the environment.

 

For the wrap up:

The actual problem is animal agriculture and the actual solution is a vegan diet.

A person who follows a vegan diet produces the equivalent of 50 percent less carbon dioxide,

Uses 1/11th the oil,

1/13th the water, and

1/18th the land

compared to a meat-lover for their food [55][59][60][61][62][63], and every day saves:

  • 1,100 gallons of water,
  • 45 pounds of grain,
  • 30 square ft of forested land,
  • 20 pounds carbon dioxide equivalent, and
  • one animal’s life. [36][11][54][55][35]

Given all of these facts, it’s abundantly clear that veganism is the only answer to the environmental crisis and the environmental organizations collective failure to recognize this fact leave them with a wrongness tally total of: 13766

qualifying them for an ultimate score of:

more full of fecal matter than the 7 million tons produced every second by farm animals in the united states.

It’s time to get real. You cannot be an environmentalist and a non-vegan. It’s now beyond personal choice and allowing everyone their dietary preference. The earth cannot sustain the way we eat. This is a fact and it’s fast approaching critical mass. At this point, their is no reason to keep eating animals other than the purely selfish reason of not wanting to change our habits.

If we want our children to have a world to live on, we have to stop being so childish ourselves regarding our diets and cut out the crap.

I hope you enjoyed this fact-riddled nugget. Please share it around to wake people up to the importance of this issue and feel free to tag any of the major environmental agencies when you share!

The time it took to produce this video clocks in at about 68 hours. If you’d like to help support bite size vegan so I can keep putting in the long hours to bring you this educational resources, please check out the support page in the video description below where you can give a one-time donation or receive perk and rewards for your support by joining the Nugget Army.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this post in the comments!

ba$eman posted:

Climate change is a part of the natural progression.  I believe macro human influence is way overblown!  Most environmental catastrophes are a result of local activity.

Base is 1000 percent accurate (Texas should take note)

Cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars

 

  
  
 
  
  
6K
Click to follow
The Independent Online

Meet the world's top destroyer of the environment. It is not the car, or the plane,or even George Bush: it is the cow.

A United Nations report has identified the world's rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. And they are blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, from producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, from poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs.

The 400-page report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, entitled Livestock's Long Shadow, also surveys the damage done by sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. But in almost every case, the world's 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.

 
 

Burning fuel to produce fertiliser to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it - and clearing vegetation for grazing - produces 9 per cent of all emissions of carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas. And their wind and manure emit more than one third of emissions of another, methane, which warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide.

Livestock also produces more than 100 other polluting gases, including more than two-thirds of the world's emissions of ammonia, one of the main causes of acid rain.

Ranching, the report adds, is "the major driver of deforestation" worldwide, and overgrazing is turning a fifth of all pastures and ranges into desert.Cows also soak up vast amounts of water: it takes a staggering 990 litres of water to produce one litre of milk.

Wastes from feedlots and fertilisers used to grow their feed overnourish water, causing weeds to choke all other life. And the pesticides, antibiotics and hormones used to treat them get into drinking water and endanger human health.

The pollution washes down to the sea, killing coral reefs and creating "dead zones" devoid of life. One is up to 21,000sqkm, in the Gulf of Mexico, where much of the waste from US beef production is carried down the Mississippi.

The report concludes that, unless drastic changes are made, the massive damage done by livestock will more than double by 2050, as demand for meat increases.

http://www.independent.co.uk/e...rom-cars-427843.html

Last edited by Former Member
RiffRaff posted:

I didn't deny baseman assertions...my point is that there are people who deny climate change even though it's happening in front of them.

If you deny something, then how can you plan to combat it....even if it's caused by local activity

When reference is made to "deniers", they are referring to how much human influence, not that change will not happen.  It will, its part of the natural order of things!

RiffRaff posted:

I didn't deny baseman assertions...my point is that there are people who deny climate change even though it's happening in front of them.

If you deny something, then how can you plan to combat it....even if it's caused by local activity

It needs to be addressed locally, not from Paris, London or NY.  However, I would support an international fund to develop a catalytic converter for cows!!

ba$eman posted:
RiffRaff posted:

I didn't deny baseman assertions...my point is that there are people who deny climate change even though it's happening in front of them.

If you deny something, then how can you plan to combat it....even if it's caused by local activity

When reference is made to "deniers", they are referring to how much hu