June
1994
Greenpeace:
Past, Present and Future
By Paul Clarke
|
|
|
On September 15, 1971, an aging halibut seining boat called the Phyllis
Cormack left its dock in Vancouver, British Columbia, bound for the
tiny island of Amchitka, located in the icy waters off the west coast
of Alaska, near the tip of the scattered arc of the Aleutian Islands.
For years this island had been a haven for wildlife, home to bald eagles
and peregrine falcons, and the last refuge for 3,000 endangered sea
otters; since 1969, it had also been the site where the United States
tested its nuclear arsenal. The twelve crewmembers of the Phyllis Cormack,,
renamed Greenpeace for the voyage to incorporate the ideas of peace
and environmental sanity, had been working for nearly a year to plan
a way to stop further nuclear testing at the island; taking their inspiration
from a daring act attempted by a group of Quakers in 1958, they planned
to sail a boat directly into the weapon's test site, thereby disrupting
the test through the use of non-violent direct action and drawing international
attention to the testing of nuclear weapons.
Although the initial voyage of the Phyllis Cormack was unsuccessful
in stopping the test, the crewmembers did succeed in provoking an international
outcry against nuclear testing at Amchitka; the test site was later
abandoned by the military and converted into a bird sanctuary. At the
time of the Amchitka voyage, however, none of the participants probably
dreamed that their attempt to fuse the Quaker principle of "bearing
witness" with the growing environmental and peace movements would
result in creating one of the world's largest, most successful, and
most controversial environmental groups.
In the twenty-three years since the group's founding, Greenpeace has
built an impressive resume of achievements, accomplished through a
combination
of high-profile direct actions, grassroots organizing, education, research,
and more recently through lobbying in the halls of power throughout
the world and by being an accurate and frequently unnerving force at
international conventions and meetings. From it's origins as an anti-nuclear
organization in North America and the South Pacific, Greenpeace drew
much attention from it's continuing fight to stop the production and
testing of nuclear weapons. This battle occasionally turned bloody,
as when David McTaggart, captain of the yacht Vega, was beaten unconscious
by French commandos while attempting to disrupt a nuclear test at the
Moruroa atoll in the South Pacific; years later, the French government
attempted to silence Greenpeace once and for all by bombing the group's
flagship Rainbow Warrior while it was docked in New Zealand, killing
Greenpeace photographer Fernando Pereira and bringing about such an
international outcry that it led to the dismissal of the French Defense
Minister and the imprisonment of two French secret service agents.
In
addition to it's work for nuclear disarmament, in 1975 Greenpeace took
on a campaign that later became virtually synonomous with the movement,
as activists around the world worked to disclose, disrupt, and ban
the
commercial killing of whales. In later years, Greenpeace began targetting
polluting corporations; challenging modern society's dependence on
fossil
fuels and nuclear power; exposing the international trade in toxic
materials and technologies; and focussing attention on international
efforts to
ban the dumping of radioactive waste at sea and to stop the production
of ozone destroying chemicals.
In the course of business, Greenpeace banners have decorated such landmarks
as the Statue of Liberty, the Arc d' Triomphe, Mount Rushmore, the Sears
Tower, and the Golden Gate Bridge; the organization has spread worldwide,
with offices in thirty countries in every continent, has maintained
the only non-governmental base in the Antarctic, has conducted campaigns
in virtually every country in the world, and has become a reliable source
of information for the United Nations. Along the way, they have picked
up more than four million supporters worldwide, developed a fleet larger
than the navies of several countries, and received millions of dollars
in donations, virtually all from private individuals and families. The
question is, twenty-three years after the initial voyage of the Phyllis
Cormack, how has Greenpeace changed, and why does this environmental
giant continue to attract support worldwide?
From it's very beginnings, Greenpeace has committed itself to a confrontational,
no-compromise approach to dealing with international environmental problems
in a strictly non-violent manner. The way the organization dealt with
issues such as nuclear testing and commercial whaling seemed unsettlingly
non-conformist--even revolutionary--when compared with the activities
of the more established conservation organizations, such as the Sierra
Club and the Audobon Society. The movement was richly flavored at first
by a combination of Eastern mysticism, Native American mythology and
symbolism, and deep-rooted Quaker principles of non-violent disobedience
when encountering injustices in the status quo. Moreover, the founding
of Greenpeace had many direct links to the anti-Vietnam War movement
and the Civil Rights movement. The conservation establishment, who had
achieved much of their work through cautious compromises with large
corporations and governments, worried that Greenpeace would bring the
entire environmental movement down in disgrace with its crazy stunts;
some of that uneasiness still lingers in the modern environmental movement.
But, as the mainstream groups, corporations, and governments quickly
learned, the use of high-profile actions and demonstrations coupled
with taking international environmental issues to the streets seemed
to produce results: the known annual harvest of whales dropped from
25,000 in 1975 to less than 300 in 1993, and in recent weeks an international
agreement, heavily lobbied by Greenpeace and backed up by very successful
boycotts in Europe, was passed by the International Whaling Commission
, creating a whale sanctuary around Antarctica.
Although Greenpeace has kept its no-compromise approach, it has grown
more mature with age. For at least the first decade of its existence,
the organization tended to be a hit-and-run outfit, doing only enough
preparatory research to demonstrate that its picturesque actions were
justified, but not supporting the impacts of its actions with careful
preparatory political work. Some of that reputation still clings, but
Greenpeace has been conscientiously beefing up its research and political
activities for the last several years. Since the mid 1980's, Greenpeace
has grown to recognize the strength inherent in knowledge; currently
their staff includes such figures as Pat Costner, a former Union Carbide
chemist who is recognized as one of the world's foremost authorities
on dioxin.
If Greenpeace's actions are blamed by its detractors for alienating
possible sympathizers from major environmental problems, it's research
provides the needed punch that weakens even the most entrenched corporate
arguments. In a campaign that the organization has been pursuing since
the late 1980's, the construction and operation of the Waste Technologies
Incorporated (recently renamed WMX) hazardous waste incinerator in East
Liverpool, Ohio, has been hampered at every step by Greenpeace's assistance
to community activists, it's successful pursuit of public knowledge
of the issues surrounding the incinerator, and most importantly by its
research on the effects of burning hazardous waste--Greenpeace's independent
scientific data on the incinerator is viewed by the EPA as the most
accurate available. On an international level, expeditions by Greenpeace
ships into the Persian Gulf area following the Gulf War produced figures
concerning civilian deaths and ecosystem destruction that answered many
questions the Pentagon refused to approach.
In addition to a growing dependence on carefully prepared research,
the organization has also grown more politically savvy over the years.
Although a certain amount of bickering occurred when Greenpeace started
venturing into the halls of power in the late 1980's, it had become
obvious to many in the organization that the ability to confront politicians
on their own turf, as well as to mobilize enormous numbers of grassroots
activists around the world and to play its hand in potentially groundbreaking
environmental legislation where the efforts of more mainstream groups
fell short would spell even greater success for itself and for the environmental
movement in general. Greenpeace currently has lobbyists in Congress
and other parliamentary bodies worldwide, including a respected spot
in the United Nations and invitations to participate in international
conventions, such as the London Convention concerning the dumping of
radioactive waste at sea and the Basel Convention concerning the international
trade in toxic wastes and toxic technologies. Despite its growing presence
in the halls of power, the organization is still approached with much
hesitation by lawmakers, wary of the groups' reputation for awarding
loyalty on an issue-by-issue basis; however, this reputation is one
of the very things that leads to Greenpeace's continuing success in
attracting and keeping supporters, many of whom are dissatisfied by
the dickering and compromise evident in other, more mainstream groups.
This political division has grown sharper in the past few years. In
the wake of the 1992 presidential election, the mainstream environmental
movement was in a state of near ecstasy. At every opportunity along
the campaign trail, Bill Clinton had publicly supported the environmental
policies voiced by Al Gore, at the time believed to be the most environmentally
correct candidate from a major political party in history. Bruce Babbitt,
president of the League of Conservation Voters, was appointed head of
the Interior Department, and Carol Browner, a prominent public-policy
environmentalist, was named to lead the Environmental Protection Agency.
A rear admiral was replaced as head of the Energy Department by Hazel
O'Leary, an environmentally enlightened woman. Resumes poured into the
transition team office from dozens of environmental movement professionals
who were eager to ascend to federal service. Even mainstream environmentalists
not promised jobs expected something they prized just as much--access
to the President, which would be assured through Al Gore; and through
other insiders in the Administration, they would be assured access to
three key environmental departments, those of Interior, Energy, and
Agriculture, as well as the EPA. Soon after the inauguration, Clinton
invited the heads of virtually every large environmental group in the
United States to a special dinner at the White House; when the director
of Friends of the Earth asked why Greenpeace was among those who had
not been invited, she was politely told that the organization who had
the largest number of supporters in the country would possibly be invited
in coming years.
Despite the fact that many environmentalists who received posts within
the administration were placed in sub-secretarial posts with advisory
roles but little policy powers, mainstream environmental leaders were
still delighted; an Audobon Society lobbyist was quoted in The Nation
as saying, "I can't tell you how wonderful it is to walk down the
hall in the White House or a government agency and be greeted by your
first name." But the sprinkling of environmentalists in the Clinton
Administration has served it better than it has the environment, allowing
Clinton and Gore to back down on virtually every piece of environmental
reform promised during the campaign with barely a whisper of protest
from the Washington environmental establishment. In return for some
access and environmental rhetoric generally delivered in safe situations
such as Earth Day celebrations, the Clinton Administration has earned
more than a year of a free ride with the high-profile environmental
leadership, ensuring the support of more than 10 million environmental
voters while their leaders shift uncomfortably in their seats as compromise
after compromise is struck.
Greenpeace has remained an outsider in the changing environmental movement,
and it is possibly this exclusion that is guaranteeing it more credibility
among environmentalists in the United States. While the Environmental
Defense Fund brokers pollution trading deals among large corporations,
Greenpeace maintains its stand on the closure of the WTI incinerator,
reminding Clinton and Gore of a now-forgotten campaign promise by blockading
the front of the White House with a truck and a large group of activists
chained together in the middle of Pennsylvania Avenue. And while Defenders
of Wildlife tried to make an intricate compromise during the debate
on the environmentally devastating North American Free Trade Agreement,
Greenpeace activists interrupted a session of Congress immediately
prior
to the vote by throwing fistfulls of fake $50 bills, marked "No
Pork for Profit", on the floor of the House and yelling "Stop
NAFTA Now!" In light of the recent behavior of beltway environmental
groups, the actions of Greenpeace do not seem hysterical; rather, they
seem sincere and true to the principles of the environmental movement.
The impact of such actions, and the backlash against compromise by
mainstream
groups, was sudden in coming: last year, in response to a perceived
sellout by the Sierra Club concerning 14 million acres of roadless
woods
in Montana, a group of disillusioned members contacted each other via
e-mail and forced the national board to change their policy to back
the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act, a landmark piece of
conservation
legislation originally engineered by Greenpeace and local environmentalists,
and introduced into Congress after grassroots pressure from Greenpeace
activists.
While mainstream environmental leaders become increasingly more uncomfortable
with the direction being taken by the Clinton Administration, Greenpeace
is currently refocusing its priorities and learning new ways to combat
the environmental problems the world is facing as we come to the end
of the millennium. At the end of the 1980's, Greenpeace enjoyed a boom
in financial and political growth; but as the recession lingers, the
organization has been forced to recognize the current situation they
are encountering, and has started regrouping behind a smaller number
of campaigns so as best to direct precious resources into the most
effective
battles possible. One of the current priorities established by the
organization has been to focus on a complete phaseout of the industrial
use of chlorine,
which is becoming more widely recognized as a main contributor to increasing
levels of breast cancer. In the past year, reports were issued by Joe
Thornton, a Greenpeace chlorine campaigner, addressing the breast cancer
and chlorine connection; this was followed by widespread media attention
to the issue, as well as a backlash by the chlorine industry as Congress
considers legislation such as the Clean Water Act and the Chlorine
Zero
Discharge Act, which would prohibit paper manufacturers from discharging
organochlorine compounds within five years, and would set up a process
for banning other sources of organochlorine pollution. In addition
to
the pressure being placed on lawmakers through the release of this
report and from grassroots lobbying, Greenpeace is also focusing on
the demand
side of chlorine products. In early 1992, after intensive grassroots
pressure on Time magazine from Greenpeace canvassers and direct mail
approaches, Time-Warner, one of the largest consumers of paper products
in the country, agreed to switch to chlorine-free paper for its magazines.
More than two years later, the promise unfulfilled, Greenpeace is refocusing
its pressure on the corporation, currently encouraging all readers
of
Time to send in the magazine's postage-paid subscription cards with
messages encouraging the company to make the shift to chlorine-free
paper; a more intensive campaign is expected to begin in the near future.
With the refocusing of campaigns comes the analysis of effective approaches.
In recent years, direct actions have become more infrequent; those that
did occur received relatively little media attention. As Greenpeace
considers the most effective ways of addressing environmental issues
in a changing world, it's beginning to look harder at the methods to
bring these issues into the homes and conversations of as many people
as possible, and to influence corporate heads, legislators, and other
decision makers in as direct and uncompromising method as possible.
To this end, Greenpeace is placing more emphasis on scientific reports
like the one that set off the debate on chlorine and breast cancer,
as well as using its reputation as a group whose advice had best be
followed or else face the consequences of a nasty public blitz; an example
of this occurred recently in the work to ban the international trade
in toxic waste, when Kenny Bruno, a Greenpeace toxic trade campaigner
, was alerted to a shipment of plastic waste from Louisiana to Africa.
The corporation was informed that Greenpeace knew of the shipment, which
was in transit at the time, and they were encouraged to turn the boat
around rather than face public humiliation and possible legal proceedings;
after an exchange of faxes between the campaigner and the company, the
shipment returned to port in the United States.
Greenpeace is also rediscovering its power as a grassroots organization.
From its inception, the group has refused to accept any kind of government
or corporate funding, preferring to keep its principles unsullied by
depending almost solely on contributions from individuals and families.
This has led to its dependance on millions of people worldwide; currently,
Greenpeace has 1.6 million supporters in the United States, making
it
the largest environmental group in the country. This dependence on
small contributions can lead to precarious financial situations, but
it has
the benefit of providing the organization with an army of supporters
who can be mobilized to pressure corporate and government decision
makers.
In addition to a sophisticated activist network which has the capability
of contacting thousands of people nationwide on specific issues, Greenpeace
also uses a door-to-door canvass in the United States, Canada, and
Australia;
on any given night in the US, approximately 40,000 homes are contacted
by canvassers bearing petitions, postcards, and letter writing tools.
This kind of public outreach, while time consuming, has the incentive
of being able to generate thousands of letters and postcards to corporations
and legislators on a given issue within a relatively short period of
time. This kind of grassroots lobbying power has been influential in
introducing and strengthening such pieces of legislation as the Northern
Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act, the Waste Import and Export Prohibition
Act, and the Chlorine-Zero Discharge Act, to name a few. Grassroots
pressure has also been applied to strengthening the Endangered Species
Act and the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as well
as placing much embarassing attention on the production and use of
ozone
destroying chemicals by corporations like DuPont and Whirlpool.
In coming years, it would be safe to expect to see Greenpeace continuing
to focus its energies on a more limited number of campaign priorities.
Even if financial concerns become a thing of the past with a renewed
flooding of support similar to that experienced in the late 1980's,
the organization is learning that, in a changing political world, the
impact of a group such as Greenpeace may be best utilized through a
consistent, hard fought battle. This isn't to say that such traditional
campaigns like whaling and nuclear testing will fall by the wayside
in the interests of focus; rather, the fights will be more carefully
selected and planned to best ensure the continued success of the organization
and its role in the environmental movement, as well as to win the largest,
most wide-ranging victories possible. The renewed focus on particular
campaigns will be likely to utilize Greenpeace's rediscovered use of
grassroots activism, of approaching international issues from an individual
level as well as addressing local manifestations of global problems.
But with the changing campaigns and methods that Greenpeace is currently
experimenting with, it is also safe to assume some things will never
change about this organization: as we approach the twenty-third anniversary
of the voyage to Amchitka, Greenpeace's commitment to a non-compromising
attitude towards dealing with polluting corporations and environmentally
ignorant governments will not change. The integrity that Greenpeace
built by sticking to its guns as the mainstream groups catered to corporate
demands will not disappear; for if it did, Greenpeace would cease to
exist, its principles finally compromised and its value undermined.
Greenpeace is not capable of single-handedly saving the planet; but
in the movement to protect the earth and all the life it supports, an
organization is needed that will refuse to bow to the status quo, yet
will still approach major international problems with an optimistic
approach, seeking alternatives to the destruction mankind has been imposing
upon the rest of the planet.
And as Greenpeace continues to re-examine its approaches to accomplishing
as much as possible in a rapidly changing world, there will always be
one other constant: even if the research is ignored, the grassroots
lobbying unsuccessful, the decision makers unsympathetic, there is always
the certainty that Greenpeace activists will not give up. For after
every other avenue is exhausted, there is still no building, smokestack,
bridge, or boat that is completely impervious to the hanging of a colorful
banner or the dramatics of non-violent civil disobedience as Greenpeace
activists work once more to bear witness to the world's most threatening
international environmental dangers.
 |
|
|
 |
