Greenpeace has lost its moral compass

It's not morally unacceptable of me to think GP has lost its moral compass, nor is it morally unacceptable for me to say so. I'm not forcing anyone to agree.

I agree with the author. I was a member for many years too. Utterly pissed off with it now. It has lost its moral compass.

Aka
The last sentence of the article states:
"In my opinion Greenpeace has lost its moral compass"
The author was director of Greenpeace for 15 years, so I think he has the right to make this assertion.
He goes on to say:
"I left Greenpeace determined to build an environmental policy that balanced environmental, social, and economic needs, the definition of sustainability. A sensible environmentalist bases their policies on science and logic as opposed to sensationalism, misinformation and fear"

Let's try to avoid spoiling sensible discussion with unnecessary nit-picking, shall we?

From Greenpeace?

I used to support Greenpeace, but changed my mind when my daughter started getting threatening emails about her work with GM.

Unpoetic licence.

if of

Actually I object to the heading if the OP. The article asked if GP had lost its moral compass, a question. Bags you have changed it to a statement, which is morally unacceptable

'There is enough in the world for everyone's need, but not for everyone's greed'
Gandhi

Guilt about humans ruining the world is the new Original Sin. It does concern me that children are loaded with this guilt trip.
Of course we must husband our resources and behave responsibly, but we also have to live in the real world.

The whole GM debate is First World centred - there are people starving who could benefit fronm this technology.

I am very wary of most campaigning organisations, as they gradually lose any sense of balance: if you are not wholly for their "doctrine" then by definition you are against them.

I think it's a little naive to think that there will be any advances in applied science, whether it is new drugs in medicine, new ways of growing crops to feed the world, or engineering, without proft and business interests being involved.
There are two sides to everything. What is needed is proper governance of trials and development to ensure scientific advances are used ethically. I agree with Jess that blanket opposition is irrational.
I've just been watching a programme about Alfred Nobel. I hadn't realised that his life's work had been developing explosives, described as the greatest gift to civil engineering but of course used for malevolent purposes too. After his death his legacy was the Nobel prizes, to be awarded to those who had brought the greatest benefit to mankind.

GM is not an "it" any more.
If, hypothetically speaking, Rothamsted research institute (not pharma, not agribusiness) - a developed a GM crop that was, because of its pest resistance, able to save millions of children from malnutrition and infant death, would you oppose it on principle because it is "GM"
Greenpeace would, for not rational reason.

Question: To whom does Monsanto have to answer?
Answer: Shareholders.
Conclusion: GM crops are worrying because transnational agribusinesses have and will have a monopoly. Cf Big Pharma.

The jury is still out on GM food and there is a great deal of rational and valid scientific opinion which sees a danger with such extreme genetic engineering. Flickety also makes several good points in her post.

Greenpeace has spoken out and acted bravely and effectively against the exploitation of the planet by money grabbing multinationals for decades. They certainly have not lost their moral compass but they certainly have been subject to a sustained campaign to destroy id discredit them by those who have their own agenda. Remember French agents bombing and sinking of Rainbow Warrior in Aukland harbour when a crew member died?

The problem is not whether it can be used well or badly but who controls it and currently that is undoubtedly the agrochemical companies producing the pesticides and fertilisers they use.

Would you put a tobacco company in charge of an antismoking campaign?

It is like many other scientific advances, it can be used well or badly. Blanket hysterical anti-GM is irrational and discredits GP.

As FlicketyB says, there are other issues of concern regarding GM foods. I'm not a scientist but there are many eminent scientists who do not necessarily see the production of GM food as risk free.

www.twnside.org.sg/title/gmo-cn.htm

Many of the objections to GM food have nothing to do with health worries. GM seeds are patented and licensed by the company that developed them. This makes it illegal for farmers to keep seeds from one year to the next and if some stray into another farmers field he can be sued if he lets them grow or pollinate his non GM crops. They also lead to monocultures where every farmer is growing exactly the same type of seed and any problem that develops that affect that plant can wipe the whole crop out for regions and countries.

The main cause of the Irish Famine of the 1840s and 1850s, was not just that the Irish were over dependent on potatoes, but that they all grew the same cultivar of potato, the Lumpur, which was highly productive but with no resistance to potato blight, at the time an unknown plant disease in Ireland. When disease came - well history tells the result, the crop completely decimated and millions dying from hunger or emigrating.

The majority of GM seeds developed so far do not increase crops but merely have stronger resistance to the weed killer sold by the licensor. In some countries farmers have found crops from GM seeds produce smaller crops. GM crops, so far, leave farmers at the mercy of big agrochemical companies, tied to buy their seeds from them and only them and to use their pesticides.

Golden rice is a wonderful development, but not if the cost of seeds, fertiliser and pesticides are held as a monopoly by one company who can charge what they like and impoverish the farmers growing this crop.

Vitamin A deficiency is caused by poverty and an inadequate diet. What we should be doing is putting the money and effort into removing the economic and political causes that leave people in such poverty rather than thinking reducing the incidence of Vitamin A deficiency will stop children dying of the other diseases of want and malnutrition.

smallfarmfuture.org.uk/?p=360

Another view? (It's long, but I found it interesting and well argued)

"a change occurred, from concern for the welfare of people to a belief that humans were the enemy of the earth"
Interesting article, thank you bags.
Made me remember why I used to support Greenpeace, and why I stopped.

I have felt some unease about the campaign against GM foods for several years. It is easy for people in the affluent First World to insist on their expensive 'bio' foods, and no doubt they all mean well, but what the rest of the world needs is cheap food. An excellent article, thank you Bags.

Not just lost its moral compass but willing to throw out millions of babies with the bathwater. The pseudoscience obsessives have taken over the asylum. The anti-chorine story is laughable. I would like to take these misinformed opinion leaders off to science boot camp for a bit of basic education.
Their implacable anti-all-GM stance means they are intent on blocking the introduction of golden rice - a GM rice rich in beta carotene which the body converts to vitamin A. Children with vitamin A deficiency have a high death rate from diseases like measles and can be rendered blind by the deficiency.