Currently, I’m reading a terrific book entitled Good Cop, Bad Cop – Environmental NGOs and their Strategies toward Business. The title accurately describes the subject matter within the book. Edited by Thomas P. Lyon, the book is a collection of essays written by various experts within the field of the “private politics” between environmental NGOs (ENGOs) and business. In addition to articles by experts in sociology, economics, and political science, with each giving their own specialized view of ENGO and business engagement strategies, there are also articles by business and ENGO executives.
One of the articles in the book is entitled “Greenpeace” and is written by Kert Davies, who is listed in the book as being the research director for Greenpeace. Again, the title accurately describes the content. (Although, the book does not say if Kert is the research director for Greenpeace International, Greenpeace UK, Greenpeace Canada, etc.) In his article, Kert gives an historic overview of Greenpeace, and discusses its objectives and focus along with the organizational structure of that ENGO, as well as other topics. Toward the end of his article, Kert details some case studies describing some direct actions in which Greenpeace has engaged various corporations. One of those cases studies is titled the “ExxonSecrets Campaign.”
The ExxonSecrets campaign was a direct action against Exxon Mobil that started in 2001. Kert’s article states, on page 205 of Good Cop, that “the primary objective of this campaign was to remove or lessen corporate interference in U.S. climate policy . . . a key strategy was to put ExxonMobil in a negative light as a laggard among corporations, thereby motivating other companies to take proactive measures to avoid similar treatment.”
Although Kert’s article is not precisely clear on this next item, apparently one of the factors driving this Greenpeace direct action was a “leaked document” from the American Petroleum Institute (API), which Kert says was the subject of a New York Times front page article in April 1998. (I’ve read that New York Times article and will comment on it in the next paragraph.) Per Kert’s article, the “leaked document” indicated that Exxon had participated in the development of a group which would run a multi-million dollar, multi-year campaign “to promote contrary scientific opinions and raise . . . uncertainty among the public . . .” Also, per Kert’s article,
the leaked document stated, “Victory Will Be Achieved When . . . Average citizens ‘understand’ (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of conventional wisdom” and “Media ‘understands’ (recognizes) uncertainties in climate science.”
More is to be learned about this group. Referring back to that New York Times article, which was entitled “Industry Group Plans to Battle Climate Treaty” (by John H. Cushman, Jr., New York Times, April 26, 1998, p. A1) and aside from the article, in my opinion, being somewhat polemic in its perspective toward the global warming debate, the Times article stated that “the industry group said it wanted to develop a ‘sound scientific alternative’ to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC), which was then in 1998, and still is, a group of scientists which advises the United Nations on issues of global warming.
Whether the arguments over the science are right or wrong is not an issue in which I wish to become involved. As I’ve stated on this blog many times, I don’t have the qualifications or background to engage in an argument over the scientific facts of climate change. But I do have the qualifications and background to engage in an argument over the issue of freedom of thought and the pursuit of truth. And that is exactly the issue that I am raising in this post.
Now, I have no illusions that Exxon was participating in the development of this industry group solely for the purpose of inviting an open and balanced debate. I don’t think that Exxon or most other corporations, including the corporation that is Greenpeace, are quite that altruistic. But, what’s wrong with recognizing “uncertainties” in climate science? Wouldn’t that recognition inspire such debate?
In this instance, it doesn’t matter if the objective of Exxon was to inspire open and balanced debate or not. My point is that contribution to open debate would have been a by-product of the Exxon process. More light would have been shed on the subject of global warming, allowing free-thinking individuals to decide where the truth lies.
Allowing individuals to come to their own conclusions benefits society, but this is apparently not a perspective that is shared by Greenpeace. Indeed, in the third paragraph of this post (above), relative to the ExxonSecrets campaign, we saw that by Greenpeace’s own admission “the primary objective of this campaign was to remove or lessen corporate interference in U.S. climate policy.” Do they mean “interference” or do they mean that they simply object to “input” from stakeholders that do not share Greenpeace’s version of truth?
If Greenpeace actually believed in the strength and validity of its position in the climate debate, and if they would have more faith in the intellectual capacity of the general public and in its freedom to reach its own decisions, they would welcome, or even invite, alternative views and not take measures to discourage those views or take actions to put opponents in a “negative light.”
So, learning from what’s been presented, it seems that Greenpeace wants you to “have it their way.”
