On the Sydney Morning Herald, I read a recent posting by Dr. Paul Johnston, principal scientist at the Greenpeace Research Laboratories based at the University of Exeter, UK. In the post, Dr. Johnston was defending the validity of the scientific research that Greenpeace performs. This defense was motivated by criticisms against Greenpeace in connection with the destruction of genetically-modified (GM) wheat at a GM trial in Australia. I blogged about that incident here.
Dr. Johnston, in his post, made the following comment about the “precautionary principle” and Greenpeace’s observance of it.
Greenpeace also strongly believes that policy development should be governed by the precautionary principle which recognises the inevitable deficiencies in all bodies of scientific data. Policy formulation, therefore, must take into account the uncertainties in scientific data and knowledge.
For those readers who may not be familiar with the “precautionary principle,” here is some of what Wikipedia has to say about it.
The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.
With regard to science’s impact on political decision making, essentially, what this definition means is that for those following the precautionary principle, any scientific proposal can be rejected unless the scientific assertion can be proven to be 100% safe in any circumstance.
Couldn’t the precautionary principle also be applied to Greenpeace’s scientific research? Can all Greenpeace scientific research be proven 100% correct in all circumstances?
If not, wouldn’t it be that as an adherent to the precautionary principle, Greenpeace would have to reject their own scientific assertions unless they are 100% correct in all circumstances?
Principles don’t work just in one direction.
Last week, FoodNavigator.com reported that Greenpeace Australia/Pacific’s Sydney (Australia) headquarters were raided by police as a result of the destruction of a genetically-modified (GM) trial at a CSIRO farm in Canberra, Australia.
In the article, Greenpeace activists are said to have scaled a fence at the farm and to have destroyed over $300,000 worth of GM wheat. A CSIRO spokesman reported that the action has set back the program by about one year.
Although Greenpeace activists have not yet been officially linked to the incident, FoodNavigator.com reports that a Greenpeace spokesperson seemingly publicly admitted to the attack by saying, “Greenpeace always stands up and takes responsibility for its actions . . . We’re proud of bringing the significant threats associated with GM wheat out into the open, and we always cooperate fully with the police.”
Greenpeace positions itself as a non-violent organization. Should Greenpeace be conclusively and judicially linked to these attacks, it will be interesting to see how Greenpeace maintains its claim that they are non-violent. Indeed, on the Greenpeace Web site they state in their “Core Values” section that the organization uses non-violent means to further its message.
Should they be convicted of the damage reported above, they would not be able to maintain their non-violent claim given that Webster’s New World Dictionary defines “violence” as: ”physical force used so as to injure, damage, or destroy; unjust or callous use of force or power, as in violating another’s rights.”
Any destruction of property, especially when that destruction is unilaterally demanded, fits this definition. And given this definition (which appears similarly in other dictionaries), it will be extremely difficult for Greenpeace to defend its non-violent status should the organization be judicially connected to this incident.
There was a Greenpeace protest campaign against Koch Industries earlier this year. The campaign rose quickly and then fell just about as quickly. The whole flap was over so fast I didn’t get much of a chance to follow it.
Why didn’t this one gain as much traction as other anti-corporate campaigns Greenpeace initiates?
Simple.
Koch Industries is not a well-known brand name. The average person can’t relate to it, and therefore can’t lock in on it. Greenpeace had little to leverage or “extort” in that campaign. In this case, their standard approach of “rhetorical terrorism” didn’t get a chance to take hold.
I was surprised Greenpeace even took this one on. Initiating such a campaign violates their practice of concentrating on brand names that the general public knows. This was a bush-league mistake on Greenpeace’s part.
It will be interesting to see if they take this approach again.
The recent battle between Greenpeace and Facebook brings to mind an idea for a strategic turnabout.
In this battle, Greenpeace has lambasted Facebook for locating its new server facility in area where the local electric utility uses coal to partially generate the power it sends to its customers.
Simply, a turn-about strategy on Greenpeace (as was alluded to in the article “Greenpeace’s Hosting: Not ‘Truly Green“) would be to publicly ask Greenpeace from what source its offices, its data centers, and even its supporters’ homes for that matter, derive their electric power.
Is that power generated 100% from “renewable” sources?
The answer is obvious. And would definitely leverage that “embarrassment” strategy that activists like to play on business.
Having the tables turned on you is never fun.
Back in September there began on the social web a controversy about how effective the social web itself is in activism. Malcolm Gladwell touched off the latest installment in this argument with an article in The New Yorker. Since then there has been much written about this issue. Simply Google “Malcolm Gladwell” and “digital activism” and you’ll receive more reading sources than you will probably know what to do with.
Malcolm’s position, in a nutshell, was that the social web did not help progress activism. However, I recently read an article on the Greenpeace blog which made a succinct case against Malcolm’s position.
“An Answer to Critics of Online Activism,” written by a Greenpeace blogger known only as JulietteH, the article relates her tale of how her journey into activism and now employment with Greenpeace, began with reading a single post on a Greenpeace blog about five years ago.
Now, certainly this focus group of one does not make a logical, compelling case for countering the argument that the social web is ruining activism. But if we consider that logic often does not apply in activism, then perhaps we can get an entirely different perspective on the social web’s importance to activism.
Greenpeace is using the “embarrass” strategy again. This time a New Zealand company is targeted.
In a Stuff.co.nz article titled “Fonterra Targeted in Spoof Greenpeace Ad,” the dairy company Fonterra Cooperative Group, which according to the article has an image as “a safe, environmentally ethical New Zealand producer,” is the latest target of Greenpeace in its palm oil campaign. This is a classic irregular competitor strategic targeting example, right out of the Saul Alinsky book “Rules for Radicals.”
One of the overarching strategies of Alinsky is to “embarrass” a corporate target. When companies position themselves as “environmentally-responsible” they are setting themselves up to be a target. With Murphy’s Law being what it is, no matter how hard they try, companies that tout the environmentally-responsible label are bound to make some mistakes here and there. And when they do, the activist will be there to point it out, regardless of whether the “mistake” is actually a mistake. To the activist in this strategy what is critical is whether the “mistake” can be positioned as one.
This Fonterra example is just another in long string, and should serve to inform companies seeking a counter-strategy against such moves by Greenpeace and other irregular competitors.
|
About  Here at " Richard Telofski on The War on Capitalism," I discuss and analyze the individuals and groups conducting campaigns against capitalism. In the articles on this site, I provide analysis on lesser known facts about this movement. More . . .
 |
Klout.com rates Richard as influential on the subject of activism. |
|
