Jump to content

Talk:Criticism of Greenpeace: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
Bots
7,154,198 edits
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 2 WikiProject templates. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{Environment}}.
 
(80 intermediate revisions by 38 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talkheader}}
{{Talkheader|noarchive=yes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|
{{WikiProject_Organizations}}
{{WikiProject Organizations}}
{{environment|class=B|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Environment|importance=}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 1
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Criticism of Greenpeace/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{archives|auto=long|search=yes|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=3|units=months}}


== Greenpeace support for bitcoin not mentioned ==
== serious bias ==


Greenpeace accepts bitcoin donations and at least unofficially uses bitcoin. This support for bitcoin is surprising since it consumes roughly 24TWh annually, comparable to a small country. Using traditional banking would be thousands of times more environment friendly. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:20C0:5570:210D:47FB:B904:6866|2600:1700:20C0:5570:210D:47FB:B904:6866]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:20C0:5570:210D:47FB:B904:6866#top|talk]]) 01:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Seriously, how can cite information from the Greenpeace website when that site is totally biased?


== Stolen Tree Stock incident ==
== External links modified ==


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I decided to add this back. Look discussion from here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Greenpeace#Removed_Criticism_of_Stolen_Tree_Stock]


I have just modified 2 external links on [[Criticism of Greenpeace]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/819662884|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
:As far as I know, Greenpeace did not claim that the tree trunk was from a protected area, but rather that the tree trunk was from an ancient forest that ought to be protected. And as old forests cover only a few percent of Finland, I think you can say that the forest was endangered. The issue that Greenpeace has in Finland is that old growth forests are treated just like any other forests and therefore continuously cut down. "Forestry area" is a technical term describing how the forest is going to be used. It is not a biological term to describe what the forest is like. So a forestry area in Finland can also be an endangered old growth forest. That's the issue, so I'm changing the wording. It is not entirely clear either did the activists know that the tree was blown down by a storm. They might have indeed thought that the tree was cut down.[[User:81.175.134.236|81.175.134.236]] 18:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/chemicals/international/pubs/seminar-1.pdf
::Sorry but it's sure Greenpeace knew that the tree was blown down by a storm. Their leader "M.I." was born in the North Carelia and knew very well that area. In his earlier job he was even recommending that area as "an example of good forestry habits" (that was year 1993, two years before - I can not yet give facts about that year but I try search papers). During May 1995 they tried to pick parts of tree with their SUV vehicle but didn't succeed. Farmer who came to help with tractor didn't know that they were from Greenpeace, most probably he believed they were from the Forest Administration or scientists from University.. Otherwise it would have been .. well, "not really friendly meeting" with local people and activists.
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070318195919/http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/electronics/greenpeace-response to http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/electronics/greenpeace-response
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110820150558/http://scienceblogs.com/sciencepunk/2011/07/in_the_early_hours_of.php to http://scienceblogs.com/sciencepunk/2011/07/in_the_early_hours_of.php


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
About the tree itself? Yes, it was old, around 200-300 years old. But notice following: It was left untouched by the owner of forest "during forestry process" because it was so old! They didn't touch it because according good forestry standards very old, different or just remarkable trees should be left living. But why it crashed during storm? It's very simple to see why many trees crash down near motor ways. There is no other trees supporting it and storm can push without obstacles. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.156.157.5|85.156.157.5]] ([[User talk:85.156.157.5|talk]]) 20:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
== Ice covered lake which was said to be clear cut ==


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 16:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I added case "Kahlschlag am nordfinnischen Peurakairasee" (Greenpeace Magazin 6/2005). Photo where was said to be clear cutting, but which in reality was a snowy [[bog]] and ice covered [[lake]], which has never been a forest (at least not in last 10000 years) [http://www.veikkovasama.net/greenpeace_magazin.htm], [http://www.veikkovasama.net/greenpeace_magazin_deu.htm]. Just more lies from this organization.


== External links modified (January 2018) ==
:Or a human error.[[User:81.175.134.236|81.175.134.236]] 19:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
== Maybe something to discuss ==


I have just modified one external link on [[Criticism of Greenpeace]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/822419099|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
Soviet Union supported Greenpeace? More sources? And what was this Leif Blaedel case. I don't remember? Did it happen in 80's? [http://www.noahide.com/infiltration/greenpeace.htm], [http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Movements/Greenpeace/ge-ar-gr.htm]
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070816203438/http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/the-stockholm-convention-s-ent to http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/the-stockholm-convention-s-ent


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
"Gudmundsson's film reexamines evidence produced in 1986 by award-winning Danish journalist Leif Blaedel, which shows that one propaganda film used by Greenpeace was faked by using paid animal torturers. Greenpeace has tried to silence Gudmundsson, with demands for injunctions and/or damages in the courts of Iceland, the U.K. and Norway. Gudmundsson has spent about $40,000 in legal fees so far" ... "Greenpeace then threatened lawsuits against Danish television, but decided instead to sue the two journalists most responsible for compiling the devastating information. One of these reporters is Leif Blaedel, a recipient of the prestigious Cavling Prize for Danish journalism" (those links say original sources are The New American, November 19, 1990 and Forbes, November 11, 1991, unfortunately can not check)
[[User:85.156.154.143|85.156.154.143]] 22:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
:"But Gudmundsson's charges have not gone unchallenged. Greenpeace sued him in Norway in 1989 over his first film, Survival in the High North, which accuses Greenpeace of fabricating a sequence showing a sealer dragging a dead pup. In a mixed verdict, Gudmundsson was ordered to pay 30,000 Norwegian kroner (he didn't) and make changes to the film (he did). Greenpeace says it has also won retractions from Danish television, which produced Man of the Rainbow, another anti-Greenpeace documentary based on Gudmundsson's findings, and from The Irish Sunday Business Post, which published a Gudmundsson-based story in 1991." http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1594/is_n6_v6/ai_17847913
:[[User:81.175.134.236|81.175.134.236]] 19:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 07:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
== unsubstantiated claims on website ==


== This is INCORRECT - Remove or Edit ==
Greenpeace has alot of unsubstantiated claims on it's website, such as 'nuclear power plants regularly emit dangerour radiation into the environemnt around them,' and other such tripe and bullshit. They also have a video depicting a hypothetical situation where a hijacked aircraft is flown into a nuclear powerstation, with a final claim 'No one ever flew a plane into a wind turbine.' Curiously enough no one ever flew a plane into a nuclear powerstation either, not to mention it is nigh impossible to hijack an aircraft anymore anyway. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/124.187.85.140|124.187.85.140]] ([[User talk:124.187.85.140|talk]]) 06:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->


==== Nuclear fusion ====
:The United States at least has sort of no-fly zones around nuclear plants. Anymore, by the time you actually get into that airspace you will be shot down like there is no tomorrow no matter if you're piloting a commercial jet or what. -[[User:Theanphibian|Theanphibian]] <sup>([[User talk:Theanphibian|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Theanphibian|contribs]])</sup> 01:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Greenpeace falsely claimed that [[nuclear fusion]] is unsafe and produces [[Nuclear Waste|waste]] like [[nuclear fission]].<ref name=":2" /> However, nuclear fusion does not produce nuclear waste nor is there a meltdown risk because the conditions required to sustain nuclear fusion mean that if there is a containment breach, the fusion reaction would simply halt.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Advantages of fusion|url=http://www.iter.org/sci/fusion|website=ITER|language=en|access-date=2020-05-18}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=Fountain|first=Henry|date=2017-03-27|title=A Dream of Clean Energy at a Very High Price|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/science/fusion-power-plant-iter-france.html|access-date=2020-05-18|issn=0362-4331}}</ref>


This is incorrect as nuclear fusion does produce nuclear waste as you need to have nuclear material to produce the reaction, which does produce nuclear waste as not all the material will be used and needs to be constantly refilled. The Sun does not produce nuclear waste but that is whole different matter.
::I think the hijacked planes ran into the twin towers and the PENTAGON were airborn for a good three or so hours, weren't they? Didn't see much shooting down there. Sorry, couldn't resist the urge to point out the stupid. And as for the above drivel from 124.187.85.140 .. seriously, their claims had that many typos? And further, if someone wanted to, they could just charter a plane, no need to hijack one? [[Special:Contributions/122.107.65.2|122.107.65.2]] ([[User talk:122.107.65.2|talk]]) 19:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


== Citations/references ==


https://thebulletin.org/2017/04/fusion-reactors-not-what-theyre-cracked-up-to-be/
It would be nice if the reference links were given titles. Currently, all I can see are references that look like "35: [25]", which is quite unhelpful. [[User:Nneonneo|nneonneo]] 20:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


{{reflist-talk}}
Indeed many of the claims do not offer any citations at all, or where they do the references do not support the claims. Often the citations are to controversialist magazines such as [[Spiked]] which themselves offer POV unsupported by evidence. I've made some attempt to tidy up the section on DDT - but the whole page needs an overhaul to remove unsupported POV and to make clear where the criticisms of Greenpeace originate from. --[[User:Dean Morrison|Dean Morrison]] ([[User talk:Dean Morrison|talk]]) 18:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

== The chlorine paper bleaching insident ==

Cant find it in the web, but sometime in the 80's greenpeace dammed a ditch from a paperpulp factory in Finland protesting the use of chlorine in the bleaching of paper. What they actually did was endangered the testrun of ozone bleaching. Luckily their damn was lousy.<br />
After they were told that the factory wasn't using chlorine, they tried to save face by claiming that their escapade had brought out the fact. From that they got more egg on it as the factory had given a press conference of it 2 weeks earlier.<br />
The whole incident showed greenpeaces modus operandi<br />
1. Find a easy target far from main body of income. Easy meaning a case that general public can act emtionally even if the case with proper look isn't real.<br />
2. Get banners and a few protestors.<br />
3. Invite press, usually more press than protestors.<br />
4. Make demands<br />
5. If shown wrong, blame others<br />
What we won't see is big controversial protest close to their main income areas.
Like, german autofactories, NY private cars, california airconditioning.
It's always something far with few voices.

::Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. :) [[Special:Contributions/122.107.65.2|122.107.65.2]] ([[User talk:122.107.65.2|talk]]) 19:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

== Arrested ==

"Some of its high ranking members have been arrested for offenses including vandalism and trespassing such as Mike Roselle[1], Paul Watson and John Sellers (activist).[2]"

I don't see the sources saying that they have been arrested for vandalism when working for Greenpeace. They have all worked also on protests and organizations other than Greenpeace and the sources don't specify what they have been arrested for when working for Greenpeace. So I don't think you can put that kind of a criticism of a individual person under this article.[[User:84.250.50.59|84.250.50.59]] 17:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Nor is there any source provided for the fact that these offenses were committed by 'high ranking members'. As far as I know Greenpeace is not a membership organisation. Paul Watson was an employee and director in the 1970's, but there are no sources provided for him being involved in any offense on behalf of Greenpeace or otherwise. I've therefore removed the passage.[[User:Patagorda|Patagorda]] ([[User talk:Patagorda|talk]]) 16:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

== Merge ==

It seems to me like the material on this page should be merged into the main Greenpeace page. It is inherently POV to have a separate article. If combined, these issues would hopefully get fair treatment from both sides, and would be more visible. Are the pages kept separate because of fear that a merge could not be done civilly? Other thoughts? [[User:AAMiller|AAMiller]] 07:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

:I agree with the proposed merger. You're right, the Greenpeace article itself if POV in one direction, but the concept of this article is POV in the other (though it seems well sourced). Were these really long enough to be separated? I don't think that's the case. -[[User:Theanphibian|Theanphibian]] <sup>([[User talk:Theanphibian|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Theanphibian|contribs]])</sup> 18:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

::I agree that they should be merged. My assumption is that there would be bitter disagreement concerning how much weight is given to such a criticism section. The main page holds no awards, so having a new section that would be disputed and changed frequently at the beginning, isn't a problem. On the Greenpeace discussion page, the sections on criticism don't address this, so I've started a new section to discuss a possible merger. [[User:Paul haynes|Paul haynes]] 11:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
:::I too agree with merging, however this article will have to be radically shortened. If someone can weed out POV or inaccurate info and contain the same information in a shorter format, I would support merging. --[[User:Fearfulsymmetry|Fearfulsymmetry]] 20:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

::::Dude, I went through and touched up the references so that the bad information could be identified as you're talking about. Once that can be accomplished, I don't think there's any length requirement, because I'm almost positive most high profile articles have super long criticism sections. And look through the history before deleting something and making demands. -[[User:Theanphibian|Theanphibian]] <sup>([[User talk:Theanphibian|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Theanphibian|contribs]])</sup> 00:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

:::Everyone here seems to be under the illusion that the article must either be merged or kept separate. The obvious solution for anyone who understands the structure and organization of Wikipedia articles is to [[WP:SS|Summarize]] it there and leave this article as it is. Merging it would either leave [[Greenpeace]] containing more criticism than anything else, or throwing away notable information that people have obviously worked on.

:::And ''please'', keep the discussion in one place. Everything should be taken to [[talk:Greenpeace]] from now on. Thanks. [[User:Richard001|Richard001]] 09:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

:::: I "anonymous" also would like to see this merged. Thanks! <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.156.157.5|85.156.157.5]] ([[User talk:85.156.157.5|talk]]) 20:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== DDT ==

Careful when it comes to the DDT discussion. Trace your sources and make sure they don't tie back to professional industry shills such as Steven J. Milloy, who has done hatchet-job pseudo-science work for the tobaco industry, asbestos producers (on the latter, he parrots the false claim that asbestos would have saved the WTC towers), chemical companies, etc, and as an attack-dog against the concensus on AGCC ("global warming"). It's stunning how much of the attack-dog stuff traces back to an interconnected handful of paid shills.

[[User:69.95.70.128|69.95.70.128]] 21:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The DDT information was either POV, wildly innaccurate, or the unsourced repetition of claims made lobby groups.

I've removed it
[[User:Dean Morrison|Dean Morrison]] 21:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


You are forgetting to include Elders of Zion, Freemasons and the trilateral commission in your reasons for deleting the DDT article. Try refuting individual sources. I will be including artiles published by African and UN affliated sources as well. But I Guess the asbesdos industry could get their slimy tentacles over there too.

If you are a conspiracy bent kind of bloke why not talk about the "Big Pharmaceuticals" that get over $300 million to treat an easily preventable disease.<small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mricbm|Mricbm]] ([[User talk:Mricbm|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mricbm|contribs]]) 23:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Malaria is an natural control to prevent overpopulation, i dont see why it should pe prevented <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/90.14.9.167|90.14.9.167]] ([[User talk:90.14.9.167|talk]]) 10:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

I've tidied up the DDT section to remove POV and unsubstantiated claims. I've also made it clearer where the criticisms of Greenpeace come from - namely Libertarian political critics and controversialist magazine [[Spiked]]. I feel this page is itself being used to mount an attack on Greenpeace, rather than giving a balanced summary of the criticisms of the organisation, and the sources of these.
--[[User:Dean Morrison|Dean Morrison]] ([[User talk:Dean Morrison|talk]]) 18:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

== Relevance of Wind Power criticisms to article? ==

The discussion of some of the problems of wind power under the 'renewable energy' heading of the main article is clearly argued and well-sourced, but it doesn't seem to have much to do with Greenpeace. It would seem to be better located in an article on wind power. The claim is made that Greenpeace 'failed to report' the findings of a Scottish government inquiry into wind power, but without further context, I can't see why GP should be faulted for this particular omission.
[[Special:Contributions/68.183.237.174|68.183.237.174]] ([[User talk:68.183.237.174|talk]]) 01:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

:I totally agree that this detailed Renewable energy discussion is not relevant to this article, and in any case it is highly POV, and much of the material quoted is from 2002 and 2004, which also makes it out of date. The [[Energy security and renewable technology]] article draws on more recent sources and shows that renewable energy can actually enhance energy security. In 2007, the prestigious [[International Energy Agency]] had this to say:

:The deployment of renewable technologies usually increases the diversity of electricity sources and, through local generation, contributes to the flexibility of the system and its resistance to central shocks. The IEA suggests that attention in this area has focused disproportionately on the issue of the variability of renewable electricity production. However, this only applies to certain renewable technologies, mainly [[wind power]] and [[solar photovoltaics]], and its significance depends on a range of factors which include the penetration of the renewables concerned, the balance of plant on the system, the wider connectivity of the system, and the demand side flexibility. Variability will rarely be a barrier to increased renewable energy deployment. But at high levels of penetration it requires careful analysis and management, and any additional costs that may be required for back-up or system modification must be taken into account.[http://www.iea.org/textbase/papers/2007/so_contribution.pdf]

:So I'm removing the following offending text from the article: [[User:Johnfos|Johnfos]] ([[User talk:Johnfos|talk]]) 07:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Renewable power (removed from article)

Greenpeace also fails to point out that the renewable options they champion, like solar, wave, wind and tidal, are all intermittent power sources, and that intermittancy presents some major challenges. Greenpeace also failed to report the recent findings of the Scottish Parliament's 'Renewable Energy in Scotland' inquiry of February 2004. 'Renewable Energy in Scotland' was a major and comprehensive inquiry into the future of renewable energy in Scotland, which made some important recommendations. Its summary stated:

<blockquote>When a wind power station is connected to the grid a similar conventional capacity must be maintained as spinning reserve to cover the uncontrolled intermittency. The presence of an increasing number of distributed intermittent and unreliable micro-generators to replace more secure forms of generation leads to grid instability.<ref>[http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/enterprise/inquiries/rei/ec04-reis-tubb,mrallanj.htm Renewable Energy in Scotland Inquiry]</ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>Wind energy will always be a secondary, intermittent, unreliable energy source and can never satisfy a base load demand. (Wind energy) is a profligate waste of our most precious resource - wild land.<ref>[http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/enterprise/inquiries/rei/ec04-reis-tubb,mrallanj.htm Renewable Energy in Scotland Inquiry]</ref>
</blockquote>

The experience of Denmark, which has one of the greatest percentages of wind power utilisation in the world, is that the intermittency of wind power is a major problem in practice, as well as theory. The ICE report on Danish wind-systems stated that wind power was so variable that Denmark exported most of its wind power, rather than use it itself. In addition, in 2002 the entire system had a total of 54 days without usable power generation. The report concluded that it would be very difficult for countries like Britain to use a large percentage of wind power.

<blockquote>
There were 54 days in 2002, for example, when wind supplied less than 1% of
demand.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
The variations, which are inherent in any wind energy system, can be readily
accommodated in west Denmark because there are very strong electrical connections
to the much larger grid systems of Norway, Sweden and Germany that can
absorb these variations, particularly due to their reliance on rapid-reacting
hydropower. Countries such as the UK, which operate an ‘island’ grid, will find it
difficult to do this with slower-reacting thermal power stations and may thus
have to limit their reliance on wind power.[http://www.thomastelford.com/journals/DocumentLibrary/CIEN.158.2.66.pdf]

</blockquote>

A similar report by the Renewable Energy Foundation confirms the problems experienced in Denmark and goes on to indicate that the UK may actually experience a rise in CO2 emissions through using wind power:
<blockquote>
The key lesson learnt by the Danish and German utilities is that wind does not generate as much power as anticipated (typically an 18-20% annual load factor – not the 30% assumed for UK onshore wind turbines) and production does not match the daily and seasonal fluctuations of demand. Both countries have experienced
consistently low annual load factors that have led various commentators to articulate concern about the cost and the level of subsidy needed to approach the targets set for renewable energy by the European Union.
</blockquote><blockquote>
Denmark achieves little or no direct reduction of emissions, because its CO2-free wind power is working alongside CO2-free hydro-power ... operating fossil capacity in (standby) mode generates more CO2 per kWh generated than if operating normally. [http://www.ref.org.uk/images/pdfs/Whiteco2.pdf]
</blockquote>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

== Wind Power Criticisms IS Relevant to article ==

The Wind Power criticism is entirely relevant to this article. Greenpeace has made an entire career out of promoting renewable energy in general and wind power in particular, and they have delivered many articles and features that make it appear as if wind power is a complete panacea. The fact that Greenpeace never points out any of the pitfalls and problems with large-scale wind power generation is a major failing of this organisation, especially as their pressure has now led to large government investment in this field. Therefore, this is a genuine criticism of Greenpeace that deserves to be in this section.

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/climate/solutions/renewable-energyhttp://www.greenpeace.org.uk/climate/solutions/renewable-energy

The date of these reports is not a valid criticism either. It takes a few years to get a balanced picture of what problems these large capital investments in wind power actually produce, and these are the latest reports that are available. Besides, that newer IEA report must be one of the most biased reports ever. It optimistically comments that:
<blockquote>
The annual power output of a given
turbine varies greatly with location and capacity factors of over 45% are rare
</blockquote>
without reporting that average utilisation is 25% in the UK and 15% in Germany. It then says:

<blockquote>
Western Denmark already successfully
integrates a 20% share of wind energy into the electricity system, but this ability relies on
good inter-connection to the German and Nordic grids for back-up and export.
</blockquote>
when this is an contradiction in terms. Denmark does not integrate its 20% share of wind power precisely because of the inter-connector, which Denmark uses to export all of its wind power to Norway and Sweden. Balancing wind power with non hydro- electrical generation is near impossible. This report also says:
<blockquote>
Three year data
(2000-2002) in Denmark identified that the longest duration of calm weather with wind
generation below 1% of capacity was 58 hours in 2002 and 35 hours in 2000.
</blockquote>
without mentioning that in 2002 Denmark had 54 whole days below 1% of wind power and it conveniently forgets that in 2003 it experienced a whole week below 1% generation. So why did the much later IEA report forget the 2003 outage eh? (in fact, in 2003 Denmark had about 14 weeks below 10% generation, which is also a problem).

The bottom line here is that the earlier 2005 ICE report is a lot more factual and honest than the 2007 IEA report, which is why the latter should be ignored.

The criticism of Greenpeace stands. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Narwhal-tooth|Narwhal-tooth]] ([[User talk:Narwhal-tooth|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Narwhal-tooth|contribs]]) 03:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I wish I could give a better critique of what's going on here, but the net amount of information has just gotten overwhelming for me. Those are very interesting numbers about days below 1% generation. However, the renewable energy section needs to have external sources that specifically criticize Greenpeace on it's position in order for it to not be [[WP:OR]]. I don't think this is impossible, but it doesn't look like that's the current state. It looks like the current references deal with the feasibility of wind power, which just isn't a topic to be covered in this article. -[[User:Theanphibian|Theanphibian]] <sup>([[User talk:Theanphibian|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Theanphibian|contribs]])</sup> 06:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

== Chernobyl Abortion Scare? ==

The section about the alleged abortion scare by Greenpeace around Chernobyl, accusing it of complicity in genocide, contained no reference whatsoever. I've removed it. [[User:Patagorda|Patagorda]] ([[User talk:Patagorda|talk]]) 16:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

==Pruning==

I did very small amounts of editing, I removed a lot of redlinks that would never be made and deleted the end section as it had no real relevance and didn't really make any kind of point. [[User:Mattyness|Mattyness]] ([[User talk:Mattyness|talk]]) 22:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

:We're not here to make points, Wikipedia is a place for hard facts, period. The Questionable actions stuff should be the absolute last to go in this article. The notability of the press release thing is established by reliable sources, the relevance is to Greenpeace. -[[User:Theanphibian|Theanphibian]] <sup>([[User talk:Theanphibian|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Theanphibian|contribs]])</sup> 23:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

==Anti-Whaling Campaign==

It won't be hard to track down citations for this, but as I'm biased and consider myself pro-Greenpeace given that I am a member of the organisation, I do not feel it my place to add the following. Issues have been raised, as far as criticism within the wider media of the world, that Greenpeace are becoming grand-standers when it comes to the whaling issue. Their refusal to provide Sea Shepherd with the coordinates of the Japanese whalers and instead letting an environmental group flounder around for days ineffectively drew a lot of criticism within and without of Greenpeace. In the end, someone onboard the Greenpeace ship broke rank and slipped Sea Shepherd the coordinates. Sea Shepherd were distracted from the pursuit because the Japanese captured and held two hostages who were attempting to deliver written correspondence when the whalers refused to respond via radio, the Japanese held these people and eventually turned them over to Australian Customs on the ground that AC only hand them over well over the horizon so Sea Shepherd effectively will fall out of the pursuit, which occured.

Instead of providing details to Sea Shepherd, and with tensions riding high on the Greenpeace vessel, they turned back to port to refuel. Their refusal to provide the coordinates of the whalers led to Sea Shepherd wasting a week to try and find them again, and cost our ecosystem many whales lives as the Japanese felt free to resume harpooning their catch. Proof perhaps that idealistic biggotry rather than unification and cooperation has cost our environment more yet again.

Further criticism has been raised with the fact that Greenpeace have an estimated $100m budget for their Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary endeavours, they arrived in the SOWS a month after Sea Shepherd, and left a week before Sea Shepherd, running only one vessel whereas Sea Shepherd had two ships, a helicopter, and various other smaller craft operating on an estimated $1m budget. After refuelling, Greenpeace actions seemed to fall of the radar, a week later Sea Shepherd had to return to refuell and immediately resumed their return to SOWS, still on their microbudget while Greenpeace were too busy hanging signs and waving in protest at Heathrow Airport.

The priorities illustrated show that whilst Greenpeace have done wonders for drawing media attention to the plight of the whales in the sanctuary, their inaction has for the most part cost more whales lives. This year they gave themselves a big pat on the back when the whalers turned and ran on seeing their ship, something that has never happened before. They neglected to aknowledge what the Australian, New Zealand and English media (and possibly many more) picked up on; the whalers knew if Greenpeace found them, Sea Shepherd were close behind. Waving banners and shouting through loud speakers has never made a whaling fleet run, but every year Sea Shepherd have.

Make of it what you will, but I think this material is integral to addition to the criticism sections, especially as it has high proximity and notability to the matter, including on the [[Greenpeace]] page proper. As I stated above, as a member of Greenpeace (and no, I'm not a member of Sea Shepherd, although if Greenpeaces' attitude doesn't change I think my time and funding would be better spent elsewhere) I believe I have less ability to retain NPOV. [[Special:Contributions/122.107.65.2|122.107.65.2]] ([[User talk:122.107.65.2|talk]]) 19:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

:I have syndicated the above also to the main Greenpeace article and requested they direct comments to this version. [[Special:Contributions/122.107.65.2|122.107.65.2]] ([[User talk:122.107.65.2|talk]]) 19:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

==Peurakairasee is Peurakaira==
"Peurakairasee" or Peurakaira is an actual location and its protection has been discussed with Metsähallitus (Finnish Forest Administration). See: http://www.forestinfo.fi/metsalappi/kartat/peurakaira.pdf (Page 3) [[Special:Contributions/89.166.23.148|89.166.23.148]] ([[User talk:89.166.23.148|talk]]) 09:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 06:04, 31 January 2024

Greenpeace support for bitcoin not mentioned

[edit]

Greenpeace accepts bitcoin donations and at least unofficially uses bitcoin. This support for bitcoin is surprising since it consumes roughly 24TWh annually, comparable to a small country. Using traditional banking would be thousands of times more environment friendly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:20C0:5570:210D:47FB:B904:6866 (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Criticism of Greenpeace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Criticism of Greenpeace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is INCORRECT - Remove or Edit

[edit]

Nuclear fusion

[edit]

Greenpeace falsely claimed that nuclear fusion is unsafe and produces waste like nuclear fission.[1] However, nuclear fusion does not produce nuclear waste nor is there a meltdown risk because the conditions required to sustain nuclear fusion mean that if there is a containment breach, the fusion reaction would simply halt.[2][3]

This is incorrect as nuclear fusion does produce nuclear waste as you need to have nuclear material to produce the reaction, which does produce nuclear waste as not all the material will be used and needs to be constantly refilled. The Sun does not produce nuclear waste but that is whole different matter.


https://thebulletin.org/2017/04/fusion-reactors-not-what-theyre-cracked-up-to-be/

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference :2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "Advantages of fusion". ITER. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
  3. ^ Fountain, Henry (2017-03-27). "A Dream of Clean Energy at a Very High Price". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_Greenpeace&oldid=1201238952"