Greenpeace&Co causing hardship to the poor.

[Menelik_I]

I do believe that Greenpeace and other environmentalist groups have an adverse effect on the welfare of millions of people around the world.

Sure it is great to combat pollution and protect wildlife, but beyond that it costs more than it bring in benefits. But since most of these Green movements are originated from rich countries, they can literally afford it, but people in poor countries are those who feel the brunt of it and millions live in poverty and misery because of it. They do have a share of responsibility, the question is how much and how pressing should it be to address their effect.

The biggest negative of the green movement to date have been :

1- The banning of DDT, which lead to a strong resurgence of Malaria in poor countries and millions of deaths. Hopefully progress in medicine and mass production of them have lessened the problem, but increased resistance to drugs could void all progress. I had it more than 15 times over my life and it sucks.

2- Global Warming Scare. Green Peace recently put pressure in South Africa to prevent the construction of a power plant, said action and other ''green energy'' push could result in expensive energy for people who needs it most.

3- GMO : We need better crops and Anti-GMO crowd don't help.

4- Anti-globalization : Attacks again companies opening sweatshops, which Greenpeace sometimes takes part into, only further condemn people to further hardship and misses the point that the locals like the job because it is better than their second option.

A more concrete example is the in which Ugandan farmers were expulsed and had their houses burn down to ''fight global warming'', as a Corporation entered in a Partnership with the government to plant a forest and sell carbon credits out of it through the cap and trade system. But this very direct case shouldn't overshadow the indirect costs imposed on poor people around the globe.

Maybe the rich countries can afford nostalgia about pristine nature, but people in poor countries can't afford such luxury and need all the resources needed to grow richer.

Here is a video which translate my point ... Resident Evil style

[motiv-8]

1. The ban of DDT came about primarily because of the work of Rachel Carson, a marine biologist, not Greenpeace. It's also not just an environmental issue -- having almost wiped out our national bird and symbol of our republic, the bald eagle -- but a public health issue, DDT being toxic to the human body.

2. Global Warming isn't a "scare," it's a scientific phenomenon that actually requires thinking about and planning for. Alternative energy has the luxury of not being a requirement, for now, but condemning it because it's "more expensive" is a pedantic argument that could be used against anything from space exploration to the automobile.

3. A fair point, as GMO seems to have a minimal impact on the environment -- sans the appearance of wild plants with genetic herbicide resistance -- and on human health.

4. Criticizing movements against sweat shops? Really? How absurd. I didn't think I'd see someone implicitly support labor exploitation just to politically bash a group or cause they don't like.

The article on Uganda you cited doens't even mention Greenpeace. It mentions a rather crappy government making a financial deal with a corporation, with citizens being screwed in the process. In Africa. Shocking.

Do deveoping nations deserve the ability to grow to prosperity like we have? Yes. But what's the point if they destroy their local environments in the process. The whole point is not to repeat the mistakes we made.

[Menelik_I]

Sweatshops are great.

It is not rich countries choice to make about whether we should repeat the "mistakes" or not.

[Denny Crane!]

Greenpeace, against fossil fuels, against nuclear power, against wind turbines in some area.

Against fire no doubt, intensive farming.

Against humanity it seems.

[magpie]

Now I am not the greatest fan of Green energy myself.Think its uneconomic and puts hardship on peoples energy budgets.
Regarding trying to save natures wildlife and forests by not cutting down every tree on the planet I would support them.
Keeping the sea is a reasonable condition seems sensible, Who wants to take a swim surrounded by turds or chemical sluge.
Not poluting fresh water seems equally sensible, Don,t want to spend half the day on the crapper.
Killing off the whale and Dolphin population by a certain country seems to be pointless and self indulgent.
Perhaps Greenpeace would be better off concentrating on reducing the human over population problems.
Of course keep this activity to the underdeveloped societies
Then one would not have to put up with starving babies on our TV screens ect.
Then we could go to bed at night feeling more comfortable about ourselves
Now I am all for cheap goods to buy.
The downside is, If half the world is poor, They are not in a position to buy things from us.
Kind of sucks, Because then we become unemployed and poor
Oh well.

[Condottiere 40K]

Greenpeace is almost mainstream these days, there are other more driven environmental organizations who fanatically pursue their agenda.

You have to strike a balance between industrial development and not have it come back and bite us in the ass some time in the future.

[saglam2000]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Blau&Gruen]

It is interesting to support smaller project orientated groups from my point of view. It makes sense probably when they are sometimes linked to larger groups when this helps their projects. And no I do not think that 'Greenpeace&Co' cause hardship to the poor. To the contrary, we are increasingly in a situation where biodiversity and the conservation of species can stand directly in a relation to social progress, especially in tropical countries where a sustainable use of resources can be a much more efficient way to increase the living standard of the local population than an intensive use where the revenues go either abroad or disappear in some ministry pockets.

[Rolling Thunder]

1. While it was tragic, the issue with DDT is that in high concentrations it will become lethal to humans and other large mammals.
2. Point.
3. Excellent point, with world population rising we need crops that can make the most of soil fertility and we need those crops now. Also, invade Zimbabwae.
4. Another outstanding point. "Sweatshops", or "Factories", are generally some of the best jobs going for unskilled labour in Third-World nations. Indeed, multinational firms are often some of the best employers in these nations.

[Enemy of the State]

4. Criticizing movements against sweat shops? Really? How absurd. I didn't think I'd see someone implicitly support labor exploitation just to politically bash a group or cause they don't like.

"Sweat shops" have done more to improve the quality of life for millions of people in developing nations than anything else. People often forget what people used to do before they worked in sweat shops. They lived in the country, working all day on the fields, barely sustaining themselves, living a life with no luxuries at all. The conditions in these "sweat shops" might seem appalling to us from the developed world, but what alternative are you proposing exactly?

[motiv-8]

Some crazy fairy-tale land where workers DON'T work in Sweatshops, I suppose. But hey, we can try your alternative -- quit your , peon, at least you're not working in the field!

Oh wait, Europeans tried that tact already, and we ended up with Communism in response.

[Enemy of the State]

Some crazy fairy-tale land where workers DON'T work in Sweatshops, I suppose. But hey, we can try your alternative -- quit your , peon, at least you're not working in the field!

Oh wait, Europeans tried that tact already, and we ended up with Communism in response.

Fine, lets mandate that every business in the developing world has to pay the same wage, provide the same working conditions and benefits to workers as they do in the developed world. Then they'll be as rich as us overnight, right? The developing world is seeing unprecendented growth. China is quickly becoming a modern, developed nation. Millions of people are escaping poverty because of free trade with the west. Those horrible capitalists... How dare they engage in mutually beneficial exchange!

Worse, if somehow the GM plants somehow manage to infiltrate your crops, the companies send lawyers and goons to intimidate farmers who hadn't signed up for the programme for protection money, on the grounds they're growing their product without a license.

That is a problem with intellectual property, not GMOs. Abolish patents.

[Chukada1]

DDT causes diabetes, messes with the development of children, parkinsons, asthma and cancer.

Yeah. No thanks.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

DDT causes diabetes, messes with the development of children, parkinsons, asthma and cancer.

Yeah. No thanks.

And malaria is so much better?

[Portuguese Rebel]

3- GMO : We need better crops and Anti-GMO crowd don't help.

And you know how the seed situation resolves itself with GMOs? Farmers can't control their own productions and are basically under the foot of the labs. And once monopoly is achieved they are bled dry. And the problem with the poor areas of the world was never that there isn't enough food to go around. It's that it doesn't get distributed. If you are poor GMOs are not for you anyway.

[Condottiere 40K]

Worse, if somehow the GM plants somehow manage to infiltrate your crops, the companies send lawyers and goons to intimidate farmers who hadn't signed up for the programme for protection money, on the grounds they're growing their product without a license.

[motiv-8]

Straw man... DDT is not the only anti-malarial measure, by a long shot..

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

Straw man... DDT is not the only anti-malarial measure, by a long shot..

It's one of the most effective.

[motiv-8]

Clearly its effectiveness is questionable when it comes with so many detrimental side effects.

[Denny Crane!]

DDT actually has high amounts of resistance amongst mosquito populations.