Greenpeace has launched a global campaign to save our bees

Discussion in 'Bee News' started by ApisBees, Aug 10, 2013.

  1. ApisBees

    ApisBees Active Member

    Messages:
    2,060
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    I don't know if this is good for the cause or misdirected good intentions. But they have the ability to get a cause in the forefront of the media and public. Here is the introduction statement and link to there page. If for anything other than knowing what is going on with groups in relation to bees, and the problems with the honey bees.

    ""Did you see Time magazine this week? The plight of the bee is making national headlines. More and more bees are dying every day because of dangerous pesticides and at this rate, we will have a global food catastrophe on our hand. "

    "This is why your gift is so important. The time to act is now, and we need all of you to join us. We are more than halfway to our goal of raising $30,000 to support our work to save the bees and protect the environment."

    "-Mark""



    http://us.greenpeace.org/site/MessageViewer?em_id=33901.0&dlv_id=39581
     
  2. riverrat

    riverrat New Member

    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here's my rant on this one. And I very seldom rant and vent. Greenpeace is in this to make money and line their pockets. How long has bees been dying and they have been nowhere in site. They wait until public awareness becomes large enough they can make a buck spending a minimal amount of money on advertising. They prey on peoples fear the world will end if a tree dies a dolphin get in a net and now a bee dies. They are no different then Jesse Jackson and his Rainbow coalition and other groups that prey on peoples misery and dispare. Rant over Dont get me started I dont have any brakes:grin:
     

  3. ApisBees

    ApisBees Active Member

    Messages:
    2,060
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Thanks for the rant \ post Riverrat. This was sent to me and I feel it is good to know what is happening in the world regarding bees. Whether one agrees or not with the group or it's actions. I agree with you on that Greenpeace tends to attach it self to stories and causes that are all ready in the media spotlight. Like you stated there is an opportunity for them to get in front of the media spot light and raise funds. Jumping on the hard work and studies that have been taking place by bee researchers over the last 7 years. Raise $30,000 to protest, not support research in finding the causes.
     
  4. Daniel Y

    Daniel Y New Member

    Messages:
    742
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I will say first that it appears there has been some falling out between Greenpeace and one of it's founders. Make of that what you wish. I had also heard that the killing of fur seals and that entire film was staged by Greenpeace in order to make people "Think" that cruel activities where in fact used. This claim has been confirmed by several other sources.

    This is a quote from Paul Watson the co founder of Greenpeace that had the falling out.
    :The secret to David McTaggart's success is the secret to Greenpeace's success: It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.... You are what the media define you to be. [Greenpeace] became a myth, and a myth-generating machine."

    So is it true that Greenpeace only archives there objectives via smoke and mirrors and unethically producing false evidence?
    It is also true they have had a dramatic impact on whaling but that is largely due to Paul Watson who they basically kicked out and now don't even acknowledge as a founder of the organization.

    Are the accusations of unethical behavior only false claims due to this falling out? Keep in mind the staging of the killing of fur seals has been confirmed.

    Personally Greenpeace never had much support form me in the first place. In recent years I believe they need to be dismantled as a false entity just as I view United Way. Greenpeace believes they should conduct non violent protest and creative methods to prevent harm such as putting boats between whaling ships and the whale. Paul Watson believes in more proactive measures such as actively sinking whaling ships. which he claims to have done with a long list of ships claimed to have been sunk. Paul than accuses Greenpeace of accepting huge sums in donations while doing little to actually stop whaling. It has been shown that in fact Greenpeace was stockpiling savings accounts with donations. This is not necessarily evidence they never intended to utilize those funds to fight whaling. Ships are expensive things to buy and Greenpeace has had some of them.

    It does seem to me that for many years Greenpeace has fallen out of the spot light although they continued to generate donations. When you see nothing but advertisements soliciting donations it makes warning flags go up for me. this is exactly why I do not support United Way. and is is now the primary reason I do not support Greenpeace. Neither do anything better than campaign for the next dollar.

    For others you will need to decide. Does the end justify the means? Is Greenpeace actually doing anything with the money? Has the emergence of there staging of the fur seal clubbing devastated their effort? In one case it is claimed their donations fell to less than 10%. Maybe they have simply been put out of the smoke and mirror business.Now they just try to dip into every cookie jar that comes along.
    Sorry for italics other than the quote above. my computer seems to be stuck on them.

    I am all for saving the honey bee and ending and I mean ending those things that harm it. I take a stance that says no use of pesticides, fertilizers or any other application for any reason ever. for example, we don't coat our bees with toxins in order to keep them. Well not really strong toxins anyway. My point is why is it acceptabel for farmers to spread poison in order to profit. it is not like their crops will utterly fail they are only increased with the use of these products. why is it acceptable for them to boost their bottom line when it is not even remotely considered acceptable for others to do so. It is much like saying sure coat the ocean with oil. dead floating fish are much easier to catch. reduces cost and increases the catch all at the same time. plus you get rid of all those pests that eat the fish at the same time. Sure half rotten fish is not as good for you. but there is an abundance of substandard food so just eat twice as much. We have a world to feed get out of our way.
     
  5. PerryBee

    PerryBee New Member

    Messages:
    5,829
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    OK, I am going to wade in. :???:
    FWIW, I was a member of Greenpeace back in the 80's. Nothing radical, just a $ contributing member. I believed in what they did, but as Daniel has pointed out, they have now become more of a fundraising entity. I have long "admired" (?????) Paul Watson, not so much for how he does things, but for the conviction with which he does them.
    As far as "staging" the clubbing of seals, well, maybe that happened, but it does not excuse how this industry was being done. The "industry" itself was so heavily subsidized that it made little economic sense.
    It has gotten to the point now where the pendulum has swung so far that it is almost at your peril should you chose to align yourself with any environmental organization. Up here our federal government refers to environmentalists as Eco terrorists.
    Better to leave industry to manage itself?
     
  6. Crofter

    Crofter New Member

    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is easier to co habitate with the other life forms on the planet when population pressures are low to moderate. When life forms are in the early stages of expanding into a new niche, life is good. The normal trend though, without controlling forces, is to expand to saturation point of sustainable carrying capacity then overshoot and collapse. Man seems to be following the pattern.

    The bees, the whales, the old growth forests, the topsoil loss, air purity, all symptoms of destroying life and evironment of other species and taking their lunches and babies for ourselves. Each cure for the problems we create, causes ever more complicated unforseen results.

    I cant get excited about investing in narrow focus hand wringing about symptoms. Why is it such taboo to discuss lowering our own numbers and our environmental impact to sustainable levels? That would be a good thing for Greenpeace to address but not near as easy to fundraise for as for baby seals and spotted owls!

    Are we destined to go the way of the Easter Islanders (writ large)?
     
  7. tecumseh

    tecumseh New Member

    Messages:
    6,487
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    sometime people do the right thing for the wrong reason and sometime it is the other way around. I get the idea even from some activist animal rights folks that such firms as Greenpeace are pretty much authoritarian organizations operated by someone with a large ego.

    I would hope anyone here who might get a copy of the American Bee Journal might look at this months letter to the editor and read someone response there to the idea that the honey bee population is in crisis at the world level. some hype folks just don't need to buy into and once this significance of this data sinks in you may recompose your own answer to why bees seem to be in decline in particular countries (while increasing significant in other countries).
     
  8. Lburou

    Lburou Member

    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Greenpeace brings some baggage to the fight.......Doesn't make me warm and fuzzy to have them 'fighting' for the bees. :)