Criticism of Greenpeace
[9] He argues that any realistic plan to reduce reliance on fossil fuels or greenhouse gas emissions need increased use of nuclear energy.
[6] Phil Radford, executive director of Greenpeace US responded that nuclear energy is too risky and takes too long to build to address climate change.
[10][11] The letter stated: "We urge Greenpeace and its supporters to re-examine the experience of farmers and consumers worldwide with crops and foods improved through biotechnology, recognize the findings of authoritative scientific bodies and regulatory agencies, and abandon their campaign against 'GMOs' in general and Golden rice in particular.
Scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved through biotechnology to be as safe as, if not safer than those derived from any other method of production.
In August 2006, Greenpeace released its first "Guide to Greener Electronics," which ranked leading mobile phone, PC, TV, and game console manufacturers on their global policies and practice on eliminating harmful chemicals and on taking responsibility for their products once they are discarded by consumers.
The Version 1 Guide to Greener Electronics[14] stated "the ranking is important because the amounts of toxic e-waste is growing everyday and it often ends up dumped in the developing world.
[16][17] It was alleged that Greenpeace had no factual evidence, instead relying on unsubstantiated official company information for the report in order to garner publicity, as well as political and monetary support.
A reference to the potential revenue energy exploration could bring to offset the $500 million annual grant from Denmark which could transform the economy and lead to Greenland independence.
However, Aqqaluk Lynge, from the Inuit Circumpolar Council, said an influx of foreign companies and workers could mean the natives "risk being a minority in our own country."
[10][11] The letter stated: "We urge Greenpeace and its supporters to re-examine the experience of farmers and consumers worldwide with crops and foods improved through biotechnology, recognize the findings of authoritative scientific bodies and regulatory agencies, and abandon their campaign against "GMOs" in general and Golden rice in particular.
Scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved through biotechnology to be as safe as, if not safer than those derived from any other method of production.
[37] In June 1995, Greenpeace took a trunk of a tree from the forests of the proposed national park of Koitajoki[38] in Ilomantsi, Finland and put it on exhibitions held in Austria and Germany.
[42][43] In December 2014, Greenpeace came under criticism following a publicity stunt within the Nazca lines, a UNESCO World Heritage Site inside Peru.
[44] Peru's deputy minister for culture criticized the actions, calling them "thoughtless, insensitive, illegal, irresponsible and absolutely pre-meditated."
Conversely, they stood by "...history of more than 40 years of peaceful activism [which] clearly shows that we have always been most respectful with people around the world and their diverse cultural legacies.
[48] The Greenpeace (NGO) India Society has been accused by the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs of a violation of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act.
[50] The Intelligence Bureau of India allegedly leaked a report accusing Greenpeace of anti-development activities and a threat to national economic security.
IB claims the negative impact of the NGOs’ role on GDP growth to be “2–3 per cent per annum” which affects millions of people in India living below the poverty line.
The report, signed by IB Joint Director S A Rizvi, accuses Greenpeace of contravening laws to “change the dynamics of India’s energy mix”.
[51] The Delhi High Court overturned the government's decision to offload an Indian citizen from her travel to London – saying you cannot muzzle dissent.
