Essay Sample about Greenpeace

Whether they lean left or right, Authoritarians justify their politics, along the lines of everyone else, by arguing for the exact purpose of positions on issues they care about. But if your goal is happy and healthy Earth, then discussing a case on its benefits with an authoritarian may often be a shot in the dark. Greenpeace showcases its authoritarian figure when it comes to all environmental issues. They do not lean one way or the other; they just go with whatever ideal will get them the most press. This stakeholder is an interesting one as they sometimes are out in the media promoting the use of fully plastic takeout containers to preserve water, and energy but then the next week they are bashing them and claiming that they are the Earth’s biggest pollutants and that any person who chooses to use them “has no love for the Earth” (1 Greenpeace) As stated on the Greenpeace website they mention the issues they are currently covering including plastic takeout containers. “We’ve been campaigning for a green and peaceful future for 40 years — and we're not stopping now. It's time to rise like never before and fight for our climate and communities. (1 Greenpeace) Trying to persuade an authoritarian group like Greenpeace is relatively easy as they just want whatever makes them look the best. They will take whatever information is given to them through states and run with it in whatever direction needed to turn a positive outcome. If you dive into the behind-the-scenes of this organization, you will be able to see that they will change their opinion based on how it’ll make them look. 

The arguments presented by Greenpeace are that they want healthier, toxic-free Earth. They are very adamant about not using government funds and staying away from the other environmental groups that promote compostable containers as Greenpeace does not support their use. They want a healthier and happier Earth for the exact purpose of everyone. Patrick Moore is a great example of the controversies of Green Peace. He was a Co-Founder of the organization and left it. He states the biggest reason why in a YouTube video with Prager U about why he left Green Peace “You don't need a Ph.D. in marine biology to know it's a good thing to save whales from extinction. But when you're analyzing which chemicals to ban, you need to know some science.” (3) He claims that he was the only founder to be a part of Greenpeace that had any backgrounds in science while all the other founders were just students with bachelors in unrelated majors. 

Greenpeace’s values and beliefs are to protect forests, remove toxins, save the artic, protect ocean wildlife, fight global warming, and promote sustainable agriculture. Their big world view opposes democracy and is against big corporate organizations that influence American politics to get in the way of the values Greenpeace believes in. Although these are the values that Green Peace spreads, they still are known for not doing what is best for the environment. As said best by old Co-Founder Patrick Moore “Science and logic no longer held sway. Sensationalism, misinformation, and fear were what we used to promote our campaigns.” Greenpeace is a very controversial group as they don’t seem interested in how they come across to others. They put out whatever article they wanted and titled it something very “clickbait like” With their movement on removing plastic from takeout containers, they received significant criticism because not only did they make a petition to remove all plastic takeout containers, they also did not have a plan as to what should be used in place, as Greenpeace does not back compostable containers. This happens quite a few times with some of their other arguments towards trying to save the planet.

This is not how an environmental group should be promoting their organization if their goal is peace and cleaner earth. In the terms of my issue of takeout containers, Green Peace came forward during the COVID-19 outbreak and released a statement against takeout containers from the USA Oceans Campaign Director John Hocevar for Greenpeace “As governments look toward reopening businesses and restaurants, to require widespread single-use utensils, dishes, bags, and menus would be an ecological disaster leading to more plastic pollution, increased forest destruction, and worsened climate change. It would not protect workers or customers from COVID-19, as proximity and hand to surface contact would continue as workers remove and dispose of throwaway food ware.” (4) After this they started a campaign against the United States government in May of 2020 to recall all takeout containers and disposable utensils; not only to prevent the spread of the virus but also to help save the planet from an environmental collapse. John Hocevar continues his slander towards the US government by stating in an interview with a local magazine. He also adds to the idea that the government is only in the business of money in his statement “Governments should not be rushing to put people’s lives on the line to keep profits flowing. Instead, they should be supporting workers and small businesses by providing the benefits needed to avoid people being forced back to work before it is safe. Our lives are more important than corporate profits.” (4)

They have a great breakdown of their values/beliefs that help the reader see what Greenpeace stands for. They list out all their deals and why they are essential to them. Greenpeace wants to promote sustainable agriculture as they believe that people and animals must have healthy all-natural food without toxins. In the fight to reduce global warming, they mention the Trump administration and how we as Americans need to stand up and fight for the exact purpose of a healthier Earth, regardless of the political party you stand with. Politics and the environment shouldn’t go hand in hand, but Greenpeace likes to make it a point that politics plays a big role in how and what happens with our Earth.  

Greenpeace seems to be a very persuadable organization. This makes trying to persuade this stakeholder a lot easier. The way to do this for Greenpeace would be to propose a plan that would make then them the most money, give them the most press, and make them out to be heroes in the end. In the majority of their articles that Greenpeace comes out with headlines that make readers feel like they are doing something for the greater good. One headline they have circulating their website currently is “Defending Democracy: Kick Corporate Money Out of Politics” (5) This is a great example of a very “clickbait” title that leads readers to believe that the article will be discussing the downsides of big corporate companies and politics. The article is about how Greenpeace wants to raise money for environmental issues vs getting government funds and thinks others should follow suit. The biggest value that needs to be emphasized when talking about Greenpeace that they do not follow is that they want peace on Earth. The goal of Greenpeace that they promote is peaceful and healthy earth when they invoke rioting and controversies to make themselves look better. Trying to persuade them will take quite a bit of statis theory, but with facts and evidence, they will follow suit as in the end it’ll make them look better in the press.