The Annoyance of Greenpeace

These trees are no longer standing either

For a couple of years now, I have followed Greenpeace UK on Facebook. From what I can see, their environmentally friendly missions and aims are generally laudable.

But I am having a big problem with their methods. Here are three topics about which they have posted from the last year:

There’ll soon be more plastic in the sea than fish
What I approve of: the implicit attempt to reduce plastic pollution – not even just because it works its way back up the foodchain, but because no animal should suffer anywhere
What I disapprove of: the sensationalist attention-grabbing and meaningless headline – do they mean: by count; by mass; by volume?

Tell Volkswagen to stop making diesel cars now!
What I approve of: the move toward sustainable, ie electric, transport. I even had an electric car earlier in the year, and am just waiting on one that goes somewhere other than 20mi to Stirling.
What I disapprove of: the sensationalist attention-grabbling headline; the complete failure to mention that VW have had electric cars available for years (eGolf; various GTE hybrids), having increased the number of models around the group (Audi e-tron, etc) and are committed to producing increasing numbers in the next few years (the forthcoming I.D. range, some of which are quite interesting).

“From chocolate to toothpaste, these everyday products could containĀ #DirtyPalmOil. Time to tell companies to stop forest destruction”
What I approve of: preserving forestry, especially native tree species
What I disapprove of: the attention-grabbing headline; the complete failure to mention that Colgate-Palmolive (the “toothpaste” company indicted in the above) do not list palm oil in their ingredients and already have policies in place for “no deforestation” and specifically for sustainable behaviour regarding palm oil including along their supply chain.

A person blindly following their calls to action would at best have wasted their time on either writing some kind of letter or, even less fruitfully, a “petition”; at worst when the company refutes the argument, they’d rightly feel like a fool.

It seems the Greenpeace Method is to selectively ignore half the facts and present a logically fallacious appeal to emotion.

That’s a dishonesty I cannot support, so I’m out.