Environmental Issue Against Greenpeace International

Who do you c both when you witness a air dumping toxic waste in the ocean, and an different ship doing commercial whaling? Or while traveling across states you happen to put across by a group of men doing logging activities at a forest under conservation? Or youve heard of a thermonuclear test being under wasten few miles from your home? If you keep up enough concern for your purlieu, youll probably be c onlying the Greenpeace orbit(prenominal). Yes With this fragile solid ground already in existence for million geezerhood, it should need volunteers like the Greenpeace to protect its environment from advance degradation.Throwing poisonous substance1 in the ocean pollutes the water and endangers the aquatic re ancestrys which atomic number 18 the source of livelihood of m each families living at the coastal villages. Commercial whaling2 corrects take chances at the dwindling species of whales in the ocean which ca maps imbalance in the aquatic ecosystems. humanss rema ining forests are being conserved to cooperate in the fight against air pollution and littleen the effect of existence(prenominal) warming3. Nuclear weapon interrogation4 poisons the air and makes the s crude oil unfit for planting. We all should finagle some our environment for our healthy existence including the generations to come.But while I agree with all the environmental protection, prevention and conservation activities of the volunteer organization5, this analyze argues with Greenpeace internationalists world(a) blackballning of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane or dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane on the following level offs ? The banning on the lend oneself of pesticides like dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane has resulted to death of million deal in Africa caused by malaria6, ? The deaths and sickness annually, tally to World Health Organization (WHO), brought about by malaria reduces the gross interior(prenominal) harvest-time (GDP) of Afri erect nations by 1. 3 percent and suffers economic exit by as much as $12 billion7, No less than the World Health Organization promotes the use of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane in struggle the dreaded malaria in developing countries8, and ? United States Agency for International suppuration (USAID), Americas lead agency supporting countries in the Afri send a representation immaculate eradicate malaria, has signifi cantly increased their budget for dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane 9 The Greenpeace International Greenpeace International10 is an independent, non-profit organization. Started in 1971, the group was initially an anti-war crusader who boarded a sport fish boat and sailed in the effort of stopping a nuclear test in Alaska.Inspired by their success in their first encounter11, the organization, broadly speaking manned by volunteers, is now sailing around the world, going to outside(a) move of the globe, campaigning and standing as witness to the destruction of scram nature and going a gainst individuals, government agencies and buck private corporations who are trying to get down our environment. The approach is direct but non-violent12. Greenpeace primary objective is ensuring the continuation of biography on earth in all its beauty and complexity12B.They conduct educational campaign and information drive all geared towards protecting seas and jeopardize forests13. They are promoting the use of renewcapable energies instead of fossil fuels which are prove to cause climate change. They lobby against the continued use of toxic chemics and its outlaw(a) disposal. The earths friends14 also strongly oppose the release of genetically modified organism into the environment15 and vigorously campaign for the eradication of nuclear weapons and its testing which poison the air.For the operational budget, Greenpeace depends almostly on individual supporters voluntary component s and grants from supportive foundations. Soliciting or accepting financial contribution s from government entities, private corporations or political parties are avoided16 so that its integrity, independence, goals and objectives depart not be compromised. The organization commits itself to non-power confrontation, political independence and internationalism.In their effort to show to the world some of the environmental risks and in trying to come to telling solutions, Greenpeace International considers no permanent friends and adversaries17. Greenpeace International has been a great factor in making the world a better and safer place to live. Its 35 years of protecting M new(prenominal) Earth has led to the banning of dumping of toxic substances to underdeveloped countries, issuance of moratorium on the practice of commercial whaling, better boldness of world fisheries as agreed upon during the U.N. Convention and the establishment of whale recourse in the southern ocean. The Earths Friends also succeeded in obtaining a 50-year moratorium on the exploration of min eral in Antarctica, struggleed for the prohibition of disposal in worlds oceans of radioactive materials, factory waste and abandoned oil exploration facilities. The organization has also stop massive driftnet system of fishing on the high seas and succeeded in their original mission of stopping nuclear weapon testing18.With the continued climate change, Greenpeace International hopes to get the support of much foundations and individual supporters. They also wish that more passel from around the world pass on join them in their crusade by reporting any activities that will put a threat to the environment. Greenpeaces Concept of environmental Law According to Jamie Benedicksons book, environmental law is depicted as a complex system of various concepts which are put unneurotic to enable man to fully understand the causes and effect of some impacts brought about by human race activity.These concepts range from the main source of problem, down to the effects and the ones greatl y affected, up to the possible solutions that could be taken into consideration. There are concepts regarding precaution principles that could be taken, as Greenpeace eagerly shows in most of its protests. This includes how the people could participate, the possible sanctions given to those who violate these rules and numerous more. It also includes some experiments on their quest to find better methods to implement and spread the laws for the environment, and how will the people react or interact with this body of law.This effort is all for the turn a profit of mankind in the succeeding(a). These laws regulate their freedom, but are surely intrinsic for all (Benidickson). Biodiversity. environmental law tryks to preserve biodiversity in nature. This is to ensure that at that place is al managements a balance that the nature follows. If thither is imbalance, there could be a great impact on the organisms living on the system, and this includes us, human beings. If biodiversit y is damaged, there could be a tip-off in the balance and there could be problems like food confer shortages, spread of diseases and more.That is why the Environmental law jawks to protect wildlife and marine species, and their respective habitats. Biodiversity depends on these concerns, to preserve the round of organisms, to keep everything in order, to keep everything, every organism diverse. Pollution. Pollution is the pollution of some of the most important aspects in human life, like air, the malicious gossip and the water by toxic or harmful materials and substances. Because of this, the Greenpeace agreeks to regulate the amounts of these contaminants, or as much as possible keep them away from our elemental needs, like air and water.However, there are already laws on how to lag toxic and dangerous materials so that it would not harm people. It also seeks to impart on the people on the proper management and treatment of this environmental problems. Conservation. Preser ving and maintaining balance in the environment is an important concern in the Environmental Law. This is because of the various efforts from different sectors of the people. This is where the idea of Sustainable Development enters.There should be enough resources left in the environment so that it could sustain the future generation. The idea is to be able to spend and utilize these resources without jeopardizing the future. The idea of replacement and replenishing spent resources are important to assure a future supply for the people, thus, conservation and protection of these natural resources play an important role in the Environmental laws specifically against the issues being raised by Greenpeace. The Argument ecumenical Ban on the spend of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane The use of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane was proscribed in 1972 by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). But the ban does not apply outside of U. S19. Knowing the harmful effect of the chem ical in human as well as in animal, Greenpeace International is pushing for its worldwide ban. The organization invokes the U. N. treaty on the so called fixed organic pollutants (POP). The treaty will cause the elimination of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane which is look atd to be the most affordable yet effective pesticide visible(prenominal)20.While Greenpeace was just unchanging in their purpose of eliminating substances that pose risk to the environment, the prohibition on the use of DDT should have been reviewed considering the sudden increase of deaths shortly afterwards the murder of the ban. Malaria disease became widespread and millions, particularly pregnant women and children died in Africa and in other developing countries. The sickness and death also gave serious implication much(prenominal) as significant reduction in the gross domestic product and the loss of billions of dollars in the economy.With the ban in effect, devastation of peoples health and the econo my will continue21. The momentum that the Greenpeace Intenational was able to establish as a result of their successes in previous years in many aspects of environmental protection is so strong that it was able to convince plastered countries to adhere to the ban. Yet bigger and more credible institution are waking up in an apparent deep slumber as they started to provide funds in an effort of preventing the spread of malaria by sidesplitting the infected mosquitoes through the use of the banned DDT.No less than the World Health Organization began the active promotion of the pesticide DDT in bit malaria in the third world. It took the loss of ten million lives caused by the supposed to be preventable malaria disease that made WHO spring into action. Wall alley Journal comments, It is good to know, WHO has come vivacious22. Another institution which came into its senses after long years of avoiding the consistent lobbying of some scientists on the need for an effective malaria c ontrol in Africa is the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). vehement officials of the U. S. government have endorsed the increase of budget appropriation for developing countries in the sub Saharan field. The aid is intended to win the war against the most dreaded disease that hit the region. The budget will specifically go into the purchase of DDT23. The Greenpeace might have the momentum but it has to collide with the WHO and USAID if it wants to push its ambition to still put total ban on DDT despite the millions of death and the ruin of the economy. The risk that the DDT may pose to the environment, if any, may later be treated.Saving the lives of million of people region will have to come first.. What is the sense of having a sweep environment if it will not be enjoyed by either of the dead and the destruction? If the sick has already been treated, the shift to a safer pesticide will follow. Arata Kochi, WHO malaria chief said, Among the twelve insec ticides that WHO endorses as harmless for indoor spraying, the most effective is DDT24. We take the necessary action base on observation and on the available data. DDT aside from being affordable is the most effective way of containing a disease.This has been suggested by United Nations health agencies but pressure from environmentalists prevented the use of DDT. The effectiveness of DDT may have been incorrectly presented but studies point out that right amount of the insecticides used in go throughing mosquitoes will not be harmful to human, animals and environment. Insecticide may not exclusively eradicate malaria and its endorser doesnt guarantee its result, nevertheless, keeping the people alive and healthy can bring about growth and development that will be a lasting solution to problem of poverty in the region25.WHOs decision to fund the use of DDT in malaria eradication has a negative effect on the Greenpeace self-esteem. The fight that they know all along, to have already been won, have suddenly turned to be the other way around. But looking at the positive side, they can seek and recommend to DDT users the right amount when spraying and the proper safety-related gears that have to be worn in spraying. They can educate families that clean sorroundings will not provide a breeding ground for mosquitoes and thus will save them from the dreaded disease.USAID on the other hand had determine areas in the sub saharan Africa that need help. The assistance involves mostly of DDT indoor residual spraying26. Environmentalists suggest that the effort of USAID to eradicate malaria be center on handing out medicines and pesticide-treated bed netting to families in areas with threat of corpulent mosquito infestation. Greenpeace can now volunteer to distibute these drugs and bed nets in remote parts of the continent. Conclusion I believe DDT being a chemical can pose risk to humans health, animals and environment.I believe too that there are insects like the m osquito which possesses dangerous bites that can kill people. And that is where DDT is needed. In this case, there should never be a worldwide ban on the use of substance unless the world is declared as malaria-free. Selective banning is preferred. DDT can be banned in highly developed and clean cities where there is no place for mosquitoes to breed. It can openly be sold, bought and used in areas like the African continent where malaria has grown into epidemic proportion.However, after the problem had been treated banning of DDT in the place can be proposed. If malaria is eradicated through the use of DDT, there is no assurance that it will not provide illnesses to people in the environment no matter how little the amount sprayed. Chemicals usually plasterers float in the air and may be inhaled. It can land on soil that can affect vegetation or it can shamble with water which can be poisonous when drank or cause spit out allergies when used for washing or bathing. The effect of c hemical is not immediate. It may manifest its effect after 10 years, 20 year or more. .If the Greenpeace International failed to implement worldwide ban on DDT, it doesnt cogitate that they also failed in protecting the environment. They are right when they assert that DDT has its deadly effect in human, animals and environment. But DDT can also help in some ways. Like in developing countries it was able to prevent malaria. Experts claimed that if DDT was not banned, millions of people should have been saved. But who knows of the high-and-mighty invention27. End notes 1 This is strongly being opposed by Greenpeace International. 2 There is an existing moratorium on this type of fishing 3 Causes earths temperature to riseThere is an existing ban on all nuclear testing 5 Actually, I wish I can join someday 6 if DDT was not banned, millions of people should have been saved, see Milloy 7 see Milloy 8 see matter perfume for constitution Analysis 9 see National Center for form _or_ system of government Analysis 10 see Greenpeace International 11 that test was stopped and became Greenpeace first ever victory 12 but sometimes violence cannot be avoided, there are times they were sued and were jailed 12B Greenpeace International relegation Statement 13 Im wondering how rich they can be, most of them are volunteers and are not receiving any salary 4 similar to Greenpeace International 15 if they are released there is no way to retrieve them 16 they are serious about it. They return checks if they came from corporations 17 & 18 see Greenpeace International, Mission Statement 19, 20 & 21 see Milloy 22 National Center for insurance Analysis 23 see National Center for Policy Analysis 24&25 see National Center for Policy Analysis 26 see National Center for Policy Analysis 27 Gods designBibliographyGreenpeace International, Mission Statement, The Greenpeace Story, accessed April 10, 2007, http//www. greenpeace. org. k/contentlookup. cfm? SitekeyParam Milloy, Steven J. , Rock Stars Activism Could Be Put to Better Use, accessed April 15, 2007 Competitive Enterprise Institute, http//www. cei. org/gencon/019,04632. cfm National Center for Policy Analysis, Daily Policy Digest, DDTs New Friends, accessed April 20, 2007, http//www. ncpa. org/sub/dpd/index. php? page=articleArticle_ID=12363 National Center for Policy Analysis, Daily Policy Digest, United States Takes New View on DDT in Africa accessed ,April 20, 2007, http//www. ncpa. org/sub/dpd/index. php? page=articleArticle_ID=3283