Greenpeace attacked for using un-green ships
Greenpeace, an international environment pressure group, may not be so green itself.
GREENPEACE faces a dilemma: How "environmentally friendly" should the pressure group be in its own direct action campaigns?
For more than 20 years, it has run campaigns to focus attention on ecological issues. But this may have to change, if some members succeed in committing the group to greener lobbying tactics.
At the heart of the debate are the fossil-fuel burning ships used in such actions as Greenpeace’s shadowing of a Japanese ship carrying highly radioactive plutonium early this year.
Some Greenpeace members say using such vessels means the organisation is willing to pollute the seas to further its ends.
Others argue that a small amount of pollution is a price worth paying for the attention the ships attract to major environmental issues such as whaling and nuclear waste dumping.
"It’s a bit of a dilemma," said Greenpeace’s marine director, Mr Ulrich Jurgens, in Amsterdam, Holland. He added the future of the fleet should be decided at Greenpeace’s annual meeting this month.
"No ship is environmentally sound. But do we want to have ships for our image ... or do we still want to do the actions that make Greenpeace well-known?" said Albert Kuiken, captain of the Solo, one of Greenpeace’s best-known vessels.
Under his captaincy, the Solo has been shot at and arrested in Russia, rammed by a Japanese frigate and stormed by armed French commandos. The Dutchman knows first-hand the importance of a well-built ship during confrontations at sea.
"If we want a sturdy, fast, action ship, then of course, we have to give in a bit on the level of environmental soundness," he said. He argues that a little pollution is a necessary evil if campaigners are to remain safe.
Mr Jurgens is in favour of designing environmentally-friendly vessels that would fulfil the green criteria so important to campaigners but would still allow action to continue.
"I don’t see anything in the market that we could just buy to replace the old fleet," he said.
Other members of Greenpeace say designing and building ships is a waste of contributors’ money.
Capt Kuiken said it was unfortunate so many people in the organisation paid so much attention to the environmental side of the ships.
"It’s very understandable ... but I hope it doesn’t mean we are becoming lame ducks. We will end up with amazing environmental ships that will not be a threat to polluters."
Capt Kuiken believes the aim of the campaign is to stop pollution. He said he had never heard a supporter say "the action was great but it’s a pity you had to burn some fuel to do it".
The Solo has already been converted to make it more environmentally sound. It uses a light fuel that has a sulphur content of only 0.2 to 0.3 per cent, a more expensive alternative to heavy fuel containing 3 per cent sulphur. Exchangers were fitted to warm the ship with excess engine heat, and the engines were adapted to clean the exhaust fumes.
The ideal alternative for some would be a wind-powered vessel that burns no fuel. But others feel the loss in manoeuvrability would ultimately damage the Greenpeace cause. —Reuter
Accepting a necessary evil
ALBERT KUIKEN captained the Greenpeace vessel, the Solo, when it tracked the progress of the Japanese freighter Akatsuki Maru carrying 1.7 tonnes of plutonium to Japan from France.
While at sea, the Solo was rammed by a Japanese frigate that was escorting the Akatsuki Maru.
Capt Kuiken said the power of the Solo and its manoeuvrability meant Greenpeace could pursue its action despite the dangers the crew faced.
A smaller, less dependable vessel — of the type proposed by more green-conscious members — would have meant giving up and sailing home, letting the Japanese have just what they wanted.
In October last year, the Solo —carrying 29 crew, scientists and reporters — was shot at and arrested in the Kara Sea off the north coast of Russia while investigating the alleged dumping of nuclear waste.
After the action, Russia admitted to having dumped 18 nuclear reactors in the sea.
"What came out was a million times more important for the environment and for making people aware of things.
"I’m sorry we burnt a bit of fuel, but when we get results like that, I think it’s really worth using a bit of fossil fuel," Capt Kuiken said.
Source : The Straits Times 19th Oct 1993
Recycling Point Dot Com
(C) 2000 All Rights Reserved