Greenpeace: Damaging the Fish Industry

by Antoinette Blaccorneri on April 9, 2012

Greenpeace is engaged in a scurrilous intimidation campaign against scientists who dare to differ from the climate-alarmist orthodoxy – and who are associated with The Heartland Institute’s efforts to promote their research. That’s a typical intimidation tactic of an organization with a sketchy reputation.

Gavin Gibbons, director of media relations for the National Fisheries Institute (NFI), wants every U.S. supermarket retailer to carefully consider in advance of Greenpeace’s annual “Carting Away the Oceans” report that’s due to be released in the coming weeks.

Gibbons says the annual seafood sustainability “rank and spank” report will again find retailers being asked to provide in-depth answers to more than 50 loaded questions about the sustainability of their seafood procurement programs, including shelf stable tuna.

While the alarmist name of the report alone should raise red flags, NFI’s spokesman also urges grocers to consider the following: Never in the survey’s five-year history has a retailer scored better than 65 points on a 100-point scale. Moreover, last year’s edition of Carting Away the Oceans went as far as to tell consumers: “Eat less fish. Reducing seafood consumption now can help lessen the pressure on our oceans…” (page 13).

Think about that for a minute: In return for their providing activists with potentially sensitive business information, Gibbons says Greenpeace will “accuse retail grocers of Carting Away the Oceans by giving these reputable companies a D-minus at best, and then tell their shoppers to buy less fresh, frozen and shelf-stable seafood.”

Which again begs the question: “Why in the world would any retailer voluntarily complete an arbitrary survey – free of transparent methodology – with a pre-determined outcome?” Gibbons speaks bluntly: “Greenpeace’s five-year track record of extorting information from retail grocers must come to an end.” But ultimately, he adds: “That’s up to retailers. By completing the survey, retailers open themselves up to the activist organization’s subjective, nonscientific evaluation of their business, while simultaneously acknowledging that Greenpeace is a credible and qualified voice in the discourse.”

To the contrary, Gibbons states that Greenpeace has never invested $1 or one hour to improve sustainable fishing practices – and it shuns the work of highly reputable organizations like the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF).

“This scorecard campaign is nothing more than a ploy to get media attention and appeal for donor dollars,” says Gibbons, adding that Greenpeace is “no longer a ragtag group of idealistic college kids. It is a global operation as big and as complex as the businesses it targets.”

{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }

1 Alejandra April 25, 2012 at 8:43 am

Until today I had never heard of the NCSE. It struck me as rahetr bizarre. An entire organization devoted to teaching two unproven (and unprovable) theories evolution and climate science . I was already in my 50s when when one day it occurred to me that I had been indoctrinated with the theory of evolution since I was a child. To this day I still believe in evolution because I’ve yet to encounter a persuasive alternative theory. But today I have a much more open mind for the theories offered by adherents of Intelligent Design. There are gaping holes in the theory of evolution and many mysteries unexplained by the fossil record or modern biology. Adaptation does not adequately explain with biologic specificity how one species transforms into another entirely different species. Still, I’m an evolution believer rahetr than a denier . I think it’s fine to teach the theory of evolution in schools provided it is taught as an unproven THEORY. It’s important to realize that the theory of evolution is pretty new it’s only been around about 150 years (compare this to Newton). But the theory of evolution really doesn’t affect global economies, governments or standards of living. What’s more, evolution has much more convincing evidence to support it than AGW.I find the teaching of climate science to kids in grades K-12 rahetr disturbing. I mostly ignored the AGW issue for a lot of years. I started out as a believer . Hell, it was a seemingly plausible theory (and at the time I didn’t listen to any talk radio). In 2005 I became interested in the subject of AGW and started buying and reading a lot of books on the subject. Obviously I became extremely skeptical but more importantly, by the time I started my own investigation I had already taken classes in college chemistry, organic chemistry, physical chemistry, biochemistry, physics, math (up to the calculus and differential equations), etc. I had a rahetr thorough background in basic sciences before I embarked on my own journey of discovery. How much climate science can you teach a kid in grades K-12? Probably none. But you CAN indoctrinate. And it’s not just the AGW nonsense, it’s the religion of environmentalism that’s being taught and it’s being taught as absolute fact. That’s disturbing. Children should be taught biology, chemistry, physics and math in grades K-12. Couple this with critical thinking skills and they will be prepared to consider AGW and rabid environmentalism all on their own as young adults.The fact that some particularly odious activist such as Gleick should involved with such an organization as NCES speaks volumes.

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: