CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Eco-Manslaughter?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Eco-Manslaughter?

post #1 of 11
5/11/03 at 7:12am
Thread Starter 
Protest Planned Against Greenpeace's 'Eco-Manslaughter'
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
May 09, 2003

(CNSNews.com) - An African American civil rights group is planning a Saturday protest against Greenpeace, alleging that the environmental group has committed "eco-manslaughter" through its support of international policies limiting development and the expansion of technology to the developing world's poor.

The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) will conduct a counter demonstration at Greenpeace USA's "Run for Your Life" 5K road race at Liberty State Park in New Jersey. The Greenpeace event itself will be a protest, meant to "raise awareness of the serious threats posed by chemical plants to New York and New Jersey residents and workers."

CORE is using the event as an opportunity to confront Greenpeace activists about their opposition to infrastructure development projects in the developing world, opposition to genetically modified foods and the group's opposition to the use of the chemical DDT to kill malaria-ridden mosquitoes, particularly in Africa.

"To serve its own ideological agenda, [Greenpeace] wants to keep the Third World permanently mired in Third World poverty, disease and death. So far, it has succeeded," said Niger Innis, national spokesperson for CORE

Innis believes that policies advocated by Greenpeace are keeping the developing world's poor from attaining running water, electricity and modern agricultural techniques that would allow more food to be grown on less land.

"It's time to hold these zealots accountable for the misery and death they cause," Innis stated.

According to CORE, 2 billion people worldwide have no electrical power or clean water and are forced to use manure for fuel. CORE alleges that groups like Greenpeace are partly responsible for this as a result of their opposition to infrastructure development projects in the poorest regions of the world.

"Green radicals oppose all these projects and tell these destitute people they should be happy with little solar panels on their huts, now and for generations to come," a CORE press release stated.

"People should be ashamed to support these fanatics and the eco-manslaughter they are perpetrating on the world's most destitute people. [Saturday's] protest is just the first step in bringing justice to the Third World," he added.

Several calls to Greenpeace USA were not returned by press time.

<a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200305/NAT20030509d.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200305/NAT20030509d.html</a>
Reply
post #2 of 11
5/12/03 at 10:43am
CORE is a conservative organization, so it's no surprise they come out in support of free trade and loosening any such restrictions and safeguards that stands in its way.

Also no surprise that they make a straw man opponent out of Greenpeace for their cause. I would love to hear some substantial debate about whose ideological agenda is truly reponsible for the suffering and death of those in the 3rd world. So far, it seems, conservatives' best bet is to try and smear the other side without looking at themselves too closely. That certainly seems like all that CORE was doing here.
Reply
post #3 of 11
5/12/03 at 11:50pm
Quote:
Englebert:
CORE is a conservative organization, so it's no surprise they come out in support of free trade and loosening any such restrictions and safeguards that stands in its way.

Also no surprise that they make a straw man opponent out of Greenpeace for their cause. I would love to hear some substantial debate about whose ideological agenda is truly reponsible for the suffering and death of those in the 3rd world. So far, it seems, conservatives' best bet is to try and smear the other side without looking at themselves too closely. That certainly seems like all that CORE was doing here.
Hmmm...an outfit named Congress On Racial Equality is called a conservative organization like that's a bad thing.

And allowing underdeveloped countries to develop is bad...how?

What a double-standard. Hold the people down so they can be kept as useful idiots for the ultra-left. Brilliant. Four legs good/two legs bad and all that eh?

Turning an issue such as self-determination, achievement and development into a liberal/conservative thing is so damned small-minded it's unbelievable.

Reply
post #4 of 11
5/13/03 at 10:03am
Actually, keeping poor countries poor is key to Western economies. We couldn't grow and expand to the point we're at without stepping on a few people along the way. You think capitalizm is about being fair and nice to everyone? Nope, its about using the little guy for his cheap labor/raw materials. Not saying that's a good thing, but just the way things work. Also, putting in industrial facilities in Third World countries only moves the cheap labor from the fields to the factories.
If we did suddenly raise all the "third world" countries standard of living, people in the West would be in for a big shock. Many things would no longer be affordable(at least not as cheap as they used too). More than likely, our already fragile economies would crumble.

As far as putting animals ahead of humans, I think Greenpeace is in the right here. They are trying to prevent the "rape" of the land that the USA and much of Europe has committed in the name of progress. It is about legacy. Western cultures learned too late the importance of preserving the environment, but we still have time to help others avoid our mistakes. The key is finding a balance. Maybe Greenpeace and the CORE can find some middle ground, but somehow I think the feelings are too entrenched on both sides.
Reply
post #5 of 11
5/14/03 at 9:36am
No, no, no! Don't you see?! Greenpeace is the source of all the strife and oppression in the world! If we could only offload a few million drums of DDT to every impoverished nation, all their problems would be solved!

See how simple it all is?

Reply
post #6 of 11
5/14/03 at 10:03am
Quote:
Twentieth Century Skynet Company:
What a retard you are!
Oh, you only say that because people have been telling you that all your worthless life, chucklefuck, and you still haven't worked out any new phrases from your "special learning" library.

Reply
post #7 of 11
5/14/03 at 10:07am
Quote:
As far as putting animals ahead of humans, I think Greenpeace is in the right here. They are trying to prevent the "rape" of the land that the USA and much of Europe has committed in the name of progress. It is about legacy. Western cultures learned too late the importance of preserving the environment, but we still have time to help others avoid our mistakes. The key is finding a balance. Maybe Greenpeace and the CORE can find some middle ground, but somehow I think the feelings are too entrenched on both sides.
Well, there's more trees in the US now, at any given time, than there were when Columbus sailed the Atlantic.

The "growing ozone hole" has been proven to be a crock.
Reply
post #8 of 11
5/14/03 at 10:13am
Quote:
Grifter:
Well, there's more trees in the US now, at any given time, than there were when Columbus sailed the Atlantic.

The "growing ozone hole" has been proven to be a crock.
Where are your getting your stats from? The Ayn Rand Environmental Research Institiute? The fact that there is a massive hole in the ozone layer--whose fluctuations are more complex than we can address here--is the problem; recent attempts to minimize our impacts on it through banning CFCs etc may be having some beneficial effect, but calling it a "crock" is just typical anti-enviro hogwash.

As for the trees argument, it's inherently flawed: fake Christmas trees don't count.
Reply
post #9 of 11
5/14/03 at 10:25am
Quote:
Grifter:
Well, there's more trees in the US now, at any given time, than there were when Columbus sailed the Atlantic.

The "growing ozone hole" has been proven to be a crock.
I was not refering simply to trees. We have fucked up our water, we dump garbage in the land and pretend it will just go away, and almost every major US city has problems with air pollution. And while the north eastern US has seen a great resurgence in forest growth, the western US is not.

In addition, think of our impact on wildlife. We have very little understanding of what the loss of certain species will mean to those around it. We could seriously shoot our selves in the foot by blindly turning up land and killing of animal and plant species. This isn't a "Medicine Man" rant, though it does apply here, but more that we directly depend on certain plants and animals everyday for life. We do not, however, fully understand what other species roles play in our lives.

But like I said, we should try and find a balance between development and preservation. Simply allowing any country to develop chemical factories and convert natural environments into more farm land is not balance.
Reply
post #10 of 11
5/14/03 at 10:34am
I pretty much agree, Beer Die. You don't have to be a "raving greenie" to have some sense of how rapidly we as a species are fucking up the ecological sustainability of this planet. One thing that amused me recently was the report from some scientists in England that, among the negative future effects of the Greenhouse Effect, there was also the potential positive effect it would have on plant growth which could potentially lead to the "greening of the deserts", whereby forests might begin to sprout in current desert regions.

The amusing thing about this is that you know once this happens, we'll just end up going in and turning these new pristine forests back into deserts again.
Reply
post #11 of 11
5/14/03 at 11:08am
Quote:
Englebert:

The amusing thing about this is that you know once this happens, we'll just end up going in and turning these new pristine forests back into deserts again.
That would be an amusing irony, although it is such a sad statement about ourselves.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Eco-Manslaughter?