Animals Essay, Research Paper

Animal testing

Everything startde in 1969; Members were part of

the ??Don?t make a wave?? committee in vancouver. This committee was founded by Jim

Bohlen. He was a forty-three year old American and was a composite-materials

researcher. Another founder of the committee was Irving Stowe; he was a Philadelphia

lawyer. A jew who had joined the Quaker religion. Paul Cote, a canadian lawyer in his

mid twenties who had just gotten out of shool when he joined the committee. During this

year, the United States had chosen to test its nuclear arsenal in Amchtka, which is a small

island off the west cost of alaska. This was a home for many animals including eagles,

falcons, endangered sea otters,etc… These three men decided to produce means to end

nuclear testing in Amchitka.Next they decided to sail a boat they?d name it Greenpeace

because they wanted the earth to be green and yhey wanted peace. It was Bill Darnell

who came upwith that name. Suddenly, more peaple joined the commitee to stop nuclear

testing in Amchitka, including Terry Simmons, a cultural geographer. Bohlen and Stowe

were attracting journalist, columnist, writer, anyone who had somthing to do in the media.

It took them two years to get them ready for their journey towards justice for a land.

Bohlen and cote were in charge of fiding a boat. Meanwhile, Stowe took care of fiding the

money. He used contacts from the United States; he was a very serious man and did

everything possible to get the money they needed, he even organized a benefit concert

which made seventeen thousand dollars. The first boat they found Phylis Cormack was

first seen as old and used that wasn?t going to be capable of sailing to Amchitka, so they

weren?t sure of using this boat; it would carry twelve crew members and the trip would

last six weeks. During this year the ??Don?t Make a Wave?? committee changed their

name to Greenpeace foundation. The day of the Greenpeace departu! re to Amchitka, it

was allover the news , everybody wanted a story on it. During their voyage they ran

through some complications and the day they were suppose to be in Amchitka they were

miles away from it.In that year, Greenpeace I (the Philys Cormack) and the Greenpeace

two (the Edgewater Fortune) finally sailed toward Amchitka. During their voyage, they

stayed with the cree Indians who described to them the legend of ??( UNESCO Courrier,

1994:p38 ). From then they were looked upon as the Rainbow Warriors since their goal

was to help the environment from unfortunate diasters. Unfortunately, their first voyage

was defeated but the American government announced the ending of nuclear tests, whaling

fleets, protection for seals, etc…. In 1972, Greenpeace III was sent ( the Vega ) to sail to

Moruroa Atoll in France Polynesia to stop french atmospheric nuclear tests. On board of

this boat David Mctaggart, a Canadian founder of Greenpeace. The french Marine?s

reaction to the greenpeace boat was very aggresive so the Vega turned back to were it

came from. But that wasn?t the end, in 1973 , David Mctaggart went back but was

severely beaten by the French Marine. Word got around fast and it was all the madia it

gave a bad reputation to the French government. In 1975, France announced the of

atmospheric blasting but transfers the testing underground. This was Greenpeace?s first

victory.Greenpeace was expanding all around the world : Canada, Australia, England,

Scotland, U.S.A ,Europe, Danmark, Germany, U.S.S.R, Spain, Japan, Mexico,

Antartica, etc… I will write some of their past realisations: In 1977; three Toronto

Greenpeacers invaded by canoe the ungarded Bruce Nuclear Power Station on Lake

Huron to expose the reactors vulnerability to attack. In 1979; Canadian Greenpeacers

parachute into the world?s largest nuclear power plant constuction site at Darlington,

Ontario as part of a mass ocupation with other antinuclear groups. In 1980; the Rainbow

Warrior boat is seized and held for several months by the Spanish government for

interferring with illegal Spanish whaling operations.Five months later, the shipand crew

mae a daring night time escape pursued by the Spanish Navy. In 1982; two Canadian

Greenpeacers activists spend three days on top of a 650ft Ontario Hydro smoke-attack at

Nanticoke,puting on sale of electricity to the U.S wich increased acid rain in Ontario. The

biggest and foremost concern of Greenpeace is the environment. They risk their lives just

to ensure the security of the planet we live in. This is non-violent. They hold no attachment

to governments, have no connection with any political parties; and they have a non profit

organisation. Greenpeace Foundation never takes any money from any group, including

government loans. They are simply an organisation that seeks for protection of the

environment and is favorable to any reaserch of solutions that may protect and assure a

peacefull futur for the next generation to come. They always welcome public opinions and

comments. Greenpeace Structure Greenpeace started out with a few people wanting to

make a statement on nuclear testing and look where it has brought them today.

Greenpeace International now constitutes of forty-three in thirty countries. They have

developed into a universal organisation. They campaign throughout the world on the most

hazardous issues. Greenpeace gathers public protest work with experts from all over the

world, they operate with scientific, economic and political research. They have people

from the media that work with them in order to get their ideas and plans to the world and

for everyone to acknowledge what is happening out there. They recommend publicly,

stategies and solutions to help prevent environmental conflict. Who makes the decisions?

Greenpeace International heads in Amsterdam is the council who makes the decisions for

the institutions. Each Greenpeace office designates a delegate to the Council. They meet

once a year to make the decisions for the futur and have an overview of what is

happening. Greenpeace and their forests Greenpeace has dedicated a lot of time to

protect forests. They see forests as being a home for a most plants and animals. Forests

are providers for man. They provide wood, medicine, regulation of climate, sources of

food, nutrients, etc.. Greenpeace?s wayof thinking is ??forests sustain us, but but we are

not sustaining them.??( www.Greenpeace.org). The only thing man does to forests them,

so Greenpeace is doing something about it. The industries are the one?s doing the most

harm to forests. Hundreds of forests have been destroyed for the sake of industries. To

Greenpeace, the only one who should be dealing with forest is nature itself. They feel that

its the consumers duty and responsibility to lower their negative habits towards forests by

maximising the use of recycled and ecological forests products. However, this causes a

problem for industries because this how they earn their money. Governments and other

institutionsare aware of the damage caused to forests and are trying to change what can be

done. The foundation is trying to show what can be done. The foundation is trying to show

what can be done to improve the harm that is done to forests: 1. Peaple should

acknowledge what should or shouldn?t be taken away from the forests. 2. Forests should

be touched by products which shall have the smallest effect on its trees and other sources.

Greenpeace listed a few things that should be prohibited in the use of forests,such as,

ploughing and harrowing and the replacement of natural forests by tree plantations.

Greenpeace has been opposing against an industry-funded effort to create acting standard

s for canadian forestry which would supposedly guarantee environmentally responsible

logging. The Canadian Standards Association has been creating a guarantee process that

give approval to clearcutting and chemical pesticide use in the forest industry. The

foundation signed petitions with other unions and First Nations as well as the public,

against this injustice to forests. The CSA decided to prolong the deadline of the process

until later that year. Clear-cut logging helps speed up the effects of the change of climate.

Widening the gaps in the forests help heat up the forests soil and increase the speed of the

wind. The articial tree plants that are planted after clearcutting are more inclined to fire,

insect outbreaks and wind damage. Nuclear Testing and the Nuclear non-proliferation

Treaty Another case is considerably important to the Greenpeace foundation is the french

nuclear testing and the Non-proliferation treaty. Greenpeace is against all types of nuclear

testing in any country. On july 10,1985 French agents bombed the Rainbow Warrior in

Auckland harbour to prevent its journey of protest on the nuclear testing site of Moruroa

in French Polynesia. In 1963, Partial Test Band Treaty ended nuclear testing in the

atmosphere. In 1970, the non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) was signed. This treaty was

signed by states who did not have nuclear weapons and agreed not to develop them,

those with weapons agreed to get rid of them. Twenty-five years after this treaty, some

countries continue using and modernising their supply of stock. In april-may 1995, a

meeting was held in New-York where the non-nuclear states wanted greater progress on

nuclear disarmement, but the nuclear states wanted for the NPT to be extended indefinetly

. France has failed to their commitment to the NPT and haven?t signed the partial band

treaty. Health and environmental effects of French nuclear testing Military records of the

health personnel have never been released or has their ever been a study of the French

Polynesian?s health. Nevertheless, according to the what affected peaple say, there are

higher rates of cancer, birth abnormalities and other illnesses. Moruroa and Fangataufa are

water penetrating seas atoll which now contaian many Chenboyls worth of radioactivity.

Nuclear testing in the life long stability of these environment. In 1990, a Greenpeace team

found artificial radioactivity in microscopic plants and animal organism floating in bodies of

water. After these findings, an International Atomic Energy Agency mission was invited by

the French Military to counter Greenpeace?s findings. Greenpeace Successes in 1995

One of Greenpeace?s major success in 1995 dealt with the oil problem. Greenpeace?s

reasons for opposing to the dumping of the brent spar into the North Atlantic are because

shell?s data showed that the spar contained more than a thousand tonnes of toxic waiste.

A anti-shell front in Germany lowered shell?s sales dowm twenty percent in the majority of

gas stations. In june 21, Shell surrendered their arms and argued that the demolition on

earth would have more risk but Greenpeace?s study showed that with the projects on

earth there would be a better supervision of the operations and would minimize the

ecological harms. It would also create more thanthree thousand permanent jobs.

Greenpeace aggress that did a great decision by not disposing obsolite oil platforms on the

Brent Spar. Another great success they have accomplish is the negotiation of agreat biding

grennhouse gas emissions reduction target for the year 2000. In march of 1994, an

important meeting took place in Berlin. It was the first convention Greenpeace was thera

to support the reduction of global dioxide emissions. The climate Convention is the

aggreement signed by countries around the world in 1992, but in 1994, a lot of these

countries predicted that they would fail to meet their commitment s to restrain greenhouse

gas emision. In the April 1995 meeting, 150 countries agreed to negotiate. Greenpeace

UK hired a science director to explore in greater detail the carbon dioxide emissions,

??Behind the appointment of Leggett[he is the scientist that Greenpeace UK hired] as the

first scientific director of a G reenpeace national o! rganisation ( there 22 Greenpeace

affiliates world wide) was a recognition on the part the activists within Greenpeace UK

that some of the environmental issues had become increasingly intricate and depandant of

scientific data.?? ( Science, 1990:1288) This article implies that the environment?s

conditions have become so difficult that it now needs scientific data to be able to come

with a resolution to help it. Greenpeace is so determined to find aresolution they would

hire a specialist even if they don?t make a lot of money. Critisism on greenpeace In 1991,

an article in the ??Financial Post?? journal had some critisisms to say about Greenpeace.

Anex-member of the foundation, Paul Watson, said, ??Greenpeace has become `just a

multicultural eco-corporation`.??(p:5). He Believes that Greenpeace is now worrying more

about the money make rather than worrying about their real responsiblities, but others

contradict his statement by explaining that their first priority is the health of the

environment. Yet another ex-foundre of Greenpeace agrees with Watson and states,

??..they create media hype in environmental issues to generate revenue for growing salaries

and overheads, crank out millions of pieces of junk mail as part of their fund raising

-`totally hypocritical for an environmental group.`??(p:5). Most of the critics that have

something to say about Greenpeace are ex-founders of the foundation. In my opinion,

Greenpeace has the right to worry about the money that come into their foundation

because they can?t do everythi! ng on their own. In addition, they have to make publicity

in order for the world to be informed about what is happening with the environment and

give opinions and comments. I have done a lot of research but I couldn?t find any other

critisisms on the foundation. Either people never bothered giving their opinions or they are

proud of their work. The foudation has come a long way since they started and they have

sacrificed a lot in their lives to get to where they are today. They have lost crew members,

money, battles, etc…but nothing seems to stop them on their road to justice. Conclusion In

what state would the environment be if Greenpeace foundation were non-existant I can?t

answer that question, what I can answer is that they have done a lot in the past twenty-five

years and they have a lot to celebrate. As a founder of Greenpeace said: ??The optimism

of the action is better than the pessimism of the thought??( Harold Zindler). In my opinion,

he meant that instaed of thinking about the bad side of our dreams we should stand up

proud and think about the advantages of conquering our dreams; just like the peaple of

Greenpeace have done and continue doing so today. BIBLIOGRAPHIES TI: Shell, the

Brent Spar and Greenpeace: a doomed tryst AU:Dickson,-Lisa;Mc Culloch,-Allistair

SO:Environmental-Politics. v. 5 Spring?96 p122-9 PY:1996 TI:Green gauge

AU:Hutchings,-vicky SO:New-Statesman and society.v.8 oct 20?95 p31 PY:1995

TI:Greenpeace U.S.A:something old,new,borowed AU:Shako,-ronald

SO:The-Annals-of-the American-Academy-of-Political-and-Social Science v 528

PY:1993 TI:For a safe and clean planet SO:World-Marxist-Review.v.33.feb?90 PY:1990

TI:The Greenpeace story

AU:Brown,-Michael-h;May,-Jonh,-Ray-Sole,-Monique,reviewer

SO:Canadian-Geographic.v…109 aug/sept.89 p86 PY:1989 TI:The Greenpeace affair

SO:Public Opinion.v.8 oct/nov.?85 p53 PY:1985 TI:Messing about with

boats;RainbowWarrior AU:Price-Michael SO:New-Statesman.v.110oct.11?85 p22-4

PY:1985 TI: Campaigning for change AU:Jeanne Moffat SO:Canadian Dimension v.56

dec.17?94 p34-9 PY:1994 TI:It?s not easy being Greenpeace AU:Anastasia Toufexis

SO:Time v.21oct.12?95 p86-94 PY:1994@