just gave to Greenpeace

[KidK9]

Well I dont know much at all about Greenpeace or any other organization like this...but I do applaud you efforts. Thanks for being one who puts up rather than shuts up!

 

[Hoyden]

I appreciate the sentiment behind your donation - In addition to it, there are many things that you can do personally to make a difference. There is a list at http://www.aqua.org/conservationevents_conservationtips.html - it is directed at people in the US, but all of the ideas are basic and could be applied most places. Project Aware http://www.projectaware.org/asiapac/english/PAAP/ has a regional section that lists events that are in your area. Taiwan Environmental Action Network http://tean.formosa.org/campaign/ocean/ has some pretty good info that is specific to your location. Consider volunteering as well as sending money.

Jackie

 

[Mike Veitch]

I believe the Argentinian navy fired on and sank their ship the Rainbow Warrior for doing some outrageous thing in Antarctica.

Actually that was the Frenchies who used a couple of navy divers to blow up the Warrior in Auckland, killed one member of the crew. They boat was about to embark on a trip to the Tuamotu region of French Polynesia to protest against French nuclear testing.
May have been another boat in Argentina though...

As a side note, dove the wreck of the Warrior last year, they moved it up north as a wreck dive, loads of life but too cold for me...

Back to topic, Good for you with contributing to great causes, (the ocean). Check out www.wyland.com, he has a list of different ocean resource agencies etc on there.

 

[TwoBitTxn]

Try this...

www.charitynavigator.org

TwoBit

 

[Goose75]

My advice is to do your science homework before you donate to any particular agency. I am not an Environmental Engineer but many of my friends and professors were. Their primary job is to prevent or repair the damage caused by man's infrastructure. Every one of them I know comlpains about environemental groups that act without study first and damage instead of protect. So, first do your own research to get confidence in their methods and science! Just remember to think of the source when you do your reading.

 

[Epinephelus]

Eph
How could an ultra-conservative old salt like you ever have been a member of Greenpeace?

Ultra conservatives are all for real science, clean water, clean air, quality of life, private property, woods, reefs, sound wildlife management. You do know I've just recently spent five years on the board of an environmental foundation.
The difference is that we (conservatives) really do want to achieve the goal, while Greenpeace and others like them (in my opinion) just want to make money and run around with their hair on fire.
Conservatives deal with facts. Whackos deal with emotion.
---
One very disconcerting fact (to conservatives) is that emotion stikes a chord with the masses, while facts are boring - so the emotional appeal tends to be the one that makes money and headlines while the facts get largely swept under the rug. Sometimes... sometimes we get lucky and there is a happy convergence of emotion and fact - like there was in the 60's with Greenpeace and the Whales, and some good comes of it. But just as often the emotion has nothing to do with the facts, and we end up with things like the mass starvation of the deer herd in the Everglades of several years ago when the enviro-whackos successfully prevented the harvesting of enough deer to keep the herd healthy, even though it was obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together the herd needed culling.
What Greenpeace does (again, my opinion) is "cherry pick" facts to support their emotional appeal, and ignore those that don't - even if (especially if) those that don't provide compelling evidence contrary to their emotional campaign for more money.
Let's look at a specific example:
Shark fin soup has its historical popularity in its rarity. Because sharks were hard to catch, and apex predators, and it took a lot of effort and no small risk to procure shark fins, serving shark fin soup bestowed great honor on the recipient. That emotional attachment to the stuff has remained and spread to the masses while modern fishing techniques have made killing sharks routine. The real problem is the emotional attachment to the dish, and the true key to saving the sharks is in destroying that attachment. But efforts are focused on the fishery, perpetuating the perception of procurement difficulty and therefore high value. Because the fact is that shark fins add little (if any) taste and no significant nutritional value to soup, we need to focus on making shark fin soup synonymous with low-life scum, not great honor. Succeed in that campaign and the demand for shark fins (and therefore the shark fin fishery) will evaporate.
Eating shark fin soup is tacky. Ignorant. Sleazy. Low class.
Spread the word.
E.

 

[Goose75]

Your best way to make a difference is to start in your own home. Reduce the electric load you pull so we don't have to burn as much gas to generate it (and that means less drilling, less dependance on the Middle East, ect, ect). Get energy saver bulbs, go lower wattage, turn of lights not in use, by appliances without phantom loads, turn up your AC, open some windows, buy on demand hot water, invest in a solar water heater if you are in a good zone, solar, ect, etc. When you are done with your home, turn to your community. Promote conservation by waste reduction. Email your senators and congressmen (don't forget the local ones!) Tell them you want them to promote small business growth in conservation, alternate energy and more efficient homes. Read up on the Energy Departments efforts to promote change. Read on your states efforts. This is the biggest impact you can have as an individual. As divers we tend to think out at sea, but the biggest impact we have is in our homes and in our votes. It's hard to respect those who promote the environment but burn enourmous amounts of electricity heating and lighting homes while they are at work!

 

[pipedope]

Ultra conservatives are all for real science, clean water, clean air, quality of life, private property, woods, reefs, sound wildlife management.
E.

It is a shame that there are none of these people in our government.

The other problem is what facts do you use and trust?

Many things that I was taught in high school as solid facts have been shown to be flat wrong, and that was in simple science classes. In history the majority was somewhere between propaganda and outright lies.

So who should we trust?

 

[Goose75]

It is a shame that there are none of these people in our government.

The other problem is what facts do you use and trust?

Many things that I was taught in high school as solid facts have been shown to be flat wrong, and that was in simple science classes. In history the majority was somewhere between propaganda and outright lies.

So who should we trust?

Our government does have programs, we just give all the airtime to those with agendas who turn everything into a power struggle. Look up the US department of energy and Florida's renewable energy for some good examples. Look at marine sanctuaries for protection of reefs. Our society prefers to see arguement and dissention rather than good work going on. Good news doesn't sell. Spilling tankers and ramming boats get ratings that you can't match with pictures of empty ocean, talk of tax incetives, etc.

As for whichs facts to trust. Take a class on statistics to learn how they work. When you see how each group collects their data, you'll feel better about some and worse about others.

Lots of facts I learned in school were downright wrong. Sometimes it's misinformation, sometimes different theory and sometimes political. Most of the theories are based on statistical data reduction of measurements. Learn the statistics and you can follow most of their reasoning, even if you are not a marine biologist, geoligist, ect. Also take into account how they collect data. Do they have a baseline, what is it, what assumptions do they take? Do they consider natural causes, do the consider all deviation form a predetermined baseline as harmful? How do they pool data? What instruments do they use? How much data do they have? How frequent do they measure? How many years? How do they link effect to cause? Do they challenge it with other theories? Any responsible agency should be willing to answer your questions (although they may roll their eyes and wish you didn't ask).

 

[Spratman]

Thanks for speaking up about that. Many people believe today that being a conservative and adhering to conservationism is mutally exclusive. Same thing is happening with deer herds in PA. They have parks with huge deer populations, and have a lottery for bow hunting to thin the herds out. All the "dirt people" come out of the woodwork to protest, as you stated, they would rather the animals starve to death than be killed and eaten. Not to mention the enormous amount of crop damage every year.

I'm willing to contribute to a good cause, and would find it really interesting to do one of those reef cleanup events, like the one where they collected all that lead hanging on the reef. We're out there, we're just difficult to market too.

Jack

Ultra conservatives are all for real science, clean water, clean air, quality of life, private property, woods, reefs, sound wildlife management. You do know I've just recently spent five years on the board of an environmental foundation.
The difference is that we (conservatives) really do want to achieve the goal, while Greenpeace and others like them (in my opinion) just want to make money and run around with their hair on fire.
Conservatives deal with facts. Whackos deal with emotion.
---
One very disconcerting fact (to conservatives) is that emotion stikes a chord with the masses, while facts are boring - so the emotional appeal tends to be the one that makes money and headlines while the facts get largely swept under the rug. Sometimes... sometimes we get lucky and there is a happy convergence of emotion and fact - like there was in the 60's with Greenpeace and the Whales, and some good comes of it. But just as often the emotion has nothing to do with the facts, and we end up with things like the mass starvation of the deer herd in the Everglades of several years ago when the enviro-whackos successfully prevented the harvesting of enough deer to keep the herd healthy, even though it was obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together the herd needed culling.
What Greenpeace does (again, my opinion) is "cherry pick" facts to support their emotional appeal, and ignore those that don't - even if (especially if) those that don't provide compelling evidence contrary to their emotional campaign for more money.
Let's look at a specific example:
Shark fin soup has its historical popularity in its rarity. Because sharks were hard to catch, and apex predators, and it took a lot of effort and no small risk to procure shark fins, serving shark fin soup bestowed great honor on the recipient. That emotional attachment to the stuff has remained and spread to the masses while modern fishing techniques have made killing sharks routine. The real problem is the emotional attachment to the dish, and the true key to saving the sharks is in destroying that attachment. But efforts are focused on the fishery, perpetuating the perception of procurement difficulty and therefore high value. Because the fact is that shark fins add little (if any) taste and no significant nutritional value to soup, we need to focus on making shark fin soup synonymous with low-life scum, not great honor. Succeed in that campaign and the demand for shark fins (and therefore the shark fin fishery) will evaporate.
Eating shark fin soup is tacky. Ignorant. Sleazy. Low class.
Spread the word.
E.