just gave to Greenpeace

[vladimir]

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!

Don't drive an SUV?

 

[archman]

Don't drive an SUV?

Get the hybrid Ford Escape. It gets great gas mileage.

 

[pt40fathoms]

Get the hybrid Ford Escape. It gets great gas mileage.

-45c and a 60klm wind is one of the reasons that they will not sell too well here in the Canadian Prairies. But where it's warm and cozy most of the year, if I lived their, you bet I'd own one.

A little tough to get all the dive gear to the dive site I would guess.

 

[lobbolt]

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.

According to the Greenpeace website they didn't even exist till 1971, how were they saving whales back in the 60s? You're right, people are motivated by emotion. If there is no evidence against their emotional campaign, does that make it ineffective, or counterproductive? Our goals are the same: a healthy planet, it's our approach that's different.

 

[Goose75]

Don't drive an SUV?

I love the hybrid craze but I think there is a downside that isn't really talked about. The cheaper it is to drive (as well as traffic), the more urban sprawl. People move out to the country, build enormous houses, burn more energy and drive more. Soaring gas prices and poor gas mileage make people think of ways to reduce unnecessary waste.

Our real waste to eliminate is in the home and businesses. According to a quick search on the Department of Energy website, we use as much anual energy in the homes as in all of transportation. Since transportation includes trucking, shipping and air travel, I think personal autos are not as big a concern as our home waste. doe.gov is a great source of material if you are patient enough to wade through a huge database of government studies and research.

If you want to look at some cheap and expensive ideas for your own home, pull the Solar Living Sourcebook by John Schaeffer. He does add his liberal blurb at the begining but after that it's mostly technical. Despite the title, it's not all about solar.

 

[Epinephelus]

According to the Greenpeace website they didn't even exist till 1971,

I must have been a charter member then. I had my greenpeace sticker on my Blazer which I bought in '69 and sold in '72. (or was it '70-'73) It was certainly no later than '71 when I was a member. You could have won money off me on that, though, because according to my (excellent) memory, I was still in college when I joined, and I graduated in '70.
I do know we were concerned about whaling when I was a Biology major at Texas in '66-'68, and I sure thought greenpeace was already on the scene. But if they say they weren't, they weren't.
E

 

[PugetDiver]

If someone believes in their style of tactics (Socialist/free speech violators) then by all means support them. IF however you don't believe that their tactics are in accordance with yours, then find a different organization to support. Like others have said, Greenpeace has evolved over the years to something that I would not personally align myself with.

http://www.greenspirit.com/printable.cfm?msid=26

 

[ranger979]

According to the Greenpeace website they didn't even exist till 1971, how were they saving whales back in the 60s? You're right, people are motivated by emotion. If there is no evidence against their emotional campaign, does that make it ineffective, or counterproductive? Our goals are the same: a healthy planet, it's our approach that's different.

You have consider that for a lot of us old farts, when we refer to the '60s' we are actually referring to the 'Vietnam era' or late 60's and early 70's. I make this mistake myself quite often.

 

[vladimir]

I love the hybrid craze but I think there is a downside that isn't really talked about. The cheaper it is to drive (as well as traffic), the more urban sprawl. People move out to the country, build enormous houses, burn more energy and drive more.

Which is why I live in NYC. I walk to work, from my 1500 sq ft apartment.

 

[Boogie711]

There are very few topics I am more passionate about than debunking the myth that Greenpeace is a credible activist group. I'm amazed I've missed this thread until now.

In fact - I feel so strongly about this that I've started my own consulting group dedicated to "Defending Good Science" (and debunking the crap the Greenpeace spews.) Feel free to check it out at www.checkmatepublicaffairs.com

Greenpeace has an absolutely notorious record for fiscal accountability. By some estimates, as few as 9cents from every dollar donated go to actual environmental remediation efforts. Their fundraising tactics prey on the goodwill of folks by scaring them into donation. The more credible estimates I've seen (including American charity watchdogs) all say the amount of money going towards the actual environment is closer to $.30 on the dollar - a number which is still deplorable.

I see Dr. Patrick Moore's work has already been highlighted. The former co-founder of Greenpeace is leading the charge against them these days, claiming, quite rightly, that the group has lost it's way. I know Patrick quite well and we continue to do the occasional project together.

Greenpeace is not an eco-terrorist group. That 'honor' goes to groups like the Animal or Earth Liberation Front. But man - they're not much better.