Is Greenpeace sabotaging the ‘Great Climate Swoop’?
Ant. | 22.09.2009 11:40 | COP15 Climate Summit 2009 | Climate Chaos
Greenpeace is encouragung its supporters to engage in other campaigns on the weekend of the 'Great Climate Swoop' rather than backing the protest at Ratcliffe.
The ‘Great Climate Swoop’ against Ratcliffe power station on October 17th - 18th is arguably one of the most important protests this year. If it succeeds in closing down the site, it could lead to a massive upsurge in climate change campaigning. Unfortunately there is evidence that Greenpeace is not only indifferent to the protest but is subtly encouraging its supporters not to attend.
In recent weeks, there has been a lot of internal criticism from some of GP’s area networkers over its refusal to organise campaigns that utilise its pool of trained active supporters. It has been over a year since they have been used in a proper campaign and many local supporter groups are falling apart. In my group, instead of the 25-30 supporters that regularly attended meetings, we are now down to less than six.
One of the reasons that full-timers have been giving is that Greenpeace is suffering its own financial crisis and needs to concentrate its resources on its central activities. While I am sure that this is true, why has Greenpeace announced to its supporters in the past few days TWO separate campaigns (Heathrow and coal) that will make use of its active supporters? And why does it want them to carry out street campaigning in support of these initiatives on SAME the weekend of the ‘Great Climate Swoop’?
It may be the case that Greenpeace has made a mistake; or it may believe that encouraging its supporters to do something else is does not stop from going to Ratcliffe. But it is difficult to see these two requests as being nothing more than a subtle attempt to undermine support for the ‘Great Climate Swoop’. After all, if the Ratcliffe protest does work, then it is going to leave a lot of people, and especially those who loyalty give Greenpeace money each money, asking whether they have got their spending priorities right.
Of course us cynics in Greenpeace could be mistaken and the simple way to prove it would for Canonbury Villas to announce that a ‘Greenpeace bloc’ will be there on October 17th.
In recent weeks, there has been a lot of internal criticism from some of GP’s area networkers over its refusal to organise campaigns that utilise its pool of trained active supporters. It has been over a year since they have been used in a proper campaign and many local supporter groups are falling apart. In my group, instead of the 25-30 supporters that regularly attended meetings, we are now down to less than six.
One of the reasons that full-timers have been giving is that Greenpeace is suffering its own financial crisis and needs to concentrate its resources on its central activities. While I am sure that this is true, why has Greenpeace announced to its supporters in the past few days TWO separate campaigns (Heathrow and coal) that will make use of its active supporters? And why does it want them to carry out street campaigning in support of these initiatives on SAME the weekend of the ‘Great Climate Swoop’?
It may be the case that Greenpeace has made a mistake; or it may believe that encouraging its supporters to do something else is does not stop from going to Ratcliffe. But it is difficult to see these two requests as being nothing more than a subtle attempt to undermine support for the ‘Great Climate Swoop’. After all, if the Ratcliffe protest does work, then it is going to leave a lot of people, and especially those who loyalty give Greenpeace money each money, asking whether they have got their spending priorities right.
Of course us cynics in Greenpeace could be mistaken and the simple way to prove it would for Canonbury Villas to announce that a ‘Greenpeace bloc’ will be there on October 17th.
Ant.
Additions
cocktails, anyone?
23.09.2009 11:03
Hi all,
I volunteer at GP and after some chats with people in the organisation about this article, the impression I have got is that there aren't any massed actions planned by the GP UK office over those two weekends. There is / might be a regional or local thing going on at a festival, but as far as I can tell there hasn't been a UK wide call for everyone to clear their diaries.
I agree with the comment about there not having been anough actions for the grass roots activists over the last year. I would not, however, follow this by insinuating that Greenpeace is now organisaing an action, but only to undermine the climate swoop.
A comment from a colleague was that not everyone would be interested in taking part in an action such as the climate swoop.
In this case, a more general / fluffy activity at a festival would only further the aims of the environmental cause, not lessen it.
I would also think that those more inclined to more radical action would go on the climate swoop, rather than doing a fluffier action with GP.
I'll certainly be attending the swoop.
Also, on the 'not being enough actions' comment, despite me agreeing, this shouldn't simply lead to someone criticising GP, but should, and I think, has, lead to people organising their own actions. A plethora of new environmental activist groups have sprung up over the last few years and are doing great things.
GP does have the advantage of having large resources that can achieve different types of actions and gain greater media attention than less well resourced groups, and thus, I beleive, have a responsibility to it's supporters to use those resources to carry out actions.
Er... I'm going to stop now as I'm going round in circles I think, and I'm a bit excited that I used the word 'plethora', which I don't think I've ever done before.
P.S. O.k. in general defence of greenpeace, we do get a fair amount of flack from various people and organisations, usually people who want to mess up the planet for money. When the criticism comes from more radical quarters, I feel compelled to contribute to the discussion as I think GP is one of the, possibly the most radical large organisations on the planet. It does a vast amount of good, and I believe overall it's intentions are overwhemingly in the right place. Those who are more radical in their defence of the planet (and people) I think should focus on criticising and combatting our mutual enemies. In fact this is why I'm with GP. I would say I'm more radical than the general membership of the organisation, but I agree with almost everything they do, hence work with them.
I would think that the original commentator will be a memeber of climate swoop and a local GP group, and feels agrieved that their local GP group is organising something else, BUT I really don't believe for one minute that GP would organise an action to undermine climate swoop. Unless of course the local group is peopled by under cover coppers, but then you're pretty much f#cked anyway. :-0
Love y'all,
Toby
I volunteer at GP and after some chats with people in the organisation about this article, the impression I have got is that there aren't any massed actions planned by the GP UK office over those two weekends. There is / might be a regional or local thing going on at a festival, but as far as I can tell there hasn't been a UK wide call for everyone to clear their diaries.
I agree with the comment about there not having been anough actions for the grass roots activists over the last year. I would not, however, follow this by insinuating that Greenpeace is now organisaing an action, but only to undermine the climate swoop.
A comment from a colleague was that not everyone would be interested in taking part in an action such as the climate swoop.
In this case, a more general / fluffy activity at a festival would only further the aims of the environmental cause, not lessen it.
I would also think that those more inclined to more radical action would go on the climate swoop, rather than doing a fluffier action with GP.
I'll certainly be attending the swoop.
Also, on the 'not being enough actions' comment, despite me agreeing, this shouldn't simply lead to someone criticising GP, but should, and I think, has, lead to people organising their own actions. A plethora of new environmental activist groups have sprung up over the last few years and are doing great things.
GP does have the advantage of having large resources that can achieve different types of actions and gain greater media attention than less well resourced groups, and thus, I beleive, have a responsibility to it's supporters to use those resources to carry out actions.
Er... I'm going to stop now as I'm going round in circles I think, and I'm a bit excited that I used the word 'plethora', which I don't think I've ever done before.
P.S. O.k. in general defence of greenpeace, we do get a fair amount of flack from various people and organisations, usually people who want to mess up the planet for money. When the criticism comes from more radical quarters, I feel compelled to contribute to the discussion as I think GP is one of the, possibly the most radical large organisations on the planet. It does a vast amount of good, and I believe overall it's intentions are overwhemingly in the right place. Those who are more radical in their defence of the planet (and people) I think should focus on criticising and combatting our mutual enemies. In fact this is why I'm with GP. I would say I'm more radical than the general membership of the organisation, but I agree with almost everything they do, hence work with them.
I would think that the original commentator will be a memeber of climate swoop and a local GP group, and feels agrieved that their local GP group is organising something else, BUT I really don't believe for one minute that GP would organise an action to undermine climate swoop. Unless of course the local group is peopled by under cover coppers, but then you're pretty much f#cked anyway. :-0
Love y'all,
Toby
toby
Comments
Display the following 7 comments