Philosophical Vegan Forum

Earlier today I had a member of Greenpeace knock on my door, asking if I'd like to become a member and give donations. I filled out a form to get emails and more information from Greenpeace but I didn't actually provide a check or any credit card information. I haven't made up my mind about what kind of contribution (if any) I'd like to make to Greenpeace.

I'd like to hear others' thoughts and opinions on Greenpeace, as I don't actually know much about the organization. Are they an effect organization at promoting environmentalism? Should I give them money? Why or why not?

I used to be a Sierra Club member but I stopped supporting them because I feel that they don't raise enough awareness about animal agriculture and its disastrous environmental effects. Probably because most of its members are nonvegans, and so Sierra Club (like smooth-talking politicians) doesn't want to say anything that would turn off their donors and reduce their income. Is Greenpeace any better in this respect?

So I spoke with this Greenpeace guy today and he described some of the actions of Greenpeace, and from what I heard they are greatly focused on preventing oil drilling in the Arctic, and establishing marine life sanctuaries. I asked him if they encourage their members to be vegan, and emphasize the environmental problems of animal agriculture. He didn't give me a very satisfying answer; he acknowledged that mass production of crops for livestock is inefficient, but he did not say that Greenpeace put a lot of emphasis on this in their efforts to educate their members. He also described being vegan as "more of a personal choice."

Thanks for your input, everyone!

Don't contribute. Greenpeace spends a lot of time on useless or harmful endeavors, like their crusade against GMO. They're also not practicing effective advocacy. They definitely are not a vegan organization. The guy you talked to sounds like a diehard carnist making excuses.

These are the only major charities you should consider giving to: http://www.animalcharityevaluators.org/recommendations/top-charities/

They do actual research on the efficacy of charities, which is essential to maximize good done per dollar.

ArmouredAbolitionist wrote:they are greatly focused on preventing oil drilling in the Arctic

Another thing they should not be doing. We need to stop using oil, period. But if we don't, getting it from the Arctic is better for peace than trying to rely on the Middle East.
It's also probably much safer than deep water drilling for the environment.

Greenpeace is up there among the most counter productive charities there are, IMO. They focus on bullshit that panders to their donors and that they can make big issues of but won't offend any stupid/lazy people, and spend huge amounts of money hiring people to solicit donations. It's a profit and harmful (but mostly ineffective) lobbying machine.

If you need guidance on giving, you should check out this thread: https://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=511&p=5036&hilit=charities#p5036

Pay particular attention to the links posted by Volenta.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Don't contribute. Greenpeace spends a lot of time on useless or harmful endeavors, like their crusade against GMO. They're also not practicing effective advocacy. They definitely are not a vegan organization. The guy you talked to sounds like a diehard carnist making excuses.

Thank you for your advice so far. Yesterday after the Greenpeace guy I spoke to left my house I did some quick research on the organization that demonstrated what you're mentioning here. I noticed a reoccurring trend of Greenpeace expending a lot of money on the trouble that their "activism" causes. For example I read a news article about Greenpeace being ordered to pay a $2500/hour fine for preventing a Shell icebreaker ship from leaving its port for the arctic. Nice to know what Greenpeace would have been using my money for if I had given them a donation yesterday (or worse: monthly donations)...

http://www.mailtribune.com/article/2015 ... /150739941

brimstoneSalad wrote: These are the only major charities you should consider giving to: http://www.animalcharityevaluators.org/ ... charities/

They do actual research on the efficacy of charities, which is essential to maximize good done per dollar.

I'll check out these charities.

brimstoneSalad wrote:

ArmouredAbolitionist wrote:they are greatly focused on preventing oil drilling in the Arctic

Another thing they should not be doing. We need to stop using oil, period. But if we don't, getting it from the Arctic is better for peace than trying to rely on the Middle East.
It's also probably much safer than deep water drilling for the environment.

When i was speaking with this man at the door yesterday I meant to ask him why arctic drilling is supposedly so much worse than the alternatives, but somehow I never got to it. That was one of his comments that made me question the effectiveness of his organization.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Greenpeace is up there among the most counter productive charities there are, IMO. They focus on bullshit that panders to their donors and that they can make big issues of but won't offend any stupid/lazy people, and spend huge amounts of money hiring people to solicit donations. It's a profit and harmful (but mostly ineffective) lobbying machine.

After investigating the actions of Greenpeace some more, that's also the impression I'm getting. I'm really annoyed by that man yesterday describing veganism as a "personal choice." It doesn't surprise me that an "environmentalism" group with mostly nonvegan donors would avoid emphasizing the importance of animal agriculture's problems. Stressing such an issue (with a solution that is unappealing to their members) would not help them with their efforts to acquire money, that they can then squander on useless idealistic crusades like in the story I linked above.