Those who’ve read Greenpeace’s latest histrionics — Saving the oceans one tuna brand at a time — are surely stupefied and left to wonder, what are they talking about?
To save you the pain of trying to navigate Greenpeace’s largely incoherent blog post, we’ve untangled a handful of the most nonsensical
ramblings:
Greenpeace makes it official: Giving up. Moving on.
Greenpeace writes, “we’ve shifted our focus from pressuring politicians to campaigning where big business hurts the most — the markets where they sell their products,” which really means that the tactic of trying to influence decision makers from up close has failed. Why? Because no one takes them seriously when they protest in silly costumes and deliver petitions ad nauseam that contain no substance.
Similarly, next week Greenpeace will picket outside the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) in Guam but won’t bother joining the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation’s stakeholders meeting, also in Guam. Perhaps they feel they’ve marginalized themselves to such an extent that sitting at the table with tuna sustainability heavyweights — after just having shed sweaty, giant, plushy shark costumes in the lobby — might highlight their status as fundraisers not real stakeholders?
Greenpeace uncovers the greatest conspiracy since the “Hollywood moon landing.”
Apparently, tuna companies “want to see […] profits grow year after year until the tuna is gone and they can then move on to invest in some other species.” Seriously Greenpeace? Could they possibly believe that the canned tuna industry’s business model hinges on decimating a millennia-old profession so it can “move on”? You don’t need an MBA to realize that assertion is ludicrous.
Greenpeace promotes its solution in search of a problem.
As the posting spirals towards blather it produces interesting froth like this, “skipjack tuna… would have a better chance of survival if it were caught using pole and line method of purse seine fishing [sic] without the use of Fish Aggregating Devices.” That’s right, Greenpeace suggests that skipjack, a tuna specie that is healthy in every ocean on the planet would have a better chance of “survival” if fishing methods were altered. Despite the fact that no accredited or even slightly sensible fisheries scientist on Earth is suggesting that skipjack is going the way of the dodo, Greenpeace is fighting for its very survival. Is that meant to be hyperbole or humor?
Greenpeace wants cleaner air but simultaneously promotes fishing methods that will increase the carbon footprint.
Greenpeace thinks that “if the numbers of tuna fishing vessels were to be reduced to levels that would allow fish populations to recover, we could have tuna and viable fishing industries for the future and cut the carbon footprint of the tuna fleets as well.” However, maintaining “viable fishing industries” with the FAD free fishing would actually increase the carbon footprint by four-fold. Banning FADs and promoting pole and line would mean that many more fishing boats would have to track this highly migratory species. With no way to attract tuna, fishing vessels would be forced to navigate the seas for much longer. How exactly does putting more boats on the water for longer periods of time “cut the carbon footprint”?
These are just a few of the questions provoked by Greenpeace’s latest missive. We hope others — journalists in particular — are also asking, “what is Greenpeace talking about?”
