1  

Rachel Sarnoff

April 3rd, 2011

Displaying Activism

Elena Gonzales

Bearing Witness to Greenpeace

 Figure  1

  2  

Does environmental destruction merit risking a human life to stop it? Greenpeace

thinks so. Greenpeace, a noted environmental organization founded in the 1970s,

emphasizes direct, nonviolent action as its key tactic in changing the current,

environmentally unsustainable practices of our world. Greenpeace has infiltrated all

corners of the world (including Antarctica) to fight for environmental justice through its

campaigns against nuclear power, overfishing, ocean toxicity, and atmospheric

degradation. Greenpeace’s immediate desire, however, is not necessarily to change

federal policy or industrial practice. Rather, Greenpeace attempts to change the public’s

approach to environmental issues. Greenpeace hopes to heighten the viewer’s ecological

sensibility by distributing images of often life-threatening stunts to perhaps save a pod of

whales or prevent toxic discharge into the waterways. Perhaps as importantly,

Greenpeace hopes to cause people to remember its name. However, the group offers little

guidance a viewer’s quest to act on the newfound sensibility. Greenpeace thus succeeds

tremendously in exposing environmental injustice to the public, but falls short in creating

long-lasting change.

Members of Greenpeace have emphasized shocking the public with injustice in

the realm of nuclear power, setting the stage for Greenpeace’s concern with other niches

of ecological concern. The origins of Greenpeace date back to October 1st 1969, during a

controversial test of nuclear weapons.1 The United States government chose Amchitka

Island, a large rock formation at the tip of the Aleutian Islands in Alaska, to test out some

nuclear reactors, such as plutonium. Protesters, concerned about the possible tidal waves

or earthquake that could result from the test, held a demonstration on the Canadian-US

border. Despite the protest, the test occurred, causing no earthquakes. However, stronger

feelings against nuclear testing (particularly by the US) in general surfaced. A small

group of environmentalists and peace activists in Vancouver desired to cultivate and

centralize these feelings, precipitating in the formation of the “Don’t Make a Wave

Committee” (DMWC). To stop the four future scheduled tests, the DMWC had to devise

a plan to halt the most powerful country in its tracks. Marie Bohlen, a member of the

group, essentially defined the group’s ultimate mission when she suggested, “Why the

                                                                                                               1 Paul Wapner, Environmental Activism and World Civic Politics (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996), 44.

  3  

hell doesn’t somebody just sail a boat up there and park right next to the bomb? That’s

something everybody can understand”2. Greenpeace has made a point of equating

ecological well being with human life ever since.

Self-sacrifice for environmental cause certainly shocks the observer; however,

some environmentalists argue that the tactic is more dramatic than necessary. Critics like

Patrick Moore (an ex-Greenpeacer) argue that this

motto of brash and risky behavior constitute “pop

environmentalism,”3 which, like pop art, uses

shock value and scare tactics rather than

intellectual reason to change opinions.

Nevertheless, Bohlem’s idea certainly ensured that

DMWC would at least receive attention.

Greenpeace brought Bohlem’s idea to

fruition, but not without careful thought and

planning. The first Greenpeace boat, the Phyllis

Cormack, left Vancouver Harbor for Amchitka in

September 1971.4 If the boat had departed from an

American dock, Greenpeace deliberated, it would

have created time-sensitive complications, because

U.S. vehicles are vulnerable to arrests by U.S. officials. Thus, Greenpeace registered its

boat as a Canadian ship, so that as long as the boat remained in international waters, U.S.

officials could not seize it (if they did, these officials would break international maritime

law). What was once only national dissonance now emerged as international. Bad

weather prevented the ship from ever reaching Amchitka, but upon its return to

Vancouver, thousands of people congregated to greet the ship. Clearly, antinuclear

feeling began to materialize: “Now the apocalypse had form.”5 Greenpeace members,

like Robert Hunter, now envisioned a dramatic change in humans’ approach to the

environment.                                                                                                                2 Paul Wapner, Environmental Activism and World Civic Politics 46. 3 Fareed Zakaria, “A Renegade Against Greenpeace,” Newsweek.com, April 12, 2008, http://www.newsweek.com/2008/04/12/a-renegade-against-greenpeace.html. 4 Ibid. 5 Hunter, Warriors of the Rainbow: A Chronicle of the Greenpeace Movement, 96.

Figure  2  

  4  

The antinuclear feeling so prized by Greenpeace, however, did not discriminate

between specific types of “nuclearism.” (“Nuclearism” is the advocacy of nuclear power

encompassing both weaponry and energy.) Greenpeace, so frustrated with the ecological

destruction caused by nuclear weapons, grouped them with nuclear energy under a vague,

“evil” denomination in its newsletters and, more recently, its website.6 The passion for

the environment clearly radiated from Greenpeace’s core, but most of the directors had

little science education and failed to realize that some nuclear energy might be ultimately

beneficial to the environment. Nuclear energy emits far less carbon dioxide into the

atmosphere than fossil fuels and is the only technology aside from fossil fuels that is

cheap and plentiful enough to run the country on a continuous basis.7 Further, nuclear

medicine, notably radiation, treats millions of cancer patients every year. Powerful

leaders such as Patrick Moore left Greenpeace precisely because of its sweeping

generalizations about nuclearism. Greenpeace’s effectiveness, therefore, might have

benefitted from a more fine-tuned nuclear censure.

Greenpeace’s boats received more and more attention as they continued to

interrupt normal nuclear action. The Phyllis Cormack served as a “mind bomb sailing

across an electronic sea into the minds of the masses,” so by the time the second boat –

the Greenpeace Too – sailed to Amchitka, the “mind bomb” had already detonated.8 The

“electric sea” Robert Hunter describes plays with the metaphor of conductivity and

volatility: the first ship created a certain voltage in the minds of those who knew about it,

and the voltage only grew until the “mind bomb” exploded. Thousands joined

Greenpeace oppositions to the nuclear test upon the departure of the Greenpeace Too.

Once again, however, the ship did not get close enough to the site in time: the US

conducted the test while the ship was still 700 miles away. The nuclear test ripped a half-

mile crater out of the core of the island and killed 1,000 sea otters out of 8,000 that lived

around Amchitka.9 Similarly to such approaches as Martin Luther King’s nonviolence,

even in the face of danger, Greenpeace’s potential bodily sacrifices drew attention and

                                                                                                               6 6 “Suits and nukes. Nuclear weapons: what’s the deal?” Greenpeace International, May 6, 2003, http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/nuclear-poker-most-wanted-car/. 7 Hunter, Warriors of the Rainbow: A Chronicle of the Greenpeace Movement, 96. 8 Ibid, 61. 9 Wallace Turner, “A.E.C. Dismantles Aleutian Test Site of Controversial ’71 Underground Blast,” New York Times, 5 August, 1972, A29.

  5  

respect. Furthermore, a few months after this detrimental test, the U.S. Atomic Energy

Commission declared that Amchitka would not be a test site anymore, for “political and

other reasons.”10 Greenpeace celebrated one of its first victories. The U.S. had originally

planned to set off seven bombs, and after three, it had given up.

For many members of Greenpeace, the plight of nuclearism was only a piece of a

larger problem: the unprecedented degradation of the earth’s ecosystem by human

intervention. Greenpeace saw nuclearism as a facet of grave threats to the planet that

technological innovation posed. These innovations, for instance, allowed American

fisheries to strip-mine of the oceans and driving many species to extinction, pollute the

air, water, and land. Greenpeace’s fervent action against nuclearism set the foundation for

its efforts in other realms of ecological welfare.

Greenpeace has developed phenomenally since its foundation in 1972. Offices

now function in over thirty countries, both in the developing and developed world. Most

of the information for my research for the exhibition (save the statistics below) stems

from the 1990s. The John Hay Library’s Hall Hoag Collection contains hundreds of

pieces of ephemera from Greenpeace, but the vast majority falls in between the late

1980s and early 2000s. Perhaps not coincidentally, the ‘90s was a decade of increased

ecological attention in the U.S. government (both Former President Bill Clinton and Vice

President Al Gore were environmentally concerned, and maintained great influence

during the 90’s). Greenpeace’s number of members peaked in 1996 with a whopping six

million active members. 11 Ten years later, during the Bush administration, Greenpeace

dropped to 2.9 million active members and managed an income of $318 million.12

Nevertheless, Greenpeace has lost neither the drive to bear witness, nor the drive to cause

others to bear witness. Greenpeace’s eco-navy has eight ships, a helicopter, and a hot-air

balloon. Every night, Greenpeace still sends hundreds of canvassers out around the world

to raise money and educate the general public about environmental issues. Captain Paul

Watson argued that door-to-door soliciting is petty, deeming Greenpeace the “Avon

                                                                                                               10 Wallace Turner, “A.E.C. Dismantles Aleutian Test Site of Controversial ’71 Underground Blast,” A29. 11 Wapner, Environmental Activism and World Civic Politics, 48. 12 “Questions about Greenpeace in general,” Greenpeace, January 8, 2009, http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/about/faq_old/questions-about-greenpeace-in/.

  6  

ladies of the environmental movement.”13 Although Watson was a founding director of

Greenpeace, his commanding personality, coupled with his aversion to Greenpeace’s

increasingly strict nonviolent policies, resulted in his expulsion from the group. Watson

argues that Greenpeace collects millions of dollars to allegedly save whales, but other

than raising public awareness about whale extinction, Greenpeace has not actually caused

a direct change in the whaling industry’s practice. Greenpeace proudly declares that it

“has never sunk a whaling ship,” to which Captain Paul Watson comments, “No they

haven’t. If they had they would have actually saved some whales.”14

You don't bear witness to murder and rape and do nothing to stop it. You don't watch a child being sexually molested and you do nothing. You don't watch a person stomp on a kitten or kick a dog and do nothing but take pictures, you don't hang banners before a rapist as he attacks a woman and you don't bear witness to murder and do nothing. This is what Greenpeace is advocating with the killing of whales - that we watch, we take photos, we hang banners and we don't intervene.15

To be fair, Greenpeace’s political strategies do not only feature changing the public’s

impression of the earth. The organization also, although less frequently, lobbies to

governmental officials, gathers data, organizes protests and boycotts, produces record

albums, and scientifically researches. Greenpeace maintains, all the same, that it aims

mostly to change the attitudes and behaviors of the general public – not necessarily

states’ policies.

                                                                                                               13 Paul Watson, “Green Peace and Sea Shepherd –United to Oppose Legal Whaling,” Sea Shepherd Deutschland e.V. Freitag, den 30.,December, 2005, http://de.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/editorial-051230-1.html. 14 Ibid. 15 Paul Watson, “No Peace with Greenpeace it Seems,” Sea Shepherd Deutschland e.V., June, 2008, http://de.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/editorial-080618-1.html.

  7  

Despite its shortcomings, Greenpeace upholds a transnational organizational

structure with internal hierarchies within each region, helping Greenpeace focuson issues

pertinent to specific cities or

counties, such as Times Square

in New York. The bulk of the

global environmental problems,

in Greenpeace’s view, falls into

four categories: toxic

substances, energy and

atmosphere, nuclear issues, and

ocean and terrestreal ecology

(see Figure 2). Greenpeace

divides itself among these four

campaigns. Under ocean

ecology, for example,

Greenpeace concentrates on

whales, sea turtles, fisheries,

and dolphins.16 Because

Greenpeace’s campaigns apply

to countries and oceans around the globe, Greenpeace hires trustees and Council

members from countries in every continent. With the multinational influence from its

staff, Greenpeace advances a global rather than regional orientation in order to better

attack specific problems for specific zones.

Each of the four areas of concern for Greenpeace employs a project director, who

works on the subissues of the umbrella campaign. For instance, America’s pulp and paper

industry, which falls under the toxics campaign, dumps 50% of all organochlorine

discharges into the earth’s waterways.17 The chlorine poses serious danger to humans and

the natural environment, for it causes sterility and cancer in mammals. The project

director involved in chlorine toxicity aims to shift the produciton of the paper industry

                                                                                                               16 Rex Weyler, Greenpeace: how a group of ecologists, journalists, and visionaries changed the world, 35. 17 Ibid, 42.

Figure  3  

  8  

away from bleaching procedures that use chlorine. Regional campaigners, under the

directors, facilitate the specific Greenpeace activities to this end. They focus on the

industries’ respective countries, factoring in governmental, cultural, and industrial

attributes of each country to fashion an appropriate response to the problem.

Campaigners’ activities include painting banners, circulating petitions, researching

issues, organizing protests, and direct, nonviolent actions.

Greenpeace’s politics center around the insight that people do not damage the

ecosystem as a matter of course. Rather, according to political scientist Henry Eckstein,

“predispositions which pattern behavior”18 move people to act. Social scientists claim

that humans operate in an “ideational” context that motivtes them to act in a certain

way.19 “Ideational” entails influence not from the immediate stimuli, such as a sudden

change in weather, but rather from preexisting, ingrained ideas. Actions, thus, reflects

years of parenting, education, and experience that has shaped a person’s mind to be, for

example, opposed to killing animals. Thus, Greenpeace asserts that in order to protect the

earth, one must change the way vast numbers of people understand the world. The

challenge posed to Greenpeace is to pursuade people to abandon anti-ecological or non-

ecological attitudes and practices, and to nurture an ecological sensibility instead.

Greenpeace attempts to alter people’s conceptions of reality in order to undertake more

environmentally friendly practices. In order to shift these mindsets, Greenpeace utilizes

the political action of “bearing witness.”20

According to Greenpeace, the idea of “bearing witness” is Quaker in origin and

from the 17th-18th century.21 “Bearing witness” links moral sensitivities with political

responsibility. When we see a morally questionable act, Greenpeace argues that one must

either take action or stand by and attest to its occurrence. When the morally questionable

act is in any way destructive to the environment, Greenpeace opposes any force that tries

to attest to its occurrence. In the case of nuclearism, as stated earlier, Greenpeace ignores

the possibility that nuclear energy might ultimately be favorable for the environment,

given practical circumstances like the booming world population. In order to ensure that                                                                                                                18 Henry Eckstein, “A Cultural Theory of Social Change,” American Political Science Review 82, no. 3 (September, 1988), 760. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid, 762. 21 Ibid.

  9  

the world bears witness to ecological injustice, Greenpeace engages in and (more

importantly) publicizes direct, nonviolent action. Under Greenpeace’s philosophy, the

roots of change start in the collective mind of the public. Thus, in order to create and

sustain a healthier planet, different thoughts altogether must pervade the human mind.

The current course of action for environmental good entails simply patching up

ecological problems as they arise (for example, companies often begin to reduce their

carbon footprint only when it becomes absolutely excessive22). These “Band-Aids” on

grave issues, to Greenpeace, are not as efficacious as eradicating those problems before

they emerge as ideas in the human mind. When one witnesses an action, the information

about the vision reaches one of the most primitive parts of the human brain: visual cortex

in the occipital lobe. There, the brain processes the image and sends it to higher parts of

the brain that associate the image with, for example, emotion and ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’23

Stimulated enough, this part of the brain might form more intense connections between

environmental detriment and wrongness.24 Since thoughts lead to action, Greenpeace’s

efforts to change the roots of thoughts ultimately may precipitate in powerful action.

                                                                                                               22 Wapner, Environmental Activism and World Civic Politics, 51. 23 Michael Paradiso, “The Brain: An Introduction to Neuroscience,” Class Notes, December, 2010. 24 Ibid.

  10  

Greenpeace’s witnessing exhibits a cyclical effect. First, Greenpeace witnesses an

injustice, creating intense friction with members’ ecologically tuned minds. Next,

Greenpeace calls attention to the injustice, causing a scene and trying to lure the media to

expose the wrong to the public. ‘Causing a scene’ might include Greenpeace climbing

whaling ships, parachuting from the tops of smokestacks, plugging up industrial

discharge pipes, and

floating hot-air

balloons into nuclear

test sites. These

actions create

powerful images

that, if broadcasted

through the media,

might spark interest

and concern a large

audience. Thus, the next step in the witnessing cycle is people’s witnessing Greenpeace’s

actions. The propagation of Greenpeace’s images has quickened over the decades.

Information can now whip around the world instantaneously. Video cameras capture

Greenpeace whaling expeditions, ocean dumping of nuclear wastes, and discharging of

toxic chemicals into streams and play on people’s television and computer screens.

Facebook provides the opportunity to

continuously share the latest news and images

of Greenpeace’s work (see Figure 4). When an

Internet user “likes” Greenpeace on Facebook,

he forms an automatic link between his

identity and Greenpeace. Greenpeace now shows up on his Facebook profile, perhaps

fulfilling the ultimate Quaker dream of changing the mind. Identity is the center around

which one makes decisions, and by associating identity with Greenpeace, one might

begin to tune personal decisions to Greenpeace’s. However, the only true action

Greenpeace suggests in its newsletters, websites, and banners is for citizens to join and

support Greenpeace. After “bearing witness” and changing one’s mentality, Greenpeace’s

Figure  4  

Figure  5  

Figure  5  

  11  

follower finds little advice besides donating and declaring, “I Support Greenpeace” on his

T-shirt, perhaps, or his car (see Figure 5). Greenpeace’s paraphenalia encourages

individuals to put its eggs into Greenpeace’s basket. After that, Greenpeace attempts to

recruit the rest of the public to share in the witnessing.

The campaign that has received some of the most attention for Greenpeace is the

protection of whales. Part of the larger campaign to prevent the mass depletion of the

species of the world, the whale campaign tries to preserve the population of whales and

guard it from extinction. Greenpeace once sent a ship to pursue a certain Russian whaling

fleet, documenting the latter’s slaughter of whales that were smaller than the official

allowable size as designated by

the International Whaling

Commission.25 Greenpeace

even took photographs of a

human standing over the small

whales in order to demonstrate

the scale. The sheer size and

capability of the Russian fleet

also threatened the sperm

whale population in the area.

Thus, Greenpeace members

boarded inflatable dinghies, positioning themselves between the harpoon ships and the

pods of whales (see Figure 6).26 Demonstrating the willingness to die for a cause,

Greenpeace proved effective in the short-term because numerous times Russian whalers

did not shoot for fear of killing Greenpeace members. The newspaper, television, and

magazine coverage of this feat were enormous. Lobbying organizations like the Sierra

Club argue that one does not need to threaten a life in order to make an impact;

Greenpeace might disagree.

Above the waters, one of Greenpeace’s major concerns is the destruction of the

ozone layer. The ozone layer is a layer of gas surrounding earth that blocks out ultraviolet

                                                                                                               25 Wapner, Environmental Activism and World Civic Politics, 57. 26 Michael Brown and John May, The Greenpeace Story (Scarborough: Prentice-Hall Canada, 1989).

Figure  6  

  12  

(UV) and other harmful light rays from penetrating to the earth. Such volatile substances

as chlorofluorocarbons eat away at the ozone layer, which let in UV radiation. This

radiation risks potential increases in skin cancer and damage to plankton populations in

the ocean. The DuPont manufacturing plant in Deepwater, New Jersey produced half of

the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used in the United States in 1989.27 That same year,

Greenpeace infiltrated the plant, and the following day, bolted a steel box containing two

people onto the plant’s railroad tracks, blocking the export of CFCs from the plant. A

banner lay draped over the box, reading,

“Stop Ozone Destruction Now” (similarly

to the slogan on the blimp in Figure 7)

with a picture of the earth in the

background. Greenpeace’s bold action

caused an eight-hour blockade that held

up rail cars carrying 44,000 gallons of

CFCs.28 However, within minutes of

removing the blockade, business proceeded as usual. DuPont workers continued to

manufacture CFCs, but now with the knowledge that others knew and were worried about

the environmental effects.

The coverage in the Greenpeace Action newsletter, along with other publications,

divulged the connection between production of CFCs and ozone depletion to enormous

numbers of people. Ultimately, the conveyed message concerned Greenpeace rather than

the blocking action itself. Greenpeace gave the ozone issue form, using the image of

disrupting DuPont’s operations to send out a message of concern. As Paul Watson

affirms, “you use the media as a weapon.”29 This weapon can only cut so deeply,

however, for Greenpeace’s ultimate effect on DuPont’s chlorine production did not

amount to much. Twenty years later, in May 2010, DuPont again failed the citizen safety

inspections in New Jersey and Delaware.30 Greenpeace itself exposed DuPont’s

unchanged practices. Greenpeace, perhaps, has mastered the art of exposition, but has yet                                                                                                                27 Wapner, Environmental Activism and World Civic Politics, 60. 28 Greenpeace Magazine 14, no. 6 (Nov.-Dec., 1989): 19. 29 Rex Weyler, Greenpeace: how a group of ecologists, journalists, and visionaries changed the world, 92. 30 “Failed Inspection,” Blue Planet News, May 20, 2010, http://www.blueplanetnews.org/2010/05/20/failed-inspection/.

Figure  7  

  13  

to master direct political change. Undeniably, Greenpeace does affect people’s minds, the

broad public reception of images in the media shows. However, in the cases of industrial

practices and governmental policies, Greenpeace’s impact is not as measurable as the

consumption of images.

Greenpeace ultimately desires to “sting” people with ecological sensibility

regardless of the person’s job, geographic location, or access to governmental officials.

One of Greenpeace’s stinging strategies, as shown, is to bring instances of environmental

abuse to the public eye. CFC production occurs in the guarded corridors of the world’s

labs and factories. Harpooners kill whales on high seas, usually without any onlookers.

Species extinction persists in the depths of the world’s rainforests. The government tests

nuclear weapons in the most deserted areas on earth. Through the television, radio,

newspaper, and magazine, Greenpeace attempts to change this: to provide some virtual –

as well as actual onlookers in the bodies of Greenpeacers themselves.

Antarctica, the most remote of the seven continents, epitomizes a lack of

onlookers. Antarctica is the least polluted of the continents, holds seventy percent of the

earth’s fresh water, 800 species of plant life, and forty-five species of birds.31 Twelve

countries signed the Antarctica Treaty of 1959, which dedicated them to the peaceful

scientific exploration of the continent. Still, significant environmental destruction has

ensued since the treaty. In 1983, for example, the French loaded some islands with

explosives to construct an airstrip, ruining Adelie penguin colonies and threatening the

breeding grounds of Emperor penguins. Overfishing has also led to the near-extinction of

several species of finfish. Normally, these actions would most likely continue undetected;

however, Greenpeace established a research base in Antarctica in the ‘80s, which

continues even now to monitor and publicize abuse. Specifically, the members at the base

wrote articles about the health of the continent and produced films (such as “Battleship

Antarctica”)32 about Antarctica, which they aired in many countries. Greenpeace also

publicly shares evidence of its direct actions against the polluters, and those who

                                                                                                               31 “Antarctica,” The World Factbook, Central Intelligence Agency, March 22, 2011, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ay.html. 32 “Battleship Antarctica,” Greenpeace, IcarusFilmsNY, Icarus Films, 2008, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PivY8Tte6ic.

  14  

overfish, of Antarctica, in effect taking obscure practices and projecting them onto human

consciousness.

Further, Greenpeace’s other main strategy for combating environmental injustice

is to expose – and demand explanations for – the gap between the claims and practices of

governments, corporations, and ordinary citizens. Greenpeace uses hypocrisy to probe

people’s consciences and joggle previous conceptions of everyday circumstances.

Normal, commercial advertising often equates the company sponsoring the advertisement

with ‘good’ or ‘helpful,’ and the witnessing public cannot help but begin to believe the

advertisements. After all, “advertising is propaganda and everyone knows it.”33 In July

1985, Greenpeace sent underwater divers to Green Bay, Wisconsin to investigate the

emission of toxic wastes, like chlorine, from Fort Howard Paper Company. Chlorine

directly damages aquatic life and scientists speculate that its presence in drinking water

might cause cancer. Wisconsin demands that all companies document the procedures

used in handling hazardous wastes, including registering the number of discharge pipes,

and the final destination of the toxic substances. Nevertheless, Greenpeace photographed

three underwater discharge pipes not reported to the authorities outside the plant. Fort

Howard thus publicly claimed to abide by legal standards, but privately violated them.

Rather than bringing its case to the courts, Greenpeace publicized its actions, telling the

victims of the discrepancy – namely, citizens of Wisconsin – about the hypocrisy of one

of the state’s leading producers of paper. Wisconsonites might react strongly to such a

truth, but Greenpeace, once again, offers little follow-up action to the public, (other than

the maintained support of Greenpeace).

                                                                                                               33 Michael Schudson, Advertising, the Uneasy Persuasion: Its Dubious Impact on American Society (Basic Books, 1984), 4.

  15  

Greenpeace’s most effective tactic of all

is the parody. Parodies simultaneously draw

attention to the flaws of a system and provide

comic relief, emulating the delicate balance

between criticism and entertainment. In 1994,

three Greenpeace members scaled halfway up a

forty-seven story Time-Life tower in New

York to protest the chlorine-bleached paper

used in Time magazine. The production of one

year’s worth of Time released 179,400 pounds

of organochlorines into the waterways of

America in ‘94.34 Time’s hypocrisy lay in its

pledge in January 1992 to request chlorine-free

paper from suppliers. Greenpeace unfurled a banner reading, “Chlorine Kills” and “Take

the poison out of the paper” against a background of a mock Time magazine cover (see

Figure 8), in which Greenpeace accurately formats the magazine to match Time’s, but

features a pipe dumping toxic chlorine directly into the ocean.35 Here Greenpeace

demonstrates garnering distrust for business-as-usual: for daily, hypocritical practices.

Greenpeace hopes that citizens, viewing the demonstration, might adopt a critical view

toward an item about which they would normally not think twice: paper. Perhaps this

goal, however, falls short of one necessary to actually stop the pumping of chlorine into

the water. Raising awareness about chlorine’s danger to aquatic life is one thing – suing

the companies dumping the chlorine, or regulating the companies from the governmental

level, is another.

Greenpeace effectively causes its audience to rethink the environment’s

importance, and thus, by its own standards, fulfills its goals. However, Greenpeace’s

boast to actually change the system it reprimands – to forever, not temporarily, stop the

Russian whaling boats, or to shut down companies that pollute extremely unsustainably –

remains relatively unexplored. In an exhibition like Activism: Methods for Achieving

                                                                                                               34 “Time Passes, As Clinton Adopts Anti-Chlorine Stance,” Greenpeace 2, no. 2 (March/April/May, 1994): 1. 35 “Chlorine Protesters Scale Time Building,” New York Times, 12 July, 1994.

Figure  8  

  16  

Equity, Greenpeace might stick in the visitor’s mind because of its grabbing visuals and

frightening warnings. Nevertheless, delving deeper into the goals and feats of the

organization reveals that Greenpeace might pale in comparison to more legislatively

active groups. Greenpeace clearly serves a role in illuminating the imperfections in our

technologically advanced world. The result of this illumination, however, does not match

the quest to combat environmental injustice in any way one can measure. The very

words, “bearing witness” in fact connote certain apathy to action. The translation of

witnessing, to mental rewiring, to action, therefore, requires not only Greenpeace’s, but

also other groups’ resources and efforts to fulfill. In the Hall Hoag Collection, more than

five full folders are dedicated to Greenpeace’s ephemera (more than any other

environmental organization). Perhaps activist archives should use the measured impact of

each group as a standard for the quantity material they provide, before a student writes an

entire paper on an organization that is visually captivating, but – arguably – less than

impactful.

  17  

Bibliography

1. Zakaria, Fareed. “A Renegade Against Greenpeace.” Newsweek.com, April 12

2008. http://www.newsweek.com/2008/04/12/a-renegade-against-

greenpeace.html.

2. Weyler, Rex. Greenpeace: how a group of ecologists, journalists, and visionaries

changed the world. Vancouver: Raincoast Books, 2004.

3. “Suits and nukes. Nuclear weapons: what’s the deal?” Greenpeace International,

May 6 2003. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/nuclear-

poker-most-wanted-car/.

4. Watson, Paul. “Green Peace and Sea Shepherd –United to Oppose Legal

Whaling.” Sea Shepherd Deutschland e.V., December 2005.

http://de.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/editorial-051230-1.html.

5. Watson, Paul. “No Peace with Greenpeace it Seems.” Sea Shepherd Deutschland

e.V., June 2008. http://de.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/editorial-080618-

1.html.

6. Wapner, Paul. Environmental Activism and World Civic Politics. Albany: State

University of New York Press, 1996.

7. Turner, Wallace. “A.E.C. Dismantles Aleutian Test Site of Controversial ’71

Underground Blast.” New York Times, 5 August 1972.

8. Schudson,  Michael.  Advertising,  the  Uneasy  Persuasion:  Its  Dubious  Impact  on  

American  Society.  Basic  Books,  1984.  Pp.  3-­‐14.

9. Hunter, Robert. Warriors of the Rainbow: A Chronicle of the Greenpeace

Movement. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1979.

10. Gray, J. Glenn. The Warriors: Reflections on Men in Battle. New York: Harper &

Row, 1970.

11. Eckstein, Henry. “A Cultural Theory of Social Change.” American Political

Science Review 82, no. 3, September 1988.

12. Brown, Michael and May, John. The Greenpeace Story. Scarborough: Prentice-

Hall Canada, 1989.

13. Greenpeace Magazine 14. No. 6. Nov.-Dec. 1989.

  18  

14. “Failed Inspection.” Blue Planet News, May 20 2010.

http://www.blueplanetnews.org/2010/05/20/failed-inspection/.

15. “Questions about Greenpeace in general.” Greenpeace, January 8, 2009.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/about/faq_old/questions-about-

greenpeace-in/.

16. “Antarctica.” The World Factbook. Central Intelligence Agency, March 22 2011.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ay.html.

17. “Battleship Antarctica.” Greenpeace. IcarusFilmsNY. Icarus Films, 2008.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PivY8Tte6ic.

18. “Time Passes, As Clinton Adopts Anti-Chlorine Stance.” Greenpeace 2, no. 2,

March/April/May 1994.

Images

Figure 1: Gordon Hall and Grace Hoag Collection of Dissenting and Extremist Printed

Propaganda, Brown University Library, Ms. 76, Box 68-3.

Figure 2: Gordon Hall and Grace Hoag Collection of Dissenting and Extremist Printed

Propaganda, Brown University Library, Ms. 76, Box 68-3.

Figure 3: Gordon Hall and Grace Hoag Collection of Dissenting and Extremist Printed

Propaganda, Brown University Library, Ms. 76, Box 68-3.

Figure 4: Gordon Hall and Grace Hoag Collection of Dissenting and Extremist Printed

Propaganda, Brown University Library, Ms. 76, Box 68-3.

Figure 5: Gordon Hall and Grace Hoag Collection of Dissenting and Extremist Printed

Propaganda, Brown University Library, Ms. 76, Box 68-3.

Figure 6: “Greenpeace zodiac maneuvers itself between two Russian whaling ships.

Harpooned whales are being transferred from catcher vessels to the factory processing

ship.” Greenpeace, 2011.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/multimedia/photos/greenpeace-zodiac-

manoeuvres-i/.

Figure 7: “The Greenpeace airship inspects a DuPont chemical facility in Edge Moor.”

Greenpeace, Jan 10, 2011.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/multimedia/slideshows/Toxic-Patrol/.

  19  

Figure 8: Gordon Hall and Grace Hoag Collection of Dissenting and Extremist Printed

Propaganda, Brown University Library, Ms. 76, Box 68-3.