Why is Greenpeace opposed to genetic engineering?
Greenpeace opposes all releases of gentically Engineered organisms intothe environment. Such organisms are being released without adequatescientific understanding of their impact on the environment and humanhealth.
This genetic pollution is a major threat because geneticallyengineered organisms cannot be recalled once released into theenvironment. Governments are attempting to address this threat byinternational regulations such as the Biosafety Protocol.
Because of commercial interests, the public is being denied theright to know about genetically engineered ingredients in the foodchain, and the right to avoid them. Greenpeace advocates immediateinterim measures such as labelling of genetically engineeredingredients, and the segregation of genetically engineered crops fromconventional ones.
While scientific progress on molecular biology has a great potentialto increase our understanding of nature and provide new medical tools,it is no justification to turn the environment into a geneticexperiment. Biological diversity must be protected and respected as theglobal heritage of humankind, and one of our world's fundamental keysto survival.
Greenpeace also opposes all patents on plants, animals and humans,as well as patents on their genes. Life is not an industrial commodity.When we force lifeforms and our world's food supply to conform to humaneconomic models rather than their natural ones, we do so at our ownperil.
You can read an introduction to the issue of genetic engineering and an explanation of some of the risks in our genetic engineering area.
The Star Wars Missile Defence system is about defending againstnuclear weapons - isn't that a good thing? Why is Greenpeace opposed toit?
Though the US government portrays Star Wars as purely defensive, keynuclear weapons nations such as China and Russia actually see it as anoffensive initiative. They fear Star Wars would render their currentnuclear arsenals obsolete; they would be unable to retaliate to a USnuclear attack. If Star Wars goes ahead they will feel compelled toincrease their own arsenals as a counter measure.
"The more improvements that are made to the shield, the moreimprovements are made to the sword. We think that with these[anti-missile ] systems, we are just going to spur swordmakers tointensify their efforts."
French President Jacques Chirac.
There are many reasons why the MissileDefence programme is a dangerous plan. You can read more about thethreat of Star Wars by clicking on the link below:
Isn't nuclear power better than burning lots of fossil fuels? Isn't it a solution for climate change?
Nuclearpower creates poisonous waste, fuels the nuclear arms race, andthreatens the health and well being of communities thousands of milesaway.
It's also not a solution to greenhouse warming. Creating nuclearfuel is a hugely energy-intensive task. When you sum up the CO2 emittedby the mining, milling, processing, and transport of nuclear fuels,there's no significant savings on carbon output. This was why theframers of the Kyoto protocol rejected efforts by the nuclear powerindustry to allow carbon credits for nuclear power. You'll still seethis fallacy trumpetted in advertising by the nuclear industry, but youwon't find a reputable climate scientist who is convinced by the ads.(British Nuclear Fuels spends more on advertising than Greenpeace'sentire annual budget, by the way!)
You can read about all the reasons Greenpeace opposes nuclear power at our nuclear campaign section.
Or learn more about clean energy at our climate website.
I heard that Greenpeace is a bunch of "tree huggers" and is opposed to cutting down trees everywhere. Is this true?
Greenpeace is concerned about protecting the greatest reservoirs ofterrestrial biodiversity -- the last remaining ancient forests. Wedon't have any opposition to responsible, sustainable forestrypractices outside those areas. Read more about our policies on forestprotection in our forests section.