Kumi Naidoo Blog

Time for civil disobedience

Kumi Naidoo — Fri, 17 May 2013 21:21:00 +0200

The tradition of civil disobedience is being reignited. The need is growing and the call to action is becoming impossible to ignore! Non-violent direct action can help re-establish a balance where our rights have been overtaken by the self interest of powerful economic elites, willing to sacrifice our children’s future for their short term gain and profit.

Peaceful acts of civil disobedience has been at the heart of many major struggles humanity has fought over the past several decades: the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa, the Civil Rights movement in the US and Gandhi’s fight against British colonial rule in India, to mention just a few examples.

Imagine a world without civil disobedience and non-violent direct action. If that’s too abstract and difficult to imagine, try this: imagine a world where women still can’t vote, where racial segregation and institutionalised discrimination still rule, imagine brutal colonial dominance and extreme inequity and social injustice across the globe. And while in some places we have to look to the past to find such outrageous examples of injustice and inequality, let's not forget that there are still many places where such disturbing realities remain the norm to this day.

Actions do speak louder than words and actions are needed now more than ever given the threat that our planet is facing as a result of rampant environmental and social exploitation.

Civil disobedience and direct action are at the heart of what we do here at Greenpeace, part of our heritage and history, our destiny and mission. Civil disobedience does not require heroes – it only takes decent men and women to say ‘enough is enough’. While with Greenpeace, I have taken direct action in the freezing waters of the Arctic Ocean twice. I have climbed oilrigs representing the voice and concerns of millions of people saying that Arctic drilling is madness and must be stopped. I have even spent time in jail for this – but the fight is not over, and I will continue to support the Save the Arctic movement to stop Big Oil’s irresponsible ambitions. But this is about more than just stopping Big Oil; it’s about creating a world in which future generations can thrive, a world that is peaceful, just and equitable.

Civil disobedience seems to penetrate the consciousness of our political leaders much more than other methods. The public pressure that comes from civil disobedience can tilt public opinion and re-establish the balance between people power and the deep wallets of private companies sacrificing long-term environmental considerations for short-term profits. Political leaders can realise that they need to listen – if not because it’s the right thing to do, at least for fear of losing their mandates and positions.

A big thank you to all activists out there advancing the environmental cause, whether it’s fighting to bring justice to local communities in Nigeria suffering from Shell oil spills or stopping the Keystone XL pipeline in the US! Civil disobedience momentum is building – but much more is needed to avert catastrophic climate change and environmental destruction and degradation. Please join me and take action too!

Not only is another world possible, she’s on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing.

Kumi Naidoo — Mon, 13 May 2013 17:38:00 +0200

Opening remarks at the Peoples' Arctic Conference in Kiruna, Sweden:

Greetings my friends, and welcome to the conference, the Peoples’ Arctic: Unified for a Better Tomorrow. My name is Kumi Naidoo and I have the pleasure and honour of welcoming you here today.

First I would like to thank the Sami Peoples of Sweden for welcoming us all here and allowing us to host this meeting on their traditional territory. Ohlo-Keeto!

I would also like to thank the people of the Nordic region, who, through their support of the Swedish Postcode Lottery, have been funding this important conference for the second year in a row. And to the Swedish Postcode Lottery directly, thank you for making this all possible.

Thank you all so much for coming all this way to be here with us for this historic occasion, where Indigenous Peoples from every Arctic state have come together to share experiences, exchange stories, bond over our likenesses and learn from our differences. We at Greenpeace and the Save the Pechora Committee are honoured to be with you all here in Kiruna.

It’s not often that we are able to gather together in this way. We live far apart from each other, in diverse lands, living unique lives — but we come together today bound by a common thread: the story of the changing Arctic — the changing landscape of your homes.

During the next two days you will hear stories from many important voices in this struggle — people like my friend Alice Ukoku, who has been fighting valiantly against the impacts of oil drilling in her native Niger Delta. Aleksei Limanzo from RAIPON will speak to you about the changing situation in Russia and Dene National and Northwest Territories Grand Chief Bill Arasmus will discuss Indigenous rights in a changing Arctic with Laila Susanne Vars, vice-president of the Sami Parliament in Norway, and Pat Pletnikoff, an Alaskan mayor. We’ll hear stories of the pitfalls and potentials of resource extraction from Mikkel Myrup, the Chair of Avataq in Greenland, as well as Francois Paulette, a Dene human rights activist from northern Canada.

I will not try to tell their stories for them. But I do want to talk to you now about other stories: the stories we tell ourselves every day; the stories we pass on to our children; the stories that some try to tell for us; and the stories that we’re changing just by being here today.

Over the last few years, in my position as the executive director of Greenpeace International, I have had the honour and the opportunity to hear stories from many of you directly about the changes you’re experiencing in your daily lives. Your homes, your ancestral lands, are changing rapidly. Everywhere on this planet, from my home in Africa to the north of Alaska, we are all experiencing the impacts of a changing climate firsthand.

And in fact, just two days ago, we hit a terrifying landmark when the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere reached 400 parts per million. Let me repeat this, for this is a tipping point for all of us: For the first time in human history, the concentration of climate-warming carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has passed the milestone level of 400 parts per million. The last time so much greenhouse gas was in the air was several million years ago, when the Arctic was ice-free, savannah spread across the Sahara desert and sea levels were up to 40 metres higher than today.

This is no longer just a theory or something we worry our children will face. We are already seeing climate change in action, all over the world. I’ve seen it where I come from, I’ve seen it in Fort Chipewyan in the Alberta Tar Sands, I’ve seen it in the Amazon where Indigenous Peoples have paid a huge price as well, and I’ve seen it in Greenland (where I had the privilege of spending almost a week’s holiday in prison in Nuuk!).

I’ve also heard from many of you that you see it every day where you live. The weather is changing. We can no longer deny this. In some places, the rains come less frequently; in others, the snowfall lasts well into spring. Deep trenches of water are appearing where before there was only ice. Reindeer and caribou, deer and moose, fox and polar bears and countless species of birds are migrating away from traditional hunting grounds, changing their patterns, beginning to adapt to a changing climate.

Across the Arctic, amid all this change, we are hearing stories of struggle and seeing signs of trouble — but also signs of emerging crusades for justice and resilience against the corporate powers that for too long have dictated our story.

Shell was forced to cancel its 2013 Arctic drilling plans after a series of failures and accidents plagued its 2012 drilling programme. Similarly, both Statoil and ConocoPhillips have both shelved plans to drill in the Arctic this year.

But beyond the oil companies, this has been a year of heroic stories for the Indigenous Peoples of the Arctic. A battle has been brewing with our allies in Russia, where RAIPON, the largest Indigenous organisation representing more than 40 Indigenous groups in Russia and the East, was ordered in November by the Russian Ministry of Justice to close its doors following what they deemed, “irregularities in its organisational statuses.” This stirred exactly the sort of international outrage that it warranted.

As expressed by Aili Kesketalo, the leading Sami politician from Norway, this challenged “the very foundation for international cooperation between Indigenous Peoples.”

In the end, after much outrage and complex politicking, this unjust decision was overturned. This marked a change in the story the Russian government was trying to tell, affirming an important lesson: that the Indigenous Peoples of the Arctic are powerful, and when united, represent an unparalleled threat to the current “business as usual” approach to Arctic management. In the words of RAIPON’s former First Vice President:

“There is an extensive hike in the level of industrialization in the north, and the Indigenous Peoples are among the last barriers against the companies’ and state’s development of the resources.”

Reading this, I was reminded of one of my favourite quotes by Ghandi,: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

This is also exactly what is happening in Canada where we saw other evidence of this kind of oppression in late 2012, when Indigenous Peoples were similarly vilified by the Harper government.

After being labeled by the Minister of Natural Resources as “radicals” funded by shadowy government conspirators, Harper went further, introducing bills containing huge, draconian amendments to environmental assessment and protection — and buried in there were changes to many laws that removed tens of thousands of rivers and lakes from federal protection, including bodies of water to which aboriginal groups have registered legitimate claims and declarations of interest.

This spurred an unparalleled uprising, a massive movement called Idle No More, which brought together tens of thousands of people from across Canada, from Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities, standing together in opposition to this clear undermining of human rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canada, and in clear contrast to their treaty rights.

The story of the Idle No More movement is hugely inspirational but also extremely nuanced — but over the course of the next two days, I encourage you to seek out your Canadian Indigenous allies and ask them about this uprising, about what it means for them, and what it says about the Canadian government that is just this week assuming chairmanship of the Arctic Council.

Amid all of this oppression shines an underlying story: a light of resistance, power, and hope. Indigenous Peoples everywhere are fighting back. You are being recognised as the stewards of the land and the powerful force that you are; you are demanding that your treaty rights be honoured, and finally I hope that you are being heard by the governments that first ignored you, then laughed at you, then fought you, and then conceded.

You’re not alone. All over the world, people are joining forces, moved by the stories of what’s happening in the Arctic, and inspired to act to change the power structure, take it away from the big corporations and put it back in the hands of the people.

I see this week as an opportunity for Arctic Indigenous Peoples to have your voices heard. In these big political games, where the story has long been about whoever has the most money and power gets to call the shots, where the people with money get to carve up your land and divide the resources, it is imperative that your story be told, and that the right people be made to listen.

While you lose your right to sustain yourself in a traditional way off the land, they make money. While you are getting hungrier for untainted food and water, they get hungrier for more power and control. This is not a just story. It is not one I want anything to do with. It is not right, it is not equitable, and it is certainly not sustainable. And so we must change it.

We must change the questions that are being asked and the answers that are being given in false justification. These corporations are asking themselves, how much can we consume? How quickly can we extract all this oil? When really the questions they should be asking are, to whom does this land belong? And who should have the right to decide how it’s managed? Who will suffer tomorrow’s consequences of our decisions today?

The authorities will often frame the story as this: oil equals sustainable development and a better quality of life for Indigenous Peoples living here, versus no oil equals no prospects for local communities in the North. This is a false dilemma and tantamount to blackmail. We have learned time and again that access to oil does not mean positive growth for Indigenous and local communities. In fact, coming from Africa, I know that being rich below the ground almost always equals poverty above ground. But your stories do not have to end this way.

In a few decades, oil will be gone. Experts say that we passed peak oil production in 2010. So why should we risk the last pristine ecosystems on the planet in the race for the last drops of oil? And who will take the responsibility for cleaning up the mess these companies will leave behind when they are done sucking everything out of the Arctic? Not the companies, no, we have learned this. And not the Arctic Council either — their new toothless oil spill response plan has proven this. Time and again, we have learned the sad truth that neither governments nor industry can be trusted to do this.

This week Greenpeace and the Save the Pechora Committee are here to learn from your experiences, to listen to what you want, and to help amplify your voice in this struggle. To help tell the stories you want to tell.

It is no secret that historically, Greenpeace hasn’t always done right by Indigenous communities. We made some errors many years ago, but we are learning from past mistakes. So let me be clear on this point — Greenpeace unequivocally supports subsistence whaling and hunting.

However at this critical point in history, it’s important to recognise that there is far more that unites us than divides us, and it’s that unity of purpose that we want to explore.

Last year when I addressed a similar conference we held in Russia, I told some of you that we would not solve all the problems we face with one conference, nor will we solve them with two. But together we made great strides. The attendees of the conference sat together crafting a joint statement of opposition to Arctic drilling. For hours they talked around the table, exchanging ideas, honing the language, fine-tuning the set of demands until there was unanimous agreement. The result of that meeting was a strong statement that other Arctic Indigenous Peoples have continued to sign on to since then. The statement is here, and you’ll be given the opportunity to read through it and sign if you so choose.

These meetings and these collectively crafted agreements are critical steps in forging new and lifelong relationships that I believe will be pivotal in forming our collective future. Together we are consciously creating the sort of stories and the kind of world that we will all live in together, and that we will leave behind for future generations to inherit.

This is no small task. In fact, it is a huge responsibility, and one that I do not take lightly. Just by being here and demonstrating your commitment and willingness to work with your contemporaries around the world, shows me that you all share this burden.

There is an old Cree Proverb that I’m sure many of you know, that says, “Only after the last tree has been cut down, Only after the last river has been poisoned, only after the last fish has been caught — Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten.”

And you know, this is happening. I truly believe that there is a shift in consciousness happening right now. We stand here today on the precipice of a new world.

It is daunting, and sometimes scary — but it is also a unique and inspiring opportunity. All across this planet I am humbled by what I am witnessing firsthand — a deep commitment, passion and vision of people who see another way forward. Who envision another kind of world for their children — one that respects the earth and honours her fragility; Peoples from north to south, east to west, who have grown tired of an economic paradigm that values profit over people, and greed over green. People who are standing up and standing together, claiming their rights as human beings, and demanding they be heard.

Every day I draw my inspiration and my strength from these people — from people like each of you who stand in this room. I am humbled by your individual vulnerability and your collective strength.

And you are not alone.

Last month, a group of young ambassadors — including Kiera Dawn-Kolson and Josefina Skerk, two Arctic Indigenous representatives and both of whom are here today — embarked on a quest with Greenpeace to the North Pole, to plant the names of three million people on the seabed below the North Pole — three million people from nearly 60 countries on earth, all united in their determination to secure Arctic protection. They all know what we do: that our fates are intertwined with the fate of the Arctic. They left their homes in the Seychelles, in the Northwest Territories of Canada, in the north of Sweden and in New York, to create a new conversation about the future of the Arctic. To tell different stories and to change the narrative from the current paradigm to the new reality we all envision.

On the seabed at the North Pole they planted an indestructible glass time capsule. There it sits now holding the names of 2.7 million people, including some of yours, a testament to our joint commitment. Inscribed around the capsule on a titanium ring is a quote from one of one of the most powerful storytellers from India. Her name is Arundhati Roy. The quote is from one of her novels, The God of Small Things, and it says: “Not only is another world possible, she’s on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing.”

My friends, I believe that right now we are bearing witness to this. I believe the new world we seek is on its way.

Together with you all, we stand here today to affirm our commitment to creating this new world together, to asserting our right to ensure our future, to ensure our very lives, which may sometimes seem far apart, but are in reality wholly connected. With your blessing, I promise we will work to make the governments of the Arctic realise that your voices cannot and will not be ignored. Together we will continue in our battle to protect the Arctic and your rights as the true inhabitants of this unique place.

Over the next two days, I hope we will forge new relationships and strengthen old ones. I encourage you to use the breaks to make friends and speak to each other. I encourage you to ask Kiera and Josefina about the mission they have just returned from, and to share stories with them in return. More than anything at this conference, I look forward to hearing — and learning from — your stories.

These stories we tell each other will form the narrative that we create, block by block, and character by character; do not underestimate their power. These stories will shape our futures, and the future of this planet that we call home.

And history is also our teacher here in terms of our ambitions to address the destruction that is happening in the Arctic. Twenty years ago when Greenpeace and other groups pushed for the Antarctic to be declared a global commons protected from industrial exploitation, everyone said, you’re crazy, you don’t stand a chance, you’ll never win.

But they were wrong. And now more than two decades later, Antarctica is still protected, and this achievement has helped in some way to mitigate runaway climate change.

The irony is that Antarctica, which isn’t even home to human beings, is now protected. So how is it that the Arctic, home to millions of people, including some of the most precious and unique communities in the world, cannot secure the same protection where people need it most?

The answer is that we can, and we must. This reminds me of a quote from the Maori, the Indigenous Peoples of New Zealand/Aotearoa — about exactly this point, which I’d like to end on, because I think it perfectly encapsulates why we are all here:

He aha te mea nui o te ao?
He tangata! He tangata! He tangata!

What is the most important thing in the world?
It is people! It is people! It is people!

Listen to Kumi Naidoo's speech here.

Redirect military expenditure to ensure a sustainable future

Kumi Naidoo — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 14:52:00 +0200

As published in The Guardian on the 18th of April 2013.

Last year $1.75tn was spent on the world's military, according to new estimates released this Monday by the Stockholm International Peace Institute (SIPRI). Seems like a lot? Let me put this into perspective. This amount is the equivalent of Canada's GDP or twice the GDP of the Netherlands.

Nato members together spent a trillion dollars on the military and despite a significant 6% decrease, the US remains firmly in the lead, accounting for about 40% of the global amount. With a considerable percentage of citizens' taxes both in America (where it's up to 47%) and across the globe going towards military expenses, surely people are entitled to question whether this is money well spent to ensure security. And how this spending is more justified than, say, investing in renewable energy, health care and education.

Consider this: every day 19,000 children under the age of five die around the world, mainly from preventable causes. The costs of reducing mortality rates by two-thirds, improving maternal health as well as combating Aids, malaria and other major diseases, are estimated to be $60bn (£39bn) a year. Meanwhile, $60bn is approximately the cost of buying and operating two nuclear ballistic missile submarines. The estimated total cost of achieving the six of the UN's millennium development goals related to poverty, education and health – eradicating hunger, universal primary education, child mortality reduction, disease prevention– is $120bn annually in additional resources, a fraction of what is spent every year on militaries.

We at Greenpeace join the outcry against excessive military spending. Rather than spending money preparing for conflict, governments must focus their efforts on avoiding conflict and achieving sustainability and equity in their countries.

Climate change is a major driver of conflict and threat to international and national peace and security, putting billions of people's future in jeopardy. It is not often the case that we find ourselves in agreement with the military and intelligence communities, but when it comes to the security implications of climate change, it seems we may have some similar concerns. In May 2012, US Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta said: "Climate change has a dramatic impact on national security: rising sea levels, to severe droughts, to the melting of the polar caps, to more frequent and devastating natural disasters all raise demand for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief."

These impacts of climate change are already being felt. Climate change and a carbon-intensive economy are already responsible for 5 million deaths each year. By 2030, deaths could total 100 million. This is already costing about $1.2tn a year, which could double by 2030 if global temperatures are allowed to rise. So why is it that governments carry on spending $105bn a year on nuclear weapons, rather than diverting the amounts to mitigating the risks of the true WMD – "weather of mass destruction"?

Governments intent on spending taxpayers' money are fuelling the problem, rather than the solution. A new report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) reveals that worldwide subsidies to fossil fuels total $1.9tn annually. Almost 9% of all annual country budgets are spent on supporting oil, natural gas and coal industries. Subsidies result in overconsumption of dirty energy, which fuels climate change. Eliminating subsidies would lead to a 13% decrease in global energy related CO2 emissions.

Moving away from fossil fuels and investing in renewable energy is the world's best hope for avoiding the most serious impacts of climate change. In 2011, renewable energy provided more than 30% of new electricity production globally, up from less than 5% in 2005. In 2012, investments in renewable energy approximated $250bn – which employed 5 million people worldwide, a win-win situation. An energy revolution in the power sector – moving away from climate-destroying fossil fuels and dangerous nuclear power – would require additional annual investments of $280bn – investments that would not only pay back financially but would significantly reduce the security threats resulting from climate change.

More than $3.5tn is spent annually on the world's military and on subsidising fossil fuels. We can no longer stand by and allow governments to spend recklessly on the wrong things, when so many right things remain neglected. Eradicating poverty and child mortality, and mitigating the destructive impacts of climate change could all be achieved if governments got their priorities right.

A more just, peaceful and sustainable world is possible - World Social Forum 2013

Kumi Naidoo — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 13:52:00 +0100

In early 2011, Tunisia’s President Zine Al Abidine Ben Ali was overthrown and the popular uprising in Tunisia was followed shortly by a wave of revolutions in several Arab countries – proving to us all that another world is within our reach.

The explosion of resistance we have been witnessing over the last few years, both in the developed and developing world, is indicative of the fact that when large parts of communities, countries and regions reach such high levels of exclusion, especially in the context of excessive wealth, wastage and inequality, leaders in all sectors of society, not just politicians, must take serious note. Humanity has already reached a figurative and literal boiling point and we are witnessing a convergence of storms: economic, social and environmental.

The demonstrations that led to the regime change in Tunisia were preceded by numerous signs of civil unrest and injustice: high unemployment, food inflation, corruption, lack of freedom of speech and un-dignifying living conditions for most. Sadly, this is reality for far too many people in developing and developed countries alike and this is why the World Social Forum (WSF) reflects the frustrations, concerns and aspirations of the majority of people today.

Two years after the Arab Spring, the same country that triggered massive change in Northern Africa and the Middle East is hosting the annual meeting of civil society organisations - the World Social Forum 2013 – a self-conscious effort to develop an alternative future based on empowerment of the local, more equitable distribution of wealth and power and more sustainable communities. Unlike its rival, the World Economic Forum (WEF), dominated by unelected leaders and economic elites, the World Social Forum with is befitting theme of “Dignity” is timely and relevant, taking place in a region that continues to pursue justice and transformational change, a region that has set new standards for social movements and civil society, but still has a lot of challenges ahead.

It is the frustration and passion of the people who led the Arab Spring and the Occupy Movement that reflect a reality dominated by an acute sense of injustice and an urgent need for transformational change. This is why this year’s WSF is taking place in Tunisia. Global forums focused on system maintenance, system protection and system recovery will continue in places such as the sheltered, posh, mountain resort of Davos in the Swiss Alps.

The World Social Forum can represent the much-needed catalyst for transformational change, provide alternative strategy and offer ways forward for an alternative future based on local empowerment, equitable distribution of wealth and sustainability and not growth at all costs, environmental degradation and crass inequity.

If Kumi will...will you?

Kumi Naidoo — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 16:41:00 +0100

This year’s Earth Hour on March 23 is no ordinary Earth Hour. Climate change is being felt around the world - ravaging communities, destroying lives and livelihoods. We are running out of time, but we can still fix this.

Energy efficiency is half of the energy revolution we need to avoid catastrophic climate change. We need to get serious about saving energy and ask ourselves what we can do in the absence of political and business leadership on sustainability.

On this year’s Earth Hour I commit to spending the equivalent of 2 weeks of my vacation time to work with young people, who are not only the leaders of tomorrow, but also the leaders of today. But I'll only do it if at least 5,000 people pledge to take action too.

Please take your pick - one action at least, more if you're up for it - and make a commitment to make it public. Join our event on Facebook, Twitter or Instagram and post a photo or report of what you are doing. Leading up to Earth Hour I will also try to take as many actions as possible to live a greener lifestyle and I will report to you all as well.

Here's a list of things you could do as well. Feel free to be creative and come up with your own way to be more energy efficient and less wasteful.

Eliminate paper products

Wash laundry with cold water and line dry your clothes

Buy used or don’t buy at all/Live with what you already have

Avoid bottled water

Eat vegetarian at least 3 days a week

Bike or walk to work

Start a small garden/maintain one

Use vinegar & baking soda, in replacement of chemicals

Don’t buy any products wrapped in plastic packaging

Take cold showers

Eat organic

Necessary Extinction

Kumi Naidoo — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:19:00 +0100

As published in IPS on March 11, 2013. When the environment changes, smart creatures adapt. And, in the face of a changing climate and changing economics smart people are backing green energy. In 2011 almost a third of new electricity came from renewable sources. But, just as the first mammals had to contend with a world of dinosaurs the pioneers of green energy have to contend with a world based on an obsolete carbon based energy system that refuses to upgrade.

Although burning the world’s proven fossil fuel reserves will damage our climate beyond repair the dinosaur corporations who profit from carbon pollution are determined to find more. Shell’s 2012 annual report claims the company is doing its part in “building a better energy future”, but highlights developing oil fields, exploring for oil and gas and mining oil sands as key activities. That means finding more fossil fuels that we can’t afford to burn, and trying to sell them to customers who, in reality, have or should have better options.

As easily extracted fossil fuels become scarce and global consumption of fossil fuels grows, the dirty energy industry is turning to more and more extreme methods of extraction.

The latest madness is ‘fracking’: a technique of drilling for gas in which a high pressure cocktail of water and toxic chemicals is used to split open rock formations far below the ground. The unconventional fuel expansion is, in fact, a delaying tactic. Fracking, deepwater drilling and tar sands extraction are dangerous fossil fuel fantasies in which we are supposed to think we can postpone the energy revolution and not move firmly in the direction of renewable energy. This delaying tactic has a massive price associated with it.

Fracking requires huge quantities of water. It also threatens to poison nearby water reserves and cause small earthquakes. It also releases unknown quantities of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

In my own country, South Africa, Shell has been given a license to explore the possibility of fracking in Karoo, threatening to turn a semi-desert, into a total desert. Shell promises jobs and enough energy to power South Africa for years. These are the same promises extractive industries make everywhere they go. Everywhere they go they do more than extract raw materials. They extract wealth and hope. Just ask the people of Nigeria. Or, Venezuela. Or, even Canada, where indigenous peoples have seen their rivers poisoned and traditional ways of life destroyed. If South Africa wants jobs and energy it should withdraw the license today, and remove all grey area around grid tie-in legislation, beginning with a clear net metering programme that allows for the inclusion of the small to medium renewable energy power producers. A nation blessed with enough sun, wind and waves to power itself has no need to sell its future. Nor to rupture its land for gas!

Fossil fuel companies claim fracking is clean, because burning gas emits less carbon than burning coal. Well, assault isn’t murder, but it’s still a crime. The world doesn’t need more gas to burn. There’s no need to lock emerging economies into nineteenth century technologies. Modern energy supplies are cleaner, cheaper and lack the destructive side effects of ripping up the ground in order to set it on fire.

The push for new extreme dirty energy forms is happening at a time when global carbon dioxide emission growth has been exceeding even the most pessimistic forecasts, and the impacts of climate change are already being felt. Pouring money into new fossil fuel production seems absurd in these conditions. At the same time, the amazing progress in renewable energy that has been achieved in recent years makes it abundantly clear that these destructive projects can be made redundant. We just don’t need dirty energy expansion.

Just as fixed line telephony has been passed over in favour of mobile phones, fossil fueled energy needs to be passed over in favour of modern renewable energy. The kind of domestic electrification needed to end fuel poverty can be delivered to a home by a few solar panels in hours, compared with the wait for a reliable national grid that in many countries has already been going on for decades.

In the absence of a global agreement on greenhouse gas emission reductions, it falls on every government – national and local -- and business to implement clean and safe energy solutions, instead of scouring the ends of the earth for more dirty fuel.

And, it falls on every citizen to demand the extinction of the carbon dinosaurs.

Fukushima disaster: holding the nuclear industry liable

Kumi Naidoo — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 14:11:00 +0100

As published in The Guardian on March 11, 2013.

The social aftershocks and radiation fears from the tragic tsunami and Fukushima nuclear disaster that rocked Japan two years ago today continue to wreak havoc.

Adding insult to the social injury of dislocation, hardship and the mounting "atomic divorces" of families on the edge, the public is being forced to pay for the clean up – a clear failure of the law to hold the nuclear industry liable for its disasters.

In the US, a New Orleans court has the task of ruling whether BP, or its partners Transocean and Halliburton, were negligent in their work on the Macondo oil well, and how much money each company may have to pay for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

BP, which has said its partners shared responsibility for the rig safety, faces fines of more than US$17.5bn if found guilty. That's on top of compensation to claimants not part of an estimated $8.5bn settlement the company already reached last year.

But two years after the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, victims are still awaiting full compensation from an industry that enjoys government protection.

Hundreds of thousands of victims, who fled their homes to escape the release of radiation from the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant still live in limbo, unable to return home or rebuild their lives elsewhere. It is heart wrenching to witness the social toll of this avoidable industrial accident, doubly when you see public compensation being subordinated to private profit.

This is the reality of the Fukushima disaster, the result of a protection system that allows nuclear operators to pay only a tiny fraction of the costs of an accident, forcing the public to pay the rest.

Governments set up this protection 60 years ago to help get the nuclear power industry off the ground. Despite the unfairness of the system, governments have done nothing to rectify it. The Fukushima disaster highlights the need for change.

In law, Fukushima plant operator Tepco should pay the full costs of the accident. But there is a loophole: Tepco can't pay. So the government stepped in and nationalised the company, meaning Japanese taxpayers will pay for this disaster.

What's worse, is that this protection system works even better for the companies that supply reactors and other equipment to nuclear operators: they don't pay any of the costs of a disaster.

Big energy giants, such as General Electric, Toshiba and Hitachi, pay nothing if one of their reactors causes a disaster. At Fukushima, all three built reactors based on GE's flawed Mark I reactor design. Concerns that the reactor containment would fail during a major accident proved correct – this is exactly what happened.

The flaw was revealed decades earlier, but the problem wasn't fixed.

But the protection system means that GE, Hitachi and Toshiba and other big companies with enormous wealth are not held liable when their equipment contributes to a disaster.

Greenpeace is calling for the creation of a real nuclear liability system, one that makes both nuclear operators and their suppliers pay all the costs of their failures, not taxpayers.

If reactor suppliers knew they would be held liable in a disaster they would place more attention on the risks. They might even keep their flawed and unsafe products off the market.

India has a law that makes suppliers liable. And it frightens GE. John Flannery, chief executive, said on the 21st February that GE won't pursue the reactor business in India if the law isn't changed. "We are a private enterprise and we just can't take that kind of risk profiles," he said.

Last December, a senior US State Department official also said nuclear companies will "find it difficult" to take part in India's nuclear industry when they are exposed "to the risk of significant financial penalty."

Essentially, they are advocating for continued protection. And the costs of the Fukushima disaster make it crystal clear why nuclear operators and their reactor suppliers demand protection.

The full cost of the Fukushima disaster is estimated at US$250bn.

In a disaster, the protection system in most nuclear countries only requires a nuclear operator to pay a paltry $470m to $2bn and suppliers to pay nothing. Taxpayers pay the difference.

Of course, GE, Hitachi, Toshiba and other nuclear parts suppliers want to maintain the current system. Companies that supply reactors don't like financial risks, even if they don't design safe reactors.

But hundreds of millions of people live near the world's 436 reactors and a disaster at any one of these reactors could be catastrophic. People would suffer and taxpayers would pay almost all of the costs.

Absurdly, the powerful nuclear industry has greater protection and rights than the public – the ones at risk of radiation in a disaster. It's high time for that liability to be given back to the industry.

Reflections on Women's Day

Kumi Naidoo — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 14:03:00 +0100

Today hundreds of millions of women and men will celebrate International Women’s Day (IWD). The theme for IWD 2013 is “A promise is a promise: Time for action to end violence against women.”

The sad reality today is that 600 million women live in countries where domestic violence is not a crime and the most dangerous place for a woman is her own home.

Climate impacts also affect women and children first. Women are more likely to die in natural disasters than men and they are mostly affected by food crises, as the majority of the world’s small-scale farmers are women. Climate change is increasingly creating droughts, floods and heavy rains; agriculture is becoming more and more challenging in numerous parts of the world.

Mother and Child in Indonesia.40 year-old Ma'ani with her 6 month-old baby Anfi Setyawan Adi Putra in front of their house which is covered with thick cloth to protect it from coal dust from a nearby coal power plant in Cilacap Central Java. 12/25/2012 © Kemal Jufri / Greenpeace

If we looked at the deeper theme, we would see that even in the most liberal countries around the world, despite so many years of gender equality activism, we still have a bad balance sheet. Women continue to be underrepresented in politics, business and even civil society.

Yet, women, have courageously stood up for their rights in many parts of the world and the sheer act of survival in the face of adversity and violence on a day to day basis should be a source of inspiration driving us all into actively supporting the unfinished agenda of securing full gender equality globally.

Today we should take time to celebrate what the women’s movement has achieved but also rededicate ourselves to the huge challenges that still remain. It is critically important that men realise that they must be part of the struggle for gender equality. I fully recognize that it is important that men speak out against violence on women and speak in favour of gender equality.

The struggle for environmental justice is fundamentally linked to the struggle for gender justice. It is for this reason, I have responded positively to the invitation from the head of UN Women, Michel Bachelet, the former president of Chile, to serve on the advisory board of UN Women. I also responded positively to the UN Secretary General when he recently invited me to serve on the Men Engage Network which seeks to make men part of the solution. While it is an honour and privilege to be asked to contribute in this manner, this comes with much responsibility.

My appeal on this year’s IWD is that we all speak up against violence against women.

But also that we take a moment to celebrate and draw inspiration from the amazing women in civil society, who take risks, put their lives on the line sometimes on a daily basis and for their intellectual contributions to thinking about what Future We Want and so much more.

The journey to embrace gender equality activism for men can follow many routes. On this day, I would like to thank my late mother who shaped my thinking and life, to my two grandmothers who taught me so much about the world even though they were both illiterate and innumerate; to all the women whom I have had the privilege of working with or volunteering with in various civil society organisations in Africa and globally.

Today is your today. Lets work now to make every day women’s day: where we work for justice, peace, sustainability and equality.

Shell’s Arctic failure is Obama’s chance to act

Kumi Naidoo — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 15:01:00 +0100

Blog also published in Huffington Post on February 28th.

An unexpected thing happened last night: one of the biggest oil companies in the world — Shell — made a big decision acknowledging that the oil industry cannot operate safely in the Arctic. A decision that means one year of relief for the people and wildlife of the Arctic.

Shell, a company with one of the worst human rights and environmental records in history, has cancelled its plans to drill this summer in the Alaskan Arctic. A fitting end to a year-long tragicomedy of errors. A year that began with boasting and bravado and ended in a series of accidents and outright safety violations that proved Shell is far from Arctic ready. The bottom line is that no one is or will ever be ready, given the risks involved.

President Obama suspected that last month when he ordered a federal inquiry into Shell’s Arctic drilling programme. The US Coast Guard confirmed our fears just last week, listing 16 safety violations on Shell’s rig that ran aground in at the end of last year in Alaska. The onus is now on President Obama to make Shell’s temporary stay of Arctic drilling permanent.

Millions of us have been have been crying out for Shell to back off and leave the Arctic alone. Millions have been calling for a global sanctuary in the uninhabited area around the North Pole. Because we know that despite the big promises of being the best in the business, Shell was in fact putting the Arctic at risk every day it operated there.

Faced with a likely embarrassing outcome from the US Department of the Interior’s inquiry, coupled with the realisation that its broken chartered rigs could not be repaired in time to drill this year, Shell’s management did the only thing they could: pull the plug before it was pulled for them.

So what does this mean for the Arctic? It means one more year that Indigenous communities can fish and hunt and live off the land without fear of imminent disaster. One more year for narwhals to swim free in unspoilt seas. For polar bears and their cubs to roam freely.

It also means one more year for our growing movement to come together, to grow stronger, and turn Shell’s hiatus into a permanent Arctic Drilling ban.

We have another year to increase pressure for a global agreement, a ban on all drilling and industrial fishing, for the kind of protection that lasts forever, not just one year, and applies to all companies, not just one.

Shell is not alone in eyeing the Arctic.

Statoil is eyeing up the whole Arctic, from Alaska to Greenland and Norway. It has tripled R&D spending and plans to drill further north than anyone else. Russia’s Gazprom wants to produce the first ever oil from the offshore Arctic, but its decrepit rig and useless spill plan show how just reckless its Arctic ambitions are. Rosneft is opening up vast areas of the remote Kara Sea as part of a $500bn Arctic oil push with Exxon. Drilling could start next year. ConoccoPhilips has just submitted plans to the US government to drill in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska in 2014. And Canadian energy giant Husky has its paws all over Baffin Bay in Greenland, where drilling could even start later this year.

In May 2012, Greenpeace published Out in the Cold which analysed the financial risks faced by Shell - and therefore by their investors - in attempting to drill in the Arctic. The risks are almost too many to count, from questions about the commercial viability of some proposed Arctic projects, to the inadequate spill response plans that prove that no company -- not Shell or any other with Arctic ambitions -- has ever proven that they could clean-up a spill in treacherous Arctic waters.

Shell’s disastrous summer in the Chukchi sea has proved every one of those risks as real and present threats to investors in Shell — with $5 billion already spent and wasted, and substantial further costs to be incurred over 2013, and no returns in sight.

The fight is not over, and we mustn’t stop here. Next month, a group of Arctic Indigenous representatives, celebrities, Greenpeace activists and guides will embark on a mission through the splendour of the pristine Arctic, on behalf of nearly three million Arctic defenders, to plant a flag on the seabed at the North Pole; a flag for the future designed by the youth of the world that says this place belongs to all of us, not to one country or corporation.

So breathe a sigh of relief for the Arctic, enjoy a moment to reflect, even have a laugh at Shell if you like. But then lace up your boots and join us on the frontlines. We’ll be there, demanding climate justice, rallying for peace, and promoting change. Join us.

Governments must confront climate change in 2013

Kumi Naidoo — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 17:14:00 +0100

Blog also published on the Guardian's Sustainable Business Blog.

I hope I am wrong. But in 2013, we can expect to witness more devastating extreme weather events, fuelled and supercharged by the destructive power of a warming planet brought about by climate change.

I hope to witness – and be part of – the exponential growth in popular pressure to force governments to take steps to avert catastrophic climate change. I hope to see even more unusual allies joining the global movement demanding climate action.

In particular, women's movements, trade unions and religious organisations continue to get more actively involved in the struggle to avert catastrophic climate change. As Sharan Burrows, the head of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) puts it: "There are no decent jobs on a dead planet."

Every year I begin with the hope that governments will step up and provide the leadership humanity so badly needs. I hope they will stop being laggards, and that they will find the political will to act beyond short-sighted electoral cycles and the corrupting influence of some business elites. My prediction is that in 2013, they will start listening more.

We recently saw the Philippines' climate change commissioner at the UN Climate Talks in Doha tearfully ask: "If not us, then who? If not now, then when? If not here, then where?" He was not only asking on behalf of his people but on behalf of all of us everywhere.

Hot on the heels of superstorm Sandy wreaking havoc through the Caribbean and the US, typhoon Bhopa (Pablo) swept the coasts of the Philippines leaving hundreds of thousands homeless and killing more than 900 people.

Heavy equipment digs in the rubble of destroyed buildings near the railway line in the Hurricane Sandy devastated Rockaway community. 11/15/2012 © Bruce Cotler / Greenpeace

The storms came as a profound counter point to warnings from the World Bank that the current trajectory will mean a 4C warmer world by the turn of the century; making the dream of poverty eradication impossible. Investor groups and insurance companies have been demanding that governments create a strong regulatory framework to avert catastrophic climate change. They have not suddenly become ecologists, but as economists they understand climate change is no longer 'just' taking lives and destroying infrastructure but will wreak havoc on businesses.

The main question is whether these extreme weather events, the science, public opinion, and increasingly, economic interests, will change the political world and rouse our governments from their slumber.

The issue of government action will continue to be played out and hopefully led by president Obama in his second term. Will he step up and keep his promise to become a climate champion? During his acceptance speech, he said: "We want our children to live in an America that isn't burdened by debt, that isn't weakened by inequality, that isn't threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet."

Perhaps his change of will came too late for the Doha UN climate talks. But the time has come for decisive action, and I hope that 2013 will see the US become a world leader in addressing the imminent and real danger of catastrophic climate change.

I am not only looking at Obama for hope – other developed nations must also step up and Europe should rise to the role of global environmental champion. Emerging economies such as China, India, South Africa and Brazil need to take a more progressive role in constructing a climate saving deal at the UN. That work needs to start now rather than waiting for another two weeks of negotiation in two years time when governments have agreed to secure a fair, ambitious and legally binding climate treaty.

In 2013 I expect to see an increase in renewable energy investments and more innovation and technology that can deliver solutions for the climate while also delivering economic regeneration and helping lift people out of poverty.

This gives me hope that a transition to a low carbon global economy will become easier and that politicians will no longer be frightened by change and realise the need for progressive legislation. Legislation that creates an enabling environment to generate millions of new, decent, green jobs that ensure a double win for the climate and social development.

We can no longer talk about climate change as an ominous threat on the horizon; the climate has changed and what we saw last year is only a small bitter taste of our common future if action is not taken immediately to alter course.

I hope, I expect, and I appeal on behalf of current and future generations that 2013 goes down in history as the year that governments, industry and civil society secured our planet for current and future generations.

From Outside Magazine: My Perfect Adventure: Kumi Naidoo

Kumi Naidoo — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 13:46:00 +0100

Last week Outside Magazine published a Q&A entitled "My Perfect Adventure: Kumi Naidoo". For the full interview click here.

COP18 Outcome

Kumi Naidoo — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 12:37:00 +0100

Has Doha delivered? Here's the Al Jazeera Inside Story Special with Kumi Naidoo, Greenpeace International; Wael Hmaidan, Climate Action Network International; and environment specialist Mohammed Jassim Almaslamani. For a post COP 18 analysis, click here.

BBC HARDtalk sits down with Kumi Naidoo

Kumi Naidoo — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:08:00 +0100

Last week Kumi sat down for an interview with Zeinab Badawi on BBC's flagship programme HARDtalk.

Cynical Old King Coal shows its true colours

Kumi Naidoo — Thu, 22 Nov 2012 17:15:00 +0100

Shocking is the only way to describe the extraordinarily cynical comments made to the Financial Times (November 4, Global warming: Climate change needs action but it has a cost) by Milton Catelin, chief executive of the World Coal Association, in trying to downplay any idea that climate change may make coal a risky investment.

“So, I don’t know why you would assume action on climate change is more likely than action on poverty,” was Catelin's cavalier reassurance to allay any investor anxiety.

Sadly, he has a point, in that the world is failing to meet its commitments to the poor just as it is failing to rise to the threat of runaway climate change.

Yet, whether his comments were made off-the-cuff, and without thought, or that he is so confident that he doesn't feel the need to mask his true opinions: he is as outdated in his thinking as the industry he seeks to protect and promote.

As Catelin was trying to secure private profit at the expense of people and the planet, PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC) was warning of the consequences of runaway climate change. In its report, Low Carbon Economy Index, published on the same day, it warns that a failure to tackle carbon emissions threatens 6 degrees C of warming by the turn of the century. Such a scenario would of course make poverty permanent and add billions – people not dollars, it would be tens of billions of dollars -- to its toll. PwC is not focused on ending poverty -- nor are they hiding behind it -- they are about promoting investor posterity. The world they foresee does not tie with that being promoted by Catelin and the World Coal Association. No! They warn of policy panic and massive fossil fuel stranded investments.

So, rather than point out there will be no "concerted action on climate change" PwC sees it as necessary to prevent their clients from becoming poor.

It is the poor who will be, and are being, the fastest and hardest hit by climate change. But, Hurricane Sandy and PwC forecasts are just the latest clarion calls for climate action.

Hurricane Sandy Relief in NYC. Volunteers hand out hot soup to residents at a donation collection/distribution center in the Rockaways, days after Hurricane Sandy. 11/02/2012
© Michael Nagle / Greenpeace

PwC were joined in issuing stark warnings about inaction on climate change. The World Bank is equally frightened. On publishing its “Turn Down the Heat” report this week, World Bank President Jim Yong Kim said "It is my hope that this report shocks us into action". Again starkly different from Caitlin’s complacent fossil fuelled view.

The United Nations climate negotiations will commence in just a few days in Doha (Qatar), momentum is building with scientific warnings, finance sector warnings underpinned by extreme weather events. The questions is: are politicians listening. Will the reelected Obama Administration change its tune and reign in the wrecking crew it usually sends to the climate talks? Will developed and developing countries step back from mutually assured climate destruction and enter a new cooperative dialogue?

Everything is connected and to address the biggest challenge humanity is facing, the effort needs to be cooperative, collaborative and comprehensive. The world needs the investor community to make smart and ethical investments. We need win-win investments that tackle global poverty and inequity at the same time as ending the threat of runaway climate change. If we are to survive, the investment community needs to divest from climate change wreaking fossil fuels and switch to safe, clean, job creating renewable energy sources.

We need our leaders, business and political to stop waiting for the other to blink. We them to act on what they know and not on what they think the other is prepared to do. Somebody has to go first.

We need real business and political leadership, and not the cynical self-serving delusions of Milton Catelin of the World Coal Association.

In the end climate change does not discriminate between rich and poor and nature does not negotiate.

On the future of America’s children or whether Obama will have a different approach this time around

Kumi Naidoo — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 22:54:00 +0100

I felt relieved when I heard Obama’s victory speech this morning, and I particularly resonated with him when he spoke about the future of America’s children.

“We want our children to live in an America that isn’t burdened by debt, that isn’t weakened by inequality, that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet,” said Obama during his speech. Crowds burst into applause, while probably millions of other citizens of the world heard his vision.

My relief came with the realisation that Barack Obama shares our vision. When President Obama was elected four years ago, his challenge was to stop the US from going into financial freefall. His challenge is even greater now – he needs to play a more assertive roleinternationally on the issue of climate change and stop us all from climate freefall.

While US President Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, activists demonstrated on the streets of Oslo. Activists held signs that read "Obama: Our Climate. Your decision." 12/10/2009 © Christian Åslund / Greenpeace

The reality is that President’s Obama first four years did not deliver enough on environmental issues generally and on climate change specifically. We are cautiously hopeful that in his second term he will use more of his political capital to advance the climate change agenda at home, but also globally.

But we also give notice that if we will see more foot dragging on the part of his administration, we will intensify peaceful civil disobedience to bring more urgency to President Obama, as well as to other leaders.

Obama has nothing to lose in his second term. Rather than put his faith in a gridlocked Congress, he should look out to the people who applauded when he spoke out about climate change. At this particular historical moment, he can generate a popular response to the climate crisis that will make change possible.

President Obama should set out an agenda and be specific about how he is going to move the US to reducing its emissions, increase investment in renewable energy and actually generate tens of thousands of jobs for Americans at home; but he should also have a different approach to the role that the US has globally on the issue of climate change.

We hope that the Obama administration will take a different posture at global climate change negotiations and become an agent of change, instead of remaining an obstructionist. That would be a real relief.

Africa's False Dilemma

Kumi Naidoo — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:34:00 +0100

Ecological and economic welfare are two sides of the same coin and having to choose between developing economies and societies on one hand, and protecting the environment on the other, is a false dilemma. This false dilemma is often used by private companies to dismiss civil society and local communities, mislead policy makers, and then carry on with questionable practices.

Let me explain. Sub-Saharan Africa has been the scene of a huge land grab in recent years, with overseas governments and businesses buying up or securing long-term leases on large tracts of land. Some of the deals are straightforward acquisitions but many are contentious to say the least.

According to a number of the agribusiness corporations that are investing heavily in developing vast palm oil plantations throughout Central and Western Africa their primary aim is bringing much-needed revenue to local economies, providing jobs and improving the lives of the people living there. Don't let yourselves be fooled by this seemingly altruistic discourse: we rarely hear any mention of the millions to be made in trying to satisfy the unquenchable global thirst for palm oil. Could this be the real motivation?

These seeds are ready for the press. The fruit itself is turned into "Palm oil," while the nut is used for "Kernel oil." This is the local variety grown by smallholders. (Copyright Jan-Joseph Stok / Greenpeace)

A perfect illustration of this false dilemma is Herakles Farms' rhetoric in relation to their latest project in Cameroon. Clearing of forest has recently begun; but this forest is important because it provides a key corridor between five protected areas including the iconic Korup National Park. This concession sits within the Guinean forested region of western Africa, which has been identified as one of the 25 most important biodiversity hotspots on earth, and is roughly 10 times the size of Manhattan, the island that is home to the headquarters of Herakles Farms.

The forests of Cameroon store huge amounts of carbon, critical to maintaining the global climate and preventing huge emissions of CO2, but they are also essential for local communities. These forests provide a home and income for thousands of people through cocoa farming and other commodities including palm oil production.

More than 70 percent of land in sub-Saharan Africa falls under the definition of customary domain. This means land that is formally state-owned but has been used by local communities, often for generations, although these customary users, such as those in Mundemba, Fabe and other areas of Cameroon affected by proposed developments, often have very limited rights.

The palm oil project in Cameroon has provoked fierce local opposition and division. Many local farmers Greenpeace spoke to in the villages falling under the concession area say that people have been forced off their land or that lines physically demarcating the concession area have been drawn on their land without prior notice. According to one lady from Fabe village who has been evicted from her farm:

"If the company takes all of the land then they will be the death of all of us. What will we live off? We will not have a livelihood. (...) Where will people do their farming? "

It seems incongruous that Herakles Farms claims it is trying to improve the lives of local people but then there is scarcely any consultation with those same people over what is to be done with the land they depend on for their livelihoods, nor any serious acknowledgment of the risks posed to local environments and the global climate.

Palm oil is used by Cameroon people as a basis for their food consumption. (Copyright Jan-Joseph Stok / Greenpeace)

As an African, I am used to questioning supposed solutions to poverty, especially when they are implemented without the collaboration of the people they are allegedly helping. As the head of Greenpeace, I can say that we encourage development, but do not support development that is not mindful of people and nature.

Blog post published on Huffington Post on October 26, 2012.

Living for a Cause – Greenpeace and Its People

Kumi Naidoo — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 12:08:00 +0200

“What is the most surprising thing about working at Greenpeace?” I asked a new colleague at work the other day. She looked to the side and took a moment before she replied. She finally turned to me and said: “The most surprising thing is Greenpeace staff: there is nothing really shocking about them. They are…normal.”

I immediately understood what my colleague was referring to. When I joined Greenpeace three years ago I expected to see more people who looked like me, with long beards, shirts with flowers on them and so on. Actually what I found here were scientists, intellectuals, some of the best communications specialists and interestingly enough, people from the business community: an eclectic community made up of people with a wide variety of skills and maybe most importantly, with an infinite passion for our planet.

People gravitate to Greenpeace because we’re not an organisation that talks and talks; we take the action that needs to be taken. I think for young people in particular, the fact that we’re willing to do this rather than just talk is something that resonates very strongly with them and makes us “real” in their eyes. But it’s not everyday that we climb oil rigs or disrupt high level meetings to get our messages across. Most of us at Greenpeace spend eight hours or more a day working on our computers in the office; we all feel empowered and engaged directly in the fight to save the environment by the actions taken by our staff and our many volunteers worldwide.

I encourage you to take another look at what we do here at Greenpeace, if you haven’t already. I’m certain you’ll find something unexpected – like I did.

https://www.facebook.com/NaidooKumi
https://twitter.com/kuminaidoo

Marching for A Future That Works

Kumi Naidoo — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 11:00:00 +0200

More than 150,000 people came to London last Saturday to protest against austerity measures and march for A Future That Works. The rally was organised by the Trade Union Congress, the national trade union centre in the UK representing the vast majority of organised workers.

The protest raised attention to UK’s long-term economic problems and to the fact that the UK will see less jobs given that the government is focusing on the deficit. Trade unions suggest that the government should aim to create new jobs, especially for young people, and encourage companies to raise pay, penalise big bonuses and invest in training and long-term growth.

Among the speakers at the event was also Ed Miliband, Leader of Labour Party, and before I got on the stage we had a brief conversation. I took the opportunity to bring up the lack of progress on climate change negotiations.

For those of you who were not able to come to London, here’s a quick video with some of the points I raised during my short speech:

Global Campaigning 2.0

Kumi Naidoo — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 15:35:00 +0200

‘Clicktivism’ has come of age as the digital driver of the #PowerOfWe. Malcolm Gladwell’s infamous dismissal of online activism as ineffective signature gathering missed the point in 2010, when he coined the phrase; sharing information, crowd sourcing concerns and solutions are driving change and are amongst the hallmarks of campaigning 2.0.

More than two billion people have access to the Internet, apparently eight new people are getting connected every second. Roughly a billion people are on Facebook, where they like, share, debate, inform and alter decisions that are being taken about our common future.

We, at Greenpeace, no longer simply count our supporters as those who donate money. Our thinking has evolved and embraced the ‘power of we’. There are millions making up the ‘we’ that is Greenpeace: we are staff, donators, Facebook fans, Twitter followers, online activists, grassroots activists and fellow bloggers.

To help support Blog Action Day we are giving access to entire archive of 150,000 photos and videos, for use by participants in their posts. (Instructions and terms to access Greenpeace’s 150,000 photo and video archive.)

As looking through the 150,000 photos and videos might be a bit daunting to some, check out a smaller collection of 59 photos that represent what the Power of We theme picked by the Blog Action Day folks.

Blog Action Day is about celebrating the use of digital tools like blogs, social networks and mobiles. It’s about people meeting online, in community halls, each other’s houses and on the streets. It’s about celebrating campaigning for change and many many inspirational stories. Check out the blogs and be inspired by the stories of activism at http://blogactionday.org/ you can even follow a link to our own Making Waves blogging pages.

Link to feed of blog posts

Commitment to a sustainable peace

Kumi Naidoo — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 20:34:00 +0200

What is peace? In a world at times ravaged by armed conflict, from Africa to Asia, is peace simply an absence of war? Or is there more to it than that?

Today, on the International Day of Peace, it is important to reflect on some of these questions, particularly for an organisation like Greenpeace, whose founding values revolve around the defence of peace and a wide understanding that the issues of ecology and peace are two sides of the same coin.

Greenpeace is joining hands today with members of the global NGO coalition ‘Peace One Day’s Global Truce 2012’, in the simple objective of calling for and working towards a global day of ceasefire and non-violence.

Thousands of people across the world are dying as a result of senseless armed conflict. Many more also are dying in equally senseless ways as a direct consequence of the financial and human resources being squandered in pursuit of military solutions to disputes.

Poverty, for instance, inflicts devastation tantamount to war by taking the lives of around 50,000 people from preventable causes every day, areas in which the vast intellectual and financial resources squandered on war and conflict could be put to far better use.

Rather than spend money preparing for conflict at any cost (to the tune of an astonishing $1.7 trillion, globally, this year alone), governments must focus their efforts on avoiding conflict, at all costs. That means redirecting the millions spent stockpiling the machinery of war and investing those same millions in the machinery of sustainability and equity.

This echoes the wishes of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who on this day of International Peace is calling for ‘Sustainable Peace for a Sustainable Future’. The destruction of our environment poses one of the greatest threats to peace because many conflicts are sparked by the desire to control dwindling resources.

Make no mistake: war wreaks havoc on the environment as well as on human life, whether it’s the monumental environmental destruction involved in testing nuclear armaments, or the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

In fact, the environment is often the first casualty of war – not to mention the ‘hidden’ war on the environment declared through resource drilling, mining and extraction. This war – also waged by governments and corporations – entails the same abuses and mutilations of ‘people’ wars, and is similarly fought in the pursuit of profits.

Take the Arctic, for example. The Arctic sea ice is melting faster than ever before but rather than heeding natures warning that our addiction to fossil fuels is destabilising the global climate, nations are racing to stake a claim on the Arctic so they can drill for the very fossil fuels that are causing the problem.

Our climate is warming, and like war, putting billions of people’s future in jeopardy. Climate change is taking its place as a major driver of conflict, as a major threat to international and national peace and security.

Humanitarian crises will occur with greater frequency and with more devastating effect if governments do not act to bring climate change under control. And yet governments, nationally and multilaterally, repeatedly fail to take decisive action.

There is an old Inuit saying: ‘Only when the ice breaks will you truly know your friends from your enemies’. The ice is breaking; we see its effects in sea ice levels as in record heat waves; as in the drying up of lake Chad, depriving millions of their source of livelihood.

Today, on this International Day of Peace, we reaffirm our belief that in order for the future to be peaceful it must be green.

A letter to President Putin

Kumi Naidoo — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:53:00 +0200

Dear Mr. President,

I write these lines to you on board the Greenpeace vessel Arctic Sunrise, as we leave the Russian economic zone waters north of the Kola Peninsula. You may be aware that for the last 5 days people from our ship were engaging in a peaceful protest against the planned start up of
drilling for oil on the Russian Arctic shelf by Gazprom’s Prirazlomnaya platform. I want to personally assure you that these protests were in no way directed against the interests of Russia, of people working on the platform, or even against the company of Gazprom. These protests are
part of a global campaign that we have been carrying out for a number of years, protesting against oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean, from Greenland to Alaska.

Mr. President. It is my deeply held conviction that oil production in the Arctic is counter to the environmental and economic security of Russia. Two weeks ago I had the privilege of meeting with your minister of Environment and Natural Resources, Mr Donskoy. I presented him the
findings of the group of respected Russian scientists, who concluded that oil production even on a comparatively near- shore platform such as Prirazlomnaya, carries a high risk of severe contamination of the fragile Arctic marine and coastal environment, while the ability to clean up
such a spill is extremely low, due to the climactic and geographic conditions of the region.

Mr. President, I would like to emphasize again, that this is not unique to Russia. Similar analyses have yielded similar results for oil production on the Greenlandic and US Arctic shelves.

The Minister also received from us a report presented earlier this year which analyses the economic feasibility of oil production on the Arctic shelf. It is clear that the production costs are so high as to make the venture unprofitable. Indeed, instead of contributing positively to the Russian economy, it is more likely to become a drain on Federal, and perhaps regional budgets.

Ironically, we are just now passing close to the Shtokman gas field – a project which has now hit what seems to be a final obstacle and is in the process of dissolution, testifying its economic unfeasibility.

Mr. President I want to be very clear, we are not calling for stopping the use of petroleum products today. However it is clear that global oil production will not be able to be maintained much longer at the current level. We will be forced to develop and implement alternative, sustainable sources of energy. Russia possesses an immense wealth of such sources – from wind and solar to biomass and geothermal, as well as a huge potential for energy conservation which can provide cheaper and quicker energy equivalents than it planned to obtain in the Arctic offshore – Russia is capable to become the LEADING country in the world for developing clean energy for the future.

Mr. President, I am deeply concerned that the decision to develop oil fields on the Arctic shelf risks devastating the environment, while closing the channels of investment towards renewable energy sources. I completely support the sentiment you expressed at the congress of the All-Russian public organization “Business Russia” when you said: "It is obvious for us that the ambitious goals that we set for ourselves can only be achieved within the framework of a new model of economic growth, whose driver will be not the resource complex, but a powerful high
technology-based business…”

Opening extremely expensive oil fields in Arctic offshore doesn’t help to stop the dependence of Russian national budget on oil and gas and on volatile oil and gas prices on the international market.

Mr. President, one other aspect needs to be mentioned. The climate crisis that the scientific community has been warning about for years is upon us. The data released 3 days ago by scientists from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) clearly shows that the extent of the Arctic ice cover is at its all-time minimum – frightening proof of the fact that the geophysical profile of our planet is undergoing rapid and violent changes, which threaten all of our futures, and indeed are already causing humanitarian catastrophes, both in my homeland, where droughts are devastating the African continent, as well as in yours, Mr. President, where we witnessed widespread forest fires two years ago. I am sure you agree with me, Mr. President, that it is not fair, that people of the developing world who have contributed least to carbon emissions are the ones that are already paying the first and most brutal impacts of climate change.

Part of the mission of Greenpeace is to bring to the public eye the destruction that our planet is suffering. Our ship will now proceed to the edge of the Arctic ice north of the Norwegian coast where together with representatives of the scientific community and representatives of the global public we will document and bear witness to the reality of the disappearing of the Earth’s ice shield.

Mr. President, I am reminded of your words in the interview to a Canadian newspaper in 2000. You said “I’ve always admired people who devote their lives to environmental problems, I’ve watched with astonishment as a group of people on a little boat oppose a military or industrial ship. I must say it inspires only sympathy.” Mr. President, I hope that you understand that our protest at Prirazlomnaya was done with the spirit of taking personal action that you say you admire. In the same spirit I would like to extend an invitation to you. I would be honored if you joined us on board the Arctic Sunrise in the upcoming trip to the retreating edge of the Arctic ice, so you could see for yourself the beauty of this remarkable region, the risk that it is exposed to, and hopefully be inspired to use your position to protect it against destruction.

We need global leadership to ensure that the Arctic is declared a global sanctuary and I appeal to you to step forward to provide it.

With deep respect,

Kumi Naidoo

Executive Director Greenpeace International

Cold hands, determined hearts

Kumi Naidoo — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 15:11:00 +0200

When I spoke to my friends and family this weekend I was unanimously scolded. After Friday’s 15-hour occupation of Gazprom’s Prirazlomnaya oil platform in the Pechora Sea, they all said “you’re getting too old for this!” With blue hands and feet from the cold, and in the midst of being treated by our ship doctor Marcelo for hypothermia, for a moment I thought they could be right.

But then I returned to the spirit on board our ship the Arctic Sunrise; the eager faces of my fellow activists Sini, Jens, Lars, Basil and Terry, the determination of our Captain Vlad, and the rest of the committed crew who were standing up for what they believed was right. Coming back to this I knew that the risks had been worth it.

For me, an action like the one we’ve just completed in the Arctic is Greenpeace at its best. Teams united in the one goal, taking a risk to confront dangerous industry at the frontlines of destruction, and shining a light on an environmental crime that happens out of the sights and minds of most regular people.

I’ve been an activist since the age of 15. I’ve seen the inside of a prison cell for the cause, but nobody - even with experience - can honestly say that there is no fear when you set out to take action involving risk to personal safety, or the risk of imprisonment. We were feeling it acutely in the days preceding the action as we traced through our different scenarios and plans. But I felt encouraged; we gave each other confidence.

And then our time came. We sailed early morning towards Gazprom’s oil platform, and soon some of my worst fears came true. During my first attempt to climb, I got knocked off course by a big swell and didn't make it up. I spent several minutes in the icy water fighting with the rope. Defeated and fighting the cold, I had to retreat to the boat.

My fellow activists were now 15 metres above me and I sat there, confidence shaken. Jono, an experienced climber and Sunrise crewmember, came to the boat to talk me through it. He checked all of my gear, made sure everything was in place. “Don’t rush,” he told me. “Take your time. You're going to be fine.”

And as we spoke and I thought of our task, I stepped up again.

The platform crew had already begun rocking the ropes and spraying us with icy blasts of water, but I had to make it up there.

As I climbed, I kept my eyes locked on Basil and Terry. They were coaxing me: “You’re almost there! One step at a time — that’s it!”

Finally, I made it. I looked out towards the Arctic Sunrise, some three miles away, and above me to the pinnacle of this monstrous platform. Elated, I was suddenly struck by our task – the reason why we were there.

Our children’s future is at stake. We have a responsibility to future generations. We need people now to wake up to taking responsibility for our planet.

I thought of the Indigenous Peoples of northern Russia, who I’d spoken to the week earlier. I thought about the way their land and culture and way of life has already been negatively impacted by the oil industry. It moved me to speak with them, and I felt the helplessness that they must feel.

In many ways it’s already too late, especially given yesterday’s news about the melting rate of Arctic sea ice. Time really is running out.

Another thing about standing face to face with a monstrous oil platform is realising sheer human might. If nothing else, these constructions are incredible feats of engineering, and if you think of the human and financial resource that goes into building one, you can’t help but think of what could be if the same energy was put into clean, renewable alternatives.

Looking up at the workers on the platform, it was clear that many of them agreed with us. Many of them spend long weeks away from their families and loved ones doing risky work just to earn a living. They offered lots of ‘thumbs up’ and peace signs. One worker, who was (presumably) ordered to spray us, stopped to ask if we were ok. There were a few who threw objects at us, but certainly not the majority.

Like us they’re also being held hostage to the fossil fuel industry. Like us, they do not have access to options, and this is what we’re setting out to change. Perched on this platform as we were, the level of arrogance and denial of science in government and industry astounded me.

And so I write to you today not as the Executive Director of Greenpeace International, but as one of a team of activists who stood up to say 'No' to a Russian oil giant determined to destroy our fragile Arctic.

Our campaign is far from over, and our resolve is strengthened from this experience. I’ve been inspired by the tenacity I’ve seen around me this week, the endurance in the face of adversity, and the willingness of decent people to put their bodies in the way of destruction in an act of defiance.

The next stop for the Arctic Sunrise will be to the edge of the Arctic sea ice to document its disappearance. There we will continue bearing witness to environmental injustices while mobilising the world to join with us.

To date nearly 2,000,000 people have pledged to fight the Arctic fight with us, and we encourage millions more. I thank you for your continued support. Without you we couldn’t do the work we do, and together I look forward to working with you again in the future.

If you have thoughts or comments on this action, we'd love to hear. What would you do to protect the Arctic?

Please join us together with your friends and family at savethearctic.org

Open letter to the people of Russia

Kumi Naidoo — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 12:18:00 +0200

Dear Russian friends,

You may be aware that this morning at approximately 4am, five activists and I scaled the Prirazlomnaya oil platform to take peaceful action against Gazprom’s work in the Arctic, to highlight the dangers of its plans to drill here in the Pechora Sea.

The amount of oil that is lost every year in spills throughout Russia is roughly equivalent to the amount that Prirazlomnaya would produce annually. It would be far less expensive for the oil companies, the government, the people of Russia, and certainly the Indigenous Peoples who depend on this environment, to simply recover and use the oil lost in spills, than it would be to exploit the pristine Arctic shelf. In short, drilling in the Arctic will not benefit the average Russian citizen.

Gazprom is set to begin dangerous drilling on the Arctic shelf with no viable oil spill response plan. It's not a question of if an oil spill will happen, but when — and when it does, Gazprom would be powerless to stop it. Just last week Greenpeace Russia uncovered a startling secret: the emergency plan for oil spill mitigation of Gazprom Neft Shelf, a Gazprom subsidiary, has expired, meaning any drilling they do here would be illegal under Russian legislation.

During my time in Moscow last week, I met with the Federal Minister of Environment and Natural Resources and his senior advisers. I met with several journalists and civil society activists, and had the privilege of speaking with Indigenous Peoples representatives on whose traditional territory much of Russia’s onshore oil drilling is carried out, with disastrous results.

Together with Greenpeace Russia, we presented data from esteemed Russian scientists — the same ones often hired by the oil industry — that confirmed those fears: Gazprom and emergency services could not cope with an oil spill disaster here. The scientists calculated 60,000 different scenarios if an oil spill were to occur at this platform, and their research showed very clearly that in fact it would take the company days to mount a serious response. Meanwhile, the toxic oil would reach the shores of three protected wildlife and nature reserves in just 20 hours.

I took part in this peaceful action today to declare — together with Russians and citizens around the world — an end to the madness that is putting the profits of an elite few above the interests and safety of the rest of us. We are also here standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the Indigenous Peoples of Northern Russia, many of whom last week signed a powerful joint statement opposing further disastrous oil drilling on and near their traditional territories, and demanding that their voices be heard in this critical debate. We humbly stand with them in their struggle.

In our desire to highlight this plight, we hope – and know – that actions do speak louder than words.

As you well know, Russia is also experiencing climate impacts. Scientists have concluded that the 2010 heat waves and forest fires were induced by a changing climate. In addition, more than 60% of Russia is covered by permafrost, which releases methane gas as it melts — a powerful greenhouse gas that is even more dangerous than carbon dioxide. And as the permafrost melts, the ground shifts, damaging buildings, bridges, roads, and dangerous oil and gas infrastructure. Even the Russian Ministry of Emergency has warned that by 2030, more than 25% of all buildings in Northern Russia could be damaged by the impacts of melting permafrost.

Time is running out for us to avert catastrophic climate change — and oil giants like Shell and Gazprom must be stopped from profiting from a disaster of their own making while doing further damage to our planet. It is clearly madness to ignore the fact that the only reason we are able to even consider drilling in these remote parts is as a result of the melting arctic ice, which is caused by emissions from oil, coal and gas. As the ice melts, our planet warms, which causes the ice to melt, and our planet to warm — it is a vicious circle.

We are effectively destroying the refrigerator or the air conditioner of our planet, destabilizing our global climate and threatening our children and grandchildren's future. Any day now, the scientific community will announce that the Arctic sea ice has reached an all-time low, below even 2007 levels. This is a disastrous record that we continue to break, and a warning cry of a planet in peril that we must not ignore.

Join me and my fellow activists at www.greenpeace.org or www.savethearctic.org and watch for live updates as the action unfolds. And please, take action with us – you can follow me on Twitter and Greenpeace on Facebook. Please share with your friends, so that together we can shine a light on this global environmental crime, and stop it before it becomes a global disaster.

Saving the Arctic and what it’s got to do with Russia

Kumi Naidoo — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 17:30:00 +0200

Today marks my third visit to Russia, the last being in 2006 when I had the privilege of meeting President Putin to talk about the freedoms with which NGOs can operate in this country. In a curious turn of events, and some six years later, both Putin and freedoms are still very much in the news.

You can take your pick from any number of scandals currently making headlines in Russia: planned legislation aimed at hampering NGO activity and the right to protest, draconian laws aimed at internet censorship – even the fallout from the recent performance by punk group Pussy Riot, which has garnered international attention.

What is different, between my last visit and now, however, is the scale and unbridled nature of the public’s response. Russians have taken to the streets en masse to protest the shrinking democratic space in their country – up to 100,000 at various times in Moscow alone to speak out against Putin’s rule. It’s clear that Russians are no longer prepared to tolerate civil injustices and are increasingly prepared to speak up fearlessly in their own defense.

Amid this atmosphere, I am here to address the shrinking democratic space surrounding organisations like ours, but also to bring to people’s attention an outrage of a different sort; one that goes beyond Russian borders to a plight much more epic – that of our shared Arctic.

I’ve said elsewhere that the quest to save the Arctic is one of the defining battles of our time, neatly bringing together the tensions between economy and ecology that exist in our modern world.

Russia today is a country in the midst of much welcomed growth and expansion – yet progress is happening at such a rapid rate that it has become reckless; short term interests are being vigorously pursued, yet the more pertinent question of longer term impacts is rarely addressed.

At Greenpeace we’re campaigning for a halt to the senseless destruction of the Arctic in the quest for oil. We seek preservation of this pristine wilderness, and a focus instead on the many abundant sources of renewable energy that exist, and are viable alternatives, today.

When I confronted Arctic destruction by occupying the Leiv Eiriksson oil rig last year, I took with me 50,000 signatures in opposition. This year, we count well over 1.3 million voices from around the world (a great many of them Russian too); they are people who are prepared to be counted as they say No to the willful destruction of our planet.

I am here to say No to environmental destruction as much as I say No to limits on freedom of expression and assembly. History teaches us that in all major struggles, whether it’s women’s rights, apartheid, or the US civil rights movement, that it’s only when people rise in peaceful acts of civil disobedience that the course of history changes.

Living for a cause

Kumi Naidoo — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 13:37:00 +0200

This November marks three years since I was appointed Executive Director of Greenpeace International. Coming to Greenpeace represented an opportunity for me to actually be part of an organisation that has taken, and continues to take a leadership role in warning about the dangers of environmental destruction and climate change.

Greenpeace is a movement that has consistently campaigned through non-violent direct actions; and, at a time when civil disobedience appears to be the only way we can actually push our governments, Greenpeace’s way of working offers us the most promise.

We remain an evolving organisation, however, and as I reflect on almost three years in office, I would like to share with you some insights into what I think Greenpeace means today.

I'd like you to consider a different side of Greenpeace – the side that I’ve come to know. To do this, today I’m also launching a series of occasional web videos as part of new series called ‘Living for a Cause.’

In it, I present an ‘insider’ view of Greenpeace, aimed at people who know of us, but perhaps haven’t thought about becoming involved with us. I'm also reaching out to people who may have dismissed us in the past.

I’m inspired daily by the passion and ambition of Greenpeace activists – our most public face – but also by the many ‘behind-the-scenes’ individuals who help make our organisation operate smoothly.

After starting my new role with Greenpeace I was surprised to see that many of my pre-conceptions about this organisation did not hold true – and it’s this surprise that I wanted to share more widely.

Whether it’s the image of the ‘hippy activist’ with a heavy beard, or the ‘left-wing anarchy’ for which we are often typecast, on almost every front my perceptions of Greenpeace have been challenged.

We live in a world today that’s seen first hand the failure of the multilateral process at events like Rio+20, the strengthening grip of corporate interests in the political arena and the shrinking democratic space around civil society movements.

All of which calls for a different kind of activism. As an organic, international organisation, Greenpeace is well-placed to meet those challenges. In fact, in the past three years, we’ve changed much about the way we campaign, and how we organise ourselves.

Shifting resources

One of the most significant shifts is on a policy level, where we acknowledge the growing importance of the Global South.

We are increasingly focusing resources on countries such as Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, the so-called ‘BRICS,’ and in my time these are where some of our most proud campaign highlights have come from.

In China, where it is not easy for an organisation like ours to operate, our global “Detox” campaign has been successful in securing commitments from global corporations including Nike, Adidas and H&M, plus the largest Chinese Sportswear brand Li-Ning.

These international brands are now taking responsibility for their supply chains and working with suppliers to eliminate the use and release of all hazardous chemicals from their production processes and products by 2020.

This will have a profound impact on the rivers, lakes and waterways in large manufacturing countries like China.

Crisis response

In Fukushima last year, we again demonstrated our capacity to respond quickly in a time of crisis.

In the wake of the March 2011 earthquake and resulting nuclear disaster, our nuclear team’s network of trained radiation specialists investigated, documented and exposed the extent of radioactive contamination beyond the so-called exclusion zone.

They provided independent information to a frightened public, forcing the relevant authorities to improve protection measures.

Increasingly, we are also focusing on corporate responsibility and in Indonesia, we have campaigned against multinational companies that have been linked to deforestation.

Thanks to pressure from our supporters, companies such as Nestle and Mattel have changed their sourcing policies to help protect Indonesia's rainforests and peatlands.

Peaceful confrontation

Although we’ve changed in many aspects, Greenpeace is still an organisation that speaks truth to power.

Although we prefer dialogue, we’re not afraid to peacefully confront destructive industries and create urgency for action.

Last year, when I boarded Cairn Energy’s Leiv Eiriksson oil rig off the coast of Greenland – and was later arrested – I took with me a petition signed by 50,000 supporters from around the world.

By contrast this year, as part of the Save the Arctic campaign, we have collected more than 1 million signatures from people who support our call for a ban on offshore oil drilling in the Arctic.

This is a clear signal that more and more people are losing faith in their government’s abilities to lead, and why organisations like Greenpeace remain important today.

If you’re not a supporter already, I urge you to reconsider.

Although we appreciate financial support, we also increasingly seek ‘social’ support through the many online campaign activities we run.

Your commitment will ultimately bring rewards and there is nothing more rewarding than a life spent living for a cause.