Skip to main content

Why I support Greenpeace

We are now losing orangutans at a rate of 25 a day as a result of unsustainable palm oil. Rang-tan represents all of these orangutans whose home, the Indonesian rainforest, has been destroyed for palm oil plantations by big brands like Unilever, Nestle and MondelĂ©z (who make Cadbury's).


The beauty of our planet Earth depends on life, just as life depends on the beauty of our planet.  We humans can appreciate its breathtaking beauty.  We stand in awe of its mountains and rivers; of its great lakes and its rainforests.   We share our photos on social media, as more of this world has become accessible to us. We have the power to destroy, and the power to protect and nurture it.

Nature is our treasure.  Perhaps this is because it needs protecting from us.  We have become its biggest threat.

Yet, we rarely take the political decisions necessary to protect it.  Utility always seems to prevail.  We need more food to feed a growing population.  We need more houses and more roads to link them to places of work.  We need more, and more, and more.  "Need' is the buzz word.  Necessity!

"More" became our political mantra under the guise of 'growth'.  Growth is 'good', let's grow!  For decades 'growth' has dominated the political landscape.   It has been a political 'get out of jail' card.

Instead of sharing more fairly and judiciously the precious resources of our planet, we plunder more.  Inequality is dealt with not by 'redistribution' but by growth.   If the rich are allowed to get richer, then we will all be better off.  'Greed' of the wealthy has been wrapped up and packaged as a new form of goodness.  It is called greed only if they don't pay their taxes - 'their fair share'.  But there is nothing 'fair' about it.  It is simply the freedom to exploit the worlds resources and continue to plunder our fragile planet.


We are the children of this Earth.  All it takes is the political will to act.  We need to save our planet from ourselves.

Populist Politicians focus on migration and the call for 'protectionist borders'.  They want to erect walls to keep people out.  Yet, what needs protecting is nature.  Can we do that?

Photo courtesy of Greenpeace

Instead of erecting 'walls' we need to understand what drives human migration.  Not least of the factors driving human migrations are wars and climate change.  Instead of turning inwards, we need to look at what we are doing to our planet.

We need to create sustainable living that fosters and works with our planet.  This requires difficult political and lifestyle choices.  Global trade is driving climate change.

This is why I am supporting Greenpeace.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba...

Ethical considerations of a National DNA database.

Plans for a national DNA database   will be revealed by the Prime Minister this week. This is the same proposal the Tories and Liberal Democrats opposed when presented by the Blair government because they argued it posed  a threat to civil liberties. This time it is expected to offer an 'opt-out' clause for those who do not wish their data to be stored; exactly how this would operate isn't yet clear. But does it matter and does it really pose a threat to civil liberties? When it comes to biology and ethics we tend to have a distorted view of DNA and genetics. This is for two reasons. The first is that it is thought that our genome somehow represents the individual as a code that then gets translated. This is biologically speaking wrong. DNA is a template and part of the machinery for making proteins. It isn't a code in anything like the sense of being a 'blueprint' or 'book of life'.  Although these metaphors are used often they are just that, metapho...

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to...