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 Mondeléz (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

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As