Heroes of Ukraine

«Market Leader» - news and previews making you rich.

Wednesday, 5 May 17:35 (GMT -05:00)



Business And Politics News

Greenpeace: Fight For Ecology Or Against USA’s Rivals?


 

The followers of Conspiracy Theory and a range of respected scientists assume that Greenpeace has become a major weapon of unfair rivalry. Obviously, Greenpeace denies any political bias.
 
Is Greenpeace really unbiased in its battle for the Antarctic? Why do more people start questioning the ecologists’ good faith and intensions?
 

 

 

 

Battle For Antarctica
 
Greenpeace is indignant at Gazprom and Shell’s ambitious plans aimed at developing the oil-rich areas of the Arctic shale. Greenpeace activists are determined to prevent the oil giants from reaching their Arctic goals by all means. The major argument is that these companies have no efficient oil-collection technologies in case of an oil spill while there are many rare species living in the Arctic area. For them [the species], oil development equals death. So, they say it is necessary to prevent the possible consequences of irresponsible oil production.
 
Greenpeace ’s plan is fairly rich in activities. In August 2012, Greenpeace activists used four speed boats to block the “Anna Akhmatova” ship from bringing workers to the rig. However, the attempt failed. On September 5th 2012, Greenpeace blocked the road to Gazprom’s office in Moscow. Protesters also put up a large banner on Gazprom's fence that read, “Gazprom Kills Arctic.” However, the activists were detained and fined for unauthorized protests.
 
Greenpeace is against the use of oil products as they pollute the environment. They are trying to set up an improvised Arctic reserve. Greenpeace keeps involving celebrities to promote the idea. The list includes Paul McCartney, Penélope Cruz, Robert Redford etc. Celebrities do agree to participate: Why not take advantage of such a free PR move as participating in a movement against polluting the environment? Today’s humankind seems to feel guilty towards the nature. That is why people are fairly sensitive about environmental issues.
 
For reference sake, the Arctic shale is believed to store some 90 billion barrels of crude oil and 1.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. This immense storage of energy carriers is officially ownerless, which means any country around the globe, including the USA, Russia, China, Canada, can take a piece of the huge pie.
 
However, Russia is the frontrunner in terms of developing the Arctic shale. Russia has better conditions for developing the required infrastructure. Moreover, the Arctic ice is melting faster, which only makes it easier to develop the Arctic shale. Obviously, the USA cannot put up with the situation.
 
Hardly had the Americans rejoiced at the victory over Gazprom, thereby undermining its position by successful shale gas production, they got another blow from the Russians (the Arctic shale production). US politicians urged Poland and other new EU members to abandon Russian natural gas in favor shale gas (but they failed to mention that the production of shale gas in Europe is next to impossible). Simultaneously they promoted their own product - liquefied gas.
 
The USA’s goal sounds fairly ambitious – to abandon the export of crude oil and natural gas. They count on their own shale gas and Canadian oil deposits. Obviously, the USA’s activities dropped oil and natural gas prices.
 
Taking into account the fact that the USA is planning to become a natural gas exporter, it is not interested in Gazprom and Shell’s success in the Arctic shale.
 
 
Good Intensions And Big Money: Speculating On Environmental Issues?
 
Indeed, Greenpeace was founded on good intensions. It is hard to disprove. Anyway, it doesn’t matter at this point. The things that do matter revolve around what Greenpeace activists do, what they demand and what consequences their activities have.
Even Greenpeace ’s archenemies can find both pros and cons. It should be noted that Greenpeace ’s first protests were aimed against the USA’s nuclear tests, which can hardly be condemned. Without any doubt, even today Greenpeace does attract public attention to the most crucial environmental issues. But is Greenpeace really all so goody-goody?
 
Greenpeace claims to be an independent and unbiased organization fighting for a better environment. It is not sponsored by businesses and political organizations (at least they say so).
 
Obviously, Greenpeace ’s good intensions open a lot of opportunities as everyone wants to live in a cleaner environment, to drink clean water and to breather fresh air. On the other hand, few companies do care about the impact their production has on Mother Nature.
 
 
Greenpeace can boast several major victories, including the Kyoto Protocol, “a protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or FCCC) that set binding obligations on the industrialised countries to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases”.
 
By the way, the USA hasn’t still ratified the protocol. At the same time, while the EU, Japan and other major economies have to pay for excessive  emission, the USA (their major rival)  keeps polluting the Earth with impunity.
 
At the same time, the scientific reasoning behind the protocol looks controversial. This holds true for the majority of the issues raised by Greenpeace. Sometimes, unbiased scientists are confused and even indignant at some issues that Greenpeace promotes as major environmental threats. In particular:
 
Global warming. Greenpeace claims that global warming is a result of antropogenic activities, including carbon emissions (or greenhouse gases) etc. However, there are still no scientific proofs. Moreover, there are arguments that, indeed, the average global temperature has been slightly declining over the last 30 years.
 
Higher carbon emissions. They say this is the major reason for global warming. In reality, antropogenic carbon emissions improve the photosynthesis ratio, thereby allowing plants to grow faster.  
 
Crude oil issue.  Greenpeace promotes the idea of abandoning crude oil as a non-eco-friendly energy carrier. However, at this stage, when alternative energy is undeveloped, the world cannot do without oil, especially weak economies. Otherwise, such a step may provoke a devastating global humanitarian disaster.

 

 

 график

 


Ozone layer issue. They say it is all about CFCs. CFCs are said to damage the ozone layer. Greenpeace has developed a sophisticated theory explaining why Antarctica feels the consequences of using spray deodorants. In reality, the ozone layer is fairly fluid and dynamics. Its depth changes constantly within days, which depends on atmospheric cycles determined by the activity of the Sun (instead of CFCs). Therefore, the exhaustion of the ozone layer looks like a fish story.
 
 
Nuclear energy issue. Greenpeace promotes the idea that nuclear energy is dangerous while nuclear power plants are inefficient. They say it is necessary to replace nuclear energy with alternative energy sources. This sounds logical. However, at this stage we don’t have technologies that are capable of producing enough alternative energy to replace nuclear one.
 
GMO. The impact of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) needs to be studied. Therefore, food manufacturers must label their products so that people could distinguish between GMO or GMO-free products. That is fair. Greenpeace has established a blacklist for violators. In 2004, several companies that failed to provide information to Greenpeace were put on the blacklist. Strange as it may seem, Greenpeace hadn’t made any requests therefore those companies didn’t have an opportunity to report to Greenpeace. More often than not, the “green” list is for big-scale companies, which gives them another competitive edge over rivals.
 
If to take into account all the information given above, it may seem that Greenpeace ’s methods resemble those used by Freedom House or Transparency International, organizations that claim to measure the level of democracy and freedom of speech around the globe and that are subject to selective criticism, biased ratings with unclear criteria.
 
Obviously, environmental issues do exist and they need urgent solutions. However, let’s scientists decide, not a bunch of “rowdies”.
 
Of course, we do not say that Greenpeace is corrupt or biased. However, as we can see, Greenpeace activities raise a lot of controversial questions that need answers…

 

 

You are free to discuss this article here:   forum for traders and investors

 

Add to blog
Got a question? – Ask it here »
 

SEC Announces $10M Bounty For Whistle Blowers

Publication date: 17 September 12:38 PM

Raygan's Former Advisor Accuses the Fed of a Big Fraud

The former budget advisor under Ronal Raygan's administration, of the founders of the so-called Rayganomics, David Stockman, is a big adversary of the Federal Reserve's policies. He thinks that artificial interest rate cuts coupled with uncontrolled QE (money printing) creates madness in financial markets, thus separating asset evaluation from their intrinsic value of those assets.

Publication date: 23 August 07:32 AM

U.S. Labor Market Disappoints, Economy Slows Down

The employment rate in the United States increased by 167.000 people in July 2020. It's important to mention the fact that the data came in much worse than expected. According to Reuters, this increase was expected to reach 1.5 million people. At the same time, July's figures were much worse than those revealed in June 2020.

Publication date: 06 August 10:06 AM

iPhone as a Payment Terminal: Apple Bought a Startup For That

Apple has recently acquired Mobeewave, a startup specializing in online payments. The price of the deal is 100 million dollars. According to Bloomberg, the company's technology may allow Apple to turn iPhones into mobile payment terminals accepting mobile payments. To be more specific, Mobeewave developed a technology making it possible to make financial transactions between mobile devices through the built-in NFC module.
Publication date: 05 August 09:27 AM

China Makes Blockchain Professions Official

There are 1838 officially recognized professions in China. Now, there list is up by 2 professions - blockchain engineer and blockchain app operator. The Chinese Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security (MOHRSS) has recently confirmed that by updating the list of official professions.
Publication date: 20 July 11:42 AM

South Korea Invests Billions In Blockchain Technologies

By 2025, South Korea is planning to invest over 48 billion dollars in  blockchain. The goal is to digitize all of the industrial sectors of the national economy in this post-pandemic era. According to ZDNet Korea, the president highly rated some of the benefits this process may bring to South Korea.

Publication date: 18 July 09:40 AM

Black Lives Matter - Investors Keep Ignoring Major Riot In US In 50 Years. Why?

Everyone has probably heard of the #BlackLivesMatter riots, which have been going on in the United States for a while. However, international financial markets seem to have been underestimating this event, which happens to be the biggest riots in the USA in 50 years! Why is that?

Publication date: 18 June 07:56 AM

Donald Trump Influences Bitcoin Exchange Rate

Publication date: 05 June 04:42 AM

Only 4 Of All Existing Billionaires Made Their Fortunes With Cryptocurrencies

Forbes has recently published the list of 2095 billionaires from different parts of the world. It turns out that 4 of them owe it to cryptocurrencies. Who they are, the cryptocurrency billionaires?
Publication date: 13 April 11:54 AM

Life After Brexit: EU-UK Talks Are Underway

Publication date: 07 March 09:03 AM