FOX NEWS: Analyzing GREENPEACE’s goals

Fox news reporting from AMWHO 2017.

Early this morning, Fox News reporters asked Greenpeace about the top three elements they would like to see incorporated into the AMWHO resolutions.

Their first priority is eliminating GMOs from agricultural practices. They believe that these are not a natural process for how plants grow and harmful to the biodiversity of regions.  This is somewhat perplexing considering the world’s increasing food needs. Through scientific innovation in developing GMO crops, we will be able generate strains that will tolerate heat, drought, and disease.  GMO crops will be essential to feed a growing global population (9 billion by 2050). Increased crop yields support the hardworking farmers generating these products.

Greenpeace’s second priority is opposition of nuclear weapons – they hope to campaign for a nuclear free zone in the Middle East and countries in Northern Africa. In response to this, Fox pressed for their opinions on President Trump’s recent decision to decertify the Iran nuclear deal and add sanctions to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps ( Greenpeace opposed US pulling out of the nuclear deal, citing that it would have negative impacts on the climate, stating that there was nothing good about the decision in general. This position raises questions about their ultimate mission to “ensure peace”.  How can we allow any leniency for Iran that would eventually allow them develop nuclear weapons? Our president has asserted that “Iran is not living up to the spirit of the deal”, citing that international inspectors have been intimidated and that limits for advanced centrifuges and heavy-water have been reached. 

Finally, Greenpeace hopes to campaign for greater sources of alternative energy including wind and solar power. When pressed about the high up-front cost about these programs, the representative responded with an unclear and idealistic figure, stating that they could investments in renewable energy could “increase profits by 80%”.

For developing nations? For countries in which the sun shines only half the year?

(Looking at you Norway.)

And profits for who? For a select few private companies? What makes Greenpeace think that countries should pick and choose which companies should thrive versus which should fail.

Finally, Fox would like to question what makes Greenpeace’s concerns relevant to the mission and scope of AMWHO.  Greenpeace cited the environmental consequence of air pollution in China – describing how the poor air quality there leads to greater health risks and premature deaths.  It remains unclear how GMOs and nuclear power tie into this consequence.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s