Rachel Sarnoff

April 3rd, 2011

Displaying Activism
Elena Gonzales

Bearing Witness to
Greenpeace

 
Figure  1

  1  
 Does environmental destruction merit risking a human life to stop it? Greenpeace
thinks so. Greenpeace, a noted environmental organization founded in the 1970s,
emphasizes direct, nonviolent action as its key tactic in changing the current,
environmentally unsustainable practices of our world. Greenpeace has infiltrated all
corners of the world (including Antarctica) to fight for environmental justice through its
campaigns against nuclear power, overfishing, ocean toxicity, and atmospheric
degradation. Greenpeace’s immediate desire, however, is not necessarily to change
federal policy or industrial practice. Rather, Greenpeace attempts to change the public’s
approach to environmental issues. Greenpeace hopes to heighten the viewer’s ecological
sensibility by distributing images of often life-threatening stunts to perhaps save a pod of
whales or prevent toxic discharge into the waterways. Perhaps as importantly,
Greenpeace hopes to cause people to remember its name. However, the group offers little
guidance a viewer’s quest to act on the newfound sensibility. Greenpeace thus succeeds
tremendously in exposing environmental injustice to the public, but falls short in creating
long-lasting change.
Members of Greenpeace have emphasized shocking the public with injustice in
the realm of nuclear power, setting the stage for Greenpeace’s concern with other niches
of ecological concern. The origins of Greenpeace date back to October 1st 1969, during a
controversial test of nuclear weapons.1 The United States government chose Amchitka
Island, a large rock formation at the tip of the Aleutian Islands in Alaska, to test out some
nuclear reactors, such as plutonium. Protesters, concerned about the possible tidal waves
or earthquake that could result from the test, held a demonstration on the Canadian-US
border. Despite the protest, the test occurred, causing no earthquakes. However, stronger
feelings against nuclear testing (particularly by the US) in general surfaced. A small
group of environmentalists and peace activists in Vancouver desired to cultivate and
centralize these feelings, precipitating in the formation of the “Don’t Make a Wave
Committee” (DMWC). To stop the four future scheduled tests, the DMWC had to devise
a plan to halt the most powerful country in its tracks. Marie Bohlen, a member of the
group, essentially defined the group’s ultimate mission when she suggested, “Why the

                                                                                                               
1
Paul Wapner, Environmental Activism and World Civic Politics (Albany: State University of New York
Press, 1996), 44.

  2  
hell doesn’t somebody just sail a boat up there and park right next to the bomb? That’s
something everybody can understand”2. Greenpeace has made a point of equating
ecological well being with human life ever since.
Self-sacrifice for environmental cause certainly shocks the observer; however,
some environmentalists argue that the tactic is more dramatic than necessary. Critics like
Patrick Moore (an ex-Greenpeacer) argue that this
motto of brash and risky behavior constitute “pop
environmentalism,”3 which, like pop art, uses
shock value and scare tactics rather than
intellectual reason to change opinions.
Nevertheless, Bohlem’s idea certainly ensured that
DMWC would at least receive attention.
Greenpeace brought Bohlem’s idea to
fruition, but not without careful thought and
planning. The first Greenpeace boat, the Phyllis
Cormack, left Vancouver Harbor for Amchitka in
September 1971.4 If the boat had departed from an
Figure  2   American dock, Greenpeace deliberated, it would
have created time-sensitive complications, because
U.S. vehicles are vulnerable to arrests by U.S. officials. Thus, Greenpeace registered its
boat as a Canadian ship, so that as long as the boat remained in international waters, U.S.
officials could not seize it (if they did, these officials would break international maritime
law). What was once only national dissonance now emerged as international. Bad
weather prevented the ship from ever reaching Amchitka, but upon its return to
Vancouver, thousands of people congregated to greet the ship. Clearly, antinuclear
feeling began to materialize: “Now the apocalypse had form.”5 Greenpeace members,
like Robert Hunter, now envisioned a dramatic change in humans’ approach to the
environment.
                                                                                                               
2
Paul Wapner, Environmental Activism and World Civic Politics 46.
3
Fareed Zakaria, “A Renegade Against Greenpeace,” Newsweek.com, April 12, 2008,
http://www.newsweek.com/2008/04/12/a-renegade-against-greenpeace.html.
4
Ibid.
5
Hunter, Warriors of the Rainbow: A Chronicle of the Greenpeace Movement, 96.

  3  
 The antinuclear feeling so prized by Greenpeace, however, did not discriminate
between specific types of “nuclearism.” (“Nuclearism” is the advocacy of nuclear power
encompassing both weaponry and energy.) Greenpeace, so frustrated with the ecological
destruction caused by nuclear weapons, grouped them with nuclear energy under a vague,
“evil” denomination in its newsletters and, more recently, its website.6 The passion for
the environment clearly radiated from Greenpeace’s core, but most of the directors had
little science education and failed to realize that some nuclear energy might be ultimately
beneficial to the environment. Nuclear energy emits far less carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere than fossil fuels and is the only technology aside from fossil fuels that is
cheap and plentiful enough to run the country on a continuous basis.7 Further, nuclear
medicine, notably radiation, treats millions of cancer patients every year. Powerful
leaders such as Patrick Moore left Greenpeace precisely because of its sweeping
generalizations about nuclearism. Greenpeace’s effectiveness, therefore, might have
benefitted from a more fine-tuned nuclear censure.
Greenpeace’s boats received more and more attention as they continued to
interrupt normal nuclear action. The Phyllis Cormack served as a “mind bomb sailing
across an electronic sea into the minds of the masses,” so by the time the second boat –
the Greenpeace Too – sailed to Amchitka, the “mind bomb” had already detonated.8 The
“electric sea” Robert Hunter describes plays with the metaphor of conductivity and
volatility: the first ship created a certain voltage in the minds of those who knew about it,
and the voltage only grew until the “mind bomb” exploded. Thousands joined
Greenpeace oppositions to the nuclear test upon the departure of the Greenpeace Too.
Once again, however, the ship did not get close enough to the site in time: the US
conducted the test while the ship was still 700 miles away. The nuclear test ripped a half-
mile crater out of the core of the island and killed 1,000 sea otters out of 8,000 that lived
around Amchitka.9 Similarly to such approaches as Martin Luther King’s nonviolence,
even in the face of danger, Greenpeace’s potential bodily sacrifices drew attention and

                                                                                                               
66
“Suits and nukes. Nuclear weapons: what’s the deal?” Greenpeace International, May 6, 2003,
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/nuclear-poker-most-wanted-car/.
7
Hunter, Warriors of the Rainbow: A Chronicle of the Greenpeace Movement, 96.
8
Ibid, 61.
9
Wallace Turner, “A.E.C. Dismantles Aleutian Test Site of Controversial ’71 Underground Blast,” New
York Times, 5 August, 1972, A29.

  4  
respect. Furthermore, a few months after this detrimental test, the U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission declared that Amchitka would not be a test site anymore, for “political and
other reasons.”10 Greenpeace celebrated one of its first victories. The U.S. had originally
planned to set off seven bombs, and after three, it had given up.
For many members of Greenpeace, the plight of nuclearism was only a piece of a
larger problem: the unprecedented degradation of the earth’s ecosystem by human
intervention. Greenpeace saw nuclearism as a facet of grave threats to the planet that
technological innovation posed. These innovations, for instance, allowed American
fisheries to strip-mine of the oceans and driving many species to extinction, pollute the
air, water, and land. Greenpeace’s fervent action against nuclearism set the foundation for
its efforts in other realms of ecological welfare.
Greenpeace has developed phenomenally since its foundation in 1972. Offices
now function in over thirty countries, both in the developing and developed world. Most
of the information for my research for the exhibition (save the statistics below) stems
from the 1990s. The John Hay Library’s Hall Hoag Collection contains hundreds of
pieces of ephemera from Greenpeace, but the vast majority falls in between the late
1980s and early 2000s. Perhaps not coincidentally, the ‘90s was a decade of increased
ecological attention in the U.S. government (both Former President Bill Clinton and Vice
President Al Gore were environmentally concerned, and maintained great influence
during the 90’s). Greenpeace’s number of members peaked in 1996 with a whopping six
million active members. 11 Ten years later, during the Bush administration, Greenpeace
dropped to 2.9 million active members and managed an income of $318 million.12
Nevertheless, Greenpeace has lost neither the drive to bear witness, nor the drive to cause
others to bear witness. Greenpeace’s eco-navy has eight ships, a helicopter, and a hot-air
balloon. Every night, Greenpeace still sends hundreds of canvassers out around the world
to raise money and educate the general public about environmental issues. Captain Paul
Watson argued that door-to-door soliciting is petty, deeming Greenpeace the “Avon

                                                                                                               
10
Wallace Turner, “A.E.C. Dismantles Aleutian Test Site of Controversial ’71 Underground Blast,” A29.
11
Wapner, Environmental Activism and World Civic Politics, 48.
12
“Questions about Greenpeace in general,” Greenpeace, January 8, 2009,
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/about/faq_old/questions-about-greenpeace-in/.

  5  
ladies of the environmental movement.”13 Although Watson was a founding director of
Greenpeace, his commanding personality, coupled with his aversion to Greenpeace’s
increasingly strict nonviolent policies, resulted in his expulsion from the group. Watson
argues that Greenpeace collects millions of dollars to allegedly save whales, but other
than raising public awareness about whale extinction, Greenpeace has not actually caused
a direct change in the whaling industry’s practice. Greenpeace proudly declares that it
“has never sunk a whaling ship,” to which Captain Paul Watson comments, “No they
haven’t. If they had they would have actually saved some whales.”14
You don't bear witness to murder and rape and do nothing to stop it. You don't
watch a child being sexually molested and you do nothing. You don't watch a
person stomp on a kitten or kick a dog and do nothing but take pictures, you don't
hang banners before a rapist as he attacks a woman and you don't bear witness to
murder and do nothing. This is what Greenpeace is advocating with the killing of
whales - that we watch, we take photos, we hang banners and we don't
intervene.15
To be fair, Greenpeace’s political strategies do not only feature changing the public’s
impression of the earth. The organization also, although less frequently, lobbies to
governmental officials, gathers data, organizes protests and boycotts, produces record
albums, and scientifically researches. Greenpeace maintains, all the same, that it aims
mostly to change the attitudes and behaviors of the general public – not necessarily
states’ policies.

                                                                                                               
13
Paul Watson, “Green Peace and Sea Shepherd –United to Oppose Legal Whaling,” Sea Shepherd
Deutschland e.V. Freitag, den 30.,December, 2005, http://de.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/editorial-
051230-1.html.
14
Ibid.
15
Paul Watson, “No Peace with Greenpeace it Seems,” Sea Shepherd Deutschland e.V., June, 2008,
http://de.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/editorial-080618-1.html.

  6  
 Despite its shortcomings, Greenpeace upholds a transnational organizational
structure with internal hierarchies within each region, helping Greenpeace focuson issues
pertinent to specific cities or
counties, such as Times Square
in New York. The bulk of the
global environmental problems,
in Greenpeace’s view, falls into
four categories: toxic
substances, energy and
atmosphere, nuclear issues, and
ocean and terrestreal ecology
(see Figure 2). Greenpeace
divides itself among these four
campaigns. Under ocean
ecology, for example,
Greenpeace concentrates on
whales, sea turtles, fisheries,

Figure  3   and dolphins.16 Because

Greenpeace’s campaigns apply
to countries and oceans around the globe, Greenpeace hires trustees and Council
members from countries in every continent. With the multinational influence from its
staff, Greenpeace advances a global rather than regional orientation in order to better
attack specific problems for specific zones.
Each of the four areas of concern for Greenpeace employs a project director, who
works on the subissues of the umbrella campaign. For instance, America’s pulp and paper
industry, which falls under the toxics campaign, dumps 50% of all organochlorine
discharges into the earth’s waterways.17 The chlorine poses serious danger to humans and
the natural environment, for it causes sterility and cancer in mammals. The project
director involved in chlorine toxicity aims to shift the produciton of the paper industry
                                                                                                               
16
Rex Weyler, Greenpeace: how a group of ecologists, journalists, and visionaries changed the world, 35.
17
Ibid, 42.

  7  
away from bleaching procedures that use chlorine. Regional campaigners, under the
directors, facilitate the specific Greenpeace activities to this end. They focus on the
industries’ respective countries, factoring in governmental, cultural, and industrial
attributes of each country to fashion an appropriate response to the problem.
Campaigners’ activities include painting banners, circulating petitions, researching
issues, organizing protests, and direct, nonviolent actions.
Greenpeace’s politics center around the insight that people do not damage the
ecosystem as a matter of course. Rather, according to political scientist Henry Eckstein,
“predispositions which pattern behavior”18 move people to act. Social scientists claim
that humans operate in an “ideational” context that motivtes them to act in a certain
way.19 “Ideational” entails influence not from the immediate stimuli, such as a sudden
change in weather, but rather from preexisting, ingrained ideas. Actions, thus, reflects
years of parenting, education, and experience that has shaped a person’s mind to be, for
example, opposed to killing animals. Thus, Greenpeace asserts that in order to protect the
earth, one must change the way vast numbers of people understand the world. The
challenge posed to Greenpeace is to pursuade people to abandon anti-ecological or non-
ecological attitudes and practices, and to nurture an ecological sensibility instead.
Greenpeace attempts to alter people’s conceptions of reality in order to undertake more
environmentally friendly practices. In order to shift these mindsets, Greenpeace utilizes
the political action of “bearing witness.”20
According to Greenpeace, the idea of “bearing witness” is Quaker in origin and
from the 17th-18th century.21 “Bearing witness” links moral sensitivities with political
responsibility. When we see a morally questionable act, Greenpeace argues that one must
either take action or stand by and attest to its occurrence. When the morally questionable
act is in any way destructive to the environment, Greenpeace opposes any force that tries
to attest to its occurrence. In the case of nuclearism, as stated earlier, Greenpeace ignores
the possibility that nuclear energy might ultimately be favorable for the environment,
given practical circumstances like the booming world population. In order to ensure that
                                                                                                               
18
Henry Eckstein, “A Cultural Theory of Social Change,” American Political Science Review 82, no. 3
(September, 1988), 760.
19
Ibid.
20
Ibid, 762.
21
Ibid.

  8  
the world bears witness to ecological injustice, Greenpeace engages in and (more
importantly) publicizes direct, nonviolent action. Under Greenpeace’s philosophy, the
roots of change start in the collective mind of the public. Thus, in order to create and
sustain a healthier planet, different thoughts altogether must pervade the human mind.
The current course of action for environmental good entails simply patching up
ecological problems as they arise (for example, companies often begin to reduce their
carbon footprint only when it becomes absolutely excessive22). These “Band-Aids” on
grave issues, to Greenpeace, are not as efficacious as eradicating those problems before
they emerge as ideas in the human mind. When one witnesses an action, the information
about the vision reaches one of the most primitive parts of the human brain: visual cortex
in the occipital lobe. There, the brain processes the image and sends it to higher parts of
the brain that associate the image with, for example, emotion and ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’23
Stimulated enough, this part of the brain might form more intense connections between
environmental detriment and wrongness.24 Since thoughts lead to action, Greenpeace’s
efforts to change the roots of thoughts ultimately may precipitate in powerful action.

                                                                                                               
22
Wapner, Environmental Activism and World Civic Politics, 51.
23
Michael Paradiso, “The Brain: An Introduction to Neuroscience,” Class Notes, December, 2010.
24
Ibid.

  9  
 Greenpeace’s witnessing exhibits a cyclical effect. First, Greenpeace witnesses an
injustice, creating intense friction with members’ ecologically tuned minds. Next,
Greenpeace calls attention to the injustice, causing a scene and trying to lure the media to
expose the wrong to the public. ‘Causing a scene’ might include Greenpeace climbing
whaling ships, parachuting from the tops of smokestacks, plugging up industrial
discharge pipes, and
floating hot-air
balloons into nuclear
test sites. These
actions create
powerful images
Figure  4  
that, if broadcasted
through the media,
might spark interest
and concern a large
audience. Thus, the next step in the witnessing cycle is people’s witnessing Greenpeace’s
actions. The propagation of Greenpeace’s images has quickened over the decades.
Information can now whip around the world instantaneously. Video cameras capture
Greenpeace whaling expeditions, ocean dumping of nuclear wastes, and discharging of
toxic chemicals into streams and play on people’s television and computer screens.
Facebook provides the opportunity to
continuously share the latest news and images
of Greenpeace’s work (see Figure 4). When an
Figure  5  
Figure  5   Internet user “likes” Greenpeace on Facebook,
he forms an automatic link between his
identity and Greenpeace. Greenpeace now shows up on his Facebook profile, perhaps
fulfilling the ultimate Quaker dream of changing the mind. Identity is the center around
which one makes decisions, and by associating identity with Greenpeace, one might
begin to tune personal decisions to Greenpeace’s. However, the only true action
Greenpeace suggests in its newsletters, websites, and banners is for citizens to join and
support Greenpeace. After “bearing witness” and changing one’s mentality, Greenpeace’s

  10  
follower finds little advice besides donating and declaring, “I Support Greenpeace” on his
T-shirt, perhaps, or his car (see Figure 5). Greenpeace’s paraphenalia encourages
individuals to put its eggs into Greenpeace’s basket. After that, Greenpeace attempts to
recruit the rest of the public to share in the witnessing.
The campaign that has received some of the most attention for Greenpeace is the
protection of whales. Part of the larger campaign to prevent the mass depletion of the
species of the world, the whale campaign tries to preserve the population of whales and
guard it from extinction. Greenpeace once sent a ship to pursue a certain Russian whaling
fleet, documenting the latter’s slaughter of whales that were smaller than the official
allowable size as designated by
the International Whaling
Commission.25 Greenpeace
even took photographs of a
human standing over the small
whales in order to demonstrate
the scale. The sheer size and
capability of the Russian fleet
also threatened the sperm
whale population in the area.
Figure  6  
Thus, Greenpeace members
boarded inflatable dinghies, positioning themselves between the harpoon ships and the
pods of whales (see Figure 6).26 Demonstrating the willingness to die for a cause,
Greenpeace proved effective in the short-term because numerous times Russian whalers
did not shoot for fear of killing Greenpeace members. The newspaper, television, and
magazine coverage of this feat were enormous. Lobbying organizations like the Sierra
Club argue that one does not need to threaten a life in order to make an impact;
Greenpeace might disagree.
Above the waters, one of Greenpeace’s major concerns is the destruction of the
ozone layer. The ozone layer is a layer of gas surrounding earth that blocks out ultraviolet

                                                                                                               
25
Wapner, Environmental Activism and World Civic Politics, 57.
26
Michael Brown and John May, The Greenpeace Story (Scarborough: Prentice-Hall Canada, 1989).

  11  
(UV) and other harmful light rays from penetrating to the earth. Such volatile substances
as chlorofluorocarbons eat away at the ozone layer, which let in UV radiation. This
radiation risks potential increases in skin cancer and damage to plankton populations in
the ocean. The DuPont manufacturing plant in Deepwater, New Jersey produced half of
the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used in the United States in 1989.27 That same year,
Greenpeace infiltrated the plant, and the following day, bolted a steel box containing two
people onto the plant’s railroad tracks, blocking the export of CFCs from the plant. A
banner lay draped over the box, reading,
“Stop Ozone Destruction Now” (similarly
to the slogan on the blimp in Figure 7)
with a picture of the earth in the
background. Greenpeace’s bold action
caused an eight-hour blockade that held
up rail cars carrying 44,000 gallons of
Figure  7   CFCs.28 However, within minutes of
removing the blockade, business proceeded as usual. DuPont workers continued to
manufacture CFCs, but now with the knowledge that others knew and were worried about
the environmental effects.
The coverage in the Greenpeace Action newsletter, along with other publications,
divulged the connection between production of CFCs and ozone depletion to enormous
numbers of people. Ultimately, the conveyed message concerned Greenpeace rather than
the blocking action itself. Greenpeace gave the ozone issue form, using the image of
disrupting DuPont’s operations to send out a message of concern. As Paul Watson
affirms, “you use the media as a weapon.”29 This weapon can only cut so deeply,
however, for Greenpeace’s ultimate effect on DuPont’s chlorine production did not
amount to much. Twenty years later, in May 2010, DuPont again failed the citizen safety
inspections in New Jersey and Delaware.30 Greenpeace itself exposed DuPont’s
unchanged practices. Greenpeace, perhaps, has mastered the art of exposition, but has yet
                                                                                                               
27
Wapner, Environmental Activism and World Civic Politics, 60.
28
Greenpeace Magazine 14, no. 6 (Nov.-Dec., 1989): 19.
29
Rex Weyler, Greenpeace: how a group of ecologists, journalists, and visionaries changed the world, 92.
30
“Failed Inspection,” Blue Planet News, May 20, 2010,
http://www.blueplanetnews.org/2010/05/20/failed-inspection/.

  12  
to master direct political change. Undeniably, Greenpeace does affect people’s minds, the
broad public reception of images in the media shows. However, in the cases of industrial
practices and governmental policies, Greenpeace’s impact is not as measurable as the
consumption of images.
Greenpeace ultimately desires to “sting” people with ecological sensibility
regardless of the person’s job, geographic location, or access to governmental officials.
One of Greenpeace’s stinging strategies, as shown, is to bring instances of environmental
abuse to the public eye. CFC production occurs in the guarded corridors of the world’s
labs and factories. Harpooners kill whales on high seas, usually without any onlookers.
Species extinction persists in the depths of the world’s rainforests. The government tests
nuclear weapons in the most deserted areas on earth. Through the television, radio,
newspaper, and magazine, Greenpeace attempts to change this: to provide some virtual –
as well as actual onlookers in the bodies of Greenpeacers themselves.
Antarctica, the most remote of the seven continents, epitomizes a lack of
onlookers. Antarctica is the least polluted of the continents, holds seventy percent of the
earth’s fresh water, 800 species of plant life, and forty-five species of birds.31 Twelve
countries signed the Antarctica Treaty of 1959, which dedicated them to the peaceful
scientific exploration of the continent. Still, significant environmental destruction has
ensued since the treaty. In 1983, for example, the French loaded some islands with
explosives to construct an airstrip, ruining Adelie penguin colonies and threatening the
breeding grounds of Emperor penguins. Overfishing has also led to the near-extinction of
several species of finfish. Normally, these actions would most likely continue undetected;
however, Greenpeace established a research base in Antarctica in the ‘80s, which
continues even now to monitor and publicize abuse. Specifically, the members at the base
wrote articles about the health of the continent and produced films (such as “Battleship
Antarctica”)32 about Antarctica, which they aired in many countries. Greenpeace also
publicly shares evidence of its direct actions against the polluters, and those who

                                                                                                               
31
“Antarctica,” The World Factbook, Central Intelligence Agency, March 22, 2011,
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ay.html.
32
“Battleship Antarctica,” Greenpeace, IcarusFilmsNY, Icarus Films, 2008,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PivY8Tte6ic.

  13  
overfish, of Antarctica, in effect taking obscure practices and projecting them onto human
consciousness.
Further, Greenpeace’s other main strategy for combating environmental injustice
is to expose – and demand explanations for – the gap between the claims and practices of
governments, corporations, and ordinary citizens. Greenpeace uses hypocrisy to probe
people’s consciences and joggle previous conceptions of everyday circumstances.
Normal, commercial advertising often equates the company sponsoring the advertisement
with ‘good’ or ‘helpful,’ and the witnessing public cannot help but begin to believe the
advertisements. After all, “advertising is propaganda and everyone knows it.”33 In July
1985, Greenpeace sent underwater divers to Green Bay, Wisconsin to investigate the
emission of toxic wastes, like chlorine, from Fort Howard Paper Company. Chlorine
directly damages aquatic life and scientists speculate that its presence in drinking water
might cause cancer. Wisconsin demands that all companies document the procedures
used in handling hazardous wastes, including registering the number of discharge pipes,
and the final destination of the toxic substances. Nevertheless, Greenpeace photographed
three underwater discharge pipes not reported to the authorities outside the plant. Fort
Howard thus publicly claimed to abide by legal standards, but privately violated them.
Rather than bringing its case to the courts, Greenpeace publicized its actions, telling the
victims of the discrepancy – namely, citizens of Wisconsin – about the hypocrisy of one
of the state’s leading producers of paper. Wisconsonites might react strongly to such a
truth, but Greenpeace, once again, offers little follow-up action to the public, (other than
the maintained support of Greenpeace).

                                                                                                               
33
Michael Schudson, Advertising, the Uneasy Persuasion: Its Dubious Impact on American Society (Basic
Books, 1984), 4.

  14  
 Greenpeace’s most effective tactic of all
is the parody. Parodies simultaneously draw
attention to the flaws of a system and provide
comic relief, emulating the delicate balance
between criticism and entertainment. In 1994,
three Greenpeace members scaled halfway up a
forty-seven story Time-Life tower in New
York to protest the chlorine-bleached paper
used in Time magazine. The production of one
year’s worth of Time released 179,400 pounds
of organochlorines into the waterways of
America in ‘94.34 Time’s hypocrisy lay in its Figure  8  

pledge in January 1992 to request chlorine-free

paper from suppliers. Greenpeace unfurled a banner reading, “Chlorine Kills” and “Take
the poison out of the paper” against a background of a mock Time magazine cover (see
Figure 8), in which Greenpeace accurately formats the magazine to match Time’s, but
features a pipe dumping toxic chlorine directly into the ocean.35 Here Greenpeace
demonstrates garnering distrust for business-as-usual: for daily, hypocritical practices.
Greenpeace hopes that citizens, viewing the demonstration, might adopt a critical view
toward an item about which they would normally not think twice: paper. Perhaps this
goal, however, falls short of one necessary to actually stop the pumping of chlorine into
the water. Raising awareness about chlorine’s danger to aquatic life is one thing – suing
the companies dumping the chlorine, or regulating the companies from the governmental
level, is another.
Greenpeace effectively causes its audience to rethink the environment’s
importance, and thus, by its own standards, fulfills its goals. However, Greenpeace’s
boast to actually change the system it reprimands – to forever, not temporarily, stop the
Russian whaling boats, or to shut down companies that pollute extremely unsustainably –
remains relatively unexplored. In an exhibition like Activism: Methods for Achieving
                                                                                                               
34
“Time Passes, As Clinton Adopts Anti-Chlorine Stance,” Greenpeace 2, no. 2 (March/April/May, 1994):
1.
35
“Chlorine Protesters Scale Time Building,” New York Times, 12 July, 1994.

  15  
Equity, Greenpeace might stick in the visitor’s mind because of its grabbing visuals and
frightening warnings. Nevertheless, delving deeper into the goals and feats of the
organization reveals that Greenpeace might pale in comparison to more legislatively
active groups. Greenpeace clearly serves a role in illuminating the imperfections in our
technologically advanced world. The result of this illumination, however, does not match
the quest to combat environmental injustice in any way one can measure. The very
words, “bearing witness” in fact connote certain apathy to action. The translation of
witnessing, to mental rewiring, to action, therefore, requires not only Greenpeace’s, but
also other groups’ resources and efforts to fulfill. In the Hall Hoag Collection, more than
five full folders are dedicated to Greenpeace’s ephemera (more than any other
environmental organization). Perhaps activist archives should use the measured impact of
each group as a standard for the quantity material they provide, before a student writes an
entire paper on an organization that is visually captivating, but – arguably – less than
impactful.

  16  
 Bibliography
1. Zakaria, Fareed. “A Renegade Against Greenpeace.” Newsweek.com, April 12
2008. http://www.newsweek.com/2008/04/12/a-renegade-against-
greenpeace.html.
2. Weyler, Rex. Greenpeace: how a group of ecologists, journalists, and visionaries
changed the world. Vancouver: Raincoast Books, 2004.
3. “Suits and nukes. Nuclear weapons: what’s the deal?” Greenpeace International,
May 6 2003. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/nuclear-
poker-most-wanted-car/.
4. Watson, Paul. “Green Peace and Sea Shepherd –United to Oppose Legal
Whaling.” Sea Shepherd Deutschland e.V., December 2005.
http://de.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/editorial-051230-1.html.
5. Watson, Paul. “No Peace with Greenpeace it Seems.” Sea Shepherd Deutschland
e.V., June 2008. http://de.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/editorial-080618-
1.html.
6. Wapner, Paul. Environmental Activism and World Civic Politics. Albany: State
University of New York Press, 1996.
7. Turner, Wallace. “A.E.C. Dismantles Aleutian Test Site of Controversial ’71
Underground Blast.” New York Times, 5 August 1972.
8. Schudson,  Michael.  Advertising,  the  Uneasy  Persuasion:  Its  Dubious  Impact  on  
American  Society.  Basic  Books,  1984.  Pp.  3-­‐14.
9. Hunter, Robert. Warriors of the Rainbow: A Chronicle of the Greenpeace
Movement. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1979.
10. Gray, J. Glenn. The Warriors: Reflections on Men in Battle. New York: Harper &
Row, 1970.
11. Eckstein, Henry. “A Cultural Theory of Social Change.” American Political
Science Review 82, no. 3, September 1988.
12. Brown, Michael and May, John. The Greenpeace Story. Scarborough: Prentice-
Hall Canada, 1989.
13. Greenpeace Magazine 14. No. 6. Nov.-Dec. 1989.

  17  
 14. “Failed Inspection.” Blue Planet News, May 20 2010.
http://www.blueplanetnews.org/2010/05/20/failed-inspection/.
15. “Questions about Greenpeace in general.” Greenpeace, January 8, 2009.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/about/faq_old/questions-about-
greenpeace-in/.
16. “Antarctica.” The World Factbook. Central Intelligence Agency, March 22 2011.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ay.html.
17. “Battleship Antarctica.” Greenpeace. IcarusFilmsNY. Icarus Films, 2008.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PivY8Tte6ic.
18. “Time Passes, As Clinton Adopts Anti-Chlorine Stance.” Greenpeace 2, no. 2,
March/April/May 1994.
Images
Figure 1: Gordon Hall and Grace Hoag Collection of Dissenting and Extremist Printed
Propaganda, Brown University Library, Ms. 76, Box 68-3.
Figure 2: Gordon Hall and Grace Hoag Collection of Dissenting and Extremist Printed
Propaganda, Brown University Library, Ms. 76, Box 68-3.
Figure 3: Gordon Hall and Grace Hoag Collection of Dissenting and Extremist Printed
Propaganda, Brown University Library, Ms. 76, Box 68-3.
Figure 4: Gordon Hall and Grace Hoag Collection of Dissenting and Extremist Printed
Propaganda, Brown University Library, Ms. 76, Box 68-3.
Figure 5: Gordon Hall and Grace Hoag Collection of Dissenting and Extremist Printed
Propaganda, Brown University Library, Ms. 76, Box 68-3.
Figure 6: “Greenpeace zodiac maneuvers itself between two Russian whaling ships.
Harpooned whales are being transferred from catcher vessels to the factory processing
ship.” Greenpeace, 2011.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/multimedia/photos/greenpeace-zodiac-
manoeuvres-i/.
Figure 7: “The Greenpeace airship inspects a DuPont chemical facility in Edge Moor.”
Greenpeace, Jan 10, 2011.
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/multimedia/slideshows/Toxic-Patrol/.

  18  
Figure 8: Gordon Hall and Grace Hoag Collection of Dissenting and Extremist Printed
Propaganda, Brown University Library, Ms. 76, Box 68-3.
 

  19