Why Save the turtles?

I found this page on the greenpeace site, and throught it is important for readers here to notice.


Turtles arriving onshore

©Bivash Pandav

Consider this… Olive Ridley turtles rely on an inexplicable, in-built
navigation system that guides them, when it’s time for them to
reproduce, back to the precise coast on which they were born.

Now
consider something else… The proposed Tata port at Dhamra threatens a
nesting site that is amongst the last honeymoon suites for the
remaining Olive Ridleys, a highly-endangered species that swims all the
way here from places as far away as Australia and the Philippines.

When
you consider these two facts together, it seems only logical that Tata
would reconsider its decision to build the port at Dhamra, and build it
in an area that’s less ecologically sensitive. It seems especially
logical when it’s Tata we’re talking about.

After all,
Tata has grown from a national giant into an international player,
while constantly stating its commitment to the principles of social
upliftment, environmental justice and sustainable development. The Tata
brand is ubiquitous, present in hundreds of products that have
genuinely improved the lives of generations of Indians; from the Tata
salt that flavours our daily bread, the Tata BP solar geyser that warms
our winter baths, the Tata Telecom that manages our communications, to
the Tata cars that ‘drive a billion dreams.’

Turtles arriving onshore
©Bivash Pandav

And yet, in Orissa, we’re witnessing a different side to the same Tata.
A Tata that shuts its ears to reason. A Tata that looks the other way
when confronted with evidence. A Tata that cares nothing for the
community, and even less for nature.

The port Tata is proposing to build in Dhamra will directly
affect the Olive Ridley turtles. With 150,000 to 350,000 Olive Ridley
turtles nesting in the vicinity, the average number of hatchlings is
believed to range from 15 million to 35 million.

When confronted by Greenpeace
Tata promised concerned citizens that it would abandon the port ‘if
evidence of turtle presence and the ecological significance of the area
were ever unearthed.’

Turtles arriving onshore
©Pratyush Mohapatra/Greenpeace

The evidence was submitted , but this promise wasn’t kept. The perfunctory EIA
carried out in this area isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. Another
nesting season has passed us by, with turtle mortality from mechanized
fishing agonizingly high. Coming in addition to this annual death toll,
the Tata port could be the final nail in the turtle’s coffin, ensuring
that this area is never safe for turtles again.

Will this willful destruction be the legacy that Tata leaves behind in Orissa?

Not if you can help it. To write directly to Ratan Tata and ask him to change his mind, simply sign the letter on the right.

Update: There is an overwhelming response of comments to this post, and I have summarized them and my observations in a separate post for convenience. You may find it here.

88 thoughts on “Why Save the turtles?

  1. Deeksha

    Hi!

    I strongly agree to the point that Environmental clearance has been given by the government and after closely observing the actions used by Greenpeace, I feel something fishy about this NGO organization.

    When there is a distance of about 25 kms.? there shouldn’t be any harm for the mating of turtles. Then what is the problem with Greenpeace?

    1. Is this so called “Globally recognized NGO” trying to stop the developments of the Orissa state?

    2. has this something to do with the the competitors of TATA?

    3. Are they trying to be in media all the time and grab attention of public and other businessmen?

    4. Or is through this issue, do they have something to do with the politicians or the Government?

    There are many such questions rolling around my mind but, there is one basic truth existing. If Greenpeace succeeds in stopping the port construction, the locals people of the Orissa are the losers. They have been dreaming about earning some good money and living life if the port comes into existence. I wish may their dreams come true and let Orissa cherish with riches and prosperity.

    Reply
  2. rekha

    Be as beneficent as the sun or the sea, but if your rights as a rational being are trenched on, die on the first inch of your territory.Greenpeace is adopting the pressure tactics to stop the construction of dhamra port to get political mileage,they are not making any sincere effort to negotiate and settle the matter amicably ,they should understand that this dhamra port is going to help the people of orissa to a larger extent ,it will provide tourism, employment,and good infrastructure ,this is boon to the people of orissa ,so i fully support the dhamra port.

    Reply
  3. lovelena bhat

    The two false premises, this, the “finite resource” and, the “pristine nature” from your ‘Climate Change Delusion’, when taught to an individual with an altruistic moral code, will cause an evasion or result in mental problems in the person who tries to apply principles to life.
    No human being can develop an intact ego holding a believe, that their every action is harmful to their fellow man. The guilt is simply too corrosive and inevitably such a person will hate themselves for destroying other or hate all others for destroying their quality of life.
    I think that is why the leaders of the environmental movement tend to be both criminal and irrational. It is their only defense as, if they became honest they would have to kill themselves and if they became rational they drop environmentalism.
    greenpeace should understand that dhamra,they port is going to help poverty stricken orissa to greater extent. they should sit with tata settle the matter amically about the turtles,instead of making so much hue and cry,i want everyone to standup,and support dhamraport for the people of orissa.

    Reply
  4. srinivasan

    Aware of the interdependence of the major elements of the world ecosystem – an interdependence evident also at the social, economic and political levels – we are beginning to see that integration of life on the planet requires unified action on a scale we have not yet achieved. Partial solutions seem only to prolong the difficulties; yet we hesitate to adopt a new and workable system of values for the world. For until there is unity at the most fundamental level – that of human values – social problems, simple or complex, will remain unresolved.we should respect human values,NGOs should noy cry foul for the dhamra port tata are doing the best by taking the help International Union for Conservation of nature. dhamra project will be a boon to the people of orissa.i support the dhamra project.

    Reply
  5. vadivel

    The fundamental rights of [humanity] are, first: the right of habitation; second, the right to move freely; third, the right to the soil and subsoil, and to the use of it; fourth, the right of freedom of labor and of exchange; fifth, the right to justice; sixth, the right to live within a natural national organization; and seventh, the right to education.green peace should understand that human value is as important as turtles,TATA as taken necessary clearance from the concerned authority for construction of the dhamra port ,since the distance is 25kms from the breeding place it wont affect the breeding of the turtles,so we all should stand up and support the construction of dhamra port.

    Reply
  6. Disha

    Tata is a old company having a very potential experience since many years, I don’t feel that Tata will take any such type of decisions which will affect environment or may be turtles, even then GreenPeace or any such NGO’s are unhappy with this port construction they can tackle this matter in even more mannered and respectful way which also helps to maintain the real standards and purpose of such NGOs. Otherwise its very much ridiculous to approach in a disgraceful manner.

    Reply
  7. rekha

    Society’s double behavioral standard for women and for men is, in fact, a more effective deterrent than economic discrimination because it is more insidious, less tangible. Economic disadvantages involve ascertainable amounts, but the very nature of societal value judgments makes them harder to define, their effects harder to relate,GREENPEACE which has head office in bangalore does not make any comments are protests when there is felling of trees in bangalore,because no body is paying them to protest,but at the same time there is dhamraport coming in orissa they are making all out effort in saving the turtles even though they know that the port is coming 25 kms away from the breeding place and it is no way going to affect the breeding, and also greenpeace does not take any money from the corporates but they take the money from the foundation run by the corporates,no doubt that 40 members of parliament wanted green peace to be banned,people of double standard never experience happiness all there falsified effort will go the drains

    Reply
  8. Indresh

    In my opinion, TATA has undertaken a big task of improving the status of Orissa through
    Dhamra port construction. And it should not discontinue this magnificent endeavor because of some worthless obstructions. So I strongly support the construction of Dhamra port.
    On the other hand I also feel that the NGOs such as Greenpeace or others should recognize the importance of this construction keeping the improvement of Orissa state in their consideration.

    Reply
  9. Amresh

    At this point of phase I really don’t understand the real objective of these NGOs,
    Is it to protect the environment or to barricade the development of our Indian industry?
    If it is really to protect the environment without any awful intention, then
    ·Why don’t they raise their voice where actually environment is being harmed, like in Banglore, plenty of trees are being cut by reason of Metro Plans.
    ·Why these NGOs don’t take a chance of remonstrating against that?
    ·Why are they behind this Dhamra Port construction, which seems to be harmless to environment and much helpful for the people?

    Reply
  10. hari Krishna

    I agree that we cant continue to exist if we harm environment, or if we go against the nature, but it does not mean that the reason of protecting the environment or other creatures, should stop the development of mankind. Man has always achieved something best out of the resources of nature, and it should go on and of course without harming the nature, so both the organizations should together unravel this issue without causing loss to both mankind and enviroment

    Reply
  11. Sheela

    Organizations like Greenpeace are making people to believe some fake reports which is really spoiling the identity and standards of NGOs. Everyone should come to know about the realities and facts behind their arguments so that as a final point, public can decide over such big issues.

    Reply
  12. siddesh

    there is no civilzation without culture and no culture without civilzation tata port is really going to help the orissa in many ways, tata has taken help to create enviormental standard from International Union for Conservation of Nature ,so the tata is trying is best to safe gaurd the enviorment and helping the people of orissa ,there is no need to cry foul for the construction of dhamra project ,we should stand by tata and help in completing the construction of port.

    Reply
  13. Varun

    I sturdily shore up for the construction of dharma port since it is not harming turtles or
    not crafting any other tribulations as mentioned by Green Peace, I sense it as a cunning trick of GP to attain its triumph by holding back the development of Indian industry, God knows, why it has taken such an absurd mission of corrupting public and indirectly our country.

    Reply
  14. Gouri shankar

    Dhamra Port construction is not a matter of just conflicting and discontinuing without any precise reason behind the struggle or dispute; I don’t understand why Green Peace is not coming with true facts and figures. It is of no meaning just to gripe against any big company without proper point or reason, if it so stable on its decision, it should let the public know about the real intension behind its struggle.

    Reply
  15. srinivasan

    Circumstances may cause interruptions and delays, but never lose sight of your goal.TATA is doing the great job by building the dhamra port for the poverty stricken orissa ,since it is following the guidelines strictly imposed by the government to protect enviorment and other aspects,and also dpcl is committed to enhance the rural improvement,.GREENPEACE approach towards the dhamraport is disgusting and pathetic.since the dhamra port construction is coming 25 kms away from the breeding place , i dont think dhamraport is going to affect the breeding of turtles.therefore greenpeace should sit with the tata and and concerned authorities settle the matter amicabally, to safe guard the turtles and more importantly people of orissa.we should support the TATA for the construction of dhamra port.

    Reply
  16. shamita

    It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes short again and again, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause, who at best knows achievement and who at the worst if he fails at least fails while daring greatly so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.TATA is exactly doing the same. its withstanding all the unjust resistance given by greenpeace.tata should stand on the obligation to construct the dhamra port for the people od orissa .since it is following necessary guidelines imposed by the enviormental board and the government of india,its is well known fact that the port is coming 30kms away from the breeding place,its not going to affect the breeding in any way,green peace should understanding that the human life is as precious as turtles,it should sit and settle the matter with the necessary authorities and and should not be a hinderance to dhamra port.Criticism is prejudice made plausible.

    Reply
  17. Neeraja

    I request Mr.Ratan Tata not to stop Dhamra port construction. People or public will surely accept his plan once it gets constructed and gets started.
    Until unless we experience the taste of success we won’t believe anything, so it should be constructed and started to prove itself as great plan.

    Reply
  18. sandeep

    Till date I was believing that NGOs never go erroneous or they until the end of time fight for evenhandedness and authentic reasons. But this time I am traumatized to make out that even Planet protectors like GP have also got corrupted.

    Reply
  19. richa

    We are fortunate enough to live in india at the beginning of the 21st century and enjoy all the benefits of modern science and technology. Human life is now longer, healthier and richer than ever before. But not everybody is happy about it. Some people would rather have us go back in time and sacrifice it all. They are the advocates of Environmentalism.

    Environmentalism is not, as many naively think, a movement to protect the environment for man. It is rather a movement to protect the environment from man. But man could not have risen from the caves without exploiting the environment: without burning wood for light and fire, mining metals for tools, cutting trees for shelter, or draining swamps for farming. And man cannot survive today without industry and technology, both of which run on energy.Environmentalists are also fiercely opposed to mining. But without mining we would not have iron or steel to make plumbing, tractors, bridges, railroads or skyscrapers. We would not have copper wires to transmit electricity, or surgical instruments to save our lives. We would not have any kind of tools or machines: no household appliances, no cars, no computers, no nothing. We would literally go back to the Stone Age, if they ever let us use the stones, that is.

    And this is the true evil nature of Environmentalism: the obsession to see us all reduced to the level of animals, barefoot and naked, filthy and sick, miserable and helpless.

    But the Environmentalist movement will not succeed, hard as it may try, to take us back to savagery — not without our help. Let us not sanction Environmentalism’s evil, or pretend it is anything other than a movement for human misery on Earth.

    Let us proudly defend the value of our industrial civilization and the technological progress that makes our lives ever better, healthier, and longer.

    .GREENPEACE approach towards the dhamraport is disgusting and pathetic.since the dhamra port construction is coming 25 kms away from the breeding place , i dont think dhamraport is going to affect the breeding of turtles.therefore greenpeace should sit with the tata and and concerned authorities settle the matter amicabally, to safe guard the turtles and more importantly people of orissa.we should support the TATA for the construction of dhamra port.ratan tata should not stop the dhamra port at any cost.

    Reply
  20. pooja

    The earth is but one country and mankind its citizens.god created earth to be used for the benefit of human,so many prestigous people like tata are doing great things for the people of india and enviroment,at the same they are looking at the poverty line of orissa ,the dhamra project will definitely help the people of orissa,tata is not destroying the enviorment,its safe guarding the enviroment and helping the people of orissa to fight poverty by building the dharma port . i fully support the tata and the dhamra port

    Reply
  21. Charan

    Every lock will have its own key, likewise even in Dharma port construction, problems have cropped up and both the groups should unravel this issue on communal understanding, and should reflect on the more lucrative plan.

    Reply
  22. Dwarika prasad

    I sense the human rights are more imperative in this issue, and also, Dhamra port construction will not harm Gahirmatha turtle breeding which is nearly 25 to 30 kilometers far-off from the place of port construction. So, it is an imprudent thing being done by Greenpeace that it is opposing the DPC for no proper reasons

    Reply
  23. Manohar

    I muscularly support the construction of Dhamra port as it lends a hand for the upgrading of rank of Orissa , in fact our India needs this type of expansion, TATA can undertake to give an opportunity for these NGOs to unravel this issue in a genuine way, if still it is not solved then TATA should just go on with its construction

    Reply
  24. sushmita

    The right to development is the measure of the respect of all other human rights.That should be our aim: a situation in which all individuals are enabled to maximize their potential, and to contribute to the evolution of society as a whole.TATA has gone to all the norms and regulations required to built the port ,it will defnitely provide good infrastructure and also will provide employment,since tata is a prestigious company it wont work against the enviorment and the construction is going to be 25 kms away from the breeding place and i am sure that it wont affect the breeding of the turtles ,i fully support the dhamra project

    Reply
  25. Priya Nayak

    Olive ridley turtles are totally safe from the construction of Dhamra Port. As this port has got all the environmental clearence. Moreover Dhamra port is 25 kms. far from Gahirmatha. The Greenpeace should know that Dhamra Port doesn’t harm the olive ridley turtles. But, infact stands as a backbone for the growth of Orrisa state.

    Reply
  26. shilpa shetty

    Till date agriculture is the main occupation of orissa’s cittizens and hence, Orissa state’s economy was also dependent on agriculture. But, the production of food grains has considerably fluctuated over the years due to natural calamities. Now, the growth and production of the Food and other agricultural products have come down affecting economy of Orissa State. In such a state, TATA has come forward to help, develop and build a New orissa state, which promises many jobs and livelihood to the local citizens also helps to build orissa a strong economic state. I stronglt support Dhamra port construction.

    Reply
  27. pooja aggarwal

    Green peace after protesting against TATA as enemies of Olive Ridley Turtles for last few years, it is ridiculous to know that they are still protesting in the name after turtles after turtles recently arrived for nesting in Orissa. It’s a shame on Greenpeace for misusing the cause and trying to stop TATA from building the port. It is Greenpeace who are real enemies of India, staying inside India trying to stop the development, Infrastructure and Economical growth of Orissa State and the country. Greenpeace should be banned from India.

    Reply
  28. rashi

    Orissa has a rich land but, many people from orissa after their schooling migrate to different states of the country hunting for jobs. The reason, to earn daily daily bread, support their families back in orissa and the unemployment in Orissa state. The two key reasons for the state’s poverty is due to repeated natural calamities and lacking of high quality infrastructure and improper utilization of its vast mineral resources. Now, TATA has come forward to give a new look to Orissa state by providing jobs, infrastructure and help growth of of Orissa state economy. It’s a great job indeed. I whole heartedly support the port construction.

    Reply
  29. vikas

    The stories of Olive Ridley Turtles and Dhamra Port project in Orissa have been much spoken topics in Orissa and other major cities of India. This could be due to the considerable attention given to endangered species of Olive Ridley turtles and their nesting grounds in Orissa. But, why don’t NGOs like Greenpeace also think about the humans living in Orissa? Indeed, saving turtles from dying is a heroic act but, stopping the development, Infrastructure and economy growth of Orissa on which thousands of Orissa locals would make their living in future, well what do you call this act as? Can we call it as human sacrifice to save turtles? This is ridiculous; Greenpeace should also give the equal importance to the human feelings and developments. TATA is doing a great job, I support the Dhamra port construction.

    Reply
  30. vivek

    We must understand the role of human rights as empowering of individuals and communities. By protecting these rights, we can help prevent the many conflicts based on poverty, discrimination and exclusion (social, economic and political) that continue to plague humanity and destroy decades of development efforts. The vicious circle of human rights violations that lead to conflicts-which in turn lead to more violations-must be broken. I believe we can break it only by ensuring respect for all human rights, It is really good to know that atleast TATA has taken an initiative to develop Orissa State. I hope this would bring in a balanced livelihood, employment and at par infrastructure and business for overall development development of Orissa Citizens and state

    Reply
  31. swathi

    People are bound to fall to emotional subjects and some NGOs are well known to trap people using this as a weak point. Most of those people wont have any thorough knowledge about the subject. NGOs misusing this to make money or fame or just to create a hype by mis-guiding people, this is something really important one has to think about. I support the TATA Dhamra port construction.

    Reply
  32. neha

    If an NGO is talking about the ridley turtles, generally all animal lovers would come forward to help, but,before that person could gain some knowledge about turtles and the facts, he would have been attended/approached by various means,in the name of education or saving animals and would have been brain washed to an extent that he would stop thinking about knowing things on his own and would blindly accept what is said to him as real facts. Greenpeace should stop playing such tricks and help support build a strong nation.

    Reply
  33. anitha

    I am an environmentalist and I also know the fact about this campaign is that, the port in question is 25 kilometers or more than away from the nesting place of ridley olives, but, Greenpeace and their campaigners do not mention that and other fact is, thousands of turtles have come and gone in the last couple of years, even after the construction started, but, Greenpeace also doesn’t mention this nor ready to
    agree on this. Here the question is why? let facts be facts why does Greenpeace wants to hide these facts and divert and make a big issue on what is actually not required?

    Reply
  34. riya

    I love turtles. I am also well aware that TATA constructing a port would help the poor and would also raise a little status of the Orissa locals. I support Dhamra port construction.

    Reply
  35. Vidyut Kale

    Thank you everyone, for your perspective and insights. Please note that posting this here does not mean that I am against either Greenpeace or Tata. I just thought that it was something that people here would be interested in, and it seems to be right. I’m enjoying hearing from all of you and I realize how much awareness we collectively hold.

    I appreciate all your presence here.

    Vidyut

    Reply
  36. smitha

    When a question comes about the Choosing turtles and Port construction, I would choose both. In recent times, it is learnt that Turtles had come for nesting even when Port was under construction, then there is no question about the fact that the port is constructed at a far away place which is actually not disturbing the the turtles and due to this reason they have come. So, now it is for us to decide whether we can support TATA to build a port which would provide jobs, business, infrastructure and helps locals and orissa state government to improve their economic status… I strongly support the TATA for Port construction.

    Reply
  37. megha bhat

    I want to bring one thing into the notice of Green peace that TATA is actually trying to make Orissa people to be more kind and generous towards Olive Ridleys by constructing Dhamra port, otherwise people try to work illegally for their living at the place

    Of Nesting of Turtles, So if Green peace really wants to save the turtles it should support Tata.

    Reply
  38. Dilip

    Nature has always created things with interdependence, on each other that may be of man on nature or between varieties of creatures. But in this issue of Dhamra port constructions, is seems like interdependency is not among man & nature, but it is among the Green peace and the other political matters by which the NGO’s will be benefited.

    Reply
  39. Karthikeya

    What these NGO’s are trying to achieve? Whether they want to save environment or
    they want to create big names by cropping up such controversies.
    In this issue one can plainly notice that this is not a struggle for environmental protection,
    this is a big game created by this Greenpeace or other such NGO’s with some self-seeking motto behind that.

    Reply
  40. Harish

    If we turn back to our bygone days we can perceive that, from the day one, man is all the time in the rear of inventing some new things which made him to succeed in his path, this is solely for the reason that he had tough desire of experimenting new things to get the best out of it, & his same struggle is on till today, for which Dhamra port construction is another example, and it should not stop because of any kind of obstructions.

    Reply
  41. pooja

    You gain strength, courage, and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face. You must do the thing which you think you cannot do.TATA should go with the dhamra port ,not to bothered about the ngos ,since the tata is showing the sincere effort to safeguard the turtles ,it is following all the norms and regulations and with the necessary guidance from the dpcl it wont have any problem for the breeding of the turtles.we all should support dhamra port for the people of orissa.

    Reply
  42. Ashok

    Gahirmatha is utterly distant from the place of Dhamra port construction. Turtles will be safe and sound even after the port construction. Green peace is trying to drag the public in erroneous path. I vote for Tata & construction of port.

    Reply
  43. Ganesh

    Green peace is using the Olive Ridly Turtles as their weapon to succeed in their immoral plan.
    Because if we study the facts of this dispute, Turtles cannot at all be involved in this issue as they are no where harmed by the construction of Dhamra port. Green peace which is recognized as an international organization should not make these kind of cheap tricks.

    Reply
  44. veena

    I strongly shore up for the construction of Dhamra port, which helps for the expansion of Orissa State. The construction gives employment for the fisherman and other people.
    And on the otherside, turtles are not at all concerned to this issue.

    Reply
  45. mohit

    Our people should focus on the expansion of our country rather than believing the self-centered catchphrases of NGO’s like Greenpeace.
    These kind of NGO’s are corrupting people by fake evidence, which will lead our public in immoral pathway.

    Reply
  46. rashmi

    I request our people to understand the real intension of Green peace which is forcing everyone to oppose Dhamra port construction, and our youth should support the establishment of Orissa and our country.

    Reply
  47. richa

    We all know that human rights cannot just be transplanted as external principles into individuals or their communities. Human rights principles must be internalized by each individual, women and men, and must be absorbed and expressed in their own ways and within the positive aspects of their cultural values and beliefs. In order for this to happen, we must believe that these rights will protect them and not expose them in a battle against the society. They do weigh the social costs of entering into conflict as opposed to the benefits coming from the status quo.
    taking into the context of the matter of dhamraport,GREENPEACE should not make such a hue and cry infact they should work with the TATA to safe guard the turtles amd more than anything else the people of orissa.i concur and support the dhamra port,

    Reply
  48. shruti

    Olive Ridley turtles are coming every year to Gahirmatha Marine Sanctuary for nesting in the warm eastern sand. In the same way they came this year and nested between March 21st to March 24th. Already this year’s nesting has been completed . Even now why this Greenpeace is dragging this issue with the same reason of turtles

    Reply
  49. patrick

    However TATA has made an effort to solve this issue amicably and called Greenpeace for the conversation. But it seems Greenpeace is not ready to unravel this issue. They are heaving the issue for no reasons.
    Tata should now carry on with its project of construction.

    Reply
  50. tejas

    Its high time now, Tata should not wait because of Green peace.
    If Tata group is confident in its path, it should just go on with its construction work.
    I shore up for Tata and Dhamra port construction.

    Reply
  51. pracheta

    After knowing all the facts & figures of this issue, I am seriously worried about our Nation. Foreign Organizations like Green peace are planning to suppress the development of our country. Our people should understand this and should support to improve our country.

    Reply
  52. nithin

    Even now people support NGO’s believing that they work for some genuine reasons or to protect our planet. But NGO’s like Greenpeace are making a fuss of standards of these NGO’s. I really feel sad for that. Any how it should not be successful in the issue of Dharma port construction

    Reply
  53. sushmita

    We are built to conquer environment, solve problems, achieve goals, and we find no real satisfaction or happiness in life without obstacles to conquer and goals to acheive.gahirmatha is very far away from the dhamraport.its really ridiculous on the part of GREENPEACE to object the construction of dhamra port,they should sit with Tata negotiate the matter with the concerned authorties and help the TATA to construct the dhamra port,since the port is coming 25 kms from the breeding of the turtles it wont affect the the nesting.greenpeace also should look into the life of people of orissa. we all support the dhamra port construction,

    Reply
  54. sapna

    It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes short again and again, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause, who at best knows achievement and who at the worst if he fails at least fails while daring greatly so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.TATA should go with the construction of dhamra port,since it is the infrastructure project critical for the development of orissa ,and since so many people are involved to safeguard the marine lifes and breeding of theturtles ,GREENPEACE should also work with government and the tatas to develop the port,human lives is as important as the life of turtles.i support the dhamra port.

    Reply
  55. divya

    By constructing the Dhamra port, lot many Fishermen will dig up with the employment for their life which helps to save the fishes and also turtles, otherwise the fishing trawlers continue to sail even, during the time of nesting
    So the best way to save these creatures is supporting the construction of port

    Reply
  56. mansi

    Greenpeace is not having any intensions to save the turtles, it is just pretending in front of public to save turtles, or else it would not have stopped the development of orissa by the name of Turtles which are not at all harmed by the port construction

    Reply
  57. mukesh

    NGO’s are the organizations which have to struggle for the sake of saving the planet. But how can they forget their main aim or motto and involve in some industrial issues which is nowhere related to their complaints

    Reply
  58. ankur

    In life, many thoughts are born in the course of a moment, an hour, a day. Some are dreams, some visions. Often, we are unable to distinguish between them. To some, they are the same; however, not all dreams are visions. Much energy is lost in fanciful dreams that never bear fruit. But visions are messages from the Great Spirit, each for a different purpose in life. Consequently, one person’s vision may not be that of another. To have a vision, one must be prepared to receive it, and when it comes, to accept it. Thus when these inner urges become reality, only then can visions be fulfilled. The spiritual side of life knows everyone’s heart and who to trust. How could a vision ever be given to someone to harbor if that person could not be trusted to carry it out. The message is simple: commitment precedes vision.TATA has a vision to built the dhamra port,for the people of orissa,greenpeace who is objecting to the port that they should balance between enviorment and development since the port is going to be handed over to the government once when it is completed,green peace should work with the government of orissa and solve the problem with proper negotations,instead of making so much fuss.we fully support the dhamra port.

    Reply
  59. chirag

    Tata is actually trying to solve the employment problem of orissa in a legal way, by giving the employment for the fishermen who make their earnings through illegal fishing. If Tata stops the port construction, the illegal activities will be more and the threats for Turtles will be even more

    Reply
  60. ram

    The only way to save our country from these kinds of NGO’s is to make the public to understand about the selfish intension behind the comments of these NGO’s and public should judge them stop supporting them.,

    Reply
  61. shilpa

    I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.this enables the people to move with the times as per as the requirement of the people.TATA has coming out with the prestigious dhamraport in orissa in view of the adverse affect of the people of orissa for the changing times.greenpeace should support this project instead of making so much hue and cry.since after completion of the project government of orissa is taking over the port.it will definitely safeguard the safety of the marine life.so i concur and fully support the dhamra port.

    Reply
  62. nagesh

    It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes short again and again, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause, who at best knows achievement and who at the worst if he fails at least fails while daring greatly so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.TATA has a vision to built the dhamra port,for the people of orissa,greenpeace who is objecting to the port that they should balance between enviorment and development since the port is going to be handed over to the government once when it is completed,green peace should work with the government of orissa and solve the problem with proper negotations,instead of making so much fuss.we fully support the dhamra port

    Reply
  63. potham shetty

    The essence of democracy is its assurance that every human being should so respect himself and should be so respected in his own personality that he should have opportunity equal to that of every other human being to show what he was meant to become.Can anything be sadder than work left unfinished? Yes; work never begun.There is no security on this earth. Only opportunity.TATA is using this opportunity to built the dhamra port in orissa,Green peace after protesting against TATA as enemies of Olive Ridley Turtles,they are trying to get the political mileage for their vested intrest,tata should unduly worry about the greenpeace it should construct the dhamraport for the people of orissa under the proper guidelines from the government.

    Reply
  64. kiran

    Everyone has a right to peaceful coexistence, the basic personal freedoms, the alleviation of suffering, and the opportunity to lead a productive life.TATA is doing a wonderful job by constructing the dhamraport for the people of orissa,it will definitely improve the infrastructure and naturally there will be a growth in the economy for the people of orissa .green peace is taking a unjust stand by opposing the project,green peace should understand that the people of orissa specially living the coastal areas live well below the poverty line this dhamra port is a boon to them,since the TATA is taking necessary guidelines to safeguard the marine life and the breeding of the turtles.and also the dhamraport is coming 25kms away from the breeding place.it is no way going to affect the breeding od the turtles .so we all should support the dhamra port.

    Reply
  65. karuna

    State of affairs will be affecting the goals and bring a pause in the achievements, but this cannot stop the progress of the country. Any times this happens in the journey of success, but ultimate joy is in getting triumph over these obstacles. So, TATA, never lose sight of your goal.

    Reply
  66. pavan

    The strike, the boycott, the refusal to serve, the ability to paralyze the functioning of a complex social structure-these remain potent weapons against the most fearsome state or corporate power.TATA is coming up with the prestigious dhamra port,GREENPEACE which is globally recognised NGO is trying to hamper the development. Dhamra port construction will not harm Gahirmatha turtle breeding which is nearly 25 to 30 kilometers far-off from the place of port construction. So, it is an imprudent thing being done by Greenpeace .TATA should not stop the construction of dhamra port

    Reply
  67. sapna

    green peace are more interested to gain popularity for their vested interested .instead of protecting the enviorment on the behest of funders they try to manipulate things in their favour,i wish green peace be banned

    Reply
  68. janet

    janetmisoram said…
    By PATRICK MOORE
    In 1971 an environmental and antiwar ethic was taking root in Canada, and I chose to participate. As I completed a Ph.D. in ecology, I combined my science background with the strong media skills of my colleagues. In keeping with our pacifist views, we started Greenpeace.

    But I later learned that the environmental movement is not always guided by science. As we celebrate Earth Day today, this is a good lesson to keep in mind.

    At first, many of the causes we championed, such as opposition to nuclear testing and protection of whales, stemmed from our scientific knowledge of nuclear physics and marine biology. But after six years as one of five directors of Greenpeace International, I observed that none of my fellow directors had any formal science education. They were either political activists or environmental entrepreneurs. Ultimately, a trend toward abandoning scientific objectivity in favor of political agendas forced me to leave Greenpeace in 1986.Sadly, Greenpeace has evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas. Its antichlorination campaign failed, only to be followed by a campaign against polyvinyl chloride.

    Greenpeace now has a new target called phthalates (pronounced thal-ates). These are chemical compounds that make plastics flexible. They are found in everything from hospital equipment such as IV bags and tubes, to children’s toys and shower curtains. They are among the most practical chemical compounds in existence.The European Union banned the use of phthalates in toys prior to completion of a comprehensive risk assessment on DINP. That assessment ultimately concluded that the use of DINP in infant toys poses no measurable risk.

    The antiphthalate activists are running a campaign of fear to implement their political agenda. They have seen success in California, with a state ban on the use of phthalates in infant products, and are pushing for a national ban. This fear campaign merely distracts the public from real environmental threats.

    We all have a responsibility to be environmental stewards. But that stewardship requires that science, not political agendas, drive our public policy.

    Mr. Moore, co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace, is chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies.
    visit http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120882720657033391.html
    pls post your opinion after going to the web link.

    Reply
  69. saishriyaa

    Criticism of Greenpeace.
    ———————————-
    Does anyone know if this report is accurate ?
    Rick

    “Activists Attack Greenpeace over Anti-GM Tactics,” Reuters (news
    service), July 31, 1999, by Simon Gardner
    ======================================================================
    =====

    Greenpeace came under fire from fellow environmental groups on July
    29, accused of damaging the credibility of anti-GM campaigns by
    destroying a genetically modified crop earlier in the week.

    Both Friends of the Earth and organic farming group the Soil
    Association were cited as condemning Greenpeace’s attitude towards GM
    crops, saying the group was not giving science a chance.

    Greenpeace protesters wrecked half a test crop of genetically modified
    maize in Norfolk on July 26 by flattening the crop with a tractor.

    Helen Browning, chairman of the Soil Association, was quoted as
    telling the British Broadcasting Corporation [BBC] current affairs
    program Newsnight that, “You cannot go around trashing crops and
    breaking the law. We can protest in other ways. Being destructive is
    only going to turn the farming community in on itself.”

    A Friends of the Earth spokesman was quoted as saying, “What
    Greenpeace has done here is wrong. The principal reason for
    supporting or opposing the use of GM crops must be scientific. The
    price that we will pay for not allowing proper science to underpin the
    decision making process is a very high one indeed. I don’t believe
    Greenpeace has taken into account the loss of credibility [to] the
    environment movement as a whole.”
    visit and post after viewing the web link.
    http://sweetness-light.com/archive/a-founder-explains-why-he-left-greenpeace

    Reply
  70. romeo

    Green peace is just a waste of resources monetarily and human. Its purpose can be done by investing in school level and college level studies curiculum rather than in NGO

    Reply
  71. pothamshetty

    U.S. takes hard line on Greenpeace
    Bush critics say use of obscure law smacks of retribution
    ———————————-
    msnbc.com
    Nov. 14, 2003 – When Greenpeace activists illegally scrambled aboard the cargo ship APL Jade, it was the start of a pretty typical day. Convinced the ship was hauling contraband mahogany from Brazil, the environmentalists aimed to draw attention to it by unfurling a banner with this message: “President Bush, Stop Illegal Logging.” Their arrests by the Coast Guard were also part of a day’s work. But the later use of an obscure 19th century law to charge the entire organization with criminal conspiracy has Greenpeace defenders claiming that they are the target of U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft’s attempts to stifle political criticism of the government.

    The Greenpeace demonstration off the coast of Florida on April 12, 2002, was one of a series of similar “direct actions” taken by the international organization near ports around the world as it attempted to draw attention to the mahogany shipment, which violated a Brazilian moratorium on mahogany lumbering in the Amazon, and violated the international treaty controlling trade in endangered species, CITES.

    It was standard practice for the international organization, which for more than three decades has used this in-your-face method to fight for causes it deems just. It is a method of civil disobedience that has been used by activists on both ends of the political spectrum, from civil rights campaigners to anti-abortion groups. In Florida, as in the mahogany protests elsewhere, a handful of individuals were charged with minor crimes and released shortly thereafter.
    Greenpeace, say the case is of “profound importance” because it “imperils the core values of the Constitution.”

    ‘For 200 years, the United States government has refrained from prosecuting advocacy groups whose members occasionally engage in peaceful civil disobedience to convey a constitutionally protected message.’

    — AMICUS BRIEF

    “For two hundred years, the United States government has refrained from prosecuting advocacy groups whose members occasionally engage in peaceful civil disobedience to convey a constitutionally protected message,” they wrote in their brief. “The prosecution of Greenpeace indicates a sea change in that policy.”

    Greenpeace, which has led an aggressive pro-environmental campaign since its founding in 1971, has been at odds with the Bush administration since its earliest days in office, decrying the president’s position on the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, staging protests against the National Missile Defense Initiative and the opening of roads on national forest land. Just a few months after Bush took office, Greenpeace activists climbed a water tower near his ranch in Crawford, Texas, and unfurled a banner that read: “Bush the Toxic Texan, Don’t Mess with the Earth.” They were arrested after a two-hour stand-off during which they refused to climb down, ignoring demands by the mayor, the county sheriff and the Secret Service.

    “We have been critics across the board,” says John Passacantando, executive director of Greenpeace.

    He says the organization has never before been challenged at this level in the United States, and characterizes it as the way the Justice Department operates under Ashcroft.

    “The parallel I see is with the McCarthy era — the overreach by the government to stifle its critics,” he says. “It is a fight we are willing to take on … a fight for our right to dissent peacefully in this country in areas we think society is wrong.”

    Greenpeace will seek additional discovery to lay out what went into the decision to charge Greenpeace, says legal counsel Tom Wetterer. “We have found no previous examples of where the government has charged an organization for a political protest,” he says.

    “The prosecution, if indeed it is selective, amounts to nothing more than an act of intimidation by the government, apparently directed at silencing political speech,” says the ACLU/PAWF brief

    Reply
  72. ramche.baby

    The need of present India is a sustainable investment in infrastructure and social well being. There is too big gap between the elite and the mojority poor. Focusing more in this issue will bear more result as carbon credit is now implemented to many industries in India. Unlike the developed country6 India carbon emission is quite vety low. Greenould focus developed nation

    Reply
  73. dayakarshetty

    Greenpeace recently released their “Guide to Greener Electronics,” rating fourteen consumer electronics vendors. Following in the same tradition as the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, Greenpeace issued a press release that specifically called attention to Apple and assigned the company a failing grade. Do the claims have any merit?
    The Claims
    Unlike the SVTC’s Toxic Trash Attack on Apple, Greenpeace focused less on where e-waste might be ending up, and drew more attention to the toxic chemicals used in manufacturing, since these would tend to make any recycling efforts more dangerous. The report explained:

    The ranking is important because the amounts of toxic e-waste is [sic] growing everyday and it often ends up dumped in the developing world. Reducing the toxic chemicals in products reduces pollution from old products and makes recycling safer, easier and cheaper.

    The stated goal of the report was to encourage manufacturers to:

    1) clean up their products by eliminating hazardous substances; and 2) takeback and recycle their products responsibly once they become obsolete.

    Greenpeace ranked Nokia and Dell near the top, but essentially gave failing grades across the industry, ranking Lenovo last, and Apple in eleventh place out of the fourteen brands. The report singled out Apple for its low rank, saying:

    It is disappointing to see Apple ranking so low in the overall guide. They are meant to be world leaders in design and marketing, they should also be world leaders in environmental innovation.
    Reality Check
    While the Greenpeace report attempted to rank vendors based upon useful and practical criteria, the actual scorecard and the methods used to collect information for their report were sloppy and incompetent. This should come as no surprise to anyone aware of Greenpeace activities.

    Greenpeace has worked to create awareness of important environmental issues since the 1970’s, but their methods, accuracy, and effectiveness have ranged from controversial to comical to scandalous.

    Greenpeace activism is based upon the simplification of complex political issues into epic battles between good and evil. Rather than devoting a lot of resources into educating the public, Greenpeace, like most political activist groups, tries to create sensationalist drama to grab attention and put simplistic issues in the headlines.

    This is pretty commonplace in politics; however, Greenpeace has an established history of playing fast and loose with facts in order to intensify their stories, and in some cases their pursuits’ careless disregard for the truth has caused more damage than the evil they attempted to target.

    This happened quite literally last fall, when Greenpeace divers aboard the Rainbow Warrior II entered the Tubbataha Reef Marine Park, off the coast of the Philippines, in order to assess the effect of global warming.

    While discovering that the protected coral reef appeared to be healthy, Greenpeace managed to run their ship into the reef, damaging over a thousand square feet (100 sq m) of the protected coral.

    More famously, in 1995, after Shell oil obtained UK permits to sink their Brent Spar oil platform in the North Sea, Greenpeace activists boarded the platform and demanded Shell move the ocean platform to shore for dismantling, rather than dispose of it into deep ocean waters.

    visit the below site and post u r comment http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/29C5599A-FCD8-4E30-9AD5-5497999ABA1B.html

    Reply
  74. nainaravi

    Hon. William M. Thomas

    Committee on Ways and Means
    U.S. House of Representatives
    1102 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Chairman Thomas:

    On behalf of the Center for Individual Freedom, I write to ask that the Committee on Ways and Means investigate and hold hearings on abuses of tax-exempt status by non-profit organizations in general, and violations committed by the group Greenpeace in particular.

    While tax violations by for-profit corporations have for some time captured legislative, regulatory, media, and public attention, similar violations by non-profits have gone largely unnoticed. Because of the magnitude of the budgets involved — and the magnitude of the corresponding impact on taxpayers — it would be prudent to bring this issue to the forefront.

    To explain how non-profits routinely circumvent federal tax laws, Public Interest Watch, a non-profit watchdog, recently issued a report on the financial practices of Greenpeace. The report documents how during a three-year period Greenpeace Fund, Inc., diverted over $24 million in tax-deductible contributions to related entities for use in non-qualifying programs. In doing so, Greenpeace Fund, Inc., violated both the letter and the spirit of the law under which it was chartered, IRC Section 501(c)(3), cheating taxpayers in the process.

    What makes the practice illegal is the way in which Greenpeace collects money required by law to be applied toward “educational” programs, and then shifts that money for use by groups that instead conduct “advocacy” and “direct action” programs. These other groups, known as 501(c)(4) organizations, are allowed to conduct such activities, but not using tax-deductible funds.

    Public Interest Watch explains that during the period examined, Greenpeace Fund, Inc., illegally made contributions to 501(c)(4) organizations as follows:

    $3.8 million to Greenpeace, Inc., in 1998;

    $4 million to Greenpeace International and other affiliates in 1998;

    $4.25 million to Greenpeace, Inc., in 1999;

    $3.8 million to Greenpeace International and other affiliates in 1999;

    $4.5 million to Greenpeace, Inc., in 2000;

    $3.7 million to Greenpeace International in 2000; and

    $0.8 million to Greenpeace affiliates in foreign countries in 2000.

    Examples of “advocacy” and “direct action” activities conducted by Greenpeace, Inc., and Greenpeace International that do not qualify under 501(c)(3) include:

    Campaigning against genetically-modified crops;

    Blockading a naval base in protest of the war in Iraq;

    Boarding an oil tanker for a “banner hang”;

    Breaking into the central control building of a nuclear power station; and

    Padlocking the gates of a government research facility.

    In light of the scandals perpetrated in the corporate world, it follows that those with the authority should work to eliminate similar misdeeds in the non-profit world. If specific actions are not taken against specific violations, then those non-profit corporations that strive to operate within the letter and spirit of the law which governs our status are put at a deficit. We therefore urge the Committee on Ways and Means to hold hearings on the matter and take appropriate action to bring Greenpeace into compliance with the law.

    We thank you for your consideration.

    Sincerely,

    Jeffrey Mazzella

    Executive Director

    cc: Speaker Dennis Hastert
    cc: Majority Leader Tom DeLay
    visithttp://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/investigate_greenpeace.htm
    and post u r comment

    Reply
  75. sandeep

    Greenpeace fined for reef damage

    Greenpeace divers were inspecting Tubbataha’s reefs for damage
    Environmental group Greenpeace has been fined almost $7,000 (£4,000) for damaging a coral reef at a World Heritage site in the Philippines.
    Their flagship Rainbow Warrior II ran aground at Tubbataha Reef Marine Park, in the Sulu Sea, 650km (400 miles) south-east of Manila.

    Park officials said almost 100 sq m (1,076 sq ft) of reef had been damaged.

    Greenpeace agreed to pay the fine, but blamed the accident on outdated maps provided by the Philippines government.

    “The chart indicated we were a mile and a half” from the coral reef when the ship ran aground, regional Greenpeace official Red Constantino told AFP news agency.

    “This accident could have been avoided if the chart was accurate,” he said, adding, however, that Greenpeace felt “responsible” for the damage.

    ‘Immediate action’

    The accident happened while the Rainbow Warrior was on a four-month tour of the Asia-Pacific region to promote environmentally-friendly energy sources.

    Greenpeace divers were at the Tubbataha park, off the coast of Palawan island, to inspect the effect of global warming on the coral reef.

    The Rainbow Warrior escaped serious damage
    Mr Constantino said the reef appeared to be healthy, with no evidence of bleaching which is believed to be caused by warmer sea temperatures.

    The Rainbow Warrior II escaped serious damage and was towed into deeper water by its own rubber boats.

    Tubbataha park manager, Angelique Songco, praised the work Greenpeace was doing to protect the environment.

    “We also appreciate the immediate action they took to get the full assessment of the damage,” she said.

    Reply
  76. nainarv

    Greenpeace protest e.g. high sea drama’s and stand in pritest inindia of TATA contruction site for Olive turtle is mostly motivated for publicity stunts. It’s an activist against law and order.

    Reply
  77. jasomabraham

    Are we against Greenpeace?
    Until a few years ago, we were admirers of Greenpeace, until we discovered that even if their targets are legitimated, in all cases they use lies, halftruths and exaggerations to reach their target. And in the case of chlorine and PVC, even the target is wrong.
    By saying that Greenpeace uses lies, we are in good company: Paul Crutzen, recent Nobel Prize winner for his work on the ozone layer, has cancelled his membership of Greenpeace:
    “They have cheated the case and I am angry about that, because that will come to our account. They use bad data, as well as for the Brent Spar as for the French nuclear tests. I am against nuclear tests, but one should use scientifical sound arguments… …No, Greenpeace has harmed the environmental case.”

    The actions of environmental groups, including Greenpeace, of which many Chlorophiles are (in the case of Greenpeace: were) members, were necessary in the past to awake the managements of factories and the government, that pollution was going too far. But nowadays, most factories are polluting much less than traffic or agricultural or domestic activities.

    Some environmental groups, like Bellona in the Nordic countries, have done actions at PVC-factories, but they didn’t ask for the closing down, they worked out how to reduce the pollution to acceptable low amounts. This was followed by investments at the factories and now PVC is an accepted product for them. This is not the case for Greenpeace, they are against PVC, only because it contains chlorine, even if they lose a lot of credibility for themselves and, even worse, for the environmental ideas in general.
    We think that environmental groups are still necessary to be a watchdog for factories and government to keep them aware of the consequences of what they are doing. But that must be groups that use sound science and valuable arguments, not this Greenpeace.
    VISIT THIS BELOW LINK TO KNOW MORE ABOUT IT.
    http://www.ping.be/~ping5859/en/en_gp_cl2.html

    Reply
  78. padmalatha

    Exposure Of The Greenpeace Lies About GM Foods
    Letters To The Editor
    The Courier-Mail, 16th February,2005
    Ed Newbigin, School of Botany, University of Melbourne, Victoria.
    Greenpeace’s Jeremy Tager (Letters, Feb 15) refers to the myths of the genetic engineering industry, but then produces his own myth by saying that animals that eat GE [Genetically Engineered] food “frequently show serious effects”. Wrong. Numerous studies attest to the fact that animals that eat GE food as part of a normal diet do as well as animals that eat conventional food. Greenpeace does the community a great disservice by spreading such myths.

    Tony Coulepis, executive director, AusBiotech, Richmond, Victoria
    Greenpeace will lose any claim to represent consumers if it continues to misinform them. GM [Genetically Modified] crops and foods, derived from biotechnology, are the most rigorously tested foods in history. Any GM crop on the market, and many have been available for 10 years, has been shown by independent government regulators to be safe for animals and humans alike

    Reply
  79. martina

    Economy versus Enviroment. Let us be aware that environment is not stable, Its on changes and natural compitition and section. Economy is one of everyone right to live a good life. Therefore a group like one of greenpeace may serve more a way of employment rather than save the future.

    Reply
  80. udayakumari

    Terrorism in the Name of the Earth
    Flush out eco-terrorism money
    ———————————–
    .

    On Sept. 22, the charitable oversight group Public Interest Watch filed a complaint with the IRS charging Greenpeace with making such illegal transfers. In a report entitled “Green-Peace, Dirty Money: Tax Violations in the World of Non-Profits,” Public Interest Watch found that Greenpeace Fund, a 501(c)(3) transferred more than $10 million in exempt funds to nonexempt Greenpeace organizations such as Greenpeace, Inc. , between 1998 and 2000. Greenpeace, Inc., and other nonexempt Greenpeace entities benefiting from these transfers have committed numerous acts of eco-terrorism. They have blockaded a U.S. naval base, broken into the central control building of a nuclear power station in England, overrun the Exxon-Mobil corporate headquarters in Texas, and rammed a ship into the French sailboat competing in the 2003 America’s Cup,

    permanently damaging the vessel.

    In April 2002, Greenpeace activists forcibly boarded a cargo ship in Florida carrying Brazilian wood. In connection with this incident, federal prosecutors indicted Greenpeace in July for violating an 1872 law prohibiting the unauthorized boarding of “any vessel about to arrive at the place of her destination.” (The trial is scheduled for December).

    Greenpeace isn’t alone in funneling tax-exempt dollars into eco-terrorism efforts. According to the Center for Consumer Freedom, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has donated at least $70,000 from its tax-exempt coffers to the ALF. Assistant U.S. Attorney Timothy Verhey, who prosecuted the 1992 ALF firebombing of a Michigan State University laboratory, has noted the challenge of prosecuting eco-terrorists because of “a lack of witnesses and the group’s ‘cell’ structure that lacks centralized leadership or a membership roster.”

    The difficulty in nabbing individual eco-terrorists is precisely why it is critically important that the IRS do its part to immobilize eco-terrorism groups by investigating the illegal use of tax-exempt funds to bankroll their crimes. Eco-terrorism is a scourge on society and a sordid stain on the wholesome causes of nonviolent environmentalists. Let’s put the peace back into Greenpeace and protect the environment through vigilance, not vigilantism.
    visit this below site for further details.
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/10/19/EDGM82CQO01.DTL

    Reply
  81. riya

    movement of any kind require motivation and implementing its goals and not just highlighting issues of miniscule proportion when there are far vital ones to be addressed around the globe. Each organization should learn to introspect and learn of thier limitations.

    Reply
  82. Tina

    It is sad that we first decide a villain and then find the proof to crucify them, when our concern could be about the turtles and people of Orissa and finding out ways so that both prosper.

    – Cyber activist blogger’s viewpoint on Greenpeace and the turtles

    Reply
  83. Jessica

    Expressing anguish over the Green Peace movement’s single point agenda on stopping work on Dhamra Port project in Orissa, Tata Steel Chairman Ratan Tata reiterated that the company would in no way take up any project hazardous to Olive Ridley Turtles

    Mr Ratan Tata Chairman of TATA Steel to Greenpeace activists: “I invite you for a discussion and a visit to the port site in Dhamra.”

    Tata proved that Tata was always willing to have a best solution for country’s industrial & economical development and they were always ready for solutions.

    http://steelguru.com/news/index/2009/08/29/MTA5MDgw/TATA_Steel_invites_Greenpeace_activists_for_talks_on_Dhamra_Port.html

    http://www.indopia.in/India-usa-uk-news/latest-news/661058/Business/4/20/4

    http://www.newkerala.com/nkfullnews-1-100917.html

    Reply
  84. Tina

    Greenpeace, the professed global environment campaign organization, in an instance of unmatched brazenness, falsified the report prepared by North Orissa University on Biodiversity Assessment of Dhamra Estuary. As a result, a group of forty MPs wrote to the Ministry Of Environment and Forests to call on the bluff of Greenpeace. The Orissa Govt. therefore initiated action against Greenpeace proposing a ban on all its activities in the state.

    However, after the 102nd Annual General Meeting of Tata Steel in Mumbai, Greenpeace unabashedly has started their tricks once again. This time it has managed to rope in Retd Admiral Ramdas and his wife Mrs. Lalita Ramdas on the issue of Dhamra port but as far as scientific reasoning goes, the issues raised are totally unfounded. We can just hope that the visit of the Ramdas’ to the site will help to stop meaningless agitations and clear the situation once and for all.

    Reply
  85. Meghna

    Tata Steel has always maintained a strong focus on environment sustainability and environment management in all its operations. We have seen that in the issues regarding the construction of a deep-sea port at Dhamra in Orissa, the Company has been forthcoming in sharing the concerns of activists and ever willing to implement practical means of mitigating any adverse impact of port construction on the marine eco-system in that area. The Company has held at least eight to nine sessions of meetings with Greenpeace and other environmental organizations in the matter of Dhamra Port. Tata Steel has made it abundantly clear that it is willing to have further discussions in order to alleviate any unnecessary doubts that the dissenters may yet nurture against the project.

    Here is an outline of events as they happened till date.

    The JV agreement with L&T to build a port at Dhamra was signed by Tata Steel in 2004. At the very onset, discussions were initiated with WWF- India, BNHS, Mr Kartik Shankar, Mr Bittu Sehagal and others.

    The company was duly concerned with the objections raised by different environmental organizations and agreed not to begin construction work till a detailed study was complete. Responding wholeheartedly to the demands of activists, Tata Steel agreed for a proposal for a further study of the impact of the port on turtles and on the marine and island eco-system.

    In 2005, BNHS and WWF-India, with an unprecedented suddenness, reversed their stand and refused to conduct the assessment study as they had promised. However, the organisations did not provide any reasons for their turncoat attitude.

    In March 06, in an address to ED, Greenpeace India, the Chairman of TATA Sons made it clear that commitments were meant to be honoured at both ends. The Company had fulfilled their promise by withholding construction work for the proposed study, which never actually took off. The MD of Tata Steel also met Greenpeace officials in their Bangalore office.

    In January 2008 a meeting was subsequently conducted between Greenpeace and Tata Steel and a list of concerns was presented by Greenpeace with regard to Dhamra Port. DPCL on 8th March 2008, gave a detailed and comprehensive explanation to all the points raised by Greenpeace. Subsequent objections were allayed on 3rd May 2008.

    Further on 23rd October 2008, MD, Tata Steel along with senior executives of Tata Steel, L&T and DPCL met Greenpeace, BNHS, WPSI, Wild Society of Orissa, Sanctuary Asia and other environmental organizations to discuss the concerns and the way forward on the subject with regard to Dhamra Port.

    A team of Company Executives and environment experts visited Bhitarakanika National Park, Gahirmatha Marine Sanctuary and the Dhamra Port site on February 2009, supervising the ongoing dredging operations.

    On fourth meeting on 20th Feb 2009 in Kolkata, Tata Steel, L&T and DPCL agreed to conduct the additional biological impact assessment in close collaboration with NGOs’ of environmental organizations team led by a mutually agreed upon Scientists team. However the NGOs’ in a further instance of unreasonableness, insisted upon complete cessation of on-going dredging operation of Dhamra Port even before the commencement of study. However DPCL, Tata Steel and L&T team showed it preparedness to adjust the schedule of works including dredging to facilitate the study after due recommendation by the Scientists team.

    The 102nd AGM of Tata Steel had been attended by a number of Greenpeace activists who happen to be shareholders of the Company as well. The AGM highlighted Tata Steel’s interests in further conference with Greenpeace in the matter of the port in addition to an invitation to activists to visit the port site yet again.

    From the sequence of events, it is absolutely clear that the only thing that Greenpeace wants is to prolong the situation of deadlock in the matter of Dhamra Port. Perhaps, due to a lack of other valid issues on their agenda, Greenpeace is carrying on with a stance of stiffness, lest they have to give in to valid scientific reasoning. The only deduction that may be drawn from Greenpeace’s lack of willingness in discussion is that they have lost their own conviction long before and fear that they will have to admit it as such in an open forum. It is indeed a very sorry state of affairs in which progress is kept at stake and the environment is being used as a pawn by people who profess themselves to be friends of the environment.

    Reply
  86. Aakansha

    Some shareholders of Tata Steel brought up the concerns raised by Greenpeace about the impact of the Dhamra Port on the nesting habitat of Olive Ridley Turtles at Tata Steel’s 102nd AGM in Mumbai on the 27th August’09 and requested the Chairman of Tata Steel, Mr Ratan Tata, to discuss the Dhamra Port issue with them.

    Mr Tata responded immediately to their concerns and said that my invitation is “ to you Admiral Ramdas” and anybody else who would be interested and Mr Muthuraman would make the arrangements for you all to take the time to satisfy yourselves in terms of what we are doing.
    Know more: http://www.eco-dhamra.com/environment/olive-ridely-turtle/response-to-greenpeace-activity-on-websites.asp

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>