Phosphorescence is a type of photoluminescence related to fluorescence.
When exposed to light (radiation) of a shorter wavelength, a
phosphorescent substance will glow, absorbing the light and reemitting
it at a longer wavelength. Unlike fluorescence, a phosphorescent
material does not immediately reemit the radiation it absorbs. Instead, a
phosphorescent material absorbs some of the radiation energy and
reemits it for a much longer time after the radiation source is removed.
In a general sense, there is no distinct boundary between the
emission times of fluorescence and phosphorescence (i.e.: if a substance
glows under a black light it is generally considered fluorescent, and if it glows in the dark it is often simply called phosphorescent). In a modern, scientific sense, the phenomena can usually be classified
by the three different mechanisms that produce the light and the typical
timescales at which they emit light: fluorescence, triplet
phosphorescence, and persistent phosphorescence. Whereas fluorescent
materials stop emitting light within nanoseconds (billionths of a
second) after the excitation radiation is removed, phosphorescent
materials may continue to emit an afterglow ranging from a few
microseconds to many hours after the excitation is removed.
There are two separate mechanisms that may produce
phosphorescence, called triplet phosphorescence (or simply
phosphorescence) and persistent phosphorescence (or persistent luminescence):
Triplet phosphorescence occurs when an atom absorbs a high-energy photon, and the energy becomes locked in the spin multiplicity of the electrons, generally changing from a fluorescent singlet state to a slower emitting triplet state. The slower timescales of the reemission are associated with "forbidden" energy state transitions in quantum mechanics.
As these transitions occur relatively slowly in certain materials,
absorbed radiation is reemitted at a lower intensity, ranging from a few
microseconds to as much as one second after the excitation is removed.
Persistent phosphorescence occurs when a high-energy photon is absorbed by an atom and its electron becomes trapped in a defect in the lattice of the crystalline or amorphous material. A defect such as a missing atom (vacancy defect) can trap an electron like a pitfall,
storing that electron's energy until released by a random spike of
thermal (vibrational) energy. Such a substance will then emit light of
gradually decreasing intensity, ranging from a few seconds to up to
several hours after the original excitation.
Everyday examples of phosphorescent materials are the
glow-in-the-dark toys, stickers, paint, and clock dials that glow after
being charged with a bright light such as in any normal reading or room
light. Typically, the glow slowly fades out, sometimes within a few
minutes or up to a few hours in a dark room.
The study of phosphorescent materials led to the discovery of radioactive decay.
Uranium salts, a known phosphorescent material, fog x-ray sensitive
photographic plates, but for years it was thought that phosphorescence
was the sole cause of this. The salts were enclosed with a photographic
plate in a drawer, and in one of physics' more accidental discoveries,
the plates fogged despite an initial external stimulation of the sun.
The result prompted a report by Henri Becquerel in 1898 to the Academy of Sciences. His claim that the uranium salts emitted radiation inspired the work of Marie Curie in following years, and yielded a Nobel Prize for both in 1903.
Etymology
The term phosphorescence comes from the Ancient Greek word φῶς (phos), meaning "light", and the Greek suffix -φόρος (-phoros), meaning "to bear", combined with the Latin suffix -escentem, meaning "becoming of", "having a tendency towards", or "with the essence of". Thus, phosphorescence literally means "having a tendency to bear light". It was first recorded in 1766.
The term phosphor had been used since the Middle Ages
to describe minerals that glowed in the dark. One of the most famous,
but not the first, was Bolognian phosphor. Around 1604, Vincenzo
Casciarolo discovered a "lapis solaris" near Bologna, Italy. Once heated in an oxygen-rich furnace, it thereafter absorbed sunlight and glowed in the dark. In 1677, Hennig Brand isolated a new element that glowed due to a chemiluminescent reaction when exposed to air, and named it "phosphorus".
In contrast, the term luminescence (from the Latin lumen for "light"), was coined by Eilhardt Wiedemann in 1888 as a term to refer to "light without heat", while "fluorescence" by Sir George Stokes in 1852, when he noticed that, when exposing a solution of quinine sulfate to light refracted through a prism,
the solution glowed when exposed to the mysterious invisible-light (now
known to be UV light) beyond the violet end of the spectrum. Stokes
formed the term from a combination of fluorspar and opalescence
(preferring to use a mineral instead of a solution), albeit it was
later discovered that fluorspar glows due to phosphorescence.
There was much confusion between the meanings of these terms
throughout the late nineteenth to mid-twentieth centuries. Whereas the
term "fluorescence" tended to refer to luminescence that ceased
immediately (by human-eye standards) when removed from excitation,
"phosphorescence" referred to virtually any substance that glowed for
appreciable periods in darkness, sometimes to include even
chemiluminescence (which occasionally produced substantial amounts of
heat). Only after the 1950s and 1960s did advances in quantum electronics, spectroscopy, and lasers
provide a measure to distinguish between the various processes that
emit the light, although in common speech the distinctions are still
often rather vague.
Introduction
Jablonski diagram
of an energy scheme used to explain the difference between fluorescence
and phosphorescence. The excitation of molecule A to its singlet
excited state (1A*) may, after a short time between absorption and emission (fluorescence lifetime), return immediately to ground state,
giving off a photon via fluorescence (decay time). However, sustained
excitation is followed by intersystem crossing to the triplet state (3A) that relaxes to the ground state by phosphorescence with much longer decay times.
In simple terms, phosphorescence is a process in which energy
absorbed by a substance is released relatively slowly in the form of
light. This is in some cases the mechanism used for glow-in-the-dark
materials which are "charged" by exposure to light. Unlike the
relatively swift reactions in fluorescence, such as those seen in laser mediums like the common ruby,
phosphorescent materials "store" absorbed energy for a longer time, as
the processes required to reemit energy occur less often. However,
timescale is still only a general distinction, as there are
slow-emitting fluorescent materials, for example uranyl salts, and, likewise, some phosphorescent materials like zinc sulfide
(in violet) are very fast. Scientifically, the phenomena are classified
by the different mechanisms that produce the light, as materials that
phosphoresce may be suitable for some purposes such as lighting, but may
be completely unsuitable for others that require fluorescence, like
lasers. Further blurring the lines, a substance may emit light by one,
two, or all three mechanisms depending on the material and excitation
conditions.
When the stored energy becomes locked in by the spin of the atomic electrons, a triplet state can occur, slowing the emission of light, sometimes by several orders of magnitude. Because the atoms usually begin in a singlet state
of spin, favoring fluorescence, these types of phosphors typically
produce both types of emission during illumination, and then a dimmer
afterglow of strictly phosphorescent light typically lasting less than a
second after the illumination is switched off.
Conversely, when the stored energy is due to persistent
phosphorescence, an entirely different process occurs without a
fluorescence precursor. When electrons become trapped within a defect in
the atomic or molecular lattice, light is prevented from reemitting
until the electron can escape. To escape, the electron needs a boost of
thermal energy to help spring it out of the trap and back into orbit
around the atom. Only then can the atom emit a photon. Thus, persistent
phosphorescence is highly dependent on the temperature of the material.
Triplet phosphorescence
After
an electron absorbs a photon of high energy, it may undergo vibrational
relaxations and intersystem crossing to another spin state. Again the
system relaxes vibrationally in the new spin state and eventually emits
light by phosphorescence.
Most photoluminescent events, in which a chemical substrate absorbs and then re-emits a photon of light, are fast, in the order of 10 nanoseconds.
Light is absorbed and emitted at these fast time scales in cases where
the energy of the photons involved matches the available energy states
and allowed transitions of the substrate. In the special case of
phosphorescence, the electron which absorbed the photon (energy)
undergoes an unusual intersystem crossing into an energy state of different (usually higher) spin multiplicity (see term symbol), usually a triplet state. As a result, the excited electron can become trapped in the triplet state with only "forbidden" transitions
available to return to the lower energy singlet state. These
transitions, although "forbidden", will still occur in quantum mechanics
but are kinetically
unfavored and thus progress at significantly slower time scales. Most
phosphorescent compounds are still relatively fast emitters, with
triplet decay-times in the order of milliseconds.
Common examples include the phosphor coatings used in fluorescent lamps, where phosphorescence on the order of milliseconds or longer is useful for filling in the "off-time" between AC current
cycles, helping to reduce "flicker". Phosphors with faster decay times
are used in applications like the pixels excited by free electrons (cathodoluminescence) in cathode-ray tubetelevision-sets,
which are slow enough to allow the formation of a picture as the
electron beam scans the screen, but fast enough to prevent the frames
from blurring together. Even substances commonly associated with fluorescence may in fact be
prone to phosphorescence, such as the liquid dyes found in highlighter pens, which is a common problem in liquid dye lasers.
The onset of phosphorescence in this case can sometimes be reduced or
delayed significantly by the use of triplet-quenching agents.
Equation
where S is a singlet and T a triplet
whose subscripts denote states (0 is the ground state, and 1 the
excited state). Transitions can also occur to higher energy levels, but
the first excited state is denoted for simplicity.
An extremely intense pulse of short-wave UV light in a flashtube produced this blue persistent-phosphorescence in the amorphous, fused silica envelope, lasting as long as 20 minutes after the 3.5 microsecond flash.An electron microscope reveals vacancy defects in a crystalline lattice of molybdenum disulfide. The missing sulfur atoms leave dangling bonds between the molybdenum atoms, creating traps in the empty spaces.
Solid materials typically come in two main types: crystalline and amorphous. In either case, a lattice or network of atoms and molecules
form. In crystals, the lattice is a very neat, uniform assembly.
However, nearly all crystals have defects in the stacking sequence of
these molecules and atoms. A vacancy defect,
where an atom is simply missing from its place, leaving an empty
"hole", is one type of defect. Sometimes atoms can move from place to
place within the lattice, creating Schottky defects or Frenkel defects.
Other defects can occur from impurities in the lattice. For example,
when a normal atom is substituted by a different atom of much larger or
smaller size, a substitutional defect occurs, while an interstitial defect
occurs when a much smaller atom gets trapped in the "interstices", or
the spaces between atoms. In contrast, amorphous materials have no
"long-range order" (beyond the space of a few atoms in any direction),
thus by definition are filled with defects.
When a defect occurs, depending on the type and material, it can create a hole, or a "trap". For example, a missing oxygen atom from a zinc oxide compound creates a hole in the lattice, surrounded by unbound zinc-atoms. This creates a net force or attraction that can be measured in electron-volts. When a high-energy photon
strikes one of the zinc atoms, its electron absorbs the photon and is
thrown out into a higher orbit. The electron may then enter the trap and
be held in place (out of its normal orbit) by the attraction. To
trigger the release of the energy, a random spike in thermal energy of
sufficient magnitude is needed to boost the electron out of the trap and
back into its normal orbit. Once in orbit, the electron's energy can
drop back to normal (ground state) resulting in the release of a photon.
The release of energy in this way is a completely random process,
governed mostly by the average temperature of the material versus the
"depth" of the trap, or how many electron-volts it exerts.A trap that has a depth of 2.0 electron-volts would require a great
amount of thermal energy (very high temperature) to overcome the
attraction, while at a depth of 0.1 electron-volts very little heat
(very cold temperature) is needed for the trap to even hold an electron.
Generally, higher temperatures cause a faster release of energy,
resulting in a brighter yet short-lived emission, while lower
temperatures produce a dimmer but longer-lasting glow. Temperatures that
are too hot or cold, depending on the substance, may not allow the
accumulation or release of energy at all. The ideal depth of trap for
persistent phosphorescence at room temperature is typically between 0.6
and 0.7 electron-volts. If the phosphorescent quantum yield
is high, that is, if the substance has a large number of traps of the
correct depth, this substance will release a significant amount of light
over a long period of time, creating a so-called "glow in the dark"
material.
Some examples of glow-in-the-dark materials do not glow by phosphorescence. For example, glow sticks glow due to a chemiluminescent
process which is commonly mistaken for phosphorescence. In
chemiluminescence, an excited state is created via a chemical reaction.
The light emission tracks the kinetic progress of the underlying
chemical reaction. The excited state will then transfer to a dye
molecule, also known as a sensitizer or fluorophor, and subsequently fluoresce back to the ground state.
Common pigments used in phosphorescent materials include zinc sulfide and strontium aluminate. Use of zinc sulfide for safety related products dates back to the 1930s.
The development of strontium aluminate pigments in 1993 was
spurred on by the need to find a substitute for glow-in-the-dark
materials with high luminance and long phosphorescence, especially those
that used promethium. This led to the discovery by Yasumitsu Aoki (Nemoto & Co.) of
materials with luminance approximately 10 times greater than zinc
sulfide and phosphorescence approximately 10 times longer. This has relegated most zinc sulfide based products to the novelty
category. Strontium aluminate based pigments are now used in exit signs,
pathway marking, and other safety related signage.
Zinc sulfide (left) and strontium aluminate (right), in visible light, in darkness, and after 4 minutes in the dark.
Calcium sulfide (left) and metal-earth silicate (right) phosphoresce in red and blue respectively.
Since both phosphorescence (transition from T1 to S0) and the generation of T1 from an excited singlet state (e.g., S1)
via intersystem crossing (ISC) are spin-forbidden processes, most
organic materials exhibit insignificant phosphorescence as they mostly
fail to populate the excited triplet state, and, even if T1
is formed, phosphorescence is most frequently outcompeted by
non-radiative pathways. One strategy to enhance the ISC and
phosphorescence is the incorporation of heavy atoms, which increase
spin-orbit coupling (SOC). Additionally, the SOC (and therefore the ISC) can be promoted by
coupling n-π* and π-π* transitions with different angular momenta, also
known as Mostafa El-Sayed's
rule. Such transitions are typically exhibited by carbonyl or triazine
derivatives, and most organic room-temperature phosphorescent (ORTP)
materials incorporate such moieties. In turn, to inhibit competitive non-radiative deactivation pathways,
including vibrational relaxation and oxygen quenching and
triplet-triplet annihilations, organic phosphors have to be embedded in
rigid matrices such as polymers, and molecular solids (crystals, covalent organic frameworks, and others).
Uses
Phosphorescent elements of a wrist watch that had been exposed to bright (ultraviolet) light
In 1974 Becky Schroeder
was given a US patent for her invention of the "Glow Sheet" which used
phosphorescent lines under writing paper to help people write in
low-light conditions.
Glow in the dark material is added to the plastic blend used in injection molds to make some disc golf discs, which allow the game to be played at night.
Often clock faces of watches are painted with phosphorescent
colours. Therefore, they can be used in absolute dark environments for
several hours after having been exposed to bright light.
A common use of phosphorescence is decoration. Stars made of
glow-in-the-dark plastic are placed on walls, ceilings, or hanging from
strings make a room look like the night sky. Other objects like figurines, cups, posters, lamp fixtures, toys and bracelet beads may also glow. Using blacklights makes these things glow brightly, common at raves, bedrooms, theme parks, and festivals.
Shadow wall
A
shadow wall is created when a light flashes upon a person or object in
front of a phosphorescent screen which temporarily captures the shadow.
The screen or wall is painted with a glow-in-the-dark product that
contains phosphorescent compounds. Publicly, these shadow walls can be found at certain science museums.
A phosphorescent wall is being illuminated; shadows are present.
After removing the light source, shadows are visible on the wall.
Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning network, founded in Canada in 1971 by a group of environmental activists. Greenpeace states its goal is to "ensure the ability of the Earth to nurture life in all its diversity", and focuses its campaigning on worldwide issues such as climate change, deforestation, overfishing, commercial whaling, genetic engineering, anti-war, and anti-nuclear issues. It uses direct action, advocacy, research, and ecotage to achieve its goals. The network comprises 26 independent
national/regional organisations in over 55 countries across Europe, the
Americas, Africa, Asia, Australia and the Pacific, as well as a
coordinating body, Greenpeace International, based in Amsterdam, Netherlands.
The global network does not accept funding from governments,
corporations, or political parties, relying on three million individual
supporters and foundation grants. Greenpeace has a general consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council and is a founding member of the INGO Accountability Charter,
an international non-governmental organization that intends to foster
accountability and transparency of non-governmental organizations.
Greenpeace is known for its nonviolent direct actions and has
been described as one of the most visible environmental organizations in
the world. It has raised environmental issues to public awareness and knowledge, and influenced both the private and the public sector. The organization has received criticism; it was the subject of an open
letter from more than 100 Nobel laureates urging Greenpeace to end its
campaign against genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
The organization's direct actions have sparked legal actions
against Greenpeace itself and activists. In March 2025, a nine-person
North Dakota jury found Greenpeace liable for more than $660 million in
damages and defamation for the 2016 to 2017 Standing Rock Protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline. Additionally, activists received fines and suspended sentences for destroying a test plot of genetically modified wheat, and according to the Peruvian Government prosecutors and the court's decision for damaging the Nazca Lines, a UN World Heritage site.
History
Origins
Location of Amchitka island in Alaska.The nuclear device that sparked the creation of Greenpeace being lowered into its firing hole for Cannikin.
In the late 1960s, the U.S. had planned its Cannikin underground nuclear weapon test in the tectonically unstable island of Amchitka in Alaska; the plans raised some concerns of the test triggering earthquakes and causing a tsunami. Some 7,000 people blocked the Peace Arch Border Crossing between British Columbia and Washington, carrying signs reading "Don't Make A Wave. It's Your Fault If Our Fault Goes". and "Stop My Ark's Not Finished". The protests did not stop the U.S. from detonating the bomb.
While no earthquake or tsunami
followed the test, the opposition grew when the U.S. announced they
would detonate a bomb five times more powerful than the first one. Among
the opponents were Jim Bohlen, a veteran who had served in the U.S. Navy, and Irving Stowe and Dorothy Stowe, who had recently become Quakers. They were frustrated by the lack of action by the Sierra Club Canada, of which they were members. From Irving Stowe, Jim Bohlen learned of a form of passive resistance, "bearing witness", where objectionable activity is protested simply by mere presence. Jim Bohlen's wife Marie came up with the idea to sail to Amchitka, inspired by the anti-nuclear voyages of Albert Bigelow in 1958. The idea ended up in the press and was linked to The Sierra Club. The Sierra Club did not like this connection and in 1970 the Don't Make a Wave Committee was established for the protest. Early meetings were held in the Shaughnessy home of Robert Hunter and his wife Bobbi Hunter. Subsequently, the Stowe home at 2775 Courtenay Street in Vancouver became the headquarters. As Rex Weyler put it in his chronology, Greenpeace,
in 1969, the Stowes' quiet home on Courtenay Street "would soon become a
hub of monumental, global significance". Some of the first Greenpeace
meetings were held there. The first office was opened in a backroom
storefront on Cypress and West Broadway southeast corner in Kitsilano,
Vancouver. Within half a year Greenpeace moved in to share the upstairs office
space with The Society Promoting Environmental Conservation on the
second floor at 2007, 4th Ave. and Maple in Kitsilano.
Irving Stowe arranged a benefit concert (supported by Joan Baez) that took place on 16 October 1970 at the Pacific Coliseum in Vancouver. The concert created the financial basis for the first Greenpeace campaign. Amchitka, the 1970 concert that launched Greenpeace
was published by Greenpeace in November 2009 on CD and is also
available as an mp3 download via the Amchitka concert website. Using the
money raised with the concert, the Don't Make a Wave Committee
chartered a ship, the Phyllis Cormack owned and sailed by John Cormack. The ship was renamed Greenpeace for the protest after a term coined by activist Bill Darnell. The complete crew included: Captain John Cormack (the boat's owner), Jim Bohlen, Bill Darnell, Patrick Moore, Dr Lyle Thurston, Dave Birmingham, Terry A. Simmons, Richard Fineberg, Robert Hunter (journalist), Ben Metcalfe (journalist), Bob Cummings (journalist) and Bob Keziere (photographer).
On 15 September 1971, the ship sailed towards Amchitka and faced the U.S. Coast Guard ship Confidence, which forced the activists to turn back. Because of this and the
increasingly bad weather the crew decided to return to Canada only to
find out that the news about their journey and reported support from the
crew of the Confidence had generated sympathy for their protest. After this, Greenpeace tried to navigate to the test site with other vessels until the U.S. detonated the bomb. The nuclear test was criticized, and the U.S. decided not to continue with their test plans at Amchitka.
Founders and founding time of Greenpeace
Environmental historian Frank Zelko dates the formation of the "Don't Make a Wave Committee" to 1969 and, according to Jim Bohlen, the group adopted the name "Don't Make a Wave Committee" on 28 November 1969. According to the Greenpeace web site, The Don't Make a Wave Committee was established in 1970. The certificate of incorporation of The Don't Make a Wave Committee dates the incorporation to the fifth of October, 1970. Researcher Vanessa Timmer dates the official incorporation to 1971. Greenpeace itself calls the protest voyage of 1971 as "the beginning". According to Patrick Moore, who was an early member and has since mutually distanced himself from Greenpeace, and Rex Weyler, the name of "The Don't Make a Wave Committee" was officially changed to Greenpeace Foundation in 1972.
Vanessa Timmer has referred to the early members as "an unlikely group of loosely organized protestors". Frank Zelko has commented that "unlike Friends of the Earth, for example, which sprung fully formed from the forehead of David Brower, Greenpeace developed in a more evolutionary manner. There was no single founder". Greenpeace itself says on its web page that "there's a joke that in any bar in Vancouver, British Columbia,
you can sit down next to someone who claims to have founded Greenpeace.
In fact, there was no single founder: name, idea, spirit and tactics
can all be said to have separate lineages". Patrick Moore has said that "the truth is that Greenpeace was always a
work in progress, not something definitively founded like a country or a
company. Therefore there are a few shades of gray about who might lay
claim to being a founder of Greenpeace." Early Greenpeace director Rex Weyler says on his homepage that the insiders of Greenpeace have debated about the founders since the mid-1970s.
The current Greenpeace web site lists the founders of The Don't
Make a Wave Committee as Dorothy and Irving Stowe, Marie and Jim Bohlen,
Ben and Dorothy Metcalfe, and Robert Hunter. According to both Patrick Moore and an interview with Dorothy Stowe,
Dorothy Metcalfe, Jim Bohlen and Robert Hunter, the founders of The
Don't Make a Wave Committee were Paul Cote, Irving and Dorothy Stowe and
Jim and Marie Bohlen.
Paul Watson, founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society maintains that he also was one of the founders of The Don't Make a Wave Committee and Greenpeace. Greenpeace has stated that Watson was an influential early member, but not one of the founders of Greenpeace. Watson has since accused Greenpeace of rewriting their history. Because Patrick Moore was among the crew of the first protest voyage,
Moore also considers himself one of the founders. Greenpeace claims that
although Moore was a significant early member, he was not among the
founders of Greenpeace.
After Amchitka
After
the office in the Stowe home, (and after the first concert fund-raiser)
Greenpeace functions moved to other private homes and held public
meetings weekly on Wednesday nights at the Kitsilano Neighborhood House
before settling, in the autumn of 1974, in a small office shared with
the SPEC environmental group at 2007 West 4th at Maple in Kitsilano. When the nuclear tests at Amchitka were over, Greenpeace moved its focus to the French atmospheric nuclear weapons testing at the Moruroa Atoll in French Polynesia. The young organization needed help for their protests and were contacted by David McTaggart, a former businessman living in New Zealand. In 1972 the yacht Vega, a 12.5-metre (41 ft) ketch owned by David McTaggart, was renamed Greenpeace III
and sailed in an anti-nuclear protest into the exclusion zone at
Moruroa to attempt to disrupt French nuclear testing. This voyage was
sponsored and organized by the New Zealand branch of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. The French Navy
tried to stop the protest in several ways, including assaulting David
McTaggart. McTaggart was supposedly beaten to the point that he lost
sight in one of his eyes. However, one of McTaggart's crew members
photographed the incident and went public. After the assault was
publicized, France announced it would stop the atmospheric nuclear
tests.
In the mid-1970s some Greenpeace members started an independent campaign, Project Ahab, against commercial whaling, since Irving Stowe was against Greenpeace focusing on other issues than nuclear weapons. After Irving Stowe died in 1975, the Phyllis Cormack
sailed from Vancouver to face Soviet whalers on the coast of
California. Greenpeace activists disrupted the whaling by placing
themselves between the harpoons and the whales, and footage of the
protests spread across the world. Later in the 1970s, the organization
widened its focus to include toxic waste and commercial seal hunting. The "Greenpeace Declaration of Interdependence" was published by Greenpeace in the Greenpeace Chronicles (Winter 1976–77). This declaration was a condensation of a number of ecological manifestos Bob Hunter had written over the years.
Organizational development
MV Esperanza, a former fire-fighter owned by the Russian Navy, was relaunched by Greenpeace in 2002
Greenpeace evolved from a group of Canadian and American protesters
into a less conservative group of environmentalists who were more
reflective of the counterculture and hippie youth movements of the 1960s and 1970s. The social and cultural background from which Greenpeace emerged
heralded a period of de-conditioning away from Old World antecedents and
sought to develop new codes of social, environmental and political
behavior.
In the mid-1970s independent groups using the name Greenpeace
started springing up worldwide. By 1977, there were 15 to 20 Greenpeace
groups around the world, including Great Lakes Greenpeace at Michigan
State University. At the same time the Canadian Greenpeace office was heavily in debt.
Disputes between offices over fund-raising and organizational direction
split the global movement as the North American offices were reluctant
to be under the authority of the Canada office.
After the incidents of Moruroa Atoll, David McTaggart had moved
to France to battle in court with the French state and helped to develop
the cooperation of European Greenpeace groups. David McTaggart
lobbied the Canadian Greenpeace Foundation to accept a new structure
bringing the scattered Greenpeace offices under the auspices of a single
global organization. The European Greenpeace paid the debt of the
Canadian Greenpeace office and on 14 October 1979, Greenpeace International came into existence. Under the new structure, the local offices contributed a percentage of
their income to the international organization, which took
responsibility for setting the overall direction of the movement with
each regional office having one vote. Some Greenpeace groups, namely London Greenpeace (dissolved in 2001) and the US-based Greenpeace Foundation (still operational) however decided to remain independent from Greenpeace International.
The governance and management structure of Greenpeace.
Greenpeace consists of Greenpeace International (officially Stichting Greenpeace Council) based in Amsterdam, Netherlands, and 25 regional offices operating in 55 countries. The regional offices work largely autonomously under the supervision of
Greenpeace International. The executive director of Greenpeace is
elected by the board members of Greenpeace International. The current
international executive director of Greenpeace International is Mads
Flarup Christensen and the current Chair of the Board is David Tong. Greenpeace has a staff of 2,400, and around 15,000 volunteers globally.
Each regional office is led by a regional executive director
elected by the regional board of directors. The regional boards also
appoint a trustee to The Greenpeace International Annual General
Meeting, where the trustees elect or remove the board of directors of
Greenpeace International. The annual general meeting's role is also to
discuss and decide the overall principles and strategically important
issues for Greenpeace in collaboration with the trustees of regional
offices and Greenpeace International board of directors.
Funding
Annual
amounts of "Contributions, Gifts, Grants and Other Similar Amounts" as
reported on U.S. tax returns filed by the Greenpeace Fund, Inc.Greenpeace street fundraiser talking to a passer-by
Greenpeace receives its funding from individual supporters and foundations. It screens all major donations in order to ensure it does not receive unwanted donations. Other than the Netherlands' National Postcode Lottery, the biggest
government-sponsored lottery in that country, the organization does not
accept money from governments, intergovernmental organizations,
political parties or corporations in order to avoid their influence.
Donations from foundations which are funded by political parties
or receive most of their funding from governments or intergovernmental
organizations are rejected. Foundation donations are also rejected if
the foundations attach unreasonable conditions, restrictions or
constraints on Greenpeace activities or if the donation would compromise
the independence and aims of the organization. Since in the mid-1990s the number of supporters started to decrease, Greenpeace pioneered the use of face-to-face fundraising where fundraisers actively seek new supporters at public places, subscribing them for a monthly direct debit donation. In 2008, most of the €202.5 million received by the organization was
donated by about 2.6 million regular supporters, mainly from Europe. In 2014, the organization's annual revenue was reported to be about
€300 million (US$400 million) although they lost about €4 million (US$5
million) in currency speculation that year.
In September 2003, Public Interest Watch (PIW) complained to the Internal Revenue Service that Greenpeace US's A tax returns were inaccurate and in violation of the law. The IRS conducted an extensive review and concluded in December 2005 that Greenpeace USA continued to qualify for its tax-exempt status. In March 2006 The Wall Street Journal
reported that PIW's "federal tax filing, covering August 2003 to July
2004, stated that $120,000 of the $124,095 the group received in
contributions during that period came from ExxonMobil". In 2013, after the IRS performed a follow-up audit, which again was
clean, and, following claims of politically motivated IRS audits of
groups affiliated with the Tea Party movement, Greenpeace U.S. Executive Director Phil Radford
called for a Congressional investigation into all politically motivated
audits – including those allegedly targeting the Tea Party Movement,
the NAACP, and Greenpeace.
Digital transformation
International Executive Director Kumi Naidoo declared the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference
a "colossal failure" and indicated the organization faced a "burning
platform" moment. Naidoo encouraged Greenpeace's international executive
directors to embrace new strategies and tactics or risk becoming
irrelevant.
To implement a new strategy approved in 2010, Greenpeace hired
Michael Silberman to build a "Digital Mobilisation Centre of Excellence"
in 2011, which turned into the Mobilisation Lab ("MobLab"). Designed as a source of best practices, testing, and strategy
development, the MobLab also focused on increasing digital capacity and
promoting community-based campaigning in 42 countries. In March 2017, the MobLab spun out of Greenpeace through a joint investment by Greenpeace and CIVICUS World Alliance for Citizen Participation."
Summary of priorities and campaigns
On its International website, Greenpeace defines its mission as the following:
Greenpeace is an independent campaigning organisation,
which uses non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global
environmental problems, and develop solutions for a green and peaceful
future. Our goal is to ensure the ability of the earth to nurture life
in all its diversity. That means we want to:
Stop the planet from warming beyond 1.5° to prevent the most catastrophic impacts of the climate breakdown.
Tove Maria Ryding, in her then role as Greenpeace Climate Policy Coordinator, at the conference from Bonn to Cancun, 2010Greenpeace Climate March 2015 in Madrid
Greenpeace was one of the first parties to formulate a sustainable development scenario for climate change mitigation, which it did in 1993. According to sociologists Marc Mormont and Christine Dasnoy, the
organization played a significant role in raising public awareness of global warming in the 1990s. Greenpeace has also focused on CFCs, because of both their global warming potential and their effect on the ozone layer. It was one of the leading participants advocating early phase-out of ozone depleting substances in the Montreal Protocol. In the early 1990s, Greenpeace developed a CFC-free refrigerator
technology, "Greenfreeze" for mass production together with the
refrigerator industry. United Nations Environment Programme awarded Greenpeace for
"outstanding contributions to the protection of the Earth's ozone layer"
in 1997. In 2011 two-fifths of the world's total production of refrigerators
were based on Greenfreeze technology, with over 600 million units in
use.
Currently Greenpeace considers global warming to be the greatest environmental problem facing the Earth. It calls for global greenhouse gas emissions
to peak in 2015 and to decrease as close to zero as possible by 2050.
To reach these numbers, Greenpeace has called for the industrialized
countries to cut their emissions at least 40% by 2020 (from 1990 levels)
and to give substantial funding for developing countries to build a
sustainable energy capacity, to adapt to the inevitable consequences of
global warming, and to stop deforestation by 2020. Together with EREC,
Greenpeace has formulated a global energy scenario, "Energy
[R]evolution", where 80% of the world's total energy is produced with
renewables, and the emissions of the energy sector are decreased by over
80% of the 1990 levels by 2050.
Using direct action, members Greenpeace have protested several
times against coal by occupying coal power plants and blocking coal
shipments and mining operations, in places such as New Zealand, Svalbard, Australia, and the United Kingdom. Greenpeace is also critical of extracting petroleum from oil sands and has used direct action to block operations at the Athabasca oil sands in Canada.
Green Planet Energy
In
1999, Greenpeace Germany (NGO) founded Greenpeace Energy, a renewable
electricity cooperative that also supplied customers with fossil gas
starting from 2011. After a 2021 media outcry about an entity
associated with Greenpeace selling fossil fuel which has been described
as greenwashing, the cooperative changed its name to Green Planet Energy. The Greenpeace Germany NGO retains one share in the cooperative, which has been criticized for "greenwashing" Russian gas.
In October 2007, six Greenpeace protesters were arrested for breaking into the Kingsnorth power station in Kent,
England; climbing the 200-metre (660-foot) smokestack, painting the
name Gordon on the chimney (in reference to former UK Prime Minister, Gordon Brown),
and causing an estimated £30,000 damage. At their subsequent trial they
admitted trying to shut the station down, but argued that they were
legally justified because they were trying to prevent climate change
from causing greater damage to property elsewhere around the world. Evidence was heard from David Cameron's environment adviser Zac Goldsmith, climate scientist James E. Hansen and an Inuk
leader from Greenland, all saying that climate change was already
seriously affecting life around the world. The six activists were acquitted. It was the first case where preventing property damage caused by climate change has been used as part of a "lawful excuse" defense in court. Both The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian described the acquittal as an embarrassment to the Brown Ministry. In December 2008 The New York Times listed the acquittal in its annual list of the most influential ideas of the year.
"Go Beyond Oil"
As part of their stance on renewable energy commercialisation, Greenpeace have launched the "Go Beyond Oil" campaign. The campaign is focused on slowing, and eventually ending, the world's
consumption of oil; with activist activities taking place against
companies that pursue oil drilling as a venture. Much of the activities
of the "Go Beyond Oil" campaign have been focused on drilling for oil in
the Arctic and areas affected by the Deepwater Horizon disaster. The activities of Greenpeace in the Arctic have mainly involved the Edinburgh-based oil and gas exploration company, Cairn Energy; and range from protests at the Cairn Energy's headquarters, to scaling their oil rigs in an attempt to halt the drilling process. The "Go Beyond Oil" campaign also involves applying political pressure on the governments who allow oil exploration
in their territories; with the group stating that one of the key aims
of the "Go Beyond Oil" campaign is to "work to expose the lengths the
oil industry is willing to go to squeeze the last barrels out of the
ground and put pressure on industry and governments to move beyond oil."
Nuclear power
Greenpeace is opposed to nuclear power because it views it as "dangerous, polluting, expensive and non-renewable". The organization highlights the Chernobyl nuclear disaster of 1986 and Fukushima nuclear disaster of 2011 as evidence of the risk nuclear power can pose to people's lives, the environment and the economy. Greenpeace views the benefits of nuclear power to be relatively minor
in comparison to its major problems and risks, such as environmental
damage and risks from uranium mining, nuclear weapons proliferation, and unresolved questions concerning nuclear waste.
The organization argues that the potential of nuclear power to mitigate global warming is marginal, referring to the IEA
energy scenario where an increase in world's nuclear capacity from
2608 TWh in 2007 to 9857 TWh by 2050 would cut global greenhouse gas
emissions less than 5% and require 32 nuclear reactor units of 1000 MW
capacity built per year until 2050. According to Greenpeace, the slow
construction times, construction delays, and hidden costs all negate
nuclear power's mitigation potential. This makes the IEA scenario
technically and financially unrealistic. They also argue that binding
massive amounts of investments on nuclear energy would take funding away
from more effective solutions. Greenpeace views the construction of Olkiluoto 3 nuclear power plant in Finland as an example of the problems on building new nuclear power.
In 2022, Greenpeace threatened to sue the European Union after it
proposed to categorize nuclear power as a "green" technology that helps
countries reduce CO2 emissions. Greenpeace celebrated the phaseout of nuclear power in Germany in 2023. At the time, Germany was experiencing an energy crisis and relying heavily on coal and gas for power generation.
Anti-nuclear advertisement
In 1994, Greenpeace published an anti-nuclear newspaper advert which included a claim that nuclear facilities in Sellafield would kill 2,000 people in the next 10 years, and an image of a hydrocephalus-affected child said to be a victim of nuclear weapons testing in Kazakhstan. Advertising Standards Authority
viewed the claim concerning Sellafield as unsubstantiated, lacking any
scientific base. This resulted in the banning of the advert. Greenpeace
did not admit fault, stating that a Kazakhstan doctor had said that the
child's condition was due to nuclear testing even though no nuclear
weapons testing is performed in Sellafield.
EDF spying conviction and appeal
In 2011, a French court fined Électricité de France
(EDF) €1.5m and jailed two senior employees for spying on Greenpeace,
including hacking into Greenpeace's computer systems. Greenpeace was
awarded €500,000 in damages. Although EDF claimed that a security firm had only been employed to
monitor Greenpeace, the court disagreed, jailing the head and deputy
head of EDF's nuclear security operation for three years each. EDF
appealed the conviction, the company was cleared of conspiracy to spy on
Greenpeace and the fine was cancelled. Two employees of the security firm, Kargus, run by a former member of
France's secret services, received sentences of three and two years
respectively.
Ozone layer and Greenfreeze
Peter
Melchett, right, (then ED of Greenpeace UK) with Malcolm Walker,
(Chairman Iceland Frozen Foods) and a Greenfreeze fridge, 1998
The ozone layer surrounding the Earth absorbs significant amounts of ultraviolet radiation. A 1976 report by the US Academy of Sciences supported the ozone "depletion hypothesis". Its suffering large losses from chlorinated and nitrogenous compounds was reported in 1985. Earlier studies had led some countries to enact bans on aerosol sprays, so that the Vienna Convention was signed in 1985 the Montreal Protocol was signed in 1987 to go in force two years later. The use of CFCs and HCFCs in refrigeration were and are among the banned technologies.
A German technological institute developed an ozone-safe
hydrocarbon alternative refrigerant that came to a Greenpeace
campaigner's attention around 1992. The rights to the technology were donated to Greenpeace, which maintained it as an open source
patent. The technology was subsequently used in Germany, then China,
elsewhere in Europe, and after some years in Japan and South America,
and finally in the US by 2012.
Action against new oil licences in the UK
In August 2023, Greenpeace highlighted the grant of new oil exploration licences in the United Kingdom, in an action in Yorkshire where they covered the facade of the home of the Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, in black fabric.
Forest campaign
The March For Forests, 2019Greenpeace event in Switzerland to bring awareness to protect forests, 2023
Greenpeace aims to protect intact primary forests from deforestation and degradation with the target of zero deforestation by 2020. The organization has accused several corporations, such as Unilever, Nike, KFC, Kit Kat and McDonald's of having links to the deforestation of the tropical rainforests, resulting in policy changes in several of the companies. Greenpeace, together with other environmental NGOs, also campaigned for ten years for the EU to ban import of illegal timber. The EU decided to ban illegal timber in July 2010. As deforestation contributes to global warming, Greenpeace has demanded that REDD (Reduced Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) should be included in the climate treaty following the Kyoto Protocol.
Another Greenpeace movement concerning the rain forests is discouraging palm oil industries. The movement has been the most active in Indonesia where already 6 million hectares (23,000 mi2) are used for palm oil plantation and had plans for another 4 million hectares (15,000 mi2)
by 2015. Acknowledging that mass production of palm oil may be
disastrous on biodiversity of forests, Greenpeace is actively
campaigning against the production, urging the industries and the
government to turn to other forms of energy resources. One of the
positive results of the campaign was GAR (Golden Agri-Resources), the world's second largest palm oil production company, deciding to
commit itself to forest conservation. The company signed an agreement
which prevents them from developing plantations in areas where large
amounts of carbon are locked up.
On the promotional side, an example of Greenpeace's success in the area is a viral video from 2016 protesting Nestlé's use of palm oil in Kit Kat
bars. The video received over 1 million views, and resulted in a public
statement by Nestlé claiming to no longer use such practices in their
products. In 2018, Greenpeace released an animated short starring a fictional orangutan named Rang-tan ahead of the World Orangutan Day. In November 2018, UK's Clearcast have denied a version of Rang-tan video as submitted by Iceland Foods Ltd.
Removal of an ancient tree
In June 1995, Greenpeace took a trunk of a tree from the forests of the proposed national park of Koitajoki in Ilomantsi,
Finland and put it on display at exhibitions held in Austria and
Germany. Greenpeace said in a press conference that the tree was
originally from a logged area in the ancient forest which was supposed to be protected. Metsähallitus
accused Greenpeace of theft and said that the tree was from a normal
forest and had been left standing because of its old age. Metsähallitus
also said that the tree had actually crashed over a road during a storm. The incident received publicity in Finland, for example in the large newspapers Helsingin Sanomat and Ilta-Sanomat. Greenpeace replied that the tree had fallen down because the protective forest around it had been clearcut, and that they wanted to highlight the fate of old forests in general, not the fate of one particular tree. Greenpeace also highlighted that Metsähallitus admitted the value of
the forest afterwards as Metsähallitus currently refers to Koitajoki as a
distinctive area because of its old growth forests.
A 2018 investigation conducted by Greenpeace International found that Wilmar International (the world's largest palm-oil trader) was still linked to forest destruction in the Indonesian province of Papua. The connected company, Gama, run by senior Wilmar executives, had caused deforestation twice the size of Paris.
Greenpeace also called Wilmar out for breaking their 2013 commitment to
end deforestation, in which they promised to incorporate organic and
sustainable ways to collect palm oil. Greenpeace press releases connected Gama-produced palm oil to global brands including Procter & Gamble, Nestlé and Unilever.
Resolute Forest Products issue
The logging company Resolute Forest Products
sued Greenpeace several times since 2013. In 2020, a court in
California ordered Resolute to pay US$816,000 to the organization to
cover the costs of the legal process after the claims of the company
were mostly rejected in one 2019 lawsuit. Greenpeace claims that the activity of the company is hurting the Boreal forest of Canada. Greenpeace claims that Boreal Forests contain even more carbon than Tropical Forests and therefore are very important to protecting the global climate.
In 2008, two Greenpeace anti-whaling activists, Junichi Sato and Toru Suzuki, stole a case of whale meat from a delivery depot in Aomori prefecture,
Japan. Their intention was to expose what they considered embezzlement
of the meat collected during whale hunts. After a brief investigation of
their allegations was ended, Sato and Suzuki were charged with theft
and trespassing. Amnesty International
said that the arrests and following raids on Greenpeace Japan office
and homes of five of Greenpeace staff members were aimed at intimidating
activists and non-governmental organizations. They were convicted of theft and trespassing in September 2010 by the Aomori District Court.
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs)
European Union members in Brussels presented with a petition of 1 million signatures against GMO, 2010
Greenpeace has also supported the rejection of GM food
from the US in famine-stricken Zambia as long as supplies of
non-genetically engineered grain exist, stating that the US "should
follow in the European Union's footsteps and allow aid recipients to
choose their food aid, buying it locally if they wish. This practice can
stimulate developing economies and creates more robust food security",
adding that, "if Africans truly have no other alternative, the
controversial GE maize should be milled so it can't be planted. It was
this condition that allowed Zambia's neighbours Zimbabwe and Malawi to
accept it."
After Zambia banned all GM food aid, the former agricultural
minister of Zambia criticized, "how the various international NGOs that
have spoken approvingly of the government's action will square the body
count with their various consciences." Concerning the decision of Zambia, Greenpeace has stated that, "it was
obvious to us that if no non-GM aid was being offered then they should
absolutely accept GM food aid. But the Zambian government decided to
refuse the GM food. We offered our opinion to the Zambian government
and, as many governments do, they disregarded our advice."
In 2007 Greenpeace funded research by Gilles-Éric Séralini into MON 863
genetically engineered maize which concluded it caused health issues to
the rats used in the study. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and
French Commission du Génie Biomoléculaire (AFBV) evaluation indicated
serious methodological errors in the publication. Further research by Séralini on GMO resulted in widespread criticism of scientific fraud and retractions of his publications.
Greenpeace opposes the planned use of golden rice, a variety of Oryza sativarice produced through genetic engineering to biosynthesizebeta-carotene, a precursor of pro-vitamin A
in the edible parts of rice. The addition of beta-carotene to the rice
is seen as preventive to loss of sight in poverty stricken countries
where golden rice is intended for distribution. According to Greenpeace,
golden rice has not managed to do anything about malnutrition for 10
years during which alternative methods are already tackling
malnutrition. The alternative proposed by Greenpeace is to discourage monocropping
and to increase production of crops which are naturally nutrient-rich
(containing other nutrients not found in golden rice in addition to
beta-carotene). Greenpeace argues that resources should be spent on programs that are already working and helping to relieve malnutrition. The renewal of these concerns coincided with the publication of a paper in the journal Nature about a version of golden rice with much higher levels of beta carotene. This "golden rice 2" was developed and patented by Syngenta, which provoked Greenpeace to renew its allegation that the project is driven by profit motives and to serve as propaganda aimed at increasing public opinion of GMO products.
Although Greenpeace stated that the golden rice program's true
efficiency in treating malnourished populations was its primary concern
as early as 2001, statements from March and April 2005 also continued to express concern over human health and environmental safety. In particular, Greenpeace has expressed concern over the lack of safety
testing being done on GMO crops such as golden rice and of "playing
with the lives of people...using Golden Rice to promote more GMOs". In June 2016, a conglomeration of 107 Nobel Laureates signed an open letter urging Greenpeace to end its campaign against genetically modified crops and Golden Rice in particular. In the letter, they also called upon governments of the world to "do
everything in their power to oppose Greenpeace's actions and accelerate
the access of farmers to all the tools of modern biology, especially
seeds improved through biotechnology." The letter states: "Opposition
based on emotion and dogma contradicted by data must be stopped." Greenpeace responded stating that "Accusations that anyone is blocking
genetically engineered 'Golden' rice are false" and that they support
"investing in climate-resilient ecological agriculture and empowering
farmers to access a balanced and nutritious diet, rather than pouring
money down the drain for GE 'Golden' rice."
In 2013, Greenpeace launched the "Detox Fashion" campaign, which
signed up some fashion brands to stop the discharge of toxic chemicals
into rivers as a result of the production of their clothes. Greenpeace's Detox Fashion campaign successfully led to commitments
from several global brands to eliminate hazardous chemicals like
nonylphenol ethoxylates from their supply chains. The campaign also
brought attention to the broader issue of water pollution caused by
textile production, urging industry-wide transparency and the adoption
of zero-discharge policies.
Guide to Greener Electronics
In
August 2006, Greenpeace released the first edition of Guide to Greener
Electronics, a magazine where mobile and PC manufacturers were ranked
for their green performance, mainly based on the use of toxic materials
in their products and e-waste. In November 2011, the criteria were updated, as the industry had
progressed since 2006, with the objective to get companies to set goals
for greenhouse gas reduction, the use of renewable power up to 100
percent, producing long-lasting products free of hazardous substances
and increasing sustainable practices. To ensure the transparency of the
ranking the companies are assessed based only on their public
information. For proving companies' policies and practices, Greenpeace
uses chemical testing of products, reports from industry observers,
media reports and testing of consumer programs to check if they match
with their actions. Since the Guide was released in 2006, along with
other similar campaigns has driven numerous improvements, when companies
ranked eliminate toxic chemicals from their products and improve their
recycling schemes. The last published edition of Guide to Greener
Electronics was in 2017. The 2017 version included 17 major IT companies
and ranked them on three criteria: energy use, resource consumption and chemical elimination.
Polar bear outside Shell's office in London in September, 2015
In continuity of the successful campaign to reach the Antarctic-Environmental Protocol, in 2012 and 2013 protests with "Save the Arctic" banners were started. To stop oil- and gas-drilling, industrial fishing and military operations in the Arctic
region completely, a "global sanctuary in the high arctic" was demanded
from the World leaders at the UN General Assembly: "We want them to
pass a UN resolution expressing international concern for the Arctic." A
resolution to protect the very vulnerable wildlife and ecosystem. 30 activists from MV Arctic Sunrise were arrested on 19 September 2013 by the Russian Coast Guard while protesting at Gazprom's Prirazlomnaya platform. Greenpeace members were originally charged with piracy, then later
downgraded to hooliganism, before being dropped altogether following the
passage of an amnesty law by the Russian government.
In July 2014, Greenpeace launched a global boycott campaign to persuade Lego to cease producing toys carrying the oil company Shell's logo in response to Shell's plans to drill for oil in the Arctic. The organisation launched a video with over 9 million views (on YouTube
alone) denouncing the impacts of this alliance. The video was entitled
"LEGO: Everything is NOT awesome". Lego's partnership with Shell dates back to the 1960s, although the LEGO company created a fictional oil company called Octan. Octan has appeared in countless sets, computer and console games, can be seen at Legoland parks, and is featured as the corporation headed by the villain President Business in The Lego Movie.
Norway
There is a conflict over oil rigs in the Arctic Ocean between the Norwegian Government and Greenpeace. In 2013, three activists of Greenpeace got on a Statoil's
oil rig, wearing bear suits. According to a spokesman from Greenpeace
Russia, they stayed on the rig for about three hours. The activists in
bear suits "were escorted" to the shore. Statoil reportedly did not intend to file a suit against them. Greenpeace had argued that Statoil's drilling plans posed a threat to Bear Island,
an uninhabited wildlife sanctuary that is home to rare species
including polar bears, because an oil spill would be nearly impossible
to clean up in the Arctic due to the harsh conditions. Greenpeace regards the petroleum activities of Statoil as "illegal". Statoil denies the Greenpeace statement. According to The Maritime Executive (2014), Statoil says "Statoil respects people's right to make a legal protest,
and we feel it is important to have a democratic debate around the oil
industry. We have established robust plans for the operation, and feel
confident they can be carried out safely and without accidents."
On 27 May 2014, Greenpeace's ship, MV Esperanza, took over TransoceanSpitsbergen, oil rig of Statoil in the Barents Sea such that it became incapable of operating. After
that, the manager of Greenpeace Norway Truls Gulowsen answered a phone
interview, stating that "Five protesters left the rig by helicopter last
night and three returned to a nearby Greenpeace ship." There were seven more protesters on the rig at the time, but the
Norwegian police could not remove them immediately because the rig was a
flag of convenience
ship registered in the Marshall Islands and thus regarded as a ship in
the open sea, as long as it did not begin drilling. On 29 May, however,
the seven activists from Greenpeace were peacefully captured by
Norwegian police on the rig. Soon after, according to Reuters, all the activists were set free without any fine. On 30 May, the Norwegian Coast Guard finally towed away Esperanza, though in the morning Greenpeace submitted a plea on which more than 80,000 signatures to the Norwegian Environment Minister Tine Sundtoft in Oslo were written. Norwegian government and police reportedly allowed the coast guard to tow the Greenpeace ship.
The Norwegian police stated that Statoil asked Greenpeace to stop
preventing its activities, but Greenpeace ignored the warning. The
police have stated that Greenpeace's interference with the petroleum
activities of Statoil was the contrary to Norwegian law and ordered
Greenpeace to leave the Barents Sea site. Statoil said delays to the start of drilling cost the company about $1.26 million per day. According to Reuters, Statoil was slated to begin drilling "three oil
wells in the Apollo, Atlantis and Mercury prospects in the Hoop area,
[which is] some 300 km away from the mainland [of Norway]" in the summer
of 2014. Greenpeace has continued to criticize the big oil company for
their "green wash", arguing that Statoil hid the truth that it is doing the risky oil drilling by sponsoring FIRST Lego League
and distracting people's attention from the company's project; it also
argues that Statoil has to alter its attitude toward environments.
Moratorium on deep sea mining in international waters
Greenpeace
has joined with other environmental organizations to call for a
moratorium on exploratory deep sea mining authorized by the International Seabed Authority (ISA) under the auspices of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Greenpeace says exploratory and commercial mining of polymetallic nodules could wreak havoc on the world's oceans, which act as a carbon sink absorbing a quarter of the world's carbon emissions each year. The organization says deep sea mining also disrupts the habitats of
newly reported species, from crabs to whales to snails that survive
without eating and congregate near bioluminescent thermal vents.
Greenpeace has urged the International Seabed Authority to further
develop UNCLOS' foundational Article 136 principle "of common heritage
to all mankind" to revise regulations and set conservation targets. In a
2018 Greenpeace Research Laboratories report the organization stressed
the importance of protecting marine biodiversity from toxins released
during seabed mining for natural gas and rare metals for photovoltaic
cells.
Greenpeace maintains the "pro-exploitation" ISA is not the
appropriate authority to regulate deep sea mining (DSM). In 2019
Greenpeace activists protested outside the annual meeting of the
International Seabed Authority in Jamaica, calling for a global ocean
treaty to ban deep sea mining in ocean sanctuaries. Some of the
activists had sailed to Jamaica aboard Greenpeace's ship, the Esperanza,
which travelled from the "Lost City in the mid-Atlantic", an area
Greenpeace says is threatened by exploratory mining.
Alternative economy
Greenpeace
promotes alternatives to the current economic and social system.
According to the organization, the current system is not friendly to
people and the planet, so Greenpeace tries to find a better alternative
in collaboration with "communities, academics and organisations".
Ships
Since
Greenpeace was founded, seagoing ships have played a vital role in its
campaigns. Greenpeace has chartered additional ships as needed. At least
one non-Greenpeace owned ship was used during the organization's
2008–11 campaign to disrupt trawling in the North Sea
by placing large boulders on the seafloor and then providing local
authorities with updated charts of where the boulders were placed.
In 1978, Greenpeace launched the original Rainbow Warrior, a 40-metre (130 ft), former fishing trawler named after the book Warriors of the Rainbow, which inspired early activist Robert Hunter on the first voyage to Amchitka. Greenpeace purchased the Rainbow Warrior (originally launched as the Sir William Hardy
in 1955) at a cost of £40,000. Volunteers restored and refitted it over
a period of four months. First deployed to disrupt the hunt of the Icelandic whaling fleet, the Rainbow Warrior
quickly became a mainstay of Greenpeace campaigns. Between 1978 and
1985, crew members also engaged in direct action against the
ocean-dumping of toxic and radioactive waste, the grey seal hunt in Orkney
and nuclear testing in the Pacific. In May 1985, the vessel was
instrumental for 'Operation Exodus', the evacuation of about 300 Rongelap Atoll
islanders whose home had been contaminated with nuclear fallout from a
US nuclear test two decades earlier which had never been cleaned up and
was still having severe health effects on the locals.
Later in 1985 the Rainbow Warrior was to lead a flotilla of protest vessels into the waters surrounding Moruroa atoll, site of French nuclear testing. The sinking of the Rainbow Warrior occurred when the French government secretly bombed the ship in Auckland harbour on orders from François Mitterrand himself. This killed Dutch freelance photographer Fernando Pereira,
who thought it was safe to enter the boat to get his photographic
material after a first small explosion, but drowned as a result of a
second, larger explosion. The attack was a public relations disaster for France after it was
quickly exposed by the New Zealand police. The French Government in 1987
agreed to pay New Zealand compensation of NZ$13 million and formally apologised for the bombing. The French Government also paid ₣2.3 million compensation to the family of the photographer. Later, in 2001, when the Institute of Cetacean Research of Japan called Greenpeace "eco-terrorists",
Gert Leipold, then executive director of Greenpeace, detested the
claim, saying "calling non-violent protest terrorism insults those who
were injured or killed in the attacks of real terrorists, including
Fernando Pereira, killed by State terrorism in the 1985 attack on the Rainbow Warrior".
In 1989 Greenpeace commissioned a replacement Rainbow Warrior vessel, sometimes referred to as Rainbow Warrior II. It retired from service on 16 August 2011, to be replaced by the third generation vessel. In 2005 the Rainbow Warrior II ran aground on and damaged the Tubbataha Reef in the Philippines while inspecting the reef for coral bleaching. Greenpeace was fined US$7,000
for damaging the reef and agreed to pay the fine saying they felt
responsible for the damage, although Greenpeace stated that the
Philippines government had given it outdated charts. The park manager of
Tubbataha appreciated the quick action Greenpeace took to assess the
damage to the reef.
Lawsuits have been filed against Greenpeace for lost profits, reputation damage, and "sailormongering". The latter case, brought under a law not prosecuted since 1890, was widely viewed as an attempt at revenge by the Bush administration
for Greenpeace's criticism of its environmental policies. The case was
dismissed when the prosecution rested, having failed to prove its case. In 2004 it was revealed that the Australian government was willing to offer a subsidy to Southern Pacific Petroleum on the condition that the oil company would take legal action against Greenpeace, which had campaigned against the Stuart Oil Shale Project. In March 2024, a lawsuit of Total, following Greenpeace publication
about the underestimate of Total's GHG emissions in 2019, was dismissed
in the Parisian court. Greenpeace said the decision is important because there are other similar cases pending in courts.
Some corporations, such as Royal Dutch Shell, BP, and Électricité de France have reacted to Greenpeace campaigns by spying on Greenpeace activities and infiltrating Greenpeace offices. Greenpeace activists have also been targets of phone tapping, death threats, violence and even state terrorism in the case of the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior. On 19 May 2023, Russia's Prosecutor-General's Office designated Greenpeace as an undesirable organisation,
accusing it of interfering with Russia's internal affairs, undermining
the country's economy, and financing the activities of Russian
organizations recognized as "foreign agents".
Patrick Moore, an early Greenpeace member, left the organization in 1986 when it, according to Moore, decided to support a universal ban on chlorine in drinking water. Moore has argued that Greenpeace today is motivated by politics rather
than science and that none of his "fellow directors had any formal
science education". Bruce Cox, Director of Greenpeace Canada, responded that Greenpeace has
never demanded a universal chlorine ban and that Greenpeace does not
oppose use of chlorine in drinking water or in pharmaceutical uses,
adding that "Mr. Moore is alone in his recollection of a fight over
chlorine and/or use of science as his reason for leaving Greenpeace." Paul Watson,
an early member of Greenpeace has said that Moore "uses his status as a
so-called co-founder of Greenpeace to give credibility to his
accusations. I am also a co-founder of Greenpeace and I have known
Patrick Moore for 35 years. ... Moore makes accusations that have no
basis in fact."
Patrick Moore reversed his position on nuclear power in 1976, first opposing it and now supporting it. In Australian newspaper The Age, he writes "Greenpeace is wrong—we must consider nuclear power". He argues that any realistic plan to reduce reliance on fossil fuels or greenhouse gas emissions needs increased use of nuclear energy. Phil Radford, executive director of Greenpeace US responded that nuclear energy is too risky, takes too long to build to address climate change, and claims that most countries, including the U.S., could shift to nearly 100% renewable energy while phasing out nuclear power by 2050. In 2013, Moore criticized Greenpeace's stance on golden rice, an issue where Moore has been joined by other environmentalists such as Mark Lynas, stating that Greenpeace has "waged a campaign of misinformation,
trashed the scientists who are working to bring Golden Rice to the
people who need it, and supported the violent destruction of Golden Rice
field trials."
Brent Spar tanker
An editorial comment in natural science journal Nature accused Greenpeace of not caring for facts when it criticized the dumping of the Brent Spar tanker, and accused the group of exaggerating the volume of oil that was stored in the tanker. Greenpeace had claimed that the tanker contained 5,500 tonnes of crude oil, while Shell estimated it only contained 50 tonnes. However, the measurements had been made under duress during a protest
occupation of the platform, since Shell had refused permission, and
Greenpeace activists had been under attack by water cannons and the
like.The BBC issued an apology to Greenpeace for having reported that the NGO lied.
Shell UK took three years to evaluate the disposal options,
concluding that the disposal of the tanker in the deep ocean was the "Best Practicable Environmental Option"
(BPEO), an option which gained some support within some portion of the
scientific community, as it was found by some to be of "negligible"
environmental impact. British government and Oslo and Paris Commissions (OSPAR) accepted the solution.
The resulting NGO campaign against Shell's proposals included
letters, boycotts which escalated to vandalism in Germany, and lobbying
at intergovernmental conferences. Binding moratoriums supporting
Greenpeace's, ecosystem protection, and the precautionary principle
position were issued in more than one intergovernmental meeting, and at
the 1998 OSPAR Convention, WWF presented a study of toxic effects on
deep sea ecosystems. The meeting confirmed a general prohibition on
ocean dumping. Shell had transported the rig to the dumping site, but in the last
hours canceled the operation and announced that it had failed in
communicating its plans sufficiently to the public, admitting they had
underestimated the strength of public opinion. In January 1998, Shell issued a new BPEO indicating recycling the rig as a quay in Norway.
In 1999, the Brent Spar
container was decommissioned and one side issue that emerged was that
the legs of the structure were found to contain cold-water coral species
(Lophelia pertusa). As a result, the possibility was suggested
of keeping the legs of such platforms on the sea bed in future, to serve
as habitat. A Greenpeace representative opposed the suggestion, citing the fact
that the reefs formed by the coral are at risk, not the coral itself,
and that such a move would not promote development of such reefs, and
expose coral species to toxic substances found in oil. "If I was to dump
a car in a wood, moss would grow on it, and if I was lucky a bird may
even nest in it. But this is not justification to fill our forests with
disused cars," said Greenpeace campaigner Simon Reddy.
Pascal Husting commute
In
2013 reports noted that Pascal Husting, the director of Greenpeace
International's "international programme" was commuting 400 km (250 mi)
to work by plane, despite Greenpeace's activism to reduce air travel due
to carbon footprint. Greenpeace has said "the growth in aviation is ruining our chances of stopping dangerous climate change". After a "public uproar" Greenpeace announced that Husting would commute by train.
Nazca Lines
In December 2014, Greenpeace activists damaged rock related to the Nazca Lines in Peru while setting up a banner within the lines of one of the famed geoglyphs,
and there were concerns that the harm might be irreparable. The
activists damaged an area around the hummingbird by walking near the
glyph without regulation footwear. Access to the area around the lines
is strictly prohibited and special shoes must be worn to avoid damaging the UN World Heritage site. Greenpeace said the activists were "absolutely careful to protect the Nazca lines," but this is contradicted by video and photographs showing the activists
wearing conventional shoes (not special protective shoes) while walking
on the site.
Greenpeace has apologized to the Peruvian people, but Loise Jamie Castillo, Peru's Vice Minister of Cultural Heritage
called the apology "a joke", because Greenpeace refused to identify the
vandals or accept responsibility. Culture Minister Diana Álvarez-Calderón said that evidence gathered
during an investigation by the government will be used as part of a
legal suit against Greenpeace. At a news conference, she said: "The
damage done is irreparable and the apologies offered by the
environmental group aren't enough." By January 2015, Greenpeace had presented statements of four members of the NGO involved in the action.
Anti-whaling campaign in Norway in the 1990s
During the 1990s Greenpeace conducted many anti-whaling
expeditions in Norway. Critics have said that Greenpeace only
campaigned against whaling to gain economic donations from the U.S., and
it had little to do with saving the environment or the lives of the
whales. For example, shark hunting was a more pressing issue at the
time, but since sharks are widely feared in the United States, activism
to help sharks does not receive as much financial support. Greenpeace
has rejected this claim. However, in Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet on 11 April 2015, then–International Executive Director Kumi Naidoo admitted that the anti-whaling campaign was a "miscalculation." Greenpeace holds that whaling was only resumed by Norway after the IWC ban because of political election motives, and faces many explicit hurdles, including decreased demand in Japan and toxic chemical contamination.
Open letter from Nobel laureates
In June 2016, 107 Nobel laureates signed an open letter, urging Greenpeace to end its opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The letter stated:
We
urge Greenpeace and its supporters to re-examine the experience of
farmers and consumers worldwide with crops and foods improved through
biotechnology, recognize the findings of authoritative scientific bodies
and regulatory agencies, and abandon their campaign against "GMOs" in
general and Golden Rice
in particular. Scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have
repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved through
biotechnology to be as safe as, if not safer than those derived from any
other method of production. There has never been a single confirmed
case of a negative health outcome for humans or animals from their
consumption. Their environmental impacts have been shown repeatedly to
be less damaging to the environment, and a boon to global biodiversity.
... We call upon governments of the world to ... do everything in their
power to oppose Greenpeace's actions and accelerate the access of
farmers to all the tools of modern biology, especially seeds improved
through biotechnology. ... Opposition based on emotion and dogma
contradicted by data must be stopped.
Greenpeace
responded stating "[a]ccusations that anyone is blocking genetically
engineered 'Golden' rice are false" and that they support "investing in
climate-resilient ecological agriculture and empowering farmers to
access a balanced and nutritious diet, rather than pouring money down
the drain for GE 'Golden' rice."
Efforts to curb Arctic oil exploration
In
December 2020, Norway's Supreme Court refused to interfere in the work
of ongoing oil exploration endeavors which was challenged jointly by
Greenpeace and Nature and Youth Norway on the ground that the activity
related to oil explorations violate human rights due to its contributing
aspect towards carbon emission. The ruling said that the permission granted during 2016 will remain valid as it was not found to violate either Norwegian Constitution's rights or the European Convention on Human Rights. Greta Thunberg reportedly contributed $29,000 as the lawsuit cost on behalf of the plaintiff Greenpeace and Nature and Youth Norway.
Zinc sulfide (left) and strontium aluminate (right), in visible light, in darkness, and after 4 minutes in the dark.
Calcium sulfide (left) and metal-earth silicate (right) phosphoresce in red and blue respectively.
A phosphorescent wall is being illuminated; shadows are present.
After removing the light source, shadows are visible on the wall.
_(4565188365).jpg)
