Throughout its history, the policies and objectives
of the non-governmental environmental protection
and conservation organization Greenpeace have
been criticized by a number of groups, including
national governments, members of industry,
former Greenpeace members, scientists, political
groups, and other environmentalists.
The organization's methods, such as the use
of direct action, have also led to controversy
and legal action.
== Prominent critics ==
Canadian ecologist Patrick Moore, is a critic
of the organization.
In addition, Patrick Moore had once spoken
out against nuclear power in 1976, but today
he supports it, along with renewable energy
sources.
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 need increased use of nuclear energy.
Phil Radford, Executive Director of Greenpeace
US responded that nuclear energy is too risky
and takes too long to build to address climate
change.
Radford asserts that the U.S. can shift to
nearly 100% renewable energy while phasing
out nuclear power by 2050.In 2016, 107 Nobel
laureates signed a 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."
== 
Criticisms ==
=== 
Internal party structure ===
According to Wyn Grant, Greenpeace is a hierarchical
and undemocratic organisation which allows
very little control of its members over the
campaigns the organisation embarks upon.
For example, the criticisms Grant has given
include: Greenpeace has a strictly bureaucratic
and borderline authoritarian internal structure;
a small group of individuals have control
over the organisation in both international
and local levels; local action groups are
totally dependent on the central body; and
the rank and file are excluded from most decisions.
=== Shell oil storage buoy ===
In 1995, Greenpeace mounted a successful campaign
to force Royal Dutch Shell, co-owner of the
Brent Spar oil storage buoy, to dismantle
the platform on land rather than scuttling
it at sea, which involved the platform's occupation
by Greenpeace members.
A moratorium on the dumping of offshore installations
was adopted in Europe soon after the affair,
and three years later the Environment Ministers
of countries bordering the northeast Atlantic
sided with Greenpeace, (PDF) adopting a permanent
ban on the dumping of offshore installations
at sea.
After the affair, it came to light that Greenpeace
had miscalculated the amount of toxic waste
present aboard the Brent Spar.
Greenpeace admitted that its claims that the
Spar contained 5000 tons of oil were inaccurate,
apologizing to Shell on September 5.
However, Greenpeace dismissed the importance
of the amount of oil on board, pointing to
wider industrial responsibility as the main
issue at hand, as the Brent Spar was to be
the first offshore installation to be dumped
in the northeast Atlantic Ocean; Greenpeace
claimed that it would likely have been followed
by the scuttling of dozens or hundreds more
platforms, setting what they consider to be
a dangerous precedent.
The organization went on to point out that
Shell's decision to scrap the platform had
been taken before Greenpeace announced the
existence of an incorrect amount of toxic
waste, and that their mistake therefore did
not influence Shell's decision.
=== Anti-DDT campaign ===
Greenpeace supports the Stockholm Convention
on Persistent Organic Pollutants, a legally
binding international agreement which aims
to phase out substances such as DDT.
Both the Stockholm Convention and Greenpeace
allow DDT to be used for malaria control.
However, according to Roger Bate, a libertarian
critic of Greenpeace, the organization's campaign
to shut down the last major DDT factory in
the world located in Cochin, India, would
make the eradication of malaria more difficult
for poorer countries.
Robert Gwadz of the US National Institutes
of Health said in 2007, "The ban on DDT may
have killed 20 million children."
=== 
Greener Electronics campaign ===
In August 2006, Greenpeace released its first
"Guide to Greener Electronics," which ranked
leading mobile phone, PC, TV, and game console
manufacturers on their global policies and
practice on eliminating harmful chemicals
and on taking responsibility for their products
once they are discarded by consumers.
Greenpeace encouraged manufacturers to clean
up their products by eliminating hazardous
substances and to take back and recycle their
products responsibly once they become obsolete.
The Version 1 Guide to Greener Electronics
stated "the ranking is important because the
amounts of toxic e-waste is 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."
It ranked Nokia and Dell near the top, but
essentially gave failing grades across the
industry, ranking Toshiba thirteenth, and
Apple Computer in eleventh place out of the
fourteen brands.
The report singled out Apple for its low rank,
saying: "Already, many of the companies are
in a race to reach the head of the class - that
is, except for Apple, who seems determined
to remain behind rather than be the teacher's
pet we'd hoped for."
This caught the attention of tech media news
sites, and was widely reported.
Greenpeace gave Nintendo a score of 0.3 / 10
based on the fact that Greenpeace has almost
no information on the company, which, by Greenpeace's
grading system, automatically results in a
zero for the affected categories.
Daniel Eran of Apple news blog RoughlyDrafted
criticized the guide in an article, saying
the Greenpeace guide's "ranking puts far more
weight upon what companies publicly say rather
than what they actually do.
It is also clear that Greenpeace intended
the report more as an attention getting stunt
than a serious rating of corporations' actual
responsibility."
In response, Greenpeace attacked RoughlyDrafted's
credibility, pointing out that it has in the
past been called "the lunatic fringe of Mac
fandom" by other bloggers after comparing
the cost of Microsoft Windows and Apples'
Mac OS X.It was alleged that Greenpeace had
no factual evidence, instead relying on unsubstantiated
official company information for the report
in order to garner publicity, as well as political
and monetary support.
The United States Environmental Protection
Agency's 2007 report Electronic Product Environmental
Assessment Tool (EPEAT) showed Apple leading
the ranks in all categories.
The Ars Technica website said the report "should
make Greenpeace red-faced", after factual
substantiation was questioned.
Greenpeace responded to the criticisms in
a rebuttal also published by RoughlyDrafted.
Along with the Greenpeace rebuttal, the article
further presented the results of a second
Greenpeace report, called "Toxic Chemicals
in Your Laptop Exposed," which RoughlyDrafted
called an 'apology' for the initial claims
Greenpeace made in the Greener Guide rankings.
While Greenpeace itself has never used the
word "apology", they did restate several of
their initial claims in a response to Keith
Ripley, another reviewer of the report.
For example, the data reported findings of
minimal traces of Tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA),
an unregulated fire retardant in the Apple
computer; the Greenpeace press release said
Apple "appears to be using far more of this
toxic chemical than its competitors".
This is despite the fact that the EU Scientific
Committee on Health and Environmental Risks
concluded in March 2005 that TBBPA "presents
no risk to human health" and "the World Health
organisation conducted a scientific assessment
of TBBPA and found that the risk for the general
population is considered to be insignificant."More
criticism of the statement in the Greenpeace
press release followed in Greenpeace Lies
About Apple on RoughlyDrafted: "The most recent
report, 'Toxics in Your Laptop Exposed,' did
credible scientific tests, but then threw
out the data to instead present a lathered
up, misleading and deceptive press release
that was simply a lie.
No amount of credible science is worth anything
if you ignore the findings and simply present
the message you wanted the data to support."
Greenpeace published an article on its website,
addressing the criticism so far, with a special
focus on scientific issues.The Guide to Greener
Electronics has been continually updated with
new rankings of the electronics manufacturers,
and as of May 2010, 15 editions have been
produced.
=== Greenland indigenous complaints ===
In 2010, when Cairn Energy found initial traces
of natural gas in one of its test wells that
indicate the possibility of much larger hydrocarbon
deposits, Greenpeace sent its ship, the Esperanza,
into a stand-off with the Danish navy near
Cairn's oil platforms.
Many members of the community were angry with
Greenpeace telling youngsters not to eat whale
or seal, which the Inuit have eaten for centuries.
As a result, Cairn Energy has gotten a warmer
welcome than many environmentalists have hoped
for.
One person said this was "because it is for
the greater good."
A reference to the potential revenue energy
exploration could bring to offset the $500
million annual grant from Denmark which could
transform the economy and lead to Greenland
independence.
However, Aqqaluk Lynge, from the Inuit Circumpolar
Council, said an influx of foreign companies
and workers could mean the natives "risk being
a minority in our own country."
He added that "One thing is for sure, yes
Greenland has a chance to be rich, it's something
that is essential for the people of Greenland
to discuss and then decide if we want forced
industrialisation."
Greenpeace also stopped the trade of sealskin,
something Greenlanders have never forgotten.
=== Neo-luddism ===
Several publications have accused Greenpeace
of being anti-technology.
In an editorial in the Register, Andrew Orlowski
cites Greenpeace's opposition to research
on nuclear fusion.
Orlowski points out the incoherent and contradictory
argument by Greenpeace that nuclear fusion
is non-viable but then warns of the dangers
that commercial nuclear fusion posed on the
environment despite their claims that nuclear
fusion is an impractical, technological dead
end.
Other publications also criticized Greenpeace's
stand against genetically modified crops and
the unlawful destruction of those crops by
its members.
=== Opposition to golden rice ===
In September 2013, several prominent scientists
published a letter condemning Greenpeace and
other NGOs for their opposition to golden
rice, a type of rice that would be used in
poorer countries.
It is modified so that it has more vitamin
A than normal rice.
In the letter they state, "If ever there was
a clear-cut cause for outrage, it is the concerted
campaign by Greenpeace and other nongovernmental
organizations, as well as by individuals,
against Golden Rice."
=== Mismanagement of funds ===
In June 2014, media outlets reported that
one employee lost 3.8 million euros by betting
on fixed rate concurrency exchange when the
euro was gaining against foreign currency.
Internal leaked communications by Kumi Naidoo,
executive director of Greenpeace, indicates
a "huge problem" and that the staff have "good
reason" to be upset.
At the same time Pascal Husting, one of the
top executives of the organization, was shown
to commute several times a month during a
two-year period between Luxembourg, his home
residence, and Amsterdam, the Headquarters
of Greenpeace.
This is against the company's view that short
flights add to the CO2 emissions and internal
policies regarding short flights.
Pascal later apologized publicly.
=== Damage to Nazca Lines ===
In December 2014, Greenpeace came under criticism
following a publicity stunt within the Nazca
lines, a UN World Heritage Site inside Peru.
Demonstrators entered the restricted area
surrounding the Hummingbird lines and laid
down banners that spelled out "Time for Change!
/ The Future is Renewable / Greenpeace".
In doing so, they tracked multiple footprints
and damaged both the line itself and the area
surrounding it.
Peru's deputy minister for culture criticized
the actions, calling them "thoughtless, insensitive,
illegal, irresponsible and absolutely pre-meditated."
Greenpeace responded with apologies, claiming
that demonstrators took care to avoid damage,
but this is contradicted by video and photographs
showing the activists wearing conventional
shoes (not special protective shoes) while
walking on the site.
The organization stated they were surprised
that this resulted "in some kind of moral
offense."
Conversely, they stood by "...history of more
than 40 years of peaceful activism [which]
clearly shows that we have always been most
respectful with people around the world and
their diverse cultural legacies."
Greenpeace members were allowed to leave Peru
without being charged.
Despite Greenpeace offering to take "total
responsibility", the president of the Maria
Reiche Association Anne Maria Cogorno stated
that the damage was "irreparable".
=== Greenpeace and Indian government controversy
===
The Greenpeace(NGO) India Society has been
accused by the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs
of a violation of the Foreign Contribution
Regulation Act.
As per the FCRA act, no NGO can use more than
50% of received funds for administrative purposes,
and Greenpeace India is alleged to have used
60% of these funds for administrative purposes.
Greenpeace India is challenging these allegations,
and specifically the inclusion of campaign
staff salaries as admin expenses.The Intelligence
Bureau of India allegedly leaked a report
accusing Greenpeace of anti-development activities.
The Delhi High Court overturned the governments
decision to offload an Indian citizen from
her travel to London - saying you cannot muzzle
dissent
