Paul Watson Returns with a Slam Dunk Op-Ed Piece (Sea Shepherd)

[Guest guest]

Paul Watson Returns with a Slam Dunk Op-Ed Piece to

Counter Moore's Nonsense in the San Francisco Examiner

 

Mon, 1 Aug 2005 02:07:36 -0700

 

 

Paul Watson Returns with a Slam Dunk Op-Ed Piece to

Counter Moore's Nonsense in the San Francisco Examiner

 

 

On July 20th, 2005, Patrick Moore sent me a strange

e-mail. It simply read " Eat this Watson. " Following

it was an opinion piece that he wrote and published in

the San Francisco Examiner.

(Pat Moore's original piece is posted below mine)

 

In response I wrote the rebuttal opinion piece that

was published in the July 31st edition of the San

Francisco Examiner. (Posted below)

 

In another strange chapter in the on-going non-debate

with Moore, I discovered something quite interesting.

Apparently Pat Moore was scheduled to be a faculty

speaker onboard the Holland American cruise ship

Oosterdam on the voyage from Seattle departing July

30th to Alaska and returning on August 6th. As it

happens I am also a speaker on the same ship and the

same voyage. But Pat is not onboard. Couldn't find him

anywhere. Apparently he cancelled when he found out

that I was a fellow faculty member. The cruise

organizer said he was hoping to arrange a debate

between us but it appears that Pat Moore is definetly

afraid to engage me in a debate.

 

" I'm having a great time on the Oosterdam Pat, wish

you were here. It would have been fun. "

 

 

The San Francisco Examiner

 

Solutions instead of sensationalism

Viewpoint

By Paul Watson

Published: Sunday, July 31, 2005 11:15 PM PDT

 

 

 

On July 21, Patrick Moore wrote a guest opinion piece

accusing the environmental movement of being, in his

words, sick and sensationalist.

 

He insinuated that environmentalists are opposed to

progress, that we would deny vitamin A to children,

and that it is our policies that are contributing to

world hunger and energy shortages, and preventing

people from living better chemically.

 

He uses his status as 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. Today, I am a national

director of the Sierra Club and the president of the

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.

 

Moore makes accusations that have no basis in fact.

 

The environmental movement is a diverse and complex

international movement and blanket generalizations are

simplistic — and sensationalist.

 

 

 

Environmentalists do not have a zero-tolerance policy

against genetic manipulation. It is a practice as old

as agriculture. What we do have a problem with is

irresponsible gene splicing that could lead to the

development of dangerous species of bacteria or

viruses. We have a concern about splicing animal genes

with plant genes and we do not believe that the

problem of overpopulation will solved by simply

engineering more food.

 

Moore suggested that farm-raised salmon are the

solution to diminished wild species but he neglected

to mention that farm-raised salmon consume fish that

are caught from the sea, and it takes about 50 times

the weight in wild fish to raise one farmed salmon. He

also neglected to mention the chemicals, steroids,

growth hormones and artificial coloring that are

utilized by the aquaculture industry.

 

Environmentalists are opposed to dams because dams

prevent the flow of nutrients to the land and wetlands

below the dam, and accumulate salt and toxins behind

the dam. Cutting off the flow of water in a river is

akin to tying off a blood vessel in your arm. The

river and the blood vessel perform essentially the

same function.

 

 

 

Moore argues that environmentalists oppose wind power.

This is an amazing spin. The environmental movement

has been promoting wind and solar power for decades.

 

Moore is right when he says that the environmental

movement opposes nuclear power. He asked if we

preferred coal-powered generators. No, we don't prefer

coal; we are just concerned about a little thing

called radioactive waste and the fact that nuclear

power stations have limited lifespans, after which

they cannot be deconstructed but will need to be

isolated for thousands of years.

 

When Moore says there are more trees in North America

than there was a hundred years ago, I am curious as to

what evidence he has to support this theory. Much of

the area where trees existed a hundred years ago is

now covered in asphalt, housing developments and

cities. The ancient forests are almost all gone. I

don't believe that such an unsubstantiated and

sensationalist statement has much credibility.

 

 

 

The problem is that environmentalists are accused of

being sensationalist, yet those who criticize the

environmental movement themselves employ sensational

accusations that demonize us as being anti-children,

anti-people and anti-progress.

 

The environmental movement is one of the fastest

growing social movements in the world today and the

reason for this is that people are seeing the problems

and seeking solutions.

 

I prefer to be a part of a movement for solutions than

to be a part of the movement of denial.

 

 

 

Paul Watson is a national director of the Sierra Club

and president of the Sea Shepherd Conservation

Society.

 

 

 

Message from Patrick Moore

 

Eat this, Watson.

 

The San Francisco Examiner

 

Environmentalists' sick sensationalism

By Patrick Moore

Published: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 10:30 PM PDT

E-mail this story | Print this page

 

 

Since the late 1980s, the environmental movement has

lost its way, abandoning science and logic in favor of

emotion and sensationalism. I left Greenpeace after 15

years as a founding member. Today, we're faced with

environmental policies that ignore science and result

in increased risk to human health and ecology. To

borrow from the vernacular, how sick is that?

 

Genetic enhancement: Activists persist in their

zero-tolerance campaign against genetically enhanced

food, yet there is no evidence of harm to human health

or the environment. Genetically enhanced crops reduce

chemical pesticides, boost yield and reduce soil

erosion. Enriched with Vitamin A, golden rice could

prevent blindness in 500,000 children every year in

Asia and Africa if activists would stop blocking its

introduction.

 

Salmon

 

 

farming: The campaign against salmon farming, based on

erroneous claims of environmental damage, scares us

into avoiding one of the most nutritious,

heart-friendly foods available. Salmon farming takes

pressure off wild stocks, yet activists tell us to eat

only wild fish. Is this how we save them, by eating

more?

 

Vinyl: Greenpeace wants to ban the use of chlorine in

all industrial processes. The addition of chlorine to

drinking water has been the greatest public health

advance in history, and 75 percent of our medicines

are based on chlorine chemistry. Greenpeace calls for

a ban on polyvinyl chloride (PVC or vinyl), claiming

it is the " poison plastic. " There is not a shred of

evidence that vinyl damages human health or the

environment. Apart from lowering construction costs

and delivering safe drinking water, vinyl's ease of

maintenance and its ability to incorporate

anti-microbial properties is critical to fighting

germs in hospitals.

 

Hydroelectricity: Hydroelectricity is the largest

source of renewable electricity, yet activists boast

they have blocked more than 200 hydroelectric dams in

the developing world. Do activists prefer coal plants?

Would they rather ignore the needs of billions of

people?

 

 

 

Wind power: Activists argue wind turbines kill birds

and ruin landscapes. A million times more birds are

killed by cats, windows and cars than by all the

windmills in the world. Wind turbines are works of art

compared to some of our urban environments.

 

Nuclear power: Activists continue to lobby against

nuclear energy, the only power source that does not

emit greenhouse gases and can replace fossil fuels and

satisfy global demand. Renewable energies such as

wind, geothermal and hydroelectric are only part of

the solution.

 

Forestry: Trees are the most abundant, renewable and

biodegradable resource in the world, yet activists

tell us to reduce our use of wood. Forests are stable

and growing where we use the most wood, and

diminishing where we use less. Using wood sends a

signal to the marketplace to plant more trees and

produce more wood. There is about the same forest area

in North America as there was 100 years ago.

 

 

 

The prognosis: Activists' zero-tolerance,

fear-mongering campaigns could ultimately prevent a

cure for Vitamin A deficiency blindness, deplete wild

salmon stocks, decrease the safety of health care,

deprive developing nations of clean electricity, stop

renewable wind energy, block a solution to global

warming and contribute to deforestation. How sick is

that?

 

Co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, Ph.D is

chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies

Ltd. in Vancouver, Canada.

 

 

Captain Paul Watson

Founder and President - Sea Shepherd Conservation

Society - Sierra Club USA - The Farley Mowat Institute

President - Oceanic Research and Conservation Action

Force

P.O. Box 2616

Friday Harbor, Wa 98250

Tel: 360-370-5650 Cell: 310-701-3096

E-mail: Paulwatson

Website: www.Seashepherd.org

 

Captain Paul Watson

Founder and President - Sea Shepherd Conservation

Society - Sierra Club USA - The Farley Mowat Institute

President - Oceanic Research and Conservation Action

Force

P.O. Box 2616

Friday Harbor, Wa 98250

Tel: 360-370-5650 Cell: 310-701-3096

E-mail: Paulwatson

Website: www.Seashepherd.org