For me, the important question is not "What flaws can I find in the campaigns and management of Greenpeace?" (as I'm sure I could find many); instead, I am more interested in things like, "If there were no Greenpeace, then how much rainforest would be left? How many whales would be swimming in the ocean? How much toxic waste would be sitting on ocean floors? How many coral reefs would be remaining?" And so on...And I think the answer is: without Greenpeace there would be a lot less rainforest, a lot less whales, a lot more toxic waste, etc.
Same could be said for PETA. I strongly dislike the way that many of their campaigns seem to lack tact or diplomacy. I strongly dislike the way that they commonly distort facts, thus limiting their credibility. Despite these defects, I still would support them though. The ultimate question I ask of them is, "If there were no PETA, then how many vegetarians would there be?" And I think the answer is: without PETA there would be a lot less vegetarians.
Yes, Will, I couldn't agree with you more! As I said, the world is a much better place for having Greepeace and PETA (as well as the others). Without
these two organizations, the environment and the animals would be much worse
off than they already are.
P.S. The eco-leather example was not meant to suggest that support for Greenpeace should be withdrawn because they sell leather shoes. It was just meant to support the position that Greenpeace has no policy promoting veganism or even vegetarianism, and in fact, just the opposite!