Greenpeace Is Evil

... Jenkins. Thanks for taking this debate - I hope it's a fun and productive one!I will prove in my case that the resolution - Greenpeace causes more harm than good - can be easily upheld when we look at the evidence. I will be looking at a few specific instances were Greenpeace has lobbied for a certain law or regulation that ultimately would cost the lives of millions. While Greenpeace isn't the only player in the environmental lobbying group, they are a major one and even though they may not bear 100% of the responsibility, their support for the following actions warrants them as doing more harm than good. The issues are: Greenpeace's former opposition to DDTs Greenpeace's opposition to Golden Rice Both of these issues is detrimental to the world as a whole. 1. DDTs. DDTs (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) are one of the most sucessful synthetic pesticides in the history of mankind. It is incredibly useful for combating insects, especially the female Anopheles mosquito -- the main vector for malaria [1]. In fact, the man who discovered DDT's anti-insect capabilities, Swiss Dr. Paul Müller, lter went on to receive a Nobel prize in Medicine for his work. [2] In 2008, at 700,000 to 1,000,000 people died of malaria [3], most of them in Sub-Saharan Africa. The United States virtually eradicated malaria with DDT within four years time [4]. Naturally, this chemical was viewed as a miracle by many. And today, Greenpeace has finally admitted that DDT is a life saving product. But this admission came after 30 years of objection to the use of DDT [5]. Former Cato Institute adjunct scholar Steve Milloy noted that: "It might be easy for some to dismiss the past 43 years of eco-hysteria over DDT with a simple 'nevermind', except for the blood of millions of people dripping from the hands of the WWF, Greenpeace, Rachel Carson, Environmental Defense Fund, and other junk science-fueled opponents of DDT."[6]Now, why would Greenpeace hate such a wonderful substance? The reason for the ban and opposition to DDT was the effects it had on the environment and people. Simply put, it was toxic. It killed things, just like it was supposed to. We understand that - however, when we look on the balance, we can see that while somewhat dangerous, DDT's usage outweighs its negative effects.In 2006, the World Health Organization acknowledged that while DDT was dangerous, what was far more dangerous than DDT was disease. It encouraged, albeit with caution, more widespread usage of the substance to fight disease everywhere (DDT doesn't just fight malaria, but fleas that carry the bubonic plague, etc) [7].Greenpeace and other organizations got their way with DDT bans, and thus, are partially responsible for the millions of easily preventable deaths that occurred during the 30 year opposition. While they may not have had direct control over DDT, just like those who stood idly by and watched Nazi Germany abhor human life, Greenpeace is to blame. (Not to insinuate that Greenpeace = Nazis) 2. GMOs (Golden Rice)GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) or GECs (Genetically Engineered Crops) are, in this case, plants that have been modified to a state more beneficial to humans, such as making grain easier to grow or making rice higher in vitamins. Greenpeace doesn't like GMOs [8]. One such genetically modified foodstuff is golden rice. In essence, golden rice is rice that has been taken and modified to have higher levels or vitamins and minerals [9], especially vitamin A. Vitamin A Deficiency (VAD) is a leading cause of blindness and even death in the third world. Over 250 million children are affected by VAD [10]. By feeding people golden rice in third world countries, they would receives extra Vitamin A (in addition to other nutrients) that would help combat VAD [11]. Greenpeace's opposition, and subsequent lobbying for government regulation that have passed, has prevented millions from receiving food that would help them combat their diseases and ailments. There is little to no credible scientific evidence given by Greenpeace, or anyone, to explain why GMOs are so terrible that we should let people starve as opposed to let them eat GMOs.3. ConclusionOverall, Greenpeace's opposition towards humane solutions to human suffering is enough for us to safely affirm the resolution, that on the whole, the environmental organization Greepeace has caused (or has attempted to cause) more harm than good in the world. Their activism isn't all bad, but, unfortunately, they take precedence of whales over millions human beings' lives.[1] National Center for Biotechnology Information's database: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[2] Duke Dept. of Chemistry:http://www.chem.duke.edu...[3] Center for Disease Control:http://www.cdc.gov...[4] Center for Disease Controlhttp://www.cdc.gov...[5] Heartland Institutehttp://bit.ly...[6] Junk Science http://junkscience.com...[7] NPRhttp://www.npr.org...[8] Greenpeace Internationalhttp://www.greenpeace.org...[9] Golden Rice Projecthttp://www.goldenrice.org...[10] The World Health Organizationhttp://www.who.int...[11] Golden Rice Project (¶ 4; Point 2)http://www.goldenrice.org...;