At Bryce Edward's Liberation blog I came across an interesting post on the funding of the NZ Green Party.
Among the companies to have given donations to the party include Westpac, Telecom, Ericsson, Clear and Macquarie Bank.
Such a combination of Banks and Telecommunication communications seems and odd bunch of supporters for a left-wing anti-business party - wouldn't such parties prefer to support centre-right parties which advocate less regulation and lower taxes?
However, it does make sense if you look at it from the post modern perspective of corporate image rather than vested interests.
Supporting trendy left-wing parties makes companies look better in the eyes of the SWPL crowd, and helps diffuse militant opposition from the far-left. Why spike trees when you can get a nice desk job working for the Green Party or Greenpeace.
This corporate policy of appeasing your opponents is highlighted by fact the party has actually turned down donations from Sky City (on the grounds they don't support gambling) and an undisclosed mining company.
Interestingly, Edwards concludes that the increased funding of the Green Party hasn't had much impact on the party's electoral success, with the party consistently polling around 4 -6 percent of the vote, but it has helped fund more paid jobs in the Green Party hierarcy.
Showing posts with label Environmentalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Environmentalism. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Greenpeace - a bunch of western imperialists?
While it's generally frowned upon these days to attack the practices of non-western cultures, an exception is made for certain practices which clash with popular left-liberal viewpoints.
A case in point is the attitude of the liberal left to Japanese whaling. With the apparently well-funded Greenpeace, now engaged in sustained and strident expeditions to interfere with Japanese whaling expeditions, few people bother to ask whether such actions are culturally justified.
From an environmental perspective, it's clear that if there is little or no whaling, then the whale population will start to rebound, and this is already starting to occur with some of the smaller species of hunted whales such as the Minke.
A similar situation is occurring with seals, which in areas such as New Zealand and California have recovered to the point where they are becoming a serious nuisance to humans, and are wiping out inshore fish species along quite extensive stretches of coastline. One of the reasons why the seal population is now becoming a threat to other wildlife is because there are fewer natural predators like sharks to keep their numbers in check and left liberal environmentalists and animal rights activists are strongly opposed to the idea of controlled culling by humans.
Since there is no real environmental reason why the Japanese should not be able to hunt the most numerous species of whale, on a limited basis, then the strident opposition of groups like Greenpeace must be cultural/ ideological.
In the western mindset, particularly the mindset of the English-speaking West, certain intelligent mammal species, such as horses, dolphins and seals, have a high cultural status, which they don't necessarily have in most other cultures.
I guess I can see why westerners would want to protect animals which share certain similarities with humans, such as being relatively intelligent, but I don't understand why we show little consistency about which mammals should receive special status, and which should not. Pigs and cows are relatively intelligent, but are acceptable table fare, and relatively intelligent pest species in New Zealand, such as introduced possums, goats and deer can be more or less dispatched any way you like.
Increasingly, the almost human-like status of favoured animals like whales and seals seems more related to their aesthetic appeal or tourist value rather than any carefully thought set of ethical principles. The fact that western environmental activists believe this gives them the mandate to undertake a global crusade against whaling, smacks of serious cultural ignorance, if not down-right arrogance.
Groups like Greenpeace claim the vast majority of countries in the world are in favour of a ban on whaling, but many poor non-western countries such as Tonga, which are culturally in favour of whaling, support bans on whaling because they don't want to upset westerners who provide the lion's share of their tourism income.
If left liberals are going to criticize conservative westerners for wanting to protect their own cultures from multiculturalism, then perhaps they should stop and consider how their own globalist posturing impinges on the interests on those "colourful" foreign cultures they claim to have such empathy with.
A case in point is the attitude of the liberal left to Japanese whaling. With the apparently well-funded Greenpeace, now engaged in sustained and strident expeditions to interfere with Japanese whaling expeditions, few people bother to ask whether such actions are culturally justified.
From an environmental perspective, it's clear that if there is little or no whaling, then the whale population will start to rebound, and this is already starting to occur with some of the smaller species of hunted whales such as the Minke.
A similar situation is occurring with seals, which in areas such as New Zealand and California have recovered to the point where they are becoming a serious nuisance to humans, and are wiping out inshore fish species along quite extensive stretches of coastline. One of the reasons why the seal population is now becoming a threat to other wildlife is because there are fewer natural predators like sharks to keep their numbers in check and left liberal environmentalists and animal rights activists are strongly opposed to the idea of controlled culling by humans.
Since there is no real environmental reason why the Japanese should not be able to hunt the most numerous species of whale, on a limited basis, then the strident opposition of groups like Greenpeace must be cultural/ ideological.
In the western mindset, particularly the mindset of the English-speaking West, certain intelligent mammal species, such as horses, dolphins and seals, have a high cultural status, which they don't necessarily have in most other cultures.
I guess I can see why westerners would want to protect animals which share certain similarities with humans, such as being relatively intelligent, but I don't understand why we show little consistency about which mammals should receive special status, and which should not. Pigs and cows are relatively intelligent, but are acceptable table fare, and relatively intelligent pest species in New Zealand, such as introduced possums, goats and deer can be more or less dispatched any way you like.
Increasingly, the almost human-like status of favoured animals like whales and seals seems more related to their aesthetic appeal or tourist value rather than any carefully thought set of ethical principles. The fact that western environmental activists believe this gives them the mandate to undertake a global crusade against whaling, smacks of serious cultural ignorance, if not down-right arrogance.
Groups like Greenpeace claim the vast majority of countries in the world are in favour of a ban on whaling, but many poor non-western countries such as Tonga, which are culturally in favour of whaling, support bans on whaling because they don't want to upset westerners who provide the lion's share of their tourism income.
If left liberals are going to criticize conservative westerners for wanting to protect their own cultures from multiculturalism, then perhaps they should stop and consider how their own globalist posturing impinges on the interests on those "colourful" foreign cultures they claim to have such empathy with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
