Are Greenpeace USA's Actions Counterproductive?

Greenpeace has been accused of doing just talking and not enough doing. See the Sea Shepards for example. Now that they are doing and, most importantly, getting media's attention, they are called on? And seriously, why are their actions being red-flagged? They're not harming anyone and obviously not 'terrorizing' anything.

I don't know what the big deal is, I think Greenpeace is rather good at focusing attention where it may be needed. There is a radical environmental group Earth First who's motto is, "No comprise in defense of Mother Earth." And I like Peta.

Obama promises climate action in his campaign, and then doesn't deliver. Greenpeace holds him accountable.

HP promises toxic-free computers by 2009, and then doesn't deliver. Greenpeace holds them accountable.

So who's acting responsibly and who's acting irresponsibly?

Furthermore, in each case, Greenpeace's message was not damaging to the underlying surfaces -- a banner was hung on Rushmore without any damage to the monument, and HP has already removed the toxic-free paint used on their building.

I fully back Greenpeace's actions; however, it does seem incredibly hypocritical and counterproductive for the organization to condemn such effective and prestigious organizations as Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Non-violent direct action gets the goods, folks. It's time the environmental movement at large starts to realize that.

How does hanging a banner equate with "defacing"? They hardly defaced Mt Rushmore.

My only comment would be that I think the most important aspect is getting the information across and no disengaging the viewer. From what I saw of the HP example, I don't feel like I got any information about why Greenpeace did this (other than doing my own information searches). And that's the problem with catch-phrase direct action.

Also, we need to be wary of direct action that disengages the viewer. People may see the direct action and think we're crazy because of our methods, not our message. This can be equally debilitating.

But I agree with Rick - someone needs to hold these people accountable.

It's really easy to say that Greenpeace is being extreme by "defacing" Mount Rushmore, when in reality the monument wasn't destroyed at all! I am very proud of GP for being able to drop that banner without causing any damage whatsoever! Amazing job guys!!!

Defacing Rushmore? I remember them using existing maintenance climbing hoists to hang a banner over granite. But defacing?

The only thing that is counterproductive here is your sensationalism.