Analysis How does that apply to Korea? The same can be applied to any of our campaigns. In Korea, we will launch on two of our global campaign issues, oceans and climate/energy. Korea has an aggressive nuclear industry and we will be addressing that. We hope that in this democratic society, we can find the space to present our arguments and convince people about our vision on the energy debate. Korea does have potential to go the other way. It has well known companies with very advanced technology operating globally that have shown themselves ready to invest in innovative initiatives. They can invest in clean technologies, such as wind power, to a much greater extent then they currently do, and stop backing the dead end that is nuclear. It would be great to see them use the same force for “good” that is being used for “evil.”
A Korean Federation for Environmental Movement (KFEM) activist is pictured on the Rainbow Warrior II during the Oceans Defenders tour of East Asia. Paul Hilton/Greenpeace
What conclusion can you draw and what are Greenpeace’s demands? Management of Eastern Pacific bluefin is flawed, with significant loopholes, which in the near future are likely to result in a drastic reduction of the population: These include large uncertainties about the status of the stock, insufficient understanding of changes in the fleets behavior, increased catches in the stock breeding grounds and large catches of juveniles. The high value of the species combined with decreased catches for other bluefin tuna stocks may increase market demand for the species and call for extreme precaution in the management of this stock. Greenpeace calls on all parties participating in the fishery to put in place a robust management scheme that ensures: The spawning grounds of Pacific bluefin tuna are identified and closed to fishing; catches of juvenile tunas are sharply reduced, including through the setting of a minimum landing size; effective control mechanisms are put in place which guarantee the collection of critical data to improve the stock assessment of the species, including the identification of the species spawning areas, an observer scheme, mandatory VMS requirements for vessels participating in the fishery, a catch documentation scheme, and mandatory reporting of any farming facilities; effective limits are imposed on fishing mortality on Pacific bluefin tuna so as to ensure that these rates will not increase in the future. In addition, the Japanese markets should place import bans on tuna originating from the fisheries targeting the juvenile breeding areas in Korea, Mexico and elsewhere. The policies Greenpeace bring to the table do not target artisanal fisheries, i.e. local fishing communities with small boats; it’s the industrial fishers with their factory ships we’re after. We’re not saying “stop fishing,” we’re saying we need a sustainable rate of fishing. What Korea has to target is the big industrial fishing operations. In the long term, they are driving themselves out of business.
In a broader sense, what does Greenpeace look at? Greenpeace has a number of campaigns being carried out globally. In general, our campaigns address problems at source, we look at protecting the forest rather then just the tree. So for example we don’t normally campaign for the protection of a specific animal, and we are not an animal rights group. But by protecting the forests we are naturally also protecting the habitat necessary for a multitude of animal species. 18// /www.GROOVEKOREA.com// /july 2011
Many Koreans take great pride in their nuclear energy capabilities. When a Korean consortium won a contract to build a nuclear reactor in the UAE, it stoked the country’s national pride. Over half of the country’s energy comes from nuclear reactors. How would Greenpeace approach denuclearizing Korea? We understand that it is very important to provide solutions. It is not enough to simply say stop. For that reason, we will assign our experts to work with Korean experts to develop an alternative energy scenario for Korea. This will show what can be done to shift Korea’s needs for energy to be sourced from alternative energy sources rather then nuclear energy, or other environmental damaging sources such as coal or oil.
Will you consider publicity stunts such as attaching banners to bridges? I imagine there will be things like that happening at some stage, but very often you don’t have to do that. We lobby the powers that be, parliamentarians etc., and when they stop listening, we are forced to go that route. That is, however, very much the method of last resort. But remember that Greenpeace is always nonviolent. Most of our work is actually unknown to the general public. We have a good number of scientists and campaigners whose job it is to check the facts and the science of the issues we work on. In fact we often work with established laboratories and scientists. There work is not in the limelight, but without that work we would never be able to highlight the issues we bring to the fore and be able to take on the arguments of rich multinationals and governments, who have their own scientists and staff.
Are President Lee Myung-bak’s eco initiatives mostly hot air, or have there been legitimate initiatives? I believe that Korea’s government is in favor of nuclear energy. Greenpeace does not believe that nuclear energy is environmentally friendly, not only due to potential accidents, but also due to the fact that there is no environmentally-safe way to deal with nuclear waste or the irradiated parts of nuclear powers stations. If the Korean government opts for alternative energy instead, that’s a good thing. We don’t support any particular party – it’s rather the policies we focus on. We try to encourage all parties in power to push forward with clean energy. We understand that both main parties are very pro-nuclear. But after Fukushima (March 11 nuclear incident) there seem to be a lot of second thoughts with nuclear. If that is so, then there is a chance that Korea can not only change its own course, but also help the rest of the world. Korea’s advanced, innovative industries should be a leading force in developing alternative energy technologies, using natural resources such as the wind and the sun.
How does Korea’s environmental track record rank among Asian countries? Well, comparisons are always tricky. It’s not like the others are
so good. If you look at Japan, they have obvious nuclear issues. If you look at China, it’s not much better, since China has some ambitious nuclear plans. What we can say about China is they put more resources into wind power than even the U.S. China today has the the highest level of installed wind power. So it is difficult to say one is better than any other overall. Some are better then others in different categories.
Ending nuclear power would necessitate an immediate replacement in power supply. Since renewable energy generation isn’t capable of filling that void as of yet, coal would mostly have to be employed, causing a massive increase in emissions, worsening global warning, causing more frequent and powerful storms. What’s the advantage of going with coal, instead of rolling the dice with nuclear? The assumption is incorrect. The assumption that alternative energy cannot take over nuclear capacity is wrong. In Germany, for example, when they announced an end to their nuclear energy program (in June 2011) they said real alternative energy is what they would pursue. Greenpeace pursues this in a technical way. We take a look at each country and propose a plan on which form of alternative energy sources would best fit them. One country will vary from another, some might have potential for wind energy, and others had better go with solar, some will have land spaces that go well with extensive windmill use, whilst another might not and should look at offshore windmills instead.
Turning our attention over to China now, what role does Greenpeace play there? What can you tell us about the "Hidden consequences" report, which examined polluted rivers there? We have an ongoing campaign on water pollution from industrial sources in China. According to the most recent report from the Chinese government, one quarter of the population has no access to clean drinking water. Seventy-five percent of its surface water is polluted; 25 percent cannot be used for anything. There’s clear damage. As they develop industry so fast with no regulations, all toxic waste is just getting dumped into rivers. You have cancer villages. People are dying and fish are going extinct. The textile industry is the fifth-largest polluter. The other major polluters are the pulp and paper industry, chemical, electric power and smelt industries. To explain how we operate, I can take the example of how we worked in Cinatang and Gurao, where there is a thriving textile industry. Greenpeace asked a third-party independent laboratory to conduct tests for five heavy metals on water and sediment samples taken from these towns. The Laboratory revealed heavy metals such as copper, cadmium, and lead in 17 of 21 samples. One sediment sample from Xintang contained cadmium at concentrations 128 times in excess of Chinese national environmental standards. This pollutant is known to be very hazardous to the environment and human health. Cadmium can cause lung disease, kidney disease and cancer. Many industries use heavy metals in their production processes, and in turn release these hazardous chemicals into the environment.
Greenpeace has been active in Japan following the March 11 earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster. What does your research reveal about the extent of the nuclear contamination there? Before the Rainbow Warrior came to Incheon, it was traveling just outside Japan’s exclusive economic zone. We took samples of seaweed and the levels (of radiation) we found were much higher than what the government of Japan had reported.
In 2005, activists refuse to leave the site of a proposed whale research facility and meat processing plant unless plans are withdrawn. Natalie Behring-Chisholm/Greenpeace
A day after our report was released, the government raised their radioactivity levels. So you see, we can make a difference.
What has been Greenpeace’s biggest achievement in Asia? Probably, it is that of establishing operations in mainland China. China is a country with one of the biggest environmental footprints in the world today. So it’s very important to become effective there. It is of course also very complicated to operate in mainland China due to the fact that non-governmental activity is quite strictly controlled. Over the last decade, we have managed to influence China on a number of issues. Amongst these, I can mention a campaign that brought out the realities of coal ash in China. Something which attracted some 9 million Chinese to view our specialized website on the issue. This in turn brought about the attention of the Chinese authorities on dealing with the realities of the matter, and taking measures on coal power stations. We have also been very effective on GE (genetically engineered) rice in China, and managed to bring about a change in government, and supermarket policies on this issue. We have also been very successful with the water pollution campaign, as indicated above. So yes, definitely our work in China is quiet a success story in very difficult circumstances.
What has been the biggest failure? Well, difficult to talk about failures. I would however say that our work on the whaling campaign in Japan has not been so successful so far. We have been successful on whaling, globally speaking, but (not really in) Japan. I admit that this is possibly due to the fact that we started this campaign long ago when the organization had not yet developed more sophisticated methods to deal with campaign issues more in line with local realities. This might have created a bad dynamic between us and the Japanese public, which is now rather difficult to overcome.
Is there anything you want to add? I would conclude by saying that Greenpeace is only one player. There are many other players that are important in improving things -- the government, the general public, the industrial and labor organizations. These and many others actually play a bigger role than Greenpeace. What we are good at sometimes doing is to light the match that ignites positive change. If we manage to help in that way in Korea, as well, I will be very happy.
july 2011// /www.GROOVEKOREA.com// /19