September, 1999
British statesman Stanley Baldwin once remarked "Power without responsibility is the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages." Coun. Jack Layton has embraced the environment as his prerogative.
Such are the depths of his fervor one might have expected him to have followed Major T.C. Douglas, the somewhat eccentric leader of the Social Credit movement in England prior to World War II, whose disciples wore green shirts. Instead of khaki however, Layton wants Toronto to become a pesticide-free zone. It will then become, he says, the first "major city" on the Great Lakes to achieve this state of nirvana.
"We're hoping people with home lawns will join the city because then, if we have practically no pesticide use in Toronto, our lakes are going to be cleaner, the environment is going to be better, and our kids will be safer," Layton gushed at a recent press conference, with that gleam in his eye of a true messiah.
With Layton were four youthful supporters, two masquerading as doctors and one each as a member of the entomological orders Hymenopetera and Lepidoptera. Together they revived the medieval tradition of street theatre--an arcane form of entertainment and news dating back to an era when most of the population was illiterate. Conspicuously absent from the green celebration were those either capable of independent thought or just too plain busy working so as to be able to pay their taxes.
According to some, the very departmental title "Toronto Works" is an oxymoron. In fact, the horticultural experts behind the scenes are only too willing to assist. True, there are always those that do not return phone calls while others offer to send reports that never arrive.
But there are those city gardeners whose expertise is somewhat lacking. One gentleman claimed Parks Department employees pulled poison ivy by hand -- "wearing gloves and other suitable clothing," of course. One so-called weed inspector I know had no knowledge of what to spray to kill poison ivy, which, under provincial law, must be controlled. Ragweed falls under the same legislation.
Nevertheless when it comes to Toronto's vegetation, those wielding the real power behind the throne room at City Hall are educated, articulate, and supremely level-headed. Alas, they would never make good politicians. Committees are formed and ideas--such as the Integrated Plant Health Plan, submitted. Many a good tree has surrendered up its pulp, as report after report is demanded by the Council Chamber, all in the name of the environment.
So, if a few of the veils in the pesticide issue are pushed aside, what is revealed? Golf courses are instructive. Without pesticides greens just wouldn't be up to par.
How about poison ivy? Ah, that is an excellent example of "emergency use" permitted under Layton's environmentally enlightened plan. But then who would be able to apply pesticides? Why not use vinegar, as one of Layton's band of enthusiasts suggested? Surely another forest or three could be cut down to print emergency use guidelines.
When assessing Councillor Jack Layton's politically correct proposal for a pesticide-free Toronto, one is reminded that Sir Winston Churchill critiqued some socialist's statement as "terminological inexactitude."
Or as they say in the army, #$%@t baffles brains.
The staff at Toronto Parks--down 30 percent according to Coun. Kyle Rae--cannot even find time to keep their newly-planted street trees watered. Some 20 percent of them die due to a lack of water. A mature maple, it has been claimed, can absorb the pollution produced by an automobile. Toronto air quality is very visibly declining to a level comparable to Los Angeles. Yet the Parks Department must waste time on political posturing.
Perhaps you, gentle taxpayer and productive citizen, would like to lessen your use of pesticides--a worthwhile goal any thinking gardener shares. Here is great news. Some of those shekels you contributed to health, wealth and happiness of City Hall went to produce information literature on the subject. Call (416) 397-7100 or fax 392-2974 to request this series.
Too bad for the trees that were cut down for these invaluable brochures.
Wes Porter is a horticultural consultant
The precise whereabouts of a vast amount of money salted away by Greenpeace remains unknown and could require a team of forensic auditors to unearth it.
Former Greenpeace staffers say the amount of the missing money ranges anywhere from U.S. $20 million to $70 million. Greenpeace brass, who say the amount is more like $10 million, admit that they have done nothing to notify contributors and donors that the money they send is accessible to only three top Greenpeace executives.
Greenpeace's clout comes from its money. With more than five million members in 24 countries, including Canada, each organization that uses the Greenpeace name pays a 24 percent royalty to the international organization, much like a Macdonald's hamburger franchise. An article in Forbes Magazine reported that Greenpeace's fund-raising material regularly exaggerates with claims such as "We've already destroyed 94 percent of our whales," and "Half the world's shorelines have been destroyed."
Nearly half of its members respond with money to these mailings. Greenpeace paid its fund-raising consultant $1.1 million in 1989 to solicit $31 million using these and other exaggerated mail claims. It is the same exaggerated claims that now threaten the entire chlorine industry.
In mid-July, a Dutch court managed to freeze Greenpeace International's bank account after a nuclear protest.
British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. (BNFL) said it had asked Amsterdam's Court of First Instance to block the group's funds so that it could reclaim compensation for costs incurred during the demonstration, when Greenpeace delayed a shipment of nuclear fuel to Japan.
Dutch bank ABN Amro, where Greenpeace International holds its bank account, declined comment.
Greenpeace Canada Executive Director Peter Tabuns was either lagging behind the times or less than truthful in an interview for the story, Greenpeace Speaks The Truth, (Toronto Free Press July 20-Aug. 2, 1999).
When Tabuns was asked whether he carried any vinyl credit cards, he answered: "Yes, but I'm waiting for the new, non-vinyl Visa credit cards already in use in Europe."
Research by TFP found that there are no non-vinyl Visa credit cards in use in Europe.
The world's first biodegradable credit card is not a Visa-issued but a Greenpeace-issued Visa card. It was launched May 7, 1997 by the Co-operative Bank and Greenpeace.
The Greenpeace Visa card, which helps raise money for the campaigning organization, is made from Biopol - a plastic produced from natural resources which biodegrades in the same way as other organic matter.
The card, viewed in some quarters as a "fund-raising Greenpeace gimmick", has been developed by NBS Card Services, one of the UK's largest card manufacturer, in conjunction with the Co-operative Bank and Monsanto, the controversial multinational genetic engineering company and the makers of Biopol.
Greenpeace, which once fought Monsanto on its environmental record, has now jumped into bed with the corporation.
Critics view the non-vinyl credit card as "a classic marketing greenwash; a big splash about how environmentally friendly something is, and yet in fact what they are doing is unmeasurable in terms of environmental impact."
"Monsanto must be laughing all the way to the bank over this one," said one source.
According to Greenpeace literature..."When you come back as a whale you'll be glad you put Greenpeace in your will. Bequests are a positive and effective way of ensuring long-term financial stability, which in turn enables Greenpeace to carry on its vital work. For more information on how to remember Greenpeace in your will, or to receive our free booklet, Questions And Answers About Wills, please contact Natasha van Bentum, Greenpeace Canada."
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Privacy Statement