>Well, hi,
>         I've seen that long infomercial - I think it's done by Greenpeace,
>which does have a lot of expenditures, runs a couple of small ships, etc.;
>it's pretty interesting and an excellent example of effective rhetoric,
>making all the artistic appeals of Aristotle (logos, ethos, pathos). And no
>doubt virtually all environmental groups - and all activist groups - have
>short term cash flow problems.
>         I guess my point was that they are not in business to make money,
>that money is necessary for them to do business. It is a distinction with a
>difference.

We've had quite a bit of discussion about this topic over the past
year--list members can do a search in the list archives at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/enviroethics.html for subjects such
as "ivory ban" to get at some of it.

Tony's point here that there's a "distinction with a difference" is a
good one, but speaking of Greenpeace, I can't help but be reminded of
the following link I ran across not too long ago at
http://www.iww.org.au/da/171/green.htm .  Just fyi and fwiw I guess.

Jim T.

===============

a couple of excerpts:

DIRECT ACTION #171
     GREEN CAPITALISM

     "Although it was only 7 or 8 years, it seems like a lifetime ago
that i worked as a 'community activist' for Greenpeace. Community
activist was a fancy way of saying revenue raiser or environmental
salesperson. I was 18 or 19 and naively idealistic.

     "Greenpeace fixed that.

     "As with any occupation that is seen as altruistic in nature, the
pay and conditions were pretty shoddy, unless you were good at sales.
The pay was a flat rate of $30 a day, for around 5-6 hours of work.
However if you were good at signing up new members and could reach
the magical quota of $100 a day you could earn up to 45% of the
revenue raised. This meant that there were two types of activist, the
respected regular quota reachers and the retraining activist in need
of motivation or new sales techniques. The main task for the activist
was membership raising and this was accomplished by doorknocking. Not
all activists had to constantly doorknock, the respected activist got
to work on stalls, actions or give talks to schools, etc. The
re-training activist was too busy re-training and practising sales
techniques. This meant that people with impecable environmental
knowledge but no skills or interest in sales were pushed to the point
of humiliation. One very principled bloke refused to accept credit
cards or direct debit, he lasted 3 months and very rarely made
quota." . . .

     "Greenpeace prided itself on being the radical environmental
group not afraid to confront industry. The truth is that it is a
trendy club for educated middle class kids playing radicals. Kids who
will probably end up 'earning a lot more in private enterprise!'"

================
jt


>         The business of business is business: i.e., a business is there to
>make money. A enviro, politico, or any other social action group would not
>exist, do you think? if its primary objective were to make money, would it?
>-Tc
>Anthony R. S. Chiaviello, Ph.D.
>Assistant Professor, Professional Writing
>Department of English
>University of Houston-Downtown
>One Main Street
>Houston, TX 77002-0001
>713.221.8520 / 713.868.3979
>"Question Reality"
>
>>  ----------
>>  From:         L.M. Dangutis[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
>>  Sent:         Saturday, March 03, 2001 3:19 PM
>>  To:   [log in to unmask]
>>  Subject:      Re: Global Warming motives
>>
>>  Hi Tony,
>>
>>     Nice to see you on line again. It seems you forgot
>>  that some environmental orginizations overall, do have
>>  short term profit worries. As with any business,
>>  they strive to succeed, to pay employees, to work
>>  on projects, whether it is more altruistic because it
>>  is in the name of the environment seems a matter
>>  of deeper concern. The other night, I watched a
>>  fund raiser for an orginization who I shall not
>  > name.  The orginization was on television asking
>>  people to donate only 18.00 a month due to the fact
>>  funding was short, and they needed money to continue
>>  progress. The orginization showed its famous save the
>>  whale campaigns of the 80's. And more recently
>>  pictures of starving polarbears from the Artic
>>  which they could not save. My point is
>>  environmentalism to some point is business orientated
>>  as well. I think it is sometimes to easy to draw an
>>  image of the environmentalist all honest and
>>  altruistic,and forget they earn a living too,
>>  sometimes by even misinterpertation of the problems at
>>  hand.
>>  (This is just a sidebar).
>>
>>  Li-
>>
>>
>>
>>