Editor’s note: While I highlighted the group sessions and activities in my coverage of the Symi Symposium in Paros, Greece, last month, I also had the great pleasure of meeting a number of people engaged in important and interesting work on environmental protection and restoration. One of those individuals was Gerd Leipold, the executive director of Greenpeace International. Gerd and I were originally going to do a podcast interview, but symposium activities prevented that, so he agreed to answer the handful of questions I’d prepared by email.

Gerd, and Greenpeace International, are based in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Green Options: While Greenpeace is no longer viewed as the radical environmental group by US citizens (that honor is now reserved for ALF and ELF), it’s still often considered extreme by many Americans, particularly the on the right. How do you respond to these kinds of labels? How would you characterize Greenpeace to someone concerned about the same issues as the organization (the environment, nuclear energy and weapons, world peace), but who also might be put off by the perception of GP as "radical?"

Gerd Leipold: The most extremist environmental groups in the US are the government of George W. Bush and some big corporations like Exxon Mobil, who still refuse to fully acknowledge the clear evidence of climate change and prevent the necessary action.

I think that an objective observer would come to the conclusion that what we now know about the state of the environment vindicates 35 years of campaigning by Greenpeace. While we had strong and stark messages, one certainly can say now that we were more foresighted and more realistic than those who termed us extremist.

GO: I spent some time on the Greenpeace international web site today, and while I saw plenty of examples of the kinds of direct activism most commonly associated with Greenpeace (disrupting nuclear weapons testing, whaling, etc.), I also saw a number of consumer awareness and educational efforts (tips for green living, 7 Steps Towards an Energy Saving (R)Evolution). Is that a relatively new area for GP? Does this show an embrace of more evolutionary tactics vs. revolutionary? Does the web itself affect Greenpeace’s campaign style at all?

GL: Raising awareness and stopping environmental abuse through our peaceful actions remains at the heart of Greenpeace. But we also believe that we need millions of people to become Greenpeace activists in their way and with their possibilities. Only if many people become active and live differently do we stand a chance to overcome the environmental crisis.

The web has affected our campaigning style, because it allows a faster, deeper and more responsive relationship with supporters and members of the public. The web is a powerful tool of communication and organization, and it allows global action. It also allows campaigning without having a physical office infrastructure in a country, and therefore increases the global reach of Greenpeace.

GO: Can you give us any insight into upcoming Greenpeace campaigns? What should we be looking for?

GL: Our highest priority is climate, and we are putting special emphasis on creating awareness about the reality of climate change in India and China. Over the next few months we want to influence the crucial negotiations for the next phase of the Kyoto agreement: the positive countries need to be encouraged to agree to bold targets, and any attempts by the United States to derail the process needs to be counteracted.

One of the quickest ways to reduce climate change impacts is to protect ancient forests. If we manage to keep old forest standing, then we have achieved a massive reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, we have protected many endangered animals and plants and some of the most beautiful and important ecosystems. And we can only do it if we also protect the future of the people who live in and of the forests. Therefore, rainforest protection in the Amazon, in Indonesia and the Congo is big task for us.

We have also a big campaign to stop the whaling operations of Japan in the Southern Oceans. Our whaling campaign is part of our oceans work, where we draw attention to the perilous state of the world’s oceans.

Thanks to Gerd for taking the time to answer my questions. For more on his perspective on climate change and related environmental challenges, watch this interview conducted at the symposium.

Photo source: papendreou.gr 

Symi Symposium Closing Ceremony. From left to right: Gerd Leipold, Executive Director of Greenpeace International; Misha Glenny, writer and editor (formerly of the BBC); George Papandreou, president of the Panhellenic Socialist Movement and the Socialist International, and former foreign minister of Greece. Photo courtesy of http://www.papandreou.gr

While my title is not exactly accurate, as I’m back home in St. Louis now, I wanted to get in one more post wrapping up my coverage of last week’s Symi Symposium in Paros, Greece. I also want to thank the folks at the Andreas G. Papandreou Foundation for inviting me to attend the symposium — it was a great time, and a week full of learning.

The final symposium session I attended (on Friday) addressed the important issue of climate change in the developing world. Moderated by Kumi Naidoo of South Africa-based NGO CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, the speakers at the session focused on the challenges climate change presents to the world’s poorer nations: namely, that while these countries historically have had the lowest levels of greenhouse gas emissions, they will likely be hit the hardest and fastest by the effects of global warming. Speakers addressed the issues of inequality tied up in the climate change debate, the notion of environmental justice, and specific problems, such as deforestation, that will increase the level of suffering endured by the world’s poorest citizens.

Friday evening, all of us gathered in the village of Naoussa for a closing ceremony. It was quite an event, as media crews were on hand to hear concluding comments by a number of symposium participants, and our gracious host, George Papandreou. We concluded with a wonderful Greek dinner (and real Greek food is incredible).

Yes, this is a bit lighter than some of the previous posts from the symposium — I’m blaming it on jet lag! If you have questions or comments on any of these issues, fire away!

Photo: A view of the Mediterranean

Editor’s note: I started working on this post yesterday, and after writing and writing and writing, I realized it was turning into a David post While I heard a lot of interesting discussion yesterday, I’ll try to stick to an overview of main ideas and questions, and then respond to your comments and questions. Perhaps we can extend the symposium into our own space here…

This morning, I got to attend my first major session at the Papandreou Foundation’s Symi Symposium. Entitled "Energy in Flux: Safe Passage to a Future of Alternatives," the session consisted of three presentations on transitioning to a new energy future, and a lively debate over the challenges and opportunities created by the need to shift energy priorities in the face of global climate change.

Overall, I was delighted by the optimistic tone that ran throughout these presentations (which, in some cases, became points of contention in later open discussion): all three speakers acknowledged the enormity of the environmental challenges we face, and noted that combined efforts of the public and private sectors will be necessary to mobilize the larger public to action. In each presentation, the speaker focused on public involvement (in the roles of consumers and citizens), and made the case that an educated populace will provide the momentum for adoption of clean, renewable energy options. Let me just give a very brief overview of the main points offered by each speaker.

The first presentation focused on consumers’ roles in transitioning to a low-carbon energy infrastructure. Dr. Joseph Stanislaw noted that, traditionally, when we talk about energy, we talk about supply: where does it come from? He argued that a shift in mindset and language towards the services energy provides creates greater opportunity for transitioning towards more sustainable energy options. Consumers don’t want energy created from coal, or from solar power, for that matter: they want the services that reliable energy provides. By focusing on meeting this demand, we can address our contributions to climate change by implementing currently available technologies (particularly conservation technologies) while also working on the next generation of cleantech solutions. Consumers can be empowered to contribute to lower consumption by educating them on the "low hanging fruit" available: CFLs, for example. Finally, Stanislaw noted that the private sector is well ahead of the (US) government in recognizing these opportunities: he specifically discussed Wal-Mart’s sustainability efforts.

The second and third presentations both focused on engaging populations as citizens in transitioning towards cleaner energy technologies. The first, presented by James Fishkin of Stanford University of the two described experiments conducted by Texas utilities in "deliberative democracy": representative groups of customers were brought together in person, and through television, to discuss opportunities to purchase "green" power through their utilities. The sessions served to both educate the people gathered, and to listen to their concerns. These sessions produced amazing results: before these sessions, 52% of these consumers will willing to pay more for green energy; afterwards, 84% expressed willingness. The speaker noted the the increased prices don’t have to be much larger: even a $.25 addition to customers’ monthly bills would generate millions of dollars for increased renewable infrastructures. The success of the Texas experiment has led to other requests to hold such events: they’ve been repeated in Nebraska and Nova Scotia (with similar positive outcomes), and more will be held in Vermont, and as part of the next National Governor’s Association meeting. The third speaker, John Panarenos, provided the results of a similar effort in Europe: when asked, the representative samplingof citizens choose "energy and environment" as the most pressing issues facing the EU. The combination of terms was important — when the word "environment" was presented by itself, it didn’t receive nearly as high numbers.

As you might imagine, other symposium delegates had plenty of questions and even challenges for these speakers. A few points offered:

• The "small steps" position of the first presentation was challenged with the Chinese proverb "You can’t cross a ravine with small steps": ultimately, the enormity of these problems require much bigger responses.
• The market focus (which was not exclusive — he wasn’t arguing for "letting the market fix the problems") of the first speaker’s presentation was also questioned, with at least one respondent noting that we must focus on what scientists say is necessary, rather than what is possible in a consumer market.
• Several respondents also argued for more top-down regulation — in fact, that seemed to be a major point of debate: a focus on grassroots action (which is what I heard coming from these presentations) vs. government regulation.

Needless to say, this session was fascinating and provocative: as the first speaker noted, we can’t separate energy issues from climate change, so these kinds of discussions are necessary. I’ve just given the briefest of overviews here — feel free to offer comments or ask questions…

The evening sessions at the symposium are shorter and a bit less formal. Tuesday’s evening’s focused on a presentation by Kim Alter (Oxford University) on the concept of social entrepreneurship and social enterprise: the hybridizing of business and non-profit models into a unique endeavor that harnesses market forces in innovative ways to address social (and environmental) challenges. As with the morning session, the discussion was lively following the presentation. The concept of social enterprise as a distinct category, rather than another form of non-profit, was a major question for participants in the discussion.

Tomorrow: Excursion day…. with lots of photos from Paros and Antiparos….

Paros, Greece, from the back porch of my hotel roomThis week, we've got something exclusive for you: an inside look at a major symposium on climate change hosted by Greece's Andreas G. Papandreou foundation. The Foundation invited me to participate in the event, and I just arrived on the Greek Island of Paros a few hours ago.

Needless to say, I was very excited by this invitation, and not just because I get to spend a week in the Greek Isles and still call it work. Papandreou's annual Symi Symposium brings together great minds from around the world each year to discuss solutions to global issues. The participants include politicians (several members of various parliaments, and one president), business leaders, academics and representatives of non-governmental organizations. This year's theme is "Climate Changes Everything," and I'm definitely looking forward to hearing the perspectives presented on addressing the global climate crisis.

Some minor travel mishaps kept me away from the symposium's first session, "After Kyoto: How to Design a New Global Accord." Now that I'm here, I'm definitely looking forward to upcoming sessions and workshops on energy alternatives, social entrepreneurship, the "Green Economy," and climate change in the developing world. I'll be providing details throughout here, and may even give podcasting a try (there's a studio for it here). I'll also take plenty of photographs… everything is worthy of a picture here!

The Papandreuo foundation has graciously picked up the tab for me to attend and cover this event.

Cross posted at sustainblog