By Gerd Leipold
Greenpeace International Executive Director
Thirty years ago it was a big idea to stop US nuclear testing at Amchitka island, Alaska. Now, with a unique global reach, it's still all about the future, and the need for Greenpeace to continue its global fight to save the environment is even more urgent.
It is time to take back the planet.
It was a small beginning and one that promised to be little more than a footnote in the history of the environmental movement. Yet, when the Phyllis Cormack set sail from Vancouver in the afternoon of 15 September 1971, something quite new was launched: a force for change.
In the years that followed, Greenpeace became a global symbol for people seeking to challenge those who pollute and damage the planet. It's hard to imagine that from such small, even disorganised, beginnings, Greenpeace has become an organisation with the ability to shake established power brokers and influence the international environmental agenda. But that is what it has done.
Greenpeace cannot claim to have single-handedly changed people's thinking about the world they live in. However, in adopting its special non-violent, direct action approach of 30 years ago it set a pattern for others to follow, not just in the environmental world, but beyond.
All over the world voices of protest have been heard: by politicians, governments and businesses. Arguments that would otherwise be dismissed have been listened to and accepted.
In countries where the opinions of those in power were dominant and seldom challenged, the right to have an opinion and take action has become accepted, even established. In Lebanon, ravaged by civil war in the 1970s, in the Soviet Union and later Russia, in China and in Turkey to name only a few, Greenpeace has pioneered civil, peaceful protest.
It has shown that, when something is important enough, it makes a difference to stand up for principle and challenge the decision-makers. Also in countries where democratic rights have long been established, Greenpeace has developed a new style of campaigning and shown there are effective ways to raise a voice, to be heard, to make a difference.
Our activists have been jailed, our campaigns have changed laws, but in the end it is the arguments that underpin Greenpeace's actions that have won the day.
The news media has, of course, recorded these changes as incidents and events. They are already history. Only when reflecting on how things may have looked today had Greenpeace not existed at all, can you start to realise the impact it has made.
For instance, how many of the world's whales would have been hunted to extinction? Sustained Greenpeace pressure transformed the International Whaling Commission from an organisation allocating whaling quotas into a body protecting whales. It went on to ban commercial whaling.
In the 1990s Greenpeace pressed further, calling for a sanctuary around Antarctica. In 1994 the IWC created one. Many other examples demonstrate how Greenpeace arguments, often criticised at the time, have come to be accepted reasons for governments and industry to change.
How much greater would be the risk from atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, nuclear fuel shipments, toxic wastes or ozone-depleting CFCs? Would the Antarctic have the protection it enjoys today without the campaign Greenpeace launched in the 1980s? Would the nuclear industry still be dumping their radioactive waste in the high seas? Would the rich nations have accepted the ban on the export of hazardous wastes to developing countries?
It is hard to say with certainty, but on all these issues Greenpeace has campaigned with a determination, conviction and vigour which is helping to guide the world to a more sustainable, environment-friendly future.
Today, with 30 years of experience behind it, Greenpeace can say it has as clear a mission as the crew members of the first expedition. We want to protect and save the global environmental "commons"; ensure there is a world our children can live in without risks from polluted water, air, land and food.
To rise to this challenge, Greenpeace has grown to become a global organisation. One of its greatest visionaries David McTaggart, who died earlier this year, understood the significance of 'globalisation' long before the phrase came into common use, and was instrumental in expanding Greenpeace into eastern Europe and later Asia.
The need for global leadership is clear. The US has retreated to a position of short-term political expediency, pulling back from its global responsibilities on environmental issues. President George W Bush's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol shows that he has chosen to listen to the partisan voices of corporate America.
However imperfect, the Protocol remains a vital mechanism for addressing the damaging effects of global warming, and its rejection by President Bush is a fundamental lack of leadership from the world's only superpower.
With a presence in 39 countries, Greenpeace continues to campaign on many fronts. It has a project based in the heart of the Amazon where industrial logging interests are plundering timber and destroying the precious ecosystem.
In taking the lead in opposing the attempts by the biotechnology industry to introduce genetically engineered crops into agriculture, it has alerted the world to the potential threat that uncontrolled releases pose to wildlife, biodiversity and even human health.
These are roles Greenpeace undertakes today. But neither Greenpeace nor the environmental movement as a whole can achieve everything alone: others must play their part.
Globalisation may be making a minority richer, stronger. But with such gains come responsibilities. Political and business leadership comes hand in hand with responsibility. That means caring for the global threat of climate change, taking a lead in measures to reduce its effects; taking a lead in establishing controls and eliminating the resource-depleting and polluting habits of the 19th and 20th centuries.
It is a stark choice world leaders face: continuing to treat the world as a never ending plunder box, or accepting the obvious reality that it is not.
Greenpeace is committed to being there to hold to account those who should be accepting this leadership. In 30 years time, it may be too late to take action.
That is why in looking towards the next 30 years Greenpeace can say with unchallenged legitimacy, 'we are here for all our futures'. It is time to take back the planet.