This is fairly easy to dispute... people aren't even asking for clean water and clean air (we have those already!). They're asking for things like habitat preservation and biodiversity.
Here are the Sierra Club's top goals[1]:
- end use of coal, oil, and natural gas (this is three goals for them, but I see them as thematically linked)
This is a mix. They attack all three for being "dirty". They also attack oil because oil corporations are engines of political corruption (it strikes me that while this is something you can come up with if you're already against oil on principle, you're unlikely to decide, based on this, that you should be against oil). And, they attack oil and natural gas (I didn't check coal) because the extraction process causes "environmental damage".
- "Resilient Habitats"
Seems to be half about preserving existing ecosystems and half about preventing climate change. Nothing to do with clean water or clean air.
- "Protecting America's Waters"
Definitely a clean water issue.
Here are Greenpeace's "What We Do"s[2]:
- Protecting Ancient Forests
"We're working to create a world with zero deforestation." This is a stasis issue.
- Protecting our oceans
Unlike the Sierra Club, Greenpeace is not worried about water pollution. It's worried about overfishing (and especially overwhaling). This is another stasis issue.
- Stopping Global Warming
Yep, a stasis issue.
Look at my sibling comment -- the problem with destruction of this buried temple is that the loss is irrevocable. It's not that the temple was in use for any purpose (it wasn't), or that there could have been a future use; it's just that something we "had" is now gone.
Don't confuse the reason a movement began with the same movement's current goals. Movements do not cease just because they've achieved their goals.
Here are the Sierra Club's top goals[1]:
- end use of coal, oil, and natural gas (this is three goals for them, but I see them as thematically linked)
This is a mix. They attack all three for being "dirty". They also attack oil because oil corporations are engines of political corruption (it strikes me that while this is something you can come up with if you're already against oil on principle, you're unlikely to decide, based on this, that you should be against oil). And, they attack oil and natural gas (I didn't check coal) because the extraction process causes "environmental damage".
- "Resilient Habitats"
Seems to be half about preserving existing ecosystems and half about preventing climate change. Nothing to do with clean water or clean air.
- "Protecting America's Waters"
Definitely a clean water issue.
Here are Greenpeace's "What We Do"s[2]:
- Protecting Ancient Forests
"We're working to create a world with zero deforestation." This is a stasis issue.
- Protecting our oceans
Unlike the Sierra Club, Greenpeace is not worried about water pollution. It's worried about overfishing (and especially overwhaling). This is another stasis issue.
- Stopping Global Warming
Yep, a stasis issue.
Look at my sibling comment -- the problem with destruction of this buried temple is that the loss is irrevocable. It's not that the temple was in use for any purpose (it wasn't), or that there could have been a future use; it's just that something we "had" is now gone.
Don't confuse the reason a movement began with the same movement's current goals. Movements do not cease just because they've achieved their goals.
[1] https://content.sierraclub.org/sierra-club-programs
[2] http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/