Greenpeace- Shooting Itself in the Foot

Environmentalists often bristle when charged with being addicted to gloom-and-doom messages, but every now and then an environmental group will confirm the stereotype. In April 2006, Greenpeace mistakenly posted an incomplete draft press on its web site that read “In the twenty years since the Chernobyl tragedy, the world's worst nuclear accident, there have been nearly [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE.].” (1)

Here's another action where ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOIDS were used. In 1995, when Shell Oil tried to dump the Brent Spar oil platform in the Atlantic Ocean, Greenpeace launched a vicious and sophisticated $2 million campaign arguing that the dumping of the Brent Spar could cause unforseen damage. This view was virtually unanimously accepted by the media. Under pressure from public hostility, Shell gave up on its plan and abandoned the project. The speed with which the battle lines were drawn and the swift humiliation of Shell indicated the strength of public trust in Greenpeace's science. (2) Then surprise! Surprise! A year later Greenpeace issued a written apology effectively admitting that the entire campaign had been a fraud. Paul Driessen observes, “Of course, the admission got buried in the business pages or obituaries. Flush from their victory the Rainbow Warriors went on to shake down other companies and promote bogus claims about chemicals, wood products and genetically modified food.” (3) In more recent times, Greenpeace still manages to make headlines, and many of them are quite detrimental to the organization. They've managed to upset folks in Russia, Peru, Canada, and India; quite a track record.

---

In October 2013, the Russian Coast Guard seized a Greenpeace ship and all 30 people on it at an offshore platform in the Arctic owned by Russian state-controlled energy giant Gazprom. The investigators said the Greenpeace ship, the Arctic Sunrise had violated the 500-meter security zone around the platform and that it was carrying equipment whose purpose was still unclear. Russia wanted to prosecute the activists but a UN mandated tribunal ordered Russia to release the Greenpeace ship and its crew in return for a 3.6 million euro ($5 million) bond. (4) In Peru in December 2014, where a UN climate summit was taking place, Greenpeace activists desecrated an important cultural monument, the Nazca Lines. These are a collection of approximately 300 figures etched into the Peruvian desert more than 1,500 years ago. The figures are absolutely fragile. They are black rocks on a white background. You walk there and the footprint is going to last hundreds or thousands of years. It is illegal for anyone—including heads of state—to visit the site without permission or special footwear. To Greenpeace, however, the Nazca Lines were just another place to protest. Twenty Greenpeace personnel entered the restricted area and laid down 44 huge fabric characters spelling out the message: TIME FOR CHANGE! THE FUTURE IS RENEWABLE. GREENPEACE. These actions were in the face of everything Peruvians consider sacred. (5) As Donna Lafromboise notes, “But this is normal Greenpeace behavior. In March, the group desecrated the Mount Royal Cross, an overtly religious symbol in the heart of Montreal, Canada. The Montreal Cross, erected in 1924, is 30 meters (nearly 100 feet) tall. To Greenpeace, however, the Cross was simply a plaything-- a prop to be cavalierly defaced.” (5) Interfering with economic relations is a serious bit of wrongdoing under Canadian tort law. Greenpeace lost its first attempt to get the economic relations part of a legal case removed. For some time Greenpeace Canada has been mounting a campaign to bring Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) legislation into Canada, the idea being that corporations should be legally discouraged from taking legal action against aggressive environmental activists. As Terence Corcoran reports, “Greenpeace suffered a major defeat in Ontario court that goes way beyond the narrow confines of defamation and SLAPP legislation. An Ontario Divisional Court ordered Greenpeace to pay $22,000 in legal costs to forest giant Resolute Forest Products. (6) Canada has also terminated Greenpeace's tax-exempt status because of its intense lobbying efforts. (7) India is a friendly place, but they can only take so much before their government decides to kick you out of the country. Greenpeace is learning this the hard way. In a twist of irony, the very country activists are trying to 'save from global warming' has turned on them for allegedly compromising its economic security. The Indian government has cracked down on Greenpeace and other US environmental groups for protesting its use of coal-fired electricity, India's biggest source of energy. Indian intelligence officers said Greenpeace's activities have cost the country between 2 and 3 percent of its gross domestic product every year, reports Micheal Bastasch. (8) Besides all this, the organization has had some notable in-house problems:

• Greenpeace lost 3.8 million euros ($5.2 million) last year after an employee bet that the euro wouldn't strengthen against other currencies. The loss added to Greenpeace's 6.8 million euro 2013 budget deficit. (9)
• The Guardian says leaked documents indicate that the finance team at Greenpeace International headquarters in Amsterdam has been 'beset by personnel problems and a lack of rigorous processes, leading to errors, substandard work and a souring of relationships between its Amsterdam HQ and offices around the world.' (10)
• One of the groups most senior executives, Pascal Hustig, Greenpeace International's program director, works in Amsterdam but was flying between the city's office and his home in Luxembourg several times a month. After The Guardian revelations, Hustig now commutes by train instead of plane. (11)

So, if you are a supporter of Greenpeace, as Bishop Hill says, I would hope by now you know that:

• They have been losing your money for years.
• They pay their employees the lowest wage they can manage.
• Their carbon footprint doesn't mean a damned thing to them. (12)

I would also add that they don't care much about poor folks and what Greenpeace policies do to them. (13) References

1. Allan Mazzur, True Warnings and False Alarms Evaluating Fears About Health Risks of Technology, 1948-1971, (Washington, DC, RFF Press, 2004)
2. Frank Furedi, Culture of Fear; Risk-Taking and the Morality of Low Expectation, (New York, Continum, 2002), 133
3. Paul Driessen, Eco-Imperialism; Green Power, Black Death, (Bellevue, WA, Free Enterprise Press, 2003), 25
4. Russia ordered to release Greenpeace crew, ship by UN court,” huffingtonpress.com, November 22, 2013
5. Donna Laframboise, “Greenpeace: we spit on your sacred spaces,” nofrakkingconsensus.com, December 11, 2014
6. Terence Corcoran, “How Greenpeace Canada landed itself in serious legal trouble,” thegwpf.org, July 16, 2014
7. Greenpeace gets a small taste of its own medicine,” acsh.org, July 7, 2014
8. Michael Bastasch, “India cracks down on Greenpeace for harming its economic security,” dailycaller.com, January 14, 2014
9. Bloomberg News, “Greenpeace loses 3.9 million euros in failed currency wager,” moneyweb.co, June 16, 2014
10. “No culture of accountability at Greenpeace,” nofrakkingconsensus.com, June 23, 2014
11. Adam Vaughan, “Greenpeace losses: leaked documents reveal extent of financial disarray,” The Guardian, June 23, 2014
12. Bishop Hill, “Greenepeace: throwing your money away,” kajm.deviantart.com, June 23, 2014
13. Jack Dini, “Greenpeace-poverty be damned,” Canada Free Press, January 19, 2015