These radical activists receive tens of millions in government grants for so-called environmental protection. But in reality, this money goes towards ambitious campaigns in the developed world that are designed to pile guilt on companies, consumers and public officials for sourcing, purchasing and supporting commodities from the developing world.
the Internal Revenue Service found nine deficiencies in the management and practices of Greenpeace USA and warned that “Failure to ensure appropriateness of grant and gift funds could jeopardize the exempt status of {Greenpeace} fund.”
I spotted this story in The Independent this morning about ‘Earth Lunch Hour’ and I have to say I’m amazed that this type of green wash story still has legs. Not that I’m against any idea that helps the environment, but a PR initiative from global electronics giant Panasonic encouraging people to ‘do a little bit’ for the environment in their lunch hour is nothing short of patronising and hypocritical.
Most multi-national corporations intrinsically operate in a way that is not friendly to the environment - it’s the nature of profit-making and capitalism to consume. So from a PR perspective, I can understand the need for a CSR programme to go some way to mitigating the impact this has on the environment. But the Greenpeace Guide to Greener Electronics which ranks the top 18 electronics companies currently has Panasonic languishing in 10th place, suggesting it still has some work to do before it can inject any credibility into its environmental campaigns.
Use the money contributed by the public towards real conservation
programmes instead of making feeble attempts at running negative campaigns
that mislead the public.Gunakan uang yang diberikan publik kepada program konservasi nyata, alih-alih untuk melakukan kampanye negatif yang menyesatkan publik.
Tan Sri Bernard Dompok, Malaysian Plantation Industries and Commodities Minister, on NGO baseless anti-palm claim
Eco-concerned consumers may want sustainable products, but they do not want to pay more for them
I am reminded of the school children of Mao’s Red Guard when I look at this boy. Mao’s brainwashed young zombies killed around 7 million people during the Cultural Revolution.
So, if Facebook doesn’t accede to Greenpeace’s energy usage demands, and bow to the Greenpeace corporate campaign launched against Facebook – ironically enough on Facebook itself, will Greenpeace call upon its Facebook supporters to boycott Facebook in the same way Greenpeace called upon Nestlé customers to boycott the Kit Kat bar?
Will 1 million Greenpeace supporters suddenly disappear from Facebook, leaving Greenpeace scurrying to find a new, and free, social media battle space for future anti-corporate campaigns?
As the Brits say … not bloody likely.
Hypocrisy lives.
Richard Telofsky - http://www.telofski.com/blog/2010/08/12/greenpeace-hypocrisy-continues/
The media in modern western-influenced culture creates a meta-reality for its consumers which supersedes the reality of their day to day existence. This essay looks at the difference between man’s culturally-created reality and the reality of the Universe-as-it-is, and the supplanting of culturally-created realities by the meta-reality of the media sphere.
Specific Organizations Opposing H.R.2454:
- Greenpeace
- Rainforest Action Network
- international rivers
- Friends of the Earth
Those organisations opposition, along with
- BP America
- Murray Energy Corporation
- ConocoPhillips
- American Petroleum Institute
- American Conservative Union
- American Shareholders Association
- College Republican National Committee
- National Pork Producers Council
- Americans for Tax Reform
- National Taxpayers Union
- National Mining Association
- Alliance for Worker Freedom
- Ethan Allen Institute
- Caterpillar Inc
Left unchecked, the Greenpeace campaign will inflict massive economic misery on some of the world’s poorest nations.
