Bishop Hill Could Greenpeace go bust?
Aug 10, 2010 Greens This is interesting:
Greenpeace needs ‘to bring in more than $700,000 a day just to keep the lights on’
I've always thought that there was something of a flaw in the green business model. Environmental groups depend fundamentally on capitalism - they need it to generate the surplus wealth that leads to donations
Greenpeace is heavily funded by many foundations, among which are the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Bauman Family Foundation, the Blue Moon Fund, the Columbia Foundation, the Compton Foundation, the Minneapolis Foundation, the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Scherman Foundation, Ted Turner's Turner Foundation. The organization has also drawn support from numerous celebrities, including singers Sting, Tom Jones, and Elton John, who have sponsored its "save the rainforest" campaigns.
Anti-capitalism, which is at the core of environmentalism, is always eventually going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
Reader Comments (50)
XX Greenpeace needs ‘to bring in more than $700,000 a day just to keep the lights on’ XX
well then, they should practice what they preach, and turn the lights out.
My thought exactly, FT. But of course, they don't think it applies to them.
"To maintain absolute independence, we do not accept money from companies, governments or political parties. We're serious about that - we screen cheques, and actually send them back when they're drawn on a corporate account. We depend on the donations of our supporters to carry on our non-violent campaigns. "
Greenpeace claims the above regarding funding.
Is it me, or does the above give the impression that they also would not accept money from something like Ted Turner's foundation or the Rockefellers? Clever wording!
Sorry to intrude, but...
This is a way too complex subject to simply brand environmentalists as anti-capitalism.
I can give many examples, but the simple example of farmers who are basically small business capitalists - or even big business capitalists - have a very strong interest in environmentalist points of view. Their entire livelihood relies on sustainable agriculture. They have a very strong interest in harmonising with nature to make a buck.
History is littered with unsustainable agricultural practices. Modern farming is driven strongly by a desire to not rock the cart. If you look at your average educated and driven capitalist farmer you will find 90% agreement with environmentalist principals.
In my neck of the woods, issues of salination of croplands is very important. The greenie and the farmer both agree on ways to control this, basically reforestation of significant fractions of the cropland.
On an orthogonal point, when you go back into history the currently most effective green movement was supported and empowered by a very effective capitalist structure. The German green movement in the 30's and 40's was responsible for the 'leibensraum' expansion into eastern Europe. The premise was that good German folk needed space to reunite with nature. This was provided gratis by the German military-industrial complex.
Here here jerry.....
That's what a lot of these environmentalist, leftist activists don't get. They rely completely on the enemy they are trying to destroy. Kill the hand the feeds you! That applies for many governments too.
They still end up using money stolen, if you will, from taxpayers or from capitalism. The easiest way is for a government to "fund" some NGO (pick your favorites). The NGO either diverts the money to other NGOs from those funds or uses the government funds to pay for their regular operations which frees them to "donate" their donation funds to other NGOs. And, as noted by many, some NGOs, like the mega-million/billion foundations, simply siphon funds from the fruits of capitalism to NGOs.
In short, Greenpeace will only go away from lack funds if what they do becomes so toxic that they have to disband. Then, however, they will resurrect, ala ACORN, and be back under another banner. It's sort of like watching Dracula die and get reborn movie after movie after movie.
Jerry said: "If you look at your average educated and driven capitalist farmer you will find 90% agreement with environmentalist principals."
Would you care to cite the surveys and the questions asked? And also provide us with the list of "environmentalist principals"?
P Gosselin said: "That's what a lot of these environmentalist, leftist activists don't get. They rely completely on the enemy they are trying to destroy. Kill the hand the feeds you! That applies for many governments too."
Unfortunately many "leftist activists" do get it. Their tactics are the same as the Bolsheviks: break the system that provides goods and services particularly food. Then they seize control of the food and use the threat of starvation to control the population. It's what leftists do. Doubt it? Read Solzhenitsyn.
P. Gosselin wrote
Back when I were a lad, leftists were anything but environmentalist. Their desire was to industrialise agriculture and create prosperity for the masses.
That may have changed , but most likely any leftist environmentalist you meet now comes from a bourgeois middle class family with enough money to afford a social and economic conscience. In the end they will fade back to their wealthy lifestyle and their pretense of respectability with their Prius to show how committed they are - despite the annual trip across the world to some third world country for a couple of weeks of relaxation and/or "relating with the disadvantaged"
'Anti-capitalism, which is at the core of environmentalism ......'
No, that's silly surely.
If you had said:
'Anti-capitalism, which is inextricably linked with environmental activism.....' that would be closer, no?
Roddy and others,
Perhaps you are right.
Many of the non-profit foundations which support the green movement are governed by autonomous boards of directors who perpetuate themselves by choosing new board directors independent of any outside influence; i,e., the boards elect their own new members to replace exiting members. If a movement were able to infiltrate the board of directors, it could eventually be able to obtain control of the board and thereby further its own pocketbook. Do you think this could be happening? Ever look into the backgrounds of people composing some of these foundation boards?
I serve on the board of directors for an autonomous non-profit corporation.
Once, a long, long time ago, I supported Green Peace. However, the organization, which started with good intentions has gone down the wrong roads.
I am still an environmentalist. That stems from the days when I went to college in New York City during the early 1960s and remember seeing the yellow haze filling the streets each day. Later, for years I drove up to Silicon Valley each day and went over the ancient glacial moraine at the head of the Coyote Valley and into the yellow haze covering the whole of San Jose and up north.
However, the activist bent they are one is frightening. I don't know how many of you have watched Whale Wars on the tele, but what Paul Ward and his band of enviro-pirates do on the high seas is illegal and goddamn dangerous, not only to themselves but others as well.
No, it is time to put an end to the Green Peace nutters. Sadly, they are doing more harm than good.
Don Pablo
Totally agreed.
I started off as a conservationist. Still am. Greenpeace is on another plane. Not mine.
These nuts ARE dangerous. I recall that the donated ship "Stu Irwin" ran in front of the whaler and was damaged so much that it sank. That was the best episode on TV.
I have been observing charities for a while, and I have seen a tendency for an organisation to develop a life of its own that is independent of, and can be in conflict with, its stated aims, with an internal bureaucracy riven with politics and backbiting. It would be quite amusing if Greenpeace collapsed under the weight of its own inertia after all that "we know where you are" drivel.
The sooner Greenpeace disappears, the better. I feel very sorry for the likes of Patrick Moore to have to watch his baby grow into a terrorist - but that is what happens!
The worst part is that even if Greenpeace was to die, the vermin that now control it would just jump ship and slowly kill a different host! ;(
Only tangentially related -- I have a question. On a thread over at Climate Audit, a very knowledgeable commenter using the designation VS left a comment with this little nugget
Climate Science™
I love it. First time I have seen it. Is the use of the trademark designation for hockey team/IPCC consensus "climate science" something that has been used before? As I responded these jokers are like "proprietors who “own” the intellectual property rights to the designation are not happy whenever the designated phrase is used in a manner which contravenes their business interests."
Anybody know?
Follow the money. Greenpeace may say it doesn't take money directly from corporates but happily takes the money after being washed through another fund. Financials from most of the green machine seem to show the same trend. Individual donations falling, trust, NGO or government grants increasing and the value of investments falling. Some seem to have overextended themselves expanding, have alienated grass-roots members so not suprising big money stepped in to help and buy lobbying. There's probably also been competiton aspects from new groups set up as single-issue campaigns diverting donations away from the big old green machine.
Some of that's been good though. Locally there's a few environmental groups that became disenchanted with big green and set themselves up to manage local issues, like helping clear rivers and ditches.
I think a bigger problem though is there seems to be little regulation around NGO's, especially now they're using their funds and PR skills to buy access to intergovernmental projects.
F0ul
I feel very sorry for the likes of Patrick Moore to have to watch his baby grow into a terrorist
I too. I watched him on the tele the other night, and it was interesting to see he is pro-nuclear power (he made a point about how the French seem to know how to do it.) and several other points which I completely agree with. He also apparently thinks Climate Change is hogwash. My sort of guy. I think very much the same way he appears to.
stan
VS is an economic statistician who is very, very sharp not only in statistics but also a brilliant debater. Watch him chase all the others around in circles. Go to the store, buy some microwave popcorn and then sit and watch the fun. Glad to see him back to the fur ball.
Don,
and the trademark designation? Has he or others used it before?
One of Donna Laframboise's blog entries highlighted the difference between a private individual with a free blog account +a $10/month website and a bloated corporate oerganisation like Greenpeace.
she says
Indeed. In 1971, Greenpeace was an "upstart peace group from Vancouver" that held meetings in a Unitarian church. After it chartered a 30-year-old "creaking fish boat" to protest a US nuclear arms test, it could barely afford to pay for the boat's fuel.
and
......For no money, therefore, climate skeptics in the early 21st century are in a position to theoretically communicate online with as many people as is Greenpeace
Sounds like Bishop Hill is now the upstart and they have settled into comfortable middle age where paying the morgtage has now become more important than ethics.
.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/02/independent-bloggers-vs-corporate.html
For those interested in progressive fundraising tactics, Dana Fisher's Activism, Inc.: How the Outsourcing of Grassroots Campaigns Is Strangling Progressive Politics in America provides many insights into other sources of funding for environmental causes. Dr. Fisher is an ardent progressive. (If you cannot find it or already have too many books to read, I reviewed it on Amazon as Welcome to the real world!, April 1, 2010 - http://www.amazon.com/Activism-Inc-Outsourcing-Grassroots-Progressive/product-reviews/0804752176/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1)
Don Pablo,
I saw a clip of Patrick Moore talking about the parting of the ways with GreenPeace. He said that GP had been remarkably successful in that the sensible things they wanted originally had been achieved. So, they then had to find more campaigns to justify their existence and started on things that weren't very sensible.
The other way of looking at it is that established mass movements such as religions, are steered into becoming businesses and within a short time have very little to do with the ideals of their founders. Running the business overtakes the ideals pretty quickly.
Stan
While I believe VS is Dutch, he does have a very keen sense of humor. I have never seen "Climate Science™" before, and I suspect he invented it, although he may have gotten it somewhere else.
Josh
Excellent opportunity for a cartoon about Climate Science™ :)
Cosmic
I agree with your insights. Movements become careers and businesses too quickly. Years ago a group called AARP started from the old Gray Panther movement as the American Association of Retired People. They were going to lobby for the rights of retired people and were very successful. Then they started brokering insurance. Now they are basically only selling insurance. They get a good cut for their efforts. And when it came to the Americian Healthcare bill battle, they sided with Obama administration, basically throwing their membership under the bus.
google Climate Science™ :)
You've also got the NGO/fake charity phenomenon whereby a government, or the EU or the UN pays what are supposed to be charitable bodies to lobby itself - astroturfing or call it what you will - it's essentially dishonest and corrupting.
Does this go on in the US? I suspect it does.
http://www.policynetwork.net/accountability/publication/friends-eu
scurrilious parroting™
fossil-fuel funded disinformation campaign™
Morano and Inhofe™
Don Pablo, VS made several similar observations on the Bart VS thread.
the sooner greenpeace is consigned to history the better. a bunch of eco nazi nutters.
Shub
Thanks, I haven't bothered with that blog for several weeks because I got tired of digging through all the BS posted there by the fanboi.
I do like the concept he has. I also like all your extensions! :)
OK, call me a numpty, but how are you guys htmling a sub or superscript?
E = mc<sup>2</sup> (1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>-1/2</sup> isn't working for me.
Is it different down under? <pus>2</pus> perhaps.
Calling Numpty,
The TM is a character, not a HTML thingy. You can probably find a bunch of characters help you like
E = MC²
GrantB
You have several options. I use the Window special character feature. For example, Trademark is code 153 So, with the NUM key on the numeric keypad ON, I hold ALT and type 0153 and get this ™. However not all characters have such a code. (see below).
Or you can use the the Character Map application, find the character you want and select and copy it. This is the double ended arrow ↔
I have tried the HTML codes and they to work. For example the Greek Delta you should be able to say %Delta; or %#x0394; or %#916; and get the Δ, You have to change the "%" to a "&"; I made the change so you can see the codes. Converted they read Δ or Δ or Δ AFTER you do a Preview Post. The complete list is
http://mindprod.com/jgloss/htmlentities.html#SPECIALCHARS as well as other places
The easiest is to use one of the standard fonts (like Verdana) on the Character Map, select, and copy. If there is a keystroke for the character, you will see it on the lower right hand corner.
As for MAC, I have no idea. However the character is standardized and 16 bits so you can do just about anything. ≠≤≥□◦Ɑ№₰₲₴. Finding the character you want is the challenge.
I am a capitalist and I am also an environmentalist. Always have been. The issue here is surely that a specific section of "environmentalism" - i.e. AGW, Climate Change, Climate destabilisation etc etc - has been hijacked by the Watermelon politicoes.
Watermelon politicoes are those that are "Green on the outside, red on the inside". As soon as the Communist block collapsed and the whole world went Capitalist (even so called "communist" China is now run on capitalist lines - it is just a one party State is all.) then those that hated the very idea of Capitalism had to hang their hat on another cause and they found it in AGW, because if AGW is linked to CO2 then by limiting CO2 you can limit capitalism.
What is really funny then is when you see capitalism embrace this idea and develop a whole NEW way of making money via Carbon Credits!
Just like on a smaller scale the leftie article on the Climate Sceptic App backfires on the watermelons and leads to a greater awareness amongst people of what we sceptics are actually saying - then so to is the idea of Carbon Credits been seen for what it is and hence sensible people start asking questions.
Surely we all knew that these Watermelons were scam environmentalists when they tried (and failed spectacularly) to dictate that "The science is settled".
So I would ask, Andrew, that you do not make the mistake of branding all environmentalists as anti capitalist.
Anti-pollution is different from anti-industry. You can't argue that short term profits via pollution are made by industry to the long term cost of the taxpayer who has to pay for the cleanup. Hence we all have a stake in being anti-pollution. Sometimes, like BP they can afford to clean up their own mess but more often they can't.
There are though anti-capitalists in the green movements. Exactly what motivates them is not that clear but it doesn't seem to me to be related to socialism. As was pointed out, there is nothing anti-capitalist in socialism. Quite the opposite. It seems to be angst-ridden middle class snobs, who pretty much hate the working class and poor people in general. I wouldn't call them lefty any more than I'd call neocons representative of most conservatives.
But there has been quite a few critiques from over the top activists that accuse Greenpeace of taking payoffs from industry in order to greenlight polluting policies. Personally I'd call it valuable consultancy on best practises. They also expelled Paul Watson foe his over the top antics. So I wouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. They are probably too big now for their original purpose but still do a useful job in many areas. A few folk like to pretend that anti-pollution measures from which we all benefit would have happened naturally by the free market but that idea is arrant nonsense. The reality is that we need groups like Greenpeace to do the hard work that we prefer to think just happens naturally because most of us just can't be bothered.
JamesG said
I have a theory that Greenpeace is just another 'organism' occupying a particular 'ecological niche'. It exists because the there is enough Western wealth around that many different 'organisms' emerge to occupy more and more specialised niches in the human environment.
Greenpeace exists for two reasons - to satisfy the urges of activists 'to do something' and to satisfy those of sentimental persuasion to fund them 'to do something'. Hence Greenpeace has many activists and many many more supporters.
It's a win-win situation whereby the activists go out and do stuff, and their supporters fondly say "I made that happen by my sacrifice (of money)"
The same business model applies to most wars where the stay-at-home buy war bonds to fund the young fellows (and fellettes) to go out and stick it to the enemy.
Greenpeace has the good fortune to have more than one enemy available and a ready supply of concerned people. That the concern may have been manufactured is of no import. It's the same business model of most wars - and look how well that has worked in recorded history.
Jerry,
"Greenpeace exists for two reasons - to satisfy the urges of activists 'to do something' and to satisfy those of sentimental persuasion to fund them 'to do something'".
Interesting thoughts, but if Greenpeace needs to bring in $700,000 a day to keep going, I can think of a third powerful reason why people struggle so hard to keep it going and enlarge its scope; it provides a lot of people with their livelihood.
Cosmic said
As with any 'charity' Greenpeace has to pay for its funds. If anything like other charities, commercial fund-raising takes about 90% commission. So expect Greenpeace to be collecting $7M per day at the nose. Perhaps less, but not very likely.
Once those funds finally hit they are most likely expended on infrastructure and advertising with a small portion to field operations.
"its[Greenpeace] Amsterdam-based activist moguls pull the strings on what is estimated to be a $360 million global empire."
http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/131-greenpeace
"The International Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources noted in a November 2001 report that Lord Peter Melchett, the former leader of Greenpeace’s UK office “is one of the largest organic farmers in Europe.”
Tho a lot more sophisticated, the whole thing rhymes of the "acid rain" shenanigans.
$700,000 a day for an organization which is certainly opposed to anything having to do with capitalism? Perhaps a bake sale or a lemonade stand would help. The whales are waiting.
The straightforward answer to the above question (Could Greenpeace Go Bust?) is,
very simply:
YES PLEASE.
Peter
Whilst I agree that anti-capitalism is not "at the heart" of environmentalism, it is surely innaccurate to say:
" The German green movement in the 30's and 40's ... was supported and empowered by a very effective capitalist structure"... (Jerry)
…Because Hitler railed against capitalism, and nazism was born out of a national socialist economic model was it not? True, “Lebensraum” did lead to Germany's expansion eastwards, but was this not a pure application of Malthusian economics? To paint Gremany’s “military-industrial complex” as capitalist is I think a misrepresentation. For a potent alternative perspective taste Peter Staudenmaier's ponderings. This was one of the most profound essays I have ever read. If anyone cares to let me know of a good critique to this I would be very interested to read it:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GWTY0gLjwbAC&dq=Peter+Staudenmaier+eco-fascism+blood+and+soil+green+wing&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=H39iTIy4Ioa80gSir8DnDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false
I concede that this is an overtly aggressive association between environmentalism and fascism, but nevertheless this theme is receiving attention:
http://www.ecofascism.com/review18.html
The best thing Greenpeace could do IMHO is distance themselves completely from using AGW as a proselytizing tool for environmentalism. Even the beeb is questioning whether the climate change narrative has “hijacked” and diverted valuable funds, research and political will away from much more pressing environmental issues: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8223611.stm
My feeling is that Greenpeace – as with most everyone else – has advocated the post-normal climate change narrative as a means to promote their core values and use the CAGW vehicle to drive their previously marginal organisation into the mainstream. However, they may now be suffering effects in other campaign areas that might ordinarily have been serviced adequately, but that are now heavily dependent on the much maligned catastrophist aspects of AGW promotion. As with Lysenkoism, genuine problems start to occur when a huge grinding bureaucracy becomes over-reliant on a “ruling concept: As the concept comes under criticism, significant weaknesses in both policy formation and organisational structures start to appear… and even collapse.
I personally don’t particularly like Greenpeace, but I dare say they must do some good, somewhere.
There is an online copy of the Staudenmaier essay
http://www.lust-for-life.org/Lust-For-Life/FascistEcologyTheGreenWingOfTheNaziParty/FascistEcologyTheGreenWingOfTheNaziParty.pdf
I am certain I have seen a much longer version of this with quite a bit of detail about the original blood and soil movements in Germany and development of the Wandervogel movement (Rightwing Green Hippies) and the interactions between the Green wing and Industrial wing . Unfortunately I can't find it at present.
My comments were based on the longer essay where the leibensraum concept of returning the volk to nature was expounded, together with a - not proven - assertion that the elimination of the Jews was an act of ecological hygene to remove 'weeds' from the German environment.
Greenpiss needs money, eh! Well what about Chicago Climate Exchange? Reuters report multiple sackings (sorry, downsizing) at CCX.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLDE6791WI20100811
CO2 is 10 cents a ton
http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/
Barack Hussein Obama won't be happy.
http://www.examiner.com/x-14143-Orange-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m4d27-Scandal-Obama-Gore-Goldman-Joyce-Foundation-CCX-partners-to-fleece-USA
Does any of this:
Sound at all familiar? It's from the conclusion to 'The One-Dimensional Man' by Herbert Marcuse, published in 1964 and often cited as an influence on neo-Left wing thinking. Originally in German, it was popular and controversial at the time Greenpeace formed, and influenced their thinking, even if they may not have read the warnings.
Environmentalism has nothing to do with economic systems but it is assumed to be a feature of the left, just as greed and apathy are assumed traits of capitalism. It is much easier to push the environmentalism barrow than it is socialism because it appears noble like most green policies.
Whether one arrives at environmentalism via socialism or socialism through the charms of environmentalism; doesn't matter, for they are both highly emotional pursuits for the purposes of elitism and subversion. These are generally the delusions of unstable people who adopt a magical ideology merely by falling into the relevant crowd. It's an ideology were one can avoid their innermost ambitions by having a 'conscience' and thus the glaring contradictions we all see.
justinert:
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/
A bit more on the history of Greenpeace.
As was already stated they started as a very small group in 1971. In 1972 Maurice Strong saw to it that they had a free ride, care of the Canadian government, to the UN's First Earth Summit. Maurice Strong is also a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation (Standard Oil money) who donates regularly to Greenpeace and WWF.
As Elaine Dewar wrote in Toronto's Saturday Night magazine:
"It is instructive to read Strong's 1972 Stockholm speech and compare it with the issues of Earth Summit 1992. Strong warned urgently about global warming, the devastation of forests, the loss of biodiversity, polluted oceans, the population time bomb. Then as now, he invited to the conference the brand-new environmental NGOs [non-governmental organizations]: he gave them money to come; they were invited to raise hell at home. After Stockholm, environment issues became part of the administrative framework in Canada, the U.S., Britain, and Europe."
So without Maurice Strong's sponsorship Greenpeace would likely have stayed a small local group.
What is very laughable is Maurice Strong's life long connections to Big Oil and the Rockefellers. Strong started in the oil business in the 1950s working for the Rockefellers in Saudi Arabia. He took over some small ailing energy companies in the 1960s, and was president of a major holding company, Power Corporation of Canada, by the age of 35. While at Power Corporation, he enabled Shell to take over the only remaining all-Canadian oil company. In 1975 he was invited to run the semi-national Petro-Canada.
Strong's business deals are sometime complicated such as in1979 when he was setting up a Swiss oil-and-gas exploration company with partners that included the Kuwaiti Finance Minister and the Arab Petroleum Investment Corporation or his oil deal (AZL) with Saudi Arms Dealer, Adnan Khashoggi. Strong ended up owning the 200,000-acre Baca ranch in Colorado and was sued for allegedly hyping the stock of AZL. Or another lawsuit involving Al Gore, the first Earth Day and the hyping of Molten Metal Inc stock. Or the Oil for Food Scandal where he was caught accepting a bribe.
However the best part is:
"...Ontario Hydro, an industrial concern, headed by Earth Summit secretary general Maurice Strong, is the biggest source of CO2 emissions in Canada. This corporation is currently selling nuclear reactors to Argentina and Chile...." http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27/061.html
So the next time a Greenie accuses the "Deniers" of being funded by "Big Oil" you now have plenty of ammunition.
SamG
Thanks for the link.... Not been there before - interesting.