The Guardian today is carrying another dull piece about global warming dissent, which is apparently going to become a thing of the past in 2015. One to revisit in twelve months' time I would say.
I was struck though by the fact that the author is John Sauven, the director of Greenpeace in the UK. I found it rather astonishing that a newspaper would be giving space to a group that had just caused irreparable damage to a World Heritage Site. Wouldn't a reputable publisher want to distance itself from such behaviour? Quite possibly it seems.
This got me thinking about who else is happy to be associated with Greenpeace and, more precisely, who is actually paying for their activists to run around trashing the world's cultural heritage and the Peruvian tourism industry. The biggest single donors to Greenpeace seem to be the Dutch and Swedish Postcode Lotteries and two US organisations, the Oak Foundation and the Climate and Land Use Alliance. Each is making gifts of $1 million or more.
It's also quite interesting to see what the postcode lotteries are spending their funds on. For example, as well as Greenpeace, the Dutch version has funded the Clinton Foundation, the Carbon War Room, Sea Shepherd and WWF. So as well as desecration of heritage sites, they can be said to be funding piracy and the persecution of the Baka pygmies.
I think this needs to be widely publicised.
;)