An animated whiteboard systematically debunking Greenpeace’s extreme rhetoric.
Open Invitation Clock
Loading Clock
Total time that Greenpeace
has ignored open invitation
from International Seafood
Sustainability Foundation
(ISSF) to participate in the
ongoing dialogue about Tuna
fisheries & sustainability.
grass·roots: the common or ordinary people, especially as contrasted with the leadership or elite of a social organization. The origin or basis of something; the basic or primary concept, rule, part, or the like.
Greenpeace’s new effort to harass tuna companies is anything but a grassroots effort. It’s a highly orchestrated, managed campaign that is entirely scripted by Greenpeace big wigs safely ensconced in their offices.
Take a look at how Greenpeace puppeteers don’t leave anything to chance. They even script how their minions are supposed to talk to their “friends and family.”
Greenpeace’s arguments about tuna are not backed up by real science and are the cornerstone of a fundraising campaign that for weeks has been urgently begging for tens of thousands of dollars. And now a “grassroots” effort is springing up… with of course the aid of corporate scripts that help supporters talk to people they already know.
Greenpeace has manufactured a crisis and now it’s manufacturing the outrage to go along with it.
Greenpeace has historically relied on the shock value of its campaigns to divert attention away from the lack of scientific consensus behind its false allegations. In the case of canned tuna that pattern continues.
The fact is Greenpeace is wrong on the science. Greenpeace itself is not actively working on any science-based tuna sustainability research and Greenpeace is aggressively trying to raise tens of thousands of dollars in donations for “tuna sustainability” based on a manufactured crisis.
Launching blimps, producing violent, offensive videos aimed at children and harassing seafood-company employees, at the office and over the phone, are all part of a campaign designed to dazzle the average consumer with theatrics in order to avoid entering into a science-based dialogue.
This appears to be precisely what happened to New York Times food blogger Mark Bittman, who fell for Greenpeace’s antics and turned their talking points into a September 20 online column. Bittman naively parrot’s Greenpeace’s rhetoric while endorsing with gusto the childish stunts perpetrated by the group.
Listening to Greenpeace’s puppets is one thing but becoming a Parrot is another. Perhaps Bittman and other members of the media should take a look behind the curtain before embracing Greenpeace.
Today New York Times blogger Mark Bittman asks the question, is it Time to Boycott Tuna Again? His column was based entirely on information provided by the activist group Greenpeace. While we recognize his work was presented as his view, we challenge the New York Times not to let ignorance of subject and a lack of research hide behind the cloak of opinion. It is recognized and appreciated that the Times should maintain strict separation between editorial and opinion content; however, the standards under which both are produced should be universal.
Mr. Bittman writes about the current state of canned tuna sustainability. He apparently failed to do much research (at least he presents none in his piece) other than repackaging Greenpeace talking points.
Nowhere does he mention the work already being done by responsible, mainstream environmentalists through the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF), agroup created through a partnership between WWF, the world’s leading conservation organization, and canned tuna companies from across the globe. Nowhere does he mention the commitments these companies have made, the global recognition they have earned, or the millions of dollars they expend in sponsoring research for conservation groups and the tuna community. This appears an odd omission when opining about tuna sustainability.
Does Mr. Bittman even know about this group or the stakeholders from throughout the environmental community who work with them? More »
In the past seven days, Greenpeace has bombarded its followers with e-mails “urgently” demanding that they rush their most generous contributions and this morning was no different.
For the third time since last Tuesday, Greenpeace claimed that it needed $60,000 to make yet another 48-hour deadline so they could continue harassing tuna companies. Interesting, so either Greenpeace has repeatedly missed its 48 hour deadline… or its total donation request in the last week stands at a whopping $180,000. Nearly 200 grand in just ONE week? Really? That could be the yearly income of three families. Or the tuition for almost 24 students to go to a public university. Or a year’s rent for 20 households. Or 1.4 million meals for the hungry.
So which is it? With so many struggling to get by, does Greenpeace really expect its supporters to fund its latest yacht excursions? Or is its continued begging actually evidence that Greenpeace is struggling to make its phony, self-imposed deadlines usually reserved for unscrupulous televangelists?
It has only been three days since fundraising juggernaut Greenpeace bombarded its followers with an e-mail claiming that it “urgently” needed to raise $60,000 for its mounting public campaign to “garner media attention.”
Well, apparently that wasn’t enough.
This morning, not even a full pay period later, Greenpeace is asking hardworking Americans for money, yet again. “We need to hit our goal of $60,000 within the next 48 hours to keep the pressure up. Please, rush us your most generous contribution today…”
Again?
Apparently the sun never sets on Greenpeace’s fundraising campaign.
Greenpeace is turning 40 tomorrow, but from its childish, immature antics you would never be able to tell. After four decades, this fundraising, campaign machine has become known for its “eye-catching” and “dangerous stunts.” Even organizations and newspapers within Greenpeace’s own environmental community know the group as “an angry teenager.” News flash, Greenpeace: It’s been 40 years, some might say it’s time for you to grow up.
As this Guardian article points out, “While Greenpeace is likely to be found outside a corporate headquarters protesting, its counterparts in WWF might be inside meeting the chief executive.”
Perhaps sitting at the big kids table is all part of growing up.
We’ve been telling you all along that Greenpeace needs to raise $700,000 a day just to keep the lights on. Well, here they are reminding us of just that fact this morning. With its morning coffee, Greenpeace sent an e-mail out to its faithful claiming it “urgently need(s) your financial support” and that it “need(s) to raise $60,000 by September 15th,” which is in two days. That’s right—60 grand from hardworking Americans in two days. That’s more than the average American family makes in a year, and Green—emphasis on green—peace wants Americans to simply fork it over in two days…Quick folks, don’t think; just donate. How many snake oil salesmen rely on this approach?
What did they do with the last funds their supporters donated? Create a violent, offensive cartoon and harass US tuna companies. Really? That’s Greenpeace’s tuna sustainability strategy? How exactly do funding childish stunts “help us save the oceans and our environment”? If Greenpeace wants to actually make a difference, it would stop claiming poverty while begging for tens of thousands of dollars in donations to continue “mounting a public campaign” and start donating its own money to real science.
This e-mail begging for more money to continue their campaign so they can “garner media attention” is further evidence that Greenpeace is simply a fundraising machine.
Last night, President Barack Obama addressed the nation on jobs. According to the latest data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (aka the “weakest report in almost a year”), the unemployment rate in August showed no improvement, and the net total of new jobs was zero. Many families are struggling to make ends meet, “giving up nights out with the family to save on gas or make the mortgage; postponing retirement to send a kid to college.”
So, while hard working Americans are struggling, what’s Greenpeace doing? Greenpeace is raking in $700,000 a day and spending $32 million on a new yacht. While Washington is looking for “ways to work side by side with America’s businesses” and interested in “new ideas to help companies grow and create jobs,” Greenpeace is harassing and bullying American tuna brands and grossly exaggerating sustainability claims so it can keep its fundraising machine humming.
Wonder if Greenpeace has heard that it’s been 66 years since the last time the government reported zero new jobs?
At a time when Americans could use a break, Greenpeace is badgering tuna companies to change their already cost-effective, sustainable fishing methods to expensive, less efficient practices. Greenpeace’s demands would actually raise the cost of canned tuna, an affordable, healthy favorite among American families. Rather than sitting down with leading conservation scientists, Greenpeace is raising $700,000 a day to fly blimps and produce grotesque cartoons.
Instead of spending their fundraising dollars on juvenile shenanigans, perhaps some of that $700,000 could go to 466,667 cans of tuna for the SeaShare organization that helps provide nutritional food to low-income families.
The latest news out of New Zealand is bad for Greenpeace. After their campaigners vandalizedEllerslie, a quiet suburb of Auckland, the town is now considering banning Greenpeace from fundraising there. Residents blasted the group in the media saying:
“They haven’t shown the community any respect.”
“They’re an organisation that promotes protecting the environment – I think it’s ironic they turn around and vandalise the streetscape.”
“Greenpeace has demonstrated it is more in tune with tuna than with people.”
Incidents like this one ought to demonstrate just how far outside the mainstream Greenpeace is. How tone deaf and unplugged from civic life does a group have to be to vandalize a town less than 24 hours after their own neighbors put such incredible effort into sprucing up the place?
Here’s hoping the civic-minded residents of Ellerslie follow through on their threat. In the end, that’s the only kind of action that Greenpeace really understands.
Environmental activism is big business. Organizations like Greenpeace are no longer run by naïve college kids; they are global operations as big and as complex as many of the corporations they target. Today, Greenpeace is an anti-business business. It is a global enterprise overseen by a board of directors, run by vice presidents and attorneys, and functionally organized by marketing, media experts and a sales force.
And like a business, it has operating expenses. Keeping Greenpeace flush costs more than $700,000 every day. Keep in mind that Greenpeace doesn’t manufacture or sell anything — save fear, perhaps.
The most successful fundraising campaigns promote a provocative claim about an easily recognizable product, like canned tuna. Such an attack is guaranteed to get publicity — and more publicity equates to bigger donations. Thus, Greenpeace isn’t so much concerned with what’s on Americans’ plates as what’s in its coffers.
Greenpeace has nothing to lose, but Americans certainly do. Tuna is popular, affordable and healthy — one of the few bright spots in the typical high-fat, high-sodium American diet. Fortunately, there are plenty of these fish in the sea. And with ongoing smart management, there will continue to be.
