In all of their campaigns, Greenpeace activists expect companies to trust their stated objectives, believe their evidence and implement their extensive demands.

There’s just one major problem: Greenpeace has no credibility to influence — let alone inject itself in — serious discussions about environmental and health issues. Long ago, they disqualified themselves from the ranks of serious conservationists, scientists, and researchers by resorting to immature, violent and counterproductive tactics. Greenpeace activists may be able to boast about picketing in plushy costumes, vandalizing buildings, trespassing private property, creating meaningless online games, and placing harassing phone calls, but they sure don’t have science, reason and authority on their side.

But that’s their modus operandi. They target high profile companies, bully them in accepting unrealistic demands, fundraise off of the so-called “victory” … and then harass them some more.

No one wins except Greenpeace. Why? Because their ultimatums, stuns and protests never improve the issue in question — like seafood sustainability — only Greenpeace’s bottom line.

A new education initiative from the National Fisheries Institute (NFI) documents ongoing manipulation of facts, self-serving tactics, and ulterior financial motives behind Greenpeace’s annual seafood sustainability survey and ranking of U.S. grocers.

Called “Your Pain, Their Gain,” the campaign exposes Greenpeace as a science-averse, marginalized organization that doesn’t care about helping retailers develop sustainable seafood policies — only fundraising to sustain its $700,000/day operating budget.

Privately, retailers acknowledge that Greenpeace — by its own admission — does not endorse any seafood certification programs and is not active in Fishery Improvement Projects. Retailers who know sustainability are looking for these benchmarks and Greenpeace simply does not meet them.

“This survey has nothing to do with sustaining the world’s oceans; it’s all about sustaining Greenpeace,” added NFI spokesperson Gavin Gibbons.

NFI’s campaign, hosted at www.tunafortomorrow.com/retailers, will include infographics, videos, and analysis. The site will feature case studies of high-profile companies in different industries that have continued to suffer from unrelenting Greenpeace confrontation even after meeting its initial demands.

“Greenpeace engages in what we call a cycle of abuse,” Gibbons said. “It unilaterally decides to target business and make unrealistic, endless demands; harass employees and customers; appeal to donor generosity to thwart made-up crises; and claim victory when businesses capitulate.”

With every published edition of Greenpeace’s Carting Away the Oceans report, there is less and less media attention. In 2012, the report received almost no mainstream coverage.

“Grocers are far better off communicating their sustainability efforts directly to their customers,” Gibbons said. “Besides, no matter what they tell Greenpeace, it’s never good enough. Greenpeace will always criticize them.”

It’s pretty telling that Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore has not only spent decades exposing the organization’s anti-science, alarmist approach to environmentalism but also has written a book about it.

Like Dr. Moore, we believe Greenpeace’s radicalism is harmful to people and the environment and undermines the collaborative, productive efforts being taken by serious conservationists.

Watch this short video to learn more about the “real” Greenpeace:

Greenpeace activists say that all tuna should be caught one at a time with poles and lines. But catching tuna is not that simple.

The fact is, four different kinds of tuna species make up canned tuna, each one varying in size, weight and habitat. Likewise, fishing gears have different capabilities — and tradeoffs such as fuel usage. These factors must be considered in order to minimize costs to the environment and impact on consumers’ wallets, as well as maximize efficiency.

Notwithstanding, if fisherman relied on just one sourcing method, tuna companies would not be able to meet global demand — negatively impacting “more than a billion people [who] depend on fish as their primary source of protein.”

Unlike Greenpeace campaigners, who make demands without considering scientific facts and the consequences of their ideas, the tuna industry has heavily invested in the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF) to find the most advanced, sound ways to fish tuna and ensure healthy stocks.

To learn more about the different gears, check out our infographic:

“The game is so much fun we forgot to name it! So now we need your help! … Help us launch this game out into the world to help save oceans from the tuna industry destruction.” — Travis Nichols, media officer, Greenpeace USA

This week, Greenpeace introduced another big ticket and impractical technology tool to save us from ourselves — a yet to be named computer “8-bit Pac Man-style adventure .” And for just a small donation (toward their $700,000/day operating budget) you can make an activist’s dreams come true…

Of course, helping a pixelated “baby shark escape from the supermarket tuna aisles of death,” is a lot more fun when you’re tanning on the foredeck of Greenpeace’s $32 million yacht.  In the real world, bycatch mitigation, eliminating illegal fishing, reducing overcapacity, and other tuna stock health efforts are not fun and games but real work.

As one serious-minded marine biologist explains:

“We can’t do it all our ourselves by standing on the outside beating a drum… We get much greater advances if we work very closely with like-minded partners that are actually part of the system.” — Dr. Bill Fox, vice president, WWF and vice chair of the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation

We’re not asking for your money — the fishing industry invests millions of dollars to fund research, buy monitoring technologies, and reward innovative improvements in fishing gear. But given the choice, would you still donate hard-earned cash to launch “Medieval Tuna Reloaded”?

Seafood industry trade media reports that Greenpeace’s harassment campaign against grocers has picked up again but…yawn… the abuse never actually stops. I couldn’t help but think of the movie Groundhog Day, in which Bill Murray’s character says, “I’ll give you a winter prediction: It’s gonna be cold, it’s gonna be grey, and it’s gonna last you for the rest of your life.”

The same goes for Greenpeace’s annual survey of retailers’ seafood sustainability practices. It will always be a cheap publicity tool to “rank and spank” supermarkets without cause and it will always fail to resonate with the public and media. Just like every other empty-headed Greenpeace PR gimmick used to beg for donations, bully retailers and scare consumers.

Perhaps that’s because Greenpeace’s “multi-issue extremists” aren’t sustainability experts, just greedy fundraisers who want to keep the party, on that $40 million boat, going. Even without facts or reputation in their favor Greenpeace activists still think that retailers will take their arbitrary, unscientific and ultimately ridiculous demands seriously. Educated retailers get it—the exact same crew that’s gallivanting on the deck of a fundraising yacht are the folks dictating seafood sustainability policies via a silly supermarket ranking survey.

Don’t be surprised if the next Greenpeace activist dressed in plushy a costume looks a little too much like a groundhog because some things never change.

We’ve seen how Greenpeace has used a predictable formula of attack, declare victory, and attack again to raise money for its operations. In some cases, Greenpeace will falsify data in order to pressure target companies.

Case in point, Mattel. In 2011, Greenpeace waged a fierce campaign against the toy-maker for supposedly using endangered wood from rainforests in its packaging. In the course of its campaign Greenpeace hijacked the company’s iconic Barbie and Ken doll figures and repurposed them in disturbing ways to harm Mattel’s reputation.

Greenpeace even went so far as to claim they had independent research to back up public allegations that US toy companies were using unsustainable packaging sources. They had no such data.

But no matter. Greenpeace simply lied about data they did not have and used the study and other harassments to create an intolerable distraction for the company.

When Mattel later announced it would review its paper sourcing policies, Greenpeace declared victory and appealed for money from its supporters.

As for Mattel, it is only a matter of time before Greenpeace attacks them again. Because once Greenpeace has extracted concessions from a company they will be sure to try to do it again and again.

That’s the Greenpeace Shakedown.

PS. What do they do with all that money? Click here to see for yourself.

I have never insisted that people watch Greenpeace videos. Usually they’re hyperbole-filled fundraising pitches or violent cartoon animations, but the latest eye-opening creation is simply too good to pass up. Therefore, I implore you to watch this video and our response to it.

It’s an example of the top-notch strategic decision making that is a Greenpeace hallmark and a great look at where donations actually go. And for retailers… well… for retailers it speaks for itself. While serious sustainability organizations are working with scientists and industry to craft policies that promote ecological conservation, Greenpeace is cruising around the world on a party boat.

The video features scantily clad crewmembers, nightclub dancing, aeriel helicopter shots, underwater scenes and, yes, the perfunctory hot tub scene. Yet in promoting and soliciting donations for the construction of the newest Rainbow Warrior, Greenpeace claimed the money would go towards “bolt(s),” “a soap dish” and even “a piece of her sail.” Curiously, they never mentioned the hot tub.

Let’s muse about the decision making that went into this video, shall we? A group of activists who apparently have nothing to do but sunbathe and clean the decks of their $30 million yacht decide that the best use of Greenpeace’s dough is to produce a video that shows them in the throws of a donor-sponsored, high seas dance party.

Sure, why not?

It will attract attention and maybe encourage volunteer to sign up. Because it’s realistic to think that far from shopping petitions on cold city streets, if I join Greenpeace I’ll get to see the world from the deck of a booze cruise. Yea, and the donations will just come rollin’ in.

Let’s not forget Aaron Gray-Block’s account of life aboard Greenpeace’s flagship vessel:

“It’s not a holiday as some colleagues in Amsterdam have suggested witha smirk — no, I will not be sitting in a hammock in the sun with a cocktail in my hand.”

The boat appears to be filled with a bunch of high-flying, yoga posing, carefree pursers who look more likely to report to *Captain Stubing than a scientist.

Greenpeace is a fundraising machine that has to bring in $700,000 a day just to keep the lights of this multi-national corporation on. And in addition to detracting from actual sustainability work being done with its antics, it sometimes takes a break to spend donations on videos like this. Thank you Greenpeace for giving us this glimpse of your hard work.

*For those featured in this video who were not born in the era of Captain Stubing we should explain the reference; he was the captain of a fictional but famed cruise ship known as The Love Boat.

We put the Greenpeace video into context here:

Greenpeace claims that Coles’ public commitment to “end the sourcing of tuna from unsustainable methods” is “the best present ever from Santa this year.”

But Greenpeace is no Santa, and it certainly isn’t delivering. Rest assured, Virginia, no Christmas miracles will ever come out of Greenpeace’s harassment campaign against tuna brands.

Greenpeace’s endless demands will never be met. Why? Because Greenpeace standards are not simply unrealistic but wholly unscientific, and it refuses to recognize any positive sustainability measures taken without Greenpeace’s input.

Still, they’ll happily take credit for any measure taken by any retailer — and use that as an opportunity to fundraise.

Consider Coles. Nowhere does the Australian supermarket chain give Greenpeace credit for its recent plans. The supermarket emphasizes: “We will continue to seek independent advice from marine and fisheries experts. We will take advice from major independent conservation organizations, such as WWF, and support credible sustainable seafood-sourcing initiatives such as the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC).”

There’s no mention of Greenpeace — and for good reason. Greenpeace activists aren’t helping to conserve the world’s tuna stocks; they’re trying to sabotage serious joint efforts spearheaded by conservationists and the seafood community. They’ve rejected numerous offers to discuss the future of tuna fishing with the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation because they shun science, expert analysis and internationally recognized seafood certification programs.

This organization has simply lost all credibility.

This holiday season, what consumers, retailers and serious conservationists are really wishing for is a new Greenpeace, one that puts stock in serious sustainability efforts not antics and hyperbole. Greenpeace’s incessant badgering, non-scientific “solutions” and victorious fundraising emails are trite and hollow. Maybe a shiny new Greenpeace under the tree this year would actually do some good in the world.

In the Huffington Post, Aaron Gray-Block, a Greenpeace “media specialist,” shares his experiences sailing the Indian Ocean on the $37-million Greenpeace yacht, Rainbow Warrior III. In between port calls in Mauritius, the Maldives and other resort communities, Mr. Gray-Block tells us about artisanal fishermen catching tuna using their traditional pole-and-line method without fish aggregating devices (FADs). “Sustainable fishing at its best,” he says.

Greenpeace prefers this fishing method to the far more common purse seining for a variety of self-serving reasons. But the bottom line is that it is impractical and unable to meet worldwide consumer demand for nutritious and affordable canned tuna.

By Greenpeace’s own admission, pole and line costs more and retailers like Sainsbury’s, M&S, and Waitrose have discovered sustainably – minded consumers need a monetary incentive to buy tuna caught using this artisanal fishing method. Is this the right model for American retailers when there are equally sustainable, more reliable and more affordable ways to provide tuna to its customers?”

Of course, Greenpeace overlooks some of the other “premiums” involved with pole-and-line fishing. For instance, there’s the fuel premium. That’s the extra amount of fuel consumed by fleets of small boats searching the high seas for migratory tuna. According to a study by the School for Resource and Environmental Studies at Dalhousie University in Canada, fishing with purse seine gear was found to burn on average 369 liters of fuel per ton of tuna caught. Pole and line burns four times as much fuel (1490 liters) for the same amount of fish.

Then there is the carbon premium. That’s the extra tons of carbon emissions that would be the consequence of a global pole-and-line fleet.

There’s also the inefficiency premium. According to the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF), a typical pole-and-line fishing boat requires a crew of 30 or more to bring in a fraction of the catch that a purse seiner with 18 professionals aboard is capable of.

There’s the bait premium because pole and line fishermen need lots more small fish harvested in nets that they use to lure and catch the bigger fish.

And for all we know there may even be a FAD premium because pole-and-line fishing requires many more boats – fishing boats, bait boats, transport boats – all of which act as fish attracters, according to the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization.

Science shows that there is no perfect tuna fishing method. They all have their costs and benefits. The best and most sustainable approach is a balanced one that includes pole and line as well as purse seining with FADs and other methods. That’s what the responsible adults – conservationists, researchers, commercial fishermen and others with a true stake in tuna sustainability – have been saying for years.

It’s not as exciting as sailing the Indian Ocean on a yacht filled with passionate young men and women like Aaron Gray-Block. But it’s what will truly make a difference to the environment.

In the meantime, people should be free to buy the products they want and can afford — whether that’s commercially sourced tuna in their local supermarket or artisanal tuna caught by hand in the balmy Maldives Islands.