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.