Greenpeace has jumped the whale

Greenpeace AFP

All right – so accusing Greenpeace of being dishonest, bullying, hypocritical, scientifically illiterate, menacing and environmentally damaging is about as novel and contentious as suggesting that Michelangelo may have painted the Sistine Chapel.

Even so, it’s good to see Andrew Montford weighing into the fray at this Spectator blog. His concern – mine too – is that for organisation which has “almost unimpeded access to decision makers” (such as Ed Davey) its dubious track record receives remarkably little scrutiny from a compliant media, which still tends to view Greenpeace as a loveable, homespun collective of gallant eco-crusaders in chunky-knit sweaters and rubber dinghies, rather than the thuggish, overmighty zealots they actually are.

He offers a few examples:

Gene Hashmi, Greenpeace India’s Communications Director, who in 2010 warned sceptics: “We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few.”

Greenpeace activist and Guardian contributor Gary Evans who, in a Guardian comment thread, wrote (under the pseudonym Bluecloud) of prominent sceptic Matt Ridley: ‘Should that not be Ridley’s severed head in the photo… Why are you deniers so touchy? Mere calls for a beheading evolve [sic] such a strong response in you people. Ask yourself a simple question: Would the world be a better place without Matt Ridley? Need I answer that question?’

Greenpeace’s vandalism of world heritage site the Nazca Lines in Peru.
Greenpeace’s loss of £3 million in currency speculation.
and, most recently, the confirmation by the European Commission’s former chief science advisor Anne Glover that she was hounded out of her job by environmental campaigners, including Greenpeace, who manufactured claims about her they knew to be false simply because they disapproved of her position on GM.
In 2010 Greenpeace had its charitable status revoked (though the decision was subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court) in New Zealand because its aggressive political advocacy was deemed inappropriate for a charity.
Maybe it’s about time our own Charities Commission took similarly robust action.


Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.