Greenpeace cultivates a fuzzy Disney-like image of an organization desperately trying to protect poor animals against unethical corporations. However, recently I have read several articles attempting to shine some light on Greenpeace itself. I found an interesting article entitled How Telling the Truth Defeated Greenpeace in Brazil based upon a more detailed paper. A proponent of nuclear plants in Brazil was dismayed by all the lies Greenpeace told in his country about nuclear power. So the scientist went on the offensive, found proof that Greenpeace had a history of lying, and publicized it. For example:

Greenpeace had even staged the grisly killing of a baby seal just to make a fundraising film that purported to show how bad fishermen were killing baby seals. Note: I verified this fact from other sources.

When presented with the truth about Greenpeace, Brazilians voted to build a new nuclear power plant and the Greenpeace organization in Brazil was devastated. (this quote from the second link).

In the following days, the president of Greenpeace Brazil was fired, and in the next two months, Greenpeace declared to the press that its income had dropped to 10 percent of the preceding year, even less than 10 percent.

Intrigued by this, I went looking for more insight into how Greenpeace worked. Were Greenpeace's unethical actions in Brazil, and in the making and continued distribution of their film (where they tortured a seal as an example of how they thought bad fishermen killed seals) indicative of the organization as a whole? Unfortunately, it looks like the answer is yes. Paul Watson, was the co-founder of Greenpeace. Listen to his words:

The secret to David McTaggart's success is the secret to Greenpeace's success: It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.... You are what the media define you to be. [Greenpeace] became a myth, and a myth-generating machine.

After growing disgusted at Greenpeace's unethical behavior, Watson left the organization and founded the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. A brief internet search did not turn up any scandals related to this organization.

According to the same link, German donors to Greenpeace have been unknowingly lining the pockets of Greenpeace members instead of improving the environment. German publications have carried revelations of millions of marks of donations being funneled into Greenpeace savings accounts rather than used to fight pollution.

Basic Conclusions: 1) Treat all news coming from Greenpeace with a large dose of salt (not that we needed these articles for this conclusion); 2) Greenpeace has major ethical problems; 3) Those who donate to environmental causes should find alternative charities who will hopefully use the money for its intended purpose.

Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):