typing is not activism….

environ mentalism, fresh articles, interviews & checkitouts from Sydney.

Greenpeace is lying and stealing your money

with 36 comments

by Captain Paul Watson of Sea Shepherd, first posted at Counterpunch, and properly titled

How Greenpeace Cashes In on the Suffering and Death of the Great Whales

The Other Whaling Industry

By Captain PAUL WATSON

On board the Sea Shepherd ship Steve Irwin.

“It does not matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”

— Dr. Patrick Moore, President of Greenpeace Canada 1981

As the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society struggles to borrow and raise enough funds to return to the Southern Ocean, we feel incredibly frustrated by the fact that tens of millions of dollars have already been raised to defend the whales yet this money is not being spent for that purpose and it will not help put fuel in our tanks to resume our defense of the whales.

Enough is enough. The Greenpeace fraud about saving the whales must be exposed. For years, I have been tolerating their pretense of action and watching them turn their ocean posing photo ops into tremendous profits from whaling. And now they say they can’t return to the Southern Oceans with their ship the Esperanza because they don’t have the budget for it and because they are going to direct their energies into lobbying for change inside Japan.

Yet they still continue to collect money to save the whales. Greenpeace has booked all online advertising in the major Australian and New Zealand newspapers. Their ads are splashed across the internet from Google to MySpace. Send money, send more money. Television ads, millions of pieces of direct mail.

Greenpeace International raised 127 Million Euros last year. Greenpeace Australia has about 18 million dollars in the bank. Greenpeace USA sits on tens of millions of dollars. Yet they claim they do not have the budget to return to the Southern Oceans yet they also claim they stopped the whalers for two weeks in January, and if such a claim is true then they should go back and stop them again.

But they will not. They have surrendered the Whale Sanctuary to the whalers yet the ads keep popping up and the contributions keep flowing into the Greenpeace coffers. It is incredibly frustrating to see stories about Sea Shepherd’s successful interventions against illegal Japanese whaling usually sprinkled with criticisms by Greenpeace about our methods. And right beside these articles pops up an ad asking the public to send money to support Greenpeace. Even if Sea Shepherd wanted to invest in these ads, we cannot because Greenpeace has booked all the ad space for three months.

Greenpeace makes more money from anti-whaling than Norway and Iceland combined make from whaling. In both cases, the whales die and someone profits. We continue to receive reports from people who have received highly emotional appeals from Greenpeace for money to save the whales including appeals to help refuel their ship.

This is simply out and out fraud.

Greenpeace ocean campaigners, are begging for money saying they will be fighting to help the whales escape and they claim that for every dollar donated they will be able to stay out another hour, another day, or another week “saving” whales. Their success will depend on YOU sending a donation NOW. Of course the word success means something different to Greenpeace. The Greenpeace campaign is not stopping whaling ships. Success to Greenpeace is about recruiting memberships and raising money.

What the fund-raising appeals do not say is that Greenpeace has already raised tens of millions of dollars this year to “save” the whales, and tens of millions of dollars the year before, and the year before that. In fact, Greenpeace has raised a mind-boggling hundreds of millions of dollars pretending to save whales over the years and yet they have not stopped the Japanese from killing whales.

Last year Nathan Santray described himself as the Action Director for Greenpeace. He reported that he was instrumental in saving the whales and that he would be heading back to the Southern Oceans to defend the whales again. BUT he can’t do it without your support so please send him a donation right away. They absolutely must raise $50,000 by the end of the year.

What he did not say was that Greenpeace raises more than $50,000 in donations every day. But Nathan assured us that he would be there “fighting to save every whale we can and we urgently need your help.”

Nathan and his crewmates maneuvered their little rubber Greenpeace boats into the path of the fire hoses where they were filmed being “attacked” with high power hoses. They did that for hours and it looked very dramatic. But it was all just ocean posing. My crew quite easily avoided the fire hoses. In fact, the only way they could have been hit would have been to steer directly into the path of the water. The Japanese whalers stupidly participated in the charade not realizing that they were playing right into Greenpeace’s hands. They haven’t realized yet that the best tactic to deploy against Greenpeace is to simply ignore them because they are harmless.

The Greenpeace pleas state that, “only Greenpeace stands between the harpoons and the whales.” And “Greenpeace is the only hope for the whales.” This, of course, is a direct slap in the face to my international volunteers who have been actually physically intervening against illegal Japanese whaling. Unlike the paid Greenpeace crew, the Sea Shepherd volunteers did not go down to the Southern Oceans to take pictures of whales dying, they went down to there to stop illegal whaling activities.

Greenpeace simply ignores the efforts of other groups opposing whaling including Sea Shepherd, the only organization to have actually shut down whaling operations. The fact that Sea Shepherd chased the Japanese whalers away last year while Greenpeace was filming the whales dying seems to have been forgotten. That was where Greenpeace turned off their cameras.

This year’s annual appeal to save whales by Greenpeace is just the latest public relations strategy in a global campaign to fleece money from people of good conscience. The Greenpeace Foundation, of which I was a co-founder back in 1972, is today simply a multi-million dollar feel-good organization. They are selling the illusion of making a difference to a gullible public.

Greenpeace is a major international corporation. Over the years, those of us who envisioned and founded Greenpeace way back when, have watched in frustration and anger as faceless bureaucrats turned ideals into profits, secure in their understanding that the media myth of Greenpeace cannot be tarnished irreparably within the mass media culture. For every person who gets wise to their scam, two more are recruited. Greenpeace is a massive direct mail publicity machine utilizing media and psychology to part people from their money.

Together many of us from the early days feel like modern-day Dr. Frankensteins. We created a large green corporate monster that has forgotten where it came from and is now busy feeding frantically at the trough of public guilt. Greenpeace has become the world’s largest multinational “feel-good” corporation. People join to feel that they are a part of the solution and not part of the problem. So Greenpeace hangs banners, calls boycotts, knocks on doors, and sends out direct mail solicitations. Consequently, they haul in tons of cash, supporting an army of eco-bureaucrats and fueling a global public relations campaign which postures on the myth that Greenpeace is saving the world.

Greenpeace is posing and marketing the illusion of saving the planet and they have an army of gullible volunteers and paid canvassers who have been talked into believing that Greenpeace is really, really saving the environment and saving whales in particular. When I left Greenpeace in 1977, I could have set up another knock-on-the-door-direct-mail- telephone-soliciting group to chase the green dollars. The problem is that I left Greenpeace to actually do something and that meant taking to the high seas to directly intervene against the slaughter of whales and the destruction of the ocean. The last time I saw a whale die in agony before my eyes was on my last Greenpeace whale campaign in 1976. When Sea Shepherd shows up, the killing stops and the whalers run. We don’t look for photo opportunities; we look for opportunities to shut down illegal whaling operations. We have shut down whaling ships permanently in Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Iceland, and Norway. We’ve sunk nine! of them without injuring anyone and without being convicted of a single felony. The reason is that our targets are criminal operations.

Greenpeace does not even oppose whaling. These are actual quotes from Greenpeace spokespersons: “Greenpeace is not opposed to whaling in principle.”

– John Frizell, Director of Greenpeace International. From the Greenpeace Policy Paper 1994. “As a natural scientist I cannot accept that Greenpeace is opposed to whaling. One must be allowed to harvest a renewable resource. To me, this is an important principle.”

– Leif Ryvarden, former Chairman of Greenpeace Norway. From an interview with Dagbladet, August 2, 1991 “The 1993 Minke whale harvest did not constitute a threat to the stock.”

– Ingrid Bertinussen, Greenpeace Norway Director. From an interview on Norwegian radio (NRK), October 22, 1993 “The Norwegian catch is not a threat to the Minke whale stock,”

– Kalle Hesstvedt of Greenpeace Norway in a remarkable interview with the Norwegian newspaper, “Nordlys” on May 21. Hesstvedt does not rule out the possibility that Greenpeace might accept commercial whaling when catch quotas are allocated by the International Whaling Commission (IWC). He repeated the statement on Norwegian radio (NRK) on the same day.

In 1997, I had Greenpeace investigated by the National Marine Fisheries Service of the United States for participating in a whale hunt. Greenpeace crew on the Arctic Sunrise actually towed a slaughtered bowhead whale to shore as a favour for the Inupiat whalers in the Bering Sea. In doing so, they violated both U.S. and international law. The incident was reported widely in the Alaskan media and the whalers used the incident to ridicule Greenpeace at the 1997 International Whaling Commission meeting in Monaco.

And it is not just whales that Greenpeace is betraying. Melanie Duchin of Greenpeace Alaska who also sent out a personal appeal to raise money to “save” the whales said last year that Greenpeace is not opposed to the hunting of polar bears. She was quoted in the Alaskan media as saying, “If the species of certain populations against the backdrop of global warming can sustain a commercial hunt, than we’re not going to oppose it.”

And Greenpeace raises millions of dollars from people concerned about the cruel slaughter of seals in Canada, yet Greenpeace has not opposed the Canadian seal hunt in more than two decades. The official Greenpeace position on the harp seal slaughter, the largest massacre of marine mammals on the planet is that the hunt is “sustainable.”

There are many who lament that it is a sad thing that different groups cannot work together. Sad though it might be, it is a fact. The objectives of an organization with highly paid executives is far different from an organization of volunteers. We have different objectives. While we look for whaling ships, Greenpeace looks for memberships.

Nonetheless, I have approached Greenpeace for years with offers to work in cooperation with them. They responded with insults or simply ignored us. They even tried to deny that I was a co-founder of their own organization.

A volunteer organization like Sea Shepherd is in business to put ourselves out of business. A large eco-corporation like Greenpeace is in business to keep itself in business, and whaling, sealing, over-fishing, global warming, and other assorted issues are simply the raw material that Greenpeace uses to turn people’s concerns into profits.

I know that I am taking a risk in publicly exposing Greenpeace as a fraud. I know it shatters people’s illusions, but some illusions need shattering. The real strength of the environmental and conservation movements lies in the diversity of individual activists and small grassroots organizations that large corporate organizations like Greenpeace parasitically rob energy and support from.

In my opinion, it is completely immoral for organizations to be paying six-figure salaries to desk-bound bureaucrats sitting in multi-million dollar office buildings as real, dedicated activists struggle in the field to rescue injured animals or to try and stop the horrific slaughter of seals, dolphins and whales. This entire movement is held up on the blood, sweat, and tears of tens of thousands of individuals struggling for ecological justice with minimal resources while a small, elite group skims the vast amounts of money from the public purse to be spent on large salaries, public relations posturing, and fund-raising.

It’s obscene, and it is high time that people woke up and saw Greenpeace for what it really is – a high-powered public relation machines designed to fleece the public. Greenpeace has secured their story and photos for this year. No need for them to return. It would not be a cost effective strategy for them to do so. They will accuse us of being eco-terrorists for intervening to defend the whales as they continue to spend mega-bucks on TV ads, direct mail appeals, and internet banner advertising. All this as the whales continued to die in horrific agony, choking on their own blood as Greenpeace cameramen record every emotional tear-jerking moment to beam back to the head office to aid in the never-ending quest for money, money, and more money.

And to add insult to injury – when Sea Shepherd returns, every news story that gets posted online will be accompanied by Greenpeace ads asking for money. Why return to the Southern Oceans when Sea Shepherd will be available to generate stories to keep the online ads popping up.

As the Sea Shepherd ship Steve Irwin prepares to return to the Southern Ocean alone to resume the pursuit of the Japanese whaling fleet, Greenpeace will be making trips to the bank to deposit millions of dollars raised under the false pretense of saving whales. It is obscene, fraudulent and scandalous. Yet as long as whaling continues Greenpeace will continue to milk the issue as a cash cow.

All the more reason for Sea Shepherd to shut down the Antarctic whaling operation. We need to put the whalers out of business and we need to put the people profiting from whaling out of business also.

Captain Paul Watson is founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society www.seashepherd.org

Advertisements

Written by typingisnotactivism

February 9, 2008 at 4:25 am

36 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. So the score so far.

    Greenpeace – 0
    Sea Shepherd – 0
    Whales – 0

    Japanese – 1

    Hoping peaceful, useful, mutual respect and co-existence breakout soon.

    Jude

    February 9, 2008 at 2:46 pm

  2. I agree with Jude 🙂

    I find the quote you begin this post with quite ironic (“It does not matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” – Dr. Patrick Moore, President of Greenpeace Canada 1981) because surely the same could be said of both organisations? They’re both as biased as each other and put their own spin on what’s happening.

    They’re both working towards the same end result, so it’s a shame they aren’t able to cooperate … how much more successful they would surely be as a coalition!

    Priscilla

    February 11, 2008 at 11:49 am

  3. understand yr comment, but gotta disagree. Sea Shepherd yell out for money rarely and make sure it all goes back into direct environmentalism. They have destroyed ships, they haven’t killed or seriously injured anybody. If they have injured anybody in any manner other than humiliation, there is no record of it. And those are objective facts.
    Greenpeace employs an army of marketing directors and uninformed street plebs to ask for money, of which only a small fraction goes into anything as direct as equipment or frontline action.

    I agree that it would be great if the resources of these two organisations could be coordinated in a constructive manner, but after reading this piece I better understand why that isn’t able to happen.
    As soon as people practice activism for a pay cheque rather than primarily out of love and anger, it’s all over. I think that the premise that they are both working toward the same result is a mistake. Greenpeace is working for political power and popularity, Sea Shepherd are working for legitimate and absolute outcomes.

    typingisnotactivism

    February 11, 2008 at 2:24 pm

  4. I’ve fired off more than my fair share of harpoons over the years at people in organisations who I’ve accused of being only in it for the glory. In my more honest moments though, despite having some grounds to suspect some on behavioural grounds, I think the only in it for ‘political power and popularity’ activist is probably pretty rare.

    I think that Greenpeace and Sea Sheperd just have different approaches. I think both are valid ones. Sea Shepherds direct hands on, right in the whalers face, approach is saving the whales right now. Greenpeace though may be better placed to win the Japanese public.

    What is really going to stop whaling in the end is the Japanese public getting mad and telling their business men that there is nothing truly Japanese about them ingesting whale (also rich in heavy metals, I’ve heard – hee hee!) over high priced lunches. Greenpeace is probably the best bet to educate the Japanese public about the value of the natural world and get them on side – The Japanese public might well regard Watson as having declared war on Japan – Greenpeace has other campaigns going and a softer profile.

    That said, I don’t for a moment approve of the gathering of large amounts of money for fat salaries and little activism. Other organisations can be accused of the same thing. A little bit of money goes a lot further in a real grassroots group than a donation to a bigger one.

    Anyway from this video Greenpeace is down another ship and a grey whale. Loved it!

    Jude

    February 11, 2008 at 7:04 pm

  5. True, especially re grassroots and head on-nism (headonism?). Interesting to see the doco on ABC tonight, interviewing the Sea Shepherd volunteer from Australia who was held aboard the Yushin Maru. He did say that 30 years without causing an injury or death means that Sea Shepherd’s time is up and that they’re due for one, and that he wants to see better training available for the volunteers and better maintenance of equipment.
    But I’ll bet Sea Shepherd won’t be putting out a disclaimer tomorrow, saying that his views are wrong, or something like that. Greenpeace – as far as whales go – are like one of those big car companies that work out whether it would be cheaper to do mass repairs on a defect or face the probable lawsuits when their fuel lines explode and seat belts fail.
    It’s fine for them to say “we want to stop whaling by talking about it”, but they were actively slagging off Sea Shepherd while their crew were in danger, they suck up moneys which they just use for more marketing, glossy brochures, and environmentally unfriendly bulk mailouts. They, in effect, use money given to them to stop whaling to attack people who are stopping whaling.
    And that’s bullshit. Until they sort it out, they should be wearing a big target.
    Mainstream media almost never examine Greenpeace. They’re treated like the greenie’s brand of choice, but many environmentalists doing direct action can’t stand them. That side of the story and the reasons why it’s the case are rarely given voice. Like governments who may be criticized but rarely held under the microscope by media, Greenpeace do contribute serious ad dollars to mainstream media.
    These media are well practised in not biting the hand that feeds them, as it were. This isn’t crackpot conspiracy theory, this is cold logic that has played out repeatedly over the years.

    typingisnotactivism

    February 11, 2008 at 8:46 pm

  6. Okay I’ll change my position somewhat – I’m not a Greenpeace member either so I’m not here as an apologist for them. If Greenpeace are actively gunning for Sea Shepherd, they deserve a blast. I got the impression that they were largely being ‘unhelpful’ with Sea Shepherd, by not relaying the position of the whalers etc. rather than being actively and openly negative.

    I can sort of understand though Greenpeace’s wanting to distance themselves from Sea Shepherd. If there is an accident and a Japanese whaler gets injured or killed, a campaign in Japan would become so much harder.

    A bit of a poke with a hot stick is sometimes good for an organisation. The RSPCA got a bit of negative publicity a few years back for concentrating on the ‘fluffy’ side of things – pets which are a feel good money spinner while ignoring the plight of farm animals. Their President was on the radio yesterday speaking out against live sheep exports so they may have pulled up their socks.That said, it’s been a much smaller organisation I believe who went to the Middle East and brought the footage back of the cruelty that was happening. Waton’s article might Greenpeace on notice.

    I don’t have a problem with activists in organisations such as Greenpeace getting paid ‘reasonable’ salaries. Means they can concentrate on their jobs rather than having to wonder where the next meal is coming from. Don’t like the constant money chase though. I signed up for an email update looking for information – and got the bite put on me. I’ve also been sent lots of unsolicited mail and had phone calls over the years. I think it must be hard on the people who come to work for Greenpeace with ideals to be turned into money hounds. Plus it wears the people out who are constantly approached for money.

    I did go to a Greenpeace organised camp last year though and offered to put in a donation to help pay for the portaloos etc. and got a knock back. Presence only required which was nice for a change. For all their faults though, they do tap into people who otherwise might not have any involvement. They might also act as a stepping stone for newbies to get more heavily involved.

    Jude

    February 12, 2008 at 7:52 am

  7. I was shocked to the core, about the extent of the negative side of Greenpeace. But I do not take the word of one organisation as fact without researching for myself. Sadly I have found the dark side of Greenpeace and can no longer support them financially. They do have a important role in the media and public opinion of the Japanese. But they do not need my $$$ to help them.
    What I do abhor is the fact that ‘dirty’ politics causing Greenpeace not to openly provide The Sea Shepherd with whaling ships positions, and by Greenpeace not returning to the southern ocean this year, has already and will in future cause the horrendous death of whales, and I will personnally hold Greenpeace responsible for their deaths. Regards to all Paikea

    paikea

    February 12, 2008 at 11:44 am

  8. I sailed with Paul Watson. He’s a liar and a thief. I used to think Greenpeace were wrong not to work with him, but having seen what he’s like up close, I completely understand. I got the Greenpeace treatment myself, and had my own reputation trashed. He called me a mutineer, questioned my motives, said I was a coward, and then even that I was a “Greenpeace Spy” because I disagreed with him operating a ship unsafely at sea.

    He’s a paranoid delusional, and you can’t trust a word he says.

    James

    February 14, 2008 at 5:14 pm

  9. Hi James (Tenet?), it would be really interesting to read more detail about your experience (where, when, why, how, what, etc.). Please e me with your story and I’ll put it up on the blog. Would be interesting to discuss. I’m envious of the fact that you’ve had what may have been a lengthy firsthand at-sea experience with Sea Shepherd, and would really like to know more about it than how it left you feeling about Paul Watson.

    typingisnotactivism

    February 14, 2008 at 11:13 pm

  10. WTF – Greenpeace isn’t the problem – Japanese whaling is the problem! This guy sounds like he is a bitter ex-employee just angry that Greenpeace won’t do things HIS way.

    Besides, how can anyone damn an entire organization on one issue that isn’t really an environmental priority anyway. Looking through a couple of Greenpeace websites shows that they are doing tons of stuff on Global Warming and Forest Destruction and Pollution. I also see them on the BBC often, so you don’t get on TV if you aren’t doing anything.

    I wouldn’t work with this guy either, he’s obviously aggressive and from the way he writes, or more correctly rambles, seems to me like he could freak out and hurt somebody at any time (and yes, I am a psychologist).

    Barak Goodman

    February 15, 2008 at 12:12 am

  11. I think that Paul Watson is SO egocentric that he doesn’t accept anything that comes from other people. He talks like that about Greenpeace because he was fired from GP because of his violent attitude. And this “open letters” about Greenpeace that he writes every once in a while are just to get some hits in his website and some donations for Sea Shepard. So for me, he is a double liar, talks sh…about GP but uses them to get money and media attention. And his violent activism does more harm than good to the whales. Japan has more reasons and support for whaling every time he does one of his violent acts.

    marc

    February 15, 2008 at 1:10 am

  12. Wow Barak, that’s pretty funny, your email being ‘greenaware’ but your not registering that Watson was actually a co-founder (as opposed to ’employee’) of Greenpeace. And Marc, Watson’s ‘violent act’ was to take a club from a Canadian who was killing baby fur seals – hardly ‘violent’. I’m guessing you eat meat. Think about the actual violence attached to every piece of chicken, beef, or fish you chew.

    My guess is that the last few commenters have arrived here via a Greenpeace mailout. So welcome to the rest of you who are yet to get here. It would be nice if you actually read and consider the article and maybe even respond to its content rather than your own preconceptions. Peas!

    typingisnotactivism

    February 15, 2008 at 2:03 am

  13. Paul Watson isn’t a founder of Greenpeace, and wasn’t even on the first voyage:

    http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/history/founders

    Gary

    February 15, 2008 at 2:30 am

  14. Yep, because the internet has always proven to be a reliable source of primary documentation hasn’t it?

    You can check out the full interview here, or get upset by just this one q&a here:

    Q. I imagine that at least as much meaning goes into the naming of a ship as most people put into naming their child – what did naming the Robert Hunter mean for you?

    Paul Watson: “Well Robert Hunter and I were co-founders of the Greenpeace Foundation. Bob died two years ago and I said at that time at his memorial that I would name a ship after him. Our other ship, the Farley Mowat, is named after our international chairman, Farley Mowat, who’s still very much alive. But I do believe in honouring people who have made a contribution to protecting our planet in that way. Farley said it was the greatest honour he’d ever received – moreso than getting the Order of Canada. We’ve had the vessel the Cleveland Amory and also the Edward Abbey, so these are ways of really acknowledging the service that these people have done for the planet.”

    typingisnotactivism

    February 15, 2008 at 2:38 am

  15. typingisnotactivism, I read the article. I just say what I think. Ramming ships and stupid things like that only gets more people in Japan supporting whaling (but of course, he feels like a HERO, and that is what he really wants).

    and about your next comment, seems he has strong principles when he changed the name of the “Bob Hunter” just a year after saying those nice words, because “Steve Irwin” could bring in more money for him…
    He is just an Egomaniac that harms whales with his stupid acts that do no good other than to himself.

    And I didn’t get here from a Greenpeace mailout as you say, but from a Google search about “whales and greenpeace”…so you see, even your blog benefits from those Greenpeace guys…you should say “thank you” to them…

    marc

    February 15, 2008 at 7:06 am

  16. Paul Watson seems to think that the only way to save whales is to go to the Antarctic. Meanwhile Greenpeace is working in Japan to stop whaling. The only way to stop the Japanese Government from whaling is if the Japanese public kicks up a stink.

    This year there have been a number of critical articles in the Japanese press about whaling, and about how much money the Govt is subsidising the whaling industry there. This is the sort of thing that will really help stop whaling. And this is what Greenpeace has achieved.

    Pubs and supermarkets are joining Greenpeace’s campaign to stop selling whale meat. Celebrities are joining the campaign. This is what Greenpeace should be spending its money on – convincing the Japanese to stop. Other organisations, like the EIA, have also done some great work in Japan.

    Greenpeace also appears to be working on whales in a lot of other ways – in the IWC, by targetting companies like Canon which are influential in Japan, and a number of other clever and inventive campaign tactics which are utterly beyond the thuggish thinking of Watson, who just wants to ram boats and thinks that this will work to stop whaling.

    Paul Watson’s tactics are crude and self-centred. He says he wants Greenpeace to cooperate yet he continually slags off the organisation. Why would Greenpeace trust a guy who trashes the organisation for his own publicity? The editorial on this website is a classic example.

    His way of getting media attention is to create a fight between him and Greenpeace. That simply diverts attention from the whaling issue – the media love a good ding dong between environmental organisations and Watson is using that to keep his name in the media. It certainly doesn’t help save the whales.

    And good point Marc – why did he suddenly drop the name of his good friend Bob Hunter in favour of Steve Irwin? …because he’d get a whole lot of money.

    pats

    February 15, 2008 at 8:22 am

  17. marc, while that’s cute misuse of logic, just consider how ridiculous that last comment is. If, for example, I wrote an article about repression of free speech using the example of Islamic extremists and death threats against Danish cartoonists, as well as the American administration’s direction of health dollars into religion-based abstinence and anti-abortion programs, and received a bunch of traffic because of people searching for those terms, by your logic I would somehow owe gratitude to Islamofascists and Georger Bush and the right wing branch of the self-described Christian church. Which is bullshit. Cute, but bullshit.
    I don’t know how you come to the conclusion that he harms whales. Greenpeace used a video of an activist eating whale and enjoying it as a marketing tool, mainly directed at Japan, last year. By implication, that’s one dead whale. Watson and his crews do the exact opposite ofharming whales. Bob Hunter would have likely been happy for Sea Shepherd to do whatever they can. If it’s a publicity war, changing the name of the one ship that they could afford to send in order to generate greater, more positive media coverage really seems like intelligent strategy for an organisation with limited resources and the need to act creatively. Steve Irwin’s widow supports them, so who are you to call foul?
    If your argument is any example of your priorities, then my suggestion would be that you take a few deep breaths and give some things a good rethink.

    Pats, read back through the comments and you’ll see your concerns have been mostly addressed. There is two-way critical traffic, but GP has a much bigger media voice and more consistently sympathetic profile at least in part because of their massive ad spend. Your echo of the claim that Watson is all about GP-bashing for the sake of ego or coverage and your bizarre assertion that somehow he started it and is the only one who keeps it going is bizarre and unsupported.

    Seems some people just have a problem with anybody questioning the ethics and practices of what is likely their favourite and only NGO. My guess is that some of you reactionaries would get explosive diaorrhaea if anybody were to suggest that Earth Hour is a token piece of shit that does far more to highlight how fucked up environmentalism has become, as opposed to being some fantastic milestone in the elevation of global eco-awareness.

    typingisnotactivism

    February 15, 2008 at 10:41 am

  18. Hey typingisnotactivism!
    you are starting to talk like paul watson himself…are you sure you are not ??

    It’s the way he works, when somebody doesn’t agree with him, he makes them his enemy. And you are doing the same.

    I just wanted to give my opinion about this article and about what I think is doing good or bad to whales. Not about you or watson.

    Keep cool man, and open your mind, because you are either watson himself, or you have been hypnotised by him.

    cheers,

    marc

    February 16, 2008 at 12:16 am

  19. t-i-n-o

    i don’t consider greenpeace “my only” NGO – as I said on my earlier post, the EIA (Environmental Investigation Agency) has been doing some great work in Japan.

    There is no “one way” to save the whales – unfortunately that seems to be how Paul Watson sees it, which is a shame. He has a huge amount of energy – concentrating it on stopping whaling rather than slagging off other organisations would be a much better use of his time.

    Echo what Marc says – the editorial written by Watson does absolutely nothing to help the whales.

    I also note that most of the Greenpeace staff quotes he uses are more than 15 years old. And the accusations are getting wilder – saying that Greenpeace doesn’t oppose polar bear hunting is pretty weird when the organisation is suing the US Govt to get the bears listed as endangered species because of the threats from global warming.

    pats

    February 16, 2008 at 10:58 am

  20. marc, i guess that’s another way of saying you have no fact-based response? Usually a good conclusion when people start playing 5c-psychologist.

    pats, i would disagree. GP didn’t send the Esperanza back into the Antarctic for a second mission this year. And that’s a strange choice to make, don’t you think? For an organization that receives tens of millions of dollrs from people largely identifying their donation with images of rubber duckies protecting whales, it would not be a massive per centage outlay if they were to have refuelled, gone back out for another 4-6 weeks and saved more whales. So if some people think about this and redirect their dollars closer to the grassroots level where less is spent on marketing and more on direct initiatives, then that’s a productive outcome.
    I would agree with you that there is a spectrum of possible actions needed for whale-saving, or any environmental outcome for that matter. I’m not sure what country you’re in, but last year in Australia the media coverage of Sea Shepherd was at least 50% distortion, with extreme claims coming from the right-wing government. To hear their platitudes echoed, rather than left alone and unsupported, by GP was pretty disgusting and unnecesary.
    For example, Humane Society International (HSI) has been heavily active in the courts here for the last few years to advance the legal case against whaling. Their position, politically, is moderately conservative. Perhaps this is where they actually sit, perhaps they were playing safe with the government of the day. Either way, i don’t know. What i do know is that even though they frequently put out press releases supportive of government initiatives, they never offered a word of support for the government’s rabid criticisms and accusations against Sea Shepherd. Just by way of contrast.

    I think it’s quite amazing how reactionary and defensive some people become if anybody dares question the business model of the globally peak-branded environmental NGO.

    typingisnotactivism

    February 16, 2008 at 12:58 pm

  21. Why hasn’t Watson gone back to the Antarctic either? I don’t know why Greenpeace hasn’t – I’m not saying they shouldn’t go back and save more whales. I know they didn’t have a chopper this year which makes it very difficult to find the fleet.

    Greenpeace has other areas of the campaign to spend its money on, not just going to the Antarctic – but Watson has only one tactic. You’d think that he’d try to get back to the Antarctic himself this year, but no doubt he’s working on what dead man to name his boat after next year.

    Watson has created his own monster by trashing Greenpeace for the last decade or more. Why on earth should Greenpeace come out and support him? They probably have bigger fish to fry – eg doing more successful work to get the Japanese media and public to understand and oppose their government’s whaling programme.

    Watson’s editorial that you posted here is a repetition of what he’s been saying for years – would you publically defend someone who regularly slags you off? Greenpeace doesn’t say much about Watson – I can find very few quotes from Greenpeace about him – compare that with the miles of column inches where Watson has trashed Greenpeace.

    He trades off the Greenpeace name, just like that tosser Patrick Moore (amazing that Watson, who calls himself an environmentalist, would stoop so low as to actually quote and take seriously someone who is paid by the nuclear and logging industries).

    He should stand on his own integrity, not take cheap shots at another organisation so as to get his name in the media.

    pats

    February 16, 2008 at 4:51 pm

  22. it is so boring to hear the same personal prejudice expressed four different ways without any acknowledgment that yes perhaps it is a personal prejudice and some heads should be extracted from asses.

    As far as I know, the Steve Irwin headed back to Antarctica on Valentine’s Day. Patrick m=Moore is a fucking douchebag, agreed. But James Lovelock is also a paid nuclear lobbyist with historical ties to British intelligence, yet Greenpeace still flies him up the friends-of-GP pole, so what’s the fucking point?

    Watson stands on his own integrity. I’m not sure if you’re a priggish fifteen-year old whose defence is naivety or a 25+-year-old whose excuse is arrogance.

    typingisnotactivism

    February 16, 2008 at 9:24 pm

  23. no need to resort to abuse. I’m not sure where Greenpeace lists Lovelock as a “friend” – can you show me that reference?

    pats

    February 18, 2008 at 7:33 am

  24. Hi typingisnotactivism,

    What an interesting discussion you’ve got going here…

    I have to say I agree with pats and marc comments – sending activist ships to the Southern Ocean may stop the whaling for a few days or weeks but I believe the key to finally stopping Japan from whaling has to be through public pressure in Japan becoming so large that the government can not ignore it.

    By even putting Paul Watson’s comments about Greenpeace on your blog you are diverting away from the real issue that I care about – ending whaling.

    Surely this is the goal of Greenpeace, Sea Shepherd and everyone on this blog 🙂

    Perhaps you should put your own personal prejudices aside and stop wasting your time criticising Greenpeace.

    They are doing great work campaigning to stop whaling as well as on other environmental issues such as GE, forests, oceans and energy – don’t forget…no climate = no more whales!!

    Greenpeace are also one of the few organisation that I know of that do not accept funding from government or corporations (unlike Sea Shepherd…) so all their money is from donations by individuals who realise the importance of their work. The comments in the Paul Watson article about Greenpeace making money from whaling were particularly surprising – as far as I know all the money raised by Greenpeace is used for its campaigns and it doesn’t make any profit.

    Anyway back to the real issue we should be discussing…

    Did you know that this week the International Whaling Commission are having a meeting in London? Japan has been giving aid to developing countries in exchange for them voting in support of whaling at the IWC. They have also been taking advantage of their legitimate food security issues by claiming that whales are responsible for the loss of fish stocks in African and Pacific waters. This is complete nonsense as the whales being hunted in the Southern Ocean are all baleen whales that live off tiny krill. I can’t believe they are getting away with this! I think campaigning at the IWC is really important as they have the power to stop whaling. Hopefully, in the future there will be no need for any organisations to go to Southern Ocean to save the whales.

    Charlie

    March 5, 2008 at 1:26 pm

  25. i just read the heading…and i have to say that whoever the fu<k wrote this article is a fu<k1n !)ickhead……….i mean greenpeace is trying to change this world and help change the environment and this fu<k1n g@y <unt comes up from somewhere and starts saying $h1t bout greenpeace…..

    ED sez: wow Bill, you just read the heading? that took you what? 48 seconds? you are the light of wisdom that illuminates the bone fridge. Like Greenpeace, I too long for a world where more people consider homosexuality and vaginas contemptible. You need to move to a nicer trailer park Bill.

    bill

    March 6, 2008 at 7:47 pm

  26. You guys are just mad because Greenpeace is actually making a difference, unlike you. They use money safely, they don’t abuse it. The reason they’re trying to stop the whaling industry is because too many of these beautiful sea creatures are being killed just so some idiots can strip the fat off their bodies and sell it for profit. It’s disgusting, how people attack the environment to make money for themselves. I don’t know about you, but I support Greenpeace in their decisions. They’d rather get up and do something than lazilly sit around. So go ahead, insult me, throw whatever senseless slur you want at me, but DO NOT insult Greenpeace, beacuse unlike you, they’re fighting to change the planet.

    Oh, and Ed, don’t get all pissy at Bill ’cause he disagrees. That’s just immature.

    Plastreaka

    June 6, 2008 at 10:06 am

  27. woooooo, hardcore. Nice one – you, point, missed. Would people pro-environment and anti-Greenpeace be so ‘pissy’ if Greenpeace were actually doing so much? Nope.
    how about ‘it’s disgusting how people claiming to act for the environment make money for themselves.’? Not a bit, or a lot, but a shitload disproportionate to the amount that they actually spend on doing what they claim to?

    typingisnotactivism

    June 6, 2008 at 4:49 pm

  28. I have a big time intersted in birds but i want absolulty nothing to do with GREENPEACE their all liars and hypotcrits i mean their consitered public enemy #1 in ALASKA and they were fined $7000 a few years ago for dmaging a coral reef off the philapiens when their ship RAINBOW WARRIOR II struck it and another one of their ships ARCTIC SUNRISE was finned for leaking fuel oil into a alaska river plus they have pulled off stupid stunts in their radical attempt to bring attention to this global warming hoax and when my brother lived in MOUNTIAN VIEW CALIFORNIA they were always comming around bumming for money to hold one of their usial anticorprate america protests GREENPEACE is a wate of time and money i mean home much money is used to fuel and maintain their ships and other things they have and how much is realy used to help the wahles and birds?

    Mad Bluebird

    October 19, 2008 at 11:29 am

  29. Global warming ‘hoax’? Is that ‘mad’ as in ‘angry’, mad as in ‘i am building an army out of dandruff and earwax’ or ‘mad’ as in ‘all of the above’?

    typingisnotactivism

    October 25, 2008 at 9:04 pm

  30. Greenpeace has been ripping off gulible persons foolish enough to belive their poppycock they are still lying today and despite those goofy sails on their ships they still use fuel to keep it going not to mention the gasoline for their zodiacs and what else these idiots can do to show how absolutly stupid they are only a idiot would haveanything to do with greenpeace

    Mad Bluebird

    November 10, 2008 at 5:25 am

  31. Greenpeace’s “climate change” adverts on TV are ramping up as the move by globalists to promote their biggest hoax ever clicks into full gear – the global carbon tax that will very negatively affect EVERY SINGLE slave inhabitant on the planet!

    The quote at the start of this article is VERY relevant indeed! All popular religions are built on exactly the same premise and the “greening” of the planet will be the biggest, most oppressive & controlling religion EVER if people don’t wake up & see it for what it REALLY is ASAP!

    I’m all for environmental responsibility and that like all good things starts as individual thought & action but NOT for this corporate-driven bullsh*t global religion that “operations” like Greenpeace are helping to usher in.

    The key here is “WAKE UP”! Look through all the smoke and realise the REAL agenda here – it is MUCH LARGER than any blue whale or huge tract of rainforest!!!

    Beware False Prophets

    January 4, 2009 at 9:26 am

  32. speaking of people selling bullshit, welcome BFP. pretty sure you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about but real glad you stopped by. now keep on going.

    typingisnotactivism

    January 8, 2009 at 2:12 am

  33. Greenpeace are a bunch of lying lowlife reptiles and no good sidewinging owlhoots and horny toadies and how any lower can you get then this

    Mad Bluebird

    February 16, 2009 at 3:24 pm

  34. Its all in the name. Sea Shepard has ‘SUNK 9 WHALING SHIPS’ which does not bode well for a non-profit organization with peace as an essential part of their name and philosophy. Sea Shepard needs to stick to their radical campaign and leave those who seek peace alone.

    Green Peace

    April 20, 2009 at 3:21 am

  35. PAUL WATSON SUCKS AND SO DOSE HIS SEA SHEPARDS FREAK BUNCH

    Mad Bluebird

    July 13, 2009 at 1:44 am

  36. Paul Watson is no heros of the planet he is a crinimal and pirate and should be treated as one and taht includes giving him 50 years in prison for his crimes

    Mad Bluebird

    September 20, 2009 at 2:42 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: