Greenpeace celebrates all the corporate overlords they've upset over their 40 years

Discuss

48 Responses to “Greenpeace celebrates all the corporate overlords they've upset over their 40 years”

  1. This is really cute, cute enough to erode some of the cynisism i hold towards the orginisation.

  2. nom_de_guerre says:

    These people would most likely be the companies’ PR agents, since share-holders and CEOs would probably go “meh, dumb hippies”.

  3. Abe Lincoln says:

    ‘Brian from Greenpeace sez, “Greenpeace is 40 years old today…”‘ and is just as inconsequential now as we were then.

  4. Vengefultacos says:

    It is kinda telling that Greenpeace, in their inner mind’s eye, look back and think of all the stuffed suits they have pissed off, rather than the actual good for the environment they’ve managed to do. Personally, I’d be more for an organization that looked back and thought of toxic dumps that are now green fields, endangered species that are now flourishing, and children who aren’t dying of leukemia and other diseases. I guess  that’s hard to do when you’re more of a media stunt organization rather than an actual conservation organization.

  5. ocker3 says:

    Greenpeace burned down a GMO crop that the Australian science agency the CSIRO was using to conduct experiments on, to further understand how they work and how/whether they can be used safely. I told them I’d never donate again because of that foolish stunt. We’ve spent Years calling for more scientific testing into GMO crops, and when hard science starts getting done, Greenpeace destroys it because of the CSIRO’s “corporate connections”. Fuck you Greenpeace, I trust the CSIRO way more than I trust you. If the radical green left prevents those in the middle from getting good scientific answers and relies just as much on reactionary dogma as the radical conservative right, where are people who try to hold nuanced positions supposed to stand??

    • Greenpeace isn’t anti-science, but we do oppose experiments that put at risk things as fundamental as our food and the environment we depend on for life.  And while I appreciate that you may trust CSIRO more than us, we’re deeply cynical when science is conducted by bodies with ties to the commercial interests that stand to benefit from a positive result. For more about this particular action, info here:http://bit.ly/ro2W4f

      • Ambiguity says:

        …we’re deeply cynical when science is conducted by bodies with ties to the commercial interests that stand to benefit from a positive result.

        And a lot of people (myself included) are deeply cynical about organizations that destroy other people’s property in an orgy of ends-justify-mean-ism.And if you are in fact cynical about organizations sponsoring research that could benefit it, how is it that you rationalize Exeter Laboratory, where Greenpeace conducts research in support of it’s agenda?http://www.greenpeace.to/green…It’s not as if Greenpeace is more “objective.”Goose, gander, etc.

  6. helleman says:

    Change is the goal.   Different methods will be tested..

  7. SamSam says:

    I think it’s a cute ad. And thanks for the update, Brian.

  8. blissfulight says:

    I don’t really like Greenpeace, but I like what they do.  

  9. Any minimum sympathy I had with Greenpeace went out the window when they decided that they were actively against fusion power - http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/ITERprojectFrance/ . That press release is one of the most scientifically inaccurate, fear mongering little things I’ve ever seen.  

    • unit_1421 says:

      The ITER project isn’t pursuing a clean fusion process like Hydrogen-Boron, so one can argue it is a wasted step. Old Energy wants to suppress fusion progress, since free, clean and unlimited energy would put them out of business…

      • WhyBother says:

         “Old Energy wants to suppress fusion progress, since free, clean and unlimited energy would put them out of business…”

        Energy production is relatively easy. Energy distribution is hard. Every single aspect of building and operating _any_ plant favors large, experienced companies: from building capital to R&D, to navigating regulations, to getting the power to customers, to cleaning up their mess as required too meet law and public opinion. “Free, clean energy,” would only lower their bottom line, while allowing them to charge pretty much what they’ve always charged, all without too much risk of disruptive new competitors entering the market. Fusion makes their job easier. So in what world would those people conspire to shoot themselves in the foot?

    • scottbp says:

      Wow, that press release was just messed up. Very much lets put a band aid on the problem and not worry about the long term.
      While I wouldn’t want to be in a world without greenpeace, I have never liked them. They have always seemed way too negative to me, and to fascist. 
      But then I am a fan of technology and the CSIRO example is another sign to me that greenpeace is one step away from throwing their shoes into the looms.

  10. I find Greenpeace to be an irritating publicity seeking waste of space. Its brand Eco with no brains or useful purpose. All they do is mount highly publicized stunts attacking things with direct action. If they have any solutions to fix the things they are attacking I have never heard of any of them. Greenpeace are part of the problem, not the solution. Morons.

    • Jeremy, you’re not alone in thinking that Greenpeace is all protest and no solutions, and we struggle to correct this misperception all the time. The conflict always gets more media than the solutions! But we have worked together with McDonalds to stop deforestation of the Amazon from soy production, we launched a climate friendly refrigeration technology that’s now the standard in Europe and gaining traction in the rest of the world, and we do as much pro-renewable energy work as we do opposition to fossil fuels. More here: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/green-solutions/

  11. Seto says:

    The comments under the linked video are so extremely naive and clueless it’s sad. These are the people that cheer for stupid acts like the CSIRO incident.
    I think that’s why this video had to be about Greenpeace upsetting businessmen rather than their good deeds – too much controversy surrounding their actions. It’s often arguable whether they are doing any good at all..

  12. Dan Stuart says:

    So… basically Greenpeace’s new ad campaign is based around saying “Don’t worry, you’re not alone, almost everyone who contributes to society hates us?”

    It’s hard to support an organization that takes so much pride in being a bunch of douchebags.

    Also, pay attention to the fact that everyone involved with Greenpeace is incapable of speaking in any language but Press Release.

    • unit_1421 says:

      They aren’t douchebags, they’re dicks, and dicks fuck assholes. Without enough dicks to fuck the assholes of this world, you’d end up in a world covered in shit. Conservation, FUCK YEAH!

  13. tp1024 says:

    Of course they won’t celebrate all the improvements those exact same corporations have made over those last 40 years, that have resulted in a marked decline of rivers catching fire, in the recovery of previously perfectly dead rivers, the reduction of emissions or any of the innumerable things that made it possible for westerners to complain that China has such a bad environmental track record …

    Because Europe, the USA or Japan looked like that 40 years ago – and if those corporations were as bad as Greenpeace keeps portraying them for the benefit of their overinflated ego, there would still be no noticeable distinction between those countries and China.

    So … what have the romans ever done for us?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ

    • corydodt says:

      It’s telling here that you compare the countries those organizations are in to China, because

      1) The same organizations are in China,
      2) Their operations in that country aren’t quite as eco-friendly as they are here, on account of
      3) It’s our government, not the corporations, making sure that companies do not act in a way that causes rivers to catch fire.

      Greenpeace’s role in all this is debatable, but giving credit to the corporations, for finally being forced to act responsibly? That’s ridiculous.

      • tp1024 says:

        All you achieve by shaming corporations for what they do wrong, is that they fear that those things are being exposed. They will hide them. They will never admit to anything they ever did wrong. They will never, of their own accord, change anything in the way they do even if it could trivially improve their environmental impact – why? Have you ever asked yourself why?

        Because improving something not only doesn’t get them any benefit. No. When you start to do something right, this is ALWAYS an implicit admission that you did things wrong before. And since Greenpeace isn’t in the business of pointing out where things are done right, all they will do is seize the opportunity to point out what they have done wrong in the past.

        Had the corporation instead done nothing at all. Hidden their mistake and given no indication that they could do things better – Greenpeace would not have had the opportunity in the first place.

        When there is no possible benefit in doing things better and only punishment for having done mistakes in the past, all improvements will not come out of conviction that things can be done better, but only as a result of punishment.

        Aren’t there enough oppressive dictatorships littering the history books to teach us the lesson that fear is opposite of motivation?

        Obviously not.

    • Navin_Johnson says:

      The improvements those corporations were forced to make, partly by being exposed by groups like Greenpeace. Or maybe I’m mistaken, I didn’t realize polluters were big backers of clean air and water regulations.

  14. wizardru says:

    My impression is that Greenpeace is one of those organizations that manages to piss off a lot of people but not actually DO all that much, other than commit a bunch of stunts in third world nations.  They have a high-profile and like PETA have a lot of marketing money, but in terms of actually accomplishing stuff, I have no idea.  A lot of that stuff on that link show things that were clearly stuff that was in the margins.  Especially when they have a track record of doing really stupid or ignorant stuff.

    Honestly this video seems more like Greenpeace’s fantasy of what they’d like to imagine happens, not what actually happens.

  15. Michael Franklin says:

    For the longest time, Greenpeace was the zodiac running the gauntlet between the whales and the whalers. There was no internet, no websites or comment threads. Our thoughts were our own as we gradually became more and more aware that these guys were doing more than talking a good fight against some very serious, if not dangerous people.

    Of course, those that Greenpeace was at war with weren’t going to roll over, either. There was a (predictable) PR counteroffensive that often painted the situation in a completely different light… not at all unlike politics and the left-right and red-blue wars we all know and love.

    The result of that – and the information overload that is by definition, the internet – does tend to make us cynical and bitter towards all. And for those angry guys & gals in the video? That is called a win because they really don’t depend upon your opinion for a thing. In fact, the corporate really doesn’t give a flying rats ass what you think of them… so long as you hate the other guy too.

  16. Kimmo says:

    On one hand, publishing stuff hanging shit on fusion experiments they haven’t even bothered to proofread, or getting stuck into our justly revered CSIRO is pretty damn lame and sadly typical, but on the other…

    An utter lack of any sort of facilitation of collective responsibility beyond the merest lipservice must be answered with strong measures. It’s a question of long-term survival, let alone the disinclination to drown in our own shit in the meantime. To those who say we should just ask nicely, I say the proper channels were laid by vested interests and lead to limbo.

    Isn’t it obvious by now that all authority is illegitimate? It only gets abused. Anarchy can be the only answer.

  17. Jason Kleinberg says:

    Apparently they didn’t want to remain anonymous too bad. They commented the following: 

    @grnd This video was made as a birthday present by director Peter Thwaites and production company Gorgeous/Les Telecreateurs. We didn’t pay for it.

  18. Camp Freddie says:

    Greenpeace should be more careful about their anti-corporate strategy. Don’t fight monsters lest you become one.
    Their anti-science emotional PR bullshit is as bad as anything Exxon or BP release.

  19. matt maber says:

    Meh. I think theyre over-egging their own pie somewhat. Greenpeace ; “green” who?

  20. ZikZak says:

    It’s funny, I associate the modern Greenpeace with exactly that kind of cellphone-talking suit, so the video was really confusing at first.
    Greenpeace has fully integrated themselves with the pollution industry they claim to oppose.  This kind of PR is vital in distinguishing their cynical corporate agenda from industry’s.

  21. ZikZak says:

    That said, in the past they have been a crucial part of a genuine fight against corporate domination of the planet and its ecosystems.  That fight is very much alive and needs all our active support.

    Jaded criticism of Greenpeace is fine, but we all know what needs to be done.  If Greenpeace won’t do it, why don’t you?

  22. Dara McHugh says:

    Greenpeace have done a lot of good in bringing attention to major environmental threats and problems, but they need to be a little more serious about the solutions. Opposing nuclear power may have seemed logical when reactors were WMD factories, but this isn’t necessarily the case now.

    Greenpeace should try and be a little less ideological and think seriously about thorium-based nuclear, Gen IV reactors, and other solutions that diverge from their founding mission, but are sources of real hope in our current smog of despair.

  23. Navin_Johnson says:

    The astroturfers and concern trolls are out in force.

    Bravo to Greenpeace, for a group that’s done nothing, they’ve sure brought out a legion of whiners and corporate shills to complain about them.

  24. dan donaldson says:

    So the agency that did this *wants* to work for companies that Greenpeace targets? And they want me to think that this represents them putting their beliefs into action?

    We have always been at war with Eastasia.

  25. Aloisius says:

    Wow, I thought I was the only one that disliked Greenpeace. There are so many productive environmental NGOs to support out there that seem to do real good. It is a shame that a lot of people, especially in Red America, equate environmentalism with far left radicalism because of Greenpeace’s antics.

    Personally I support the Sierra Club and Surfrider though they focus only on the US. In the past I’ve given to the WWF which does a lot of good.

  26. VerySincerely says:

    It’s interesting how Brian from Greenpeace frames the video. It sounds very much like this piece of marketing is a gift given by an ad agency they’ve worked with. 

    Right. Like the ad agency is just sitting around thinking: what are some ways that we could do some good anonymously at very high cost to ourselves and get nothing in return. Hey, Greenpeace’s 40th is coming up in a month, let’s donate an ad campaign! 

    I would be extremely surprised if this is the case. More likely, Greenpeace used all that cash they collect in the name of environmental activism and paid the ad agency quite a lot of that cash to exchange for this propaganda. 

  27. MB44 says:

    Whatever, I don’t really mind if they do something stupid once in a while. I hate the corporations that they fight more. We are a society that needs to cut the noose but we have a bunch of people that don’t believe in scissors. Until the masses grow some of the balls that greenpeace has, we will continue further and further down the road to complete corporate subjugation of our species. Think I am wrong? Talk to me in 30 years and we can add up the score.

  28. E T says:

    To add to the reading list before I decide about Greenpeace:Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist is
    Dr. Patrick Moore’s engaging firsthand account of his many years spent
    as the ultimate Greenpeace insider, a co-founder and leader in the
    organization’s top committee.
    Moore explains why, 15 years after co-founding it, he left Greenpeace
    to establish a more sensible, science-based approach to
    environmentalism.

    http://www.beattystreetpublishing.com/confessions/

  29. Brian Cain says:

    Here’s a list of clients from the agency that help create the commercial.

    http://www.ddb.fr/clients

    Brian from Greenpeace sez “we’re deeply cynical when science is conducted by bodies with ties to the commercial interest”

    But apparently not cynical at all when you get free gifts from agencies with deep ties to commercial interests.

    Here’s a list of clients from the agency that help create the commercial.
    http://www.ddb.fr/clients

    I believe the expression to be used here is “do as I say, not as I do”

    EDIT

    Brian from Greenpeace sez “The agency asked to remain anonymous, so as not to lose any clients that might think they’re represented here.”

    Bull, they are talking about it on their home page. http://www.lestelecreateurs.com/

  30. absimiliard says:

    That we both despise the same groups does not mean I like Greenpeace.  The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

    -abs doesn’t support terrorist organizations, and does consider Greenpeace to be one

  31. Teller says:

    Agree with Michael Franklin. Before Greenpeace, no environmental group made any noise. So thank them for that. The things they once did inspired a generation of young people to pay attention to the world. The people who went on to have the children commenting here today.

  32. billstewart says:

    I don’t see how that kind of negativity is intended to make Greenpeace seem like an organization I want to support.  It does give me something to tell the clipboard-waving Greenpeace membership recruiters around here, and I suppose cynicism is more popular among young people than naive hippie idealism these days, but it ain’t workin’ for me.

  33. You know what? In today’s economy, with today’s political situation? “We piss off rich people for a living” is good branding.

    • HUMUNGOUS says:

      Actually I was thinking the opposite. In today’s economy does it really endear you to the public to say, “We ruin businesses and put people out of work”?

      • max_robitzsch says:

        HUMUNGOUS – Oh, the old “there’s always a war on” comment? As long as it creates or retains jobs, it’s good?

        • HUMUNGOUS says:

          max_robitzsch – Uh, no.

          I didn’t say anything about war. As a matter of fact I’m a Greenpeace supporter.

          My point was (and still is) that as “advertising” it’s a fairly lousy PR to risk being perceived anti-business / pro-unemployment in this economy. 

          If I’m not mistaken Greenpeace still relies on volunteers, donations (including some pretty hefty corporate donations) and convincing people they are good and caring people who know what’s in the planet’s best interests. 

          Besides, nobody likes a winner who gloats over their victories by belittling the loser.

          But it is well-acted.

Leave a Reply