globalprosperityCONSUMERS ALLIANCE FOR

November 2010

www.consumerprosperity.com

2

Greenpeace proclaims a superior moral purpose for its goals. Ituses this to justify methods and tactics that are legally question-able, morally bankrupt and show a disrespect for property andthe rights of individuals. Greenpeace uses its self-proclaimed,high moral purpose to pressure businesses, organizations andgovernments to pursue courses of action which harm the underprivileged in rich and poor countries.

Greenpeace tactics more often than not reduce economicgrowth. Its core strategies rest on the presumption that eco-nomic growth per se harms the environment. In developingcountries, these tactics, if applied, would reduce standards ofliving and hinder, if not reverse, strategies to reduce poverty.

When businesses, organizations and government bodies donate to or ally with Greenpeace, they not only give credenceto its unethical and anti-humane strategies, but also endorseand legitimize them.

For example, earlier this year Greenpeace lobbied the U.K. Gov-ernment to block a World Bank loan to South Africa to finance a range of energy measures, including a new coal-fired powerplant and renewable power sources. Greenpeace argued thatthe “risk to the world’s climate from the [coal] plant’s emissionsoutweighs the benefits of the secure electricity it would supply.”1

This is despite the fact that in some provinces in South Africaas many as one-third of all households has no electricity supply.In 2008, electricity prices rose almost 30 percent.2

South Africa’s Government lashed out at the group followingthe lobbying action. South African Finance Minister PravinGordhan stated, “It is regrettable that [a] very small group ofNGOs … are putting their environmental concerns … abovethe economic needs of South Africa and our need to grow theeconomy so that all the people benefit.”3

Greenpeace has attempted to undermine the fight againstmalaria in Africa through its political objection to the use ofpesticides.

It has also lobbied European companies and governments toboycott or ban the import of African forest products.

Greenpeace’s blind purpose is to advance its narrow view ofhow to protect the environment. It pays little regard to the economic consequences of its damaging strategies. It contendsthat consumerism, economic growth and excessive populationsare core threats to the environment and that efforts to promotethese must be curtailed.

GREENPEACE—AN UNETHICAL AND VERY UN-CIVIL SOCIETY

1 Ben Webster, “Britain may block World Bank loan for coal plant in South Africa”, The Times Online (UK), April 6, 2010.

2 Polya Lesova, “South Africa raises electricity prices by 27.5%: In response to crippling power shortages, regulator allows price hikes”, Wall Street Journal MarketWatch, June 18, 2008.

3 Ben Webster, “Britain may block World Bank loan for coal plant in South Africa”, The Times Online (UK), April 6, 2010.

Greenpeace has attempted to un-dermine the fight against malariain Africa through its political objection to the use of pesticides.

It pays little regard to the economicconsequences of its damagingstrategies. It contends that con-sumerism, economic growth andexcessive populations are corethreats to the environment andthat efforts to promote thesemust be curtailed.

3GREENPEACE’S UNETHICAL APPROACH

Several years ago Greenpeace subscribed to a non-govern-mental organization (NGO) code of ethics. However, this hasnot inhibited it from using unethical methods to raise funds andrun its campaigns.

Greenpeace signed on to the NGO Accountability Charter onJune 6, 2008, which calls for the group to “take all possiblesteps to ensure that there are no links with organizations, orpersons involved in illegal or unethical practices.” Within fourweeks, Greenpeace had violated St. Kitts’ territorial waters, illegally offloaded passengers and defied law enforcement officialsby refusing to accompany them to police headquarters.4

MisrepresentationA charitable or political organization?Greenpeace portrays itself as a campaign organization and hasavowed its pursuit of political goals. Yet it represents itself as a charitable organization to attract tax free donations from supporters.

Greenpeace has had its charitable status revoked on a numberof occasions:5

• 2010: Greenpeace New Zealand lost its charitable statusafter being deemed a political organization whose membershave acted illegally, thereby making it uncharitable.6

• 1989: Greenpeace lost its Canadian charitable status amid concerns that it was not a true charity and was not providinga discernible benefit to the public.7

• 1995: Greenpeace’s second Canadian guise lost its charitablestatus after an audit revealed that the charity had failed todevote all its resources to charitable activities.8

An environmental or political mandate?In 2010, the Indonesian Government refused to allow the Rainbow Warrior, Greenpeace’s flagship, to dock at the mainport in Jakarta, the nation’s capital. The Indonesian Government

highlighted inconsistencies between the ships stated intentionand the visa applications of the Greenpeace activists onboard.Government officials noted that the activists stated they wereheading to one of the most politically sensitive and war-tornparts of Indonesia, which was clearly at odds with their environmental mandate. News reports referred to the Green-peace vessel as a ‘warship’.9

Creating disturbance and destroying private propertyGreenpeace boasts that it uses direct action to advance itsgoals. Direct action, a protest method of the hard left, involvesbreaking the law and causing disturbance in order to generatepublicity. This is often misleadingly described as “peaceful civildisobedience”.

Greenpeace regularly engages in the destruction of scientifically-controlled trials of experimental crops that could potentiallyprovide higher food yields and lower malnutrition levels in developing countries.10

Trespassing Greenpeace’s most commonly-committed crime is trespassing.11

A recurring tactic of theirs is to climb public monuments orenter private property without approval to hang posters andslogans. The following are some examples:

4 Nick Nichols, “Make Greenpeace live up to its own book of rules”, Townhall.com, June 28, 2006.

5 Roger Bate, “It’s Official: Greenpeace serves no Purpose”, IPA Review, December, 1999.

6 New Zealand Charities Commission, “Registration decision: Greenpeace of New Zealand Incorporated”, April 14, 2010.

7 Deroy Murdock, “The IRS may board the Rainbow Warrior”, National Review Online, October 07, 2003.

8 Ibid.

9 Agence France Presse, “Greenpeace says Rainbow Warrior Denied Entry to Indonesia”, The Jakarta Globe, October 14, 2010.

10 Michael McCarthy, “Lord Melchett and company back in the dock to deny GM crop damage”, The Independent (UK), September 5, 2000.

11 “Greenpeace four charged over ANZ stunt”, Brisbane Times, October 21, 2010.

• Twice in five years, Greenpeace has abseiled the Christ the Redeemer statute atop the Corcovado Mountain overlookingRio de Janeiro to hang banners and advertise Greenpeace campaigns from the statue’s outstretched arms.12

• In 2006, Greenpeace activists illegally climbed to the roof ofthe British Cabinet office to hang posters claiming illegaltimber from Papua New Guinea was being used on the site.13

• In 2010, Greenpeace activists boarded coal ships awaitingloading in Australia.14

PiracyIn 2008, Greenpeace engaged in piracy in the Gulf of Papua byseizing a ship and wrongly claiming it belonged to a particular company before stating that the timber on board was illegal.15

(Both claims were demonstrated to be incorrect within 24 hours,yet Greenpeace continued to repeat them publicly.)

Greenpeace has just boasted that this campaign helped pres-sure the European Union to adopt measures aimed at reducingimports of illegally logged timber.

Distortion of factsGreenpeace has a long record of distorting facts and makingwrong or misleading claims.

It campaigned against Royal Dutch Shell’s plans to sink theBrent Spar offshore oil storage facility in the North Sea, claimingvast quantities of oil would be dumped into the ocean. Onceplans were abandoned, Greenpeace admitted its assessmentof the amount of oil still stored in the Bren Spar’s tanks wasgreatly overestimated.16

Greenpeace also claims high rates of deforestation in SouthAmerica, Southeast Asia and the Pacific, which greatly exceed proper estimates. It regularly accuses forestry companies

around the world of widespread illegal logging; the publicrecord has shown this to not be the case.

Concoction of eventsGreenpeace has concocted events to make false allegationsagainst foreign companies. In countries as far apart as theDemocratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Papua NewGuinea (PNG), Greenpeace has falsely accused foreign companiesof abusing human rights, using armed force against employees and disregarding local laws. The company in DRC was German-owned and that in PNG was Malaysian.

Slander and pressureGreenpeace engages in public slander and defamation. It hasaccused leading European business figures of being “forestcriminals,” and published photographs of them because theirbusinesses were importing products that Greenpeace claimedcontained illegal timber.17 Business law prohibits this type ofcorporate pressure in many countries.

12 Ana Cecelia Brignol, “Greenpeace Activists unfulred a banner from the Christ statue in Rio de Janeiro”, Greenpeace.org, March 16, 2009 and; Marcio Pena, ”Greenpeace activists hung a banner across the arms of the Christ statue on Corcovado in Riode Janeiro to protest against the world leaders’ failure to secure the future of the planet”, Greenpeace.org, September 5, 2002.

13 “Victory! How ten years of activism helped protect the world’s forests”, Greenpeace.org, July 7, 2010.

14 Angela Macdonald Smith, “Greenpeace Paints Slogans on Queensland Coal Ships”, Bloomberg News, July 27, 2008.

15 Danielle Stewart, “Protecting Forests to Save the Climate”, Greenpeace Australia Pacific, September 7, 2008.

16 “World: Europe Brent Spar gets chop”, BBC News, November 25, 1998.

17 “Partners in Crime: The UK timber trade, Chinese sweatshops and Malaysian robber barons in Papua New Guinea’s rainforests”, Greenpeace.org, October 19, 2005.

4

5

Greenpeace considers itself one of the leaders of the globalcivil society movement, along with Oxfam, the Worldwide Fundfor Nature (WWF), Consumers International and the NorthernAlliance for Sustainability (ANPED). Several years ago they established the ECO/Equity coalition to advance commongoals at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Developmentconference in Johannesburg.18

The coalition claims to support economic growth in developingcountries, but only on the terms laid down by these Western-based, largely anti-growth, NGOs. Their premise is simple: improving the environment should take precedence over economic growth.

Greenpeace endangers human healthGreenpeace was highly influential in mobilising widespread opposition to the use of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)in fighting malaria in developing countries, despite evidencethat the presence of toxicity, in Greenpeace’s own words, was‘inconclusive’.19 This was widely criticised by anti-malaria andhealth organizations.20 Approximately 90 percent of the world’smalaria cases are in sub-Saharan Africa.21

Greenpeace opposes global consensus on sustainabledevelopmentThe question of environment versus growth was debated at theRio Earth Summit in 1992. Developing countries were adamantthat environmental strategies had to support economic growth,not retard it. There was consensus on this, and it was enshrinedin the global “Agenda 21” program. It was the United Nations’first global declaration on development and the environment.22

The declaration also specifically enjoined members of the UnitedNations to respect international rules that enabled members totrade freely.23

Greenpeace and other Western, environmental NGOs behavedas if the declaration did not exist from the very moment of itsadoption.

At the ten-year review of the Rio Summit, the JohannesburgWorld Conference on Sustainable Development, Greenpeaceand other NGOs campaigned for the primacy of environmentalprotection over economic development.24

Greenpeace and other environmental NGOs recently pushedWestern aid donors to agree in principle to $160 billion in annual climate change funding to developing countries. Thesymbolism of the financial commitment to this environmentalcause is important. It is significantly more than the $100 billion25

donated to annual global aid in recent years.

While developing countries continue to argue that the Rio con-sensus states neither development nor the environment shouldbe subordinate to the other, Greenpeace, other NGOs, andWestern donors have disregarded the agreement by biasingfunding pledges towards environmental goals.

Greenpeace policies hamper food productionGreenpeace in principle opposes “industrial agriculture”. Bythis it means any large scale monoculture. This is the basis ofmost global farm production. Greenpeace’s objection is thatmonoculture is the antithesis of biodiversity.

18 “Activity Report 1 June 2003 31 December 2003”, The Northern Alliance for Sustainability (ANPED), December 2003.

19 “New book urges reversal of DDT ban to fight malaria”, Reuters, April 12, 2010.

20 Richard Tren, “Letter to Dr Gerd Leipold Greenpeace International”, Africa Fighting Malaria, August 18, 2006.

21 Robert W. Snow, Judy A. Omumbo, “Disease and Mortality in Sub Saharan Africa”, National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), 2006.

22 “Agenda 21”, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA), Division for Sustainable Development, updated 2009.

23 “Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development”, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA), Division for Sustainable Development, August 12, 1992.

24 “The Lessons of History: Stalled on the Road from Rio to Johannsburg: A 2002 Foreword to ‘Beyond UNCED’ originally published in 1992”, Greenpeace.org, January 2002.

25 “2010 Annual Letter from Bill Gates: Rich Countries’ Aid Generosity”, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 2010.

...Greenpeace, other NGOs, andWestern donors have disregardedthe agreement by biasing fundingpledges towards environmentalgoals.

GREENPEACE—AN UN-CIVIL SOCIETY

6

It is conceded today that global food production must increaseto meet growing demand in developing countries. Greenpeace’sphilosophy is to cease conversion of land to large-scale agri-cultural production.

Greenpeace is also strongly opposed to the use of geneticallymodified organisms (GMOs) for food production, despite otherenvironmental groups pointing out that the only way to increaseoutput from agricultural production is by employing them. Byopposing GMO technology, Greenpeace policies would resultin increased food prices and the conversion of more land foragricultural production than is necessary.

Greenpeace distorts the meaning of sustainableforestryAt the Rio Summit, global “forest principles” were adopted,which echoed the key theme of the conference. The right ofdeveloping countries to use forestry for development was rec-ognized and affirmed. Sustainable forest management becamethe universal goal; a core principle held that protection of theenvironment and economic growth went hand in hand.26

Greenpeace never accepted that principle and has worked tirelessly to halt forestry in the tropical, developing countries ofSouth America, Africa, Asia and the Pacific.

It is of no account to Greenpeace that many of these economieshave committed to reserve more land for conservation than isreserved in most industrialized economies; or that virtually allhave reserved more than the 10 percent of their land for con-servation, a target set by the members of the U.N. Conventionon Biological Diversity (CBD).

Stopping global forestry is a key Greenpeace goal. The U.N. Forest and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and other globalforestry research agencies accept as fact that most deforestationis not caused by large, well-organized forest companies, but isinstead caused by poor people clearing forest land for fuelwood, low-value and near-subsistence agriculture and habitat.27

Greenpeace has called for the halting of palm oil developmentin Nigeria based on deforestation claims it has made againstthe industry in Southeast Asia. Yet palm oil plantations in

Nigeria are in the south of the country, and the majority ofNigeria’s deforestation is located primarily in the north of thecountry, due to a need for fuel wood and food.28

If conversion of forest land to more productive purposes stops(commercial forestry yields between $1,000 and $2,000 ahectare, whereas semi-subsistence agriculture yields less than$100 per hectare), economic growth will stall and the poorpopulation which is the driver of deforestation will increase.29

Greenpeace promotes semi-subsistence lifestylesand povertyGreenpeace supports erroneous claims that more than 1.5 billion people depend on the preservation of natural forests.30

It argues that forests should be preserved to continue to support these semi-subsistence lifestyles.

Greenpeace also promotes communal forestry. It mounted aproject with donor money in PNG to demonstrate the concept.The project failed, demonstrating that communal forestry iseconomically-unviable and does little to advance literacy, reduce child mortality and reduce poverty.31

26 “Agenda 21 for Change: Complete text of Forest Principles: Non Legally Binding Authoritative Statement of Principles for a Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development of all Types of Forests”, International Institutefor Sustainable Development.

27 Rhett Butler, “Deforestation Stats: Desforestation: Causes of tropical desforestation 2000 2005”, Mongabay.com.

28 Kayode Aboyeji, “Climate Change: Northern Nigeria tackles deforestation, others”, The Nigerian Compass, June 1, 2010.

29 Ian R. Noble, Rodolfo Dirzo, “Forests as Human Dominated Ecosystems”, Science 277, July 25, 1997.

30 “Biodiversity and Forests at a glance”, World Bank, 2002.

31 “Issues and opportunities for the forest sector in Papua New Guinea: [PNG] Forest Studies 3”, Overseas Development Institute, Forest Policy and Environment Programme, January 2007.

Greenpeace supports erroneousclaims that more than 1.5 billionpeople depend on the preserva-tion of natural forests.

Greenpeace policies would resultin increased food prices and theconversion of more land for agricultural production than isnecessary.

7

32 “Climate: NGOs Unveil a Benchmark Global Climate Treaty, Narrative Text”, The World Wildlife Fund (WWF), 2009.

33 Louise Gray, “Global warming summit heads for failure amid snub by world leaders”, Telegraph (UK), October 10, 2010.

34 “Paying the Climate Bill”, Media briefing on the European Commission’s communication on climate finance, Greenpeace and Oxfam International, September 10, 2009, 2.

35 “Climate: NGOs Unveil a Benchmark Global Climate Treaty, Narrative Text”, The World Wildlife Fund (WWF), 2009.

This misplaced Greenpeace strategy supports the retention ofsemi-subsistence economies and denies people the opportunityto secure their own economic benefits, including education oftheir children, by preventing normal participation in the formaleconomy.

Greenpeace and WWF presented a draft treaty intended tocreate an international mechanism to reduce greenhouse gases to world leaders at the U.N. Climate Change Conferencein Copenhagen in December 2009.32 The Copenhagen Summitnotoriously failed, and the Greenpeace/WWF model never surfaced.33

Greenpeace’s philosophy holds that lower-income tropicalforested countries should cease all forestry and be compensatedby rich countries to do so. Their argument is that this actionwould help stop global warming because these developingcountries generate so much carbon dioxide from forestry, stopping it would tangibly reduce emissions. (The extent ofemissions from forestry and related land management hasbeen considerably exaggerated by Greenpeace and others.)34

At least Greenpeace has recognized that reducing emissionsfrom developing countries would come at the cost of economicgrowth. So what is Greenpeace’s solution? To create a massiveglobal ‘green’ welfare fund to pay workers and families previ-ously employed by forestry companies.35

Such a fund would further impoverish these developing countries.Not only would industries that tangibly contribute to nationaleconomic growth and create jobs cease, but workers wouldalso be put onto a global ‘green’ dole.

This misplaced Greenpeace strategy supports the retention of semi-subsistence economiesand denies people the opportunityto secure their own economic benefits...

8

In the lead up to the conference to launch the Doha Round ofglobal negotiations to reduce trade barriers in 2001, Green-peace issued a report attacking the World Trade Organization(WTO), accusing it of acting as an impediment to the protectionof the environment.36

Greenpeace objected to one of the fundamental principles thatunderpins the WTO: the rules which make it illegal for govern-ments to play politics with trade by leveraging provision of access to markets for agreements on other matters, such asprotection of the environment.

Greenpeace and other environmental groups have consistentlysought the right to use the threat of trade bans if commitmentsto environmental agreements were not honored.37

Greenpeace updated its 2001 report in 2005, and made broadscale attacks against the WTO, claiming erroneously that WTOrules prevented measures to halt deforestation.

It reiterated its call, supported by other ‘green’ groups likeWWF, that WTO rules should be altered to allow imports to berestricted if, in the production of those goods, environmentalstandards demanded by importing governments were not met.

This is a naked threat of trade coercion. The principle Green-peace affirms would undermine the right of countries to produceand export goods by utilizing the comparative advantage oftheir economies. If trade was restricted because environmentalstandards were not met, this principle could be extended toanything – restricting trade for failure to meet standards onlabor laws, freedom of speech, sexual discrimination and anything else.

36 “World Trade” Factsheet, Greenpeace.org, 2010.

37 Provisions for trade bans are found in the Convention to Restrict International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), the Biosafety Protocol to the Convention on Biodiversity and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.

GREENPEACE’S ANTI-FREE TRADE CAMPAIGNS

The principle Greenpeace affirmswould undermine the right ofcountries to produce and exportgoods by utilizing the comparativeadvantage of their economies.

9THE ETHICAL CHALLENGE FOR GREENPEACE’S BUSINESS PARTNERSGreenpeace’s moral “high ground” becomes ethical“low ground” for business partnersSustainability managers in many of the large companies whohave yielded to Greenpeace pressure by aligning with theirstrategies will console themselves by thinking they are on themoral high ground of saving the environment. They are not.Their actions may well retard protection of the environment.

It has long been recognized that poor countries cannot protectthe environment unless they have the prosperity and resourcesto pay for it. It is no accident, then, that the environment isleast protected in poor countries.

When companies like home improvement retailer B&Q, super-market chain ASDA and Wal-Mart think recent refusals to buytimber and furniture products from developing countries likethe Democratic Republic of Congo save the rainforest and endangered species, they are mistaken.

By endorsing this Greenpeace strategy they are supportingmeasures which are likely to increase the loss of rainforests.Poverty is the principle cause of deforestation. The timber harvesters whose products Greenpeace enjoins them to boycott generate the jobs which reduce poverty. When theirbusinesses are hindered, so are efforts to reduce poverty.

When Western-based corporations ally with Greenpeace andboycott products from developing countries, they are restrictinggrowth and retarding the principle thing that will support improved protection of the environment — increased prosperity.

These companies are actually joining Greenpeace in a poverty-enhancing strategy. They are giving respectability, moreover, to a set of disreputable and unethical practices that they wouldnot tolerate in their own company, let alone from a major business partner.

Business should be putting pressure on Greenpeace to actethically, not falling into the Greenpeace trap of sanctioning itsunethical practices.

When Western-based corpora-tions ally with Greenpeace andboycott products from developingcountries, they are restrictinggrowth and retarding the principlething that will support improvedprotection of the environment —increased prosperity.

The Consumer Alliance for Global Prosperity (CAGP) is an

action-oriented advocacy group that promotes free trade,

economic growth and pro-consumer policies across the

world. We are passionate in the defense of individual rights

and the interests of consumers. CAGP is a project of the

Institute for Liberty, a non-profit advocacy organization

dedicated to preserving individual rights, protecting entre-

preneurship worldwide, and promoting prosperity both in

America and abroad.

www.consumerprosperity.com

Pulp Wars is a project of the consumer advocacy group

Consumers Alliance for Global Prosperity in response to

the pulp and paper trade war promulgated by organiza-

tions such as Greenpeace and WWF, in collusion with

domestic labor unions and pulp and paper producers.

CAGP was created by the Institute for Liberty and the

Frontiers of Freedom Institute, non-profit think tanks ded-

icated to preserving individual rights, protecting entrepre-

neurship worldwide, and promoting prosperity both in

America and abroad.

The participants in Pulp Wars share an abiding faith in

liberty and human ingenuity to resolve our problems and a

belief that economic competition through free markets

provides the greatest protection for consumers while

promoting opportunity for all.

www.pulpwars.com