About that title up there, you’re probably thinking “Duuu-uuh, no kidding.”
I believe many would share this opinion. But the theme of today’s post is to go beyond belief and to actually provide a rationale for the title statement.
As I’ve defined on this Web site, capitalism equals economic freedom, the freedom to profit commercially bounded by the democratic forces of the marketplace. I’ve emphasized democratic forces in that definition because it is a critical factor in understanding the war on capitalism. Capitalism derives its strength, and legitimacy, from democracy.
The point of today’s post is to demonstrate that Greenpeace applies a non-democratic effect on business, and by extension the capitalistic system. Groups like Greenpeace claim to act in the public interest, however in reality Greenpeace is run, with decisions made, by fewer than 100 persons. This is not a democratic organization. And if they are controlled by so few persons, making them non-democratic, by definition this means that Greenpeace is not acting in the public interest. To do so, Greenpeace would need to be elected by the public. Greenpeace was not elected by the public.
In their battle against capitalism, Greenpeace with a limited and polemic view not franchised by the public, applies pressure on a company to change a specific behavior. This is a prime example of an interest group limiting economic freedom, limiting the capitalistic system. In many cases, the company accedes to the activist demands. It is in this way that Greenpeace, a relatively small group of people, affects the capitalistic system. But it is not Greenpeace alone that is inflicting the damage against the democratic process, the system of capitalism here; the company acquiescing to the activist demands is themselves complicit in the attack on the capitalistic system. Ironic, isn’t it?
So, we can see that indeed Greenpeace is no friend to capitalism. It is no longer just a belief. Now you can see that it is fact. But let’s not stop here. Let’s take this idea just a few steps farther.
I can guess what you’re thinking. You might be thinking that some might counter my point that Greenpeace is anti-capitalistic. They might counter by saying that Greenpeace in its corporate campaigning is merely trying to protect the environment against harmful manufacturing procedures. If that is their, or even your, assertion, I would respond with these questions and answers.
Who says those procedures are “harmful”? Let’s face it. Greenpeace are advocates. And by the nature of advocates, their view is narrow and self-interested. You will not get an objective opinion from Greenpeace.
What makes Greenpeace the final arbiter of right and wrong? You are the best arbiter. You and millions of other consumers like you are smart people. Given the level and ease of access to information here in the second decade of the 21st century, you and other consumers are perfectly able to suss out answers in the debate over which companies follow sustainable procedures and which companies do not. Consumers can acquire their
Continue reading Greenpeace is No Friend to Capitalism.
So yesterday was SOPA Day.
SOPA Day. Not SOAP Day. Although a good SOAP Day might help many of us.
What was SOPA Day?
A number of Web sites, Google, Wikipedia, Greenpeace, and others went “dark” yesterday in a protest against pending legislation in the U.S. Congress. Currently, there are two bills that seek to regulate further trademark and copyright protection on the Internet. SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) is a House bill while PIPA (Protect Intellectual Property Act) is in the Senate.
The organizations that are anti-SOPA and anti-PIPA are up in arms for various reasons. Google probably because the passage of the acts would force them to become more of a traffic cop. Wikipedia perhaps because their self-definitions of reality could be interfered with. And Greenpeace? Well, Greenpeace just generally likes to protest and to do so by using other people’s intellectual property (trademarks) in “free speech parody.” Maybe SOPA and PIPA make Greenpeace fear that tighter intellectual property restrictions on the Internet might impede their meme-mangling abilities.
Why am I treating this subject, a subject that seemingly most of the Internet world has gone apoplectic over, somewhat flippantly? Because I read the bill. And because I read the bill, I think this event is more soap opera than much else.
Yes, the protection of intellectual property on the Internet is a serious matter, and from what I’ve seen over the past ten years, more regulation could be a benefit in this area. (Read my current book, Insidious Competition – The Battle for Meaning and the Corporate Image, for more information.) But this bill is a bit of overkill.
There are some things I like about the bill and some things that I don’t like. (I read only SOPA, not PIPA.) One of the things I don’t like concerns an objection raised by Greenpeace. (Yes. I’m agreeing with Greenpeace here. Mark this one on your calendar.) The bill as written gives way too much power to Internet search engine companies, Internet service providers, etc. in determining what constitutes copyright or trademark infringement. You may read that in Section 104 of SOPA.
But my flippancy today is borne of my reading of SOPA Section 2, subsection a), item #1 which reads: “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impose a prior restraint on free speech or the press protected under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.”
Yes, no kidding. All American laws are subject to the First Amendment and can be thrown out, overruled by any court of competent jurisdiction based on violation of the First Amendment.
So relax Google, Wikipedia, and Greenpeace. Even if by some remote chance a SOPA/PIPA homogenization became law, it would most likely violate the First Amendment and be overturned in short order. Of course, it would be a shame that we’d have to go through that effort given that we have so many other things to do. But let’s not sweat
Continue reading Yesterday Was More of a Soap Opera than a SOPA Day
Activist vs. Activist. Advocate vs. Advocate.
This was the story told in a NVDaily.com (Northern Virginia) December 21, 2011 article, “Greenpeace Campaign Against Mercury Paper Parent Spurs Opposing Group.” The article tells of how a new group has been formed in response to Greenpeace’s ongoing campaign against Asia Pulp & Paper, a company which Greenpeace alleges employs non-sustainable production practices.
The new group, the Coalition to Protect Virginia Jobs, is reported in the article to have been formed by the Virginia state chapter of the Americans for Prosperity and the Virginia Federation of Tea Party Patriots, both advocacy organizations. The Coalition is apparently acting in support of a Virginia company, Mercury Paper, which sources materials from Asia Pulp & Paper.
That’s the basic story in the article. But the point to my post today is not to discuss the creation of the Coalition but rather to discuss the nature of the comments that appear at the end of the “Opposing Group” article. Although only two comments appear, they are both quite blind to the activist vs. activist or advocate vs. advocate battle going on.
The thrust of the comments is that the Coalition is just another tool of the “left-wing dreaded” Koch Brothers. These comments insinuate that the control of the Coalition is very narrow. Whether or not that is true is certainly debatable, and the subject of a different post. But what those commenters appear not to see, or choose not to see, is that the control of Greenpeace is just about as narrow as that alleged, although not proven, in the comments.
Activist vs. Activist. Advocate vs. Advocate.
Nobody’s neutral in this game. Everyone playing has their own narrow interests they want served. And when those on the sidelines make this realization, the better informed it will make the debate for all.
Imagine this.
You are running in the New York City marathon, the distance of which is 26 miles, 385 yards. Things are going along fine, and then around mile 12, somewhere on Nassau Avenue in the Greenpoint section of Brooklyn, you stop, catch your breath, look around, begin to jump up and down while exclaiming “I’ve won, I’ve won!”
The Brooklynites witnessing this insanity look at you, then they look at each other (with mouths agape), then they look back at you and shout “Hey, you meatball, you ain’t finished yet. You’re f_____g crazy!” (Remember . . . this is Brooklyn.)
And they would be right. They’d recognize that you were someone who was trying to claim victory when no victory was attained.
This is exactly what has happened in the latest Greenpeace declaration of victory. Greenpeace has declared victory in its “Unfriend Coal” campaign against Facebook. But is it a victory? You’re probably thinking “Well, Richard, if you’re writing about it, then it probably isn’t a victory.” You’re right. It isn’t.
Here is why it isn’t victory.
After Greenpeace launched this campaign against Facebook, Kumi Naidoo, Executive Director of Greenpeace International sent a letter to Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook. In the September 2010 letter, Mr. Naidoo asked Mr. Zuckerberg for five things:
Facebook should:
Commit to a plan to phase out the use of dirty coal-fired electricity to power your (Facebook’s) data centers;
Use your (Facebook’s) purchasing power to choose locations that allow you to rely on only clean, renewable sources of electricity;
Advocate for strong climate and energy policy changes at the local, national and international level to ensure that as the IT industry’s energy demand increases, so does the supply of renewable energy;
Disclosure (sic) your (Facebook’s) greenhouse gas emissions inventory (through mechanisms such as the carbon disclosure project);
Share this plan for environmental stewardship publicly on your (Facebook’s) website so your hundred of millions of users know that your company is a climate leader.
These five things were the goals of the Unfriend Coal campaign. So, if Facebook agreed to these Greenpeace goals, then Greenpeace could legitimately claim victory. Let’s look at to what Facebook actually agreed.
In a joint Greenpeace / Facebook statement (which was posted on the Greenpeace Web site by the way), Facebook agreed to:
Adopting a siting policy that states a preference for access to clean and renewable energy supply
Ongoing research into energy efficiency and the open sharing of that technology through the Open Compute Project
Ongoing research into clean energy solutions for our (Facebook’s) future data centers
Engaging in a dialogue with our (Facebook’s) utility providers about increasing the supply of clean energy that power Facebook data centers
How does this Facebook agreement compare to Mr. Naidoo’s goals as shown above?
Did Greenpeace achieve Goal #1? No. Facebook made no mention or commitment about the nature of the power running their currently operating data centers.
Did Greenpeace achieve Goal #2? Perhaps, although Facebook said that they would adopt a “preference” for a renewable energy supply. A preference is not the choice of locations that Greenpeace wanted, nor
Continue reading Greenpeace Victory Claim is a Sham
Last August, I posted on this blog an article about the level of democracy in Greenpeace. Specifically, that article, entitled “Greenpeace Voting Incestuous,” pointed out that for Greenpeace, Inc., the primary protest and campaigning organization of Greenpeace USA, a group called “the voting members” selects the members of the Greenpeace, Inc. Board of Directors, and the Board of Directors of Greenpeace, Inc. selects the voting members. Very cozy.
I didn’t put the word “incestuous” into that article’s title for no reason. The degree of democracy operating within Greenpeace, Inc. is fairly low. And in today’s article, I also didn’t put “incestuous” into the title for no reason either.
Today we’re going to take a look at the level of democracy at play in another Greenpeace USA organization. In this post we’ll look at the voting procedures of Greenpeace Fund, Inc. What’s the difference between Greenpeace, Inc. and Greenpeace Fund, Inc.
Basically, Greenpeace USA is made up of two separate corporations. One is Greenpeace, Inc. which is a 501(c)(4) organization. The other Greenpeace corporation, which is not as well known, is Greenpeace Fund, Inc. That’s the one we’re discussing today. This corporation is a 501(c)(3) organization. What’s the difference between the two?
Greenpeace, Inc. is the well-known corporate protest organization that one usually thinks of when the word “Greenpeace” is uttered. Greenpeace Fund, Inc. is essentially a foundation which funds much of Greenpeace, Inc.’s operation.
For more information about the technical differences between a (3) and a (4), please let Wikipedia explain, although to enjoy the balance of today’s post you don’t need to know much more about those differences.
Greenpeace USA makes their bylaws, for both corporations, available on their Web site. Kudos to them for the transparency on this information. Not every protest organization I study is as open. But it’s not necessarily their transparency that I am criticizing today. It’s their lack of democracy, and therefore their lack of accountability, that I criticize today.
In the Greenpeace Fund, Inc. bylaws its says:
“Section 2.1 – No Voting Members
This corporation shall not have any members within the meaning of Section 5056 of the California Corporations Code.” (Note: Greenpeace Fund, Inc. is incorporated in California even though the main office is in Washington, D.C.)
Section 5056 says with regard to a definition of members that:
” ‘Member’ means any person who, pursuant to a specific provision of a corporation’s articles or bylaws, has the right to vote for the election of a director or directors . . .”
Translation? Simple. This means that there are no voting members in Greenpeace Fund, Inc.
No voting members? How un-democratic. But if there are no voting members, then how are decisions made in the governance of this organization? Again, simple. They’re made by the Board of Directors. Entirely.
So, then how does Greenpeace Fund, Inc. get a diversity of opinion injected into their decision-making process? Again, the simplest answer is the most obvious.
They don’t.
Their decision-making process is incestuous. Why do I say that?
Because in those same
Continue reading How Much More Incestuous Can Greenpeace Get?
In today’s post, I’ll show how you how Greenpeace USA is “bulking up” on executives and how those executives are claiming an increasing portion of the compensation pie. First, we’ll need some background information, but if you’ve read the other posts in this series you can skip the Background section and move on to Findings.
Background
Greenpeace is an American non-profit organization, and as such it is required to file annually a Form 990 with the Internal Revenue Service. The Form 990 is a tax return document providing information on a non-profit organization’s financial status. And because non-profit, tax-exempt organizations are essentially taxpayer supported, Form 990s are documents open for public review. How does one get a copy of a non-profit organization’s Form 990?
An organization’s Form 990 for any year may be obtained directly from the IRS, from the organization itself, or via intermediary organizations. One of those intermediaries is Guidestar.org, which catalogues and makes available non-profit organizations’ Form 990s. It was Guidestar that I used to obtain the financial information shown in today’s post.
We’ll get to the numbers in a moment, and believe me they’re very interesting. But in order to understand this analysis better, let me explain how Greenpeace USA is organized.
Greenpeace USA is essentially comprised of two separate corporations. One is Greenpeace, Inc. which is a 501(c)(4) organization. The other Greenpeace corporation, which is not as well known, is Greenpeace Fund, Inc. This corporation is a 501(c)(3) organization. What’s the difference between them?
Greenpeace, Inc. is the well-known, general kibbitzing and protest organization that one usually thinks of when the word “Greenpeace” is mentioned. This is the organization that oversees the folks who climb corporate headquarters buildings, bridges, national monuments, and who dress up as animals and then burst into annual meetings of shareholders.
Greenpeace Fund, Inc. is essentially a philanthropic foundation which funds much of Greenpeace, Inc.’s operation.
If you’d like to learn the difference between a (3) and a (4), please let Wikipedia explain, although an understanding of this difference is not necessary in order to enjoy the balance of this article.
What you should know, however, is how we’re defining “executive” in this article.
Definition
In Part VII of each Form 990, the organization is required to provide information on the “Compensation of Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, Highest Compensated Employees, and Independent Contractors.” So, on that Part VII page what can be seen is the compensation for the “high mucky-mucks,” the “grand poopahs,” the “honchos” of the organization. For simplicity, let’s just call them the “executives.”
Findings
Greenpeace USA – Select Financial Information – 2008 and 2010
20082010Percentage Increase
Total Revenue$35.518 million$35.856 million< 1.0%
Total Salaries Paid$16.665 million$18.029 million8.2%
Total Executive Compensation$417,503$881,639111.0%
Number of Executives510100.0%
As I said above, I used Guidestar.org to retrieve the Form 990s which supplied the research used in today’s post. I examined the Form 990s for the years 2008 and 2010 for each Greenpeace corporation. On each of the Form 990s, I compared the categories of Total Revenue, Total Salaries Paid, Total Executive Compensation, and Number of Executives. Please note
Continue reading Greenpeace Rewards Executives at Expense of Rank & File
|
|
