Series: Gilding the Lily « | Richard Telofski on "The War on Capitalism"

Greenpeace Victory Claim is a Sham

This entry is part 1 of 4 in the series Gilding the Lily

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

Anti-Capitalists Need to Get Their Facts Straight

This entry is part 2 of 4 in the series Gilding the Lily

My recent article “Controversy a Weapon in the Battle Against Capitalism” discussed the Levi Strauss & Company decision not to employ suppliers that were considered a “controversial” source. The way this story came to my attention was via a Google Alert on a post on the Rainforest Action Network‘s site.

In that January 17, 2012 post, Rainforest Action Network (RAN) stated:

Levi Strauss & Company’s recent public release of its revamped forest products purchasing policy ensures it is not sourcing from the world’s endangered forests. The company’s implementation of the policy makes it the latest major brand that will not be doing business with Asia Pulp and Paper (APP) due to APP’s ongoing involvement in rainforest destruction and human rights abuses in Indonesia.

(The above accusation aside, as you may know from reading here on Telofski.com, Asia Pulp & Paper has been involved for quite a while in public argument over their manufacturing practices. You’ll also know from readings on this site that those practices have been denigrated by some (e.g., Rainforest Action Network) while they are supported by others.)

RAN said that Levi Strauss & Company (LSC) “will not be doing business with Asia Pulp and Paper”. And indeed, Mongabay.com, an environmental news site, on the same date (January 17, 2012) as the RAN statement picked up on that RAN statement saying:

Levi Strauss & Company became the latest firm to drop Asia Pulp & Paper (APP) as a supplier due to concerns over APP’s continued clearing of rainforests in Sumatra, reports the Rainforest Action Network, a green group in the midst of a campaign against APP.

RAN and Mongabay.com need to get their facts straight on two items.

The RAN and Mongabay.com stories are both based on the LSC forest products purchasing policy statement found, per the above RAN statement, at this link. But when I went to that link on the LSC Web site, I found no reference, at all, to Asia Pulp & Paper nor any statement that LSC would no longer be using APP as a supplier. The RAN and Mongabay.com “statements” that LSC would be dropping APP therefore are not statements; they are merely conjecture and supposition.

Additionally, the Mongabay.com article said about a LSC document “According to a forest products purchasing policy [PDF] posted on its web site last month, Levi’s will . . . ” Follow that link to the LSC Web site. The date at the top of the PDF there says “December 2010″. December 2010. December 2010. 2010. Remember that this Mongabay.com article was published on January 17, 2012. How is that last month?

The simple answer is, it isn’t.

Before activists claim victory, perhaps they, and the news organizations that report on them, need to apply more diligence to their reporting. Certainly in this case, this is true.

Greenpeace Stretches the Truth . . . Again

This entry is part 3 of 4 in the series Gilding the Lily

As the third in a series of articles about how anti-capitalist activists falsely claim victory against companies, today’s post looks at Greenpeace action against Lego.

In July 2011, on their Web site Greenpeace claimed success in getting Lego to stop using Asia Pulp & Paper (AP&P) as a packaging supplier. As part of their campaign, Greenpeace demanded that Lego:

“Stop buying paper products from Asia Pulp and Paper . . . and any companies connected to APP.”

As their victory claim, Greenpeace said:

“Lego has announced that they intend to not buy packaging from companies involved in deforestation. This means dropping Asia Pulp & Paper (APP) along with any paper companies linked to forest destruction.”

For proof of their victory claim, and the accession to their demand, Greenpeace evidenced a Lego statement concerning the company’s policy on the environmental impact of the packaging materials they purchase. That Lego statement may be seen by clicking here.

If you click through to the Lego statement, you will find that nowhere on that page does Lego mention AP&P, or any other supplier by name.

So, then how does Greenpeace know it met its demand goal relative to Lego?

Supposition?

Conjecture?

Probably.

And I say probably because it is on these two semantic practices that Greenpeace often depends.

Greenpeace Gilds the Lily Again

This entry is part 4 of 4 in the series Gilding the Lily

On February 24, 2012, in Port Taranaki, New Zealand several Greenpeace activists boarded a Shell Oil contract ship docked in the port. Their objective, per the Greenpeace Web site, was to stop the Shell Oil ship “from departing the port of Taranaki for the remote Arctic.” The ship was bound for the Arctic to begin exploratory drilling operations.

The activists occupied the ship for four days, after which they were arrested and removed from the vessel.

The following day, February 29, 2012, Greenpeace claimed victory.

How does that make sense?

The simple answer is that it does not make sense.

It does not make sense because in this campaign Greenpeace’s stated objective was to prevent the ship from departing. They did not accomplish their objective. The ship departed port.

This strategy is nothing new for Greenpeace. We have previously seen Greenpeace shift their objective based on the actual, rather than the intended, outcome of their campaign. For some examples, check this article series titled “Gilding the Lily.”

Why would they do this?

Donations and “victories” are directly correlated.