Greenpeace finances same as the Unions

The greenies are running out of green.

Despite a series of high-profile and acidic campaigns against the likes of Nestle, Cadbury, Fonterra, Sealord, Cottonsoft and its parent APP, and the most satanic of them all, Big Oil, Greenpeace hasn’t generated enough donations from the devout membership to even get close to breaking even. It emerged in mid-July that Greenpeace New Zealand posted a 69% drop in full-year profit in 2011, down nearly $550,000 on the year before.

It’s not just a lack of donor goodness that’s to blame. The lowly New Zealand branch of the Greenpeace empire was required to make a bigger payout to its global parent in 2011, and gave Greenpeace International $1.9 million, around $450,000 more than in 2010.

I bet that hurt. After all, they’ve been trying so hard. Under the careful stewardship of ‘Bunny-boiler’ McDiarmid, the Kiwi team laboured exhaustively last year to bring the nation’s attention to a plague of alleged environmental wrongdoing by some of the best-known Kiwi brands. They used their tried-and-true tactics – a video of a dying tiger or homeless orangutan never goes amiss – to cut straight to the moral core of the nation and generate cashflow. The greenies know better than anyone what a pack of soft touches we are – per capita, New Zealanders and Australians give more to charity than any other nations. We’ve also been a reliable source of income for Greenpeace specifically.

So, the money collected here is flying offshore. How is it being used? Greenpeace’s 2010 annual report devotes one of its 32 pages to the subject, and notes that funds raised in the preceding year meant it “could commit significant resources to our fight against dangerous Arctic oil drilling, get companies to stop buying palm oil from rainforest destruction, and challenge bluefin tuna fishing in the Mediterranean, for example.” It also mentioned keeping up pressure on companies to eliminate toxic chemicals and strengthening its campaign for sustainable agriculture.

If that was enough detail for the faithful, no skin off my nose. They have all the transparency of the Meatworkers Union it appears.

But donations are drying up, so let’s ponder why. Perhaps Kiwi givers are a bit tired of seeing their cash disappear into some distant consolidated fund in Europe. Surely some were concerned about Greenpeace being prevented by the High Court from continuing to register as a charity due to its political activities. Others might have noticed that even before the black hole of 2011, the Asia Pacific wing had suffered three consecutive years of losses totalling more than $3 million.

Still others might have doubted that Greenpeace’s complaints stacked up. Companies like Fonterra and Nestle have giant sustainability programmes, certifications and endless shots of smiling farmers plastered all over their websites.

APP has a whole site dedicated to the matter, Rainforest Realities, where it announced recently that in an industry first, three of its Indonesian mills have secured SVLK certification, making them the first pulp and paper mills in the country to achieve certification under the new Wood Legality Verification System. Consumers are left to decide whose word they trust more, and the evidence suggests it’s not Greenpeace.

After its embarrassing numbers were reported, in rare defensive mode Greenpeace posted a ‘correction statement’ online to address what it called “some misunderstanding” by the media “in understanding the financial position of the organisation.

I’m no accountant, but I’m guessing that position is somewhat fucked. Too busy boiling saving bunnies to bother balancing the books, Ms McDiarmid?

  • Magoo

    The charity tax status for Greenpeace was removed last year as they are now considered a political lobby group instead of a charity. The ironic thing about that is that the watermelons in Greenpeace tried to avoid paying tax when they are the very ones telling everyone else they should be paying more – especially big multi-national organisations such as themselves. I wonder if they’re upset that they have to pay tax, as according to the socialists & communists in it’s ranks tax is a very important thing and everyone should make their ‘fair’ contribution, yet the tax they so admire interferes with their quasi-environmental actions.

    • Sarrs

      And because of this we will see a reduction in donations as people are no longer able to claim 1/3rd back in their IR526.

      Previously the government has, in effect, been subsidising Green Peace donations by a third through the donation rebate scheme. Not any more, hippies!

      • Phar Lap

         Clap! Clap! Clap! Best news i have heard since the Australian Labor Party,have started putting the boot into the sickly pathetic moronic Marxist “Greens” hip, hip, hooray,its made my day.

  • Mr Sackunkrak

    “Greenpeace” is an oxymoron and I would love see it go tits.

  • baw

    I don’t think they were getting Govt funding so at least that is one good thing.

    As an aside for the Lawyers, do they get classified as an organised crime group because their protests often involve trespass and refusal to move – I believe Lucy Lawless was charged with Burglary for one protest. (Although I understand the mongral mob etc are still legal).  

  • baw

    I guess the effect of the Rainbow warrior bombing was running out.

  • Mr_Blobby

    Question
    If the oceans of the world are slightly acidic, would it be possible to drop electrodes into the water and use it as a massive low voltage battery?

    • baw

      Well that could be nice and carbon neutral, think of the CO2 we would not emit. 
      Are you paying for it. 

    • JimboBug

      They are alkali – and will remain so even if we converted every gram of stored carbon into carbon dioxide. Ocean neutralisation however isn’t as scary sounding as ocean acidification so isn’t used by alarmists.

  • AnonWgtn

    It would appear that the Green party are “publicly” standing aside from Greenpeace, so as not to be seen as the same, which they are.

    Aside I see that Mary-Ann Genter (yes, a Green list MP) is shouting about the money that Environment Consultants get paid.
    I wonder why, as she was one of them, before Parliament.
    Another Green Hyppocrite.

  • Deep Blue

    Greenpeace attacks on these companies reeks of desperation and a constant desire to appear in the media as though they care. It’s no wonder they lost their charitable status.

  • Heather

    for the first time ever Greenpeace came knocking at my front door on Monday night; a very short shrift.

    • axeman

      Same. EFFOFF eco-terrorists

  • Guest2

    love it – looks like the the executives are pulling $200k each 

  • Phar Lap

    Now if all their doom and gloom continues ,they will have to do something useful,like work for free in Otara,and help the poor ,without wanting a donation.I dare them,cant wait to see the demise of such pests and freeloaders.Would love to give them a freeboot up their fat arse jaxys.

  • Mr_Blobby

    Probably paid by head office into an offshore bank account. Much like the UN. Tax FREE.
    Why is income earned by NZ citizens working for the UN tax free, surely it would be assessed as part of there income for TAX purposes like other offshore income.
     

  • kehua

    Cam an ex-client of mine with strong Greenpeace affilliations and who holds a very senior position in the GP International body  tells me of massive fraudulent activity within the organisation. I am sure that you would have the ability to rat out the info to expose these  lying bludging pricks for what they really are.

  • Muzza

    My very low opinion of them dropped even further when they put on an art exhibition of prints made by slapping a dead penguin coated in Rena oil on canvas. They claim it was to “raise awareness” but I found it left a bit of a bad taste in my mouth

  • Patrick

    Horror of horrors Greenpeace are an international corporate with a franchise in New Zealand & they are taking their profits overseas – isn’t that exactly what the leftie commies rant & rave about all the time? Oh the irony when their own mothership does the same. What a pack of condradicted conceited pricks they are

91%