Greenpeace hypocrisy exposed

Greenpeace has had quite a busy year attacking New Zealand businesses.  They’re also preoccupied with a desperate case to regain charitable status. With all that going on it’s no wonder Greenpeace finances are as dodgy as the union scum.

If you believed the political campaigns Greenpeace are running, you could be forgiven for thinking everyone running a business in NZ was some kind of enviro-crook with a fetish for scorched earth policies. There was the hate campaign against Sealord’s New Zealand, workers, the exploitation of Lucy Lawless against Shell and that campaign against Dunedin based workers in Cottonsoft because it has a parent company overseas.

Greenpeace likes harping on about multinationals that operate in New Zealand. Main reason being is that it allows them to import a politically motivated attack campaign from European HQ.

This makes it all the more surprising then, when Greenpeace’s NZ mouthpiece Nathan Argent is silent on Kimberly-Clark’s announcement of plans to reduce its ‘forest fibre footprint’ by 2025.

Greenpeace clearly has very strong views on pulp and paper, having launched a campaign against APP (Asia Pulp & Paper), which owns Cottonsoft. When APP announced a more ambitious programme to Kimberly-Clark’s earlier in 2012, Greenpeace mouthpiece Nathan Argent said in a May 2012 blog post that it “smacks of the greenwash and hollow rhetoric that that has become synonymous with the APP brand”.

Why suddenly is Argent silent on Kimberly-Clark. Let’s find out why.

The big issue is about Certification. The world’s two largest forest certification programmes are PEFC (Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification), and is independent,  while the  FSC (Forest Stewardship Council)  is not.  Whoops, looks like the FSC is part-funded and endorsed by Greenpeace. Cottonsoft products have PEFC certification; Kimberly-Clark products in New Zealand, FSC.

Same shit, different day.

On one hand we have the puppet masters of The Greens running anti-business political campaigns which present a conflict with Green Party co-leader Russel Norman’s borderline sane comments about the urgent need to protect and increase jobs in the manufacturing sector.

Seems to me The Greens can’t be running lines for Greenpeace’s political campaigns, while standing around rallying against job losses as New Zealand companies lay off workers thanks to Greenpeace anti-business crusade.

At a certain point, backroom collusion gets hard to manage. You’re trying to keep spreadsheets and all, but then someone has to go sit on an oil rig or stake out a paddock. Someone meanwhile has to give a speech to make a political party not best known for its sturdy economic platform look like it’s capable of responsible fiscal governance . Problem is things start getting messy. This is where Greenpeace is now.

  • AnonWgtn

    Haven’t the Greens changed their name to Greenpeace New Zealand Branch now ?
    Pity about Matiria Turei having been sidelined by Russel.

17%