Greenpeace has had quite a busy year attacking New Zealand businesses.Â Theyâre also preoccupied with a desperate case to regain charitable status. With all that going on itâs no wonderÂ 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 Sealordâs 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 Greenpeaceâs NZ mouthpieceÂ Nathan ArgentÂ is silent on Kimberly-ClarkâsÂ announcement of plansÂ to reduce its âforest fibre footprintâ 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-Clarkâs earlier in 2012, Greenpeace mouthpiece Nathan Argent said in a May 2012 blog post that it âsmacks of the greenwash and hollow rhetoric that that has become synonymous with the APP brandâ.
Why suddenly is Argent silent on Kimberly-Clark. Letâs find out why.
The big issue is about Certification. The worldâs two largest forest certification programmes are PEFC (Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification), and is independent,Â while theÂ FSC (Forest Stewardship Council)Â is not.Â 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 theÂ puppet masters of The GreensÂ running anti-business political campaigns which present a conflict with Green Party co-leader Russel Normanâs borderline sane comments about the urgent need to protect and increase jobs in the manufacturing sector.
Seems to me The Greens canât be running lines for Greenpeaceâs 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. Youâre 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 itâs capable of responsible fiscal governance . Problem is things start getting messy. This is where Greenpeace is now.