The Greenpeace Guilt Trip: Tainted by Association

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is learning what Bjorn Lomborg knew all along–that environmental organizations don’t play fair with their opponents.

She is accused of getting gazillions of dollars in campaign contributions from fossil fuel companies. Environmental NGO Greenpeace, evidently supporting Bernie Sanders, made the claim and published a list of donors they say are fossil fuel drones, hacks, zombies… whatever.

The problem is that the huge majority of these evile villains are actually lobbyists with long client lists that include bankers, lawyers, other NGOs, etc. Plus some clients from the fossil fuel industry. In the eyes of Greenpeace, if you have ever had any business dealings at any time with a fossil fuel company–you are corrupt. Tainted.

Unless you’re the Sierrra Club, recipient of $10 million in donations from fossil  fuel companies. It’s okay, because their hearts are pure. Or Stanford University, recipient of $100 million from Exxon. It’s okay because it’s the hallowed halls of academia.

Greenpeace is the organization that famously said to skeptics, “We know where you live and we be many while you be few.” They are the organization that trashed the archeological site at Nazca, Peru.


They militated against World Bank loans to developing countries to build electricity generating plants because they were fueled by coal. Greenpeace also fought the use of DDT to combat malaria.

Not the people I would normally choose as moral arbiters.

Greenpeace has a long track record of taint by association. They’ve done it to climate skeptics and lukewarmers for decades. Bjorn Lomborg spoke at the Marshall Institute, which had hosted a separate event sponsored by a fossil fuel company–so Lomborg was automatically labeled as ‘funded by fossil fuel.’ It’s happened to many others as well.

There are probably many reasons not to vote for Hillary Clinton. I’m going to vote for her, but I don’t have anything against people who are going to vote the other way. Di Gustibus Non Disputandem Est, as they say.

But don’t buy into the Greenpeace garbage. They quit being the good guys a long time ago.

2 responses to “The Greenpeace Guilt Trip: Tainted by Association

  1. The real question is how dare anyone seek to censor others over political free speech?
    The real outrage is that climate imperialists are such bullies and cowards that they are unable to tolerate any possible diversity of opinion.
    Greenpeace, especially, as you point out, is a parasitic criminal organization that harasses law abiding companies and people, commits crimes against humanity, and yet is tolerated in the public square.

  2. manicbeancounter

    Greenpeace want engender prejudiced opinions of opponents and intimidating those opponents into being silent. That way their own empty opinions can go unchallenged. The moral reaction should be the use of such tactics by the prosecution in the criminal courts. That is to reject their case.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s