Monthly Archives: February 2018

Greenpeace, Greenvice or Greenwar? An embarrassing report …

A report by Thibault Kerlirzin of the Ecole de Guerre Economique explains that Greenpeace owns a business branch, Greenpeace Energy, whose subsidiary Planet Energy invests in “clean” power plants and has already built ten wind farms.

In Germany and abroad, Planet Energy has several partners including Vestas Wind Systems, the world’s largest manufacturer of wind turbines. Greenpeace Netherlands is also a long-time shareholder of Triodos Bank, whose fund dedicated to sustainable development has Vestas for its first investment. Sven Teske, co-founder of Greenpeace Energy, was in 2012 the project director and lead author of a co-authored report on the “energy revolution”, co-authored with the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC), the “voice of the global wind energy industry “, and the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC), an umbrella organization for the renewable energy industry.

To get to the end, let’s ask two questions: is Greenpeace an NGO solely in the service of ecology or the Trojan horse of multinationals who prowl around a dismantling of EDF?

What is the role of the subsidiary RE which, by its advertising and its action in the field, destroys the nuclear industry of its parent company EDF?

https://greenvicesite.wordpress.com/2017/08/28/publication-de-letude-greenpeace-une-ong-a-double-fonds-entre-business-et-ingenierie-du-consentement/

Article by Thibault Kerlirzin March 31, 2017 [School of Economic War].

How do we know what we think we know about Greenpeace? An international NGO, it remains one of the most famous environmental protection structures, known worldwide for its spectacular actions at sea and on land, deploying banners in places that are sometimes improbable or most of the time inventive. his visual communication. Today, still present in about fifty countries, it continues to grow and leads many campaigns on topics ranging from the climate issue to the energy debate, from the protection of the oceans to the fight against logging or GMOs.

With more than three million supporters (ie donors) around the world, it is the voice of self-proclaimed citizens, of “civil society”. As at the time of its creation in the early 1970s, the NGO continues to present itself as David against Goliath, the weak representative of the general interest in the greed of states and companies, powerful actors who would work together for profit at the expense of Nature and the risks to man. Yet, despite a media presentation that is often favorable to him, the reality of Greenpeace does not match the image that can be made of it. Sometimes called a “green multinational” by its detractors, it employs more than 2,500 employees worldwide, has an annual income of more than 345 million euros, is managed by managers far from field operations. His latest available annual report highlights that nearly two-thirds of his funds are not spent on campaigning, but mainly on raising more and more money. To this end, the NGO spent nearly 117 million euros in 2015.

In the same way, once analyzed, Greenpeace campaigns detonate with the presentation that is generally made. The substance of the NGO’s arguments against its targets suffers in several places of aphoria or even errors. As a result, his contribution to the public debate is skewed. In addition, the action of Greenpeace includes a major unsaid and emphasizes its lack of independence and integrity. The three case studies in this report, which focus on the oil sands, the oil concession in the Amazon Basin, and nuclear energy, have a double bottom (s): far from the mere defense of environment, economic actors are the beneficiaries and sometimes the backers of Greenpeace. In fact, if the NGO refuses corporate donations, it accepts trusts and foundations grants, which an economic war-oriented reading gear reveals as the frequent screens of financial Goliaths – enough to question the porous border that separates sincere activism from an approach comparable to “green mercenaries”. This double bottom (s) is comparable, for example in the case of nuclear power, to a double discourse: on the one hand, the NGO Greenpeace warns against the supposed various risks (environment, security, finances) of this energy while in Germany, the Greenpeace Energy cooperative, a partner of the Goliath wind company Vestas, defends its economic interests by filing a complaint with the European Commission not for the reasons mentioned, but for distortion of competition. The omissions and consent engineering methods deployed by Greenpeace also raise the question of the place of NGOs, both in terms of representation and credit and how they work. Greenpeace is not the only organization of its kind to exaggerate the presentation of facts. Apart from objectionable reasons, this raises the survival needs inherent to any enterprise : the durability through the regular accumulation and sufficient funds to continue its existence and ensure its predominance and legitimacy vis-à-vis other NGOs.

A report by Thibault KERLIRZIN for the CESTUDEC (Centro Studi Strategici Carlo de Cristoforis) to download here:

http://greenvice.info/site_greenvice/rapport_greenpeace_pourt_cestudec.pdf

This report (5 MO, 170 pages) is a mine of information. The part devoted to GP and French nuclear (one of the 3 case studies selected) is instructive.

The conclusion is not a summary but proposes 5 ways to guard against the excesses of NGOs like GP:

“Rather than summarize all of our remarks, some ways could be studied to guard against the excesses of Greenpeace:

1)

 Remove from Greenpeace France its status as an association of general interest (as it did in Canada and New Zealand) and grant it again only if it meets several requirements, including facts that are not biased and full transparency on the links with economic actors (including trusts & foundations) even through other offices of the NGO. 868.

2)

 Diligent an official government investigation to analyze to what extent Greenpeace jeopardizes French energy security and for whose benefit; question the NGO about its many contradictions.

3)

 Encourage businesses to contact and sue Greenpeace as soon as the NGO conducts a misleading campaign and reputation attacks based on false information. The silence of companies has consequences : Greenpeace feels no need to reconsider and stop presenting partial or biased analyzes, which can impact citizens more widely.

4)

 Put in place the “triangle of power” defended by Yan Giron 869 in the field of geostrategy of the seas, i. e. combine an approach that combines the public institution, the private sector and civil society – distinct from the confiscation of legitimate speech by actors who are potentially the spokesmen of state and / or economic interests through NGOs .

5)

 Consider a system that will sustain NGOs that provide truly independent work by removing them from the imperative of media communication for their fundraising and inter-NGO competition needs. “

Advertisements