No report on whether or not those lights are the lousy curly bulbs environmentalists want to force the rest of us to use. And I’m surprised that Ezra Levant, who included that tidbit in an article about Greenpeace‘s latest adventures in extortion and law breaking, didn’t include a similar jab. (After all, he’s no slouch as a wisecracker.)
In “Trespassing for dollars,” Levant reports on Greenpeace’s latest stunts, and how media coverage plays right into the organization’s finely honed game plan. Recently, he writes:
Greenpeace activists climbed out of the top of the Calgary Tower and unfurled a huge anti-oil banner.
The news and pictures instantly spread around the world, earning millions of dollars worth of free media coverage.
As always, Greenpeace immediately asked for donations for their stunt.
Its websites around the world published breathless accounts of their bravery — with a call for money on every page.
Levant’s throwaway line about Greenpeace’s massive budget got me thinking.
I know someone who started out as a Greenpeace volunteer and worked his way pretty far up in the local chapter. I don’t have his permission to share the details, but I can tell you that this idealistic fellow finally quit in disgust, telling me the organization was “all about money.” I suspect similar stories abound.
Now: is it possible that Greenpeace is “too big not to fail.”
When you read that an organization has “an annual budget of $270-million,” that sounds pretty powerful and impervious.
But think about it: if an organization needs almost three-quarters of a million dollars A DAY to stay in business, don’t they actually sound awfully… vulnerable?
Levant’s suggestion that authorities finally start charging groups like Greenpeace with criminal trespass and other applicable laws — instead of treating every dreadlocked, banner-wielding hippie as the next Rosa Parks — would cost Greenpeace money.
Can the group continue to beg the same group of donors for even more cash, especially in this economy? Add to that the growing skepticism about apocalyptic environmentalism, with even Greenpeace insiders speaking out against exaggerations and “junk science,” and you have a back-of-the-napkin plan to bring down Greenpeace.
But do politicians and other officials have the guts to finally begin enforcing the laws Greenpeace violates, on film, with absolute immunity? Somehow I doubt it.