Greenpeace admits its attacks on forest products giant were ‘non-verifiable statements of subjective opinion’ Peter J.
Thompson/National PostRichard Garneau, CEO of Resolute Forest, says it is funny how Green Peace is changing its tune now that it must account for statements regarding the forestry company's activities in eastern Canada. Greenpeace, after repeated attacks against Canada’s biggest forest products company for “destroying,” Canada’s boreal forests, now says that it was merely stating an opinion about the logging activity, not a fact. After years of weathering attacks on its forestry practices, Montreal-based Resolute Forest Products Inc. last year sued Greenpeace in United States District Court in Georgia under racketeering statutes, alleging that Greenpeace’s repeated attacks on Resolute, to raise money for Greenpeace, amount to criminal activity.
But now Greenpeace says it never intended people to take its words about Resolute’s logging practices as literal truth. None of the allegations by Resolute or Greenpeace has been tested in this case, which remains before the courts. Greenpeace exec Pascal Husting commutes 800 km by plane. One of Greenpeace’s most senior executives commutes 400 kilometres each way to work by plane, the environmental group has admitted.
Pascal Husting, the international program director at Greenpeace International, said he began “commuting between Luxembourg and Amsterdam” when he took the job in 2012 and currently made the round trip about twice a month. The flights, costing about $365 return, are paid by Greenpeace, even though it campaigns to cut air travel, arguing that the growth in flying “is ruining our chances of stopping dangerous climate change.” One volunteer described the arrangement as “almost unbelievable.” Another said they would cancel their direct debit donation following a series of disclosures about financial mismanagement in documents leaked to The Guardian newspaper. A 2007 interview Pascal Hustingby Greenpeace France “I spend half my life on Skype and video conference calls,” he said. “For me, it feels like it gets to the heart of a really big question. So disappointed. SEO: Greenpeace Lied, Jobs Died: Resolute Forest Products. It was a classic Greenpeace tale: fuzzy, wide-eyed woodland creatures fleeing as the loggers closed in, destroying a peaceful habitat.
Except it wasn’t true — and this time, the lies have been exposed. For years, Greenpeace has campaigned against businesses by using exaggerations and outright lies. The media and, in many cases, the businesses themselves have usually bowed. But Greenpeace underestimated Resolute Forest Products — and the power of the truth — when it started a false campaign against the Canadian paper company. The environmental alarmists accused Resolute of threatening Quebec’s caribou by logging.
Mainstream media outlets took notice. In fact, given all the storm and fury, the mud-slinging and the lawsuits, it is a bit of a shock to realize almost everyone — from the loggers to the environmentalists — agrees on a basic fact: Canada’s boreal forest is in pretty good shape. But if you visit Greenpeace’s website today, you’ll see little evidence of that reality. Why Should We Trust Greenpeace? Greenpeace activists damage Peru ancient site.
More than 100 Nobel laureates are calling on Greenpeace to end its anti-GMO campaign. This week, 109 Nobel laureates signed onto a sharply worded letter to Greenpeace urging the environmental group to rethink its longstanding opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
The writers argue that the anti-GMO campaign is scientifically baseless and potentially harmful to poor people in the developing world. Joel Achenbach broke the news in the Washington Post, and you can read the full letter here. The signatories include past winners of the Nobel Prize in medicine, chemistry, physics, and economics. Nobel laureates to Greenpeace: Your anti-GMO campaign has to end The letter notes that scientific assessments have repeatedly found GM foods are just as safe to eat as conventional foods and don’t pose an inherent risk to the environment (though, like any technology, they can be misused).
Now, Greenpeace is far from the only reason Golden Rice has struggled to get regulatory approval — the crop also faces very serious technical challenges. (David Greedy/Getty Images) True.