SHALE NEWS
Green groups were swift to attack Rasmussen’s views, saying that they
were not involved in any alleged Russian attempts to discredit the technology, and were instead opposed to it on the grounds of environmental
sustainability.
“The idea we’re puppets of Putin is so preposterous that you have to
wonder what they’re smoking over at Nato HQ,” said Greenpeace, which
has a history of antagonism with the Russian government, which arrested several of its activists on a protest in the Arctic last year.
Andrew Pendleton, a campaigner at Friends of the Earth, added: “Perhaps the Russians are worried about our huge wind and solar potential
and have infiltrated the UK government.”
This is the first statement by someone in a position of authority to the
effect Russia is behind the fractivist movement (along with a small
group of wealthy special interest foundations in the US). Rasmussen’s
interpretation of events is not NATO policy per se, but it is the view of
a leader in the position to know and there’s more. Notice, for example,
the “Who, me?” reaction of both environmental groups is anything
but denial.
Apparently, even Greenpeace’s occasional allies believe it has taken dark
money and reading between the lines suggests some of it could have easily
come from the Russian government itself when the issue was something
other than drilling in the Artic. This candid observation about Greenpeace
operates, though, tells us a lot about the fractivist movement here and
abroad. Most of them are just “useful idiots” who haven’t the slightest idea
where their funding comes from or what’s its purpose is and many don’t
care as James O’Keefe recently illustrated.
Did any of the dark money make it to the US? Well, apart from the money
Gazprom gave the Ketchum firm, it’s hard to know. Our foundation reporting requirements allow us a glimpse into how each spends its money
although some act as as money-launderers for others. Foreign firms are
generally under no such obligations, though, so we can only see the recipients and not the funders.
Greenpeace Funding A Puzzle
We do know there are two different Greenpeace USA groups. Like the
NY-PIRG, they have two corporations; one, Greenpeace, Inc. is a 501(c)4
political lobbying entity and the other, Greenpeace Fund, Inc., is a charThe suggestion that Greenpeace’s recent actions make it implausible
to think the Russkies may have financed them is even less convincing. ity. The political arm took in $32 million in 2012 and the charity side
Why? Because, Greenpeace is, according to others who have watched had $12 million in revenues. The former spent the vast bulk of its money
it carefully, essentially a shakedown outfit and when operators of that on salaries, benefits, fund-raising expenses and other overhead. This is
sort want more money they get it by reminding their patsy funders of fascinating, given the relatively low profile Greenpeace has in this country
compared to, say, the NRDC. It suggests an organization that isn’t doing
why it’s not healthy to have them as an engaged enemy.
much for the money it receives.
The charity side spent more in grants than it collected in revenue in 2012.
The Greenpeace of today, in fact, is a completely different organizaSome $13 million was granted to the political arm and/or Greenpeace
tion, both mission-wise and legally, than the original. One of the
original’s founders, Patrick Moore, got so disgusted with the evolution International (the Stichting Greenpeace Council) climate, forest, ocean
and Arctic campaigns in Europe; all for the same purposes. Greenpeace is,
of the organization he left and has written a book about the experience. Likewise for Bjørn Lomborg. They got tired of the bullying and other words, raising political money here in the US to spend abroad–tapping our useful idiots. We are simply a money trough. And, it’s the usual
Greenpeace’s lack of conscience and reason.
suspects giving the money. Adelaide Gomer, of Park Foundation fame, is
Interestingly, the Russian newspaper Pravda, tells us this (emphasis
on the board of the charity arm and gives it $50,000 per year. The Rockadded):
efeller Brothers Fund is another funder.
A coordinator of the Moscow branch of the Russian anti-globalization
resistance Elena Borisova believes that Greenpeace’s methods are unac- But, where does the rest of the political arm’s funding come from? It took
in $33 million and only a fraction came from the charity arm. It’s hard to
ceptable.
believe such a low-profile group could raise that kind of money. Something called The Partnership Project, Inc. (funded by World Wildlife Fund
It seems that Greenpeace is activated when Russia begins to impleInc, Wilderness Society, Environment America, The Energy Foundation
ment some projects in the Arctic, Barents Sea?
and the Tides Foundation among others) gave it $120,000 and the Ru“I strongly suspect that it is really the case. We did support a number
dolph Steiner Foundation apparently gave it money some time in the past
of campaigns by Greenpeace when we thought that the nature was in
danger. The examples are Utrish reserve, game reserves of the Caucasus but there is no indication of any other groups funding Greenpeace, Inc. in
recent years.
in connection with the ongoing construction there. However, in many
That means the money came from mail solicitations, large private incases there is some correlation.
dividual donations or groups that don’t have to report. We’ll probably
Of course, Greenpeace needs funding. It receives this funding. The
current public relations system allows, so to speak, to create the impres- never know exactly who, but we do know useful idiots here are apparently
sending big money to Greenpeace International where it is likely packaged
sion of independent functioning. That is, direct requirements are not
al ݅