Greenpeace Canada is collecting signatures on its website for a petition against Lego’s co-branding agreement with Shell. Greenpeace doesn’t like Shell, of course, stating on the website: “…When Lego’s halo effect is used to sell propaganda to children, especially by an unethical corporation who are busy destroying the natural world that our children will inherit, we have to do something.” But Greenpeace loves Lego: “We love Lego. You love Lego. Everyone loves Lego.” states the website. People running Greenpeace must be confused—or dishonest hypocrites. I am arguing the latter.
Greenpeace’s staff are dishonest hypocrites because they know full well that Lego’s products are made of plastic, a petroleum derivative. Greenpeace pays lip service to loving a children’s toy manufacturer and to caring about our children inheriting the Earth, because it doesn’t want to reveal its true goal: preserving the planet as an end in itself, not for any human use. If Greenpeace revealed its true motive—keeping the planet pristine, at the cost of human well-being and lives—it would lose much of its support. Only the die-hard, anti-human true core of the so-called environmental movement would continue crusading for “saving the planet.”
Greenpeace does not hate just oil producers but all companies that use oil as their raw material or as fuel to power their production—which means most businesses. Greenpeace hates all business, because business creates material values, from fuel to food to financial services, and children’s toys, on which our physical survival, well-being, and enjoyment of life depend. And creating material values means shaping nature and exploiting natural resources for human purposes, which is diametrically opposed to Greenpeace’s anti-human agenda.
Greenpeace staff are hypocrites also because they accuse Shell and Lego for “selling propaganda to children”—Lego is selling a set depicting an Arctic oil production site including toy equipment with Shell’s logo on it. Yet people running Greenpeace spread their own propaganda against oil production and the benefits of fossil fuels to human welfare.
Greenpeace staff are also upset that YouTube initially took down Greenpeace’s propaganda video clip against Lego and Shell (depicting Lego’s artic oil production set drowning in black goo, presumably representing crude oil) when Warner Bros. complained about copyright violation. Greenpeace called YouTube’s prompt action a violation of their right to free speech. So Greenpeace does not like business—but wants a company like YouTube to exist and to provide it a platform to spread Greenpeace’s own propaganda. Yet, Lego and Shell should not have right to free speech and be allowed to advertise and promote their own products.
In a National Post column a few days ago, Terence Corcoran told that Greenpeace was offering a chance to win a $300 gift card to anyone who would sign its on-line petition against Lego and Shell, to reach its goal of a million signatures. When I checked, this enticement to sign had been removed—and about 500,000 signatures had been collected. Still, it is a manifestation of Greenpeace’s own pathetic lack of integrity; it merely wants to boast about a million signatures in its petition, no matter how those signatures were obtained. It seems that in Greenpeace’s view, the end justifies the means, but only when the end is “saving the planet” at the cost of human flourishing.
It is Greenpeace that we should watch and call out on, exposing its propaganda and plans to destroy human well-being. It is companies like Shell and Lego that we should defend and thank for providing us not only necessities of life but products that make our lives more comfortable and enjoyable.
Latest posts by Jaana Woiceshyn (see all)
- Government Regulation of Business: Protection or Harm? - 2016.10.19
- Defending Fossil Fuel Companies Against Climate Catastrophists - 2016.10.16
- The Investment Bankers Contribution: Directing Capital To Productive Uses - 2016.09.28
- Government, Business, and Human Flourishing - 2016.09.04
- Celebrating Work: A Crucially Important Value - 2016.09.04