Greenpeace report on Koch Industries criticized

Last week’s report on Koch Industries by Greenpeace has sparked a bit of critical discussion beyond the usual news coverage.

At Reason.com, the underwhelming nature of the report’s revelations is noted: “The Greenpeace noise machine managed to persuade the Guardian to publish a ‘shocking’ article detailing the amazing fact that donors tend to support groups that advocate points of view with which they generally agree.”

The article also notes the tremendous amount of money given to causes purported to support environmental issues: “In 1999, individuals, companies and foundations gave an average of $9.6 million a day to environmental groups.”

To place that number in context, Greenpeace is creating an issue over Koch donations of $25 million given over three years.

A Scientific American article contains a statement from Cato Institute (an organization that receives Koch funding) founder and President Edward Crane that shows how Greenpeace is deflecting attention from the real issue:

“I’m concerned that Greenpeace appears to be more interested in our funding sources than in the accuracy of the research that is being funded,” he added. “Climategate (not to mention peer-reviewed publications) would vindicate that accuracy.”

Curiously, that article finds it necessary to use apologetic quotation marks when mentioning the term “free market,” as though this concept is something readers of that publication may not have been exposed to, or may not believe exists.

In the article Greenpeace Report : Koch brothers and Exxon deserve medals at Mens News Daily, we see that we ought to be offering thanks: “If Charles and David Koch and ExxonMobil are playing even a fraction of the part in public education as Greenpeace claims, then we owe them our thanks.”

In Global Warming: Who’s funding the fight?, Environmental Policy Examiner notes the Koch’s long-time support for free markets and institutions that support economic freedom: “The Greenpeace story doesn’t mention how long Koch (and Exxon, for that matter) have been funding organizations like this. That’s because their funding predates any controversy about global warming.”

In a later article on the same site, author Thomas Fuller looks at an example of the exaggerated claims made in the Greenpeace report:

Greenpeace calls the Manhattan Institute a “climate denialist” organization because they hosted Bjorn Lomborg twice in the last two years. So they are sliming Koch Industries for providing some funding to the Manhattan Institute, whose “climate crime” is hosting Bjorn Lomborg. They say Lomborg “challenges and attacks policy measures to address climate change.” …

Greenpeace appears to have lost its collective mind. Lomborg is not a denialist. He understands climate change and anthropogenic contributions to it. He supports actions to alleviate it. He just doesn’t agree with Greenpeace on specific policies. His real sin, in the eyes of Greenpeace, is that he wants us to remember the other problems facing this planet, such as poverty and disease. But it is absolutely straight jacket insane to call him a “denialist.”


2 thoughts on “Greenpeace report on Koch Industries criticized”

  1. Being criticized by Greenpeace should be a badge of honor in light of the scientific scandals unveiled in the on going debacle about man-made (anthropogenic) global warming. If the Nobel Prize committee was made up of anyone beside left-wing loons, they would have retracted their award to Algore and the UN for their ridiculous and inaccurate claims.

    The decline in natural gas prices that is occurring with the new drilling technology today should be providing the US with a comparative advantage economically. Instead, the federal government is busy trying to force-feed politically correct “renewable” energy into our economy and this expensive and unreliable new source is making this country less competitive and placing us at a comparative disadvantage.

    For the morons in Washington, a comparative disadvantage is something you try and eliminate, not propogate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>