By on October 30, 2011

Greenpeace is continuing its shakedown campaign against a surprising target: Volkswagen. The manufacturer of some of the world’s most fuel efficient cars finds itself in the cross-hairs of Greenpeace, an organization that changed from greening the planet to blackmailing deep-pocketed companies.

Greenpeace proudly disrupted a worldwide dealer launch of the Up! in Ibiza. Here is a car that produces only 79 to 108 grams of CO2 per kilometer (depending on motorization), and consumes only 4.2 liter gasoline per 100 km (56 mpg – non EPA), and Greenpeace deems it necessary to invade the launch event as if there is another BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.  One would think  that there are other car companies worthy of Greenpeace attention – could it be that makers of gas guzzling SUVs have donated to buy peace from Greenpeace?

Along with the blackmail come lies. “The 13-year-old VW Lupo has lower emissions than the Up!,” says Greenpeace.  Utter baloney.  According to my files, a Lupo from 2001 consumed between 5.2 and 6.8 liters gasoline per 100km. The diesel version consumed around 4.4 liters. The only version that bested the Up! was the Lupo 3L, which used 2.99 liter diesel. That miracle was performed by using space-age materials.  They reduced the weight of the car, but increased the price to obscene levels. “The price is the darkest chapter of the 3 Liter Lupo,” wrote Focus.  In 2003, only 886 Lupo 3L were sold in Germany.  In early 2005, it was discontinued. A car that nobody buys does nothing for the environment.

Five of the Ibiza activists were detained by Spanish authorities. They got the wrong ones.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

28 Comments on “Greenpeace Blackmail Continues...”


  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    Editorialize much?

  • avatar

    Par for the course. Greenpeace are no longer the hippies in the Rainbow Warrior they are a collection of PR flacks who attach themselves to whatever generates the best headlines. Greenpeace are also hypocrites that live in glass houses. Greenpeace attacked Facebook for building the world’s most efficient (by a huge margin, 1.09 PUE) datacenter. Of course Greenpeace’s website runs from one operated 50/50 by Coal and Nuclear in one of the least energy-efficient (~1.9—2.1 PUE) regions to operate a datacenter. Go figure.

    We can safely ignore these whiners.

  • avatar
    eldard

    Not as bad as PETA, though. Not that’s a group that I like to annoy. That fur coat looks fetching…:)

    • 0 avatar
      zeus01

      They’re both equally pathetic cults. It’s long past time to once again scuttle the rainbow warrior and for whalers in international waters to arm themselves with torpedoes. As for Peta, the very mention of these losers gives me the damnest craving for KFC.

      • 0 avatar
        probert

        Perhaps you meant harpoons? You meant to say you’d like to kill people who protest the killing of whales with the exploding harpoons used to kill whales. See this has a sense of irony and drama – whereas your suggestion was just brutal and savage.

        In a semi literate way you’re advocating murder. Does that feel good?

      • 0 avatar
        stuki

        When some yahoo actively goes out of his way, trying to prevent you from putting food on your children’s table, you’re supposed to shoot the clown. It’s supposed to simply be reflexive, not some sort of moral statement. Exactly what you shoot with, is immaterial, as long as it is effective.

      • 0 avatar
        damikco

        Ahh if said person kills you first because you attempted to take their life when they meant you no physical harm in the first place it would be unfortunate that you would not be able to feed your kids being that you are dead.

      • 0 avatar
        Robert.Walter

        Whale meat is so popular that in Japan, that the government subsidizes it, tries to promote channels of consumption (IIRC, e.g., in schools), pays for warehousing and accumulation of the unwanted meat, and after all the rejection and meager demand, they pay to land fill it after it spoils…

    • 0 avatar
      geggamoya

      People for the Eating of Tasty Animals.

  • avatar
    zeus01

    No, probert, I meant torpedoes. Not large enough to cause massive explosions or anything, just enough to puncture their hull at the water line and sink their ship. After all, they’re skilled sailors (uh, right?) and well know how to board a lifeboat. Since they declared war on whalers they’re aware of the risks and should expect retaliation.

    Given that fact, boarding a greenpeace cult vessel with intent to commit an act of war (and no, these morons don’t simply protest— they sabotage and commit vandalism against their opponents and board their vessels with no authorization or right to do so) without first learning how to swim would constitute an act of suicide on their part rather than an act of murder by the whalers who exercise their right to defend against a sworn enemy.

    Therefore, my conscience bothers me not one iota. In a semi-literate way it appears you’re implying that it should. It doesn’t and never will. Greenpeace and Peta can rot in hell.

  • avatar
    Adamatari

    Greenpeace are trolls, but unfortunately, they are necessary trolls. Even in this case, though their claims about the Up! may be incorrect, the broader reason they are targeting VW is because VW opposes increased mileage and emissions standards, which is a legitimate claim. Whaling is actually another case in point; while proponents will claim that there is a “sustainable harvest”, whale populations are still very, very, very low by historical standards. Logbooks and descriptions by people on ships 200 or more years ago describe enourmous numbers of whales – whales stretching from horizon to horizon in the arctic, etc. We aren’t anywhere near “recovery”… So frankly, I think whaling is a seriously bad idea. Their anti-nuclear work is also better, partly by virtue of being louder and more public, than other environmental groups. Frankly any sort of power generation that can contaminate hundreds of square miles of land for generations if there is the slightest “oops” is a bad idea.

    If you take the narcisstic POV that we don’t have to care about the environment, then Greenpeace is easy to hate. But despite their flaws, they are loud and annoying and make people notice and think about the environment, which is still being destroyed, though the focus of destruction has shifted from the developed world to the developing world and the oceans (which are mostly unprotected, and have been over-harvested and otherwise damaged by things like bottom trawling globally). It would be nice if everyone took the environment seriously, and nice, calm groups like the WWF could calmly go and tell people “we need to do something about this” and something would be done – but there are many cases where that is not going to happen, which is where more extreme organizations like Greenpeace are necessary.

    If we acted responsibly towards the environment, Greenpeace wouldn’t need to exist. We don’t.

    • 0 avatar
      Robert.Walter

      +1!! One hundred years ago, my gr-grandfather was one of the most successful cod fisherman operating out of his island in Newfoundland; he used a three-masted schooner (then hi-tech) and the cod stocks on the Grand Banks were both plentiful and sustainable. In more recent times, with the advent of factory ships coming from as far afield as Spain, the stocks there wobbled, but no one took this seriously except the enviers, then the stocks collapsed to the point that the industry collapsed, and, despite all bans and limits on fishing there, and despite all these efforts, and to the best of my knowledge, they have not recovered in the last 20 years…

  • avatar
    TrailerTrash

    What took them so long?
    They must not have gone to the Reverend Jesse Jackson School Of Shake Down.
    Here they would have learned long ago the real money is to be made in accepting shut up money.
    In fact, if you stay in it long enough, you kids even get beverage distributors and such.

    Never let a good crisis go to waste!!!

    • 0 avatar
      Robert.Walter

      These days, I’m not even sure what Mr. Jackson is advocating for, except for the interests and exposure of Mr. Jackson. Sometimes, when he appears all frothy and indignant, pontificating on things seemingly unrelated to his core mission, I shed a tear thinking how he and so many latter-day reverends seemingly co-opted and rebranded Dr. King’s peace and freedom train as their own personal money trains.

  • avatar

    No need for torpedoes…

    Groups, like Greenpeace, are professional weasels that live on taxpayers money.
    Their business model is convincingly easy:
    Step 1: Found an organization (preferably, in 1st world countries where idiot density and average income is high enough), with the aim of “saving the world” from one evil or the other
    Step 2: Obtain the “non-profit” label that ensures tax-free operation
    Step 3: Find enough good-doers that support your organization either with donations or non-paid other contributions
    Step 4: Profit

    So, if you just would change tax laws in such a way that donations to such organizations are not deductible they would have a massive problem. Mass media, too. Where to obtain those wonderful “Save the World” headlines cheaply?

    Killing two birds with one stone. Wouldn’t that be nice? Write to your local representative.

  • avatar
    racer-esq.

    Companies like VW, that market to eco-consious buyers, make themselvs vulnerable to this. A Greenpeace protest would probably boost, for example, Escalade sales, so protesting something like that is not effective. VW buyers pay attention to the protests.

  • avatar
    mpresley

    It would be better if GP, and their comrades at peta, too, hiked to the polar regions. Hiked, because it would be unethical to use slave dogs. Once there, they could live their lives as vegetarians, and console the Polar Bear (their young are so “cute”) and swim with Shamu. Although they would soon starve to death, or be eaten, they would be making an admirable “social statement.” I would, of course, support these efforts 100%, and strongly encourage them to do it–for the sake of the planet.

    • 0 avatar
      zeus01

      AGREED!! Or better yet, take up real causes like say, going to Saudi Arabia and protesting the very real environmental and human rights violations in that country. But you know that would never happen— Greenpeace and Peta are for-profit cults whose members choose their opponents very carefully. Which is why those they choose to terrorize must make themselves equally dangerous targets.

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    It’s funny to see a thread full of a number of people pointing out how allegedly hypocritical Greenpeace is because it conveniently deflects attention away from their own lifestyle.

    Expect me to have no sympathy for similar hypocrisies from the darlings of the Right.

    Now, I’ve actually worked for and with Greenpeace, and I’ll admit they’re ideological hard-cases and that they do themselves no favours in both being a) pretty unreasonable, b) having to reconcile a relatively paltry operating budget with those ideals (what, you think boats are cheap to buy? The cost an a perfectly-clean ocean-worthy ship is not trivial, hence the scows they use), and c) yeah, they do pick and choose targets. So what? It’s not like their opponents have a history of pillorying the tens of billions wasted on Exxon or Lockheed-Martin and instead choosing to wax hysteric on a few million on the likes of Solyndra.

    On balance, yes, they do more harm than good. Personally, I’m glad to see that they make so many posters here (including the editor) so uncomfortable that they’re reduced to ad-hominems and editorialization.

    • 0 avatar
      TrailerTrash

      well, ya..a lot of replies seem anger filled.
      but make no mistake about the issue.
      the fact that you can’t point out the wrongs…dead wrongs and hypocrisies…of a group without then being called angry is wrong.
      the so called left is very similar, if not more mean, in its bashing of opponents.
      even today’s headline about Herman Cain’s being accused of sexual harassment from unnamed sources takes this whole innuendo thing a bit far.
      when did you stop beating your wife?

  • avatar

    The founder of Greenpeace quit awhile back and IIRC wrote a book exposing how radicalized the entire environmental movement has become.

    I don’t think anyone contributing here is really in favor of dirty air and water but that’s how the debate is framed anytime somebody brings up the slightest hint of opposition to the latest crusade by the likes of Greenpeace, Earth First!, NRDC and now even more mainstream organizations like the Sierra Club and World Wildlife Fund. Such opposition usually centers around legitimate concerns as cost to consumers and jobs lost as a cost of compliance.

    Back when the Copenhagen conference took place, I read a draft of the treaty the environmental groups all wanted us to sign…the one that was going to “save the planet”.

    I found the draft on the US Greenpeace website, to be sure I wasn’t reading someone’s spin or a filtered copy.

    The proposal called for the creation of a new trans-national organization to regulate the carbon emissions of the developed world.

    The developed countries would pay a hefty sum to the new organization, based on the amount of CO2 they emit. Those monies would then be distributed to poorer developing countries.

    Developing countries that would be exempt from compliance, including China and India.

    Toward the end of the treaty it’s acknowledged that the provisions of the Copenhagen treaty would, at best, lower global temperatures 1/2 a degree in 50 years, IIRC.

    Today’s cars (at least those complying with US emissions standards) are some 99 1/2 percent cleaner than they were 50 years ago. The fules we use today are cleaner than 50 years ago too…even factoring out the use of tetraethyl lead…yet you never hear this.

    If you want to see a REAL environmental catastrophe, google “Donora PA 1948 Smog” or “Love Canal”. At least in the US (and I’m sure throughout much of the developed world), we’ve long had laws preventing such dangers from happening again. In addition, public opinion, over the past 50 years, has become wary of corporations – a good way of holding corporations accountable.

    Volkswagen knows there’s a market for cleaner cars and builds cars to satisfy that market. You’d think they’d be lauded by the likes of Greenpeace. But that’s not enough…and nothing will ever be enough until we’re all riding bicycles, living in caves and eating veggies.

    Except then we won’t be able to afford to clean up our waste…and we will have an environmental catastrophe on our hands.

    I await the ad hominem replies. :)

  • avatar
    gslippy

    Greenpeace has been irrelevant for decades.

    Nobody is making a car-buying decision based upon the alleged ‘greenness’ of the manufacturer itself.

    • 0 avatar
      eldard

      Unless they’re from LA. God, I hope California defaults.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      Toyota would disagree with you on this, and considering the Prius alone outsells several non-green brands (Buick, Volkswagen, Volvo, among others) there’s something to be said.

      Now, green marketing is not easy (in the way that, say, luxury marketing is) in that you cannot actually proclaim the virtue and not expect a darts coming back your own way vis a vis greenwashing. This is why Toyota doesn’t actually work the green angle all that hard with the Prius (at least, not at the national level).

      Greenpeace is less relevant now than they used to be, this is true. On the other hand, the environment isn’t used a colossal toilet as readily, so they’ve managed something. The problem is that they cannot let up, not when their ideological opposites are constantly lobbying to weaken regulation.

      Or would you rather they say “Yep, we’ve done all we can reasonably do and we can totally trust Exxon, PG&E, Dow or the like to run with it and not, you know, try to save a few bucks at the expense of human health. We’ll disband now, thanks!”

  • avatar
    obruni

    Greenpeace makes an absurd claim about emissions, and TTAC counters with fuel economy figures?

    Mr. Schmitt needs more coffee i guess. tsk tsk tsk


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India