 |
| Don’t worry Mr. Cow, I’m sure people at the environmental groups care about you — as long as your cute picture is their next meal ticket. |
Last week I made this simple observation:
By the way, how hypocritical that people don’t trust Monsanto because they have a “vested financial interest,” but they’re perfectly comfortable trusting a group of “scientists” whose funding comes directly from activist groups opposed to biotech. (Putting On A Lab Coat Doesn’t Make You A Scientist)
The hypocrisy, however, was missed by some. How can it possibly be the same thing? Monsanto sells products and makes money from selling those products. But these activists aren’t selling products, so they aren’t making money; right?
Wrong.
I didn’t know that some people still operated under the delusion that groups like PETA and the Sierra Club are engaged in the process out of the goodness of their hearts and a concern for the environment. Don’t be fooled: Environmental activism, no matter how misleading or deceptive, is big money.
Take a look at the Humane Society of the United States’ 2011 tax return.The group’s net assets for that year were $183,215,830. Whatever way you slice it, that’s a whole lot of money. I’ve pointed out before that HSUS’ budget doesn’t go very far when it comes to helping animals. Yet in 2011 they spent $17,163,993 in “research and education.” Now, we know that education to HSUS means propaganda, but what scientist working for HSUS isn’t going to give them the result they want in order to get a chunk of that money?
How about PETA? According to their website, their net assets for 2012 were $30,866,660. Sure, that might be chump change to some, but for a bunch of people running around squawking about how horrible animal agriculture is, I think they’re making a pretty penny without doing any actual work.
The Sierra Club in 2013 has an operating budget of $100million. Better than that, they signed a deal with Clorox to put their logo on a line of “eco-friendly” products — which brought the group a nice $1.3million.
Greenpeace’s budget in 2012 was $310million. “Its 1,200-strong staff ranges from “direct action” activists to scientific researchers.” And I bet those people enjoy sharing that $310million for producing whatever results will get them a bigger budget next year.
The Natural Resources Defense Counsel, another large environmental group in the US, has an operating budget of $95million, with only about 400 employees.
Are you getting the clear picture here? I’m sure there are true believers wrapped up somewhere in those groups, but a lot of them also realize that there is a lot of the green stuff (pun intended) floating around too. All you have to do is play television commercials that depict sad little animals (that you didn’t pay) and all the suckers up late at night with insomnia will send you a few bucks. The next thing you know, you’ve got a few million dollars to pay off a group of scientists or buy a couple politicians.
Don’t kid yourself — these groups have a lot of money and they’re very powerful. This isn’t about doing something to help the environment, this is about making a cushy living. This is big business eco-style. While you’re out working hard to make a living, these guys are selling a fake message filled with scare tactics and stamped with a furry puppy. Oh, and they’re lying to the public about your industry to do it.
And that’s the major difference: Monsanto produces and sells a product that people want to buy. Environmental activist groups play at people’s emotions to deceive them and get donations.
Biotech companies like Monsanto have to play by the rules. They have to prove over and over again that they’re products are safe. Environmental groups can say whatever the heck they want to with no repercussions, no check on reality, and no accountability. Whatever brings the cash in.
Yet people will freely believe that Greenpeace and HSUS are telling the truth. After all, what’s in it for them?
The whole situation is just dripping in hypocrisy.
I try and impress a very similar argument upon people who hate Monsanto and other for profit companies. Being a nonprofit doesn't really mean much. Their top individuals make millions still. Hell, even the NFL classifies as a not for profit
I'm quite confused: are you implying that environmental activists are nothing but money-makers; that they do, in fact, have no message of truth?
I would never paint with such a broad brush. Are there "true believers" in those movements? Sure, of course. But my point is that it is an unfair and double standard for people to assume Monsanto is bad because they make a profit from their position, while many of these environmental groups pull in so much money.
Activists exist be a use of the abusers. Monsanto is an easy target. They have former high level management employees with fat pensions that have become elected officials many levels of local and reglobal gov’t. Only one reason why large companies do this. I don’t have time to fill in the blanks for you beyond that. I’m only now beginning my foray into activism. Most activists do it for no money or more likely with money out of their own pocket.