This Is Awkward

Moonbats 31 Comments

Greenpeace loses millions in donor contributions;

The Amsterdam-based not-for-profit revealed on Monday that it lost €3.8-million ($5.6-million), after a well-meaning employee entered into a contract intended to minimize foreign currency exchange costs, which instead turned into a big loss. […]greenpeace.jpg
The loss is being publicized ahead of Greenpeace’s 2013 annual report, which will show the organization is running a deficit of €6.8-million, including the mishandled currency trade. The group’s global budget last year was €300-million.
The loss is a blow to the Greenpeace brand. The organization took to social media to connect with devotees and apologize for the process failures that led to the loss. Since Greenpeace doesn’t accept donations from governments or companies in an effort to maintain its integrity, contributions from individual contributors are paramount.

h/t Rob Z.

31 Replies to “This Is Awkward”

  1. So they are capitalists (and bad at it). I wonder if most of their donors approve.

  3. For $300 million, I’d be tempted to find catastrophic environmental concerns where none exist. You don’t suppose they make things up to keep the cash flowing?

  4. Chump change for Hollywood types, or Soros and others of his ilk. Mom and pop donations of$20 or $50 would never sustain a 300m budget, even though they’d like you to think it so.

  7. Possibly they can take it, the loss of other people’s money, out of the wages of Greenpeace. Especially at the Executive and Management level. Surely a $300 million sized corporation has a great deal of money paid out to many people.
    This would be in keeping with their prime mission of forcing ordinary people out of their jobs for Gaia. It is the only decent thing to do. Cheers;

  8. Nice little extortion racket.
    They will soon raise replacement money from their corporate victims.
    Nice industry you got there,shame if anyone decided to launch a champaign of lies,slander and law fare against it.
    Greenpeace has set the enviro-racket bar as bout as low as it can go.

  10. Hmmmmm,
    Amsterdam based well fancy that, nothing to do with the Nederland’s well known tax status that has tax dodgers and dodging companies lining up to follow hypocrite Bono with Nederland based parent companies…..
    Cynical of me I know, I guess I must just be seeing patterns in the dots.

  11. When the truth is revealed, we must laugh. Crying is only for the dumb. Wait! I was crying five years ago. Thanx Greg; Cheers;hv22x4

  12. “What is best in life?”
    To curse your enemies, to see the SUVs driven before you, and to jeer the lamentations of their money.

  13. Thanks Kate, I needed a good laugh after last Wednesday’s election.
    300M Euros? What are they spending it on? Ignorance is free, last time I checked.

  14. “What are they spending it on?”
    Greenpeace’s schtick is that they do this thing with boats, big boats, and maritime maintenance/operating costs, if you aren’t actually shipping cargo, is verrry expensive.
    Greenpeas might just end up not being able to do their boating routine any more. tsk tsk

  15. I’ve worked in the field.
    Transactions like this don’t happen without serious input from a broker and/or a banker – as in, two-hour lunch (fully lubricated), and putting together the background documents and the PowerPoint for presentation to senior management.
    Somebody made a whole buncha fees off the initial transaction.
    This doesn’t excuse the Greenpeace Finance unit from their responsibility for setting up an unhedged position, or from Greenpeace senior management from their responsibility for due diligence – just some perspective for how these things happen.

  16. Here’s a question Greenpeace should answer: When will they let an independent auditor – like public corporations must use – conduct a full audit of their books. These radical left organizations must prove they are not all Enrons.

  18. You have to (grudgingly) admit that there is a fundamental sort of honesty about Greenpeace that a lot of the rest of the eco-turds don’t have. At least it is right up front about what it does and what it won’t do.
    Quite a contrast to say, Ducks Unlimited Canada, which sucks up millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars under the pretense that it is a “hunting” organization, but sides with our socialist governments on the confiscation of private property rights.

  19. Yep those ships suck back literal tons of diesel fuel, you know the evil global warming stuff that they hate so much…

  20. You’re right about Ducks Unlimited Canada Jamie. After the Ontario government froze our St. Lawrence River water front lands under land use planning act regs as “provincially significant coastal wetlands”, about the only option we had was to “partner” with DU. What an abysmal mistake that was! 25 years of neglect. 25 years of lost income and utility. All the while, they “partnered” with government agencies behind the scenes to increase the regulatory freeze on our land and herd more landowners into their open arms. Land acquisition is cheap (and even unnecessary) if government eliminates all competitors through statutory restrictions. A warning to landowners – stay away from these guys – and don’t fund them either.

  21. Greenpeace also lost 391 million in foreign exchange dealings in 2011.
    They posted a gain of 643 million in 2012.
    Although there appears to be a formatting inconsistency or error in the financial report in regard to how they show gain/(loss).
    Their expenditures are only listed as “campaigns” with not breakdown on operational cost details.
    Even their official report is a marketing document.
    What they really do is undermine lawful business enterprises they dislike.

  23. You have to (grudgingly) admit that there is a fundamental sort of honesty about Greenpeace that a lot of the rest of the eco-turds don’t have. At least it is right up front about what it does and what it won’t do. Jamie McMaster
    Greenpeace only look moderate, if one is using ” Earth First ” as the standard. They are dictatorially New Left absolutists in virtually every way, including ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with them. And, as far as being up front in what they do, I don’t believe they have yet dropped the green beard and honestly stated their ultimate goal is socialism, not environmentalism.
    Patrick Moore, a Greenpeace co founder describes them, this way:
    ” By the time I left in ‘86, Greenpeace had drifted into a position of characterizing humans as the enemies of the Earth, a cancer on the planet,” said Mr. Moore.
    “After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective,” he said.
    “They’re living in a fairy-tale world,” he said. “It’s unbelievable.”

  24. Who said anything about Greenpeace being “moderate”. They’re full blown, capital A, Arseholes. But they’re open about their intentions – unlike many of the other envirosnakes that exist for one reason: using public funds to feather their own nests.

  25. This is probably just another Greenpeace fraud and wasn’t a “mistake” at all, but rather hundreds of millions have been syphoned off to various “entities”.

  28. I hope the Occupods drown when they set up their protest camps around the greedy and capitalist Greenpeace diesel burners.

  29. Greenpeace sure has come a long way since the early 70’s when they would canvass door to door to “Save the Whales”in Kitsilano then meet up later at the Cecil to drink the donations and laugh about how much money the Squares had given them.

  30. Little lost for a 350,000,000 dollar corporation that pretends to be an environmentalist organization. Which occasionally stages stunts to keep the money flowing. Just like a phoney claim it & grab it false ministries claiming to be a church in name only.
    Which in reality is a con game.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation