Lego Ends Shell Partnership Under Greenpeace Pressure 252
jones_supa writes Since 1960s, we have been seeing the oil company Shell logo being featured in some Lego sets, and Legos being distributed at petrol stations in 26 countries. This marketing partnership is coming to an end, after coming under sustained pressure from Greenpeace. The environmental campaign, protesting about the oil giant's plans to drill in the Arctic, came with a YouTube video that depicted pristine Arctic, built from 120 kg of Lego, being covered in oil. CEO of Lego, Jørgen Vig Knudstorp, wants to leave the dispute between Greenpeace and Shell, and the toy company is getting out of the way.
Pixie Dust (Score:5, Insightful)
Because Legos are made out of pixie dust, not oil.
ESSO (Score:2)
That was what they had on special Lego blocks, when I was a boy...
I think yanks called 'er Exxon, by then.
Re:ESSO (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
my bad
Re: (Score:2)
Prolly true. But we had Esso in UK and on continent (Netherlands? Hard to recall) back in the day.
Re:Pixie Dust (Score:5, Funny)
Wait till someone tells GreenPeace that their boat needs oil to run.
Re:Pixie Dust (Score:5, Funny)
Wait till someone tells GreenPeace that their boat needs oil to run.
Well, they can run it on whale oil instead.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You joke, but their newest ship actually has sails! [wikipedia.org]
From Wikipedia:
Re:Pixie Dust (Score:4, Informative)
any idea how much yield acreage is involved in producing just one gallon of biodiesel?
Here's a clue: soybeans yield 127 gallons per yield acre, but that's not what's used because soybeans grow too slowly. Oilseed yields about a quarter the amount of raw oil (pre refinement) but it grows five times faster. If you stop looking at it there, oilseed looks like a good deal. BUT, then you come to refining it into biodiesel where your net yield drops to about 8% of what you'd get with soy.
127 gallons is about ten tanks in a small family car. How many eleven gallon tanks are rolling about in the United States? Several tens of MILLIONS? A total conversion to biodiesel would require every square foot of land area on the planet given over for oilseed production.
Re: (Score:2)
Your assumptions are stupid (Score:2)
A total conversion to biodiesel would require every square foot of land area on the planet given over for oilseed production.
A total conversion to biodiesel would require only a small percentage of our available desert land given over for algae production. We can use seawater pumped inland with thermal solar. The land in which we are interested is low-lying and predominantly unused. The process produces not only biofuel feedstock with high oil content, but also fertilizer and salt. It requires only minimal initial outlay and utilizes technolgies proven by the USDoE [nrel.gov] (i.e. "with our tax dollars) in the 1980s.
In other words, everyth
Re: (Score:2)
tallow, suet and similar animal fats/derivatives already have uses which saturate supply (candles, soap, lubricants, paper additives, food). You want to divert that to feed your car? As hemp goes, that'll never happen as long as there are trees to supply plant fibre for the paper industry.
Re: (Score:2)
(It still uses diesel engines for maneuvering in port, of course -- I'm honestly surprised they don't run the engine on biodiesel. Maybe it's a logistical issue?)
Provided that your seals (which may well be flare fittings, no seals!) and lines and pumps can all handle bio, which for anything modern is not exactly a foregone conclusion but doesn't really cost you any extra if you shop around, you can run any diesel without half-assed fuel quality sensors on any proportion biodiesel. Sadly, many modern diesels do have those (as opposed to none, or a good one) but I would be fairly surprised if they didn't spec to be able to run it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. For example, my old VW runs on biodiesel just fine, and all I had to do was replace the fuel injector return lines with Viton ones. (I might have to rebuild my fuel pump with Viton seals too, eventually.)
Re: (Score:2)
It looks like Greenpeace has different priorities - the sails mean they can turn off their engines to save fuel, extend their operational range and it naturally fits with their image. Looks like a really cool boat.
Re:Pixie Dust (Score:5, Informative)
Generally its the delivery crew who use the sails to get the boat to where the rich guy wants to sail from. Often the crew are given a budget, for all expenses including fuel, and so anything they save on that means they have more spending money for more vital supplies like beer, beer and more beer :-)
These crews move the yachts around the world as "the rich guy" wants spring in the Caribbean, summer in the Med, fall/autumn in the Indian Ocean, winter around Australia. So you move the yacht to meet the guy and his family/friends for the holiday onboard at specific times.
You use the diesel engine when you're likely to miss the departure/arrival dates.
Its a fun life but badly paid, but you get to spend your time on a luxury yacht.
Re:Pixie Dust (Score:5, Insightful)
People shouldn't let their prejudices against Greenpeace, 'tree-huggers', 'hippies', climate change or whatever blind them to the fact that:
1. Big, polluting corporations need to be challenged. The oil-industry is not really your friend, and I doubt the changes we have seen in pollution levels since the 50es would have happened without somebody putting serious pressure on them.
2. Whether you like Greenpeace or not, their example shows us that it is possible for ordinary people to make a difference, if they are able to work together. Is that not something worth knowing?
Re:Pixie Dust (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pixie Dust (Score:5, Insightful)
Aww, how sweet - my original post got modded down as 'Troll'! - simply for suggesting that people should be reasonable and level headed, and not let the fact that an unpopular organization like Greenpeace is mentioned, confuse their judgement.
So, to your questions:
1: Yes, I drive - why not? I am not the one claiming that everything done by oil companies is by definition "EVIL!!!!" - I just say, they are not our friends, even if they try to sell that image to us. They have resisted any movement towards producing more efficient car engines, sustainbale energy etc - in fact, anything that might affect their bottom -line. It is the logical thing for them to; they only exist to generate profit for their shareholders. Popular pressure has been among the things that have persuaded them to modify their actions. If you had read and understood what I wrote originally, you would have realised that I don't say we must all stop driving cars. But it makes very good sense to me at least, that we should try to get away from our dependency on fossil fuels as soon as possible. I am willing to give up some of my luxuries to get there.
2: Extraordinary people are just ordinary people who made a decision to no longer just following the beaten path and simply do as they are told. It isn't easy, of course - if it were, then it wouldn't be extraordinary. But everybody can do it, it just requires courage. Not the idiotic 'courage' to drink yourself legless and play chicken across a busy motorway, but the real courage to open up your mind and risk having to confront your own dishonesty, and probably having to leave behind all the old fallacies that you used to believe in. As an American you ought to be in a better position to understand this than us tired, old Europeans; it's only been a century and a bit since your nation was established by ordinary people, who had no other choice than becoming extraordinary.
No, ordinary DO make a difference, if they dare to stand up against those in power, for what they really believe in.
Re: (Score:3)
Nah, just tow them out in a rowboat. The Russians will pick them up when G.P. starts flingin poo at them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, yeah, actually. It's working out really well for Germany, and they are only 1/3rd the way through the transition.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because Legos are made out of pixie dust, not oil.
Thanks for your insight AC. Because anyone opposed to drilling for oil in the artic of course, must be opposed to use of all oil products, produced anywhere in the world for any reason.
Re: (Score:2)
So you have heard of Greenpeace.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe greenpeace has enough good sense not to target one of the most popular toys in the world
when there are much easier polluter targets like shell
Re:Pixie Dust (Score:5, Interesting)
Because Legos are made out of pixie dust, not oil.
While production of oil has its own huge environmental problems, at least Lego bricks themselves are very stable, so they are good for storing carbon and keeping it off the atmosphere and oceans. And if they were made from, say, metal instead of plastic, the environmental impact of production wouldn't be any less, I bet.
Re:Pixie Dust (Score:5, Insightful)
Greenpeace isn't about helping the environment but making them feel good.
They go after high profile target, not high impact. So they get on the news and people say see how good they are.
Re:Pixie Dust (Score:4, Interesting)
One could form another organization that pollutes 10% less than Greenpeace and then start protesting Greenpeace.
Re:Pixie Dust (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Pixie Dust (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect some other motive. I mean, really, who could give a shit what Greenpeace thinks? They're a fucking joke!
I think something went sour between Legos and Shell, so Legos is just blaming Peengrease for benefit of the press.
Greenpeace never did anything of any real consequence except add comedy to news programs.
They backed Greenpeace, actually. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They backed Greenpeace, actually. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
They did that once already in the UK back in 1997... Still washing up to this day
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi... [bbc.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They didn't pick Greenpeace. They picked removing a hate campaign against them.
I find both the campaign and the result rather disturbing. They state they are against arctic oil and targets Shell. However while Shell is kind of unharmed from this (in the big picture), Lego might have taken a serious blow to sales and they have nothing to say about oil drillings at all. Legally Lego can sue Greenpeace for lost profits, but surely that would cause even more bad publicity.
Don't get me wrong. I do care about the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
THIS JUST IN (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Gees, I just thought it was a problem when you burned it or used it disposable products that collect in the environment. So no apparently oil used in long lasting kept through generations Lego is the problem. I heard it was especially bad as carpet mines, I never knew you and your moderators had thought, carbon chain products could be dangerous even when you 'DID NOT FUCKING BURN IT'.
Re:THIS JUST IN (Score:5, Funny)
I have no idea what you just said, but I will defend unto death your right to mangle sentences that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At least it's a long-lasting use. That's only a little crazy. Burning it just to move excessively heavy conveyances down the road at ludicrous speeds and turning it into pollution is insane. Oil is too valuable to burn. If we burn it all up, we'll have to make Lego out of inferior bioplastics
Re:THIS JUST IN (Score:5, Insightful)
If they want people to stop doing something, they should demonstrate that you can still get other things done without doing the thing they want people to stop doing.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, exactly. The most successful way to convince people is leading by example. Ghandi's success wasn't from conscripting insurgents, he didn't lobby the British Parliament in hopes of winning politically or through the legal system. i.e. he didn't force his way or ask for permission. He simply demonstrated a method of resistance that people could follow and lived it every day at great sacrifice.
I give a lot of respect to people who try simple living, reducing carbon footprint, installing solar, etc. A
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with your sentiment I would point out that one of the major goals of reducing pollution and carbon footprint is to live a better life, without sacrificing health and the environment we live in. If you have to give up comfort you are doing it wrong.
For example, a naturally cooled building that uses things like smart blinds, well planed air flow (as simple as having windows positioned to allow cool air to flow through the building) and more appropriate materials will not only keep you cool but a
Re: (Score:2)
You've cherry-picked a case where "leading by example" did not cause him to essentially silence himself.
"Cherry-picked"? I have to agree with the original poster. Lead by example. And when, due to the deep flaws in the belief system, that behavior causes you to silence yourself, it's a net win for everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Occupy Wallstreet should not use corporate products like cellphones or computers to coordinate.
What makes something a "corporate product"? And if Occupy Wallstreet really is about not using corporate products, then sure they shouldn't use them.
Proponents of gay marriage should just get gay married already.
I guess you haven't been paying attention. Same sex marriage has been around for a while. They are practicing what they preach. For example, I attended one such in the early 90s.
People who protest NSA spying should just avoid all internet communications that could be recorded.
No, the correct analogy is that the NSA protesters shouldn't engage in mass spying on the rest of the world. Though I can't figure out how that restriction on their behavior keeps them
Re: (Score:2)
Hey look, exactly as predicted. You don't give a shit about "leading by example" you just don't like their cause and are reaching for any reason to shit on them.
And they gave me a really good reason to "shit" on them - glaring hypocrisy. My view is that climate alarmism advocacy (the bit about climate change being so bad that human civilization will be threatened) is just another status signaling gimmick like having a flashy car or wearing a tie.
Re: (Score:2)
They want to prevent arctic drilling, not general vehicle use. They're not saying people should never use oil.
And that is their fundamental hypocrisy.
Drilling oil isn't endangering the environment anymore than any other manufacturing or primary resource industry. What kills the environment is burning the oil.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure most greenpeace hucksters would say that people should stop using oil - and then drive away on a two stroke.
Another corporation falls... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Religious? When did Greenpeace become religious?
Re: Another corporation falls... (Score:3, Insightful)
When you operate on dogma instead of well reasoned logical positions, what distinction exists between one cult and another?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to look up the purpose of the PR department. The corporation doesn't care, it has no feelings to hurt. Shareholders demand to err on the side of caution.
I would much prefer the citizens bully the corporations than the other way around!
Of course the best solution would be the government to step in and say "no advertising logos in any childrens toys", which is ultimately best for the children. The movie, tv and videogame industry all use fake products to tell their stories all the time. No reas
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the best solution would be the government to step in and say "no advertising logos in any childrens toys", which is ultimately best for the children. The movie, tv and videogame industry all use fake products to tell their stories all the time. No reason why toys should have real corporate logos in them. Pure mind control of the youth and should be stopped.
Think of the children!
Sooooo... (Score:4, Interesting)
Massive copyright violation on that video? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
None of it was awesome.
Fuck Greenpeace (Score:5, Insightful)
they are as bad as PETA. Lego are children's toys, leave your goddamn petty politics out of them.
Re:Fuck Greenpeace (Score:5, Insightful)
This. 100 times this.
If you have a bone to pick with an organisation target that organisation. Going for non related entities because they make a softer target is wrong. The end does not justify the means. Where I work we have had death threats directed at us because some of our clients are in the mining and oil & gas space. There is nothing that can justify that type of action.
Re:Fuck Greenpeace (Score:4, Informative)
> Going for non related entities because they make a softer target is wrong.
You appear to be laboring under the false belief that a company that has a promotional relationship with another company is 'non-related.' Shell is an oil company, they were paying lego to run a promotional campaign for them. That's about as related as they could get without pumping the oil themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
No I absolutely see them as non related. A related organisation, you could argue, would be Schlumberger who do the drilling for Shell on a number of their projects. Or Sinopec which they have a joint venture with in the Arrow CSG fields. If Shell runs an ad campaign in a news paper does that make the news paper a related organisation?
Seriously how are you modded Informative? I assume that every advertising company is a related entity then? Google must be hell in bed with all those big nasty companies the
Re:Fuck Greenpeace (Score:4, Interesting)
If you have a bone to pick with an organisation target that organisation. Going for non related entities because they make a softer target is wrong. The end does not justify the means. Where I work we have had death threats directed at us because some of our clients are in the mining and oil & gas space. There is nothing that can justify that type of action.
Greenpeace and other anti-science groups like the Republican Party all take this stone-age "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and "the friend of my enemy is my enemy" approach to human relations.
Roy Baumeister, in this truly excellent book Evil [amazon.com] discusses idealism as a cause of evil, and Greenpeace are a pretty good representation of the logic he describes: if you believe yourself to be purely and ideally good, then anyone opposing you and anyone who helps them in any way must be purely evil. And what lies, threats and violence aren't justified in the name of fighting pure evil?
Baumeister uses actual cases (and lots of them) to show how false-to-fact this kind of thinking always is, and how much moral thinking is actually about delusions of evil rather than evil as it is done. Anyone even mildly interested in making the world actually better, rather than just feeling good about themselves while helping to make things worse, would do well to read this book. It does more for the study of good and evil than three thousand years of fact-free philosophical imaginings.
Re: (Score:2)
So it seems we have the following actors:
Shell: Lawful Evil, Lord of the Dark Resource
Greenpeace: Chaotic Good, Sea Ranger
LEGO: Lawful Neutral, Merchant
And what you're saying is:
Good > Evil
But!
Lawful > Chaotic
So it follows that:
2x Lawful - 1x Evil > 1x Good - 1x Chaotic
= 2x Lawful - 1x Good > 1x Evil - 1x Chaotic
Meaning
Lawful > (Good + Evil - Chaotic) / 2
Good Good - Chaotic - 2x Lawful
So for your assumption to be true, assuming a neutral moral stance of Good == Evil, it would have to be that
Re: (Score:3)
Greenpeace and other anti-science groups
Greenpeace is not at all anti-science. They are more than willing to use it in order to point out just how badly we are fucking ourselves. Are you actually this ignorant, or are you simply attempting to impugn their character in order to attack them, as part of a strategy of legitimizing your shit behavior?
Re: (Score:2)
Lego are big on sustainability and protecting the environment: http://aboutus.lego.com/en-gb/... [lego.com]
Greenpeace is pointing out that their stated goals and values are incompatible with the actions of Shell, a company they associate with. Lego have accepted this and decided to do something about it.
Right target, reasonable argument based on Lego's stated position and goals, reasonable outcome.
Greedy charlatans (Score:2, Insightful)
Greenpeace has strayed so far from their roots. They are nothing but a bunch of greedy charlatans now.
Re:Fuck Greenpeace (Score:4, Insightful)
I am no greenpeace fan, but a corporation putting a logo on a child's toy in order to influence their future purchasing decisions though brain washing, is kind of asking for whatever the fuck they get, don't you think?
In related news (Score:2)
LEGO Brick collectors are now hoarding all Shell branded bricks. Prices for said bricks are now sky rocketing as collectibles.
Re: (Score:3)
Fuck Greenpeace they are as bad as PETA. Lego are children's toys, leave your goddamn petty politics out of them.
Fuck Lego they are as bad as Shell. Lego are children's toys, leave your goddamn brainwashing advertising out of them.
Now more SRSLY, I own a crapload of Lego. I don't think Fuck Lego. (Ow!) But I do think that putting Shell advertising on Lego blocks is a form of brainwashing, just like back when gas stations used to give away toy cars festooned with logo stickers. Get the kids identifying with the brand, programmed to worship the logo, before they're even vaguely capable of understanding the ramifications
Fuck Greenpeace (Score:2)
Lego are children's toys, leave your goddamn advertisements and product placements out of them.
Next steps (Score:5, Insightful)
I could go on, but I think you get the idea.
Re:Next steps (Score:4, Funny)
Gosh, I guess we should just sit around and bang rocks together and grunt...until someone from the rock protection lobby sends a cease and desist letter for banging rocks. Or until the chimpanzees claim infringement on their "entertainment systems" patents.
Re: (Score:3)
Gosh, I guess we should just sit around and bang rocks together and grunt...until someone from the rock protection lobby sends a cease and desist letter for banging rocks.
Perhaps if we banged the rocks together after carefully placing the lawyers' heads between said rocks? Kuh! Kuh! Kuh!
Re: (Score:3)
Bingo. De-industrialization has been the goal of the Marxist movement since it became a movement. If you read Marx you'll see that he essentially advocates for an egalitarian agrarian society, because it is the only logical conclusion to the idea of ensuring equal distribution of the means of production. Once Dude A (by way of technological advance) has a better way of producing something than Dude B, you can no longer ensure "equality". In the Communist Manifesto he even laments the discovery of Americ
Re: (Score:2)
I could go on, but I think you get the idea.
Good, but not for the reasons listed. I always thought Legos were better before all the "special" bricks and items. "Better" as in better for the imagination. Some of the sets these days are almost entirely custom pieces that are not useful for building things other than the picture on the box.
Get your special pieces off my lawn.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends how far you want to go back - there were special bricks when I had the castle range back in the early 1980's, and that wasn't the first special range either.
Re: (Score:2)
How good of you to decide for everyone.
President Business agrees (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Lego and politics (Score:2)
Lego got pissed off at the UK treasury who had used Lego minifigures as part of the UK campaign against Scotland's independence from the UK, see Scottish independence: Lego dropped from Treasury Buzzfeed [bbc.co.uk]
Lego, at the time, said they were politically neutral and would not allow their brand to be associated with any political stance.
Re:WTF is Legos? (Score:5, Informative)
Please always refer to our products as “LEGO bricks or toys” and not “LEGOS.” By doing so, you will be helping to protect and preserve a brand of which we are very proud, and that stands for quality the world over”
Re:WTF is Legos? (Score:5, Insightful)
Speakers, not corporate lawyers, determine language use, even if corporations wish it were otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only when the farmer finishes collecting all the straws in his field.
Re: (Score:3)
say you play with legos, like the rest of us do
Must be an American thing, here in Oz your average John-o and Steve-o play with their leg-o, great for keeping them occupied while dad nicks down to the bottle-o.
Re: (Score:3)
>Focus on the grasping giant first. The others are entrenched.
Fixed that for you. Even if we stopped all increases in fossil fuel consumption we'd still have a major problem on our hands, but it's a lot easier to convince the new guy that he shouldn't make the same mistakes we have than it is to alter the existing status quo.
Of course where China and other developing nations are concerned there's also the non-insubstantial problem that we're essentially telling them "We got rich burning cheap fuel and s
Re: (Score:2)
There is a better way to encourage China to clean up, which the EU has been using. Much of China's economy is based on exporting goods to the west. If the demand is for efficient goods that are made in a responsible way then China will meet that demand.
Take the EU RoHS regulation. Now China doesn't use certain substances in manufacturing any more. Taxes are starting to include the amount of pollution generated during manufacture, so China has an incentive to reduce it as much as possible. There is also dema
Re:So, will they now be promoting "Greenpeace"? (Score:5, Insightful)
greenpeace isn't all good either they're often misguided and destructive.
having shell logos on lego gas stations hardly seems that evil, if you are building a lego town you need a lego gas station, might as well be someones gas station
Re:So, will they now be promoting "Greenpeace"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So, will they now be promoting "Greenpeace"? (Score:5, Interesting)
What gets me is their opposition to GMO crops. I actually work in the field of crop improvement, and the stuff Greenpeace says and does put them right up there with anti-vaxxers in my opinion. They will protest biofortified or insect resistant crops in developing countries (just look at the Bt brinjal on Golden Rice controversies, both non-corporate by the way), then pat themselves in the back when the research gets blocked/destroyed, meanwhile farmers go back to spraying shitloads of pesticides and clearing more land to make up for the lost yields and children suffer malnutrition. They're just a bunch of scientifically illiterate book burning thugs using environmentalism to cover their naturalistic superstitions.
Re:So, will they now be promoting "Greenpeace"? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am sure they will offer up some excuse about Shell greenwashing its image, or brainwashing our kids about the blessings of fossil fuels, but the stark truth is that this does nothing for the environment. This announcement comes in time for GP to further their real goals: they have been out of the news for a bit and they needed a win and some publicity. Well played.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that Greenpeace did apologise for their mistake over the content of Brent Spar. The measurement was made incorrectly and they owned up to it. However, the objection was never solely due to the amount of oil remaining in the tanks.
It's come to something when people have to try to re-write history to make them look bad.
Exploding Ship Set (Score:2)
With French commandos in civilian clothes
Re: (Score:2)
Simply ending a decades-long relationship with a planet-killing KKKorporation is not enough.
Really? Shell is a planet-killing KKKorporation? Last I remember they were just a company providing people the products they demand. Like me who bought their stuff every week for the past 10 years. There's lots of things killing the planet, but it sure as heck isn't corporations. /Takes another sip of coffee made from beans shipped around the world in large boats.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, pulling a marketing relationship with a group clearly is the best way to stay out of an argument
The advantage of withdrawing support is that only zealots care either way. There are relatively few zealots to get offended, and because most people can understand what it means to try to avoid an argument.
Re: (Score:2)
The advantage of withdrawing support is that only zealots care either way. There are relatively few zealots to get offended, and because most people can understand what it means to try to avoid an argument.
Shell is paying for product placement. That isn't zealotry. Hell, Shell's agreement didn't even specify that ALL Lego gas stations/fueling equipment is Shell branded. (The vast majority of Lego gas/fuel branding is from the fictional company Octan.)
The zealots are all on the other side. Lego didn't "stay out of an argument," like you and the Slashdot summary claim. Lego caved to threats from outside zealots. I'm not calling for a boycott of Lego, or even necessarily saying that it's a bad business decisi
Re: (Score:2)
The zealots are all on the other side.
It's very zealous of you to say that.
Re: (Score:2)
The zealots are all on the other side.
It's very zealous of you to say that.
It's zealous of you to pick that sentence out of context, dick. Not everyone is equally correct in this scenario, for reasons I explained in the part of the post that you didn't quote.
Re:Time to target those who contribute to Greenpea (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps it is time to show the top donors... well how about all their donor
People give money to Greenpeace because they know "all about them".
and then companies can start to decide if they want to employee people like that.
Not too big on freedom of speech, eh?