When Greenpeace generates global headlines, it's often for dramatic, gimmicky stunts, like scaling an oil rig or breaking into a nuclear power plant. This week, the environmental group is making news for a different kind of high stakes behavior: losing $5.1 million on a bad financial bet. It seems that a Greenpeace employee had been dabbling in the volatile currency trade market.
Critics of Greenpeace are chortling over this. Others, such as John Vidal, the Guardian's environmental editor, are spinning it rather oddly. He writes:
If it only costs £3m for Greenpeace to prove to the world that speculation on risky markets to raise money is madness, then it may be money well spent.
Yes, I'm sure that will do the trick! The comments on Vidal's embarrassing piece are wickedly delicious, such as this one:
My theory is that said [Greenpeace] individual had been taking too much notice of Nafeez Ahmed and anticipating the immanent collapse of civilization and the flight to "safety" of the US dollar, decided to short the Euro.
Ahmed, as regular Collide-a-Scape readers know, is my favorite "tour guide to the apocalypse." He and Vidal occupy an interesting space at the Guardian.
