Greenpeace’s Iconic ‘Rainbow Warrior’ Ship Chopped Up On A Third-World Beach, Sold For Scrap

From The Daily Caller

8:11 PM 12/30/2018 | Energy

Michael Bastasch | Energy Editor

  • Greenpeace’s iconic “Rainbow Warrior” boat was disposed of in a way the group campaigned against for years.
  • Greenpeace regrets allowing its old vessel to be chopped up on a Bangladeshi beaching yard and sold for scrap.
  • The embarrassing news flew under the radar of major media outlets for weeks.

Greenpeace quietly admitted in November one of its “Rainbow Warrior” boats was “scrapped on a beaching yard in Bangladesh” — a method it spent years campaigning against.

“We have made a mistake, one that we have tried to correct,” Greenpeace International, based in Amsterdam, admitted in mid-November, adding it allowed Rainbow Warrior II “to be scrapped on a beaching yard in Bangladesh, in a way that does not live up to the standards we set ourselves and campaigned with our allies to have adopted across the world.”

However, the embarrassing admission from one of the world’s largest and most prominent environmental groups flew under the radar of major news outlets. Greenpeace quietly put out a press release on its international website, which few noticed.

Greenpeace International did not respond to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

Indeed, Rainbow Warrior II’s fate is only the latest in a string of embarrassments and scandals to plague Greenpeace in recent years, including admitting in 2014 it had lost millions in donations betting on currency speculation.

That same year, Greenpeace came under fire from the Peruvian government for damaging the ancient Nazca Lines. Activists damaged the world-famous site with giant protest banners advocating for solar energy and calling for countries to fight global warming.


REUTERS/Paul McErlane.

The iconic Rainbow Warrior put Greenpeace in the headlines protesting nuclear weapons testing in the late 1970s. French special forces sunk the original Rainbow Warrior boat in New Zealand in 1985. However, the group got another boat, which it used for over 20 years to protest whaling, fishing and nuclear tests. (RELATED: The NY Times Was Silent When TheDCNF Asked If It Would Support Banning Private Jets. Why?)

Ironically, Greenpeace’s Rainbow vessels were powered by two large diesel engines as well as a sail. Critics relentlessly pointed out the group’s hypocrisy for using oil while simultaneously campaigning against its extraction.

Greenpeace gave its replacement Rainbow Warrior II boat to the Bangladeshi non-profit Friendship in 2011 after it was deemed no longer fit for high-seas travel. Friendship used the boat as a floating hospital for years until 2018.

As part of its agreement with Friendship, Greenpeace retained veto rights over how the ship would be disposed. Friendship sold Rainbow Warrior II to a Bangladeshi beaching yard where it would be scrapped using a method they spent years campaigning against.

Greenpeace, after initially approving of this plan, publicly backtracked in mid-November. Rainbow Warrior II was hauled into a beach where it “readied to be cut up” and sold as scrap. Environmental groups have campaigned against these sorts of beach shipyards for years.


The Greenpeace ship The Rainbow warrior leaves Papeete July 4 for Mururoa. REUTERS Image Library.

The 61-year-old Rainbow Warrior II boat was disposed of “in a way that does not live up to the standards we set ourselves and campaigned with our allies to have adopted across the world,” Greenpeace admitted in its mid-November statement.

“We should have consulted our partners in the NGO Shipbreaking Platform and the Basel Action Network, we did not. No excuse. We should have,” Greenpeace International said.

Greenpeace’s admission went completely unnoticed by major media outlets until Friday when the German-language newspaper Der Spiegel published a scathing article on the debacle.

“The numerous toxins in the ships, such as asbestos or PCB, get unhindered into the environment,” Der Spiegel writer Nicolai Kwasniewski wrote.

Kwasniewski wrote Greenpeace tried to “minimize the damage as long as possible” and is “now negotiating with PHP to bring the very toxic materials from the Rongdhonu to a country where they can be disposed of properly.”

Fishermen watch the Green peace ship "Rainbow Warrior" sail on the river Hooghly in Kolkata

REUTERS/Parth Sanyal.

The first news outlet to report on the incident, the Belgian-based MO, reported in early December that Greenpeace officials were “convinced that [Rainbow Warrior II] could no longer make a big trip to a shipbreaking yard that would meet its own standards and requirements,” which they later admitted “was the mistake.”

Greenpeace Norway officials told MO the decision was “the result of a major internal error” that was made “without consulting either its own expertise or allies within the NGO Shipbreaking Platform or Basel Action Network.”

Greenpeace reportedly tried to buy Rainbow Warrior II back, but that effort failed because the scrapping company PHP wanted too much for the vessel. The group also said it will try to have the ship scraps and waste exported to a country with modern disposal facilities.

“Going forward Greenpeace commits to urgently adopt an end-of-life ship policy, drafted with the help of the Shipbreaking Platform, to help ensure such errors do not occur in future,” Greenpeace said.

Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Robertson
December 31, 2018 8:15 pm

Damn they caught us,quick spit out a press release for the International Presstitutes to spread.
Gang Green is here to harvest the green from the gullibles.
Their proud motto;”Rules for thee,none for me”.

Reply to  John Robertson
December 31, 2018 8:40 pm

This falls right into the gigglesnortt!! category!!

I want to wish everyone a prosperous and Happy New Year in 2019.

James Bull
Reply to  John Robertson
December 31, 2018 10:01 pm

This is another “Do as I say not as I do” times for the big green blob.
Also it ran on special green oil and diesel that they harvested from the Unicorns in a faraway land!

James Bull

Reply to  James Bull
December 31, 2018 11:48 pm

“locally harvested Unicorns”

Faraway Unicorns would have a massive CO2 footprint

Reply to  MangoChutney
January 1, 2019 4:46 am

Excellent point! Always harvest local, be it food or unicorns.

chris pasqualini
Reply to  James Bull
January 1, 2019 12:39 pm

Say, you don’t suppose it was actually rendered from whale blubber?

Reply to  John Robertson
December 31, 2018 10:12 pm

It’s not like the Chinese navy were going to need to turn it into an artificial reef during some vigorous heart-felt protest about their coral reef destruction.

Not an issue.

Reply to  John Robertson
December 31, 2018 10:16 pm

John, Not gang green but ‘gangrene’.

Reply to  Lank
December 31, 2018 11:15 pm

Lank, no it’s exactly as intended, a play on the word gangrene. Gang green. Green Gang. Get it?

John Robertson
Reply to  Lank
January 1, 2019 2:56 pm

English is a wonderful language,I write Gang Green,you read gangrene.
Imagine poor google interns trying to censure this.
Just as the Aussies Have “Snip 18” in place of Muslim Terrorist.
We Canadians will soon enough have to refer to these lovies as ‘Son’s of the desert pedophile”thanks to hate speech laws from our parasitic overlords.

Kurt in Switzerland
Reply to  John Robertson
January 1, 2019 12:35 pm

Wanna know why they went the cheap route rather than traveling the high ground?

Look at their books. Focus on 2017 liabilities (esp. vs 2016). Big hemorrhaging there.

The ONLY way to get this to change is for the individuals and entities funding Greenpeace to demand accountability. That means the Greenpeace Board, the CEO, the COO and the Legsl Counsel taking a sizable pay-cut. Period. Everything else is childish, skirting responsibility. Make them personally pay for their hypocrisy or they will repeat the practice, over and over and over. This is just human nature.

Tom Halla
December 31, 2018 8:19 pm


Rich Davis
December 31, 2018 8:19 pm

“Going forward Greenpeace commits to urgently adopt an end-of-life ship policy, drafted with the help of the Shipbreaking Platform, to help ensure such errors do not occur in future,” Greenpeace said.

Unless it costs us more than just scuttling the damn thing…in which case we’ll just say “mistakes were made”, and “Send more money so we can do it right next time.”

Jim Whelan
Reply to  Rich Davis
January 1, 2019 10:17 am

No need for any “mistakes were made” claim if it’s scuttled. Just claim it sank in a severe, global warming caused storm. The news release can say, “Thankfully all crew members and Greenpeace activists on board were saved before the ship sank.”

December 31, 2018 8:39 pm

… the scrapping company PHP wanted too much for the vessel. …

The gross weight was 555 tonnes. link That includes what the ship would weigh with cargo. The weight of the ship itself is called lightship weight. That is around a third of the gross weight. link So a guess at the steel involved would be around 185 tonnes. If scrap steel goes at $300/tonne, we get a value of around $60,000.

It is possible the scrap company realized they had Greenpeace by the short curlies. Let’s assume they were playing fair though.

My guess is that Greenpeace has had more than $60,000 worth of trouble. They should have paid the asking price because, presumably, they would have recovered a lot of it when the ship was eventually broken up at an environmentally friendly scrap yard.

For a small price, they could have looked like heroes. They cheaped out and now they look like schmucks.

p.s. Happy New Year!

Reply to  commieBob
January 1, 2019 12:47 am

They cheaped out and now they look like are schmucks.

Simplified it for ya.

Reply to  commieBob
January 1, 2019 6:53 am

Really, what’s $60K compared to the $5.2M they lost a few years ago playing in the FX market…

Reply to  commieBob
January 1, 2019 6:03 pm

…but, apparently, no price is too high for John and Jane Citizen to pay when it comes to the “environment”.

Reply to  commieBob
January 2, 2019 6:48 am

But they would also have had to move it to wherever the “environmentally friendly” scrap yard was, and that might have cost a LOT more than $60K. There would also have been the visibility of the junk ship being towed (with a black-smoke belching tug attached).

R Shearer
December 31, 2018 8:39 pm

We consume over 100 million gallons of fuel per year in our ships and helicopters and vehicles, not to mention millions of miles our executives fly on private and commercial jets and aircraft. For this we are sorry.

Reply to  R Shearer
January 1, 2019 2:48 am

“We consume … commercial jets and aircraft.”

We are truly sorry that you have noticed this.

Farmer Ch E retired
December 31, 2018 8:53 pm

There is a cost to being truly green. If we wanted truly green rather than cheap, we would require it from the supply chains of the world. Likewise, there is a cost to human rights.

Pamela Gray(@pamelasuemakin)
December 31, 2018 8:56 pm

Cue the people who will say this shouldn’t be here.

Paul r
December 31, 2018 9:12 pm

Another example of Greenpeace being a multi million dollar corporation who over the years has turned into what it fought against. The peple who run it are just corporates who use naive gullible volunteers to make them millions in profit. Greenpeace should be renamed greenback.

Reply to  Paul r
January 1, 2019 9:53 am

For decades, Greenpeace has been primarily about promoting Marxism.

Reply to  MarkW
January 2, 2019 12:05 pm

They are about making money, greed, power, and growing.

The most efficient way for THEM to do this is to market to the people that are fooled by Marxism ‘values’.

Clay Sanborn
December 31, 2018 9:37 pm


December 31, 2018 9:45 pm

Recycling, and almost certainly for a better purpose.

Where is the problem ???

Reply to  fred250
January 1, 2019 9:53 am

There’s nasty stuff inside old ships that shouldn’t just be tossed into the bay.

December 31, 2018 10:05 pm

It took hours to cut through the green paint with acetylene only to find an even thicker toxic red paint layer on the inside.

Reply to  WXcycles
December 31, 2018 10:34 pm

It’s taken years to cut through the green bs slime to find the even more toxic red hypocrisy underneath.

Interesting- as I have become more revolted by Greenpeace, I have gained more and more respect for Paul Watson.

Reply to  Richard
January 1, 2019 9:34 pm

Patrick Moore ? Watson is of the pirate Sea Shepard ilk.

Reply to  WXcycles
January 1, 2019 3:58 am

+++ 😉 yup

December 31, 2018 10:29 pm

At least they are not as bad as Sea Shepherd.
I remember when that wacko catamaran speed boat deliberately rammed into a Japanese whaling ship, endangered all the crew,
then under cover of night they scuttled their boat and tried to pretend it was the Japanese fault.

Craig from Oz
Reply to  Jeff
January 1, 2019 2:34 pm

Sea Shepherd, because the sheep normal protected by a shepherd are NEVER later slaughtered eating.

Always amuses me that.

Komrade KUma
December 31, 2018 11:12 pm

“We made a mistake”

No you did not you pack of frauds, you just got found out. It ‘passed under the radar of ‘ major news outlets because the various editors made sure it did.

This is hardly a matter over which you do not have a firm policy position and a proper plan to ensure compiance with said policy. What, are Greanpeace sdaying the vessel just drifted to Bangladesh and so the locals dealt with it? BS. It was sold to a wrecker or intermediary in the full knowledge of what would happen.

Reply to  Komrade KUma
January 1, 2019 6:39 am

“We made a mistake” “Sorry” “Now keep sending us $1 million/day so we can keep the lights on and maintain our globetrotting lifestyles.”

That’s the Green Blob, alright.

December 31, 2018 11:33 pm

I am happy and sure that they will, at the very least,be paying all the breaking workers a good wage with all benefits.

Won’t they?

J Mac
December 31, 2018 11:45 pm

Butt covering, lying hippocrites…..

E J Zuiderwijk
January 1, 2019 1:01 am

Oh the delicious irony.

January 1, 2019 1:45 am

The MSM editors would probably dump this story for a piece hounding some poor 85year old for some dubious misdemeanour 60 years ago.

January 1, 2019 3:16 am

It’s always that bigotry whats typical for greens, when asking to drink water while themselves drink wine.
Strong protests against falling trees for coal surface mining, attacking policemen over days, while not far away trees are falling for windmills, not one of the greens has been seen.

Happy New year !!

January 1, 2019 3:23 am

The usual incompetence of a ‘charitable’ organisation.

There is no concept of formal management or accountability within these organisations. They have no idea how to turn a profit or the sacrifices that demands. They exist on handouts from wealthy supporters and gullible members of the public. Shoddy management practices go unrecognised because there’s no one who knows what good management practices look like.

Like all zealots they make sure their own personal nest is well feathered.

Being that this is one of the fundamental platforms upon which they exist, had the company been operated by proper businessmen this would never have happened as the clunker would never have been sold off as a hospital ship, it would have been responsibly scrapped when they still retained control over it.

Many charities in the UK simply would not exist were it not for government support. They get that support in return for political lobbying. When our current Conservative government under David Cameron took power much of the money saved by the bonfire of the QUANGO’s (Quasi-Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisations) was diverted to selected charities to continue the work done by the QUANGO’s.

Oxfam is another example of these shady, badly run organisations, with well remunerated employed managers engaging in disgusting sexual exploitation of the victims they are supposed to be helping whilst the organisation is supported by innumerable charity shops across the country staffed largely by well meaning but gullible volunteers.

I have met two ‘managers’ of these organisations. One of Greenpeace itself in the 1970’s who maintained a fine lifestyle with a nice house. More recently another who is involved in advertising management for the NSPCC (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children) who lives in a very nice house in a gated community worth around £750,000.

January 1, 2019 6:11 am

Governments are now under serious threat from the MSM, who turn blind eyes to many wrongdoings, while having “fact-checking” armies aimed at Trump and whatever else they are campaigning against. One potential solution to this problem is for govts to have their own media outlets, many will dismiss these as propaganda, but how else can they fight back against the propaganda from the MSM?

January 1, 2019 6:44 am

Sounds like the ship is more Greenpieces than Greenpeace’s.

January 1, 2019 9:46 am

If only Greenpeace itself would suffer the same fate.

G Karst
January 1, 2019 10:41 am

Don’t do what we do… Do as we say!
Typical leftist Hypocrisy GK

chris pasqualini
January 1, 2019 12:41 pm

Say, you don’t suppose it was actually rendered from whale blubber?

Russ R.
January 1, 2019 12:57 pm

The image of a rotting green watermelon, smashed on a tidal beech in Bangladesh, and Gang Green toxic sludge oozing out into the ocean, is not good for fundraising.

So they are sorry for that peak behind the curtain. Please forget what you saw, and they will put an iron curtain between their operations and the public consumption of propaganda.

And the “operational reality” is those foreign currencies are not going to trade themselves!
Nothing like a “foreign currency cleanse” to hide what they really do with those donations.

January 1, 2019 2:27 pm

In my younger years I actually traveled to those mud flats in Bangladesh. The pollution is beyond words. All of the ship breaking activities leak every toxic fluid that those ships contained. Clearly evident from the multi-colored ocean waters. No worker protection of any kind. The shoreline is one long trash heap.

Of course responsible recycling costs money. Environmentalism is a luxury reserved for the rich.

Irritable Bill
January 1, 2019 2:43 pm

You are all right of course to be highly critical of this once environmental org. Back in the day they did some good, they stopped the vile baby harp seal slaughter and led the charge against the whale carnage….no more. Now Greenpeace wants to destroy our civilization…because they don’t like it. The environment is irrelevant to the greens, except as a virtue signaling dog whistle to the loony left and mentally frail.
They are now a socialist org. driven by hate and sociopathic rage against our society…one they will never fit into because they are insane.
See Patrick Moors comments about Global warming zealotry and insane “green” blatherings.

Jeffrey Price
January 1, 2019 9:10 pm

Yo Greenpeace what say you about the Chinese devastation of reefs in the South China Sea… Oh, I see, nothing… Yeah, you wouldn’t want to irritate your ideological friends. Hypocrites, sell outs, COWARDS…

January 1, 2019 9:25 pm

“The group also said it will try to have the ship scraps and waste exported to a country with modern disposal facilities.”

The waste should be transported back to the Netherlands, where Greenpeace is based, for disposal under its laws.

January 2, 2019 6:24 am

Advocacy damage control is fun to watch.

January 3, 2019 2:18 am

Perhaps Greenpeace itself should be chopped up for scrap too.
Wait, they already did it with this action.

slow to follow
January 3, 2019 1:19 pm


Cumulative environmental impact

The Brent Spar campaign set a precedent for a more open and responsible approach from the offshore oil and gas industry to the decommissioning of obsolete platforms. Before Greenpeace took action against Shell, a number of oil companies had been planning sea-dumping of obsolete installations, such as oil storage buoys and oil rigs. There would have been little, if any, international scrutiny of decommissioning operations – and there would have been a cumulative environmental impact way beyond that of the Brent Spar Greenpeace’s action and the support of people throughout Europe, ensured that no such structures have been dumped to this day.”

%d bloggers like this: