Mitsubishi declined IWMC’s offer of help and instead behaved as if the campaigners were genuinely concerned about the environment and would respect scientific scrutiny and environmental assessments of their plans. At a May 2000 press conference in Tokyo, after Mitsubishi had given up and withdrawn its plans, IWMC condemned the company for capitulating with the campaigners.

Now, according to a detailed expose published in Ruxton newspapers (including the Los Angeles New Times, San Francisco Weekly and Phoenix New Times), the moves in this industrial tragedy have been documented. After a yearlong investigation, the newspaper group "found no scientific basis to suggest the salt plant proposed at Laguna San Ignacio represented even a mild threat to the baby grays or the adult whales."

What they did discover is that NRDC received $20 million from the public between 1996 and 2001 as a result of this campaign, which also helped to increase its membership from 175,000 members to 500,000. IFAW and NRDC together spent $15.5 million on the protest, much of which was channeled into more fundraising. In its direct mail, NRDC falsely claimed that, "Our continent’s most spectacular wildlife nursery is in grave danger" and referred to the loss of "precious salinity" in the water and "potential injury" and "death" of whales.

The result for Mitsubishi was that it received over one million letters of opposition, many from schoolchildren, and endured a boycott from 46 California municipalities and 14 pension funds. Its reputation was damaged by advertisements in the Los Angeles Times, New York Times and Wall Street Journal and appeals from movie stars Pierce Brosnan and Glenn Close.

The groups mobilized the support of 34 scientists, including nine Nobel laureates and Pulitzer Prize winners, only one of whom was an expert on whales. None appeared to have read the several thousand page environmental impact assessment that concluded the saltworks posed no threat to gray whales or any other creatures. Indeed, the EIA stated that the project could even benefit some species. Independent experts supporting the project were wrongly characterized as being on Mitsubishi’s payroll by this sole whale expert – who the journalists discovered was being secretly paid by NRDC.

NRDC even warned Mitsubishi that whatever the environmental studies showed, they would oppose the project. But while Mitsubishi were diverted into building up their scientific case, spending $2 million on environmental studies, the campaigners overran them in the political and public arenas. According to journalist Jill Stewart: "The environmentalists obfuscated facts and duped the public."

None of the extra money raised by NRDC appears to have gone on studies of the gray whale or other activities that would benefit wildlife. A Santa Cruz biologist is quoted saying: "When I see the environmental groups use their millions of dollars for gray whale research instead of slick mailers, then I will believe they want to save whales."

IWMC would have warned Mitsubishi that these organizations are fundraising businesses legally raising money by promulgating lies that appeal to human emotions and sensibilities. By not recognizing the characteristics of their opponents, Mitsubishi were always doomed to failure. Mitsubishi’s lawyers clearly did not appreciate that in these circumstances science was a necessary adjunct to a communications campaign of their own, and not something that could be relied on to secure a rational outcome.

The newspaper group has done a great job of tracking down what happened and writing the obituary of Laguna San Ignacio. But the fundraising campaign industry continues unfazed, undamaged and unabated. As predicted, NRDC was the clear winner.