Greenpeace bodly asserts that it exists "because this fragile earth deserves a voice". Now it is the organization that is looking increasingly fragile as its voice becomes less and less potent.

The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), a U.S. civil rights group, organized a counter protest in New Jersey on 10 May, complaining that Greenpeace, "is a powerful elite of First World activists whose hardcore agenda puts people last. It’s time to hold these zealots accountable for the misery and death they cause."

While Greenpeace was trying to raise money by claiming that the region’s chemical plants "could" put millions of people at risk if there was an accident or terrorist attack, CORE was criticizing Greenpeace for campaigning against measures in Africa that would reduce deaths from malaria and malnutrition.

Emulating the activists’ practice of undermining the public events of others, CORE dressed up in grim reaper costumes and hampered a fundraising stunt billed as "Run for Your Life" and instead dubbed it a "Run for Death". Niger Innes of CORE said that Greenpeace "wants to keep the Third World permanently mired in poverty, disease and death."

Meanwhile, Greenpeace’s reputation took another hit when it was rebutted in Fortune magazine by U.S. food retailer Trader Joe’s. Greenpeace executive director John Passacantando had claimed that Trader Joe’s decision to sell store brand products free of genetically engineered ingredients was an example of Greenpeace working with companies to make them more ecologically sound.

Dan Bane, Chairman and CEO of Trader Joe’s, acknowledged pressure from Greenpeace but wrote that: "It is absolutely untrue that Greenpeace worked with us to do anything. We rejected their offers to guide us through the conversion of our products because we view their ‘ends justify the means’ approach as despicable. Frankly, we know our customers and products a lot better than they do. To now find Greenpeace telling the public that they are working with us or helped us in any way is deceitful and despicable."

With Greenpeace’s fundraising campaign in the U.S. sputtering, and following an unsuccessful attempt to generate a flow of new cash from Central and South America, Greenpeace has returned to its European heartland for a boost. The group is busy trying to untap the environmental consciousness of central and eastern Europe, relying in part on one of its most lucrative campaigns ever, "Save the Whale".

Countries like the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia are increasingly prosperous, making them a prime market for new fundraising. And with its long-established relationships with politicians and bureaucrats throughout the EU, Greenpeace is well-placed to bring environmental policies under the spotlight and "apply leverage" as they wade through the process of joining the European Union.

Despite the fact that three of them are landlocked, all have been placed under pressure to fall obediently into line by joining the International Whaling Commission to vote, with other EU countries, against Japan. A high-profile and misleading public campaign by Greenpeace in these countries has provided political cover but the indications are that the income generated has been less than spectacular.

It is hard to imagine that Greenpeace can sustain its income for long by recycling out-dated campaigns in former Soviet bloc countries. It has lost direction, is running out of new markets to tap and is laboring under an increasingly diminished reputation. If Greenpeace was a publicly quoted business, it would be rated as a "Sell". Its world is, indeed, looking increasingly fragile.