The Greenpeace Guide to Anti-Environmental Organizations.

You're a dedicated environmentalist. You could fill a resume just with your environmental involvement, including a long list of green organizations you have joined or supported. Citizens for the Environment? The U.S. Council for Energy Awareness? The Alliance for Environment and Resources? Or maybe the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow?

Hopefully not. These groups may sound like a perfect match for a diehard activist like you, but their agendas aren't exactly as environmental or progressive as their names might lead you to believe. Citizens for the Environment, which says it supports "market-based" environmental protection, fought passage of the Clean Air Act of 1990 and California's Proposition 128, a referendum that would have improved state regulation of toxic substances. And despite its name, the group has no citizen membership.

The others are similarly misleading. The U.S. Council for Energy Awareness promotes nuclear energy for the nuclear power industry; the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow has called for a rollback of federal air and water quality standards and repealing the Endangered Species Act; and the Alliance for Environment and Resources was formed by the California Forestry Association to support the agenda of the timber industry.

It's hardly surprising that the success of environmental organizations would in turn spawn counter-environmental groups. While few environmentalists would deny opponents the right to organize and promote their views, activists argue that many of these groups are deceiving the public by wrapping their agendas in earth tones.

But why would these groups intentionally paint themselves green if their sole purpose is to discredit environmental causes? Because they know that it's much more effective to jump on an already popular bandwagon than to publicly sabotage it. Millions of Americans belong to environmental groups, and these opposition groups know their chances are far better if they twist their message into an earth-friendly package, says a new book.

Greenpeace, the international grassroots environmental organization, has set out to expose these deceptive groups to the public with its Greenpeace Guide to Anti-Environmental Organizations. A slim volume that combines several brief introductory chapters - explaining the genesis of the anti-environmental movement and defining the major types of anti-environmental organizations - with a catalog of more than 50 deceptive groups, the guide is a quick, easy read and a helpful reference source. Fans of Greenpeace's gut-level, no-holds-barred activism will note happily that the book, the latest in the group's Real Story Series, does not mince words.

The new guide should help activists ("who need to know what they're up against") and contributors to environmental causes ("who want to make sure that their support is going to the right place"). And judging from the listings Greenpeace pulled together, there is a lot for environmental supporters to be wary of these days. According to the guide, anti-environmental powers that put on green faces include public relations firms (P.R. giant Burson Marstellar, which was hired to rescue Exxon's post-Valdez reputation, is prominently featured), corporate front groups, legal foundations, endowments and charities, and Wise Use or Share groups.

"Wise Use" and "Share" are two of the most popular descriptives in the pseudo-green vocabulary, says freelance journalist Carl Deal, author of the Greenpeace Guide. Both refer to coalitions of local anti-environmental groups (the Wise Use movement is based mainly in the western United States, and the Share movement is based in Canada) that are becoming increasing influential in the midst of escalating timber and land use disputes. "Wise Use activists are recruited from the ranks of workers at company meetings (which are often compulsory)," writes Deal, "and by door-to-door canvassers who claim that environmentalism is causing unemployment." Other red-flag terms? "Integrated resource management," "multiple use," and even "sustainable development" - a prime example of a term the groups have borrowed from environmentalists to further confuse the public.

The Greenpeace Guide describes the anti-enviro groups' agendas and histories briefly, provides their addresses and phone numbers, and gives partial lists of their funding sources and officers, board members, or other major players. Financial backers include Westinghouse, American Nuclear Corp., the National Rifle Association, Weyerhauser, Coca-Cola, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, and the Desert Vipers Motorcycle Club, according to Greenpeace.

Carl Deal says it wasn't difficult to get information about most groups. "They're all eager to distribute their materials - propaganda - so it's not hard to get a grip on the ideas that they're promoting," he says.

Which groups stick out in his mind? "Probably the most egregious - the most confusing [title] if one were to see it - is the Sea Lion Defense Fund," says Deal. "They're playing with the whole cute, fuzzy theme that has been a boost for the environmental groups over the years."

Its name aside, the Sea Lion Defense Fund is the legal arm of Alaska's fishing industry. Sea lions were at the heart of a lawsuit filed by environmental groups - Greenpeace among them - to protest a 40 percent increase in the amount of pollock the fishing industry is allowed to catch. Pollock is the sea lions' main food, and environmentalists feared that such a huge jump in pollock fishing would "decimate both the pollock stocks and the seals, and forever alter the marine ecosystem in the Gulf of Alaska," says the Greenpeace Guide. Thc fishing industry cheered the quota increase and set up a legal fund to fight the lawsuit - which it did with great success - and cleverly incorporated sea lions into the organization's name. Despite the loss in that case, environmentalists are still litigating over future fishing quotas, says Greenpeace.

The Coalition for Vehicle Choice, which is fighting mandatory auto fuel efficiency, or CAFE, standards, is another of Deal's top picks for deceptive tactics. "I like the way they're playing the whole issue" by preying on people's fears of government taking away consumer choices, he says. The automobile industry paid thee public relations firm E. Bruce Harrison & Co. (a specialist in "environmental" campaigns, says Greenpeace) $500,000 to set up the coalition in 1991, according to the guide. "With headlines like |Who should choose your next car? You or Congress?' this supposed consumer advocate and auto safety group launched an $8 million campaign that helped defeat a bill setting higher fuel-efficiency standards in U.S.-built cars," says the book's listing on the coalition.

Since the guide was published in April, a handful of phone calls have come in from the groups that were included, says Deal. "By and large, they're proud to be listed," he reports. "Some have even said they're flattered."

WHAT DO THESE ORGANIZATIONS HAVE IN COMMON?(*) * The Abundant Wildlife Society of * The Global Climate Coalition

North America 

* B.C. Forest Alliance                 * Information Council for the
                                         Environment
* Business Council for Sustainable     * National Wetlands Coalition

Development

* California Desert Coalition          * Oregon Lands Coalition
* Citizens Coalition for Sustainable   * Sahara Club USA

Development

* Environmental Conservation           * Science and Environmental
  Organization                           Policy Project
* The Evergreen Foundation             * Society for Environmental Truth
* Foundation for Research on           * Wilderness Impact Research
  Economics and the Environment          Foundation

(*) Not what you might assume at first glance. According to Greenpeace, all are

anti-environmental groups.