Arising from humble roots in the 1960s, the American ecology movement has evolved into a big business. It now brings in billions annually to fight against global progress and economic development.

It’s been poisoned by its success. From the big groups like Greenpeace, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the Sierra Club to local organizations that are fighting fights you’ve never heard of, their vision’s been corrupted by the need to bring in dollars in the door. The survival of human beings and living standards are subordinated to the protection of obscure plants.

What Greenpeace USA did in organizing opposition to the construction of North Dakota’s Dakota Access pipeline highlights the problem. Rather than push for policy changes to protect the environment and the jobs of working Americans, it fought the development of a regional energy project with little concern for the possible collateral damage.

These protests, some of which turned violent, pushed the company behind its construction to file suit against demonstrators, seeking to damages because of the disruptions the ensuing mayhem created. At Greenpeace USA, it produced a leadership “implosion” after the board rejected the advice of Executive Director Ebony Twilley Martin to settle the suit for what is usually termed “a reasonable amount.” Instead, it replaced her with temporary leaders.

Rather than admit responsibility for causing substantial environmental damage needed remediation, the green groups continue to argue their points. If that makes Greenpeace USA board sensitive about all, it’s got good reason to be. During the protests, the group bragged about how it provided money, training, and supplies to the “Red Warrior Resistance Camp,” the name the protest gave to its efforts.

After a short while, the protestors were asked to leave by the Native American tribe whose interests they said they were protecting due to the violent rhetoric emanating from the camp and safety concerns.

Greenpeace USA spent months spewing lies and propaganda about the pipeline to its donor lists in a bid to raise money for the effort and for itself. It implied, for example, that the pipeline would traverse tribal lands. It didn’t. It said pipelines aren’t safe when they are a significantly safer way to move energy resources from where they are refined to where they are consumed. It said project approval was rushed and that the area’s Standing Rock Sioux Tribe wasn’t consulted.

It didn’t say that the siting and approval for the pipeline took years and involved 140 modifications to avoid approaching critical cultural sites. It did, and the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. later ruled that Energy Transfer, the company behind the pipeline, made dozens of attempts to consult with tribal leaders, but the tribe “refused to engage.” It also found that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approved the project and “exceeded” its legal obligations in addressing tribal concerns.

Greenpeace USA’s reliance on misinformation to stoke the flames of protests led to violent clashes with law enforcement and environmentally damaging fires and cost North Dakota taxpayers $38 million. One independent study found that the construction delays alone protests cost the companies involved at least $7.5 billion.

This was also evident with the Keystone XL pipeline project. The U.S. government estimated it would have created between 16,000 and 59,000 new jobs and brought economic benefits exceeding $3.4 billion. Instead, President Joe Biden killed it with a stroke of his pen as a sap to the green groups that helped him get into office.

Michael Brune, at the time the executive director of the Sierra Club, bragged to The New York Times: “When we’re able to focus on distinct, concrete projects, we tend to win.” And by win, Brune may well have been referring to the group’s fundraising. The same article noted that the pipeline protests were “a particular hit” with small donors, with the Sierra Club raising $1 million for their pipeline protests in just six weeks.

Whether it’s the Dakota Access pipeline, Keystone XL, or any number of energy infrastructure projects, environmental groups are putting their own financial needs ahead of what is financially to the benefit of America’s families and communities. When they say they’re trying to save the environment, they mean they’re trying to save their own bottom lines.

Peter Roff is former U.S. News and World Report contributing editor and UPI senior political writer now affiliated with several DC-based public policy organizations.