You have to hand it to Greenpeace — they are one of the few environmental nonprofits pushing the envelope in terms of their video PSA's. They have dispensed with the normal, tired "c'mon, make a difference" type of video messaging so commonplace these days, instead opting for shock tactics to drive home their point.

In the recently launched Kit Kat Killer campaign, Greenpeace UK makes the uncomfortable statement that if you eat Nestle products, you are directly responsible (and are in sense eating) orangutans, a nearly extinct species that lives in the Indonesian rain forests, a region that is being decimated for the cheap palm oil that is found in almost all of Nestle's products.

Last week Greenpeace USA launched its own surprising (and a little goofy) video, handing out WANTED signs to passersby in Washington, D.C., on the somewhat ironic occasion of the opening of the David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins at the Smithsonian Institute. Ironic because the Koch brothers have been some of the biggest funders of anti-climate lobbying efforts. I would have gone more in the direction of a proposed renaming of the Smithsonian wing — something like the "Hall of Species Extinction" — but the confrontational approach of handing out fliers was amusing too:

One of my favorite, and very effective uses of environmental shockvertising was last year's LUSH campaign against seal hunting. A gorgeous model staged a bloody death on the Canadian flag in protest of Canada's seal hunt and the cosmetics industry which continues to provide a market for the brutal practice. In this case, the event garnered a huge amount of press and rallied public sentiment in Canada against seal hunting.

What do you think about the effectiveness of these and other environmental shockvertising tactics?

Environmental shockvertising: Does it work?
Two new video campaigns by Greenpeace are brave and forthright in making their point, but do they go too far?