41 replies to this topic

[Spiderfish]

Vivian Krause’s conspiracy theory — you decide

Vivian Krause appeared to make some sort of impact on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources at the House Of Commons on February 9th. If nothing else, she got the defenses up of more than a few politicians championing the environmental boycott of the Northern Gateway Pipeline.

My take is regardless of what you think of her opinions and theories, it's necessary to research both sides of the issue of foreign charitable contributions, particularly when access to information on the use of these contributions is limited, and the potential for the misuse of these contributions can have such a huge potential impact on our domestic environmental policy. It's nice to see someone is at least trying to keep the environmentalists honest.

[eyeball]

I fail to see what is so unusual about people who want to protect Earth's biosphere providing funding to activists who are dedicated to doing so wherever they happen to be on the planet.

To an Earthling, it's all the same domestic planet .

[Spiderfish]

I fail to see what is so unusual about people who want to protect Earth's biosphere providing funding to activists who are dedicated to doing so wherever they happen to be on the planet.

To an Earthling, it's all the same domestic planet .

I agree, we need to protect our environment. I don't think, however that the underlying motive of many of these groups has much to do with environmental protection. If it did, why are they hiding their funding behind so called charities? Oh right, it's because we have rules in this country preventing foreign special interest groups from making contributions to our domestic political parties and lobby groups who shape our domestic policies. It really seems wrong as well, that Canada be the recipient of hundreds of millions of dollars in charitable donations when these donations could be used much more effectively in less fortunate countries who actually need the donations to fight hunger and health problems. It may be legal, but I'm not sure it's right to use foreign charitable donations to fight environmental/political issues.

[eyeball]

I agree, we need to protect our environment. I don't think, however that the underlying motive of many of these groups has much to do with environmental protection. If it did, why are they hiding their funding behind so called charities? Oh right, it's because we have rules in this country preventing foreign special interest groups from making contributions to our domestic political parties and lobby groups who shape our domestic policies.

Yes, the rules are rigged against the planet and in this case against the environment you say needs to be protected. So we do the right thing and screw the rules or find a way around or through them. What choice do we have?

It really seems wrong as well, that Canada be the recipient of hundreds of millions of dollars in charitable donations when these donations could be used much more effectively in less fortunate countries who actually need the donations to fight hunger and health problems. It may be legal, but I'm not sure it's right to use foreign charitable donations to fight environmental/political issues.

There's not much point in fighting hunger and health problems if there isn't going to be a planet to get hungry and unhealthy on.

The rich, powerful influential countries like ours are where decisions that will do the greatest harm to the planet are being made so this is where the fight should take place.

[Wild Bill]

Yes, the rules are rigged against the planet and in this case against the environment you say needs to be protected. So we do the right thing and screw the rules or find a way around or through them. What choice do we have?

Eyeball, I thought you were smarter than that! Perhaps you needed a coffee or two. You usually do better!

There should ALWAYS be transparency as to where funding comes from!

Suppose the Saudis are worried about losing a lot of business to the Alberta oil sands. They can easily give a lot of money to environmental groups to try to limit or even kill off the competition. The same could happen with a pipeline.

We're talking big money here! Do you really trust international oil companies or countries like Saudi Arabia blindly?

The environmental lobby groups wouldn't even always know where the donations actually originated! It's not hard to ghost it through a few hands to blur out the backtrail.

The idea that the environmental movement is pristine and incapable of being fooled or corrupted is rather naive...

[eyeball]

Eyeball, I thought you were smarter than that! Perhaps you needed a coffee or two. You usually do better!

There should ALWAYS be transparency as to where funding comes from!

I've certainly got nothing against transparency.

Suppose the Saudis are worried about losing a lot of business to the Alberta oil sands. They can easily give a lot of money to environmental groups to try to limit or even kill off the competition. The same could happen with a pipeline.

We're talking big money here! Do you really trust international oil companies or countries like Saudi Arabia blindly?

The environmental lobby groups wouldn't even always know where the donations actually originated! It's not hard to ghost it through a few hands to blur out the backtrail.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend I guess.

The idea that the environmental movement is pristine and incapable of being fooled or corrupted is rather naive...

True enough, but your cynicism is just a little too transparent to be taken seriously.

You'll have to run it by me even earlier in the morning that this I'm afraid.

[Spiderfish]

So we do the right thing and screw the rules or find a way around or through them.

I've certainly got nothing against transparency.

Seems a little contradictory. You don't have a problem screwing the rules by disguising foreign political/environmental funding as charitable donations, but you believe in transparency. I guess if it works for you, that's all that matters.

[Spiderfish]

Yes, the rules are rigged against the planet and in this case against the environment you say needs to be protected.

There's not much point in fighting hunger and health problems if there isn't going to be a planet to get hungry and unhealthy on.

Again, seems contradictory. First you indicate that it's my belief that the environment needs protected, then you substantiate my point you were trying to minimize with a dramatic prediction of the end of the world. Where are you trying to go with this?

Edited by Spiderfish, 18 February 2012 - 12:20 PM.

[waldo]

Where are you trying to go with this?

I skimmed the committee questioning... what did stick out were the repeated challenges to state/provide evidence. Ms. Krause replies, repeatedly, that she has none.

what is it you'd like to discuss - exactly?

[Spiderfish]

I skimmed the committee questioning... what did stick out were the repeated challenges to state/provide evidence. Ms. Krause replies, repeatedly, that she has none.

what is it you'd like to discuss - exactly?

Is this the exchange you are referring to?

Mr. Claude Gravelle: So what you’re saying is you have no evidence.

Ms. Vivian Krause: I’m saying that I believe that the–

Mr. Claude Gravelle: Okay, so you have no evidence. You just have accusations.

The Chair: Monsieur Gravelle, do give the witness–

Mr. Claude Gravelle: She doesn’t have any evidence.

The Chair: Do give the witness a chance to answer, and you can ask another question later.

It seems pretty clear that she was told that she has no evidence, but didn't really get a chance to even respond to the question. Once she finally was given a chance to respond, she said she has evidence.

Ms. Vivian Krause: I would say I do have evidence, but not of commercial interests. I think there is evidence of the motivations. They’re clearly written down. I think they are mixed and that there is a real true interest in protecting the environment and addressing the true environmental impacts of the energy sector. But I think the interest is not purely about protecting the environment because the foundations themselves say that they’re also interested in issues of energy security, national security, and energy independence.

Edited by Spiderfish, 18 February 2012 - 01:07 PM.

[waldo]

that's quite a self-serving cut&paste you just pulled off, hey? Ms. Krause openly states she has no evidence of "commercial interests"... but has evidence of "motivations"... and proceeds then to raise a concern that "unnamed U.S. organizations" have multiple, uhhh... "motivations"; not strictly limited to the environment, but also including vague, generalized and unqualified references to, as she states, "interests in issues of energy security, national security, and energy independence".

and the expertise of Ms. Krause? Apparently, she's a 'nutritionist'... and a blogger. The committee questioning served to highlight she has no related expertise; she is not an, "expert on any field related to this whole question of foundation structure, tax law, income tax act, under American jurisdiction." She is not an expert in anything related; she is not a lawyer, she is not an economist, she is not a specific tax lawyer, she is not a transfer pricing expert, she is not a law academic. She has no expertise in anything - clearly, just the fit to appear before the HOC's Standing Committee on Natural Resources and make broad based accusations/claims.

you appear to have a desire to say something; what was it again? You seem to have difficulty in forming a premise for discussion... can I help? Perhaps you could start with something like, uhhh... "activist U.S. charitable organizations". Perhaps then shift from the premise and move into presenting actual substantive evidence to support the premise. I expect it may not be too hard to find/present... you know, something for real discussion; something to perhaps draw out comparisons to other foreign entities engaged within Canada.

[Spiderfish]

you appear to have a desire to say something; what was it again?

I haven't once stated my leaning on this, in fact I'm kind of on the fence. I merely started this thread to see what kind of feedback it would present in an effort to stir debate and see what the general consensus was with the issue. But the discussion appeared to start off with contradictions for no other reason than to disagree for the sake of disagreeing. If this discussion is beneath you, then I apologize, and encourage you for the sake of your own intellect to move on to another post.

And for the record, the exalted environmental voice in this country, David Suzuki has a degree in a genetics, yet he has made it his mission to educate everyone on the science of climate and atmospheric sciences even though he is not an expert in the field. People listen to him because he has spent a great deal of time researching the subject, not because of his related expertise.

[waldo]

I haven't once stated my leaning on this, in fact I'm kind of on the fence.

ya, that's quite the fence-sitting I'm reading! Notwithstanding your apparent penchant for personally avoiding saying anything direct while relying upon your 3rd party projection, you tripped yourself up early by showing your self-proclaimed fence-sitting... isn't!

It's nice to see someone is at least trying to keep the environmentalists honest.

your opening post is a convoluted and contradicting mish-mash. In all your vagueness and lack of specificity, you start off by highlighting "we have rules"... and then you close out by offering cryptic comment that, "it may be legal, but I'm not sure it's right". That comment seems to dovetail quite nicely with your own cited link reference where Ms. Krause herself states she has no evidence other than what she labels as, "evidence of motivations". Huh!

I suggested you needed to start off with a stated premise. How about you state that premise, speak directly to the "rules" you vaguely imply... and move that on up into your closing summary assessment on legality - or 'rightness', your call. While you're doing that, how about you also speak to the ties between Ms. Krause and 'Ethical Oil'... now, in my like vagueness to you, I can't suggest she directly initiated an association with 'Ethical Oil'; however, I can suggest 'Ethical Oil' has, most certainly, co-opted her "message" and supposed research. And that message would be ___ ___ ___ ___ ___??? ... the message, the premise you just can't seem to actually articulate - go figure. Please feel free to fill in the blanks.

(hint: sumthin bout U.S. charitable foundations, charitable objectives, charities law, undisclosed U.S. national/corporate interests and advancing of same... and don't forget to also speak to the evidence)

ya see, once you do the aforementioned, we'll have a reference point to draw out upon.

[eyeball]

Seems a little contradictory.

Bill was somewhat right about the coffee yesterday morning, I was posting on the fly on the way out the door to work so sue me...He knows I know that transparency is sorely lacking every which surrounding virtually everything associated with the confluence of money, power, and the horizontally integrated interests of big corporations, governments and political parties. As a new member perhaps you're not aware of just how big a deal I think the lack of transparency really and truly is in any area of the public's domain that these interests come together, like our environment.

My oft-stated refrain is that Orwell had it backwards - the Telescreens should be aimed the other way. I subscribe to a trickle down theory of decency and honesty based on a pervasive invasion of official secrecy that is increasingly concentrated the higher up the power/wealth chain you go. Nothing would protect our environment faster than total public awareness of what is happening in the public's domain.

You wrote,

I agree, we need to protect our environment. I don't think, however that the underlying motive of many of these groups has much to do with environmental protection. If it did, why are they hiding their funding behind so called charities? Oh right, it's because we have rules in this country preventing foreign special interest groups from making contributions to our domestic political parties and lobby groups who shape our domestic policies.

First of all the environment is not just any old special interest off the street. Only in a universe where the planet's biosphere is trumped by national interests within subjective political boundaries would it's protection have to rely on charity. The reasons for the rules about donations are founded on premises that are just not rooted in reality.

We should certainly be vigilant about shysters exploiting people and issues for their own ends but this concern that's surfacing in the wake of the NGP proposal is entirely about domestic political parties and foreign oil companies throwing up roadblocks to opposition.

You don't have a problem screwing the rules by disguising foreign political/environmental funding as charitable donations, but you believe in transparency. I guess if it works for you, that's all that matters.

As I said to Bill, the cynicism in this case is transparent enough for me to say yes, screw the rules and just get the money and materials into the hands of opponents who need it.

Edited by eyeball, 19 February 2012 - 08:04 AM.

[Spiderfish]

As I said to Bill, the cynicism in this case is transparent enough for me to say yes, screw the rules and just get the money and materials into the hands of opponents who need it.

Fair enough, but should there not be transparency as well with motives so we know WHAT they are opposing and WHY? This is the problem I have with environmental groups, they frequently mask their intent under the guise of saving the planet. There are not too many people out there who could disagree with the importance of protecting our biosphere. And yes, there are people out there that are willing to sacrifice the environment for profit. What is required is balance so economies don't fail, and the environment is preserved. In order to achieve some sort of functional balance, the two opposing sides need to be clearly defined and transparent.

For example, according to analysis of US Tax Returns (the only source of information available to the public that is not protected under access to information),in 2010 Tides USA funded 36 groups specifically for something called the “Tar Sands Campaign.” It is unclear exactly what this “Tar Sands campaign” actually is, and Tides USA and Tides Canada have not been forthcoming about the details of their programs. It is fair to ask what the motives are of these campaigns and programs are, particularly given the amount of money that is funding these programs, but there seems to be no willingness to divulge motive.

Nothing would protect our environment faster than total public awareness of what is happening in the public's domain.

I agree with this statement, but I feel that it goes both ways. We not only need to see openness about the facts and intent of the political and corporate powers that be, but this scrutiny should also carry over to the opposing forces, to ensure the legitimacy of the claims being made. This is something that is sorely lacking in the environmental "business" these days. We seem to be more than willing to give environmental groups a free pass, because the claim is that their motive is preserving and protecting the environment, and it is politically incorrect to question these groups. If this is truly the case, there should be no resistance to a public audit of the funding provided to these groups and a definition of their motivations. The fact that there is resistance is a warning sign, and should be investigated.