Following the (primarily U.S.) money funding Canada’s anti-oil movement

It is no coincidence that U.S. foundations are funding a multimillion-dollar campaign against Canadian energy.

July 02, 2014

Subscribe Email This Post Print This Post Bookmark and Share

001_GreatGreen_story01
Vivian Krause investigates the funding behind strategic parkification
Photo Grant Harder

Sidebar: Funding for ClimateWorks and the Energy Foundation

Albertan oil has the potential to contribute more than $2 trillion to the national economy over the next 25 years, about $84 billion per year, according to the Canadian Energy Research Institute. Realizing this unparalleled opportunity requires broad-based, public support for pipeline and infrastructure projects that are essential for getting landlocked crude to global markets. For Canada, there is no single economic issue that is more important.

Whether intentional or not, environmental activism is becoming a new form of protectionism.

The greatest obstacle to energy infrastructure projects isn’t technical expertise or financial capital; it’s gridlock due to opposition from strong alliances between environmental organizations and First Nations and their ability to attract media attention and stop or stall development. This gridlock has been fomented by the Tar Sands Campaign, a heavily-funded international initiative launched by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Tides Foundation in 2008.

The explicit goals of the Tar Sands Campaign are to stop expansion of the Canadian oil industry, to reduce demand for oil sands crude in the U.S. and to stop or stall pipeline and port construction.

With a new premier and cabinet, Alberta has a timely opportunity to break the gridlock that risks keeping its oil out of global markets. The challenge is to convincingly make the case that industry is trustworthy and committed to meeting the public’s high expectations for protection of the environment. This will not be easy if the Tar Sands Campaign goes on unabated.

Recent developments indicate, however, that the Tar Sands Campaign is likely to continue and to expand. The same groups that oppose Keystone XL and Northern Gateway are now funded to campaign against Energy East, Line 9, Line 67, Flanagan South, the Seaway and Kinder Morgan Canada Ltd.’s TransMountain pipeline expansion. The Sierra Club claims to have more than 94,000 people who are prepared to engage in civil disobedience and risk arrest to block pipeline construction. In the spirit of better understanding and resolving the gridlock that puts global market access at risk, it’s worth taking a look at who funds the Tar Sands Campaign, and why.

 

Over the past five years, I have gone though more than 100,000 pages of U.S. tax returns and traced more than 2,000 grants from U.S. foundations to environmental and First Nations groups in Canada. Most of my research is based on U.S. tax returns because the Internal Revenue Service requires greater disclosure than the Canadian Revenue Agency.

While the volunteer activists on the front lines of the Tar Sands Campaign are every bit as Canadian as I am, their big funders are not. According to U.S. tax returns and other documents, the Tar Sands Campaign is co-funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Oak Foundation, the Tides Foundation, the Sea Change Foundation, the Marisla Foundation and at least a dozen other foundations – most of which are based in California. These are the big green elephants that have fueled efforts to thwart the development of Canadian oil and gas for more than a decade.

By my analysis, more than a dozen U.S. foundations have granted at least US$75 million between 2009 and 2013 for initiatives that stymie the Canadian energy sector. This does not include grants for general or unspecified purposes nor for large-scale conservation initiatives that aim to put huge blocks of land off-limits to natural resource development.

So, what’s the motivation of the funders? One of the few documents that provide insights into the funding of the climate movement is a strategy paper, Design to Win: Philanthropy’s Role in the Fight Against Global Warming. According to Design to Win, the overarching goal of voter and consumer education campaigns is to create a policy context for a massive shift in investment capital and a billion-dollar market for renewable energy. Without a negative foil of bad press about fossil fuels, it would be much harder to justify the billions of dollars that government has invested in solar and wind.

001_GreatGreen_story02

It is no coincidence that U.S. foundations are funding a multimillion-dollar campaign against Canadian energy. All of the big funders of the Tar Sands Campaign are members of the Consultative Group on Biological Diversity (CGBD), an umbrella organization created in 1987 by the U.S. Agency for International Development, an agency of the U.S. State Department. Originally, the CGBD’s purpose was to co-ordinate grantmaking in developing countries but over the years, that’s changed. Today, the CGBD has a primary focus on climate and energy-related issues and operates like an industry association for environmental funders, a back-office think-tank and collaboration hub. Membership is by invitation only. As of 2012, the CGBD’s 60 member foundations had more than US$50 billion in assets and combined annual expenditures of over US$3 billion.

In 2000, the CGBD held its annual general meeting in Vancouver and invited David Suzuki and David Schindler to deliver keynote speeches. A report from the CGBD to the IRS reveals that at that meeting, the CGBD established a focus on energy development in “Northern North America” (read: Canada). Speakers “probed the politics of conservation in Canada and offered an introduction to the role of First Nations.”

During the early years, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund received funding from USAID to serve as the CGBD’s secretariat. The Tides Foundation has also been involved in the CGBD for nearly 20 years. Since the 1980s, the Rockefeller Brothers has funded more than 200 organizations involved in the climate movement. One of the many projects that it funds is the Presidential Climate Action Project, which aims to create the climate legacy of President Obama.

With assets of US$700 million, the fund’s annual grant making budget is roughly US$440 million. Since the late 1990s, at least US$10 million has been granted from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund to First Nations and environmental groups in Canada. For example, the Rockefeller Brothers paid US$425,000 (2001-2003) to the David Suzuki Foundation to “organize” First Nations on the north coast of B.C. In 2004, the fund also made a small grant to the Suzuki Foundation “to campaign to support a moratorium on offshore oil and gas exploration” on the B.C. coast.

Putting land off-limits by creating parks or conservation areas is a key strategy of the Hewlett Foundation approach to reducing fossil fuel development. Call it strategic parkification.

Last year, funding from outside Canada accounted for less than seven per cent of the Suzuki Foundation’s total revenue but it wasn’t always that way. In the early years when it was getting on its feet, more than half of the Suzuki Foundation’s yearly budget came from U.S. sources, including roughly US$1 million from the Rockefellers.

In 2012, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund paid the New Venture Fund, a Washington, D.C.-based charitable organization “to cap tar sands production in Alberta, Canada, and to reduce demand for tar sands-derived fuels in the United States.” Those telling words were quietly removed from the Rockefeller Brothers’ website shortly after their million-dollar backing of the Tar Sands Campaign was exposed in a Financial Post article published in February of 2013.

Canada’s three largest conservation initiatives are the Great Bear Rainforest on B.C.’s strategic north coast, the Yukon to Yellowstone Initiative (Y2Y) and the Canadian Boreal Initiative. These initiatives seek to block roads, mining, forestry, and oil and gas development on more than one-third of Canada’s national territory.

For all three of Canada’s large conservation initiatives, the main funder is a U.S. foundation. In all three cases, U.S. tax returns reveal that, initially, these initiatives were funded in conjunction with efforts to constrain the oil and gas industry in Canada. For example, the biggest funder of the Y2Y is the Wilburforce Foundation, funded by James Letwin, a co-founder of Microsoft.

 

Back in 2004, Wilburforce stipulated that the purpose of funding Y2Y was to protect the region “from oil and gas development, through an advocacy campaign that focuses on grizzly bears and critical wildlife habitat,” tax returns say. Since then, the Wilburforce foundation has granted more than US$25 million to environmental and First Nations organizations in Western Canada.

The Yukon chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society runs an intense campaign to place the Peel watershed off-limits to industrial development. This became a major issue in the 2011 election and is headed for the territorial courts this July. By my analysis of the budgets for the “Protect the Peel” campaign, available online from the Conservation Alliance, more than 90 per cent of the funding for the Peel campaign is from U.S. sources, including $600,000 for legal fees. A similar funding trend is playing out in British Columbia’s Great Barrier Rainforest.

The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation are said to be the world’s biggest financial supporters of efforts to mitigate climate change. These foundations, both created by the founders of the tech giant Hewlett-Packard, have assets of US$7 billion and US$5 billion, respectively. Each of them gives away roughly $300 million per year. Indeed, the environmental groups funded by these foundations are tapping into deep green pockets.

The Hewlett Foundation and the Packard Foundation have also provided substantial funding to shape U.S. energy policy and foster U.S. energy security through a suite of organizations including the Bipartisan Policy Center, Securing America’s Future Energy, the Apollo Alliance and others.

001_GreatGreen_story03
Source: Rockefeller Brothers Fund Annual Report 1999, page 25, and “Pipelines in the Great Bear Rainforest,” The Sierra Club November 2010

Along with the Rockefeller Brothers and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation and the Packard Foundation provided more than US$100 million for the creation of the Great Bear Rainforest on the north coast of B.C., an enormous park-like, no trade zone that’s twice the size of Switzerland.

In the name of protecting the Kermode bear, a rare, blonde bear known to First Nations as the spirit bear, the Tar Sands Campaign seeks to block oil tanker traffic off B.C.’s entire north coast, and yet the traditional habitat of the Kermode bear is only a small fraction of this area. In effect, the Great Bear Rainforest has become the Great Trade Barrier to Asia.

The Tar Sands Campaign pointedly ignores the dozens of tankers bringing foreign oil into the United States and Eastern Canada on a daily basis. Evidently, the only tankers this campaign opposes are those that would break the U.S. market’s monopoly on Canadian oil exports.

The lead organization in the Great Bear Rainforest Initiative is the Tides Foundation, the same organization that co-ordinates the Tar Sands Campaign. It is interesting to note that during the same years that Tides began spearheading this initiative, the U.S. Tides Foundation was also running the Apollo Alliance, a significant project to promote renewable energy and enhance U.S. energy security.

The size of the proposed Great Bear Rainforest has been markedly expanded since it was first proposed. As shown in the Rockefeller Brothers Fund’s 1999 annual report, the original proposed area was only a small part of the north coast of British Columbia, referred to as the “Big Bear Protected Area.” Today, environmental groups argue that the entire north coast must be shut off to oil tanker traffic, from the north tip of Vancouver Island to the southern tip of Alaska.

 

Each year since 2011, the Hewlett Foundation grants a total of roughly US$150 million for environment and energy-related causes, up sharply from just a few years ago. This foundation is no fan of Canadian oil. In an interview posted on its website, a former environment officer refers to the Alberta oil industry as “a nasty business” and “a major contributor to global warming.”

Over the past decade, the Hewlett Foundation has granted at least US$47 million for campaigns and conservation initiatives that seek to reduce fossil fuel development in Canada and the western U.S. That includes US$20 million granted to the Pew Charitable Trusts for the Canadian Boreal Initiative. Putting land off-limits by creating parks or conservation areas is a key strategy of the Hewlett Foundation approach to reducing fossil fuel development. Call it strategic parkification.

Earlier this year, Hewlett increased its monthly funding for the Canadian Boreal Initiative to US$250,000, up by US$100,000 from the previous year. Simultaneously, this U.S. foundation also pays the equivalent of US$180,000 per month to the New Venture Fund to reduce fossil fuel development internationally. New Venture runs the Dirty Oil Sands campaign, the so-called Tar Sands Solutions Network and ReThink Alberta, a campaign that asks tourists to stay away from Alberta so as to pressure the Alberta government to clamp down on the oil industry.

The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, also a member of the CGBD, has granted at least US$130 million to environmental groups in British Columbia. The grants include at least US$30 million for a marine planning initiative, which covers the Great Bear Rainforest coastline, and US$30 million for projects in the area covered by the Sacred Headwaters Initiative.

As far as I can tell, the only country where there is a systematic, multimillion-dollar, foreign-funded campaign to choke the oil industry is Canada.

The Pembina Foundation and the Pembina Institute have received nearly US$7 million from American foundations, including six that fund the Tar Sands Campaign. Some of Pembina’s grants are revealing. For example, in 2006 and 2007 the Rockefeller Brothers Fund paid Pembina US$100,000 “to prevent the development of a pipeline and tanker port that endangers the Great Bear Rainforest protected area.”

The top recipient of U.S. funds for campaigns and conservation initiatives that thwart the Canadian energy sector is the Tides Foundation, which established itself in Vancouver in 1993. In 2003, records show that the Tides Foundation changed its name to Tides Canada Foundation.

Tides Canada has all but denied that it is part of the Tar Sands Campaign. “This myth of huge amounts of American funding coming through Tides Canada to oppose the oil sands is exactly that: It is a myth,” a representative of Tides Canada told the Canadian Senate in a 2012 hearing. Tax returns and other documents tell another story.

Over the past decade, U.S. foundations have granted Tides Canada more than US$100 million for environmental and other initiatives. These funds have been re-granted to Canadian environmental and First Nations organizations or spent on Tides’ in-house activities. The lion’s share of Tides Canada’s grants goes to a small number of organizations that operate on the north coast of B.C.

Out of its U.S. office, the Tides Foundation has paid at least US$25 million (between 2009 and 2013) to more than 75 environmental and First Nations groups involved in the Tar Sands Campaign. In a series of more than 2,700 covering letters on payments that came to light in a Google search in November 2013, it appears that Tides Canada has been transferring funds from the U.S. Tides Foundation to Canadian charities active in the Tar Sands Campaign. According to the covering letter for one payment made in October 2013, the U.S. Tides Foundation paid Tides Canada US$15,000 for re-granting to the Sierra Club “to strengthen opposition to tanker expansion on the B.C. coast.” In a July 2013 payment, Tides Canada Foundation was paid US$35,000 for re-granting to the West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation, “to provide legal strategies and communication support to First Nations to constrain tar sands development.”

 

If Tides were funding the tar sands campaign to conduct charitable activities, that would be within the rules. The problem is that some of the activities funded by Tides do not appear to be charitable. For example, Tides has funded groups to “renew opposition parties’ commitment to a tanker ban,” “cultivate indigenous opposition,” “advance the narrative that tar sands expansion is problematic,” and – notably – keep Canadian oil out of Europe, the newest frontier in the Tar Sands Campaign.

At least six organizations in the U.S., the U.K. and in Belgium are receiving U.S. funds to push for the European Fuel Quality Directive that would stigmatize Albertan oil. Last August, Tides paid US$60,000 to the European Federation for Transport and Environment, based in Brussels, Belgium. That was for organizing, advising policy-makers and educating the public of key countries in support of the EU Fuel Quality Directive. One week later, Tides paid US$430,000 to environmental groups (Environmental Defence Canada, Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth) to push for the EU Fuel Quality Directive. Tides also paid US$12,000 to the UK Tar Sands Network “to stop Shell and keep tar sands out of Europe.” The wording couldn’t be clearer.

In September of 2013, Tides paid US$55,000 to a numbered company based in Fort Chipewyan “to build the case for rejecting the Shell and Teck Frontier mines; participate in regulatory processes and use legal tools to increase regulations; work with groups in Europe to support the Fuel Quality Directive; and build public opposition to tar sands and pipelines.” Apparently, the Tides Foundation in San Francisco is funding Canadian First Nations to influence European policy and legislation.

001_GreatGreen_story05

The same foundations that fund the Tar Sands Campaign also grant substantial funds to environmental organizations in Europe, notably the European Climate Foundation, which has received at least US$30 million from the Hewlett Foundation, Sea Change, the Oak Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers.

In Europe, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, the World Wildlife Fund and the Prince of Wales’s Corporate Leadership Group are all funded to some degree by the European Climate Foundation, but the amounts these organizations receive is not publicly reported.

ClimateWorks grants roughly US$25 million per year to European organizations. U.S. law requires charitable foundations to disclose a list of grant recipients within the United States, but this disclosure is not regarded when the grantees are international organizations. Many charitable foundations include the names of international grant recipients anyway, but in the tax returns for ClimateWorks, these names are blacked out.

On a smaller scale, some American charitable foundations fund campaigns to thwart the development of fossil fuels in other parts of the world. For example, in October 2013, Tides paid US$10,000 to an Australian organization “to support a speaking tour and series of public forums in the Northern Territory which will kick-start the campaign to stop shale gas drilling.” The same organization, Lock the Gate Alliance, also received US$395,000 from Tides for unspecified purposes. Tides also funds the campaign against fracking in New York, California, Ireland and perhaps elsewhere. In Canada, Tides funded White Gold Productions to produce a video about fracking in the Horn River Basin.

Sidebar: Funding for ClimateWorks and the Energy Foundation

But in North Dakota and Texas where oil production is booming, there is no multimillion-dollar campaign to stop or slow down the oil industry. As far as I can tell, the only country where there is a systematic, multimillion-dollar, foreign-funded campaign to choke the oil industry is Canada.

Whether intentional or not, environmental activism is becoming a new form of protectionism. By exaggerating risks and impacts, activists exert such political and social pressure that major infrastructure projects can be stalled or stopped altogether, land-locking Canadian oil and gas and keeping Canada over a barrel.

Activism is important, but when it comes to budgets for influencing public opinion, the tides have changed. Environmentalists now have access to substantial resources. For the fossil fuel industries, the battle with environmental activists is no longer David versus Goliath.

Follow @AlbertaOilMag

Issue Contents

Comments

  • Dead_Mariner

    Shut the cryin’ Canada. No one but the Chinese wants your filthy environment destroying tarsands garbage. Suck it up, and SHTFU.

    • Lyle P Smith

      Dead Mariner,you STFU,we are sick of all this BS! It is time to round these yellow bellied traitors, and lock them up in the hoosegows for 20 years!

      • HockeyDadof2

        Who is we? I doubt fascistic threats have much support in this country outside of a very small band of the usual suspects We like our democratic freedoms, even if Pierre Poutine and his cell don’t.

    • John Waibel

      Vivian Krause made this story up. She admitted she made it upp. It is nothing more than an opinion. She is a nutritionist nothing not an expert on anything related to the topic. Just ignore it people.

      • Jane

        That is an odd way to deal with inconvenient facts. Such a desperately weak argument.

        • John Waibel

          Nope it’s all speculation. Speculation is not fact. Google Vivian Krause senate Commitee national finance. It’s all there. Or you can just believe in conspiracy theories.

          • Michelle Stirling

            It’s all right there on the map – don’t have to ‘believe’ in anything. If Vivian never opened her mouth about it – the facts would be self-evident – look: http://darkgreendevils.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/the-great-eco-wall/

          • Jane

            So all of those tax returns via Freedom of Information requests to the IRS concerning each of those Foundations, by Ms. Krause was just a fiction?
            That´s some kinda photoshopping fella.

            • John Waibel

              Her attempt to tie it to protectionism of american oil interests is pure speculation. Of course these foundations recieve money and is noted on there tax forms. How do expect concerned citizens to fight the super lobby of the oil industry.

            • Well Done

              No, john-boy, it’s obvious you’re full of it. of course one of you anti-[your cause here] punks would post comments like that; you’re being paid to, aren’t you, freak?

            • John Waibel

              typical response from a pro-destruction-of-planet punks. Yeah yeah you busted me, I’m getting paid. At least they said the checks in the mail. lol

            • John Waibel

              Love the automatic rifle red neck profile pic. Beauty. Let me guess you are anti intellectual as well

      • Geoffrey Morgan

        John – managing editor of the magazine here. Vivian Krause did not make this story up, nor has she admitted to making it up. Further comments unjustly attacking the author, or comments defaming the author, will be deleted. GM

      • Well Done

        John is a liar. The numbers are factual. Oil sands opponents care about nothing but the money they can make opposing it; more than they will ever make doing anything else.

        • John Waibel

          yeah we are all on some payroll. lol Last time I checked I donated $5000 to environmental charities. You dude are brainwashed.

          • Well Done

            I didn’t say you’re on the same payroll.
            You gave $5K to those lying punks and you think I’m brainwashed? Seriously?
            Oil sands opponents speak on behalf of U.S. and Saudi interests. Fact.

            • John Waibel

              How can you say they are lying punks if you do not know who I donated to. Don,t get all red neck no me now. If you state a fact then back it up, just make sure it is just not someone’s opinion, cause that is not a fact.

    • Lisa Horvath

      Did you know that the USA gets 50% of it’s electricity from Coal-fired power -generators? The total Oil Sands GHG emissions in 2011 were 55 megatonnes. This is equivalent to 4.3% of the emissions from the U.S. coal-fired power-generation sector in 2011. Oil Sands account for 7.8% of Canada’s GHG emissions and 0.16% of global GHG emissions. Canada, with 0.5% of the world’s population, produces 2% of GHG emissions. The U.S. produces 18%. Source: Canada 2013 and United Nations Statistical Division. So You STFU and when your country cleans up it’s act than you can comment about our Oil Sands.

      • jmogs

        Coal use in the US is shrinking and the Obama administration has proposed sweeping new carbon regulations for powerplants. Compare that to Canada’s largest, and growing, carbon source. The trends are moving in markedly opposite directions.

        • laru

          Air travel contributes 10x the CO2 into the atmosphere as Canada’s oil sands and air travel is expanding in the U.S. and internationally yet Tides U.S.A. has chosen to focus on undermining the Canadian economy.

          • jmogs

            Umm, you know that one of the things bitumen gets made into is aviation fuel right?

        • Trev Boods

          The reductions in emissions from the PROPOSED changes within the US will be about 25%. The reductions in emissions in Canada from ENACTED changes are about 35%. Wake up to reality. The coal emissions within the US still dwarf the oil sands emissions.

          • Well Done

            No, Trev, you’re quoting propaganda. If Canada doesn’t produce oil, somebody else will, and Canada will have less money to spend on social programs. Funny thing, that; the creeps opposing the oil sands are usually the type who favor increased gov’t spending… they just call for higher corporate taxes. What a bunch of airheads.

            • Trev Boods

              You’re exactly right. Economic reality, unfortunately, doesn’t into the reality of the eco-nuts in this country.

        • Well Done

          LOL 0bama is only shutting down coal to destroy the economy. he’s smarter than dips like you and realizes man’s CO2 has nothing to do with climate.

  • McColl Magazine

    Dead Mariner. Did you not just read the article you’re commenting on? LOL

    • Avesther

      No, he did not.

    • Tom Kovacs

      I would say there is a high likelihood that reading is not a talent Dead excelles in.

  • Heather Libby

    Let me get this straight. Over the past 20 years, American-based funders have given $100 Million or so to Canadian organizations working on environmental, conservation and biodiversity issues. In the past 20 days, Suncor Energy alone generated about $2,153 Million (based on publicly-available 2011 revenue data). So, who’s the little guy again?

    • Jane

      Suncor “created” $2B for investors and and has a PR budget of way less than $10 Million.
      There´s your figures of $100 Million for the eco crews and yet you left out Obama´s backer Tom Steyer who by himself pledged $100 Million to back Obama´s anti-keystone efforts. Pssst it´s all about keeping the Democratic base enraged……so they also give money.
      Ugly eh?

      • Heather Libby

        If Suncor were ‘creating’ $2 billion every 20 days by opening up new stock offerings, then even my cat would own shares.

      • John Waibel

        You really think the Eco lobby is anywhere near The foreign oil lobby. You have got to give your head a shake. I have yet to see a no pipeline ad during an NHL playoff game. Lol.

        • Michelle Stirling

          Not only is the eco-lobby bigger – there are some 300 “climate change’ charities registered in the US alone and all the volunteer foot-soldiers of that movement salute and march whenever they are given some hyperbolic reference to the oil sands – so whatever money the ENGOs have is multiplied a thousand fold. Not to mention companies like LUSH cosmetics, which has tehe largest per capita number of stores in Alberta, runs and anti-tar sands campaign with epostcards either from Alberta and from the UK. http://voices.yahoo.com/ethical-questions-dog-lush-cosmetics-anti-tar-11368480.html

          • John Waibel

            I take it you do not believe in climate change. Sorry I don’t comment to people who do not believe it exists. Just a waste of time.

            • Michelle Stirling

              Climate changes all the time. Strongly recommend people read Brian Fagan’s books – esp THE GREAT WARMING and THE LITTLE ICE AGE: How Climate Made History. These show how climate does change. And always has. It is important to note that there are cyclical periods of warming and cooling – the Minoan, Roman and Medieval periods were warmer than today – long before fossil fuel use. Do human activities affect climate? Certainly, but to what extent? This is undetermined, but based on the fact that there has been no warming in 17 years and 9 months despite a rise in CO2, very unlikely that humans are the main cause. Therefore, perhaps we should stop wasting money on programs to stop global warming that has stopped naturally – and spend more of that $1.6 Trillion spent over a decade up to 2012 on better management of pollution.

            • John Waibel

              That is a bunch of bs. For a less simplistic take on climate change read http://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth’s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade do really think thousands of scientist from around the globe are conspiring against the use of fossil fuels. Lol

            • Michelle Stirling

              I’m looking at your NOAA page and note that they claim warming since 1850 is due to fossil fuel use – but they don’t mention that a) we were leaving the Little Ice Age b) between 1913 and 1963 there was very little volcanic activity which Plimer notes in “Heaven and Earth” pg 219 which coincided with 0.5 degree of the warming. He references Crowley, T.J. (2000)Causes of Climate Change ovr the Past 1000 years [Science 289:270-277 and also Robok, A. (1991) The volcanic contribution to climate change of the past 1000 years in “Greenhouse gas induced climate change: A critical appraisal of simulations and observations (ed. ME Schlesigner, Elsevier 429-444. NOAA doesn’t mention this lack of volcanic activity at all – and claims most of the warming is caused by human fossil fuel emissions; however later NOAA claims the LACK of warming for the past 20 years is due to volcanic activity – even though there has been little to no significant volcanic activity, nor has it been in the right part of the world geographically, to have that outcome. i don’t think scientists are conspiring against the use of fossil fuels, but I think many of them are unable to speak their mind freely due to people attacking them. It would be difficult and embarrassing to admit that CAGW might be a theory gone awry when even Nobel prizes have been handed out for it….

            • Michelle Stirling

              Maybe we can do a new documentary – “Inconvenient Volcanoes”

            • Michelle Stirling

              Hey John, I told you where I got my facts from and gave the related peer-reviewed scientific source for Plimer’s statement. Also provided the page number and titles of his references. I reviewed the Skeptical Science page and they confirm the fact that there were few volcanoes during the 1912-63 period and reference other experts who confirm that this may be related to that period of warming. Since the Cook article on Skeptical Science was written in 2010 – he is NOT addressing the anomoly you brought to my attention in your NOAa reference. In the NOAA page they suggest that the 17 yr 9 month RSS data showing no warming is due to volcanic activity – but during that time period, there have not been significant volcanic eruptions to account for such cooling – and yet CO2 has gone up. This effectively puts the AGW theory into question because the premise is – more CO2 = more warming. For almost 20 years more CO2= no warming. Please explain.

            • Trev Boods

              You’re discrediting Vivian Krause because she’s a nutritionist by education? And yet you likely support the IPCC… an organization directed by a railway engineer.

            • Michelle Stirling

              This is a scientist who knows a lot about measuring temperatures and how difficult that is – he won a Nobel Prize, for science. http://youtu.be/IFWrp8B5BuU

            • John Waibel

              I like this from Brian fagan.com . It also argues that drought is the hidden, most dangerous element in today’s humanly created global warming, often ignored by preoccupied commentators, but with the potential to cause over a billion people to starve.

  • Douglas Owen

    If there is such a big move in the US not to buy our oil than I say let’s not ship it out. Build refineries here in Canada and we will use the oil here. Let the US prices for crude oil sky rocket. And when they look to us up here wondering where their refinery jobs went, and why our energy prices dropped lower than theirs, we can point to what happened and say they brought it on themselves.

    • Jane

      I wish it were so possible, but the ol US of A is rapidly becoming an energy superpower again, large enough to actually consider commencing exporting again!

      • Michelle Stirling

        Actually, that is the true irony of blocking Keystone. Keystone would maximize use of existing refineries that are under capacity – so all the eco-folk who want to reuse, recycle etc and forcing Canada to look at building a new refinery – when instead, by working together on this continent, we could maximize facilities and put thousands of Americans to work. Their unemployment rate is still staggering, and every single ‘real’ job creates between 5 to 9 cascading jobs (i.e. worker needs food, clothing, vehicle transport, housing on location or nearby, manufactured goods). The argument that these are not long-term jobs is ridiculous because many jobs that are not long-term, create a platform for other employment.

    • Michelle Stirling

      It would be difficult and very expensive to build a refinery here today with all the eco-activists and NIMBY’s out there – this is a trade war; the longer and more difficult these guys can make it, while also trying tocon institutional investors to divest, then the investment cyclle weakens. I see it as people like Steyer fronting a ’cause’ while behind them run the private funds, snapping up shares at rock bottom prices…as in this Powerline article: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/04/the-epic-hypocrisy-of-tom-steyer.php

    • McColl Magazine

      Who owns Alberta’s oil? The US. Always did. Who wants to sell it to China? The US.

  • Geoffrey Morgan

    Managing editor of the magazine here: Vivian Krause did not “make this story up” nor has she admitted to doing so in front of a Senate committee. Her remarks before the Senate committee are public record. Further comments attacking the author will be deleted. GM

    • Michelle Stirling

      M. Morgan – Please see my article link on “The Great Eco-Wall of Canada” – I build on Vivian’s work. http://darkgreendevils.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/the-great-eco-wall/ and my comments on “The Tippping Point: Age of the Oil Sands” – Thanks for publishing this, at last.

    • Michelle Stirling

      Some readers may enjoy my little eco-sppof – produced out of frustration after hearing that a rational presentation on the oil sands was not allowed to continue because a professor at a prestigious university burst into tears claiming she could never have children because of….the oil sands.By sheer coincidence I happen to have taped an oil sands presentation on home video…so a no budget, a bit rough, homage to Louis Malle…:) http://vimeo.com/43116909

    • Michelle Stirling

      Hey look what I found Mr. Morgan! “http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/10/16/how-tides-canada-controls-the-secret-north-american-tar-sands-coalition/ “This further blurring of foundations who are increasingly “activist” in their own right, speaking and campaigning as “just another green group” is accelerating. In the past few years, new brazen language has come from Tides Canada, previously unthinkable: “At Tides Canada we are working to bridge these two polarized camps (environmentalists and tar sands corporations– MS). As a convener of diverse interests, we’ve played this role before, most notably in British Columbia’s Great Bear Rainforest.1”

      The quote above was a letter penned by President and CEO of Tides Canada, Ross McMillan. When the Great Bear Rainforest backroom deal was announced, it was publicized as a triumph of “Rainforest Solutions Project,” then comprising ForestEthics, Sierra Club BC, Greenpeace Canada and the Rainforest Action Network (RAN has since withdrawn support for the agreement). Tides was then, to use their jargon, “invisible to the outside,” but now speaks publicly as both a “stakeholder” and financial lifeblood. Now they advertise prior secretive involvement.

      When looking at the real structures of the “North American Tar Sands Coalition” remember that it “shall remain invisible to the outside and to the extent possible, staff will be “purchased” from engaged organizations.”

      “Purchasing” staff means that a person who is acting in the capacity of the directives of the paymaster coalition is never to public refer to the actual job, or even the organization. As such, even though someone took a leave from, say, the Pembina Institute to become a coordinator within the Tar Sands Coalition steering committee, and cashed paycheques from Tides referencing this work, they would publicly identify with their former employing organization, the Pembina Institute.

      In fact, the above perfectly described the Canadian tar sands coordinator for Tides previously, Dan Woynillowicz. Google his name and he appears only as Pembina. The fact that demands, media, talking points, statements and interviews and paydays all then came from Tides direction was to “remain invisible to the outside.” He stepped aside for Jennifer Lash, who appears publicly as Executive Director of Living Oceans BC. She is, in fact, coordinator of Tides Canadian section.

      Michael Marx is the former “lead coordinator” from the tar sands steering committee, above the American and Canadian coordinators.”

      Maybe Alberta Oil will do more of a story on this as Pembina has had significant influence on AB enegy policies, and is presently trying to shut down coal plants early – meaning Alberta’s industrial heaertland will b s.o.l. for power – like Germany found themselves, before rebuilding 20 + coal-fired plants.

    • Trev Boods

      Do you honestly think pulling reports from the IRS and CRA amounts to “making it up”? Wake up to reality, moron.

      • Trev Boods

        Show me where Vivian explicitly states this. I’ve interacted with her on twitter, and she’s been very clear that exactly where the money comes from within the US is unknown. The premise of her investigation isn’t that these dollars funding Canadian ENGOs are coming from US oil companies. Her premise is that the Canadian ENGOs are being funded by US groups whose interests do not align with Canadian interests. This involvement by US funded ENGOs amounts to a form of protectionism by the US. Is it possible the US refiners are funding Canadian ENGOs? Absolutely; I’d say it’s even likely given they are enjoying a 20% discount of WCS barrels relative to Brent/WTI or Mayan oil.

        • Trev Boods

          Is there something wrong with you? When I write “Is it possible…” of course it’s speculation! Again, show me where Vivian explicitly ties the funding she’s identified from US ENGOs to US oil companies. Put up, or shut up. You are clearly unable to understand the premise of her investigation and you are jumping to conclusions.

          • John Waibel

            thanks for agreeing with me.

            • Trev Boods

              Thanks for proving the ignorance of people opposed to Vivian’s research. Your words prove more than any ridicule I can spew at you.

            • John Waibel

              naw, just not much into conspiracy theories, thats all.

            • Trev Boods

              Me neither, which why I wrote “it’s possible”. You are dismissing what Vivian’s found because you mistakenly speculate she’s trying to link ENGO funding from US groups to US oil companies. Here’s a hint; she isn’t and she’s been VERY clear on that. If the fact (and it is a fact) that US groups are peddling influence through Canadian ENGO’s doesn’t bother you, then go bury your head in the sand and leave this discussion to adults who want Canadian issues settled according to Canadian wishes.

            • John Waibel

              climate change is a global issue and protecting the largest intact temperate rainforest on the planet is also a global issue. The environment sees no boundaries. I am equally concerned about the extinction of African species as I am Canadian and will support any cause whether Canadian or international. There are many peopl on this planet that care about the planet as a whole not just their back yard.

            • Trev Boods

              Spare me your straw man nonsense. It’s such a convenient arguments isn’t it? The eco-nuts spew their nonsense about global issues, therefore where the funding for their crusades come from is irrelevant. Meanwhile, in the real world, there are legitimate costs to Canada because of the actions of the ENGO’s. Turn a willfully blind eye to the issue all you want; it only demonstrates your own ignorance. Vivian’s research isn’t made up, despite your ridiculous assertions to the contrary, and what she’s found deserves further investigation.

            • John Waibel

              so climate change is not a global issue in your mind. lol

            • Trev Boods

              Don’t be stupid; that’s not at all what I said. We are discussing whether US groups peddling influence through Canadian ENGOs is an issue and deserves further investigation. You clearly don’t see it as an issue; those of us who aren’t fools see that it is.

            • John Waibel

              nope don’t see it as an issue. Why would it be. People do care about things other than money. Maybe not in alberta but other places.

            • Trev Boods

              So you don’t see it as an issue that US interests may be influencing Canadian policy because their influence peddling aligns with your own perspective? Would you so willfully turn a blind eye if the influence peddling ran contrary to what you support?

            • John Waibel

              I don’t support destroying the planet in exchange for cash.

            • Trev Boods

              Yes, John, your ridiculous opinion is clear. I see you’re too much of a coward to answer the question whether you would abide this influence peddling if it ran contrary to what you support.

            • John Waibel

              Can you elaborate on why you think my opinion is ridiculous. Anyways, why all the insults and bullying, are you trying to compensate for something. Maybe you should rephrase your question , it is not entirely clear what you are asking of me. I would appreciate holding back on the insults it does not do anything to enhance the conversation.

            • Trev Boods

              Your opinion is ridiculous because you state that you don’t believe “destroying the planet in exchange for cash”. That is a juvenile and hyperbolic statement. If you want to “enhance the conversation”, start by refraining from making these useless declarations that mean nothing other than demonstrating that you are a closed minded ideologue and/or enviro-nut who views environmentalism as their religion.

              Resource extraction and transport can be done responsibly and with respect for the environment. If you are incapable of recognizing this, then your opinion on the topic is worthless. Demand for oil is increasing year over year. People who think blocking transport of our resources to market will equate to stopping demand are completely clueless of reality. The discussion needs to be how to responsibly extract our resources, and what is the safest way to get them to market.

              My question to you was clear: Would you so willfully turn a blind eye if the influence peddling from US groups ran contrary to what you support?

            • John Waibel

              If is knot for money then why would a we be extracting oil at a rate we know is very destructive to the planet, ie climate change, and oil spills, air pollution etc. if you do not believe burning fossil fuels causes any of these then to continue the conversation is pointless. The speed of a extraction without an energy plan and without consideration for the effects of climate change is not responsible extraction and shipping the oil through the gbr is not responsible transport. That has been the conversation all along.

            • Trev Boods

              I believe it’s possible that climate change is caused by humans, but it’s far from conclusive. It’s also clear that power generation from coal is far, far more impactful on emissions than oil extraction.

            • John Waibel

              What is not far from conclusive is how quickly climate change is happening and what the consequences will be for each and every region of the world. Already we are seeing climate change related issues including the pine Beatle, rust disease in Central America, drought in Africa Australia and California. Melting of permafrost in Siberia, um I could go on but maybe take some time to go through the pile http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=climate+change+related+issues&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=CoDJU56IK5LwoAT37IGwCg&ved=0CB4QgQMwAA

            • Trev Boods

              Actually the rate of what’s changing is far from conclusive. I’ve already provided you the names of several prominent scientists who are vocal in their opposition to a large portion of current research and you can find other scientists who support this opposition. A large portion of the supposedly “97%” consensus, who were originally polled to come up with that number, have stated that their papers and opinions have been misrepresented as supporting the IPCC’s message. Do you have a scientific or engineering background that provides you the skills to understand the inferences of these climate models and the statistical models used to validate their claims?

            • John Waibel

              That’s what I said, the rate of change is not conclusive however in most cases it is worst than thought. I am not a scientist but I do trust people like this
              American Association for the Advancement of Science
              “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.” (2006)3

              American Chemical Society
              “Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem.” (2004)4

              American Geophysical Union
              “Human?induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5

              American Medical Association
              “Our AMA … supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant.” (2013)6

              American Meteorological Society
              “It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide.” (2012)7

              American Physical Society
              “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.” (2007)8

              The Geological Society of America
              “The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse?gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s.” (2006; revised 2010)9

            • Trev Boods

              Then you should also trust those other scientists I listed and read their criticisms. Then try to understand where the disconnect in the interpretation comes from. When lead writers in the IPCC distance themselves from the organization in protest of the politicization and group-think demanded, then rational people should question what is going on. Or you can just continue to lap up whatever fits your perspective.

            • John Waibel

              The likely hood of me taking the side of 3 out of 100 opinions is very unlikely. I like to gamble but not much. I read a bit about Richard tol. He seems to be a bit off a nut job. I’m surprised you find him so legit that you are willing to dismiss everyone else. Apparently he is an economist who simply does not agree with the financial consequences of climate change. I mean screw everything else that relies on a normaly functioning climate. Once again it’s all about money. Mention that to South American coffee farmers who are loosing their crops to rust des ease, or Manitoba farmers, or bcc foresters who lost there trees to the pine beetle, bcc coastal scallop farms losing their scallops to

            • Trev Boods

              I’m actually not dismissing anyone. I have a background in chemistry and work experience environmental science. Unlike you, I actually have the education to understand how bias creeps into the peer review process. And if think these 3 are the total sum of scientists who are debating the accuracy of the IPCC models then you are either ridiculously ignorant of current research, or a closed minded ideologue; possibly both. Get informed.

            • John Waibel

              Can you post some of the current research, I am always interested in reading up on climate change. I must say I have a problem finding stuff that does not support what I have concluded. Anyways, send me some links.

            • Trev Boods

              http://judithcurry.com/ is a great place to start. There are ample links within that blog. Then look up what Tol, McKitrick and Spencer say on the issue. It’s interesting that Tol was heralded for his work supporting global warming theories, but as soon as he started questioning the IPCC reports, of which he was a lead writer, he is labeled as a fringe “denier”. Spencer was a respected scientist until he started speaking out against the prevailing theories, at which time his religious beliefs were brought up. McKitrick, and IPCC reviewer, has written extensively on the failings of the statistical inferences within the IPCC models. Look up Pielke, Tallbloke. There are good links on http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/.

            • John Waibel

              I guess if you are a small fringe group of hundreds of scientists that to find consensus you have to somewhat ignore a loud but tiny group of deniers. It is kinda like trying to run a country with 3% of a vote! it just does not work no matter how valid they think their opinions are. Also I was looking for links to research, not opinions on the ipcc.

            • Trev Boods

              The “fringe” group isn’t small, but they are not vocal. The current environment is not conducive to even discussing contrary evidence, let alone publicly calling out people like Michael Mann. Given the support Mann and his cohorts have, running contrary to their research is a quick way to losing funding, unless a researchers has tenure. I’ve caught Mann flat out lying regarding proven volumes of reserves in the oil sands; his response was to block me on twitter.

              There are ample links to research on Judith Curry’s site as well as all the other sites linked to from the Nofrakkingconsensus site. Tallbloke and Pielke also link to research and their commentaries on other research. The fact you label them as a “loud but tiny group of deniers” and claim you cannot find research contrary to your imaginary “consensus” is a pretty clear statement of how open your mind is to the possibility this is a political movement rather than a scientific one.

            • John Waibel

              Ok I get it. You are a deni

            • Trev Boods

              Not at all; I don’t deny our climate is changing, but it’s not changing at some catastrophic rate, nor do we know mankind is conclusively driving the change. I’m a realist, which is sadly in short supply from either side in this debate. And completely missing from the uneducated masses who lap-up whatever is fed to them by the media.

              There is no perfect model; there aren’t even respectable models. The IPCC models are so far removed from explaining what’s happened over the past 20 years their predictions for the next 100 are laughable. That’s the problem; basing policy on these models is the height of stupidity. The climate alarmists basing their calls to action off these predictions are so stupidly misinformed it’s almost a tragic comedy.

            • John Waibel

              You follow denier blogs, how does that make you much of an expert. I think you are slightly looney, given all the evidence you seem to ignore in favoured of the fringe.

            • Trev Boods

              I follow “denier” blogs, as you stupidly label them, to see how they participate and respond to claims put forth by the mainstream media. I just as avidly follow the mainstream blogs to see both sides of the discussion. Open your limited mind and maybe you’ll see both sides of the debate.

              I actually follow the discussion on twitter more diligently as there is more frequent discussions between the scientists doing research.

              I’m not an expert, nor have I claimed to be. As for ignoring evidence, I sincerely doubt you have a better grasp on the science behind what’s occurring than I do. What do you do for a living? Kayak tours? Yeah, I can see how that makes you a qualified commentator on the climate.

            • John Waibel

              I read denier blogs all the time and they are rubbish, debunked bunch of crap. I can see through there agenda. The franking consensus one you sent me was hilarious. And wattsupwiththatwith that is the most debunked piece of crap out there. Nothing there is peer reviewed. It is meant for the right wing dumbass republican supporters who think Obama is a Muslim, sadam Hussein bombed the world trade centre, and universal health care is worse than the devil himself. I do trust these guys though

              “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.” (2009)2

              American Association for the Advancement of Science
              “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.” (2006)3

              American Chemical Society
              “Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem.” (2004)4

              American Geophysical Union
              “Human?induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5

              American Medical Association
              “Our AMA … supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant.” (2013)6

              American Meteorological Society
              “It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide.” (2012)7

              American Physical Society
              “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.” (2007)8

              The Geological Society of America
              “The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse?gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s.” (2006; revised 2010)9

            • Trev Boods

              I’m not sure what blogs you read, but to label them all as “rubbish, debunked bunch of crap” is absolutely ridiculous. To be clear, you, as a kayak instructor, are calling the life’s work of PhD scientists, garbage. Right. Because why, exactly? Do you honestly think you possess the knowledge and experience to critically analyze the validity of their findings? All you’ve done is regurgitate tired information that has been repeated, ad naseum, for the past 15 years and which has prove to be patently false.

              Look up Ross McKitrick if you want more the perspective of an environmental economist since you seem to believe there are economic risks to climate change. Richard Tol, while a believer in climate change caused by CO2, does not buy into the alarmism of the IPCC. Judith Curry has written extensively, and moderately, about the risks of climate change. Roger Tallbloke will provide you with ample discussion of the physics involved. Roger Pielke Sr. is a good source of meteorlogical discussion; Jr. is a great source for policy discussion. Bear in mind, these are the people the IPCC engages to review their work, but clearly the opinion of an uneducated kayak instructor from Quadra Island, BC is worth more than theirs. This is just to start; from these professionals you will be able to find more topics.

              Tell you what John, why don’t you write up a paper explaining why the IPCC and scientists supporting the alarmism and global warming hysteria and unable to explain why the Antarctic ice sheet is growing instead of shrinking as they have predicted?

              Then move onto explaining the current 15 year pause in “warming” that completely diverges from what models predicted 15 years ago and is still unexplained by current revisions of those models, even when accounting for broader confidence intervals in average temperatures?

              Then move onto why many climate models fail random noise tests; this is particularly vexing for models that produced the infamous “hockey stick” graph?

              Then move onto why US temperature stations are manually removing readings and instead using projected data over specific periods that leads to completely different average readings over time?

              That should be enough to get you going; if you can actually answer any of these questions then I’ll believe you are qualified to offer an opinion on the quality of work provided by accredited scientists.

              Until then, you’re just another mouthpiece of the environmentalist lobby, regurgitating information you clearly lack the ability to critically analyze, for the simply fact this regurgitated nonsense fits your myopic view of the world.

              You should discuss plate tectonics with geologists from the 1960’s. From the 1800’s until then, the consensus of geologists was that the Earth cooled as it formed and this is what created mountains. Clearly, scientific consensus (when it exists) is not always correct. Then look up plate tectonics.

            • John Waibel

              Ok you just won denier of the year award. Lol good work.

            • Trev Boods

              The quality of your response is typical of people like you. Pull your head out of the sand, or where ever else you shove it, and maybe you’ll learn something. Then again, I’m sure the world needs more high-school educated kayak instructors to critically analyze scientific and public policy discussions.

            • John Waibel

              Actually I’m just bored.

            • John Waibel

              I’ll leAve you with this to mull over. Sums things up quite nicely http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7092614.stm

            • Trev Boods

              So, a “research” article written by the environmental correspondent for the BBC is enough to trump statements made by IPCC reviewers? You’re a poster child for confirmation bias.

            • John Waibel
            • Trev Boods

              Exactly; some of the names I provided you are on that list.

            • John Waibel
            • Trev Boods
            • John Waibel

              i figured that would get your knickers in a knot. I did say it is probably not related to climate change. BC di however break 20 hottest days records. true

            • John Waibel
            • John Waibel

              Oops sorry. I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings. You are not wasting your time. Keep on reading your blogs.

            • John Waibel
            • John Waibel

              They pray on dumb southern republicans and the odd dimwit outside the southern dumb religious belt

            • John Waibel

              I get it you don’t like the ipcc what solution do you have for gathering studies on climate change so that governments can make appropriate policy decisions on climate change. The ipcc admit they are not perfect, so what is your perfect model. Have it run my deniers.

            • John Waibel

              I would get your sources a little better http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Donna_Laframboise

            • John Waibel

              But the influence peddling does run contrary to what I support. What’s your point?

            • Trev Boods

              I think you’re confused. The covert influence peddling I’m referring to, and that Vivian is investigating, is regarding the pressures Canadian ENGO’s are putting on pipeline and oil E&P companies. These same ENGO’s are financed by US interests; precisely who, we don’t know. If this influence peddling runs contrary to what you support, then clearly you support pipeline and oil E&P companies.

            • John Waibel
            • Trev Boods

              Do you even research what you read? The “Great Bear Rainforest” is now an issue of contention because of the US funding and the proposed expansion of the park boundaries to cover shipping lanes near the BC coast. Keep hugging those trees John; maybe they’ll keep you warm in the winter. Again, that article highlights that there is clearly US funds influencing Canadian politics. I’m sure you’re ok with that, since you agree with the outcome of the influence, but people with a bit of morality to them might disagree with foreign influence peddling within Canada.

            • John Waibel

              since when was the GBR turned into a park. I am currently in the GBR and last I looked out from my boat I saw no park. An area with ecosystem based management which has been in the works for years and was funded jointly by the Federal Government and groups like Tides Canada. (this constitutes part of the money Krause references)

            • Trev Boods

              The issue has come up because of the support by some ENGO’s to turn the GBR into a park; sorry if that wasn’t clear. I will try to type more slowly for you. The proposed boundary of the park extends into the BC coastal waters, effectively blocking shipping lanes.

            • John Waibel

              what good is the GBR if the waters are not protected. The salmon runs feed all in the GBR without them there is not GBR. What is your experience and understanding of the biodiversity of the GBR, can you point it out on a map. Have you seen Douglas Channel, Mussel Inlet, Gill Island, Campania, Aristazible Island. Did you know that all northern resident killer whales spend part of their year in the waters of the GBR. There are over 250 humpbacks that live there. All coastal comunities including first nations who have lived in the area for 10,000 years depend on healthy waters.

            • Trev Boods

              And yet the region has suffered absolutely no impact from the use of those waters as shipping lanes. There are already oil tankers running through there, in case you weren’t aware. Good grief; are you that clueless about what happens in BC?

            • John Waibel

              have not seen too many Panamex sized tankers here. Just a bunch of shipments from the Kitimat aluminium smelter. There was that ferry that hit and sank of Gill Island that proves accidents happen, even by those that know the coast better than anyone. So where are these tankers you talk of? where are they going to and coming from? Are there over 400 a year coming and going. Hmmmm I’ll keep my eye open for you if you don’t know.

            • Trev Boods

              A ferry is hardly held to the same safety standards as a shipping vessel, particularly an oil tanker. Good grief. There are tankers in that region pulling from the Transmountain facility in Burnaby. How many, I don’t know but they have been running for decades without incident.

            • John Waibel

              So a BC ferry doe not have the same safety standards as a panamanian registered cargo ship. Really. You better let transport Canada know that. Where did you get this info? I did not know Douglas Channel was near Burnaby. I thought it was was about 700km to the north in a remote region of the GBR where there is far severe weather than the Georgia Basin. Hurricanes are regular on the North Coast, rare in South Coast. I know I counted them from my boat throughout October and November. You are being very Albertan about this discussion. Lets talk cows and wheat and you will probably know more than me. The ocean, no.

            • Trev Boods

              Do ferries have double hulls? Similar navigation systems and tugs to help navigate through narrows and congested areas? Give it up.

            • John Waibel

              Double hulls don’t stop spills. Hitting a rock is not the same as hitting sand or mud bottom. Rock wins over double hulls.

              http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/documents_staticpost/cearref_21799/83874/Tanker_Technology.pdf

              kinda like wearing a helmut on a motor bike. You still have a good chance of dieing, just a little less. Double hulls are not a fix all now are tug support. Last time a double hull tanker went down in Alaska the tugs failed to stop it from drifting onto the rocks at about 1.5 knots. Luckily it was carrying soy beans, not 80 million gallons of Bitumen.

            • Trev Boods

              Yes, double hulls do stop spills; the issue idiots like you have is that they don’t stop 100% of spills. There is a clear trend in the decrease in oil spills worldwide from tankers but the data isn’t clear whether it’s due to double hull construction or better maintenance, retirement of older vessels and/or better navigation technology. Here educate yourself if you’re capable of reading something other than environmentalist drivel: http://www.pwsrcac.org/wp-content/uploads/filebase/programs/oil_spill_prevention_planning/double_hull_tanker_review.pdf

            • John Waibel

              Same same. Your report pretty much sums up what the report I posted did. Oil tankers with double hulls still spill oil. If they didn’t there would be no problem. But they do and therefore many people, other than Albertan red necks don’t want to take the risk. Anyways, I gotta head up to the central coast no cell phone coverage till Bell Bella. Hope you enjoy your life and may you always have large TV’s

            • Trev Boods

              Pretty much sums up? No, not quite. The report you shared skews the the efficacy of double hull tankers to support their eco-nut perspective. Double hull tankers, combined with other factors have materially reduced the size and rate of oil spills. Sorry chump, but that’s a fact.

            • John Waibel

              So a double Hull may stop 25% to 60% of a spill. Have you done the math on a Panamax Tanker. Its staggering. Here is some breaking news for you http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/amakusa-island-bulk-carrier-runs-aground-near-prince-rupert-1.2707580 maybe you can get on the comments board saying how this will never happen. Do you end all your comments with an insult or do you just have insecurity issues.

            • Trev Boods

              Again, don’t be stupid; that’s not what I’m saying. I’m not saying it’ll never happen; I’m saying double hull tankers are effective in reducing the impact of accidents. That’s a fact. Compound this effectiveness with other measures and you can see why the % of accidents is dropping year over year. That is also a fact. If your metric for supporting something is 100% safety then I hope you never walk, drive or fly anywhere and are comfortable sitting at home with your tinfoil helmet on. No man-made systems have a 100% safety record; demanding 100% before you support something is the same thing as supporting nothing.

            • John Waibel

              We demand 100% nothing less. The gbr is too precious. This is not but ugly Alberta we are talking about. I assume by your post that you have never been, nor have little understanding of the biodiversity of the gbr. Protecting it is far more important to people than you being able to get a bigger TV or new tires for your truck.

            • Trev Boods

              Demanding 100% is a good litmus test for idiocy. Canadian pipelines run at 99.999% safety but clearly that isn’t good enough. And if you think Alberta is “butt ugly” then maybe you need to venture out of BC a little bit; then again that would imply you actually have an open enough mind to appreciate something beyond your little part of the world.

            • John Waibel

              I am not so worried about pipelines. It’s the tankers. I have spent a fair amount of time in Alberta and I agree it has beautiful places especially the Rockies. It just does not appear that Albertans see the beauty beyond the oil. I do get out a bit. I have travelled in over 70 countries, lived in Africa for 6 years, traveled overland from china, though Mongolia and through Russia. Been to most European countries and throughout se Asia. I run guided tours to chile and Bahamas. And you?

            • John Waibel

              Oh did I mention turkey, Syria, Jordan Israel, Iraqi Kurdistan the only part of Iraq open to travel, Egypt and morocco. So if you ever want to discus the Middle East. I’m in.

            • Trev Boods

              Of course Albertans see beauty beyond oil; have you never been to the parks we have in our Province? Are you aware of the carbon offset programs that are quietly run in Alberta? Are you aware of the reclamation and renewable energy investments made in Alberta that trump the rest of Canada combined? I’ve been to almost every state in the US,Mexico several times, travelled throughout the Caribbean, SE Asia, Australia, New Zealand. I live in Alberta but I’ve lived in 3 of our 10 provinces and been to visit almost every one of them.

              The tankers you’re so worried about will have the same safety record as the rest of the ships that travel through BC coastal waters, which is almost spotless. Tankers have been moving through BC coastal waters for 80 years without incident. http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/menu-4100.htm#f

            • John Waibel

              I wonder if there ever has been Chinese or US funds influencing the oil industry. I wonder. hmmmm

            • Trev Boods

              You’ve proven that statement wrong. You dismiss her because she’s a nutritionist by education, yet you lap up the IPCC reports run by a railway engineer. Keep spewing your bullshit; none of this research is made up. The impacts of the propaganda these ENGOs put out is real. These ENGOs are not held to even the semblance of truth with their messages and what they communicate is swaying public opinion. You are a fool if you think this is good for Canada.

            • John Waibel

              Rajendra K. Pachauri
              served as Assistant Professor (August 1974 – May 1975) and Visiting Faculty Member (Summer 1976 and 1977) in the Department of Economics and Business at NC State. He was a Visiting Professor of Resource Economics at the College of Mineral and Energy Resources, West Virginia University. On his return to India, he joined the Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad, as Member Senior Faculty (June 1975 – June 1979) and went on to become Director, Consulting and Applied Research Division (July 1979-March 1981). He joined The Energy and Resources Institute(TERI) as Director in 1982.[10]and presently heads the organisation. He was also a Senior Visiting Fellow at the Resource Systems Institute (1982), and Visiting Research Fellow at the World Bank, Washington DC (1990). On 20 April 2002, Pachauri was elected Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations panel established by the World Meteorological Organization(WMO) and United Nations Environment Programme(UNEP) to assess information relevant for understanding climate change.

            • Trev Boods

              Yup; it’s an impressive resume. Just goes to show how stupid it is to dismiss someone because of how their education started; doesn’t it? Pachauri’s first education was as a railway engineer. Now look up Dr. Richard Tol and his opinion of how the IPCC works.

            • John Waibel

              so you and mister Tol don’t agree that climate change is happening. I’ll stick with the other 1000’s of scientists that disagree with you two. Tol plays with oil executives and write wingers, he’s a bit of a lone wolf when it comes to climate science.

            • Trev Boods

              Richard Tol was one of the first people to actually show a correlation between carbon emissions and climate change. He is one of the most quoted climate scientists in the world and one of the former lead writers of the IPCC reports. Even he is against the rampant politicization and group think of the IPCC. Get informed, or continue to prove the depth of ignorance.

            • John Waibel

              “Even he is against the rampant politicization and group think of the IPCC. ” he and who else? Ezra Levant perhaps. Here is a fun video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg

            • Trev Boods

              Dr. Judith Curry, Dr. Ross McKitrick. Those are two rather prominent ones; both are IPCC reviewers. Pull your head out the sand, or wherever else you have it.

            • Mal

              “1000’s (sic) of scientists”;”write (sic)”
              You’re not very clever at all are you? And yet, here you are, loudly declaiming your cluelessness.
              Typical of your kind, though.

            • John Waibel

              So do you think there are more climate scientists that do not agree that humans are impacting the climate.

            • John Waibel

              Please do share your sources. I am curious where you get your info from

        • Mal

          I can see who the actual “speculator” is here, pumpkin.

  • Michelle Stirling

    I like to call these efforts “The Great Eco-Wall of Canada” – Look at the map in my article: http://darkgreendevils.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/the-great-eco-wall/ PS if you follow the thread on “The Tipping Point: Age of the Oil Sands: you find almost everyone on camera is associated with TIDES or paid by them. Including CBC host Suzuki and his foundation of the same name. And who financed the Schindler/Kelly study? TIDES. Funny how CBC failed to mention that in their shock-u-mentary – a breach of journalistic ethics and fundamental reporting skills. This shock-u-mentary plays 24/7 on CBC’s web and is the primary material of all eco-activists for slamming the oil sands. Funny how CBC just forget to mention the extensive monitoring that IS in place…. as co-producer and in charge of national interests, you’d think that would have been a minimum requirement.

    • McColl Magazine

      Shocking that CBC would attack Alberta, after all, who’s paying for the CBC? Alberta.

  • HockeyDadof2

    This article and this boards oozes with anti-Americanism. How embarrassing. Its enough to wonder what the real motivation is here.

  • Bear_Code

    It doesn’t matter where the money comes from because the environment doesn’t have walls, we are all affected by the tar sands. Krause is simply a little bug on the wall because she fails to understand what global means and that we are all in this pollution trap together, and we are all responsible at the same time.

    • Mal

      *snore*

  • old timer

    I believe the most important part of this story, is directly linking the US State Department (official US gov’t foreign policy) to the goal of stopping all exports of Canadian energy anywhere except to the USA. Why have we not heard from our Federal Gov’t on a response to US meddling in Canadian affairs?

  • David Robinson

    My experience with Vivian Krause is that if she said it — you can bank on it. She is a careful and thoughtful researcher.

  • Michael F. Tevlin

    The takeaway is clear: Canadian environmental organizations and foundations need to step up their giving and not just leave it to the Americans.

    I would like to see an objective report on how much money oil, gas and energy interests are spending on public relations, advertising and buying — er, lobbying — votes.

  • SemperVigilio

    Thank you Vivian, another article well done and cannot be repeated often enough.

  • Northern Gal

    This approach is so one sided: let’s tally up how much US money is invested in the tar sands! Fair’s fair. There are legitimate reasons why US biodiversity conservation funders support Canadian environmental campaigns: if the US wants to have healthy populations of grizzly bears, wolverines, wolves, caribou, and other large, sensitive species, they will need to come from southern Canada.

  • GCanuck

    Premis?

  • Western Guy

    Foreign interests do not want more Canadian oil going into the US Will pay anything to stop it.