skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Oil sands - following the money
Lawrence Solomon:
... Big Philanthropy is the greatest environmental advocacy effort in history, of which the controversies involving Northern Gateway pipeline, the Keystone XL Pipleline, and the Tar Sands form a small part. ...
... no issue holds a candle to the #1 priority for the U.S. funders: global warming.
... If we don’t act boldly in the next decade to prevent carbon lock-in, we could lose the fight against global warming,” explains Design to Win, a major report commissioned by six funders, including the $7-billion William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (the Hewlett of the Hewlett-Packard Corp.), the $6-billion David and Lucile Packard Foundation (the Packard of the Hewlett-Packard corporation), the $1.6-billion Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (heiress to the American Tobacco Co. fortune), and the $900-million Joyce Foundation (lumber).
... When Americans tell us what is good for us, we rightly take the source of the advice into consideration. We should do no less when the advice comes from Canadians in the pay of Americans.
Vivian Krause: Oil sands money trail
... The thinking behind the U.S. funding of the campaign against Canadian oil is explained in a 2007 strategy paper titled Design to Win: Philanthropy’s Role in the Fight Against Global Warming...
... As I see it, the campaign against Canadian oil, put on steroids by U.S. foundations, has created a negative foil, a background of bad press and fear ...
3 comments:
I believe the term is Oil Sands, not Tar Sands. Tar is a product of refined oil.
I do wish Vivian Krause could get more recognition. There seems to be a bunch of media afraid to talk to her.
Rob C
PS. It isn't dirty oil it is actually oily dirt.
Write to the Revenue Agency, ask them to investigate Suzuki and other foundations and take away their charitable status. They are lobbyists and should be taxed.
Post a Comment