Environmental groups


 
Environmental groups and their funders 

Environmental charities depend on large annual donations from various sources to exist. The audited financials for one group in the Kootenays, Wildsight, suggests it relies heavily on US foundations. Wildsight, Sierra Club, Canadian Parks and Wilderness (CPAWS), all registered charities, are media savvy groups that continually challenge all levels of government to change. They often make statements backed up by their “experts” or “science”, hardly ever revealing their source of information. Take one fact and stretch it as far as the media will allow until they are challenged where they become eerily silent. The US foundations listed below are spending millions in BC for campaigns that range from Atlin in the northwest  to the Flathead valley in the Southeast. Are they driven by other agendas such as the ones Vivian Krause has identified? Are there larger issues at play that groups like Wildsight have become pawns to? Is Wildsight  facing an identity crunch due in part to their general acceptance of “change or else” preaching’s of David Suzuki and Al Gore?

One has to wonder who Wildsight represents. From 2001-2011 Wildsight revenue totals of 6.2 million dollars with a membership that fluctuates between 200 and 500. From 2004-2012 CPAWS revenue topped 38 million. These are just two of the 100’s of groups being funded. It’s time for US and Canadian funders to Thinktwice about funding groups that are built on misinformation and political interference. David Suzuki recently commented on his website “Environmentalism has failed” but it certainly isn’t because of a lack of money.

The figures below are from the audited financials that Wildsight recently posted to their website. This includes the Regional Wildsight audited financials from 2001-2011 not the other 5 branch offices that have to fund themselves from other sources. The monies that Regional Wildsight brings in pales in comparison with Suzuki Foundation or and Sierra Club. Environmentalism is big business in BC; maybe the provincial government should replace the carbon tax with a green tax on the environmentalists. They seem to always want action from the government its only right they pay their fair share. 

Paul Visentin

Member of ThinkTwice group

Government and Taxpayer Grants 2001-2012
$1,438,959
BC Gaming Commission
$ 127,396
City of Fernie
$ 6,010
Columbia Shuswap Regional District
$ 14,350
District of Invermere
$ 9,957
Government of Canada
$ 176,786
Province of British Columbia
$ 32,131
Regional District of Central Kootenay
$ 24,479
Regional District of East Kootenay
$ 37,195
BC Hydro
$ 26,000
Columbia Basin Trust
$ 975,655
Columbia Power Corp
$ 8,000
Village of Radium Hot Springs
$ 1,000
US Grants 2001-2012
$3259391
444's Foundation
$ 231,635
The Brainerd Foundation
$ 321,552
The Bullitt Foundation
$ 247,621
Confluence Fund
$ 15,616
Conservation Alliance
$ 16,103
Conservation Northwest
$ 3,039
Endswell Foundation
$ 39,767
Global Nature Fund
$ 79,768
Henry P Kendall Foundation
$ 201,126
LaSalle Adams Fund
$ 189,923
National Parks Conservation Assoc
$ 1,010
Norcross Wilderness Foundation Inc.
$ 13,029
Patagonia Inc.
$ 28,795
The Lazar Foundation
$ 182,184
Unilever Foundation
$ 484,215
Wilburforce Foundation
$ 968,877
Yellowstone to Yukon
$ 235,131
Canadian Grants 2001-2012
$ 1,514,728
Art Twomey Memorial
$ 15,284
Banff Centre
$ 1,000
BC Cattlemans Association
$ 5,000
Candian Products Forest
$ 5,000
Canadian Mountain Holidays
$ 1,500
The Chawkers Foundation
$ 10,000
CPAWS
$ 30,750
Community fund - North Kootenay Lake Society
$ 600
Columbia Valley Foundation
$ 7,535
Columbia Wetlands Stewardship
$ 16,939
Crowsnest Conservation Society
$ 10,685
Ducks Unlimited
$ 1,000
East Kootenay Invasive Plant Council
$ 500
Encana Foundation
$ 45,000
The Eleanor Luxton Historical Society
$ 60,000
Federation of Canadian Municipalities
$ 22,445
Fortis BC
$ 15,000
Fraser Basin Council
$ 15,000
The Kimberley Nature Park Society
$ 3,807
Kicking Horse Coffee
$ 20,945
Lever Ponds Foundation
$ 18,050
Lush Handmade Cosmetics
$ 5,000
Lake Windermere District Lions Club
$ 1,264
The MacLean Foundation
$ 50,972
George Cedric Metcalf Foundation
$ 5,000
Mountain Equipment Coop
$ 56,011
Nature Canada
$ 19,000
Nature Conservancy Canada
$ 1,000
Nature Trust BC
$ 1,000
Osprey Community Foundation
$ 2,634
Pembina Institute
$ 1,500
RBC Foundation
$ 106,585
Real Estate Foundation
$ 116,000
Yves Rocher Amerique Du Nord Inc.
$ 7,000
The Rockies Institute Fernie Chamber of Commerce
$ 1,200
Sea Change Marine Conservation
$ 417
Shell Environmental Fund
$ 120,200
Sierra Club of BC Foundation
$ 101,137
Snowy Owl Management Inc.
$ 1,000
The Habitat Conservation Trust Fund
$ 14,000
The Sage Foundation
$ 2,000
The Richard Ivey Foundation
$ 150,150
TD Friends of the Environment
$ 13,600
Tembec Industries Inc.
$ 96,197
Tides Canada
$ 81,902
Transcanada Pipelines Ltd.
$ 15,000
Vancouver Foundation
$ 159,357
Van City Credit Union
$ 5,000
Waste Management
$ 1,000
West Coast Environmental Law
$ 32,398
Western Canadian Wilderness Committee
$ 1,500
Terasen Gas
$ 10,000
Wildsight Golden
$ 3,767
World Wildlife Fund
$ 25,717
Total Grants 2001-2012
$ 6,283,647
Canadian Gov't Grants
$ 1,508,898
American Grants
$ 3,260,021
Canadian Non Gov't Grants
$ 1,514,728
11 year average % of total grants
Canadian Gov't Grants
23%
American Grants
54%
Canadian Non Gov't Grants
24%
11 year average %Total Non-Government Grants
 
Canadian Grants
31%
American Grants
67%
Membership revenue 2001-2011
Membership @ $20/person average 2001-2011
Membership revenue as % of total grants
$87,522
382
1.28%

Source - Wildsight Audited Financials 2001-2011

 



2012 Master of spin or Protector of Mother Earth........you decide

Wildsight continues to stretch the truth and smear the facts. The coalition of Sierra Club, Y2Y, CPAWS and Wildsight use misleading statements to fire up the imagination of readers. Just about every issue these groups campaign against uses similar media hype and thinly veiled threats of doom and gloom. There is a place for environmentalism in BC but not in the way these groups do business. Their campaigns twist the truth and use sketchy details to garner an audience. The latest campaign on a new coal mine in the Elk Valley is typical of how they twist reality. It would be useful to the environmental assessment process if Wildsight and its partners used some credible statements in their opposition to new coal mines in the Elk Valley.


Here are the statements that Wildsight and their partners published as compared to the facts:

“jeopardize a crucial international wildlife corridor”

The wildlife in the Elk valley range in the Elk Valley or Alberta depending on the summer and winter ranges. There is always the off chance that a singular animal will migrate south 200+ kms to cross the US border. This is not an internationally crucial wildlife corridor, unless of course you are peddling the Y2Y project.

“Centermount Coal Ltd.’s Bingay project, which is 45 per cent Chinese-owned”

Foreign investment is needed to build infrastructure so we as Canadians can reap the long term benefits. Two private Chinese citizens own 45% and Canadians own the other 55% majority shares which control the company. I hope Wildsight is not implying that non-Canadians can't invest in BC, if they did then Wildsight would stand to lose millions from US foundations. Wildsight is trying to get a free ride off public sentiment from the recent federal decision to allow foreign ownership of oil sand companies. Here’s the breakdown of ownership of Centermount taken from the project description submitted to the BC Environmental Assessment Office:

“The BingayMain Coal Project (the project) is wholly owned by Centermount, a private, Canadian company with its head office located in Vancouver, BC. Centermount is 55% owned by Centerpoint Resources Inc., also a private Canadian company, with the remaining 45% owned by two Chinese private shareholders.”
“The Elk is one of the last strongholds for genetically pure westslope cutthroat trout and endangered bull trout.”
Westslope cutthroat are abundant throughout the Kootenays including the Elk River which is not the last stronghold. Bull troutare found throughout BC and are not endangered. They are blue listed which means they are sensitive to human activities or natural events, but are not Extirpated, Endangered or Threatened.

“This mine would be smack in the middle of a globally-significant wildlife corridor that UNESCO has asked B.C. to protect,”

Just where is “smack in the middle”?According to the proponents application they put the location at: 80 kms north of Sparwood and 80 kms south of Banff National Park. UNESCO has never stated that the Elk Valley is a “globally-significant wildlife corridor” nor have they ever asked the BC Government to protect that value. UNESCO did however use similar references to the federal government for the Flathead valley which has no bearing on this project.

“contravene a United Nations recommendation for a moratorium on new coal mines in the Elk”

The United Nations never recommended a moratorium on new coal mines in the Elk Valley in fact they stated:
Urges the State Party of Canada not to permit any development or other resource extraction in the upper Flathead River basin until adequate baseline and comparative research has been completed and considered jointly with the State Party of the United States of America;

“This could ultimately impact the whole corridor, including the nearby Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park.”

Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park is over 200 kms away as the crow flies in a different province across many mountain ranges with five other open pit coal mines in between. I doubt visitors to Waterton will notice any impact.

It’s time that people start to ask tough questions of Wildsight and their environmental partners. They want the government and corporations to be accountable, responsible and open yet they don’t follow that creed. The untaxed millions that registered charities such as Wildsight, CPAWS and Sierra Club use are governed by strict rules from the Canada Revenue Agency. Its time they started to act like a charity, do some good for the communities, rather than the oppose and protest with their junk science. You can read the application submitted by the company online at http://a100.gov.bc.ca.

Think twice about what is written and look further to make an informed decision on this and other environmental issues. You can view other informative articles at Kootenay Think twice.

Paul Visentin
Member of the Kootenay Thinktwice group
Comments from article published in e-Know Jan 5 2013
Wildsight welcomes constructive critique of our work. We work with leading researchers in the field of conservation and ecology and invite feedback from scientists and the public. We regularly incorporate new information into our presentations. Wildsight’s agenda and finances are open to the public through our website, http://www.wildsight.ca The critique by Mr. Visetin is an opinion piece that is not based on the facts. It is written in the same vein as previous Think Twice attacks on the Canadian Cancer Society and Wildsight for our position on cosmetic pesticides. The writer denies the fact that UNESCO has acknowledged that the Elk Valley is a critical wildlife corridor, and that it has recommended a moratorium on mining in the Elk Valley.I would encourage readers to review UNESCO’s 2010 State of Conservation Report (http://whc.unesco.org/en/soc/539) which states,”steps should also be taken to minimise the barrier to wildlife connectivity due to mining, transportation and communication lines and associated developments in the Crowsnest Pass of British Columbia and to plan and implement relevant mitigation measures. The mission recommended a long-term moratorium be placed on any further mining developments in south eastern British Columbia in a corridor providing vital habitat connectivity and to the Rocky Mountains World Heritage property in Alberta. Other measures should include minimising future infrastructure development and removal of unnecessary structures, maintenance of core natural areas and rehabilitation of degraded areas, and development of a pro-active plan for enhancing connectivity in the area.”
John Bergenske January 8, 2013 at 12:36 pm


Reply to John Bergenske
The original article published by Wildsight, Sierra Club and CPAWS contained numerous statements that were designed to illicit support for their cause. I doubt any “experts” would have signed off on those statements. I referenced 7 statements that had factual errors and only one is refuted where Mr. Bergenske errs again in stating that the elk valley is part of the 2010 UNESCO decision. It clearly makes no mention of the Elk Valley but does have concerns about the Crowsnest Pass and areas to the south, specifically areas south of the US border in the Flathead and the World Heritage Site at Waterton – Glacier National Park. My critique of Wildsight and the CCS stance on cosmetic pesticides is well known and is also based on the credible experts that have long standing careers studying pesticides and their effect on people and the environment. I have not seen any documentation of the “experts” they claim to use on any subject they campaign against least of all the pesticide campaign. Will Mr. Bergenske provide the names and CV’s of the “leading researchers in the field of conservation and ecology” that Wildsight uses? Kootenay Thinktwice uses facts to back up statements something that Wildsight and its partners need to incorporate into their messaging.
Paul Visentin Member of Kootenay Thinktwice
Paul VisentinJanuary 9, 2013 at 10:22 am
Couldn’t agree with you more! Take Jumbo Creek for example, the green washing hyperbole increased to the point where it was all obvious lies to all but the most gullible. Bears for example; I know that maybe only one grizzly bear passes through there annualy. Compare that to the Elk Valley which is polluted with bears. The Ktunaxa seem to follow in lock step and are stooping to the same BS tactics in a land / money grab attempt (much to the dismay of the Shuswap & Sinixt who actually can prove historical presence in the Jumbo area) . I could go on & on & on
billy January 5, 2013 at 9:15 pm





 
For U.S. foundations, this is about fossil fuels

Heads up, Canada! Our one and only big energy customer, the United States, isn’t going to need Canadian oil any more. That’s the implication of the International Energy Agency’s latest predictions. The U.S. will be the world’s largest oil producer by 2020 and the largest oil exporter by 2030. Some say this could happen a lot sooner.

At the same time that the U.S. is fast becoming an energy exporter, American charitable foundations are restricting Canadian fossil fuel development with conservation initiatives that put huge areas of land off-limits to natural resources development. Whether it is their intention or not, large conservation areas are de facto trade barriers that would restrict Canada’s marine access to global energy markets — on all three coasts — and maintain the U.S. monopoly on Canadian exports, keeping Canada over a barrel and on the sidelines of the global energy market.

Canadian pipelines targeted by U.S. funds

The downside of the U.S. monopoly on Canadian exports is huge. Joe Oliver, Minister of Natural Resources told the B.C. Business Council in a speech Tuesday that the Canadian economy loses out on $18-billion annually – $50-million every day – because Canadian oil is sold into the U.S. market below market value.

For the Canadians on the front lines of environmental conservation initiatives, it’s all about saving the bears, caribou, salmon and so forth. But for the U.S. foundations that fund these initiatives, this is about oil.

The largest environmental initiatives in Canada are the Great Bear Rainforest on the north coast of B.C., the Canadian Boreal Initiative and the Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative. In all three, the big funder is......

to read the full article click here....

Vivian Krause is a Vancouver researcher and writer. On Twitter she’s @FairQuestions.

Qat’muk Declaration Not Credible

Aerial-view-of-Jumbo-Mt-and-Jumbo-Valley---November-Reduced

The Jumbo Glacier Resort project team extends open arms to all First Nations and values the long-standing support of the Shuswap Indian Band, the closest First Nation to the project site. The team continues to seek common ground with all First Nations, including the Ktunaxa, and it has a strong desire to maintain amity and to continue working towards a benefits agreement, but it has an equally strong desire for the truth be told and that history not be ignored or misrepresented.
In November, 2010, twenty years after the comprehensive land use, environmental assessment and master planning reviews for Jumbo Glacier Resort had begun, the Ktunaxa Nation declared the entire Toby-Jumbo watershed, “home of the Grizzly Bear Spirit.” The Toby-Jumbo watershed includes Panorama Mountain Village and the Jumbo Glacier Resort project site. The upper Jumbo Valley, where the Jumbo Glacier Resort base will be situated, was singled out as a refuge area and a “most sacred core”.
Never before in the project’s then-Twenty year history had Qat’muk or the existence of a “Sacred” refuge area for the Grizzly Bear Spirit been mentioned.
The Ktunaxa had participated extensively in the CORE land use review process, the environmental assessment project specifications and review process, the master planning process and had begun negotiating an impact management and benefits agreement with the proponent. Never before in the project’s then-20 year history had Qat’muk or the existence of a refuge area for the Grizzly Bear Spirit been mentioned. The claim, accompanied by large public relations efforts complete with mal-informed celebrities, strained credibility and was met with offense and indignation from other First Nations and stakeholders.
As the resort enters the construction phase, the project team remains positive and is looking forward to the moment when it will be possible to work cooperatively and conclude an Impact Management and Benefits Agreement with the Ktunaxa.






 
 

 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)