EthicalOil
 

West Coast Environmental Law caught serving as a front group for a foreign special interest

January 6th, 2012  |  By: Kathryn

Vancouver, British Columbia – EthicalOil.org issued the following factual error report today in response to West Coast Environmental Law with regard to its foreign interest funders.

West Coast Environmental Law’s Executive Director and Senior Counsel, Jessica Clogg said: “Our campaigns are not dictated by the sources of our funding.”

That is factually incorrect.

According to pg. 191 of the foreign billionaire Rockefeller Brothers Fund tax return (http://www.rbf.org/sites/default/files/2006%20RBF%20990-PF.pdf), the $100,000 in foreign money it gave to West Coast Environmental Law – was specifically earmarked to ‘prevent the development of a pipeline’ to transport Canadian ethical oil.

“West Coast Environmental Law has been caught serving as a front group for a foreign special interest,” said Kathryn Marshall, spokesperson for EthicalOil.org and the new OurDecision.ca.   “It’s time for the foreign special interests and their local front groups to butt out of our Canadian decision.”

“We appreciate this opportunity to clarify this factual error, and all relevant research can be found at www.OurDecision.ca ”

 

  • Trucknuts

    Its on about the same level as Kathryn Marshall saying EthicalOil.org and OurDecision.ca are ‘grassroots’ organizations.

    • smcleod

      Still haven’t shown us proof of all your insinuations and innuendo.. So where’s the beef.. show us the tax records. etc…

      I thought not..

      • Dial 1 800 Oil Spill

        what is the likelihood that ethicaloil.org will put that info out in the public… they seem to avoid it like the plague… if they are taking money from big oil in Alta oil sands, then they are taking money from international corporations… seems to me like the pot telling the kettle it’s black…

  • Stevieg222
    • Robmax

      Typical of the left wing attack and smear machine.

      • Stevieg222

        And ethical oil isn’t typical of the right wing attack and smear machine. Give me break and educate yourself…

        • Kleiniken

          There is no such thing as Right wing smear, just education and facts for the deluded.

  • Craighubleyca

    What nonsense. WCEL took its position against Tar Sands pipelines long before they got that money. They did not change their position in the least as a result of getting it.

    That is not the definition of a “front group”, which modifies its position to match its masters’.

  • http://www.wcel.org/resources/environmental-law-alert/why-west-coast-fighting-enbridge-it%E2%80%99s-not-funding Jessica_Clogg

    With respect we note that it is ‘Ethical’ Oil that is once again in error. West Coast Environmental Law pursues funding from diverse (and overwhelmingly Canadian) sources to support priorities established by our board and staff and informed by environmental needs identified to us by BC citizens, community groups and First Nations. West Coast’s success in achieving grants to support this work from Canadian and US foundations like the Rockefeller Brothers Fund following lengthy, formal, rigorous and competitive grant application processes is evidence only of the compelling nature of our cause and our effectiveness.

    • smcleod

      Don’t like it when your funding sourse gets outed with their pants at half mast eh?

      • Peter

        I think Smith’s letter nails it dead on: “Charities work to fix problems. Often, these problems…are abroad. So Canadians give to charities that work abroad… What we’re not used to is actually being the problem.” As a Canadian, I am sad that we have become the problem, and in such a terrible situation that we must look to charity (domestic OR foreign) to counter the millions of dollars offered by the oil industry (domestic or foreign) in support of the project. If this pipeline wasn’t being forced upon us citizens, that money could be going to better use, and thousands of people’s time better spent. West Coast Environmental Law has a rock-solid reputation as a grassroots organization with the best interests of British Columbians, and it has a lot of supporters from all walks of life. Anyone that comes to attack it with such flimsy accusations is only going to tarnish their own reputation.

  • Incyte

    Wikipedia says estimates of foreign ownership of Canada’s oil/gas industry are around 50%. Where is the concern about the money these interests are spending to promote the pipeline and the tarsands? Isn’t that also meddling in our affairs? And these amounts dwarf the amounts being spent to oppose the projects.

    Where can I find details of who funds EthicalOil.org?

    • Robmax

      You have foreign investment to drive our economy, create jobs and wealth for the country, confused with foreign money trying to do the opposite. Those defending the later are nothing but traitors.

      • Trucknuts

        @Robmax

        Any program that is designed to export raw unprocessed resources is the “opposite” of creating jobs and wealth for Canadians.

        • Guest

          Trucknuts… too true! nicely pointed out…

        • Stig

          Agreed, why are these people supporting the transfer of bitumen reserves and wealth to Texas, when it can be made into high grade fuel, jobs and great wealth, right here?. Perhaps they aren’t who they say they are and are actually the enemies of our country and out and out thieves.

    • Trucknuts

      EthicalOil.org is funded by foreign owned oil companies.

    • Kleiniken

      There is a big difference between doing business in a country and attempting to pervert the political process by funding green propoganda. Get dirty eco money out of Canadian politics now!

  • Slappy122

    They’re taking money from foreign sources which they then use to try to influence political decisions in Canada. If that’s not a front for foreign interests I don’t know what is.

    • WesternDude

      Agreed, lets not let foreign oil money (50% ownership in Canada’s oilsands) make our decisions.

  • Tyee

    We should be keeping this oil in Canada to bring down the cost of gas at the pump. No giving it away to Communist China so that they can make cheap dollar store junk to sell back to us.

  • Tyee
  • Bartholomew

    “Ethical Oil” is nothing more than a public relations smokescreen. Oil extracted on Canadian soil is no less polluting than oil extracted from Saudi Arabian soil. “Ethics” do not magically cleanse oil of its intrinsic filthiness. “Ethics” will not reduce the amount of pollutants that refined oil products emit when they are burned. The laws of physics and chemistry are not affected by “ethics”.

    Tobacco is grown on Canadian soil as well. Perhaps we should start marketing Export A, Du Maurier, and Peter Jackson as “ethical” cigarettes. Why worry about lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease, strokes, etc. when you’ve got “ethics” on your side?

    • smcleod

      Pointing out the possible connections which are only in your mind doesn’t change the fact that the so called green lobby in Canada is in fact a front for a foreign money laundeing scheme. which is bent on messing with the Canadian economy.

      Now you of course will provide us with tax statements to prove your accusations, as Ethical Oil has given us…. I thought not…

      • Stig

        How about the connections to terrorism and dictatorship, almost everywhere that oil is being extracted. Indeed I have no question that al-Qaida has members among OPEC itself. It seems to myself, common sense, and the two holes, on Manhattan Island, where the Twin Towers once stood, that there are strong connections, between all three. Tarsands only extends these relationships, by giving oil a longer life, and a growing presence to fanatic terrorists, even though it could be stopped, if we stopped using oil and used alternatives.

  • Bartholomew

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/rick-j-smith/american-money-environmental-defence_b_1186912.html

    By Rick J. Smith, Executive Director, Environmental Defence Canada

    And they say this money forced us to talk about the pollution and destruction that come along with tar sands extraction.

    They think we’re ashamed of this. We’re not. But we are ashamed of something. We’re ashamed of what their friends in the oil industry are doing to our climate, to Canada’s international reputation, to northern Alberta, and what they would like to do to northern British Columbia, too.

    So let’s burst their bubble.

    Do we take money from Americans? Yup. It’s roughly 10 per cent of our annual budget.

    Did this money make us sound the alarm on what their friends are doing? Nope. Funnily enough, Canadian environmentalists objected to Canadian environmental destruction long before we saw one greenback.

    Now that’s out of the way, let’s talk about the real issue.

    Charities work to fix problems. Often, these problems — starvation, human rights abuses, humanitarian disasters — are abroad. So Canadians give to charities that work abroad: World Vision, Médécins Sans Frontières, Amnesty International, The Red Cross.

    What we’re not used to is actually being the problem. We should get used it. Because not only is tar sands oil already some of the dirtiest, but things are getting worse. The tar sands are Canada’s fastest growing source of global warming emissions and the main reason that Canada has become an international pariah on climate change.

    Worse still, according to the industry itself, tar sands oil is getting even dirtier: a recent report by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) showed that emissions per barrel of tar sands oil are on the rise.

    The impacts of tar sands have led environmentalists, in Canada and the United States, to do what we’ve done many times before — work together. We worked in partnership to create change on a major environmental issues, just as we did fighting acid rain, or on Devils Lake on the North Dakota-Manitoba border, or in the Great Lakes.

    The ethical oil crowd is now taking particular issue with the mounting opposition to Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway tar sands pipeline. We are opposed to this project because of the risks of an oil spill in northern B.C.’s forests and coastline and the role the pipeline would play in expanding tar sands production. More than 60 First Nations communities have opposed the project over environmental concerns, and the vast majority of British Columbians have echoed this.

    We have accepted American money to support our work to raise awareness about the stakes of this pipeline proposal — roughly 2 per cent of our annual budget. Is that why we, dozens of First Nations and the majority of British Columbians oppose it? Absolutely not.

    The question is not what side of the border you’re on; it’s what side of the issue you’re on. And the sad fact is that the oil industry and its cheerleaders are on a very wrong, very dangerous side of this very important issue. So we’re not sorry for working with Americans. Not one little bit.

    After all, the companies in the tar sands are global: from China, Holland, England, America, and Japan. Just three of them made $70 billion profit in 2010. Now we can understand why such powerful interests are used to getting their way.

    And we can understand why polluting industries under pressure do what they have always done before and shoot the messenger.

    What we can’t understand is why anyone would think we’re ashamed of working with American friends. Because we’re not.

    • smcleod

      Quoting the Huffington Post, is akin to giving the Toronto Star as an unbiased agency. Both are in bed with the same money laundering crew that have been demonstrated to be funding the green lobby.

      • Peter

        Once again, when the pro-pipeliner camp is unable to counter the message, they attack the messenger. Ethical Oil, you’ve been SERVED. You’ve got nothing. No response to any of the major issues raised in multiple forums, multiple letters. Your silence is deafening.

    • kwkgnr@yahoo.com

      So it’s like this. “Yeah, we admit that we’re taking money from foreigners to make our political decisions…..but we’re the good guys, so it’s OK”. That basically sums up this garbage letter. And the lawyer admits that 10% of it’s money comes from America. Now what other foreign countries does the other 90% come from?

      And how dare you compare yourselves to charities who help starving people Mr.Lawyer. Starvation is a fact. Global Warming due to the .5% emissions from the Oil sands as a factor is sheer nonsense.

  • Dial 1 800 Oil Spill

    I am quite happy about the american input… I think our neighbours to the south are justifiably unhappy about the performance of Enbridge and we should be listening to their experience with them…

    On July 4, 2002 an Enbridge pipeline ruptured in a marsh near the town of Cohasset, Minnesota in Itasca County, spilling 6,000 barrels (950 m3) of crude oil. In an attempt to keep the oil from contaminating the Mississippi River, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources set a controlled burn that lasted for 1 day and created a smoke plume about 1-mile (1.6 km) high and 5 miles (8.0 km) long.

    In 2006, there were 67 reportable spills totaling 5,663 barrels (900.3 m3) on Enbridge’s energy and transportation and distribution system; in 2007, there were 65 reportable spills totaling 13,777 barrels (2,190.4 m3)

    On March 18, 2006, approximately 613 barrels (97.5 m3) of crude oil were released when a pump failed at Enbridge’s Willmar terminal in Saskatchewan.[11] According to Enbridge, roughly half the oil was recovered, the remainder contributing to ‘off-site’ impacts.

    On January 1, 2007 an Enbridge pipeline that runs from Superior, Wisconsin to near Whitewater, Wisconsin cracked open and spilled ~50,000 US gallons (190 m3) of crude oil onto farmland and into a drainage ditch.[12] The same pipeline was struck by construction crews on February 2, 2007, in Rusk County, Wisconsin, spilling ~126,000 US gallons (480 m3) of crude. Some of the oil filled a hole more than 20 feet (6.1 m) deep and was reported to have contaminated the local water table.

    In April 2007, roughly 6,227 barrels (990.0 m3) of crude oil spilled into a field downstream of an Enbridge pumping station near Glenavon, Saskatchewan. Long-term site remediation is being attempted to bring the site to “as close as possible to its original condition”.

    In 2009, Enbridge Energy Partners, a US affiliate of Enbridge Inc., agreed to pay $1.1 million to settle a lawsuit brought against the company by the state of Wisconsin for 545 environmental violations. In a news release from Wisconsin’s Department of Justice, Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said “…the incidents of violation were numerous and widespread, and resulted in impacts to the streams and wetlands throughout the various watersheds.” The violations were incurred while building portions of the company’s Southern Access pipeline, a ~$2.1 billion project to transport crude from the oil sands region in Alberta to Chicago.

    In January 2009 an Enbridge pipeline leaked about 4,000 barrels (640 m3) of oil southeast of Fort McMurray at the company’s Cheecham Terminal tank farm. It was reported in the Edmonton Journal that most of the spilled oil was contained within berms, but that about 1% of the oil, about 40 barrels (6.4 m3), sprayed into the air and coated nearby snow and trees.

    April 2010 an Enbridge pipeline ruptured spilling more than 1500 litres of oil in Virden, Manitoba, which leaked into the Boghill Creek which eventually connects to the Assiniboine River.

    Pick your version of these two…

    July 2010, a leaking pipeline spilled an estimated 843,444 US gallons (3,192.78 m3) of crude oil into Talmadge Creek leading to the Kalamazoo River in southwest Michigan on Monday, July 26.

    In July 2010 an Enbridge pipeline ruptured in Michigan, in which the company said 840,000 gallons of oil spilled into the Kalamazoo River and Talmadge Creek. But the EPA reported that 1,139,569 gallons of oil had been recovered, including oily water, soil, sediment and debris.

    On September 9, 2010, a rupture on Enbridge’s Line 6A pipeline near Romeoville, Illinois released an estimate 6,100 barrels (970 m3) of oil into the surrounding area.

    • smcleod

      So much fail in you sniveling response..

      Your funding source gets outed, and your supposedly honorable green machine gets shown to be the Quislings that they are and you respond by telling us about oil spills..

      Tell me, ware the spills cleaned up??… Cause I’ve worked for over 32 years in the Fire Service and have responded to many spills incidents…

      Embridge is a good example of responsible corporate citizen… Unlike the Green lobby which would sell out Canada in a heart-beat for cash..

      • Stig

        Its a perverted industry that keeps terrorists and dictators busy and strong, around the world, or did you just happen to miss hearing about the trillion dollars spent, by the US alone, fighting it and getting nowhere, except in the ever growing body count occurring on both sides of this war. Tarsands is a godsend, that helps the terrorists continue their fanaticism, while becoming a greater burden on all our paychecks and especially the environment.

        • Doc Bacon

          Wrong on all fronts, Stig. The Afghan war was not about oil – unless you count former US President Clinton’s lobbying for a pipeline across the country on behalf of the former Soviet dicators. Oilsands are not a drain on your pocketbook but the source of Canada’s economic stability. Every barrel of Canadian oil that makes the market in N.America displaces a barrel of oil from such friendly, rights-respecting, peace and environment-loving nations like Venezuela, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, or Iran – which any rational person would consider a good thing.

          • Guest

            Hi Doc,

            There are several things I agree with there… but I still have a hard time saying our oil it “ethical” while we happily sell the Saudi’s weapons by the boat load…??? Knowing full well they will use them on their own people…

      • Guest

        Hi smcleod,

        I’m a bit confused how that number of oil spills could be considered good management… I consider that terrible process safety failures, and the build up to a much more substantial incident… and I say that noting 3,200m3 of oil something like 160 tanker trucks isn’t an insignificant spill… I don’t know how many spills that size you cleaned up in 32 years of public service but I hope not many.

        Process safety failures like those described above are indicative of a trend… a trend that statistically speaking shows this company is headed in the wrong direction… and if current trend continues we can expect much worse from them in the future…. I’m far from being against the oil and gas industry I’ve spent 13′ish years working in it and still do… around the world… but what this company shows is a demonstrable inability to keep the product in the pipe… that concerns me… why because process safety failures lead to things like the massive incidents like the gulf, refinery fires and explosions, tanker spills, mega pipe line leaks etc… this kind of bad record means these people do not have their operations under control… and that I find alarming.

        I take my hat off to you for your career and admire the work you have done for the public you have my gratitude. However, I can’t accept the standard listed above as good corporate citizenship and responsible management… it simply isn’t.

  • Pingback: West Coast Environmental Law caught serving as a front group for a … | Lawyer

  • Joseph Fournier

    I am an Albertan Oil Sands environmental scientist and I LOVE foreign investors!!! They are making Albertan wealthy!! Average Albertan makes $54k per year compared to BC $35k! I personally contributed $85k in taxes to help pay for education, health care, welfare etc.

    The topic here is not foreign meddling in Canadian Business, it is foreign money that does not add to any jobs, permanent infastructure etc in Canada and is purposefully being spent to subvert public policy here in our country to maintain status quo in the US and abroad! Royal Dutch Shell dollars built two bitumen upgraders in Edmonton that will add billions to the Canadian economy for decades. This kind of investment is good and we need more of it.

    Foreign dollars being spent to purposefully hi-jack our democratic environmental review process and at the same time get a tax break for their dollar spent is criminal and actually costs Canadian Industry, Pension Funds, Tax Payers etc many times over afterwards.

EthicalOil