Greenpeace Funding for Dummies or Vice Versa

Picture Source: National Post

Ever wonder who is responsible for making Greenpeace such a lucrative organization, enabling them to fund their research shenanigans?  Look no more, I also dug up a few other interesting details about this organization you might want to hang on to, especially if you happen to be sitting at your desk in an MP's office... the notes will make excellent talking points for any Conservative or rational thinking politician (consider it a great stocking stuffer).

Delving into the 2008 Greenpeace Annual Report, I looked into their financial report to see where the hell the money comes from to fund this multi-million dollar organization that prides itself in being the pain in every industrial country's arse.  This morning's display on Ottawa's Parliament building being no exception.  Their website states that it "does not accept money from companies, governments or political parties." See here under where does Greenpeace get its funding from?  Looking into the financial report I find that according to them, the funding they receieve comes from the 2.9 million donors that contributed in 2007 and in 2008.  To the best of my knowledge, the Conservative Party with all its fundraising success has yet to attain THAT many donors in a single year.  On page 26 of the report it breaks down these wonderful donating people into different countries.  Guess which country out donated the number 2 country by almost double the amount? Germany.  In a distant second and third place is the Netherlands and the United States.  Canada ranked number 10.

The amount that Germany contributed in 2008 was close $41 million Euro's.  Interesting to note that Germany is the world's third-largest oil importer.  The German regional office alone in 2008 contributed over $14 million euros to Greenpeace International, double that of any other country (p.31).

There was a great article written in Forbes magazine back in November 1991 called, "The Not So Peaceful World of Greenpeace."  It reveals the paradox of what Greenpeace preaches and what the organization actually does:

Of course, the millions of people who gave money and allegiance to the myth knew little of this internecine battling. There's a paradox here. Outfits like Greenpeace attack big business as being faceless and responsible to no one. In fact, that description better fits Greenpeace than it does modern corporations that are regulated, patrolled and heavily taxed by governments, reported on by an adversarial press and carefully watched by their own shareholders. There's little accountability for outfits like Greenpeace. The media treat them with kid gloves. Press Greenpeace and it will reveal that McTaggart's salary was $60,000, but it won't say anything about any other forms of compensation - something a U.S. corporation would be compelled to reveal in its proxy statements.

It further points out:

Greenpeace campaigns, like the save-the-whale one, often seem open and almost spontaneous. But they are carefully orchestrated, beginning with a network of investigators who collect tips from government officials, truck drivers and sympathetic employees at corporate targets of Greenpeace antipollution campaigns. One insider says that the intelligence gathering includes a clandestine operation in Zurich, a point that Matti Wuori denies. This much is clear: With its network of contacts, Greenpeace has turned itself into a vigilante group - vigilant in enforcing antipollution laws, but acting as judge and jury whenever it decides that government enforcers aren't forceful enough. That little of this is widely understood is not surprising. A sympathetic press has always been a Greenpeace ally.

According to this particular website (for the political left of all things), I find:

An expose of Greenpeace's fundraising practices carried out in 2003 by Public Interest Watch (PIW), a nonprofit watchdog group, led to a report disclosing that Greenpeace uses its Greenpeace Fund, a tax-exempt entity debarred from engaging in political advocacy and lobbying by the IRS tax code, to illegally direct funds to Greenpeace Inc., a tax-exempt organization permitted to engage in lobbying and advocacy but not to accept tax-deductible funds. PIW calculated that in 2000, $4.25 million was provided by the Greenpeace Fund in this way.

It also lists foundations that heavily support Greenpeace in the following paragraph of the article.

So there you have it, Renegade Tory's version of Greenpeace funding for Dummies, or as Willy Wonka would say, "Wait!  Scratch that.  Reverse it."

If you are curious about some of the foundations I found that gave grant money to Greenpeace, I have provided a list of them in this blog entry.
The most recent donations from Foundations to Greenpeace I could find on the internet start in 2002:

Grants to Greenpeace Fund:

Foundation Name: Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc.
Abstract: For efforts to encourage corporate demand for sustainably managed forest products in North America and Europe
Amount: $50,000 Year Authorized: 2001

Foundation Name: Charles Stewart Mott Foundation
Abstract: For continued support to encourage development of philanthropy in Russia through market research, development of fundraising strategies and dissemination of information to Russian nongovernmental organizations
Amount: $49,000 Year Authorized: 2002

Foundation Name: The Trust for Mutual Understanding
Abstract: For travel to Lake Baikal by Russian and American participants in project designed to draw increased national and international attention to environmental problems affecting the lake and watershed
Amount: $25,000 Year Authorized: 2001

Foundation Name: Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc.
Abstract: Toward efforts to support expansion of sustainable agriculture in China
Amount: $150,000 Year Authorized: 2001
Duration: 2-year grant

Foundation Name: Reiman Charitable Foundation, Inc.
Abstract: For general support
Amount: $50,000 Year Authorized: 2000

Foundation Name: The Scherman Foundation, Inc.
Abstract: For general support
Amount: $80,000 Year Authorized: 2001
Duration: 2-year grant

Foundation Name: The Overbrook Foundation
Abstract: For general support
Amount: $10,000 Year Authorized: 2000

Foundation Name: Columbia Foundation
Abstract: For True Food Consumer Action Network, San Francisco-based pilot initiative to educate consumers about transgenic crops and sustainable agriculture
Amount: $75,000 Year Authorized: 2001

Foundation Name: The Capital Group Companies Charitable Foundation
Abstract: For general support
Amount: $14,000 Year Authorized: 2001

Foundation Name: Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc.
Abstract: For Global Warming Campaign, which raises awareness of global warming
Amount: $75,000 Year Authorized: 2001

Foundation Name: The New York Community Trust
Abstract: To engage college students in global warming campaign
Amount: $50,000 Year Authorized: 2001

Foundation Name: HKH Foundation
Abstract: For environmental protection program
Amount: $35,000 Year Authorized: 2000

Foundation Name: The John Merck Fund
Abstract: To conduct strategically designed public education and media campaigns that increase support for abating climate change
Amount: $30,000 Year Authorized: 2000

Foundation Name: The Wilburforce Foundation
Abstract: For Transforming the Market: Pressure to Protect British Columbia's Coastal Temperate Rainforest
Amount: $35,000 Year Authorized: 2000

Foundation Name: Turner Foundation, Inc.
Abstract: For World Heritage Forests program to achieve protection for primary forests in Russia
Amount: $50,000 Year Authorized: 2000

Foundation Name: Turner Foundation, Inc.
Abstract: To map old-growth forest areas in Western Russia, and encourage paper mills to forego old-growth wood, and to provide monitoring and testing information through Toxics Rapid Response Laboratory for communities in Volga River Basin; for national toxics campaign, Global Dioxin Elimination Project to develop state, national and international support for elimination of dioxin generating products
Amount: $150,000 Year Authorized: 1999

Foundation Name: Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc.
Abstract: To help build European buyer pressure for sustainable forestry practices in British Columbia
Amount: $100,000 Year Authorized: 2000
Duration: 2-year grant

Foundation Name: Charles Stewart Mott Foundation
Abstract: To increase potential of fundraising from the general public in Russia by implementing successful Western fundraising techniques appropriate to Russian culture and society
Amount: $100,000 Year Authorized: 2000

Foundation Name: John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
Abstract: To conserve, sustainably manage, and independently monitor forest resources
Amount: $300,000 Year Authorized: 2000
Duration: 3-year grant

Foundation Name: The Trust for Mutual Understanding
Abstract: For travel and related expenses for series of seminars on forestry issues to be held in Russia for representatives of small regional NGOs, and to support Russian and American participation at conference on issues of chemical pollution and ecological education held in Volga River Basin
Amount: $40,000 Year Authorized: 2000

Foundation Name: The David and Lucile Packard Foundation
Abstract: For Global Pirate Fishing Project
Amount: $450,000 Year Authorized: 2000

Foundation Name: Wallace Global Fund
Amount: $60,000 Year Authorized: 1999

Foundation Name: Stephen and Tabitha King Foundation, Inc.
Amount: $10,000 Year Authorized: 1998

Foundation Name: John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
Abstract: For project, Double Standards in the Oil Production Industry of Russia
Amount: $50,000 Year Authorized: 1999

Foundation Name: The Trust for Mutual Understanding
Abstract: For international travel by Russian and American environmental specialists participating in workshops held in connection with Greenpeace 's Russian Ecological Hotspots project
Amount: $50,000 Year Authorized: 1998

Foundation Name: Turner Foundation, Inc.
Amount: $60,000 Year Authorized: 1998

Foundation Name: W. Alton Jones Foundation, Inc.
Abstract: To form committee of scientists to analyze COGEMA's (nuclear processing company) petition for new permit to discharge radioactive and toxic wastes into sea and air from La Hague and to publish peer-reviewable critique before French government decides whether or not to issue a new permit
Amount: $120,000 Year Authorized: 1998

Foundation Name: Joyce Mertz-Gilmore Foundation
Abstract: For Solar Mediterranean Project
Amount: $50,000 Year Authorized: 1998

Foundation Name: Charles Stewart Mott Foundation
Abstract: To encourage development of philanthropy in Russia through market research, development of fundraising strategies and dissemination of information to Russian nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)
Amount: $100,000 Year Authorized: 1999

Foundation Name: John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
Abstract: To identify and map large old-growth forests in European Russia and Ural Mountains
Amount: $90,066 Year Authorized: 1998
Duration: 1 1/2-year grant

Foundation Name: Turner Foundation, Inc.
Amount: $40,000 Year Authorized: 1997

Foundation Name: Lannan Foundation
Amount: $100,000 Year Authorized: 1996

Foundation Name: Turner Foundation, Inc.
Amount: $40,000 Year Authorized: 1996

Foundation Name: The Joyce Foundation
Abstract: For continued support to encourage transition to non-chemical drycleaning
Amount: $120,000 Year Authorized: 1997
Duration: 2-year grant

Foundation Name: The Rockefeller Foundation
Abstract: Toward Oxford Solar Investment Summit
Amount: $20,000 Year Authorized: 1996

Foundation Name: HKH Foundation
Amount: $15,000 Year Authorized: 1995

Foundation Name: The Joyce Foundation
Abstract: To encourage transition to new drycleaning process that does not rely on toxic chemicals and to develop similar projects in other industries
Amount: $60,000 Year Authorized: 1996

Foundation Name: Wallace Genetic Foundation, Inc.
Amount: $15,000 Year Authorized: 1995

Foundation Name: Lannan Foundation
Abstract: For unrestricted support
Amount: $100,000 Year Authorized: 1995

Foundation Name: Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Abstract: Toward The Solar Century, project to encourage corporate investments in solar energy as alternative to fossil fuel use
Amount: $30,000 Year Authorized: 1997

Foundation Name: Town Creek Foundation, Inc.
Amount: $10,000 Year Authorized: 1993

Foundation Name: Public Welfare Foundation, Inc.
Abstract: For Women, Health and the Environment project helping to define public health as environmental issue. Project's initial focus is on epidemic proportions of breast cancer in industrialized world
Amount: $75,000 Year Authorized: 1994

Foundation Name: The Joyce Foundation
Abstract: To explore commercial potential of non-chemical dry cleaning
Amount: $20,000 Year Authorized: 1993

Foundation Name: Foundation for Deep Ecology
Abstract: For native anti-nuclear activities
Amount: $15,000 Year Authorized: 1992

Foundation Name: The Max and Victoria Dreyfus Foundation, Inc.
Amount: $10,000 Year Authorized: 1989

Foundation Name: Town Creek Foundation, Inc.
Amount: $10,000 Year Authorized: 1990

Foundation Name: Town Creek Foundation, Inc.
Amount: $10,000 Year Authorized: 1988

HST and Native Protesters: The games have begun

We may have to change our famous saying here in Canada from "we have two seasons; winter and construction" to "we have three seasons; winter, construction and Native Protests." 

Natives are offended that they are going to be taxed like the rest of us via the HST bill and have decided wasting our valuable resources such as the police, is once again the way to go about fighting it.  Oh, and not to mention inconveniencing our lives and in most cases breaking the law.  Keep it up boys, you'll be increasing that new tax faster than the speed of light, only now you will be responsible for footing that bill.  Sadly, this doesn't seem to phase them since they are already threatening for an escalation of activities.

I have some good news for you however, Senator Patrick Brazeau has worked hard to put together a wonderful petition for anyone to sign titled: A PETITION FOR ACCOUNTABLE, TRANSPARENT & REPONSIBLE FIRST NATIONS GOVERNANCE.  You can check it out on Facebook here. 

This is what it looks like:

Senator Brazeau states on the facebook site for Aboriginal & Non-Aboriginal Canadians in Support of Greater Accountability: "If enough signatures are posted, I will personally introduce it in the Senate urging Parliament to take a close and serious look at this pressing issue so that Aboriginal investments get into the hands of people and yield results...

 Do you want to be part of a project that aims to develop ideas to measurably improve the governance and administration in First Nations communities? If so, I’d like to hear from you, and others who feel the same way. Please sign this petition and pass it on to others."

Patrick Brazeau sent a message to the members of Aboriginal & Non-Aboriginal Canadians in Support of Greater Accountability: Subject: Petition on Accountability

 Dear All, The petition on accountability is now ready to be viewed, printed, circulated, signed, sealed and delivered back to me at(no postage necessary): Senator Patrick BrazeauSenate of CanadaOttawa, Ontario K1A 0A4 Please send to all your contacts, friends, family and have as many people sign this if you believe in it. There is no better way to exercise democracy than by being vocal about what you believe in. Exercise your rights!Thank you and good luck! 

After all folks, it appears that these Native protesters have given us the sign that its game on!

Are you a true Conservative if you don't support the political party?

While the answer to this question is fairly straightforward (at least in my mind), the subtle implications of such a relationship bring about some very interesting questions that I wanted to touch on today.

Where is this all coming from you might wonder.  To give you a brief background, when I first moved to Ottawa, one of the first jobs I had was working for the Conservative Party in the processing department.  For confidence and security purposes, I must leave it at that.  However, it was because of that job that I have often asked myself, can a person who does not contribute financially and/or have a membership in the Conservative party (or any other federal conservative political party- not that they exist since the merger) be considered a true Conservative?

What's so complicated about this you ask.  I guess it's the chicken and the egg theory that makes it that way.  There are certain high profile people here in Canada that are in the media, have blogs write books, etc., that proclaim themselves to be Conservative thinkers/supporters.  Many of these same individuals have either never had a membership in the newly merged Conservative party and/or never donated or donated back when Mulroney was Prime Minister and hasn't bothered since then.  Call me crazy, but that struck me as not only odd, but somehow, wrong.

Yes, we have Senators and MP's that need constant reminders to even bother renewing their party membership, never mind a donation.  Are they not Conservatives?  The past controversy over former Prime Minister Mulroney's lapsed membership card touched on this issue as well.  His membership technically lasped, does that mean he is no longer a Conservative?  Clearly not.  That man did more for the Conservative movement and the Conservative party than most people I know.

Then there are those who go about their daily lives and try to remember to vote Conservative on election day, pay their yearly membership fee and toss in the occasional donation.  That's it, that's all.  Does merely holding a membership card or a receipt for a donation to the party automatically make someone a "true" Conservative?

Finally, is one more Conservative than the other?  Are those who posses the media spotlight and promote Conservatism a better Conservative than the folks who hold a membership and put up the ol' lawn sign come election time?  Are they equal in value to the Conservative movement? 

I think it's easy to get carried away with placing people who get the attention in the media and so forth on higher pedastals than the rest of us.  The famous bloggers who get the most hits, the pundits, the authors and the analysts whose faces we sometimes grow weary of seeing all the time, inadvertantly become elevated in stature and are crowned as assests to the Conservative movement without much thought to others. 

The truth of the matter is, whether you hold a membership or put up a lawn sign, write a blog or a book or show your pretty face on tv more times than we can count, you are but a part of the body of Conservatism and just like the human body, there isn't one part that is BETTER than the rest.  The brain is awesome on its own, no doubt, but what makes it even more spectacular is what it can do with virtually any part of the human anatomy.  Some body parts are more useful than others,  like certain people in the Conservative party.  A Conservative party with nothing but talking heads won't get too far without the little people working diligently and donating the only $10 they can spare from their limited income.  It is always the volunteers and the givers that are the backbone of any political party's body, they truly are.  We would all be served well to remember that.  In turn, they must remember that if it wasn't for those of us sticking our necks out everyday, constantly pushing forward our Conservative ideas, Conservatism would be reduced to a dull whisper nobody would hear. 

To answer my question about who is a true Conservative- ultimately it is the person who uses the gifts that have been given to them towards the cause of advancing the Conservative movement, whether by money, signs, blogs or books.  What makes us equal is the amount of passion, dedication and hard work we put into what we believe.  It's not about how much we do, its how much heart we put into what we believe in. 

Are you a true Conservative?

The Pendulum of Political Leadership in Canada

When I speak of political leadership in Canada, I'm not merely referring to federal politics, I'm including all levels of politics, anywhere in this country.

Living in Ottawa you can't help but be inundated with layers upon layers of political news, punditry and analysis whether its federal, provincial or municipal politics.  As a result, I began to realize that when it comes to political leadership in Canada, the pendulum must swing both ways.  As Canadians, we tend to swing from one extreme to another.  What extremes?  The business/lawyer/intellectual on one end and the blue collar/street smart/made his or her own way in life on the other end.  There are some exceptions to the rule of course, I'm not trying to paint all our political leaders in black or white.  For example, John Diefenbaker was technically a lawyer, but I think we can all agree that his passion in politics and the platform he fought elections with was based upon his background as someone who grew up poor, knew what a hard days work was and could relate to the everyday struggles of the average Canadian. 

At the municipal level here in Ottawa, the desire to have yet another so-called business savvy politician run for local office is about as appealing as left-overs that have been sitting in the fridge for over a week.  The voice of the people cry for street smarts, common sense and someone who not only understands the financial struggles of the working class but also is willing to do whatever they can to put the people's interests first.  Provincially speaking here in Ontario, I think the same can be said and Dalton is looking about as appealing as those left-overs I just mentioned.  The pendulum has once again swung in a different direction.  What is most fascinating is that one can never tell just how long it will stay on a particular side.  This is where leadership skills come into play.   Diefenbaker understood the pendulum swing and won 2 elections with it.  His skills as a leader of a political party and unfortunately of a country were lacking and so he was unable to maintain the pendulum on his side.

Back in Manitoba (where I was born and lived for 28 years until I moved out here) we had the same thing happen in provincial politics.  Gary Filmon of the PC party was the business guy, but eventually the pendulum swung in the opposite direction and Gary Doer (Mr. average, hard working Canadian) won the premiership and was able to win 3 majority governments due in part to his skills as a politician and leader (I'll give him that), but I think a lot of his success had to do with the strong NDP/ union voters we had in Winnipeg and a lack of clear leadership in the PC party of Manitoba too. 

Federally speaking, we have our Diefenbaker in Harper and because of the economic climate we are in and his skills as a leader and politician he has been able to maintain his office and from the looks of things, may win a majority government in the next election.  Why do I think that?  Well, in going along with my pendulum observation, the Liberal party is somehow stuck on the idea that Canadians must want another intellectual-Trudeau type because in reality, that's what many members of the party want.  Even if they were to toss out Iggy and replace him with the opposite type of leader, ie., a Gary Doer or Diefenbaker type,  it would be too little, too late because Canadians know and trust Stephen Harper as their Prime Minister.  How long Harper can maintain his office has as much to do with his leadership abilities as it does the mood of the country based on what is happening here at home and around the world. 

I can go on and on about Prime Ministers (Conservative and Liberal) who benefited from the pendulum swing and used it to their advantage.  Aside from Diefenbaker (who in my mind was the best at using the pendulum swing to his full benefit), Brian Mulroney can also be credited because he offered Canadians what he felt was the opposite of Trudeau.  Whatever Trudeau did he reversed it and gave Canadians a better alternative.  While Mulroney was the successful business type (as Diefenbaker was the lawyer) his platform was still geared towards everyday Canadians and hence the appeal compared to the intellectual policies of Trudeau that lost their brilliance in the eyes of most Canadians over time.  Then Chretien came along and ran a platform that was to be the opposite of Mulroney because that's what Canadians wanted at the time.  The pendulum has swung away from Mulroney's corner.

I suppose that one could ask the question, is the success of political leaders based more on the pendulum swing or on their leadership abilities?  In reality, its both.  The swing of the pendulum can win you the leadership of a city, province or country.  But it's the political and leadership skills that can hold that pendulum in your corner for a longer stretch of time.  With a few exceptions, gravity must have her way and eventually the pendulum will swing back to the other side no matter how skilled a leader or politician you are.  That's politics.

To be part of the global warming hoax or not to be: that is the question for Harper

Picture source

Lorne Gunter in today's National Post makes an excellent point in his article regarding the significance of Climategate.  He states:

This should be a huge story. Tens of billions of taxpayer dollars have already been spent on public policy solutions to global warming. And if next week's world climate summit in Copenhagen produces any agreement at all among world leaders, it will be to spend hundreds of billions -- even trillions -- more to "save the planet." This would be a travesty if the whole thing turned out to be the biggest scientific hoax in a generation or more.

The notorious Phil Jones as you may have heard already has stepped down, being "notable for maintaining of the time series of the instrumental temperature record, a work figured prominently in the IPCC," (Wiki).   Yet despite the recent flurry of coverage in the last 2 weeks, we have continued ridiculous statements such as this coming from Nicholas Stern, a leading climate change economist regarding the upcoming conference in Copenhagen:

If countries did not manage to reach agreement, world temperatures could rise by five degrees Celsius (nine degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century, making much of the world uninhabitable.

Do you want to know what the Government of Canada's current view of the IPCC is?  This is taken from the climate change website:

The IPCC is a scientific, interdisciplinary body that was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Association (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). It provides decision-makers and others with an objective source of information about climate change. Its role is to assess the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to understanding the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

In a short video presentation on the home page of the Government's website is a video monologue from Environment Jim Prentice titled, "On the Road to Copenhagen," discussing Canada's action on climate change.  At the 1:08 mark regarding the upcoming meeting in Copenhagen, Prentice makes the statement:

Industrialized and developing countries will work on behalf of all global citizens towards an agreement that significantly reduces global greenhouse gas emissions in a way that does not restrain economic growth or distort global competition.

Unfortunately, restraining economic growth, and placing an unnecessary tax burden on a country's citizens is exactly what these climate change agreements do.  I have heard it said that the real beneficiaries of these climate agreements like Kyoto are China and Russia, though I can't comfirm this information as fact. It's interesting to speculate whether communist countries are the real winners and are ultimately out to hurt the developed countries, but again, I leave that as speculation at this point. The fact of the matter is, all these global warming scientists that cry the sky is falling are crapping their pants at this moment in fear of the upcoming conference in Copenhagen.  They are afraid there might actually be some leaders that are willing listen to the truth and base their decision on fact rather than fiction.

The way I see it (and many other Canadians too I might add), Canada has a unique opportunity on the world stage to do two things.  First is to take a strong stand and do what is in the best interest of Canada first, then what is best for the rest of the global community by not signing ANY agreement.  Second, Canada has the opportunity to begin the process of establishing trust in the scientific community once again (the fact that scientists who spoke the truth about the lack of global warming were refused admitance into the conference should NOT be ignored). 

What some Canadians dislike about our Prime Minister, I admire.  His ability to speak the truth bluntly and to take a stand that many would describe as unpopular are just a few of the reasons why he is a good leader.  I hope that in Copenhagen he will do what is ultimately best for Canadians.