I spent last weekend at The Annual Australian Environment Foundation (AEF) Conference at Rydges Hotel Lakeside in Canberra. The conference theme was a ‘climate for change’.
But it wasn’t only about ‘climate change’, political analysis Graham Young spoke at the conference about the power of the internet, politics and lobbying and even mentioning this blog. He suggested we were about “community”, “sharing information”, “understanding objections” and also “rehearsing arguments”.
In the context of lobbying Mr Young made reference to the large environment groups’ Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund suggesting they are “successful modern political organisations”.
Outspoken geologist and climate change sceptic, Bob Carter, also made mention of the same two organisations, explaining that Greenpeace with an annual budget of US$272 million and WWF with a budget of US$487 million have more money to spend on lobbying than Australia’s major political parties during a federal election.
******************
There are photographs of some of the delegates and speakers at the AEF conference at the Community Web pages of this blog.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/10/aef-annual-conference/
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
What’s the problem , Jen???
Your sites hero , Vaclav Klaus , gets oil money from Lukoil , for publishing the anti -environmental book ” Blue , not Green Planet”.
Lukoil has interested in Gazprom , which is as mighty as Exxon , and soon will the Gazprom pipeline from Russia to Germany keep Europe in its stranglehold.
Gazprom is also going to release ENORMOUS amounts of toxics during the construction of the pipeline through the Baltic Sea.
Hi Ann,
Please clarify: You mean Vaclav Klaus, the President of Czechloslovakia and an outspoken climate change sceptic.
Jennifer,
The Internet is full of this inrormation. Grist blog hada piece on this as well.
Here’a a link:
http://aktualne.centrum.cz/czechnews/clanek.phtml?id=614143
What it boils down to, is Lukoil is publishing (or paying for publishing, it isn’t clear) a Russian translation of the book. He *may* see some royalties from the Russian publication. He may even have received an advance. Big deal. What a scandal.
Isn’t it horrific that Klaus , who always talks about his past is now connected to a state owned Russian oil company????
A clarification here : Lukoil has close ties to the state
They are more like successful bureaucracies in their own right, is how I’d characterize them.
They produce nothing except bigger government.
Greenpeace and their ilk have never done anything for the environment. Though they would like you to think that they did. But rather, people did that and would have, whether Organizations like Greenpeace existed or not.
You don’t need Greenpeace to have a concern for the environment.
I think there is also a similar argument about Priests and a rapport with God.
I just wonder how much of their funding is from government, including via the UN. Are they politics by other means, to misuse a well hackneyed phrase.
Greenpeace and WWF are political organisations with a specific agenda.
Ann says “The Internet is full of this inrormation.”
Here’s some more.
The Aust Government in their 2008-9 Budget have allocated $2.3 billion over five years to tackle climate change by reducing emissions and adapting to change.
All this for an unproven theory makes a few royalties from a book look a bit trivial
Off topic for Louis’ new gravatar:
I sometimes think I’d rather crow and be a rooster
than to roost and be a crow
Still I don’t know
A rooster he can roost also which seems unfair
’cause crows can’t crow
So it looks like roosters have more show
Still I don’t know
People – they eat rooster ‘tho
they never think of eating crow
So maybe crows have more show
Still I don’t know
There’s many a tough old rooster ‘tho
and anyway a crow can’t crow
So perhaps roosters have more show
Still I don’t know
The Environmental Non Government Organisations are now very well funded in Australia as well as world wide.
The Federal Government has facilitated this fundraising by providing tax deductible status to donations, just like a charity providing help to the homeless.
The Wilderness Society is one such group on this register of Environmental Organisations that provides a very effective subsidy to provide a revenue stream of over $10 million.
Last year the Wilderness Society announced “another fundraising appeal to support new legal action involving Gunns’ proposed pulp mill.”
This legal action sought to overturn the Federal Court that dismissed an earlier action by the Wilderness Society against the Commonwealth Environment Minister.
Yet the Wilderness Society claims a mission to “protecting, promoting and restoring wilderness and natural processes”
The grounds of the legal action had no basis in “protecting, promoting and restoring wilderness”.
In fact the Section of the EPBC act relating to World Heritage Areas was totally ignored by the Wilderness Society.
The Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area is one of the largest conservation reserves in Australia, covering 1.38 million hectares, or about 20% of the island as well as high conservation value forest.
The pulp mill not use Old Growth Forest and as 97.5% of high quality wilderness as assessed by the Australian Heritage commission is now securely reserved, the pulp mill will have no impact.
With virtually all wilderness already reserved you would think that money raised would be spent on promoting it rather than attacking a factory that will value add a renewable resource, using the latest environmentally friendly processing and saving a million tonnes of CO2 each year for an added bonus.
” Vaclav Klaus, the President of Czechloslovakia” – Jennifer
As a leading person on political statements and a follower of Vaclav Klaus you should know better that there doesn’t exist anything like Czechoslovakia:))))
From 1992 there is a Czech Repubic and a Slovakian one :)))!
Anne,
Is that it, Jennifer confused Czech Replublic with Czechoslovakia?
But obviously you would agree that the IPCC is totally political then.
Tax payer funded NGO’s in light of the new religion of Eco seems to be correct – all the orthodox religions in Australia have tax exemption.
This leaves the areligious who have to foot the bill – and you wonder why we are sceptics.
As nearly as possible, then, in the same wildly arousing spirit that the polymathic Ms. Marohasy infects us with here, in her partial fleshing out of the incontrovertible hypocrisy and criminality inherent to environmental groups the wide world over — believing, as they unanimously do, that the source of funding subverts all rational argumentation — there’s also this:
“In 2002, the Sierra Club reported $23,619,830 in revenues, and disclosed $107,733,974 worth of assets to the IRS. Among Sierra’s financial supporters are the Bauman Family Foundation; the Beldon Fund; the Compton Foundation; the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation; the Ford Foundation; the Scherman Foundation; the Bullitt Foundation, the Energy Foundation, the Foundation for Deep Ecology, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the Blue Moon Fund; the Morris and Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation; the J.M. Kaplan Fund, Pew Charitable Trusts, the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Turner Foundation, and many more.”
Sierra Club, founded in 1892, is the oldest environmental group in the United States. It’s founder, John Muir, was a boorish bigot who, among many other things, said that the Native Americans of Yosemite Valley were “mostly ugly, and some of them altogether hideous. They seemed to have no right place in the landscape,” and they “disturbed his solemn calm.”
Isn’t that exceptionally touching?
More to the point, however, as I’ve mentioned recently, Sierra Club has never successfully divested itself of its elitist roots — not that it really cares to: on the contrary, like all environmental groups, Sierra is by definition a sickening neo-Marxist institution that explicitly anathematizes the inalienable right to private property, and is loaded up to the gills in elitism and corporate billions, with an icepick at the core.
This is the “link” between the President of the Czech Republic and the Oil Industry on Grist “The author of such anti-global warming treatises as Blue Planet in Green Shackles; What is Endangered: Climate or Freedom, Klaus has given the keynote address at events sponsored by The Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Both think tanks vigorously deny the existence of global warming and, according to an upcoming Center report both were financed by ExxonMobil until 2006. (Klaus himself is no stranger to oil money: Lukoil — the Russian oil giant — paid for the printing of Blue Planet in Russian earlier this year.)”
But oil money is not uncommon in the environmental debate. The Pew Environment Group, the conservation arm of the Pew Charitable Trusts, and the Nature Conservancy have announced the creation of the Wild Australia Program, a three-year, $12.4 million (A$14 million) effort to conserve Australia’s bush, desert, and ocean habitats and have employed a former Wilderness Society activist.
Pew Trust is bankrolled from seven individual charitable funds established between 1948 and 1979 by two sons and two daughters of Sun Oil Company founder Joseph N. Pew and his wife, Mary Anderson Pew.
Already the UK Times has reported that the Pew funded study has identified 40% of Australia as “untouched Wilderness”. That an area the equivalent size of NSW, QLD, Victoria and a large chunk of SA.
In the ultimate irony the trust was established at about the same times as the company gained the right to the Oil sands that are now the subject to environmental protest see http://oilsandstruth.org/index.php?q=can-pew039s-charity-be-trusted
Well how about that!
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/conservationists-wife-in-trees-row/2008/10/12/1223749845503.html
Is this a case of beware of that which you wish upon others, eventually biting you on the bum?
Also Bob Carter is holding a Truth About Climate Change Forum at Blacktown Workers Club ballroom at 1pm and 7pm on Friday 17th October 2008.
of course theyre well funded, groups like Greenpeace and WWF hound you for your money as you walk down the street.
I’ve stopped giving these organisations money because of their aggressive fundraising.
GreanPeace?
It should be GreenWar – because there is nothing peaceful in their operations.
Cinders
Oil money is indeed behind the environental groups, if only to support the environmental groups fallacy of Peal Oil theory.
If, according to the Russian-Ukrainian theory of abiotic oil, oil is as plentiful as air, (and oil, a hydrocarbon, is essential for life), then its price should drop.
The rest you can work out for yourselves.
Those complaining about “Oil” money should take note that the godfather of the Kyoto received nearly $1m bank-rolled by Saddam Hussein.
From the Wall Street Journal 11 October 2008:
Often described as an “international man of mystery,” Mr. Strong during his long, globe-trotting career has been one of the most influential architects of the opaque cross-border bureaucracy that is today’s United Nations. He is probably best known as godfather of the U.N.’s 1997 Kyoto treaty, and as a former U.N. top adviser who in that same year received a check for almost $1 million, bankrolled by the U.N.-sanctioned regime of Saddam Hussein.
Full report can be found here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122368007369524679.html
How is it that the advocacy groups such as Greenpeace, FOE, WWF, ACF etc are tax exempt?
Jen disingenuously fails to mention that Mr Young (how formal) without fail provides a link to this blog on in his “The Domain” daily email. Anyone would think that he and Jen have never heard of each other. What I don’t understand is the perceived need to obfuscate the link. Are the denialists afraid of being seen in groups? Was Looy at the conference? If so, had he combed his hair?
I note that the AEF is not big on financial disclosure. No mention of ti on the web site. I assume that they are backed by the usual suspects (Gunns etc). Still the IPA has always been in bed with big business so I guess we sgouldn’t be surprised, plenty of money in being a shill.
From Patrick B
“Jen disingenuously fails to mention that Mr Young (how formal)….”
“Anyone would think that he and Jen have never heard of each other.”
PB
Jen says
1 “I spent last weekend at The Annual Australian Environment Foundation (AEF) Conference ”
2 “political analysis Graham Young spoke at the conference”
“Graham Young” – Should I say How informal?
Where is the inference that two speakers at the one conference have never heard of each other?
Try to protest logically.
Patricks view from inside his own backside is, of necessity, somewhat narrow and distinctly wrinkled at the edges.
I’m still waiting for a cheque from anyone.
At the last Qld state election the Qld conservation council ran their infamous “turning Qld into wasteland adverts with funding assistance from the sad list of ageing, lonely, single, neurotic poodle owners who fund the WWF.
What is less widely known is that a grant from Qld Rail funded all of the QCC’s administrative budget. This allowed them to spend all of their own funds from members etc on the political adverts.
But did we hear or see anything about this from our intrepid guardians of public trust, the ABC or (titter, titter) the Courier Mail (guffaaaw)? Nope. No chance.
What other political party is allowed to get away with taking campaign funds from foreign interests? None.
A new book from an “insider” exposes the green selling out for coprporate funding. see http://calitreview.com/1249 The Author claims that Conservation International, The Nature Conservancy and groups like The Conservation Fund, which works inside the United States, are beholden to BP, ExxonMobil, Chevron Corp., ConocoPhillips and Shell Oil Co.. Corporate moguls including Roger Sant, the founder of AES Corp., which operates dozens of coal-burning power plants, and Rob Walton, the chairman of Wal-Mart’s board, sit on the boards of directors that run the groups.
Louis: “This leaves the areligious who have to foot the bill – and you wonder why we are sceptics.”
This is a good question. Given the financial might of the green NGO’s, the consensus, and the aparent 70% community support (pre financial meltdown, mind you) that this obsession enjoys, why not make the whole thing voluntary?
There is no good reason besides the knee jerk totalitarianism of the greens. The ‘free rider’ agument is nonsense. There should be adequate capital to subsidise vast amounts of green energy from volunteers. If the support is real, this subsidised green energy would crowd out the cheaper stuff (at both the supply and demand side), thus reducing emmissions to exactly the level they deserve to be reduced to.
Also, since the NGO’s are transnational, you don’t need the absurd ‘prisoner’s dilemma’ argument to try to entice entire countries to either be ‘in’ or ‘out’. Surely there are millions of India and China’s new elites ready to join the cause as individuals.
The whole thing should be as compulsory as any other religion.
At around 9am Aust EST I posted a reference on this blog to the fact that the father of Kyoto received almost $1million from Saddam Hussein – i.e. OIL MONEY.
I am amazed that all the AGWers ( the religionist) have not commented although they are quick to accuse the sceptics ( true science believers) are receiving OIL MONEY.
It sort of blows your argument out of the window.
If Oil Money is going to the side of the religion, why would you criticize the true believer getting money out of the same purse – even if they are NOT getting it out of the same purse!
Jimmock,
The thing which annoys me is the fact that these organisations enjoy taxfree status, so essentially we are funding them to convince us that we need another tax in the form of the carbon trading scheme.
As they control government, I do not see a rosy future.
Ivor Surveyor
People who make donatations to them get tax exemption for contributing to charities etc. Alot get funding from the UN, which is as tax exempt as you get.
Of course the whole issue of carbon trading is to get a revenue stream for the UN, thereby bypassing the usual funding sources – donations from memeber states.
Al Gore mght be angling, long term, to be SG of the UN.
“climate scepticism” at it’s best. Compare apples to oranges. Greenpeace is a global organisation appealing to 6.6billion, the Australian political parties are appealing to a population of 20 million. Why not compare the funding to the green organisations in Australia, to the political donations to other Australian political parties.
SJT
Has anyone told you that you write nonsense? We are comparing enviro-groups with the tax free status of religions. What has a political party got to do with it.
Geoff Brown “At around 9am Aust EST I posted a reference on this blog to the fact that the father of Kyoto received almost $1million from Saddam Hussein – i.e. OIL MONEY”.
He’s going to have a bit of a wait to implement his agenda in Canada, even though he’s from here. We just elected a Tory minority government again and we can breath a sigh of relief regarding AGW and Kyoto for a while.
The IUCN congress that concluded on the weekend identified the following money flow to this conservation group.
The MacArthur Foundation will invest $50 million in climate change mitigation and adaptation;
The Mohammad Bin Zayed Species Conservation Fund will invest Euros 25 million for worldwide biodiversity;
The Alcoa Foundation announced a $9 million five-year extension of its Sustainability Fellows Programme;
With Google we launched an interactive map of marine protected areas
Multiple donors launched Phase Two of the Water and Nature Initiative to improve river basin management;
With Nokia and WWF we will continue the social platform network, Connect2Earth, to engage youth;
With ENERGIA we improve women’s access to electricity and reduce dependence on biofuels;
Francophone governments will better integrate biodiversity issues into their development policy;
During this Congress France committed 7 million Euro to renew its support for IUCN’s programme 2009-2012;
Russia pledged to protect 80 million new hectares;
Sumatran provinces agreed to stop clearing old-growth;
Probably the only good news is that Greens Senator Christine Milne is no longer Audstralia’s rep on the IUCN. Professor Brendan Mackey of the Wilderness Society’s WildCountry Panel and the ANU’s Wildcountry Hub has been elected to replace her.
“Has anyone told you that you write nonsense? We are comparing enviro-groups with the tax free status of religions. What has a political party got to do with it.”
This? http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/canberra-aef-008.jpg
GreenWar sounds good Louis.
In our little corner of the world we have some other names for them. Will list the more polite ones..
GreenSlease
The Australian Constipation Foundation
The World Wilful Fund
The National Sparks Association
Friends of the Nightsoil…To name a few!
Really though, it’s no laughing matter, most of these groups are fanatical fundamentalists, who will stop at nothing to promote their distorted agendas. And in the future, will, as they have done in the past, promote violence against person and property.
And the WWF continues to promote the great porkie that Polar Bears are endangered by “global warming”, (the man made variety).
I have written a little piece , called ” My Greenpeace Days” at my blog :
http://annimal.bloggsida.se/diverse/my-greenpeace-days
Boo hiss. Bad Greenpeace. Bad WWF. Good AEF. Good IPA. Stupid Hissink. Stupid Mott. Same same and not the slightest bit different after all these years Jen. BORING!!!
Did you have bad week Denialist? Rattling cans on street corners and got the short shift more than usual and so the take was down eh? Better get used to it and maybe dip into your Super a/c to tide you over! Hahaha!
Sid,
It’s easier to lump them together as latter communists and to treat them accordingly. It seems all of the environmental groups in the U.S. are basically fund raising machines for the Democrats, so the discussions here are between communist zealots and the rest of using climate science as the interlocutory medium.
That Luke and his mates don’t understand the science is besides the point – but its crucial to recognise them for what they are and not to be blind-sided by their specious blather.
The ” communists” have a fancy office:) !!!
Check at my blog :
http://annimal.bloggsida.se/diverse/wwf-office-at-ulriksdals-royal-castle
How very appropriate that a dude calling himself “denialist” can launch into simplistic name calling without a single shred of substance on the points being made by his targets. Says it all really.
People – pleased find the time (you’ll need it) to read what I believe is a seminal ‘paper’ addressed to John McCain that is quite brilliant in it’s demolition of the AGW scam:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/an_open_letter_from_the_viscou_1.html