North Vancouver mom exposes $US millions for oil sands activism

Post by Vivian Krause in


The "No Tanks" protest staged last weekend in downtown Vancouver. Who paid for it & why, and what are the connections to Vancouver City Hall?

We're pleased to reintroduce writer-researcher Vivian Krause to Vivian is one of Canada's leading experts on the subject of the foreign funding of environmental activism in our country. Recently, Ms. Krause was featured in the Financial Post in a nationally published exposé (and subsequently in the Montreal Gazette) on the millions channeled through Vancouver-based Tides Canada Foundation and its parent organization San Francisco-based Tides Foundation. Last June we published Vivian's commentary on the foreign funding links behind Mayor Gregor Robertson. With her permission we are republishing Krause's column "U.S. cash vs oil sands", along with some reaction to it.

“U.S. cash vs. oil sands”

There has never been a major oil spill in Vancouver harbour, but this coming Sunday protestors who say a spill is inevitable will take kayaks and canoes out into the water to stare down oil tankers. Chances are there won't be a tanker in sight, but there will be a party boat, organizers say.

If the campaign against oil tankers were to succeed in Vancouver, overseas exports of Canadian oil would be blocked and Canada would be stuck with only one major customer for Alberta oil: the United States. That's the trade-off.

Like most protests, the one against oil tankers has all the look and feel of a Canadian grassroots movement. The campaign against Alberta's oil sands also seems to rise out of the people, but the interesting thing is that there are very few roots under that grass. Money comes in from a small core of U.S. charitable groups. One of those groups -- the U.S. Tides Foundation of California (Tides U.S.) and its Canadian counterpart have paid millions to at least 36 campaign organizations. (See list at right.)

All the money, at least US$6-million, comes from a single, foreign charity. The Tides U.S. campaign against Alberta oil is a campaign against one of Canada's most important industries. It's fair for Canadians to inquire about who's funding this campaign and why. The trouble is, nobody knows.

But Tides U.S. is not alone. U.S. tax returns and public records show that Tides U.S. and charities based in California and New York have granted US$15-million since 2003 specifically for campaigns against Alberta oil and against oil tanker traffic and pipelines through British Columbia. The purposes for these grants are clearly outlined in the filings. For example, Tides U.S. received US$700,000 in 2009 from the Oak Foundation of San Francisco "to raise the visibility of the tar sands issue and slow the expansion of tar sands production by stopping new infrastructure development."

The Oak Foundation, created by a duty-free-shop founder, paid Greenpeace Canada an undisclosed sum of money "to leverage the growing interest of ranchers and landowners in limiting unbridled oil and gas exploration and production in southern Alberta." Greenpeace was also funded "to conduct specialized opinion research and media work" and to identify messaging for maximum information value among Albertans. World Wildlife Fund Canada was paid an unreported amount by the Oak Foundation for "an e-campaign to mobilize Canadians and send a politically compelling message."

In short, environmental organizations are doing what they are paid to do. What hasn't been known is who's paying the pipers -- and why. One thing is sure: when 36 organizations are all funded by a common, foreign source, their multi-million dollar campaign -- with paid, full-time staff, expensive billboards and state-of-the-art web-sites -- is anything but a grassroots operation.

The Tides Foundation is an American charity that has given away US US$1.5-billion since 1976. For many years, the chairman of the U.S. Tides Foundation, and the vice-chairman of Tides Canada, has been Joel Solomon. Mr. Solomon, an interesting figure in his own right, also backed the election campaign of Vancouver's Mayor Gregor Robertson to the tune of about US$330,000. But that's another story.

U.S. tax returns show that Tides and Tides Canada have paid US$4.3-million for a "Tar Sands Campaign." The top recipients were the Sierra Club (US$909,652), Corporate Ethics International (US$750,000), the Natural Resources Defense Council (US$520,000), and Forest Ethics (US$401,364).

oil-leafWho benefits from this campaign? asks Krause

Many of the grants for the "Tar Sands Campaign" are far larger than grants for other important causes. For example, a rape intervention project in Sub-Saharan Africa got US$9,000 and a project to support people with HIV in Indonesia got US$9,998. In comparison, Greenpeace got US$186,000 and the World Wildlife Fund got US$160,000 to campaign against Alberta oil.

Unlike many charitable foundations, Tides U.S. doesn't have a large endowment. "In practice, Tides behaves less like a philanthropy than a money-laundering enterprise, taking money from other foundations and spending it as the donor requires," writes the U.S. Center for Consumer Freedom. "Called 'donor-advised' giving, this pass-through funding vehicle provides public-relations insulation for the money's original donors."

Since 2000, Tides Canada has been paid at least US$56-million by American charitable foundations. In 2007 and 2008, Tides Canada received US$34-million and ranked 14th in the world in terms of funding from U.S. foundations. Obviously, something about Tides Canada is very important to its American funders.

Tides, and the U.S. foundations that fund it, have incredibly deep pockets. A large part of Tides' funding comes from the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation, the William & Flora Hewlett Foundation, the David & Lucile Packard Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. These are The Big Five. They give away about US$1.2-billion every year. If these foundations decide to undermine a foreign industry, they probably can.

These Big Five have poured at least US$190-million into Canada's environmental movement over the last decade, but their American logos are nowhere to be seen. Instead, we see a pageant of Canadian icons: dogwood, herds of caribou, wild salmon, First Nations and loons. U.S. tax returns show that the David Suzuki Foundation has been paid at least US$10-million from American foundations. This hasn't exactly been out in the open.

The Moore Foundation is the creation of Gordon Moore, a co-founder of Intel Corp. According to Forbes, he was once the ninth-wealthiest American. Based in San Francisco, the Moore Foundation has paid

B.C. organizations nearly US$50-million and says as plain as day that grantees are expected to influence British Columbia's resource management decisions, specifically with regards to oil and gas.

Since 2006, the Moore Foundation has paid US$14-million to support the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area Initiative (PNCIMA). This is a federal agency assigned the task of helping to plan all coastal development and influence decisions about natural resources from the northern tip of Vancouver Island to the southern border of Alaska, a strategic part of the Canadian coast. Ottawa created the PNCIMA, but its role is unclear. If PNCIMA -- funded by the anti-tanker Moore Foundation -- were to recommend banning oil tankers, Alberta oil can't go to Asia.

Hands down, the biggest beneficiaries of Tides Canada's distributions have been First Nations along the B.C. coast. Some of these same First Nations have vehemently promised to stop the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline to send oil from Alberta to Kitimat, on the B.C. coast.

U.S. tax returns for 2008 show that Tides Canada paid two coastal First Nations US$27.3-million in a single grant. This mega-grant was "to fund conservation planning projects and conservation initiatives" and was earmarked for the Nuxalk and the Lax Kw'alaams. Tides Canada's objective was to pay for "Mobilizing First Nations Against Climate Change in B.C." and for "support of Coastal First Nations to hire a co-ordinator to engage with government, industry, environmental groups, media and the public regarding the proposed Enbridge Gateway tar sands pipeline."

Rethink Alberta, the newest campaign to try to influence Alberta development, is led by Corporate Ethics International. Its aim is to tell tourists and tour operators to boycott Alberta. In addition to funding from Tides U.S., Corporate Ethics received US$950,000 from The Rockefeller Brothers Fund "to stem demand for tar sands derived fuels in the United States." Never mind oil from Nigeria or the Middle East, Rockefeller Brothers has honed in on Alberta.

Michael Marx, the executive director of Corporate Ethics International, won't answer any questions about CEI's sources of funding or how that's spent. "CEI's policy is to maintain the confidentiality of its funders," Marx replied by email.

The Hewlett and Packard foundations in California were created by the founders of tech giant Hewlett-Packard. With assets of almost US$7-billion, Hewlett alone is one of the largest charitable foundations in the world. Since 2000, the separate Hewlett and Packard foundations have contributed US$71-million to conservation initiatives, including an effort to "reform" resource-based industries, and to fund First Nations in Canada. That included US$29-million towards the Great Bear Rainforest, US$22-million to reduce the development of fossil fuels in northern Canada, and US$14-million to support First Nations.

My research into the filings of U.S. charities active in funding activists against Canadian and Alberta energy development shows that the anti-oil sands movement is the product of American charities with unknown or certainly unclear motives. At least US$15-million has been paid by the Hewlett and other foundations since 2003, most of it in recent years, including US$3.7-million in U.S. grants paid to the Pembina Foundation, which funds the Pembina Institute of Calgary, a tar sands critic. The flow of money though the Tides group, in turn, is going to Greenpeace Canada and others.

The kayaks bobbing into Vancouver Harbour on Sunday are likely riding a sea of money from U.S. sources. If all this money isn't enough to get Alberta to "rethink," there's plenty more where it came from, which means the Alberta oil industry is up against a billion-dollar gorilla. There's nothing's wrong with foreign funding for charitable purposes but charities should do charity and foreign funding should be out in the open.

Originally published October 15, 2010 in 'FP Comment' section of the National Post, and October 18, 2010 in the Montreal Gazette.

- post by Vivian Krause. Vivian is a North Vancouver-based writer and researcher. For more on the activities of U.S. charities in Canada, see her website at


The Reaction to Krause's article so far...

  • The energy industry newsletter East-West Energy Chronicle, which targets audiences in the People's Republic of China featured Krause's column in their once daily report.

    ...freelance journalist Vivian Krause draws attention to the way that huge American charities are funding environmental activism in Western Canada. These funds are having an impact on political decisions that are of nontrivial importance to the future of Canada’s energy industry, and consequently on the national economy at large. The funding cited is directed in large part to organizations that are waging a PR war not only against the oil sands, but also against tanker traffic in the coastal area between Vancouver Island and Alaska, the disallowance of which would foreclose the possibility of Canada diversifying hydrocarbon exports away from its current single export market, the USA.
  • Calgary Herald columnist Paul Stanway wrote this commentary titled, Corporate wealth funds anti-oilsands groups. The Herald writer says:

    As a nutritionist, former UN aid worker, and a tireless supporter of Canada's native peoples, Vivian Krause seems an unlikely defender of Alberta's oilsands. But the B.C. freelance journalist and blogger knows hypocrisy when she sees it, and her investigation of the funding of the anti-oilsands lobby should be must-reading for all Albertans...

    The possibility that the National Rifle Association gave some moral support to the movement to eliminate Canada's long gun registry recently sent the CBC and others in the national media into a frenzy. Yet for a story about the direction of tens of millions of dollars from the U.S. to a campaign to undermine a critical Canadian industry we must rely on a Vancouver mom.
  • Joel Solomon's sister Linda Solomon signed her name to this post in her Vancouver Observer blog attacking Vivian Krause and comparing her to FOX TV's Glenn Beck.

    Krause, who is based in Vancouver, authored a piece about Tides' supposed role in funding anti-tar sands campaigns in Canada. Claiming that Tides has given away more than a billion dollars since its inception in 1976, Krause then took a large rhetorical leap with echoes of Beckian hyperbole. (Note: Krause's research is based upon publicly available Revenue Canada and IRS tax returns)
  • Georgia Straight editor Charlie Smith, who has had his own interactions with Krause and was surprised by Ms. Solomon's own leaps of logic, came to the North Vancouver mom's defense. His column on is titled Vancouver mayor Gregor Robertson's associate generated significant income from charity work. was a bit rich for Linda Solomon to compare the author of the National Post article, North Vancouver researcher Vivian Krause, to Beck.
  • Blogging Canadians featured a link to Krause's column with this introduction:

    Who is funding the propaganda against Canada? Ever wonder why you hear anti-Albertan, Anti-Canadian, propaganda coming from some Canadian groups? Turns out their locality and political power is for sale to the highest bidder...
  • Finally, a response from Tides Canada Foundation president Ross Macmillan, who wrote this letter to the Financial Post in defense of his organization:

    Our mission at Tides Canada Foundation is to provide uncommon solutions for the common good by leading and supporting actions that foster a healthy environment and just Canadian society.

Why is this topic on

One of our mandates since we established has been to discuss the money and influence behind our city elected representatives. However, never in our wildest dreams did we think we would stumble upon an international campaign mounted against the sovereignty of Canada's natural resources.

Krause's findings indicate that several of the individuals who funded and helped to elect Mayor Gregor Robertson and Vision Vancouver are the same people who arranged for a mult-million dollar public relations campaign to stifle the export of Canada's oil to Pacific Rim countries.

In fact, Gregor Robertson himself put oil exports through the Port of Vancouver – an issue which his city has no direct jurisdiction over – as the subject of a special meeting of Vancouver city council last summer. It even came as a complete surprise to members of Metro Vancouver's Port of Vancouver sub-committee. It helped to kick off the No Tanks campaign now mounted by environmental allies of Robertson and Magee.

Robertson and his Chief of Staff Mike Magee (someone who has worked in public relations for several environmental activist groups in the past) left town on a taxpayer-funded trip to New York City in April 2010, without so much as a press release to explain the reasons for the trip. Robertson suggested he was exploring business opportunities for the city, but it was learned that he met with some of his political donors. Read: What the heck were Gregor Robertson and Mike Magee doing in New York?

For Magee this stuff is old hat (be to read our inaugural Know Your Donor profile on Mike Magee). His work in the private sector is as a consultant steeped in the relationships between green activism and American foundation funding. His client list includes the Bullitt Foundation, which is a big donor to groups like the Dogwood Initiative, which is BC's best known organization (see profile) devoted to fighting any offshore oil shipments.

While in New York Robertson and Magee met both with the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation and the Natural Resources Defense Committee (NRDC). A dinner in a New York restaurant resulted in a $640 bill and Mike Magee has refused to divulge who was hosted with taxpayer money.

Eight weeks after the trip oil exports in the Port of Vancouver were suddenly on the City's agenda.

Even on Sunday Councillor Geoff Meggs tweeted out this ominous message around oil spills in Vancouver's harbour. Late last week No Tanks protesters were being escorted by uniformed Vancouver police in downtown, presumably at some cost to taxpayers.

For more background on the network behind Gregor Robertson read some of our many posts tagged "Joel Solomon".

Krause asks a simple question...“who benefits from this?” In the weeks to come we'll continue to explore this question.


Meanwhile, much to the chagrin of Tides and their astroturf'd anti Oil Sands regime, the Obozo administration gets one economic decision right and essentially green lights the Keystone pipeline that will bring Oil Sands energy to needy US gas tanks.

There will be floods of tears, buckets full, in Tides HQ after November 2nd . . . the ordinary US citizen is finally waking up to the disaster the greenies, eco-socialists and other assorted left wing whack jobs have inflicted on the US economy in the name of "progressivsm".

Time for Congress to investigate Tides USA and Parliament to investigate Tides Canada.

Canada's economic policies should never be allowed to be bought by some richy-rich Americans who have never inherited money, who have never had to worry about working, paying bills, finding a job, getting a mortgage.

Time to fight back at foreign intervention in our economy.

Robert Kennedy junior came to BC a couple of years ago to rail against run of river hydro projects. Then he came back a few months later to talk about how there is enough wind power potential in the western USA to power all of North America. Who benefits under this scenario? The American plan is obvious: Throw mud at BC's renewable energy resources (which give us a natural competitive advantage)and eliminate competition from BC. Vivian Krause is spot on with her investigations.

'Our mission at Tides Canada Foundation is to provide uncommon solutions for the common good by leading and supporting actions that foster a healthy environment and just Canadian society.'....

Joel Solomon's mantra for his 500 year plan.

Excellent article and thank you for re-posting it.


Can we have a moratorium on people using the word 'socialist' when it in no way actually applies to the situation? I know it's vogue to call anyone who favours some government regulation a socialist, but it really is incorrect.

The Tides Foundation are basically a money laundering group for the left. It allows people like George Soros to contribute to organizations he will later say he knows nothing of by him contributing in bulk to the TF and then the TF doing the dirty work by contributing to many questionable organizations.

Didnt Vision get some sort of funding from them as well?

It's hardly an inappropriate reference.

The whole movement is about imposing their view on the masses because they think it is best for all of society.

It's bad enough that socialists think they can spread the wealth however they want, but now they want to dictate our behavior.

Eco-Socialist is a great way to coin it.

Just as a further on this the Tides Foundation's sugar daddy George Soros owns a large part of Petrobras which is Brazil's state oil company.

The oil sands by and large are producing oil for the US. Were this to stop Soros would benefit big time as the cost of oil would go up and the US would have to buy more of his Brazilian oil.

When in doubt just follow the money.....

I've been saying this for years. There is a covert economic war being waged against western Canada's rich natural resources.

Thank you to Ms. Krause for exposing the enemy. The big question is how do we fight back against the unlikely tag team of US protectionism and the eviro-Moonies prancing through our forests?

It may be a great way to 'coin it', but it's inaccurate.

But I know it's easy and it sounds scary and that's what's important.

Would you please actually explain how it's "inaccurate" in a detailed manner, instead of just repeating that it's inaccurate?

The term eco-socialism was created by eco-socialists, to describe themselves. It wasn't created by Ezra Levant or anyone like that as some form of attack.

From the Charlie Smith article you linked to-"Beck's rants on Fox TV recently inspired a deluded California follower, Byron Williams, to take it upon himself to assassinate Tides Foundation founder Drummond Pike and others at the San Francisco-based charity."

It's easy to see why Linda Solomon is a bit touchy. The irony here is that if the campaign against Canadian tankers and pipelines is successful (which I consider highly unlikely), the biggest winner is the US military and industrial establishment-Glen Beck squared.

I don't think highly of the Solomons, Tides and other visionaries but not everything they touch is tarnished. Furthermore "North Vancouver Mom" Vivien Krause is no disinterested observer and has previous form in making allegations regarding funding of other environmental activists in her paid advocacy of the farmed salmon lobby.

The supporters of the development of the tar sands receive the active support of provincial and federal government together with the petro-chemical / extraction corporations. In other words their resources are unlimited. Don't blame their opponents for getting help where they can.

As to cheap shots about socialism and patriotism, these are classic diversionary tactics usually made by people who know little about either.

CORRECTION-"...Glen Beck squared."
(must proof read,must proof read,must proof read...)

David, here is Vivian's short bio for the record.

Her work with a salmon farming corporation ended in 2003. I don't think Krause is suggesting at all that we needn't protect our environment. I've read pages of her reports and the consistent theme is about transparency, or the lack of it.

The company shipping the oil to Vancouver from Alberta is the American corporation Kinder Morgan.

If an American corporation is profiting from shipping the oil through Vancouver, it is only fair that American foundations help counter the influence of the American corporation.

Chinese companies are also investing billions in the tar sands, so don't pretend that foreign money isn't influencing the decision to allow more oil to be shipped through Vancouver and BC.

A pretty common "ends justify the means" view I'd say, Richard. The fact is that there are many things we know about Kinder Morgan due to the fact that it is a public company, and permitted by our governments to conduct business here.

I don't know a thing about Kinder-Morgan, but if I do need to know more it's all on the public record.

Whereas with Tides Foundation, I know nothing about who is funding them. As a donor-advised funding organization they obscure the origins of funding. We cannot know more about them because they will not release that information.

Richard, I must ask this. If these organizations were funded by groups that you disagreed with politically - i.e. Halliburton or some such corporation - would you hold the same view?

Kinder-Morgan bought Westcoast Energy, not Terasen. Terasen was bought by Fortis.

*blush* Thx, rf.

Brilliant research. Still, "American Corporations Control Canadian Economy, May Influence Government Policy". That's news? Where have you been for the last two centuries?
You think Canadians decided it was a good idea to waste so many young lives to protect the world's biggest heroin dealer?
Pardon my French, but a big part of the reason Stephen Harper looks so stiff and awkward all the time is because of the American flag shoved up his ass. Its an occupational hazard in Canadian politics, comes with the job.

Yes, conspirator approach makes for interesting reading and is open to bombast response, but clearly US economic, political influence and in short, power control for their interests only is a fact of historical life and is never, never at rest. Everyone has an agenda and they (US interests) will cater to those elements that will wittingly or unwittingly carry their flag.

I'm no conspiracy theorist...I just play one on TV.

Seriously, with their government embarking on a revived plan to continue drilling in their own "Gulf", I wonder if TIDES is funneling as much dosh to stop those projects?

Only in Canada, you say? Pity.

This is all a distraction from the real issue which is the threat posed by increased shipments of oil through the waters around Vancouver. No matter how small the risk, it is really not worth it. A major spill could devastate the local economy. Imagine oil washing up around Stanley Park, there goes tourism for quite a while.

As well have seen in the Gulf, the industry has a very poor track record of following regulation and fights regulation at every opportunity. Even if a company currently is committed to safety, there is no guarantee that they won't be bought out by another company that is only worried about cutting expenses and short-term profit. There is also no guarantee that they won't lobby the government to decrease regulation and enforcement.

Even after the Gulf Spill and with a controversial pipeline proposed through northern BC, Embridge didn't bother cleaning up their act enough to prevent the spill in Michigan. You think they would have been on their best behaviour to at least seem like they were committed to environmental safety.

I suspect that shipping oil through Vancouver doesn't add much to the local economy or else they would have already made a big deal about it. I also suspect that the majority of the people in the region are against shipping oil through here so what is the real issue with where the funding comes from. I haven't seen any suggestions that there is anything that is not following the rules.

Richard says: "I suspect that shipping oil through Vancouver doesn't add much to the local economy or else they would have already made a big deal about it."

Really? Your leap of logic here is breathtaking. What indeed do you know about the Port of Vancouver or the industry you've just commented on?

"I also suspect that the majority of the people in the region are against shipping oil through here so what is the real issue with where the funding comes from."

So you speak for the "majority," eh? And the majority don't care where the money comes from as long as it fits with your political point of view? That view would fit right in with almost any authoritarian regime. How nice.

"I haven't seen any suggestions that there is anything that is not following the rules."

Well, that would take critical thinking and a sense of fair play, Richard, which your partisanship will not abide. As I said before, it's simply a case where the ends are seen to justify the means. As long as it serves your political goals, who cares who gave the cash, right?

Actually, Kinder Morgan bought Terasen in 2005, and then sold it to Fortis in 2007. So, both of you are correct.

On the subject of astroturf campaigns and the extraction industry it might be useful to remember who has the biggest guns.

The New Yorker investigation which this article mentions is also worth a read.

As an activist I am truly offended by the suggestion that this movement to stop the expansion of the tar sands is a product of big business handouts. I along with several other everyday concerned citizens have spent tireless hours working on these issues. No Tanks the campaign to stop oil tanker traffic in the Burrard Inlet in downtown Vancouver, came about because of some of my very talented and passionate friends... not big business.

No Tanks IS what Vancouver's grassroots movements looks like.

@Laura. There is no doubting your sincerity, but what if you learned that you were being funded by US corporations? Would it matter to you? I suggest that you do more reading on the subject starting here:

@David Hadaway. The Koch story is a chilling one that shows the "astroturf" tactics of the left are also being heavily employed by the right. Neither one justifies the actions of the other.

Isn't it ironic that our boys and girls are in Iraq and Afghanistan on a 'peaceful' mission' alongside their American counterparts, where let's be frank for a moment, they are actually establishing a bridgehead for future OIL imports for our FUTURE NEEDS AS A NATION(S). Whereas here at home those punks who philosophically sip their 'free trade' coffee in one of the numerous coffee establishments for bums are creating havoc by saying we don't need that OIL...around us. Maybe, if it appears overnight falling from the sky like in a miracle, then they would have it in their hearts to accept it, as a divine intervention. But God forbid to be brought in by train or ship cargo. Hypocrites.
Solomon linked to Tides and Pembina.
Marx linked to Corporate Ethics and Rockefeller Brothers Fund . I wonder what those young people risking their lives in the Middle East would be thinking about this treasonous story. I'm sure that they are already brainstorming their next move right now, over an assortment of kosher sandwiches from their very sustainable 100 miles Deli. Excellent cover story!

I am truly horrified after reading this article. Is that what we call news? A woman fabricating stories and drawing false conclusions without any real evidence for what she is saying? For attacking a group of passionate, intelligent and concerned citizens? I am absolutely shocked this nonsense was allowed to be published through any sort of legitimate media outlet.

I will not pretend to know all about the Tides Foundation and their funding history, but I do know about No Tanks. I spent many hours volunteering and fundrasing for the the organization. Activists prepared by painting signs, organizing poetry and music fundraisers and canvassing at the beach. The flotilla was the result the efforts of many coming together for a great cause, and it was an amazing and powerful event.

There is no authenticity in the words of Vivian Krause when it comes to No Tanks. Any conclusions she has drawn in the past regarding various fundrasing organizations is of no application here. Please do not let these lies stifle the passion and dreams of some amazing people.

And besides, don't you think if we had all of this so-called money, we would have at least had some pyrotechnics or something cool on the go?? C'mon lady!

If the group does not want to be criticized like this they should look closer at where their funding comes from.

If they accept money just because someone offers it, as you can see there could be consequences and they have to accept that.


What I am saying is I DO know where our funding comes from because I was one of the people doing the fundraising.

If you re-read Vivian Krause's article, there is not a single piece of evidence or fact stating that the No Tanks organization accepted money from the Tides Foundation. The reason why is that IT DID NOT HAPPEN.

It is wrong to lump a credible grassroots organization under the umbrella of groups that have accepted money from the Tides Foundation. I think it is wrong for Vivian Krause to drag No Tanks into her smear campaign just so she can get a headline.

The tar sands are no longer a sovereign resource once they are set on fire or spilled into the chuck. Then they become everyone's nightmare.
The whole concept of national sovereignty is somewhat obsolete and small minded. It falls apart when we realize most rich countries are all embroiled in an ecocidal economic ponzi scheme that won't end well at all for those who will inherit this ruined mess we have made of paradise.

I wonder why Krause doesn't set her sights on Jimmy Pattison? BC taxpayers are now building that clever billionaire a new freeway!

Check out!

Paid Advertisement

Paid Advertisement