Vivian Krause interviewed by CKNW Radio's Michael Campbell

Post by Mike Klassen in

25 comments

block-our-coast
"Off limits" area targeted by US charities – click to see full version

After receiving three letters in a matter of days from Tides Canada lawyers which threatened legal action if Vivian Krause did not modify wording on her website posts, it would seem that the intimidation has not slowed the North Vancouver mom down. Today she made her first appearance on CKNW's Bill Good Show with guest host Michael Campbell.

Despite an invitation by CKNW to have a representative from Vision Vancouver or Tides Canada on today's program with Krause and Campbell, none was supplied.

Campbell is someone who clearly gets the scope and significance of the findings of Krause's work, and even complimented her on air today by stating that she had produced "the best investigative work" he's seen all year. For someone who doesn't consider herself a journalist but only a researcher, it's a high compliment. As Krause states in the end of today's interview with Campbell, she hopes that her leg work will result in some great follow-up by the mainstream media.

I'll plug some of Vivian's recent work below, but first off here is the entire interview with Michael Campbell in two parts (mp3 one & mp3 two):

Part One

Part Two

Last Thursday Vivian's latest "must read" entry on the subject of US charities funding a campaign to block trade along BC's west coast appeared in the Financial Post. It's titled "Demarketing Alberta" and you can read it here. It was followed up by the Vancouver Sun publishing a version of the article in Saturday's edition, accompanied by a photo of Pamela Anderson. Anderson has been enlisted as a high-profile paid spokesperson to drum up fear of calamity on our coast, even walking barefoot over barnacles to make her point.

What Krause spells out, and the folks at Tides Canada and their funders do not want you to know, is that their charitable cash is going to a campaign to block an important strategic part of Canada's west coast. Blocking this area of B.C.'s coastline effectively shuts down our country's ability to trade our oil resource to any other country but the USA.

If you need a transparent of example of how they're doing this, look at the following select passage from Krause's article:

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund granted $105,000 specifically to the First Nations at the Kitimat village, which is right at the mouth of the Douglas Channel. That’s precisely where export-bound oil tankers would need to load. That included $70,000 for an anniversary celebration in 2004 and $35,000 for a ceremonial event in 2006. Of all the aboriginal people in the world, why is the Rockefeller Brothers Fund giving money to the First Nations at Kitimat Village?

...The Pacific North Coast Integrated Area Management Initiative (PNCIMA) extends from the northern tip of Vancouver Island to the southern tip of Alaska but not Vancouver Island. Thus, PNCIMA covers precisely the area where oil tankers would need to pass — but not other parts of the B.C. coast. While Moore has paid or promised $28-million for PNCIMA, Moore granted less than $1-million for the west coast of Vancouver Island.

Like PNCIMA, the Coast Conservation Endowment Fund Foundation (CCEFF), commonly known as the “Coast Opportunity Fund,” covers the same part of the north and central coast of B.C. — but not the coast of Vancouver Island. The CCEFF supports “eligible” First Nations along the north and central coast of B.C. Of the 37 grants the Rockefeller Brothers Fund has made since 2003 for projects in Canada, the largest by far was a 2003 grant to the CCEFF for a nice, cool $1-million.

The federal Liberal Party is allying itself again with the Bloc Québéçois and the NDP on a well-meaning but naive adventure that will likely damage their political prospects in B.C. again. Local Liberal MP Joyce Murray has tabled Bill C-606 to put that motion into law by amending the Canada Shipping Act to prohibit oil tanker traffic on the north and central coast of British Columbia.

People much more informed on this subject than I have a clearer view on the stakes. These quotes were shared to me on the promise they are not identified.

The problem of cutting off our coast from oil exports is that it gives the Americans total control of our resource. Because the U.S. is a net importer of oil, they will always want ours, but they will have the advantage on pricing. Further, they can insist on what they are willing to pay claiming that oil sands oil is, for example, too "dirty."

However, much more dangerously, now that the price of carbon is such a big deal to the world market, the US will have the ability to offload a huge amount of carbon emissions compliance on Canadian production at a high cost borne by us, while not penalizing the dirty U.S. production at all.

While of course shipping oil off our coast must be safe, we risk even more by losing our ability to bargain with our big neighbour.

To me this last passage sums up the potential crisis our federal politicians are walking us into, in the face of massive, well-financed campaigns using money from American charities. Worse, our local politicians from Vision Vancouver are directly connected to it, while refusing to be accountable at all. It reminds me of the situation our forest industry faced when huge duties were slapped on local foresters, strapping the Canadian industry over a barrel for decades.

You can continue to follow the work of Vivian Krause at her website, www.fair-questions.com, and on Twitter @FairQuestions.

- post by Mike

25 Comments

Trans Mountain Pipeline will then intend to expand its capacity from 300,000 barrels/day to ?barrels/day to make up for the loss of any future capacity to Kitimat.

Then we will see larger and more frequent crude oil supertankers berthing at the Burnaby terminal, which will all cruise past Vancouver proper courtesy of Gregor & Company.

Now that's what I call "strategic thinking"!

Pretty much every day in the business section, there is word of another billion dollars of foreign money buying up more of the tar sands and you freak out about a few million to help protect our economy and environment from being destroyed as a result of this foreign money. Give your head a shake.

Richard, you've missed the point.

The point is that these "charities" are funding politicians.

They can't have it both ways. If you want to donate to municipal politicians, you don't get to funnel it through a charity so that it's tax deductible.

Funding the cause is totally fair. What is unfair (and I would argue, illegal), is a green-washed politician like Gregor funding his political career with charitable, tax-deductible, donations.

rf -
agreed and furthermore....the $$$$ flowing into the politicians' party coffers to support the 'cause' comes with strings. The recipient is expected to dance to the tune of the donor. Thus the politician is bought. That is a big problem - especially in this instance where the donor appears to be setting the agenda (Joel Solomon's 500 year plan). The Vision party more and more resembles not a political movement, but a p.r.division of Joel Solomon Inc.

Whether one supports this cause or not, the process appears manipulated now and the 'charitable donations' look like a shell game. Everyone should give their head a shake, because if its allowed to continue we won't stand a chance if and when the agenda at Joel Solomon Inc. changes direction.

Vivian Krause should be encouraged to keep up the good work.

This is all a feeble attempt to draw attention away from the real problem which is oil tankers on our coasts. This industry is funded by billions of dollars from foreign countries. How much of this foreign money is making its way directly or indirectly to politicians in this country?

80% of people in BC support a ban on tankers off the coast. It is only fair that some foreign funding helps support BC residents in our fight against the foreign funded oil industry.

Vivian Krause says she sold her house in order to do this research and to defend big oil. If you ask me, she is either lacking in judgment or just not smart enough to ask CAPP to fund her.

She completely ignores the foreign funding that industry uses to pressure our government. The funds that Tides Canada is providing to indigenous groups and some ngos does not even come close to the money that is spent by foreign owned companies to lobby the Canadian government.

@ Richard:

Show me where 80% of the people in BC support a tanking ban.

If you have a report to back that up, kindly post the info or link.

It's OK to buy the government so long as the government supports your prevailing views.
sincerely yours
the self righteous good guys
a division of Joel Solomon Inc.

Brett,

I can see how you might think that I am defending big oil but actually, my concern is the sovereignty of our country. I am trying to bring more transparency to the funding of environmental and political campaigns which have become very powerful.

Even President Obama said in October that the incursion of foreign funding through the Chamber of Commerce in the U.S. was a threat to democracy.

What concerns me about this foreign funding is that it hasn't been out in the open. With lobbyists, at least their funding sources are disclosed so people know who's behind them, and can consider the source.

Richard, you keep on biting the hand that feeds you.

You want to shut down the growth of our oil industry? Or do you only want to see our oil shipped to the US?. Where do you think taxes come from?
Are willing to take a CPP cut?
Willing to pay more for Healthcare?
Do you think your precious pension doesn't own Enbridge and Trap? Willing to take a pension cut?

What is feeble is the miopic green view that wants all of the benefits but wants to make the corporations that their pensions own out to be the villains.

That's what's so ironic about the tax fraud of these "charities" that buy politicians.

@Richard

If the issue is really protecting our coasts from an oil spill, why is it just the north and central coasts? Why not a complete ban anywhere on the West Coast? Do you think it is a coincidence that the ban covers the route tankers would take to China?

Foreign-owned and trans-national companies propagandize in Canada all the time, so I find it hard to get worked up about it when an NGO does the same thing.

Further, the longer that oil stays in the ground, the less likely our grandchildren will freeze in the dark when remaining supplies become priced out of reach for the average consumer. We have a compelling reason to keep our supplies at home.

And strategically, I'd rather we kept our long-running and mutually beneficial partnership with the Big Brother to the south... who's always had our back, rather than fuel the growth of a nation a world away with significant political differences compared to our preferred system of democracy.

I doubt there's anyone who wouldn't support greater transparency in regard to political funding, but the source and aims associated with this issue don't seem like red flags to me.

Finally, I'm not convinced our healthcare and pension systems are at risk if we don't expand the oil and gas industry. In a few decades the aberrant bulge in population that is the Baby Boomer generation will be mostly pushing up daisies and we will have far fewer people to worry about w/r/t pensions and end-of-life health issues. So, really I think we just have to ride out this population wave and move forward with an eye to Canada's long-term situation.

@Chris: "I doubt there's anyone who wouldn't support greater transparency in regard to political funding"

Well now, looking below at the response of Brett and Richard, not to mention his honour Gregor R. (a division of Joel Solomon Inc.) in his evasion of questions posed about funding by Ms, Vivian Krause, I'd say that at least some people in this fair city are not coming clean in regard to political funding, or do not care so long as it suits their agenda. And that is the thrust of Ms. Krause's work.

As for the oil trade end of it, I would love to see our dependence on oil reduced. But it ain't gonna happen soon. In the meantime, I support free and fair trade, which will be stifled by the consequences of Bill C606, which cuts off trade routes.

The question at the back of Ms. Krause's work is as follows:

Is the charitable funding (not transparent) that has gone towards cutting off the trade route been done in aid of the environment, or is that just part of the story, as the end result would limit Canada's options in oil trade to the one partner with which we share a land border (the shipping of oil by other means being virtually cut off).

And I seriously doubt our neighbour to the south would get overly pissed at us if we were to market our wares to more than just them.

And strategically, I'd rather we kept our long-running and mutually beneficial partnership with the Big Brother to the south... who's always had our back, rather than fuel the growth of a nation a world away with significant political differences compared to our preferred system of democracy.

***************

I suggest you have a long chat with those involved in the forest industry in BC about their thoughts on how the 'Big Brother to the south' have always had our backs.

I'm guessing they will provide a different insight.

Perhaps start with the Truck Loggers Assocation and their memebers.

Hi Max:

I was thinking about a larger scale and longer time frame than a single dispute.

"larger scale and longer time frame" in which the USA has "always had our back". Let's see, there must be some evidence to back this up...

1812 when they tried to invade? Forcing Diefenbaker to scrap the Avro Arrow in 1958? Using their Mafia contacts in the labour movement to keep the NDP on the fringes? Maybe you're thinking of how American atomic deterrence kept the Russians from invading us during the Cold War. Or how they own 70% of our industrial base and nearly as much of our resource base.

I'd almost rather hear you haul out the bogus pro-bike stats. You've got a lot to learn about the oil industry and its respect for national sovereignty.

Banning tanker traffic from the central coast solves nothing. Every day in Valdez Alaska another super-tanker loaded with crude from the Trans-Alaska pipeline sails down the coast to refineries in Washington or Los Angeles. To get to the 5 refineries in Washington they have to navigate the Straight of Juan de Fuca. One of those refineries is owned and operated by BP.

"I'd almost rather hear you haul out the bogus pro-bike stats. "

Really? I get the sense you'd like zero input from people with dissenting opinions or differing perspectives.

It is not that banning the traffic solves nothing - it does us more damage than that. Although you are correct that the American oil will still move N-S off our coast, what happens if we want to ship some Canadian oil east (assuming for a moment no one else is outraged at the idea of expanding our trade to include more of the outside world than just the U.S.)?

Bill C-606 will prevent us from opening trade routes. American oil will still move N-S on its prescribed route. Any Alberta oil will however become landlocked. We can't ship it overseas - where else is left? Only one customer to sell to. Any bets will get competitive pricing then?

The oil business is not pretty, and steps must be taken to ensure we extract and move the product as cleanly as possible until such time as we can move beyond it (if ever). However we should not sacrifice our sovereign economic interests because of the efforts of an American-based lobby.

douglas:

It is interesting you bring up US Oil.

This was recently sent to me:

USGS Release: 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakken Formation—25 Times More Than 1995 Estimate— (4/10/2008 2:25:36 PM)‏


http://www.usgs.gov:80/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911


Reston, VA - North Dakota and Montana have an estimated 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in an area known as the Bakken Formation.

A U.S. Geological Survey assessment, released April 10, shows a 25-fold increase in the amount of oil that can be recovered compared to the agency's 1995 estimate of 151 million barrels of oil.

You want to know what I'd like? It must be Christmas.

I'd like people to be able to tell the difference between their impressions, "opinions" and "perspectives" and the facts. People believe all kinds of crazy things but luckily the facts of life are immune to one's point of view.

Decisions based on beliefs are almost always bad decisions. For example your belief that things will improve when the Boomers die (don't hold your breath. Thanks to a healthy diet and lots of biking I plan to be around for another 20 or 25 years). Or that untapped oil reserves will heat our grandchildrens' homes. It's far more likely that fuels produced by genetically engineered micro-organisms will replace conventional coal or petroleum.

As much as I'm dying to know how you feel about things, the facts suggest that the future will be very different from the one you and the Visionistas promote. My fondest Christmas wish is zero input from people who bend over backwards to lick the Yankee boot.


Thanks Max. I took a look - that was interesting. The key word for me was 'recoverable' oil. There are still some oil deposits out there - up until recently it was not economic or technologically feasible to get it out of the ground. But times and economies change, and with the cheap and easy oil getting tapped out these sources become more attractive to the industry.

Oil, or lack of access to, was one of the main factors leading to war with Japan in 1941, and one of the main prizes Germany pursued in the Caucausus and Persian Gulf region starting in 1939 (not to mention some more recent forays by our neighbours to Iraq and Kuwait). Economies run on it, nations kill for it if trading is cut off.

This is a very simplistic explanation of why I favour free trade, and oppose the limiting of said trade to other nations as the result of the likes of Bill C-606.

Thanks again for your info. and Merry Christmas Max!

"People believe all kinds of crazy things but luckily the facts of life are immune to one's point of view."

"Decisions based on beliefs are almost always bad decisions."

"It's far more likely that fuels produced by genetically engineered micro-organisms will replace conventional coal or petroleum."

Curious mix of ideas there. What's the timeline on these micro-organisms, or are we talking vapour-ware at this point?

I am almost as put off by one person's unsubstantiated ad-hominem comments as I am by another person's unsubstantiated criticism of said unsubstantiated comments.

And as for the third statement (about generating fuel from bio-organisms) , for substantiation please check out the fine work being done by those companies trying to end our oil dependency by , from those researchers producing fuels from algaes (research stage only) to those companies such as Lignol (Burnaby BC) who actually do generate fuels (ethanol) from wood waste products. There is a future there for non-oil products.

Now if only we could harness some of the vapour from these comments.....

jcvi.org

Sorry, I thought this was common knowledge. Fuels are merely a tiny part of what will flow from this work. If you're diabetic chances are your insulin was produced in a similar fashion.

Google Ray Kurzweil or exponential technological growth rate.

The ultimate goal renders meaningless today's feeble attempts to correct the errors an flaws of our heedless fellow men and women. Draconian laws and cruel punishment only work up to a point. Debate and discussion, consensus-building, the entire enterprise of education and opinion-shaping, are too time-consuming and at best a hit-or-miss affair. Our culture (i.e. shared values) erodes by the hour as opposing beliefs and practices demand equal social status.

No matter. Modern technology has its own plans for us. We will grow the better human beings that we wish we and others were, and program in or out those traits we most desire. Same with all the other forms of life. Apparently even God makes mistakes, but luckily we can now fix them with enough gene sequencers.

Keep your knife handy though. Whatever else these ideal beings may be, they're not what you or I would call human. Downside: they won't need bikes. They'll be carried around on our backs.

Thanks for the insight....I look forward to thespring product line. We've come a long way since Dr. Mengele!

where2beforfree-smallbanner
Check out BCWineLover.com!

Paid Advertisement

Paid Advertisement



Close