OPENING A NEW CHAPTER FOR THE ALBERTA OIL INDUSTRY, PRIME MINISTER JUSTIN TRUDEAU APPROVED TWO MAJOR PIPELINE PROJECTS, Kinder Morgan’s $6.8-billion Trans Mountain pipeline and Enbridge’s $7.5 billion-dollar Line 3 project.
Reaction from anti-pipeline activists was swift. Greenpeace wasted no time in promising massive protests like Standing Rock in North
Dakota. Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green Party, promised to go to jail to stop Kinder Morgan.
On the face of it, the Trans Mountain pipe- line and Line 3 are domestic matters, a case of weighing environmental risks against economic bene ts. But that is an over-simpli ed view that misses the elephant in the room: the U.S. monop- oly on Alberta oil exports and the geopolitics of oil.
Let’s be frank: Building pipelines is about breaking the U.S. monopoly on energy exports from Western Canada. If Canada builds pipelines to tidewater and gains access to overseas markets, the United States loses its exclusive access on Canadian energy exports.
Lacking pipelines to ocean ports, Canada has had only one potential customer: the United States. This has bene ted the U.S. because it forced the sale of Alberta oil at prices that are lower than the U.S. would pay elsewhere.
How things can change – and fast. In just a few years, we have gone from talk of “peak oil” at $200 per barrel to “peak demand” and oil priced as low as $20 because today’s oil market is over-supplied. Low prices have put many oil producing countries on the brink. The only oil exporting country that can be bullied out of the global oil market without risking civil unrest, is Canada.
Given the international dimensions of the oil market, it is important to note that the anti-pipeline activism against Alberta oil is heavily funded by sources outside of Canada.
Anti-pipeline activism is not like the environmental protests of the 1990s which were run by volunteers with very little outside funding or none at all. Today’s protests are staged as part of a professionally organized campaign, run by paid employees at charities and non-pro ts with funding from billionaire philan- thropists in the U.S. This concerted effort is referred to by its funders as “The Tar Sands Campaign.”
From Neil Young concerts to First Nations lawsuits, The Tar Sands Campaign is centrally planned and coordinated by NetChange, a private company run by Jason Mogus. From his home of ce in a tree house on Salt Spring Island, Jason Mogus and his employees do ghost-writing and provide communica- tions back-up to more than 60 environmental groups and First Nations involved in the Tar Sands Campaign.
Mogus’s job, he says, is to create “the appearance of a move- ment.” Here’s his description of the campaign against Keystone XL: “Inside/outside was totally coordinated. Not an inch of daylight. Major aligned channels. Major inside game.” That is a description of a professional show, not an amateur operation.
Let’s be clear: The goal of The Tar Sands Campaign is nothing short of thwarting the development of the oil sands and stop- ping export of Alberta oil by pipeline, rail and tanker. Re-routing pipelines and capping emissions to appease activists is a fool’s errand because the Tar Sands Campaign doesn’t seek to optimize or improve oil sands operations. Rather, this campaign aims at nothing short of restricting the industry’s growth and stopping overseas exports altogether.
According to strategy documents produced as part of The Tar Sands Campaign, two of the main allegations cited in its rationale are: 1) carbon emissions produced from oil sands operations are three to four times higher than conventional oil.
By my extensive review of the annual reports, on-line databases and tax returns of the environmental groups and their funders, I have found that since 2009, at least a dozen American charitable foundations have funded activism against the Canadian energy sector. The concerted manner in which U.S. funders have targeted Western Canada is no coincidence.
More than 20 environmental groups have been saying this for years. It is true that carbon emissions for oil sands operations are, on average, roughly 10 to 20 percent higher than for conven- tional oil – but not 300 to 400 percent. Furthermore, carbon emissions for some oil produced by steam-assisted gravity drain- age (SAGD) with co-generation are on par or even lower than the average carbon emissions to produce U.S. crude.
A second charge is that oil sands operations degrade an area the size of Florida or England, which are roughly 130,000 square kilometres in size. This allegation is also false. The fact is that the entire area currently affected by oil sands operations is roughly 900 square kilometres. That’s less than one percent of Florida or England.
Given the substantial in uence of The Tar Sands Campaign and that its core premises are false, it is fair to ask, who funds it – and why?
By my extensive review of the annual reports, on-line databases and tax returns of the environmental groups and their funders, I have found that since 2009, at least a dozen American charitable foundations have funded activism against the Canadian energy sector. The concerted manner in which U.S. funders have targeted Western Canada is no coincidence.
Most if not all of the funders of anti-pipeline activism are part of an umbrella organization called the Consultative Group for Biological Diversity (CGBD). Created in the 1980s with seed funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), an agency of the U.S. State Department, the CGBD’s
original purpose was to co-ordinate grant-making in developing countries, a worthy cause.
In the early 2000’s, the CGBD’s focus shifted and its members began to fund advocacy and activism related to energy and the environment. In 2002, the CGBD held its annual meeting in B.C. with David Suzuki and David Schindler as keynote speakers. Since then, CGBD’s members have been steadily nancing the Yukon to Yellowstone Initiative, the Canadian Boreal Initiative and the Great Bear Rainforest. The goal of these initiatives is to protect crucial habitat of endangered wildlife but that is not the only objective.
Large conservation initiatives that aim to put land off limits are also funded as a way to restrict oil and gas development. Call it “strategic parki cation.” The William and Flora Foundation, for example, aims to restrict fossil fuel development on 85 million acres in Canada and the western states.
Over the past decade, American foundations have paid more than $600 million to activist organizations working in Canada: $180 million from the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation, and more than $100 million from each of the Pew Charitable Trusts, the William & Flora Hewlett Foundation and the David & Lucille Packard Foundation. More than $120 million has been provided by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Oak Foundation, the Wilburforce Foundation and a dozen others.
The Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Tides Foundation have been leading members of the CGBD since it began. Tides receives funds from philanthropists and charitable
foundations and then re-grants those funds to select recip- ients, a practice called “donor-advised grantmaking.” Totaling US$35 million, Tides has made more than 400 payments (2009 to 2015) to nearly 100 groups involved in The Tar Sands Campaign. Without that $35 million, pipeline construction would not be facing well-organized opposition.
If Tides funded activists to act as honest brokers, that would be fair. But that’s not what Tides does. From its original strategy paper, it is clear that The Tar Sands Campaign aims to stigmatize Alberta oil as the poster child of dirty fuel, slow or delay pipeline construction, embarrass Canada and deter investment in the Canadian energy sector.
Tides has funded groups to “build relationships with First Nations along the pipeline route,” to “build indigenous opposi- tion,” to renew the commitment of politicians to a ban on tanker traf c and to stage media-ready events that give the appearance of public opposition.
When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau nixed Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline and promised to legislate a ban on tanker traf c on the north coast of B.C., The Rockefeller Brothers Fund got exactly what it had funded. According to U.S. tax returns, back in 2006 the Rockefeller Brothers Fund granted $100,000 to the Pembina Institute “to prevent the devel- opment of a pipeline and tanker port” to the north coast of
B.C. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund also paid the same amount, for the same purpose to West Coast Environmental Law, a char- ity that works behind-the-scenes to back up legal action by First Nations. Blocking tanker traf c also blocks trade and continues the U.S. monopoly on Canadian energy exports.
As the Alberta oil industry begins a new chapter, now more than ever, groups like Energy Citizens, Canada Action and ResourceWorks will be crucial to sustaining federal government support.
CAPP’s Energy Citizens mobilized more than 20,000 Canadians to email Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in favour of pipeline approvals. Canada Action, led by Cody Battershill, has been foster- ing informed conversation on social media and defending the pride and dignity of oil sands workers for more than ve years. ResourceWorks, directed by Stewart Muir, produces events and publications that bring about better discussion of the challenges of developing natural resources and how these are being resolved. The budgets of these organizations are a pittance compared to The Tar Sands Campaign and yet these pro-industry groups and others like them will be dearly needed in the next chapter of the Alberta oil industry vs. the great green anti-pipeline machine.
Vivian Krause is a Canadian researcher and writer. On Twitter, she’s @FairQuestions.
Published by: The February 2017 Negotiator
Disclaimer: All articles printed under an author’s, association’s or corporation’s name represent the views of the author; publication or posting neither implies approval of the opinions expressed, nor accuracy of the facts stated.
