Bishop Hill Ecoterrorism in Canada
Via GWPF, we learn that Canadian police are worried about violent extremists in the environmental movement:
The RCMP has labelled the “anti-petroleum” movement as a growing and violent threat to Canada’s security, raising fears among environmentalists that they face increased surveillance, and possibly worse, under the Harper government’s new terrorism legislation.
In highly charged language that reflects the government’s hostility toward environmental activists, an RCMP intelligence assessment warns that foreign-funded groups are bent on blocking oil sands expansion and pipeline construction, and that the extremists in the movement are willing to resort to violence.
There are clearly valid concerns over blanket surveillance the article is interesting, firstly because it represents more evidence that people in a position to know seem convinced about the links between environmentalists and foreign powers - presumably Russia - and secondly because nobody seems to be disputing that there are violent people operating within the environmental movement. The fact of ecoterrorism seems accepted by everyone (except the BBC perhaps).
Bishop Hill
Also via GWPF, the Indian Government is also worried about environmentalists and their "foreign" funding sources:
The [Ministry for Home Affairs] on the basis of intelligence inputs has suggested that Greenpeace UK office has keen interest in promoting the growth of Greenpeace India’s ground level protests. Home Ministry has also raised suspicion over the funding pattern of Greenpeace International.
According to the MHA, it had been noted the Netherland-headquartered Greenpeace International was focussing on India’s energy plants in the couple of years.This was believd to be at the behest of foreign interests inimical to the overall national interests of India.
This is interesting, because Greenpeace always said they never took money from foreign governments. I wonder what the Indians have caught wind of.
Reader Comments (41)
Moscow gold again? Remember? All those vehement denials, accusations of 'Tory smears' etc etc and it turned out to be true after all, Jack Jones and all the rest of the workers champions were on Moscow's payroll after all. Wot a larf it would be if the global agitation movement was still being bankrolled by Russia after all.
I do not think David Cameron receives any foreign funding but I think he falls for more hogwash than any other politician I know (of).
The Russians (old Sov Union) had completely penetrated the UK security services and establishment by the 1930s. What makes anyone think they stopped?
They were quite happy to murder Georgi Markov on the streets of London in '78 in a way bound to attract attention and recently murdered Litvinenko in a way even more extraordinary, leaving trails of Polonium all over Europe.
They own the UK, lock, stock and barrel and have done for decades and don't even mention the EU, run by 'ex' communists.
Thankfully, the RCMP are looking into this much to the chagrin of the useful idiots in the Green Party and the NDP (New Democratic Party)
Having dumbed-down the education system and propagandised the young, there is a large army of useful idiots ready to do the dirty work.
Place the eco-terrorists on no-fly lists.
Bish, believe it or not, but a lot of foreign funding to fight the oil sands is coming from the US, including the Rockefeller Foundation. The Mayor of Vancouver has had contributions from these same groups.
Vivian Krause has been all over this:
http://business.financialpost.com/2013/11/29/vivian-krause-new-u-s-funding-for-the-war-on-canadian-oil/
A failure to differentiate between Red and Green, is a common political "vision" disorder. Not helped, when the colours deliberately disguise themselves.
If you talk like a terrorist and act like a terrorist .................
"This is interesting, because Greenpeace always said they never took money from foreign governments. I wonder what the Indians have caught wind of." Perhaps this should be 'Greenpeace UK'. Or does Greenpeace worldwide not accept money from governments?
I am rather hoping that this is the beginning of the end of green lunacy, but it could be a very long journey with many ups & downs along the way! As many have said here before, it is only a matter of time before somebody gets seriously hurt! These crazys have already got aware with vandalism & damage to property in the name of saving Gaia. They'v e got away with linking sceptis to paedophile websites (Johnny Ball, David Bellamy) in an attempt to discredit them, & of course in may cases one only has to fling a little mud for it to stick. The next step is now physicalI violence & killing! If one is slightly dispassionate about it, one could say these useful idiots are well-intentioned. However, one could also argue that so was Hilter, he wanted the best for the German people, whatever that was. The same could be said for Lenin & Stalin, they were doing what they thought was best for everyone. Ditto Polpot, the list is endless really! I seem to recall our Beautiful LeaderTony saying, "I did what I thought was right!" over the Iraq War, so it is perhaps a lawyer's blanket excuse-me! I wonder if I can use that if I get a speeding ticket, or are illegally parked somewhere? No, perhaps not!
Here's detailed info on so-called "environmental" activist funding (from the USA) being painfully endured by Canada.
Apparently, the bulk of the money coming North is aimed at keeping Canada from exporting oil to countries other than the USA, hence at a deep discount from global pricing. The much-delayed Keystone XL pipeline is being blocked so that Warren Buffet can continue to profit from railway tank car transport of our oil - at least that's the way it appears to me.
http://fairquestions.typepad.com/rethink_campaigns/
It is about time the UK's security services realised the significant threat the environmentalists to our democracy!
At the moment they get away with breaking the law when it siuts them - saving the planet is not a good reason.
"Greenpeace never takes money from foreign governments".
So, Greenpeace in Russia, can take money from the Russian Government, but not from the Canadian Government.
Greenpeace, like the Red Cross, can raise money in one country, to spend it in another, otherwise Greenpeace could not have damaged the Nazca Lines.
The Governments in most countries have ways of channeling money, so it can arrive without the appearance of a known Government pay check. The US referred to the process as being part of "plausible deniability".
Greenpeace denials are implausible.
Greenpeace certainty took money from foreign owned, unaccountable mega rich foundations...
European Climate Foundation, Climateworks network being one..
they used it to lobby against coal in the EU, at behest of a bunch of Americans running foundations with dead billionaires money, so that the EU would 'lead' the way.. in ditching coal - they even boast about it in the ECF annual reports. (see David Rose 'Green blob' story a while back.)
the ECF gave other 40 grants to various groups (FoE, etc) to lobby hard against coal in the EU and the UK, they won in the UK, the Kingsnorth anti coal campaign killed new coal in the UK
same trick being applied in India? Climate Works, Tides Foundation, Hewlett, Oak, Packard, etc giving money to Greenpeace to lobby on energy policy.
The obvious suspects are the Russian and Chinese. China has clearly been "playing the game" for years. I would strongly suspect that if anyone enquired, the Chinese delegate at the BBC 28gate meeting was probably there at the behest of the Chinese government. I'm sure the Chinese have been splashing out with money to academics who pushed global warming baloney and I would strongly suspect that the NGOs and these anonymous green benefactors who fund all these legal actions are also foreign funded.
And we all know the Russians were funding ... which one was it (not that it matters as they probably all get Russian funding).
As for motivation:
Chinese = destroy western manufacturing so it all moves to China (so successful that we now can't afford to buy Chinese goods which serves them right)
Russian= force us to get rid of fossil fuels and again manufacturing and rely on them.
On a serious note
If anyone does have specific accusations or intelligence regarding these environmental groups, I strongly suggest contacting either MI5 or MI6 rather than putting them on line in the vague hope MI5 read this blog.
It would be terrible for the United Nations IPCC, if it was linked to organised criminal activity, acts of terrorism, money laundering etc. It might warrant further investigation, and I am sure they would want to distance themselves, for what is left of their integrity.
http://www.channel4.com/news/bristol-fire-arson-police-informal-anarchist-fedederation
Check out the Bristol Anarchists.
Suppose they be looking to jump on the Enviromentalist bandwagon
Greenpeace have always claimed that they don't take money from governments (any governments).
Of course, this is utterly disingenuous. It is child's play for money to be funnelled to people and organisations without a direct link between the funds and a government. It's been a staple of espionage since Jesus played fullback for Jerusalem.
In the US, there are agglomeration funds and trusts which collect and collate funds from various sources and then distribute them to NGOs. The original sources of the money are almost impossible to track down - for civilians, at least.
But unless intelligence agencies are fast asleep, one assumes that they are monitoring these flows of funds, at least in their own jurisdictions.
MikeHaseler (Feb 18, 2015 at 4:25 PM) you "suggest contacting either MI5 or MI6" but, based upon history, aren't they likely to have been the first to be infiltrated... or have I been reading too many John le Carré novels? :-)
Greenpeace take money from dead billionaires foundations n the USA, to lobby for energy policy in Asia..
http://www.hewlett.org/grants/15713/greenpeace-fund-inc
Grants Database
Grant Record
The Grantee information you selected appears below.
RETURN TO SEARCH RESULTS
Greenpeace Fund, Inc.
702 H St NW
Suite 300
Washington DC, 20001
Amount: $550,000
Date of Award: 2012-07-16
Term of Grant: 24 months
Program: Environment
Region: Asia
Grant Purpose: For a project to support clean energy development in East Asia
Grantee Website: http://www.greenpeace.org
multiple hundreds of thousand dollar grants, from another dead billionaire foundation... for Greenpeace
http://www.packard.org/what-we-fund/grants-database/?grant_keyword=greenpeace&program_area=All+Programs&award_amount=All+Amounts&award_year=All+Years
Wasn't there a bit of a fuss a few weeks ago when a GP operator was prevented from leaving India? Maybe this is a continuation of that.
oh look - another dead billionaire USA foundation, giving Greenpeace money to lobby against coal in India...
Greenpeace International
Website: www.greenpeace.org
Amount: USD 387,143
Purpose:
To challenge India's largest utility to change its energy mix and trigger a national debate on over-reliance on coal and climate change. Additionally to discredit coal as a cheap energy source and remove the public sanction for coal by investigating and publishing research on its hidden costs. To mobilise political voices to increase the national political demand for climate action and to advocate for self-imposed carbon reduction targets.
Programme: Environment
Sub-programme: Environment
Country: India
Year Awarded: 2008
Start Date: 1-Dec-08 End Date: 30-Nov-10
Duration: 24 months
http://www.oakfnd.org/node/3362
the 'Big Green' (aka Green blob) - dead USA billionaire Oak foundation has given millions of dollars to Greenpeace.
search - Greenpeace - here (Canada pops up)
http://www.oakfnd.org/node/3
from above, worth highlighting, a super rich American Foundation funds Greenpeace in India to, and I shall quote:
"Additionally to discredit coal as a cheap energy....."
Back in 2007 a group of foundations (including tjhose that give grants to Greenpeace) wrote a report - a section of which was how to - Dethrone King Coal -
http://www.climateworks.org/imo/media/doc/design_to_win_final_8_31_07.pdf
"The ClimateWorks Foundation emerged from a study commissioned by six foundations: the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Energy Foundation, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, and the Oak Foundation.
The 2007 study “Design to Win: Philanthropy’s Role in the Fight Against Global Warming" (pdf), sought to answer a critical question: What would it take to achieve a real “win” in the battle against climate change?!"
A few minutes ago on twitter
(Sandbag is Baroness (Lab) Bryony Worthington's organisation, receiving funds from the European Climate Foundation - ECF (with all those foundations behind it)
https://twitter.com/sandbagorguk/status/568136869915054080
sandbag.org.uk @sandbagorguk 5minutes ago
Why is the UK coal phaseout so important?
Because the world has a massive coal problem, and leadsership is needed.
so the intent, is for the EU/UK to show leadership, at the whims of organisations funded from abroad (USA largely) so that we may lead the USA to follow. despite EU?UK having much lower emissions than the USA?
so much for what the EU/UK public think about it?
Leo Hickman, Richard Black, Adam Corner
(All part of organisations that gets funding from the ECF (Adam's organisation COIN gets Greenpeace money aswell)
How much, what for, nobody knows, as ECF are unacountable and undemocratic.
Well Barry, you have just revealed the tip of the iceberg. I am not aware of anyone pulling it all together, but it would be a huge task and I'm guessing that unlike if you were researching the effects of CAGW on an obscure Icelandic worm, funding is not available. :)
The larger issue, IMO, is that some NGOs are now parallel governments, and certainly more powerful than the governments of small countries. But, very little systematic work has been done on them.
Who are they? Who pays the bills? What are their links with other organisations? Are (should I say, to what extent are) unwitting taxpayers funding them? And so on.
I'm not talking conspiracy theories here. This is mainstream stuff. When, as Donna Laframboise documented, NGOs are allowed into forums where decisions are made, and the media and public are excluded, we need to know more.
Expose of Canadian professional protesters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz6FxhUE6jk
MikeHaseler "suggest contacting either MI5 or MI6" but, based upon history, aren't they likely to have been the first to be infiltrated... or have I been reading too many John le Carré novels? :-)
Your John le Carré novel is a little far fetched. I understand from my informants that the people at MI5, MI6, etc are a very nice bunch of pretty ordinary civil servants who would be more than pleased to get decent intelligence of credible and specific threats whether domestic or foreign.
The European Climate Foundation is the regional (EU) organisation of the Climate Works network (funded, by Oak, Hewlett, Packard and other foundations) they gave at least 40 grants to organisations - Greenpeace, WWF, etc to lobby, take action, support protestors - Client Earth (lawyers) to stop coal in the UK (Kingsnorth was the focus), and throughout Euroope..
I imagine, ClimateWorks with it's billionaire funds (USA) 'Big Green' backers fund similar activities in Asia , China and India..
here are the grants (no amounts I'm afraid) from a few years back (they won, on no new coal in UK)
I’ve went through the ECF recent grants section on wayback machine (in 2010) and extracted all the grants that mention coal - over 40 (in a redesign, the ECF removed it's grants database.)
Please refer to original if you use them:
http://web.archive.org/web/20100728113337/http://www.europeanclimate.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=47&Itemid=61
They also lobboed a lot for CCS, I haven’t bothered with those.
Ecological Institute for Sustainable Development (EISD) (Miskolc, Hungary)
Grant year: 2009
Project Description: To support a campaign against conventional coal-fired power generation sources in the Czech Republic.
ELP Partnership (Leuven, Belgium)
Germanwatch e.V. (Bonn, Germany)
Grant Year: 2009
Project Description: To support a legal challenge against the Moorburg unabated coal plant on the basis of water use and impacts. BUND LV Niedersachsen e.V. (Hannover, Germany)
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To support campaigns against conventional coal-fired power plants in Lower Saxony, Germany.
BUND Mecklenburg Vorpommern e.V . (Schwerin, Germany)
Grant Year: 2009
Project Description: To analyze and present alternatives to a planned coal-fired power plant in Lubmin.
Bürger Initiative Stopp Staudinger (Hainburg, Germany)
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To strengthen the local mobilization against conventional coal-fired power plants in the cities around the Staudinger coal-fired power plant in Germany.
Campact e.V. (Verden, Germany)
Grant Year: 2009
Project Description: To support public advocacy efforts for a coal moratorium.
Grant Year: 2009
Project Description: To educate voters and policymakers on the impacts of coal in the Northrhine Westphalia region.
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To campaign against the construction of new coal-fired power plants in Germany.
The Centre (Brussels, Belgium)
ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom)
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To provide legal support for an anti-coal campaign at Kingsnorth and other proposed sites, including coordinating the public inquiry or judicial review process.
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To provide legal analysis and legislative drafting support for carbon capture and storage (CCS) engagement.
Deutsche Umwelthilfe (Berlin, Germany)
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To coordinate legal strategies around anti-coal campaigns, particularly at the local level.
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To draft a feasibility study analysing the legal mechanisms for halting the construction of new coal-fired power plants by local authorities.
Die Klima-Allianz (Berlin, Germany)
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To support anti-coal campaign efforts on a planned conventional coal-fired power plant In Lubmin, Germany.
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To support research on alternative options to the proposed new coal-fire power plant in Berlin, Germany.
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To support anti-coal campaign efforts by local groups in Germany.
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To established a Coal Campaign Coordination Center that supports and coordinates local initiatives against coal-fired power plants.
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To support a campaign against new unabated coal-fired power plants in Scotland.
Friends Of The Earth Trust (London, UK)
Grant Year: 2009
Project Description: To support a coalition of civil society, industry and unions to advocate for a fiscal framework that accelerates investment in a low-carbon energy infrastructure.
Forum Ökologisch-Soziale Marktwirtschaft e.V. (FÖS) (Berlin, Germany)
Grant Year: 2009
Project Description: To establish and coordinate a coalition of "Economists Against Coal" in Germany.
Greenpeace UK (London, United Kingdom)
Grant Year: 2009
Project Description: To support education and outreach to the media and policymakers on renewable and low-carbon energy options.
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To educate parliamentarians in Westminster on the climate impact of coal and the need for a wider consideration of the issues involved with the proposed coal-fired power plant at Kingsnorth.
Grüne Liga, Umweltgruppe Cottbus (Cottbus, Germany)
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To strengthen the local mobilization against conventional coal power plants in the cities around the Jänschwalde coal-fired power plant (including in Berlin).
Indepen (London, United Kingdom)
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To support an independent study on energy security and low-carbon energy alternatives to coal in the UK.
Institute of International and European Affairs (IIEA) (Dublin, Ireland)
Institute for Public Policy Research (London, United Kingdom)
Grant Year: 2009
Project Description: To conduct qualitative and quantitative research on public opinion towards renewable energy in the UK.
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To analyze the political and economic implications of alternative policy options that deter the new build of coal-fired power generation.
Klima Allianz C/O Naturschutzbund NRW (Düsseldorf, Germany)
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To strengthen local opposition against new unabated coal-fired power plants in Northrhine Westphalia, Germany.
Kohlefreies Mainz e.V. (Mainz, Germany)
Grant Year: 2009
Project Description: To support legal representation and experts in legal challenge against the proposed Mainz coal-fired power plant.
Mantra PR (London, United Kingdom)
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To provide media outreach support for the UK coal campaign.
NABU Brandenburg (Potsdam, Germany)
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To support a referendum to "Stop Surface Mining" in Brandenburg, Germany.
Oko Institute e.V. (Berlin, Germany)
Stichting Natuur en Milieu (Utrecht, The Netherlands)
Grant Year: 2009
Project Description: To support a campaign against new coal-fired power plants without carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the Netherlands.
Urgewald e.V. (Sassenberg, Germany)
Grant Year: 2009
Project Description: To advise on financial and economic strategies for the anti-coal campaign in Germany.
World Development Movement (London, United Kingdom)
Grant Year: 2009
Project Description: To support a grassroots campaign against a proposed coal-fired power plant at Kingsnorth.
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To support the development of opposition movements around other potential new coal plants in England based on the model developed by WDM around the Kingsnorth campaign.
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To support local opposition against the proposed power plant at Kingsnorth.
WWF European Policy Office (Brussels, Belgium)
Grant Year: 2009
Project Description: To develop a strategy and coalition in support of regulations to limit CO2 from the EU power sector and promote carbon capture and storage (CCS) deployment.
WWF Germany (Frankfurt, Germany)
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To support a legal challenge against a proposed coal-fired power plant in Lubmin.
WWF Greece (Athens, Greece)
Grant Year: 2009
Project Description: To advocate against the introduction of hard coal into the national energy mix in Greece.
WWF UK (Surrey, United Kingdom)
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To support advocacy efforts for a CO2 emissions performance standard for power plants in the UK
The ECF president states (Pre COP15) how their campaign stopped Kingsnorth and unabated coal in the UK, and how it can be repeated, Ed Milliband and behind the scenes lobbying of the conservative party get a mention....
FUNDING STRATEGICALLY in the field of CLIMATE CHANGE
“A collaborative effort was launched to convince the UK
not to build the planned new facility at Kingsnorth. “
“This became a complex, multifaceted effort over a year and
a half, with grass-roots mobilisation campaigns [my note - all those ECF grants!]
behind the scenes lobbying with the Conservative Party to
convince them to take the lead on the issue”
“All of this work, backed by substantial philanthropic
investment, resulted in UK Climate Change Secretary
Ed Miliband announcing in April that no new unabated
coal-fired power plants would be built”
“With this policy, the UK is setting a leadership example
and ‘walking the talk’ on emissions reduction, recognising
that the nation would not be able to live up to its
climate change commitments if new unabated coal
plants were built.”
“This is an example of a policy that can be replicated, increasing its impact.”
full document link (and attached)
http://www.instituteforphilanthropy.org/images/files/funding_strategically_in_the_field_of_climate_change.pdf
Jules Kortenhorst London
President, European Climate Foundation
-------------------
so they were using and lobbying the EU to show the rest of the world leadership...
RE: " . . . and secondly because nobody seems to be disputing that there are violent people operating within the environmental movement. The fact of ecoterrorism seems accepted by everyone (except the BBC perhaps)."
There are a few more exceptions . . . sigh . . . Apparently this is all news to the Opposition Leader here in Canada, who seems to be not only disputing that there are violent people operating within the environmental movement; but seems to deny there's any such thing as 'ecoterrorism'. Or at least nothing for the public to worry about; like blowing up piplines.
From today's National Post:http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/18/tom-mulcair-says-ndp-will-oppose-anti-terror-bill-which-he-fears-will-allow-government-to-spy-on-its-political-enemies/
"NDP Leader Tom Mulcair says his party will oppose the Conservative government’s proposed anti-terrorism bill. . . Mulcair took exception Tuesday to the bill’s mention of interference with infrastructure or economic stability as activity that undermines the security of Canada."
RE: John Levick
"Thankfully, the RCMP are looking into this much to the chagrin of the useful idiots in the Green Party and the NDP (New Democratic Party)"
Thankfully, the present government will have the votes to pass this bill into law so the RCMP can in fact, look into it.
There have always been "useful fools" in any extremist movement.
The Green movement is full of them.
More worrying is that some of the real "watermelons" are most likely foreign-funded agitators and spies.
Bang them up!
This will be because Mr Obammy will soon be approving of the Keystone pipeline and the little liberal dupes will be furious having been told that politicians are at war with the oil industry which is dumb beyond reason.
Does this fall into the classification of ecoterrorism ? It does for me. It seems the UN are all out, in desperation to justify their existence
http://www.greattransition.org/publication/uniting-nations-the-un-at-a-crossroads
Finally someone called the police!
"This is interesting, because Greenpeace always said they never took money from foreign governments."
It won't be foreign governments, more likely it will be great big multinationals.
They pretty well run much of the world now anyway, and their 'ever-expanding business model' means they must, in all logical analysis, end up running the rest of it. I'd guess that won't happen as the majority wake up to the rort, but then again, with pretty unlimited political donations (both official and unofficial) in much of the west, they may control government tightly enough to protect themselves for quite some time.
Nice work, Barry Woods.
And as I said, that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Looks like the late MIchael Crichton was right again. "State of Fear" not only exposed the science fraud that is AGW but postulated terrorism emanating from supposedly 'respectable' green charities.