A report by Macdonald Stainsby and Dru Oja Jay

Download the report at http://www.offsettingresistance.ca

A movement is building to shut down the tar sands, one of the most destructive projects in human history. Decisions are being made about the strategies that will be used and the goals that will be pursued.

But as the number of people opposing the tar sands grows larger, the number of people making the crucial decisions is getting smaller — and closer to the oil and gas industry.

A small, secretive group of insiders has been collaborating with large American foundations and industry to concentrate decision-making power concerning anti-tar sands campaigns. Headed by Michael Marx, one of the architects of the Great Bear Rainforest deal in northwestern British Columbia, these groups have a track record and a documented trail of funding relationships that steer them–whether they intend to or not–into closed-door, backroom deals with industry and government.

The lack of transparency, the absence of any democratic structures, the questionable sources of funding, and the track record of these corporate and foundation-funded Environmental NGOs are the subjects of a new report by Macdonald Stainsby and Dru Oja Jay. Offsetting Resistance: The effects of foundation funding from the Great Bear Rainforest to the Athabasca River examines the role of ForestEthics and other Environmental NGOs in the Great Bear Rainforest deal and in the Northwest Territories Protected Areas Strategy. From there, it reveals the hidden structures behind the emerging “North American Tar Sands Coalition,” which seeks to keeps its decision-making body “invisible to the outside,” while funnelling millions of dollars to its preferred groups — to the potential detriment and sidelining of community organizers across North America.

“After researching the history of these foundation-driven organizations,” says report co-author Macdonald Stainsby, “the thing that stands out is the repeated use of temporary structures where transparency and democratic input is non-existent. Worse, funding may be used to force a specific agenda on the communities who are at immediate risk from tar sands extraction.”

“The other thing we found,” adds Stainsby, “is that the communities who win battles with industry tend to do so despite the work of these groups.”

“We’re at an important point,” says report co-author Dru Oja Jay, “where we have to decide what kind of anti-tar sands movement we’re going to build.”

“We can choose to become beholden to secret puppet-masters, funded by massive American foundations and industry, or we can choose a process that’s accountable to the communities who are fighting for their lives, a process that’s democratic and transparent.”

“Everything depends on which way it goes,” Jay adds. “We’re trying to provide relevant information so that people can make informed decisions. Will money be used to silence more critical voices, or will grassroots initiatives be placed at the forefront of the struggle?”

–

For more information or interviews, contact: info@offsettingresistance.ca

Chris Shaw’s Briarpatch articles about the Olympics:

Christopher A. Shaw and Alissa Westergard-Thorpe, “Class War Games: The financial and social cost of securing the 2010 Olympics“, May/June 2009

Christopher A. Shaw, “Olympic Profits: The 2010 Games vs. Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside,” August 2008

Rafe Mair’s apology:

Chris Shaw Was Right!

My apologies to the early 2010 critic, now stalked by cops. He tried to tell me the Olympics were a bad bet.

By Rafe Mair, Oct,. 18, TheTyee.ca

Check out this powerful visualization of the impact of the great recession (and of Hurricane Katrina).

(Don’t forget to push play.)

Stephen Harper’s assertion last Friday that Canada has “no history of colonialism” has attracted widespread anger and ridicule. Calls for a retraction and apology (not to mention for Canada to finally sign the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) continue to build:

Harsha Walia, “Really Harper, Canada has no history of colonialism?”

Jorge Barrera, “Prime Minister needs to apologize for colonialism denial: Native groups.”

By Raquel Brown, Media Consortium Blogger

Green jobs czar and racial justice advocate Van Jones resigned from his position as environmental adviser to the White House over Labor Day weekend. Many believe that Jones’ departure is a significant setback in environmental policy, racial equity, and another reminder that pundits can destroy credibility with very little ammunition in today’s political climate. Fox News host Glenn Beck and several Republican Congressmen criticized Jones for “controversial” past activism and called for him to step down. Jones was particularly smeared for signing a petition that requested more information on the 9/11 attacks and a derogatory comment toward Republicans, both of which he apologized for publicly.

Jones’ commitment to a sustainable environment and a green economy was especially influential on progressive youth. Kristina Rizga of Wiretap explains that Jones’ vision really resonated with young people from marginalized communities and encouraged them to get involved. Additionally, Jones played a key role in ensuring that underprivileged Americans reaped the benefits of clean energy investments and green jobs training initiatives in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

“Jones—the first African-American to write a best-selling environmental book—helped inspire these hard-to-reach communities. It’s hard to think of another individual on the Hill who spent as much time talking and listening to disenfranchised youth,” Rizga writes.

But would Jones still have his job if the Obama administration had stood up for him? In a strong piece for The Nation, John Nichols argues that Obama succumbed to the media, and “in so doing, allowed Glenn Beck to define the administration.” Jones signified that Obama was dedicated to green jobs and protecting the environment. Without Jones, however, those objectives may never be realized.

“This won’t make the Obama presidency stronger; nor will it position the president to work more effectively with Congress on issues such as health care reform – let alone “green jobs” initiatives,” says Nichols.

Air America’s Beau Friedlander calls Jones’ resignation an example of “mutually assured distraction;” another attempt for partisans to take down their opponents’ point man over a non-issue. This infantile and baseless behavior shifts lawmakers attention away from important issues at hand, such as the climate change bill, economic recovery and health care reform. Friedlander characterizes Van Jones as someone who  is “100% committed to creating the conditions for an improvement in society. He is dedicated to progress, and solution-oriented activism. He is a team player. He knows how to follow the leader, and how to be the leader.”

While many see his departure as a deep loss, Don Hazen of AlterNet has “5 Reasons Why Van Jones and Progressives are Better Off with Jones Out of the White House.” First, Jones was an unsung hero for the environment and progressive activism. Now, he is a household name, and has increased his visibility and influence. Second, Hazen argues that Jones’ position limited his scope of influence. By stepping down, Jones was rescued from obscurity. Third, Jones can now help lead and shape the progressive movement. Fourth, Jones is now free to express his views and speak the truth, something he was criticized for while in the White House. And lastly, Jones can now provide real vision, explain his ideas and mobilize people to curb climate change. Ultimately, Jones’ fame will outshine any controversy or scandal. Hazen remains confident that this situation will only make Jones a stronger and more effective leader.

Finally, to commemorate the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks today, President Obama called for a national day of service on major legislative issues. Wiretap’s Jamilah King notes that environmental organizations like Green for All and Green the Block are sponsoring events that promote green jobs and climate justice.

The message is clear: Van Jones’ resignation will not intimidate us from working towards important environmental endeavors. We must use this “opportunity to reinvigorate the movement toward equitable and economically sustainable green jobs.”

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment and is free to reprint. Visit Sustain.NewsLadder.net for a complete list of articles on the environment and sustainability, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health, and immigration issues, check out Economy.NewsLadder.net, Healthcare.NewsLadder.net and Immigration.newsladder.net.

This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and was created by NewsLadder.

Illustrator Nick Crane, whose brilliant artwork regularly grace the pages of Briarpatch (he’s produced cover art for the Nov/Dec 2008 & the Sept/Oct 2009 issues), has just launched a “drawing-a-day” blog. Check it out — today’s piece on Curious George (Goorge?) is great.

Why? Because US has thwarted, not supported, democracy there.

By Murray Dobbin,
TheTyee.ca
Aug 27, 2009

“History repeats itself,  first as tragedy, second as farce.” — Karl Marx

The Afghan presidential election will prove to be simply irrelevant. The U.S., whose imperial hubris renders it ignorant of other cultures and societies, invaded Afghanistan with the stated purpose eliminating Al Qaeda (remember them, the few hundred armed followers of Osama bin what’s-his-name?). In doing so, they repeated the same blind arrogance of their imperial predecessors, the British and the Soviets.

Getting in was easy. Getting out on their own terms — with a credible pro-Western government in place — is proving almost impossible.

Ironically (and imperialists tend to lack a sense of irony), the U.S. made their defeat in Afghanistan a virtual certainty by their previous meddling which featured the creation of the mujhideen as an anti-Soviet proxy fighting force. In doing so, the U.S. elevated to political and cultural primacy the kind of oppressive and violent Islamic fundamentalism that until then had never been a dominant feature of life in Afghanistan.

In their zeal to rid the region of Soviet influence, the U.S. created in Afghanistan a country overflowing with arms and weapons where bullets rule and ballots are a joke. The U.S. has slowly awakened to the grotesque morass they have entered, and the presidential election was supposed to be key to an exit strategy it desperately needs. But this is sheer fantasy. There is no exit strategy, unless you visualize the last U.S. helicopter, with desperate Afghanis clamouring to get aboard, lifting off from the roof of the U.S. embassy. That was the eventual U.S. exit “strategy” in Vietnam. And it may be the only one available here.

If you’re having trouble with that image, take into account the fact that the humiliating retreat from Vietnam began with a dramatic decrease in public support for the war — exactly what is happening in the U.S. Two recent polls reveal that a majority of Americans now think the war is not worth fighting. Almost twice as many want a troop decrease as support Obama’s commitment to an increase. By a two to one margin, Americans do not believe the election will result in “effective government.” Almost as many think the U.S. is losing the war as believe it is winning, despite media complicity in the White House public relations spin.

FULL ARTICLE

Andrea Peloso, who wrote about going fridge-free for our Jan/Feb 2009 “food revolution” issue, has recently launched a blog on the same topic. Check it out!

In years to come, Richard Heinberg suggests, we may mark July 11, 2008, as the day peak oil passed from future possibility to present reality. Welcome to peak oil, one year in. Is it as you expected?

Peak Oil Day

MuseLetter 207 / July 2009 by Richard Heinberg

[...] Maybe it’s a stretch to say that the production peak occurred at one identifiable moment, but attributing it to the day oil prices reached their high-water mark may be a useful way of fixing the event in our minds. So I suggest that we remember July 11, 2008 as Peak Oil Day.

We are now approaching the first-year anniversary of Peak Oil Day. Where are we now? The global economy is in tatters, yet oil prices have recovered somewhat (they’re now about half what they were in July 2008). World energy consumption is down, world trade is down, the airline industry is shrinking, and most of the world’s automakers are on life support.

It is too late to prepare for Peak Oil–a year too late, in fact. Now the name of the game is adaptation. We are in an entirely new economic environment, in which old assumptions about the inevitability of perpetual growth, and the usefulness of leveraging investments based on expectations of future growth, are crashing in flames. Even if economic activity picks up somewhat, this will occur in the context of an economy significantly smaller than the one that existed in July 2008, and energy scarcity will quickly cause most green shoots to wither. [...]

Continue reading.