"Processing these so-called tar sands is a nasty business that involves large amounts of water and natural gas. It's hard to imagine a worse situation."
- William & Flora Hewlett Foundation
For projects to tackle the Alberta oil industry, environmental groups working in Canada have been paid more than $26 million dollars (2004-2011) by the San Francisco-based Hewlett Foundation. As the debate and controversy rages on over various proposed pipelines and oil sands projects, its important for the public to know which environmental groups and First Nations have been funded by Hewlett, especially given that the Hewlett foundation explicitly aims "to reduce fossil fuel development and reduce demand and restrict infrastructure development for high carbon fuels (tar sands, oil shale & coal)."
Created by the founders of the tech giant, Hewlett-Packard, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation ("Hewlett") and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation ("Packard") are two of the largest charitable foundations in the world. The Hewlett foundation has $7.4 billion in assets while the Packard foundation has $6.1 billion. With that kind of money, these foundations can have quite an influence. Both foundations are among the world's biggest funders of the environmental movement.
In 2008, Hewlett made the largest ever U.S. grant to an environmental organization: $460 million ($7.6 million per month) to the Climateworks Foundation. In February of 2012, Hewlett granted a further $100 million ($8.3 million per month). The single largest recipient of funds from the Climateworks Foundation is the Energy Foundation whose explicit purpose is "to pursue campaign-style grant-making to shift the U.S. economy away from yesterday's fossil-fuel economy, and create a $65 billion dollar market for renewable energy technology." Packard kicked in a further $120 million such that between the two of them, the Hewlett foundation and the Packard foundation alone have spent over half a billion dollars to shift energy markets from so-called "dirty energy" to so-called "clean energy," primarily to solar and wind.
Growing the solar business takes more than sunshine. It also requires shifting investment capital away from competing industries, especially oil. Sunshine may be infinite but capital isn't. Scaring consumers and investors - which is what campaigns do - is a way to shift investment capital.
Public & Media "Education" for Voters and Consumers
The strategy of Hewlett and Packard is described in Design To Win, a document prepared by the California Environmental Associates, a group funded by both Hewlett & Packard.
As reflected in a diagram from Design to Win, shown to the right, public and media "education" campaigns are part of the strategy to reach both voters and consumers. The goal, as stated in the small yellow print in the blue oval at the top of this diagram, is "Massive change in investment flow from Dirty --> Clean."
Putting oil and coal in a bad light - as various campaigns are doing - helps to put solar and wind in a good light. Just as the strategy diagram says, shown above, this helps to create context for new policy and push decision makers.
Hewlett Funding in Canada
Some of the money that the Hewlett foundation has granted has gone to Canada. But who ultimately got that money, and how it is being spent, is a bit of a mystery. For example, back in 2004, the Hewlett foundation funded the Energy foundation "for convening Canadian experts on energy issues and for managerial support of Hewlett Foundation Canada energy grants." Who are the Canadian experts and NGOs that were convened by the Energy Foundation? And what are the "Hewlett Foundation Canada energy grants?" That's unclear. Since 2000, the Hewlett foundation and the Packard foundation have spent $90 million in Canada, mostly in B.C.
The Hewlett foundation says that it aims "to conserve the Western United States and Canada." How many Canadians know that our country is being "conserved," by the Hewlett Foundation?
Hewlett says that it aims "to reduce fossil fuel development, increase energy energy efficiency and renewable energy sources." But British Columbia already has 94 percent renewable energy. B.C. is one of the highest jurisdictions in the world in terms of renewable energy, so why is the Hewlett foundation spending tens of millions in B.C. instead of in the U.S. or other parts of the world that are far more needy than Canada?
Back in 2004, the Hewlett foundation paid Tides Canada $70,000 "to develop a strategic plan to address the oil and gas industry in British Columbia."
Tides Canada says that it is a non-partisan, national public foundation that supports social and environmental philanthropy. But perhaps there's more to it than that. Through Tides Canada, American foundations fund multi-million dollar campaigns to "reform" forestry, mining, aquaculture and most recently, Alberta oil.
In some ways, Tides Canada's "environmental" campaigns would make Canadian industries less competitive and less profitable while protecting U.S. economic, market and trade interests - all in the name of protecting the environment. For example, the Farmed and Dangerous campaign against farmed salmon sways market share towards "wild" salmon, most of which, for many years, was Alaskan.
The Dogwood Initiative's campaign for a federal ban on oil tanker traffic on the strategic, north coast of B.C., would block oil exports to Asia and continue the U.S. monopoly on Canadian oil exports. No oil tankers means no Canadian oil exports to Asia. In the spring of 2010, the Dogwood Initiative re-designed its web-site. Its web-page that once listed its "partners and supporters" is now gone. Nonetheless, internet archives show that the Hewlett foundation was once a partner and/or supporter of the Dogwood Initiative.
Over the years since Hewlett paid Tides Canada to develop a "strategic plan," the Hewlett foundation has granted $26 million for various projects to tackle the energy sector in Canada, especially in the north. That's a lot of money and it raises a fair question: What was the strategic plan?
- Did the "strategic plan" involve funding the Dogwood Initiative?
- Did the "strategic plan" involve funding particular scientists?
- Did the "strategic plan" involve funding a large number of small environmental groups to campaign in concert against Canadian oil, such as the 43 environmental groups to which Tides USA has paid $10 million (2009/2010)?
- Did the "strategic plan" involve the establishment of a mechanism such as the Coast Conservation Endowment Fund Foundation ("Coast Funds"), a registered charity through which American foundations can channel tens of millions of dollars to First Nations - but only those on the strategic, north coast of B.C.?
- Did the 'strategic plan" involve supporting a particular politician or a particular political party?
Of the $26 million, $22 million was granted to Tides Canada, Tides USA and to the Pew Charitable Trusts. Presumably, this $22 million, or a portion thereof, was then re-granted to smaller environmental organizations. The question is, who got this $22 million that originated from the Hewlett foundation?
From the sounds of it, the Hewlett foundation is no fan of the Alberta oil industry. In fact, the Environment Officer for the Hewlett foundation once said, "One place where all our worries come together is in northeastern Alberta, Canada. There, in an area the size of Florida, is a massive deposit of oil mixed with sand. It's the second largest oil reserve after Saudi Arabia, and work has begun to extract it. Processing these so-called tar sands is a nasty business that involves large amounts of water and natural gas. It's hard to imagine a worse situation." Interestingly, the web-page with that statementwas removed from Hewlett's web-site shortly after it was first mentioned at this blog.
Below, here's an excerpt from the U.S. tax returns that shows the grant for $70,000 to Tides Canada for the development of "the strategic plan."
Below, here are links to the Hewlett grants for a total of $26 million since 2004.
Ecojustice Canada Society (2005-2008): $275,000
- $125,000 in 2007 "for reducing the environmental impacts of oil and gas development in Northern Canada" (for 16 months)
- $150,000 in 2008 "for reducing the environmental impacts of oil and gas development in Northern Canada" (32 months)
Pembina Foundation for Environmental Research & Education (2003-2009): $2,840,000
- $180,000 in 2003 "for general support of Gaia's Foundation for Earth Education, the Canadian implementation" (for 24 months)
- $400,000 in 2004 "for the Pembina Research and Education project" (for 24 months)
- $360,000 in 2005 "for general support of the Pembina Institute's Kyoto Protocol in Canada implementation pro..." (for 24 months)
- $600,000 in 2006 "for the Pembina Institute's Canadian energy development project." (for 32 months)
- $500,000 in 2007 "for general support of the Pembina Institute's Kyoto Protocol in Canada implementation pro..." (for 29 months)
- $600,000 in 2008 "for Pembina Institute's Canadian energy development program." (for 24 months)
- $200,000 in 2009 "for the Canadian and International Climate Change efforts" (for 12 months)
Pew Charitable Trusts (2004-2010): $13.7 million
- $1,835,000 in 2004 "for the Western Boreal Forest Public Land Conservation and Responsible Energy Development."
- $6.5 million in 2006 "for general support of the Western Boreal Forest Public Land Conservation and Responsible..."
- $4 million in 2009 "for general support of the International Boreal Conservation Campaign."
- $1,100,000 in 2011 "for support of the International Boreal Conservation Campaign."
- $268,000 in 2011 "for implementing the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement"
Tides Canada (2004): $1,970,000
- $70,000 in 2004 for the development of a strategic plan to address oil and gas development in British Columbia
- $1.5 million in 2007 "for the Oil and Gas Fund project" (for 36 months)
- $400,000 in 2010 for efforts to reduce fossil fuel development
Tides USA (2005-2011): $7,250,000
- $250,000 in 2005 for creation of a small grants fund to address Canadian oil and gas development
- $3 million in 2008 for reducing the environmental impacts of oil and gas development in Northern Canada
- $2 million in 2009 for reducing the environmental impacts of oil and gas development in Northern Canada
- $2 million in 2010 for reducing the environmental impacts of oil and gas development in Northern Canada
Comments