Sunday, September 12, 2010

Response to Greenwash Blog

I’d like to respond to your blog post posted Sept. 4 titled The Big Greenwash, but I’m not able to post a response.
Could you post it for me?
This was the response I sent to Eaglewatch author Jenn Stanley after she posted her newsletter:

Hello Mrs. Stanley, or Jen.

We are on the same side! I read your emails regularly and generally appreciate them. It’s always shocking when progressives or enviros discredit each other publicly. That serves the right wing agenda – divide and conquer.

First off, I did indeed respond to your inquiry about our funding. Below seen the message I sent to you on Aug. 8, 2010:

Jenn, here's our main website: and here's another of our sites: Here's our membership:

Here's what we're about:

Here's where we get our money from:

We have both a charitable and non-charitable arm.

We're small, just 2.5 staff.

Our primary goal, started in the late 90's, was to shut down the province's coal power plants. Now we're going after new nuke investments. Our long term goal is 100% renewable electricity grid.


Secondly, we are an independent NGO. We get very little industry or gov’t money, and that is specifically for the Peakbusters contest which promotes an energy conservation program. All our other funding comes from foundations and individuals. We are a lobby organization trying to influence gov’t policy away from nuclear and coal and toward renewable energy.

Our primary goal is a 100% renewable grid by 2027. You and I differ slightly on how to get there. For example, we do support wind and solar. You can see this in our report Ontario’s Green Future

We also support using existing hydroelectricity in Quebec more efficiently. That is, as they become more efficient through conservation programs, they’ll have excess existing hydroelectricity, which is a renewable resource, available to sell to Ontario. This would prevent the need for new nukes in ON! Note: we do not support building new dams.

We also support the efficient use of natural gas as a transition fuel. That is, we presently use natural gas to heat most homes and buildings in ON. Since natural gas is much cleaner than coal, we’re saying use the natural gas we’re already using more efficiently, for both heat and electricity (CHP – combined heat and power). That way we could shut down all the coal plants today! I appreciate this is a compromise in that natural gas is a fossil fuel, but virtually all the enviro groups are suggesting this as a transition fuel, to give us time to ramp up production of renewables.

Our leaflet that you refer to focuses on the economics of nuclear not because we’re not motivated by environmental and proliferation concerns – I assure you we are! – but because we’re aiming to get the mainstream to hear our message. The progressives are already anti-nuke – it’s the conservatives that we need to get on side, and they can’t argue with the poor economics of nuclear power. No one can.

Anyone who reads my No Nukes Newsletters will appreciate that our anti-nuke analysis includes much more than economics – proliferation, waste, environmental, and health issues are all covered.

Our world is facing serious crisis’ right now. Of course we need massive shifts in lifestyle, consumption etc. We need you pushing that agenda, and we need us pushing a more politically palatable agenda, but we’re all working toward the same end.

I’d appreciate it if you sent this to your complete list.

For the earth,

Angela Bischoff
Outreach Director
Ontario Clean Air Alliance
Tel: 416 926 1907 x 246
625 Church Street, #402
Toronto, ON M4Y 2G1

1 comment:

  1. David,
    Please add to your blog that I did NOT receive her august 8 email.



Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.