Environmental NGOs on Global Warming
Assuming significant collective action is required, and that donating money to some Canadian NGOs would be beneficial (e.g. for raising awareness, coordinating protests, lobbying, et cetera), which NGO would you advise people to support? Council of Canadians is my first choice, followed by CCPA. There are a few environmental NGOs I like, but they have a niche and it isn't rallying the masses. I've never supported Greenpeace, because I wasn't sure of my position on nuclear, but I'm thinking they have the right idea.
Some were Pembina, Suzuki, WWF, Sierra, Power Up and I think there was a couple more.
I thought I'd revive / split this topic from the Copenhagen 3/4 threads after reading this article: "For some, a tiny tax outweighs massive environmental destruction" by Roger Annis.
Excerpt:
Other award endorsers are the David Suzuki Foundation, the Ecology Action Centre, Environmental Defence, Équiterre, ForestEthics, the Green Energy Act Alliance, the Pembina Institute, TckTckTck, and WWF Canada.
[...]
The Sierra Club did not participate in the Copenhagen award gala. Executive Director George Heyman, a former long-time president of the BC Government Employees Union, said the BC Liberals have taken a lot of actions that are “deeply contradictory” to its greenwashing propaganda.
It looks like Sierra Club wasn't one of the NGOs that participated in giving this award. One of the listed groups sent me an email during the Copenhagen talks advising that they are working with labour groups on a cap and trade scheme. I'm thinking cap and trade is not the way to go, so that caused me some concern. Anyway, on climate change, which NGOs are doing the right stuff?
Its not clear what you mean by 'the right stuff'.
Do you mean those who agree with you that cap and trade is not the way to go?
Whatever your answer, you'll find that at bottom they are all agnostic about what form of carbon pricing. In practice they mostly tend to emphasize one or the other only. But they don't pan the other choice, and at bottom the reasons for choosing one or the other are their particular pragmatic/political analysese. More decide that is carbon tax [essentially because it is seen as more straightforward- NOT for the reasons I think you prefer it]. Others prefer cap and trade for different particular perceived political feasability reasons.
For example, I personally think Suzuki went off the deep end on political choices. But I still consider them to have the "right stuff".
Before everyone gets caught up in "Suzuki totally sucks" or "Suzuki rocks" [or the same about Berman or whoever]... maybe what you might say what you mean by "the right stuff".... even if to say it only tentatively.
What I mean by the "right stuff" (and I'm not assuming everyone will agree, of course, just looking for some useful information and analysis), is which groups are advocating sound policy, and which are likely to be most effective, and why? Are there certain NGOs who are less deserving of support (e.g. are they too cosy with government, focusing on less urgent / less important environmental matters)? Which NGOs are pushing hardest on climate change? Which will have the most impact, and with what constituencies?
Stand corrected on the Sierra Club, guess there is someone at the helm these days that actually gives a shit about the environment unlike those giving Gordo the made up green washing award.
pertinent info in that article is
and
because
*bolding mine
"Too cosy with government"? They ALL try to be. Maybe if your question was about when and under what criteria, but even that would be an endless circular discussion.
"Most impact"? What criteria? With whom? By what measures [even informal ones]?
I think your questions are inherently highly politicised... of he kind of politics that intentionaly or not heightens setarianism.
Okay, let's simplify then. If you are concerned about global warming, and you'd like to support an NGO to advocate for action on climate change, which NGO would you support and why? Part of your answer I hope addresses how the NGO approaches the matter. For example, do they quietly lobby government, or do they seek to mobilize the masses with a view to pressuring government. Which approach is likely to be more effective (i.e. result in real changes and action from government)? I'm thinking we need aggressive NGOs to mobilize the masses. We need to counter the power of the oil lobby, for example.
I doubt there could be a national NGO that would be better at mobilizing. They do some mixture of lobbying, public education, media driven action.... with very different emphases. But none do mobilizing at the grassroots.
Not to get hung up on the particular issue you chose- but I'd suggest what some of the national NGOs do is quite well suited for fighting the oil lobby.
Okay, let's simplify then. If you are concerned about global warming, and you'd like to support an NGO to advocate for action on climate change, which NGO would you support and why? Part of your answer I hope addresses how the NGO approaches the matter. For example, do they quietly lobby government, or do they seek to mobilize the masses with a view to pressuring government. Which approach is likely to be more effective (i.e. result in real changes and action from government)? I'm thinking we need aggressive NGOs to mobilize the masses. We need to counter the power of the oil lobby, for example.
I'm not sure that I'd support a mass mobilization of any kind, for whatever purpose, without some serious scrutiny of its leadership and organizational structure, whether it be non-governmental or representatively elected.
See "Big Green NGOs: Sleeping With the Enemy", which refers to "EYES WIDE SHUT | TckTckTck exposé from activist insider".
Well thanks for that HSFT, as I have also been addressing this here for the last year or so....., maybe more will also sit up and take notice, in particular last spring during the BC election, as the Green Party supporters are the very same as Ms Morningstar is also exposing.
tough it is nothing new, as nothing has changed in their respect from the 80's, when those from BC formed the Green Party, as it has always been about making money and doing just enough environmental work to pretend and use for self advancement, to access more money. And usually others were doing the work unless they could get pictures in the paper, or on the news, or a media interview, and then most often they would take credit for others hard labour at getting it done.
They endorsed Gordo in the provincial election of all things, just as they gave him the phoney award in Copenhagen....and I thought that was when some others would wake, maybe it is just a slower awareness gathering.
It looks like the only NGO this author had anything positive to say about was the good ol' Council of Canadians:
...
VWS is excellent as is Sacred Waters