Environmental groups unfairly represented

Re: B.C. an eco-propaganda playground, B.C. Views, Dec. 8.

To the Editor,

Re: B.C. an eco-propaganda playground, B.C. Views, Dec. 8.

Tom Fletcher unfairly smears the reputation of well-established environmental organizations just because they may recieve some funding from the U.S.

He quotes  speculative opinion as factual evidence that such funding is really intended to divert Canada’s energy exports away from Asia, to the benefit of the U.S.

The Living Oceans Society, The Pembina Institute, The B.C. Wilderness Committee and the Natural Resource Defence Council all have impeccable research reputations and may be funded by foundations, corporations and individuals from around the globe because the environment doesn’t stop at national borders.

It is just plain silly conspiracy theory to suggest that global activism against a pipeline to Kitimat or Texas or critical of fish farming is really an attempt to destroy Canada’s markets for these resources.

Fletcher should learn the difference between fact and propaganda.

Propaganda is not just stuff you disagree with but stuff unsupported by fact.

To state that environmental activism against a particular problem is really intended to destabilize the economy is like accusing Mothers Against Drunk Driving of really intending to destroy the liquor industry,

Instead of focussing on environmental organizations, he should check out the free market propaganda put out by the Fraser Institute, which refuses to say where it gets its  funding, or be suspicious of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, many of whom are U.S. CEOs who have had a major influence on perimeter treaty negotiations, which may well erode Canada’s economic independence.

Liz Fox