(Note: This was originally posted as a commentsee this thread. I decided to slightly reword it and post it in a thread of its own.)
This is a quickie list of large groups that fund environmental activism. It is by no means all-inclusive. I provide it as a counterweight to the argument that big business has no well-funded opposition to prevent it from controlling politicians and dominating the media markets.
-Provided grants totalling $23.5 Million in 2001.
Daivd and Lucille Packard Foundation
-Provided grants of $360.2 Million just to environmental groups 1999-2001. They also donate to several other causes.
The Pew Charitable Trusts
-Provided grants of $42.1 Million just to environmental groups in 2001. They have an extensive grant program covering a wide variety of causes.
John D. and Carolyn T. MacArthur Foundation
-Provided grants of $72.8 Million just to environmental groups and $62.7 Million just to Human and Community Development groups in 2001. (A significant portion of the latter goes to family planning and "social justice" agitation groups; most goes to projects that are worthy of funding.)
-Provided grants totalling $652.1 Million in 2001. This is a total for all grants. I could not find a breakdown of grants by area on their site, only totals and individual grants, through which I was not going to spend hours sorting.
Even the Environmental Protection Agency, an arm of the federal government, has joined inthey contributed a total of $4.6 Million to the Natural Resources Defense Council from 1996-2001, and over $3 Million to the Tides Foundation from 1993-2001 (that is a total, not a yearly amount).
Of course, one's personal beliefs will dictate whether the groups that have received funding can be considered "extremist", but groups such as EarthSave, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Natural Resources Defence Council, Greenpeace, PETA, and Ruckus Society are probably likely to be considered extremist by a large majority of the populace of the United States. These groups are not the only ones that have received funding from the above foundations, but all have received significant chunks of change.
Because their brand of environmentalism is one of opressive regulation, they are inherently anti-capitalistic, another reason to oppose them. Some, such as CSPI, wish to impose taxes upon the food we eat in an effort to socially engineer our society to one that is more to their liking. Others simply want to impose regulations that will eliminate industry and return us to the pre-industrial age, regardless of what the rest of the people want. Some, like the Ruckus Society, specialize in training protesters such as the anti-globalization and anti-WTO protesters that have wreaked havoc in Seattle, Quebec, Washington, DC and elsewhere. These people are "watermelons"green on the outside, red on the inside. I don't like watermelons, and I don't want any part of their agenda.
posted on July 19, 2002 10:08 PM
(Apparently I am not alone; No Watermelons Allowed derives its name from the same concept.)
Post a comment