The Pew Ocean Real Estate Portfolio: The Real Shark
Con
I continued to ask the question: why was the charitable foundation of an
oil corporation funding shark conservation? Those within shark
conservation who had until then at least been willing to have a dialogue
clammed up. It was like an elephant was in the room.
Finally
I was sent two links; one from Nils E Stolpe, who wrote about
commercial fishing in the US, who detailed how Pew had funded SeaWeb and
how in turn SeaWeb had changed negative public perception from oil
companies to fisheries.
But
it was when I read the second link from 'The Fisherman' internet forum,
by a poster calling themselves 'mightyj', that the penny finally
dropped. Only it was more like a bag of spanners diving headlong down
the stairs from the top of a lighthouse.
Back
in 2003 the Pew Charitable Trusts called for a National Ocean Policy
for the US outer continental shelf. The policy they wrote became law and
placed the Trust in majority control of the Joint Oceans Commission,
the body that administers and effectively controls ocean policy in the
US.
Top of the 'to do' list was zoning large areas of sea floor for the
purpose of leasing them to corporations for energy production, wind
farms, fish farming, and bio-prospecting.
The
money from this rent goes to the science they favour, which in turn can
be used to drive their agenda. It's seemingly a very clever way of
rapidly privatising the ocean and effectively becoming the sea's
landlord, everything generating complimentary momentum.
Source: http://blog.through-the-gaps.co.uk/2012/11/the-real-shark-con-controlling-our-seas.html
Friday, 1 January 2021
The Pew Ocean Real Estate Portfolio: The Real Shark
The Real Shark Con, Controlling Our Seas, And Other Stories - PEW Trust -
The Real Shark Con, Controlling Our Seas, And Other Stories
There
was something fishy about shark conservation from the start; the
re-branding of a charismatic man eater, the crisis they faced, and the
self righteous finger pointing at the villains responsible for their
impending demise.
The closer one looked at the hyperbolic claims, the murkier the waters
became. Straight question? No answer. Just a calendar offer. Challenge
claims unsubstantiated by any scientific evidence? Named and shamed as
someone intent on discrediting shark conservation.
With hindsight, 'shark con's' flirtation with self-destruction was way
beyond my scepticism and imagination. And way beyond the troops they
rallied for the cause.
A Few Words About The Pew Charitable Trusts
Founded
by the children of Joseph N. Pew, CEO of the Sun Oil Company, (Sunoco),
the Pew Charitable Trusts have donated millions to numerous charitable
organisations that share the Pew family's philosophy and beliefs in
education, religion, medicine and social welfare. They also donate to
environmental groups.
Sunoco
is considered an environmental leader in the oil and gas industry.
And Pew believe they can help to solve the nation's problems. That
nation being the USA.
The Shark Trust in the UK are just one of 85 NGOs who receive funding
from Pew, as part of the Shark Alliance, which Pew formed.
When
the various NGOs need to meet up, Pew pays for the flights.
Understandably the benefactor expects the various environmental groups
within the Shark Alliance to toe their party line, else lose their
funding.
It's been alleged that Pew funded rival groups to compete with any
dissenters, consequently when the dust settled from the infighting,
those still standing were in Pew's corner.
There's
no evidence this happened, but the practice of manufacturing rival
pseudo groups for a punch up is well known within PR. Such groups are
known as 'AstroTurf'. Because the grass roots aren't real.
The
important thing to remember here is that Pew are the biggest hitter in
shark conservation, and they're an American charitable foundation
created from an American oil corporation.
The
obvious question is: why is an American oil company channelling dollars
to save sharks?
Scuba divers are natural ambassadors for sharks. They actively want to
see them in their natural habitat, consequently they're major advocates
for shark conservation. So I asked them the question. The answer I
received from the self confessed cynics was that it was a strategy to
improve the oil company's image.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
Greenwashing
Greenwashing
was identified by New York environmentalist Jay Westervelt in the
1980's, in response to the hotel industry promoting the re-use of towels
to help save the planet, and to show hotels cared. Westervelt found
that the reality was few hotels made efforts towards helping the
environment, but the green sheen increased their profit. Less towels to
wash less often saved them money. It wasn't whitewashing. It subtler
than that.
Oil
corporations who've reinvented themselves as energy corporations, are
keen to push their environmental credentials. Possibly the best known
example is BP, British Petroleum, who developed their 'Beyond Petroleum'
tag line from their initials, suggesting their commitment to
renewables.
They
changed their company logo to the eco-friendly yellow and green
sunburst.
Pew were not just the benevolent green face of Sunoco. They got busy,
founding SeaWeb, 'the only international, non-profit organisation
dedicated to strategically communicating about ocean issues.'
One
of the first things SeaWeb did was commission a survey to discover
which ocean issue would best engage the public.
The results told SeaWeb that 81% of Americans thought oil spills were a
very serious problem. Overfishing on the other hand wasn't considered a
very serious problem, and was bundled with 'loss of critical species' to
even register as a meaningful indicator of trouble.
Yet when SeaWeb reviewed the poll in their November 1996 update, the
only specific threat mentioned was overfishing. "71% agree that
overfishing is threatening the health and stability of the marine
environment." Oil spills didn't get a mention.
Negative
attention was diverted from oil companies to the patsy of fisheries,
The important thing to remember here? Oil companies were to blame in the
minds of the public. Until they were told the problem was overfishing.
Source: http://blog.through-the-gaps.co.uk/2012/11/the-real-shark-con-controlling-our-seas.html
Twiggys Marine Park Agenda - Fracking, Gas, Oil - Kimberley - Andrew Forrest
Dear Ms Barnes
INTRODUCTION
I write to provide my submission on the draft marine park management plans that were
released by the Australian Government for comment, on 21st July 2017.
This submission largely builds on my previous discussions and correspondence to you as
it appears that rather than progressing our marine park network and improving
protection, the draft plans amount to significant backward steps.
As a proud West Australian, I have a deep and lasting connection to the land and the sea.
My home state, Western Australia, boasts many iconic marine areas with teeming
biodiversity and to place their future in peril would be a shameful stain on this nation’s
environmental legacy to future generations.
My appreciation and respect for our marine environment has led me to undertake
extensive doctoral studies in marine biology: I have conducted doctoral research at four
of the Commonwealth Marine Parks in Western Australia: Gascoyne CMP, Perth Canyon
CMP, Geographe CMP and the Bremer Canyon CMP
Source media: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fd_hvost9JTioc7nJRhMfSTUo02Kasoz/view?fbclid=IwAR0eFHARxt3pQqypdfbd9MYovvRJCfIcPm76p4uy2pJRwpATKxU177XrbKI
Aggregator Tags only: Buru. Energy, Kerry Stokes, Andrew Forrest, Jessica Meeuwig, Seven West Media. Fracking. Eric Streitberg. Mark McGowan, University of Western Australia, Minderoo Foundation.
Source media: https://www.facebook.com/APFisherman/posts/1805856719530844
Aggregator tags only: The Real Shark Con, Controlling Our Seas, And Other Stories By H.E. Sawyer
www.hesawyer.com
Jessica Meeuwigs Kimberly Gas Fracking Connection The Media - Andrew Forrest, Eric Streightberg, Kerry Stokes - Western Australia
Australian Professional Fisherman
@APFisherman · Community
Jessica And The Frackers. Jessica Meeuwigs Kimberly Gas Fracking Connection The Media Is Definitely NOT Telling You About
Imagine your name was Eric Streitberg and you headed an oil and gas exploration company called Buru Energy which is using the "fracking" technique to explore for gas in the Kimberley.
Now, go and google "Buru Energy fracking" and see how many results come up. From the ABC, 10th September, 2015,
"The company first used the controversial hydraulic rock fracturing technique — commonly referred to as fracking — in 2010 at their Yulleroo gas field, 60 kilometres east of Broome.The 2010 fracking did not attract public attention at the time, but Buru Energy has since risen to prominence with a dramatic rise and fall on the Australian stock market, and major investor and political agreements....The latest round of fracking took place in Buru's Asgard and Valhalla wells near the remote Noonkanbah Aboriginal community."
Buru Energy are very sensitive about scrutiny of their actions as evidenced by this quote,
"West Australia Greens MP Robin Chapple said he was disappointed Buru Energy did not provide more information about their fracking program, claiming the company only released the information publically after environmentalists flew over the site and took photos of the equipment.
"I've had some agreement with Mr Streitberg that we would have an open and honest discussion around these sorts of issues, but obviously they've been doing this very covertly," Mr Chapple said.
"I'm disappointed that it was actually the photos that we got a hold of that showed the fracking taking place, that has initiated the comment on the stock exchange."
Mr Chapple said Buru Energy was trying to avoid public concerns about fracking in the Kimberley.
"It doesn't really bode well for actually having positive dialogue with the community when you're skulking around in the backwoods doing stuff which obviously people are concerned about," he said."
Sounds like a company with "strong environmental commitments". Buru were in the news again this year on June 24th with the Sydney Morning Herald reporting that,
"High levels of a radioactive material and other contaminants have been found in water from a West Australian fracking site but operators say it could be diluted and fed to beef cattle...Buru Energy says sampling from its Kimberley fracking operations found "relatively high concentrations" of a radioactive substance.
Buru Energy says sampling from its Kimberley fracking operations found "relatively high concentrations" of a radioactive substance.
The findings were contained in a report by oil and gas company Buru Energy that has not been made public. It shows the company also plans to reinject wastewater underground – a practice that has brought on seismic events when used in the United States... The work was suspended when the WA government last year introduced a fracking moratorium, subject to the findings of a scientific inquiry...In a submission to the inquiry obtained by the Lock the Gate Alliance, Buru Energy said a “relatively high concentration” of Radium-228, a radioactive element, was found in two water samples from a well in 2015 and 2016.
The so-called “flowback water” contains fracking fluids, and water released from rock in which naturally-occurring radioactive materials can be concentrated.
The samples exceeded drinking water guidelines for radionuclides. However Buru Energy said samples collected from retention ponds were below guideline levels and the water posed “no risk to humans or animals”.
Water monitoring also detected elevated levels of the chemical elements barium, boron and chloride.
Buru Energy said while the water was not suitable for human consumption, the “reuse of flowback water for beef cattle may also be considered”.
The water did not meet stockwater guidelines but this could be addressed “through dilution with bore water”.
The company's development in the Yulleroo area of the basin could lead to 80 wells operating over 20 years
Labor environment spokesman Tony Burke said Buru’s operations “are likely to raise significant and possibly prohibited concerns under the water trigger”. He said the law should be used properly, including acting on input from scientific experts.."
Could be a bit of a headache right? All that scrutiny from environmentalists opposed to fracking? Federal Labor's poodle-esque Tony Burke making noises?
Like I said google Buru Energy fracking and see just how much opposition Buru Energy is up against. All the major environmental organisations oppose what Buru Energy is doing in spite of a government inquiry concluding fracking is safe.
Be nice if everbody opposed to you got distracted by another issue perhaps? Maybe manufacture a scare campaign targeted at another industry which has never tried to harm you but is economically small and politically isolated? If you're Eric Streitberg and your partner is a marine biologist called Jessica Meeuwig you can.
Yes, that was not a typo. A 2011 profile on Eric in The Australian newspaper has this quote,
"He stays fit by snorkelling and diving with his partner of three years, marine biologist Jessica Meeuwig, who also keeps an eye on his environmental credentials. "It's an interesting juxtaposition," he says "
Yes. It is a VERY interesting "juxtaposition". Jessica Meeuwig who's constant lies about fishermen are uncritically reported by a media who are usually lightning quick to question the motives of anybody who goes against the prevailing orthodoxy (James Cook Universities Peter Ridd anybody?) is partners (married to Eric my sources tell me) with the head of an oil and gas exploration company and the media NEVER scrutinise this fact. In fact it seems as if its almost deliberately NOT reported on in the media..
Some other interesting questionss in this case are, which high profile WA mining "magnate" has invested in fracking in the Kimberly through one of his subsidiaries, Squadron Energy? Andrew Forest....
Which high profile WA mining "magnate" owns the biggest local newspaper in West Australia and one of its TV channels (Channel 7) and is mates with "Twiggy"? Kerry Stokes.
Remember, Buru Energy defends its fracking operations on the basis of a government inquiry which ran for less than a year declaring it "safe". Presumably Andrew Forest would defend his proposed fracking operations in the same manner yet he funds an attack on the credibility of Western Australia's fisheries managers and fishermen who have a decades longer, and government vouched for, track record of sustainability than the fracking industry? This doesn't add up until you look for Andrew Forests motive in slandering a sustainable industry, the massive profits he stands to make from fracking along with Eric Streitberg and the very handy connections both have available to them to manipulate the public conversation for their own interests along with willing accomplice Jessica Meeuwig. {end quote}
Article source: https://www.facebook.com/APFisherman/posts/1805856719530844
Tim Winton is an idiot - Sea Change: Tim Winton’s view from the deep
https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13555&page=0&fbclid=IwAR16i7CuDIGFd8XKdkgRVl8vF7pG4cu4-9tg9Bs_HWKYzxP8e-0qlPStq_Y
Unravelling the Deception of a False Movement - Big oil and save the shark
Unravelling the Deception of a False Movement
In 1948 the family set up the Pew Charitable Trust, based in
Philadelphia, with an endowment totalling nearly $4 billion in the year
2000. [3] …The utility of buying the loyalty of liberals impressed
itself on the family rather late, in the 1980s. But since then they have
more than made up for lost time. By the beginning of the second Clinton
term, the Pew Charitable Trusts represented one of the largest donors
to the environmental movement, with about $250 million a year invested.
[4] …Pew rarely went it alone. It preferred to work in coalitions with
those other foundations, which meant almost no radical opposition to
their cautious environmental policies can get any money. [5]
…But this did not tell the full story of coercion through money. One
of the conditions attached to the receipt of Pew grant money was that
attention be focused on government actions. Corporate wrongdoers were
not to be pursued. With Pew money rolling their way, the environmental
opposition became muted, judicious and finally disappeared.
----------------------------------------
Biggar is an endorser and likely key organizer of, the Tar Sands Action in Ottawa. Adam Shedletzky is founding director and board representative of LeadNow modeled after MoveOn.org (USA) and GetUp.org.au
-------------------------------------------
The largest donors to the NRDC include the Pew Foundation (Sun
Oil/Sunoco), the W. Alton Jones Foundation (Citgo), and the Rockefeller
Brothers Fund (Standard Oil/Exxon Mobil). The Rockefeller family
initiated the Environmental Grantmakers’ Association. The British Royals
(BP) as well as Prince Bernhard (Shell) and the Rockefellers were
principal actors in initiating the World Wildlife Federation (WWF) as
well as the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWFN). The International
Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) NGO partners with
corporations such as Shell
and boasts “corporate green” members such as NRDC. The IUCN has funding
of approximately $100 million in 2010 with funding from the private
sector increasing considerably. The three largest conservation
organizations worldwide – The Nature Conservancy, WWF, and Conservation International combined revenues exceed $2 billion (2007),
Source https://thewrongkindofgreen.wordpress.com/2011/09/26/unravelling-the-deception-of-a-false-movement/?fbclid=IwAR1YqATkx2AADI7e8VH__3LW97BsEg9HurMkPxOClzByXLSaXIkvd7HTGTU
Sources: “The Decline of Big Green, Part One Shaky Foundations: Toxic Sources, Tainted Money” by Jeffrey St. Clair:
The Real Shark Con, Controlling Our Seas, And Other Stories By H.E. Sawyer
www.hesawyer.com
{"There was something fishy about shark conservation from the start. The closer one looked at the
hyperbolic claims, the murkier the waters became.
A Few Words About The Pew Charitable
Trusts (Remember the group of shark attack victims who were ushered to Washington to lobby Congress for shark protection?)
Founded by the children of Joseph N. Pew, CEO of the Sun Oil Company, (Sunoco), the Pew Charitable Trusts have donated millions to environmental groups. Sunoco is considered an environmental leader in the oil and gas industry.
The Shark Trust is just one of 85 NGOs who receive funding from Pew, as part of the Shark Alliance, which Pew formed. This benefactor expects environmental groups within the Shark Alliance to toe their party line, or lose funding.
The important thing to remember here is that Pew are the biggest hitter in shark conservation, (BabeRuth!) and they’re an American charitable foundation created from an American oil corporation.
The obvious question is: why is an oil company channeling dollars to save sharks?The answer: it was a strategy to improve the oil company’s image. Greenwashing!
Oil corporations reinvented themselves as energy corporations keen to push their environmental credentials. BP, British Petroleum,(remember the Deepwater Horizon debacle and subsequent coastal devastation?) They changed their company logo to the eco-friendly yellow and green sunburst. (How cute!)
Pew were not just the benevolent green face of Sunoco. They founded SeaWeb. One of the first things SeaWeb did was commission a survey to discover which ocean issue would best engage the public.
The results told SeaWeb that 81% of Americans thought oil spills were a very serious problem.(“Overfishing” wasn’t even on the radar). Negative attention was diverted from oil companies to fisheries, (thanks to the eco-shark agenda, funded by PEW.)
The important thing to remember here? Oil companies were to blame in the minds of the public. Until they were told the problem was overfishing."}
The Real Shark Con, Controlling Our Seas, And Other Stories By H.E. Sawyer
www.hesawyer.com
https://www.facebook.com/WA-shark-cull-The-Greens-funded-by-oil-money-630606130338575