Ever wonder why Green and Eco Groups are so pro EU?

[Cassandra Syndrome]

It appears to be all about money.

Have you ever wondered why the eco-lobby is so pro-EU? Now you have your answer. Green pressure groups are becoming financially dependent on Brussels. Ten years ago, they received €2,337,924 from the European Commission; last year, it was €8,749,940.

A study by the International Policy Network reveals the extent to which Green lobbyists look to the EU for their income: Climate Action Network, Friends of the Earth, WWF, they’re all at it. Much of this money, the paper shows, is then recycled into lobbying the EU.

You see how the system works? The EU pays eco-lobbyists to tell it what it wants to hear. Its clients, naturally enough, tell it that the EU ought to increase its powers. A similar racket goes on between Brussels and the mega-charities (see here).

This isn’t just bad for democracy; it’s bad for the environment, because it equates conservation with state intervention and supranationalism. One of these Brussels-funded organisations recently produced a league of which MEPs were greenest. I like to think that I am pretty eco-conscious. I try never to fly or drive when trains are an option; Mrs H sources food locally, and reuses and recycles meticulously; we even had washable nappies for our children. But I came near the bottom of the table because I had voted consistently against giving more power to Brussels.

That’s the Left for you, I suppose, elevating motive over action, valuing the moralistic over the moral.

Green pressure groups get ?66 million from the EU – Telegraph Blogs

More hypocrisy. They don't seem to care that we are losing our sovereignty and our individual freedoms as long as their self interests are catered for. Selfishness disguised as saintly dogma. I'm so glad the Sun has decided to hit minimum at a century low. Perfect time sunny boy.

[Sync]

Of course another, perhaps more obvious reason, for the boost in funding to Eco groups might be that European Leaders believe there's a problem with the earth's climate (or at least cause to investigate a possible problem) and think it might be nice if you fund groups who are concerned about that.

The solution for people is to elect leaders who don't think there's a problem, and thus refuse to fund the eco groups. It's silly. It's like the Telegraph complaining if Plaid Cymru became the largest party in Wales, and subsequently Wales started giving more money to Welsh Language groups. It's cause and effect of democracy.

[setanta]

Dope ... more from the sacred church of tin-hattery! It's all a conspiracy you know

[Cassandra Syndrome]

Dope ... more from the sacred church of tin-hattery! It's all a conspiracy you know

Dope? So please explain how the EU Emission Trading scheme is not in anyway as dangerous as a Collateralised Debt Obligation Derivative.

[Mitsui2]

It appears to be all about money

Isn't it always?

[Sean O'Brian]

The EU spends millions paying NGOs to lobby it, essentially funnelling taxpayer's money to groups who use it to try and 'convince' the EU to pursue its pre-set agenda. This is a form of deception, whatever you think about global warming itself.


Friends of the EU

The European Union is funding some of the most powerful environmental NGOs in Brussels – while in turn, they lobby the EU for more money and influence.

Environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have enormous influence in the European Union. However, some of the most vocal green groups are actually funded directly by the EU to lobby it. The EU funds many NGOs operating in Brussels whose main purpose is to influence EU policy-making and implementation. This report analyses one programme of funding, in which DG Environment (the division of the European Commission responsible for environmental affairs) distributed over €66 million to environmental NGOs between 1998-2009.

Specifically, we examine funds allocated to the Green 10 – a coalition of ten NGOs pushing for an “environmental” agenda in EU policy-making.

* Nine out of the Green 10 receive funds from the Commission.
* Eight members receive one-third or more of their income from the Commission, and five of those rely on the Commission for more than half their funding.

Under EU rules, an NGO can receive up to 70% of its income from the EU, and thus is obliged to find only 30% of its income from alternative sources.

From 1998 to 2009, there was a substantial increase in funds given by the Commission to environmental groups: from €2,337,924 (1998) to €8,749,940 (2009) – an average increase of 13% every year.

The EU’s funding of Green 10 members has also increased during this time period.

* Birdlife Europe funding increased by 900%
* Friends of the Earth Europe funding increased by 325%
* WWF European Policy Office funding increased by 270%.

The majority of Green 10 members now receive considerably more money from the Commission than in previous years. As a result, many have struggled to reduce their dependency on EU funds – in fact, three members depend more on EU funds today than in 2005.

[Tombo]

Of course another, perhaps more obvious reason, for the boost in funding to Eco groups might be that European Leaders believe there's a problem with the earth's climate (or at least cause to investigate a possible problem) and think it might be nice if you fund groups who are concerned about that.

The solution for people is to elect leaders who don't think there's a problem, and thus refuse to fund the eco groups. It's silly. It's like the Telegraph complaining if Plaid Cymru became the largest party in Wales, and subsequently Wales started giving more money to Welsh Language groups. It's cause and effect of democracy.

If you think something is worth understanding then you fund academic research - not political lobby groups.

[Passer-by]

It appears to be all about money.



Green pressure groups get ?66 million from the EU – Telegraph Blogs

More hypocrisy. They don't seem to care that we are losing our sovereignty and our individual freedoms as long as their self interests are catered for. Selfishness disguised as saintly dogma. I'm so glad the Sun has decided to hit minimum at a century low. Perfect time sunny boy.

So, since Mr Hannan MEP receives a nice salary plus generous expenses from the EU each year, he must therefore be pro-EU?

And the "Europe of Freedom & Democracy" Group (UKIP etc.) in the European Parliament which receives a large amount of money from the EU must also be pro-EU?

Right?

[rubensni]

Dope? So please explain how the EU Emission Trading scheme is not in anyway as dangerous as a Collateralised Debt Obligation Derivative.

1. Neither are "dangerous" - get real.
2. CDOs were risky during the crash of 2008 because the assets they were backed with were worthless.
3. The ETS is a way of managing a tax and ensuring that the most efficient industries pollute.

[Tombo]

1. Neither are "dangerous" - get real.
2. CDOs were risky during the crash of 2008 because the assets they were backed with were worthless.
3. The ETS is a way of managing a tax and ensuring that the most efficient industries pollute.

Interesting.

Now, could you explain what assets back the emissions permits being bought and sold under an ETS?

Then explain how they are not "worthless"