====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
(They should also write something about Chevron's ties to World Wildlife Fund, Jared Diamond's outfit.) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/23/AR2010052302164.html Nature Conservancy faces potential backlash from ties with BP By Joe Stephens Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, May 23, 2010; 12:30 PM In the days after the immensity of the spill in the Gulf of Mexico became clear, some Nature Conservancy supporters took to the organization's web site to vent their anger. "The first thing I did was sell my shares in BP, not wanting anything to do with a company that is so careless," wrote one. Another added: "I would like to force all the BP executives, the secretaries and the shareholders out to the shore to mop up oil and wash the birds." Reagan De Leon of Hawaii called for a boycott of "everything BP has their hands in." What De Leon didn't know was that the Nature Conservancy lists BP as one of its business partners. The organization also has given BP a seat on its International Leadership Council and has accepted nearly $10 million in cash and land contributions from BP and affiliated corporations over the years. "Oh, wow," De Leon said when told of the depth of the relationship between the nonprofit she loves and the company she hates. "That's kind of disturbing." The Conservancy, already scrambling to shield oyster beds in the region from the spill, now faces a different problem: a potential backlash as its supporters learn that the giant oil company and the world's largest environmental organization long ago forged a relationship that has lent BP an Earth-friendly image and helped the Conservancy pursue causes it holds dear. Indeed, the crude emanating from BP's well threatens to befoul a number of such alliances that have formed between energy conglomerates and environmental non-profits. At least one conservation group acknowledges that it is reassessing its ties to the oil company, with an eye toward protecting its reputation. "This is going to be a real test for charities such as the Nature Conservancy," said Dean Zerbe, a lawyer who investigated the Conservancy's relations with its donors when he worked for the Senate Finance Committee. "This not only stains BP but, if they don't respond properly, it also stains those who have been benefiting from their money and their support." Some purists believe environmental organizations should keep a healthy distance from certain kinds of corporations, particularly those such as BP, whose core mission poses risks to the environment. They argue that the BP spill shows the downside to what they view as deals with the devil. On the other side are self-described pragmatists, such as the Conservancy, who see partnering with global corporations as the best way to bring about large-scale change. "Anyone serious about doing conservation in this region must engage these companies, so they are not just part of the problem but so they can be part of the effort to restore this incredible ecosystem," Conservancy Chief Executive Mark Tercek wrote on his group's web site after criticism from a Conservancy supporter The Arlington-based Conservancy has made no secret of its relationship with BP, just one of many it has forged with multi-national corporations. The Conservancy's web site identifies BP as a member of its Leadership Council. BP has been a major contributor to a Conservancy project aimed at protecting Bolivian forests. In 2006, BP gave the organization 655 acres in York County, Va., where a state wildlife management area is planned. In Colorado and Wyoming, the Conservancy has worked with BP to limit environmental damage from natural gas drilling. Until recently, the Conservancy and other environmental groups worked alongside BP in a coalition that lobbied Congress on climate change issues. And an employee of BP Exploration serves as an unpaid Conservancy trustee in Alaska. "We are getting some important and very tangible outcomes as a result of our work with the company," said Conservancy spokesman Jim Petterson. Reassessing Relationships The Conservancy has long positioned itself as the leader of a non-confrontational arm of the environmental movement, and that position has helped the charity attract tens of millions of dollars a year in contributions. A number have come from companies whose work takes a toll on the environment, including those engaged in logging, homebuilding and power generation. Conservancy officials say their approach has allowed them to change company practices from within, leverage the influence of the companies and protect ecosystems that are under the companies' control. They stress that contributions from BP and other large corporations constitute only a portion of the organization's total revenue, which now exceeds a half billion dollars a year. And the Conservancy is far from the only environmental nonprofit with ties to BP. Conservation International has accepted $2 million in donations from BP over the years and partnered with the company on a number of projects, including one examining oil extraction methods. From 2000 to 2006, John Browne, who was then BP's chief executive, sat on the board of Conservation International. In response to the spill, executives at the nonprofit said they plan to review the organization's relationship with the company, said Justin Ward, a Conservation International vice president. "Reputational risk is on our minds," Ward acknowledged. The Environmental Defense Fund, which has a policy of not accepting corporate donations, joined with BP, Shell International and other major corporations to form the Partnership for Climate Action, which promotes "market-based mechanisms" to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And about 20 energy and environmental groups, including the Conservancy, the Sierra Club and Audubon, joined with BP Wind Energy to form the American Wind and Wildlife Institute, which works to protect wildlife through "responsible" development of wind farms. A Rude Awakening On May 1, Tercek posted a statement on the Conservancy's site, writing that it was "difficult to fathom the tragedy" that was unfolding but adding that "now is not the time for ranting." He didn't make any mention of BP. Nate Swick, a blogger and dedicated bird watcher from Chapel Hill, chastised Tercek on the site for not adequately disclosing the Conservancy's connections to BP and not working to hold the company accountable. Swick said in an interview that he considered BP's payments to the organization to be an obvious attempt at "greenwashing" its image. "You have to wonder whether the higher-ups in the Nature Conservancy are pulling their punches," said Swick, who admires the work the Conservancy does in the field. A Conservancy official quickly responded to Swick's accusations, laying out the organization's ties with BP. A subsequent post by Tercek named BP and said the spill demonstrated the need for a new energy policy that would move the United States "away from our dependence on oil." "The oil industry is a major player in the Gulf," he explained. "It would be naïve to ignore them." There may be a sense of déjà vu among longtimers at the Conservancy. Years ago, worried officials there quietly assembled focus groups and found that most members saw a partnership with BP as "inappropriate." The 2001 study, obtained by The Washington Post, found that many Conservancy members felt a relationship with an oil company was "inherently incompatible." And to a minority of members, accepting cash from these types of companies was viewed as "the equivalent of a payoff." Research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report. Post a Comment ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
