Naming enemies of U.S. fossil fuel development

By |2015-02-24T08:11:49+00:00February 23rd, 2015|CFACT Insights|2 Comments
“If you don’t call it something, you can’t connect the dots,” said Rudy Giuliani talking about ISIS. “If you can’t connect the dots, you can’t really combat it … you can’t have the battle of ideas … If you are going to debate it, you have to call it what it is.”
The same can be said about the organized attack on fossil fuel development and use in America. If you don’t acknowledge a battle of ideas exists, you can’t connect the dots, and you can’t really combat it.
RasPUTINIt has recently been revealed that Russia is laundering tens of millions of dollars through Bermuda, which the California-based Sea Change Foundation doles out to some of the most prominent and politically active anti-fossil fuel groups such as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resource Defense Council. Reports indicate that OPEC countries funded the anti-fracking movies Gasland and Promise Land. Of course, we know that billionaire activist Tom Steyer—with no guile—announced $100 million in the 2014 election cycle for candidates who opposed the Keystone pipeline.
Not only does the anti-fossil-fuel movement exist, it is organized and well-funded. It can also resort to extreme tactics—even violent ones known as “civil disobedience.” According to the Huffington Post (HP), the FBI has been looking into activists’ involvement in highway blockades that delayed northbound shipments of equipment to Canada’s oilsands.
The report claims that, for example, an FBI agent and a local detective called on Herb Goodwin in Bellingham, WA, telling him: “We’re here to ask whether you’ll answer some questions for us about Deep Green Resistance”—a radical environmental movement that believes the biggest problem with the planet is human civilization itself and calls for “decisive ecological warfare” and “direct attacks against infrastructure.” Despite the possible intimidation, Goodwin says he won’t stop protesting. “He’s among the nearly 100,000 people who have signed a pledge to engage in civil disobedience, should the Obama Administration appdgrrove the Keystone XL pipeline.” 
A week after the HP story was published; Canada’s February 17 Globe and Mail featured this headline: “‘Anti-petroleum’ movement a growing security threat to Canada, RCMP say.” The article references a January 2014 leaked report put together to support Canada’s “strategy to ensure critical infrastructure (CI)” and to “be used to assist in the protection of Canada’s CI.” Amongst the report’s “key findings” are these points:
  • A growing, highly organized and well-financed anti-Canada petroleum movement consists of peaceful activists, militants, and violent extremists who are opposed to society’s reliance on fossil fuels;
  • The anti-petroleum movement focuses on challenging the energy and environmental policies that promote the development of Canada’s vast petroleum resources;
  • Violent anti-petroleum extremists will continue to engage in criminal activity to promote their anti-petroleum ideology; and
  • These extremists pose a realistic criminal threat to Canada’s petroleum industry, its workers and assets, and to first responders. 
While the above was written about Canada, the same could be said about the anti-petroleum movement in AMERICA—but we’ll never see a similar report. As Desmog Canada posted in response to the RCMP document: “The striking thing is that the U.S. has identified climate change as one of the greatest threats to national security, yet here in Stephen Harper’s Canada it is the people trying to stop climate change that are identified as the threat.”
Perhaps ISIS learned from the anti-petroleum movement. The report states: “The use of social media, including the use of live-streaming, provides the anti-petroleum movement the ability to bypass the traditional news media, to control and craft its message, and to promote a one-sided version of the actual events, leading to broadly based anti-petroleum opposition.” And, “the issues within the anti-petroleum movement are complex, divisive, controversial, and polarizing.” Sound familiar?
Obviously, you can find some ideologically driven, violent-extremist factions of the anti-petroleum movement, but you have to question why they do this, to reach what goal. 
With Russia and the OPEC countries—which appear to be funding much of the activity—the answer is easy. They want to protect their turf, their market share. The new American energy abundance threatens their dominance—especially as we begin to repeal the crude-oil export ban, which will give our allies a friendly alternative for fuel.
But what about the others? 
Each week as I write my weekly column, I call my mother—a former English teacher, a professional speaker, the author of more than forty books—and read her my draft. Early on, she’d repeatedly ask: “Why are they doing this? They are going to ruin America.” I’d have to concede that was the only answer you could conclude—especially for me, who focuses on this every single day. 
PeoplesmarchBut then the People’s Climate March took place in New York City and around the country. The marchers carried placards with slogans such as: “Fracking is a crime,” “Capitalism is the disease, socialism is the cure,” and “System change, not climate change.” Suddenly, the motives became perfectly clear. Because energy and freedom connect so closely, the anti’s attack fossil fuels first.
We see the fight playing out in the manmade climate-change debate, the anti-coal protests, the efforts to ban fracking, and the Keystone pipeline controversy. 
Addressing the Keystone pipeline, Dave Barnett, special representative for the Pipeline and Gas Distribution Department of the United Association, told me that he has sat at the negotiating table across from representatives from the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council—just to name two.
He was told: “We know that your Members at the United Association have the proper training to build safe pipelines and it’s not the safety of the pipelines we are really concerned about. It’s building an infrastructure project that will tie us to oil usage for the next 50 years that we oppose.” Then they went on to say: “It never was about the pipeline, it’s about the use of fossil fuels. Stopping the pipeline was just a way to stop the flow of oil.”
Due to the well-funded and organized anti-petroleum movement, aided by the media, the entire “Green” narrative has become so embedded into the collective psyche, it may seem like America as we know it, is on the way to being brought down. 
But it is not as dire as it may seem.
First, while vocal, the anti-petroleum movement represents a small percentage of the general population that self-identifies as “strongly liberal.”
Second, they are not as successful as they appear. While they have gotten some fracking/drilling bans passed, for example, state supreme courts continue to overturn dentonfrackbanthose bans. We’ve seen this happen last year in Colorado, last month in New Mexico, and last week in Ohio. We will likely see the same results in Texas, regarding the local ban in Denton. 
Undaunted, those opposed to petroleum will now try to get their way by use of ballot measures. The automatic votes will come from the “strongly liberal”—who likely do not read this column. Readers of this column also represent a small percentage of the general population: those who care enough about what happens in America to educate themselves and be engaged in the issues. Most people sit in the middle—unaware and unengaged. But many of them will vote. The messaging they hear will influence who they vote for and how they vote. 
Will voters hear the messages of the “strongly liberal” anti-fossil fuel movement—or, that of their educated and engaged friends who think more like they do? We fight in a battle of ideas that we can win. 
Each week, I “connect the dots” through this news-based column. By using current news, I offer you talking points that you can use to share with your friends. For example, you can ask: Did you know that: 
  • foreign countries are funding the anti-fossil fuel campaigns of environmentalists? 
  • last week a third state shot down local fracking and/or drilling bans? 
  • the Keystone pipeline has support of the majority of the population, except those who self-identify as “strongly liberal?” 
  • Canada has identified the anti-petroleum movement as a violent threat to its security?
From there, you can share what you’ve learned. Each week I provide links to the research so you can back up your position with facts. This isn’t just a battle for fossil fuels, it is an ideological fight for America that must be turned around.
First, we have to name the enemy. Then, in this battle of ideas, we must commit to reaching out to family members, neighbors, and friends to educate and engage them. In this debate, let’s call it what it is.


  1. Judi Pavlovszky February 26, 2015 at 3:13 PM

    If you looking for people who oppose the oil and gas industry, please put my name at the top of the list. Some of the things you cite are laughable. Because the current prime minister of Canada does not like anyone that opposes any of his policies decides to label them as dangerous does not make us so. Stephen Harper is the one that is dangerous, as various critics have pointed out, to our democracy, our economy and our environment. He has cut funding to long standing Canadian institutions while giving subsidies to foreign owned multi-billion dollar oil interests.

    The oil and gas industries are dinosaurs that need to be buried and forgotten. No amount of government subsidies can make them viable in the long term. Any fool can see that. Get you head out of your *ss.

    Instead of trying to maintain the status quo, we need to be developing new technologies to harness alternate energy sources. lose our wasteful consumerism culture and decide how many people this small planet can sustain in a reasonable lifestyle and work from there.

    Instead our governments, that should be looking to protect is citizens and not foreign interests, allows us to be evicted from our homes, allows our food and water to be poisoned and gives protection to the greedy ruthless corporations that only care about profit.

    You want to make the US more secure? Make oil and gas worthless, so that no one wants to spend a nickel to get it out of the ground. And stop trying to prop up an industry that deserves to die.

    Finally, I don’t consider myself a liberal. It took Stephen Harper to drive me away from the Conservatives after being a life long supporter.

  2. J.P. Katigbak March 19, 2016 at 11:55 PM

    The hatred of what is important for the world’s energy needs concerns people like me with regards to the true impact of socialism has on various societies and economies around the world, despite the supposed collapse of communism.

    It is also depressing to see how environmentalism continues in the years to come, and the so-called “green” sectors are still enterprises in order to make things look better for the world to utilize, although there are so many questions remain at large, actually.

    I would like to note, CFACT, that environmentalism must be challenged at the outset. It may be easy to fight fairly and squarely, but a real struggle against persisting socialism continues on various fronts, not only in the US but also the rest of the world at large.

    I suspect the possible motivations behind environmentalism are still enabling socialist ideologues absolve their own responsibilities for their own actions that are really disheartening to people like me across the globe. CFACT, please keep up the fight to stridently challenge the depressing ideological and philosophical aspects of environmentalism. And take care as well. – J.P.K.

Comments are closed.