ENERGYNOW COLUMN: Putin Appears to Have Funded Anti-Oil & Gas Environmentalists

MOSCOW, RUSSIA - DEC 23, 2016: The President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin with eyes closed at the annual press conference in Center of international trade

People who work in Canada’s energy sector are all too familiar with the problem of American entities funding environmental groups to obstruct oil and gas projects in our country.

Vivian Krause was an early pioneer in raising alarm bells about this issue in Canada. More recently, the Alberta government’s inquiry into the matter found that foreign entities have spent $925 million funding various Canadian environmental groups. On top of that, American groups spent over $352 million on “Canadian-based” environmental initiatives, such as anti-pipeline campaigns, from the U.S.

However, what has received far less attention is the possibility that Vladimir Putin’s regime funded environmental groups in our country to oppose developing our oil and gas resources. Putin appears to have done so in other countries, so why wouldn’t he do the same in Canada?

SecondStreet.org’s new documentary, Defund Putin (available on YouTube), examines this issue more closely. It also looks at the impact of Putin’s invasion and how Canada could play a significant role in offsetting Russian energy sales.

Consider that in 2014, The Guardian quoted Anders Fogh Rasmussen, former Secretary General of NATO, as saying:

“I have met allies who can report that Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organisations – environmental organisations working against shale gas – to maintain European dependence on imported Russian gas.”

A 2022 column published by The Hill expresses a similar sentiment: “Putin and his cronies helped fund the anti-shale-gas propaganda that led seven European countries to ban fracking.” The column focuses on how foolish it was for the United Kingdom’s new prime minister to once again ban fracking in the country.

Funding environmental groups in other nations is a brilliant strategy if you’re Vladimir Putin. It brings to mind the old proverb “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Without a doubt, environmental groups have helped block many nations from developing their own gas resources, leading to Europe’s dependence on Russian energy.

Thanks to Wikileaks, we know that even Hillary Clinton has expressed similar concerns about Russia funding environmental groups in other countries. According to leaked emails from her assistant, Clinton noted behind closed doors:

“We were even up against phony environmental groups, and I’m a big environmentalist, but these were funded by the Russians to stand against any effort, ‘Oh that pipeline, that fracking, that whatever will be a problem for you,’ and a lot of the money supporting that message was coming from Russia.”

But it’s not just Democrats who have made such claims. Republicans have also raised concerns about this problem. In 2017, two of their Congressmen wrote a letter to the Department of Treasury alleging connections between Russia and environmental groups in the U.S.

This past December, House Republicans indicated they plan on investigating the possibility that Russia has been covertly funding environmental groups to criticize fossil fuel production and to limit or stop fracking.

Democrats, Republicans, European officials and various other knowledgeable observers have drawn attention to this problem abroad. Yet, here in Canada, this idea has received very little press.

Research by SecondStreet.org suggests that Canada could displace about half of Russian oil and natural gas exports by the end of the decade if we made it a priority to export our resources abroad. The problem of course is that our resources are stuck in the ground thanks in large part to environmentalists blocking pipelines and resource development.

Did the Russians help them pull that off? Maybe our federal government should take a closer look.

Colin Craig is the President of SecondStreet.org, a Canadian think tank. To learn more about this issue, please visit DefundPutin.ca.

This column was published in EnergyNow on February 8, 2022.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

You can help us continue to research and tell stories about this issue by making a donation or sharing this content with your friends. Be sure to sign up for our updates too!

Prevention – reduce demand in the first place

If Canadians lived healthier lives, we could reduce demand for emergency services, orthopaedic surgeries, primary care and more. 

For instance, if you visit the Canadian Cancer Society’s website, you’ll read that “about four in ten” cancer cases are preventable. The Heart and Stroke Foundation notes that “almost 80 percent of premature heart disease and stroke can be prevented through healthy behaviours.” A similar number of Diabetes cases are also preventable. 

Many joint replacements and visits to ERs and walk-in clinics could also be avoided through healthy living. 

To be sure, not all health problems can be avoided through healthy living – everyday the system treats Canadians with genetic conditions, helps those injured in unavoidable accidents and more.  

But there is an opportunity to reduce pressure on the health care system through Canadians shifting to healthier lifestyles – better diets, more exercise, etc. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see this column. 

Partner with non-profits and for-profit clinics

European countries will partner with anyone who can help patients. 

It doesn’t matter if it’s a non-profit, a government entity or a private clinic. What matters is that patients receive quality treatment, in a timely manner and for a competitive price.  

In Canada, governments often delivery services using government-run hospitals instead of seeing if non-profit or private clinics could deliver the services more effectively. 

When governments have partnered with non-profit and private clinics, the results have often been quite good – Saskatchewan, Ontario and British Columbia are just a few examples of where partnerships have worked well. 

Canada should pursue more of these partnerships to reduce wait times and increase the volume of services provided to patients.  

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see the links above. 

Make cross border care more accessible

In Canada, citizens pay high taxes each year and we’re promised universal health care services in return. The problem is, wait times are often extremely long in our health system – sometimes patients have to wait years to see a specialist or receive surgery. 

If patients don’t want to wait long periods, they often have to reach into their own pocket and pay for treatment outside the province or country. 

Throughout the European Union, we also find universal health care systems. But a key difference is that EU patients have the right to go to other EU countries, pay for surgery and then be reimbursed by their home government. Reimbursements cover up to what the patient’s home government would have spent to provide the treatment locally. 

If Canada copied this approach, a patient waiting a year to get their hip operation could instead receive treatment next week in one of thousands of surgical clinics throughout the developed world. 

Governments benefit too as the patient is now back on their feet and avoiding complications that sometimes come with long wait times – meaning the government doesn’t have to treat those complications on top of the initial health problem. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or this shorter video. 

Legalize access to non-government providers

Canada is the only country in the world that puts up barriers, or outright bans patients from paying for health services locally. 

For instance, a patient in Toronto cannot pay for a hip operation at a private clinic in Toronto. Their only option is to wait for the government to eventually provide treatment or leave the province and pay elsewhere. 

Countries with better-performing universal health care systems do not have such bans. They allow patients a choice – use the public system or pay privately for treatment. Sweden, France, Australia and more – they all allow choice. 

Why? One reason is that allowing choice means some patients will decide to pay privately. This takes pressure off the public system. For instance, in Sweden, 87% of patients use the public system, but 13% purchase private health insurance. 

Ultimately, more choice improves access for patients. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or watch this short clip on this topic. 

Shift to funding services for patients, not bureaucracies

In Canada, most hospitals receive a cheque from the government each year and are then asked to do their best to help patients. This approach is known as “block funding”. 

Under this model, a patient walking in the door represents a drain on the hospital’s budget. Over the course of a year, hospital administrators have to make sure the budget stretches out so services are rationed. This is why you might have to wait until next year or the year after for a hip operation, knee operation, etc. 

In better-performing universal health systems, they take the opposite approach – hospitals receive money from the government each time they help a patient. If a hospital completes a knee operation, it might receive, say, $10,000. If it completes a knee operation on another patient, it receives another $10,000. 

This model incentivizes hospitals to help more patients – to help more patients with knee operations, cataract surgery, etc. This approach also incentivizes hospitals to spend money on expenses that help patients (e.g. more doctors, nurses, equipment, etc.) rather than using the money on expenses that don’t help patients (e.g. more admin staff). 

To learn more about this policy option, please watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see this post by MEI.