open-cast coal mine near Konin, Poland (photo: Greenpeace 2008)
Euracoal, the European Association for Coal and Lignite, has launched a full-frontal attack on the European Climate Foundation, one of the most influential climate NGO’s in Europe, accusing it of “twisting the truth” and undermining democracy with “money and power”. Energy Post editor Karel Beckman looks at Euracoal’s claims and concludes that they are unsubstantiated and even cynical.
Are “NGO’s for sale”? That’s the accusation made in a new report from Euracoal, the European Association for Coal and Lignite, that came out on Friday 9 October. “How the US super-rich influence EU climate and energy policy”, says the subtitle, even more spectacularly.
Euracoal’s “special report”, as it’s called, does not shy away from strong accusations. “Well-targeted campaigns by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) promote an energy mix without coal”, it says, adding: “They use every imaginable argument against coal, often twisting the truth and playing on irrational fears.”
According to Euracoal, there is nothing less than a conspiracy behind the anti-coal campaign: “This report examines who is behind these NGOs and their campaigns. We find that a wave of money is flooding into the EU policy space, a wave that the few donors hope will influence policy and favour their own preferred solutions, whatever the cost to consumers. This is a story about money and power.”
It goes on: “Euracoal does not question climate change and the need to act. What we do question is the efficiency of the measures proposed. We want to expose the funders behind the public campaigns that are portrayed as grass-roots movements, but are in fact well-orchestrated by a small number of super-rich individuals who see democracy as an obstacle to climate action.”
Complex web
Big words indeed. From an organisation like Euracoal, you would expect them to be backed up by solid facts. But the “special report” – it is really more like a brochure – does not contain any news or revelations.
As it turns out, Euracoal has focused on one NGO only: the European Climate Foundation (ECF). The reason for this is that ECF “sits at the centre of a complex web of NGOs who together command significant influence with European governments and the European Commission. With its enormous spending power, the European Climate Foundation has been able to direct a massive campaign by apparently independent actors, but who are in fact puppets of the Foundation and its rich US sponsors.”
“The European Climate Foundation has chosen to fight against one of the few reliable energy sources in Europe – coal”
Now it is arguably true that ECF is one of the most influential NGO’s in the European climate debate. It it also true that it has ample funds – it was able to spend €26 million in 2013. The way ECF operates is probably quite clever. As Euracoal notes, it spreads its wealth over numerous smaller groups and causes – NGO’s, websites, think-tanks, consultancies, researchers. In 2013 it disbursed €15.3 million among 150 grantees (which means these got on average €100,000 each).
ECF in turn is funded by a number of foundations, only one of which, by the way, is from the US. They are:
- the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (owned by a UK hedge fund)
- Nationale Postcode Loterij (a Dutch lottery organisation funded by the Dutch lottery ticket buying public)
- Velux Fonden (funded by the Danish window manufacturer Velux)
- Oak Foundation (a Swiss-based foundation set up by entrepreneur Alan Parker of the retail company Duty Free Shoppers)
- the McCall MacBain Foundation (a Swiss-based foundation set up by John and Marcy McCall MacBain, the founders of a successful Canadian classified advertising company)
- ClimateWorks Foundation, the only US organisation, which is described by Euracoal as a “behemoth”
The funders of the ClimateWorks Foundation are yet other foundations, such as the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. These are supposedly the “US super rich” who are buying EU climate policy, although Euracoal does not mention a single individual “US super rich” person by name.
The question is: what is wrong with all this?
All of the information presented by Euracoal is easily available on the website of the ECF and the websites of the organisations that are mentioned here. As a journalist, I get press releases from ECF all the time, and I am perfectly aware of the nature of the organisation. I long ago checked it out on their website. Why aren’t these foundations entitled to spend their money on a cause they believe in?
Euracoal phrases all its non-revelations in suggestive language, with sentences like: “Many NGOs struggle on limited funding, but not the European Climate Foundation which paid its CEO €299 856 in 2014 (ECF, 2015a).” So ECF is successful, is that a crime? Are NGO’s who are struggling somehow more credible than those who are not? And is Euracoal trying to say that a salary of €300,000 is somehow wrong? How much do European coal lobbyists make? I could not find any information on that on Euracoal’s website.
Or what to think of the “accusation” that ECF “has appointed several notable fellows”, namely: Princess Laurentien van Oranje-Nassau (sister-in-law of the Dutch King Willem Alexander), Bert Metz (former co-chair of the IPCC), John Ashton (former UK special representative for Climate Change), and Julian Popov (former Environment Minister of Bulgaria). So?
Twisting the truth
Now of course if ECF were misleading the public with false information, if it were “twisting the truth”, as Euracoal puts it, that would be really bad. So what evidence does Euracoal marshall to back up this accusation? None. There is not a single case of “twisting the truth” in Euracoal’s “special report”.
Apparently, Euracoal could not manage to find, in all the prodigious output of the ECF, any concrete examples of ECF lobbyists misleading the public. That’s amazing.
Instead, Euracoal comes up with vague accusations that purport to show that ECF is somehow engaged in damaging activities. For example, it says that ECF’s “priority task is not … to protect the environment, but to create a particular type of economy, regardless of cost.”
Euracoal’s strategy apparently is to simply equate coal with our standard of living, so that it can then define every criticism of coal as an attempt to wreck the economy
So what if ECF thinks “a particular type of economy” is needed “to protect the environment”? Is that not allowed? Euracoal’s adds a little extra smear of course, saying ECF does this “regardless of cost”, but it does not back this up. Indeed, Euracoal quotes ECF’s own policy objectives as saying that: “Overall we believe that Europe is in a privileged position to demonstrate the feasibility of decarbonisation without sacrificing prosperity”. ECF, then, according to its own official aims, certainly does look at “cost”.
As a supposed final nail in the coffin of ECF, Euracoal then issues this accusation: “Finally, another objective of the European Climate Foundation is, ‘limiting fossil-fuel emissions in the EU and neighbouring countries’. In practice, the European Climate Foundation has chosen to fight against one of the few reliable energy sources in Europe – coal. Most of the Foundation’s funding is targeted towards its ‘Power Programme’ and its ‘EU Climate Policies and Low-Carbon Economy Programme’, where, using grants, the European Climate Foundation pays think tanks and NGOs to report and campaign against coal in Europe.”
Is Euracoal trying to suggest somehow that it’s not allowed for anyone to campaign against coal, since according to Euracoal coal is “one of the few reliable energy sources in Europe?” This is just plain silly.
Euracoal’s strategy apparently is to simply equate coal with our standard of living, so that it can then define every criticism of coal as an attempt to wreck the economy. “The coal industry stands for progress through the deployment of cleaner, more efficient technologies”, Eurocoal says. “The European Climate Foundation buys the services of NGOs who, through a complex web, campaign against coal. If coal falls, then society will be poorer.” Does Euracoal really believe that people will not be able to see through this trick?
Anocratic state
All this is bad enough but Euracoal does not stop there. It goes on to argue that ECF is somehow undermining democracy.
In a press release accompanying the report, Secretary-General of Euracoal Brian Ricketts calls ECF “a project to dismantle our way of life and to replace it with an experiment promoted by an elite class which seeks influence over EU policy makers, power over EU citizens and a new concentration of wealth taken from us all.”
In the report itself Euracoal puts it like this: “In a properly functioning democracy, the changes that are demanded by the European Climate Foundation and its wealthy donors would come about through the ballot box. Instead, the Foundation has resorted to tactics that, if left unchallenged, would see Europe slip into an anocratic [sic] state.”
Since when does democracy mean that we cannot “demand changes” in a public debate?
[adrotate group=”9″]
Certainly Euracoal does have a point that “a small number of very wealthy individuals [that] do not represent civil society” have a lot of influence on the political decision-making processes in our democracies. That does include organisations like ECF, which deserve scrutiny. It also includes the far larger number of organisations that lobby for coal, oil, gas, nuclear energy, cars, GMO’s, banks and other interests and are paid by “super-rich” individuals and corporations.
Personally, I am left to wonder what made Euracoal come out with a “report” like this. Possibly they did it out of desperation, with the Paris climate summit coming up. But they may also feel that their message will resonate with many groups in society who are under pressure in one way or another. That would make this a very cynical move – a deliberate attempt to tarnish opponents of coal with vague smears. Or is this normal practice in the coal sector?
Editor’s Note
Energy Post is not sponsored or funded by the European Climate Foundation in any way whatsoever.
Emphasis (italics) in the quotations added by the author (KB).
One of our readers, Mike Parr, sent in a piece of news which he says he discovered in the British Library filed under Horseshit
London 9 October 1915 – Today, the European Association for Horseshoe manufacturers (Eurohorse) released a report on the funding of anti-horse campaigns. It finds that a wave of money is flooding into the British policy space from a small number of super-rich donors, many from the US, who hope to influence transport policy in favour of their own preferred autocar solutions, whatever the cost to British consumers.
This is a story about money and power; a story in which the UK and London is viewed as a “laboratory for the world”. Public campaigns against horses and horseshoes are portrayed as grass-roots, transport movements, but are in fact well-orchestrated by a handful of organisations with enormous budgets. For example, the European Climate Foundation spends £26 million each year on lobbying against horses and horseshoes in London. It sits at the centre of a complex web of compliant NGOs, paying each of them to echo its own call for transport action. Together, they command significant influence with the British government using well-paid professional agents.
The same message appears to come from many mouths. In a properly functioning democracy, the changes that are demanded by the European Climate Foundation and its wealthy autocar donors (we know you Mr Ford) would come about through the ballot box. Instead, the Foundation uses less-than-transparent methods on behalf of its few wealthy donors, some of whom stand to profit from the policies it promotes.
Eurohorse does not question the need to tackle the horseshit mountains in London and other cities. The association stands for progress through the deployment of cleaner, more efficient technologies to collect horseshit. These can cut horseshit emissions by 30% or more with certainty and at a lower cost to consumers than any alternative. Conventional transport by horse is flexible and reliable, meeting 80% of London’s transport needs. It will have an important role over the coming years to back up the unreliable and dangerous autocars that are an increasing feature of our roads and which are often immobile when their fuel runs out (usually at night). With horseshit capture and storage, horses will be a competitive with autocars, and will be needed to meet growing transport demand, once the war is over.
The Secretary-General of Eurohorse, Brigadier Jockstrap warns, “Of a project to dismantle our way of life and to replace it with a transport experiment promoted by an elite class which seeks influence over British policy makers, power over UK citizens and a new concentration of wealth taken from us all.”
Sir, When we realised, to our surprise, that anti-coal reports from various NGOs were sponsored by one organisation, namely ECF, we decided to take a closer look. These reports have titles such as “The Unpaid Health Bill: how coal power plants make us sick”, “Europe’s Dirty 30 – how the EU’s coal-fired power plants are undermining its climate efforts” and “Europe’s Failure to Tackle Coal: risks for the EU low-carbon transition” (pp.4-5). In some, we are accused of killing people. We published our findings so that everyone is clear on who pays the piper. In the case of ECF, almost two-thirds of the funding comes from the US (p.10), from funds managed by the super-rich, some of whom profit from their energy-sector investments. As stated in your EP article, there is nothing wrong with any of this … just so long as people know that big money sits behind NGOs. Yours, Brian Ricketts, EURACOAL Secretary General
Dear Mr Ricketts, doesn’t “big money sit behind Euracoal”? What does that prove? How much money is spent on coal lobbying in the world? Aren’t the super-rich entitled to support causes even if you don’t like them? Surely there are also super-rich who support the fossil fuel industry. All this is irrelevant. What matters is whether those ECF-funded reports you mention “twist the truth” and “play on irrational fears”, as you claim in your report. You advance no arguments for this. You say you are accused of killing people – I don’t know the context or wording of this accusation. Certainly pollution from coal power plants kills people, not to mention coal mine accidents. Do you want deny this? In the past the benefits of coal may have outweighed the costs, but if there are clearer alternatives now, that are also affordable, it seems to make sense to switch away from coal.
What is more local in the EU than wind power produced by European wind turbines like Vestas or Siemens?
Sir,
I have no problem with how the rich spend their money, but if they hire NGOs in Brussels who then claim to represent civil society – and who respond to public consultations as such – then this raises important transparency questions. To help establish a representative government in Brussels, the Commission gives grants to NGOs: they are seen as the voice of civil society. Our report shows that some NGOs behave like PR agencies – selling their services to rich benefactors.
Let me give an example of how the truth is twisted. I have been confronted by anti-coal demonstrators in Berlin, Brussels, Warsaw and elsewhere who, taking data from reports sponsored by ECF, claim that coal kills thousands of people every year in Europe (ref. HEAL). Linking 400,000 deaths to coal use gets headlines. Yet there is no correlation between high levels of air pollution and coal use, although irresponsible coal use certainly causes air pollution. Reports from the EEA show traffic pollution as the largest source of the NOx and PM inhaled by EU citizens. But rather than face up to that challenge, and in pursuit of stronger climate action, it has become fashionable to blame coal for far more pollution than is credible.
Turning to irrational fears. ECF’s mission is, “To avoid high risks for humanity from climate change.” Those risks are assessed by the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University to be 0.01%. EURACOAL agrees that reducing GHG emissions is necessary. We do not agree that this should be done regardless of cost, in some kind of social experiment.
And yes, coal mining can be dangerous. Safety in EU mines is thankfully high, but there is always room for improvement. Installing PV panels on roofs is also dangerous work. The role of directors and managers, in all sectors, is to put safety first, always.
Yours,
Dear Mr Ricketts, thanks for your response. I am afraid you don’t convince me, though.
First, do NGO’s claim to represent “civil society”? What does that mean exactly? I grant you, it should be clear who pays who. All of what you reported is on the public record, easy to find on ECF website and other websites.
If that had been your only point, it would have been fine. I would not have argued. ECF is influential and they should be followed critically as any other organisation.
But your “special report” goes much beyond that, as I pointed out in my article.
So how does ECF twist the truth, I asked you. You reply: “I have been confronted by anti-coal protesters who, taking data from reports sponsored by ECF, claim that kills thousands of people in Europe every year.” Come on, Mr Ricketts: why not cite the reports themselves? Is Euracoal responsible for everything people say “taking data” from you?
You say there is “no connection between high levels of air pollution and coal use”. Really? Can you provide evidence please? (Have you been in Beijing recently?)
Then you say that risks to humanity from climate change “are assessed by The Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University to be 0.01%.” Huh? This is gibberish. Can you provide the source for this and explain what you mean please?
You say reducing GHG emissions should not be done “regardless of cost”, but who wants to do this regardless of cost?
As to the dangers of putting solar panels on roofs, many studies have compared risks of various forms of energy production. See for example this article on Forbes for some interesting facts and sources: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/
This gives as number of deaths per trillion kWh: coal global average: 170,000; coal in the US: 15,000; solar PV 440.
The Euracoal report accuses NGO’s of twisting the truth… so Euracoal’s contribution to the truth is: “there is no correlation between high levels of air pollution and coal use”… lost for words!
Summarizing: pro-coal lobby that tries to influence policy complains that anti-coal lobby does the same.
Exactly. I could have saved myself a lot of time!