Follow the Money Trail

Daniel:
We have heard it so much that we don't even care anymore, but the Wu had it right when they said "cash rules everything around me." I don't care whether it is individuals, clubs, governments, or whatever how they get paid impacts how they live and think. That is why there is always such a stink in politics when people are exposed for having taken money from people who are directly benefiting from a politicians decisions (Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush).

In our Environmental Justice class, taught by Professor Devon G. Peña, we have had our eyes opened to the fact that this issue of corruption can even extend into NGO's that are supposed to be "fighting the good fight." According to an article by Rechtschaffen and Gauna these environmental agencies are funded by Arco, British Petroleum Chemical Bank, GTE, General Electric, Dupont, Dow Chemical, Exxon, IBM, Coca Cola, etc. In their words "such accountability leads you to pursue a corporate strategy towards the resolution of the environmental crisis," in my words "getting paid by some of the greatest perpetrators of environmental degredation will lead you to compromise your ethics and push the interests of your "donators" over the interests of the community in need, which too often are also poor communities of color". I am not here to say that these companies are out making orders of what gets done, I am simply trying to highlight the facts that by taking this money the Organizations have already compromised themselves.

And who are the NGO's who have taken this money?
They are: Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental Defense Fund, National Audubon Society, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Friends of the Earth, Izaak Walton League, Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society and the World Wide Fund for Nature.

This cannot continue and just so you know it's real, here is Exxon at its finest.


Tyrell:
In the Letter Circa Earth Day, 1990 article mentioned earlier the affected people in the southwestern United States are standing up against each of the three legs of environmental racism. The most emphasized of them being the organizational in how the Group of Ten organizations are mostly made up of well to do white people while the ones suffering the consequences of the Group's actions are mostly poor communities of color. They request the Group of Ten to stop influencing policy in communities of color until they are equally represented within all levels of the organizations.

Those people who think of racism as something of the past are probably confused by these statements. They assume the Group of Ten to be a fair minded bunch of organizations who must have the people's best wishes at heart. As Daniel said however there is no such thing as a free lunch and the Group of Ten has been receiving quite a few "free" lunches from companies that have been known to pollute and obviously do not have the best interests of the communities of color at heart when they push their weight around and receive small favors from these environmental rights groups. Maybe it's just me but I think this sounds pretty suspicious. It is possible that the donating companies are actually trying to offset their damage by giving money to the Group, but as anyone who has tried to lose weight before knows, the best way to shed calories is to stop taking them in. Instead of donating money to groups that can affect policy change they should be researching better ways to make their products so they are not polluting these places so much in the first place.

Of course it is much cheaper to just donate some loose change and make yourself look a little better to the people who are unaffected by and unaware of the things happening in these poor communities. Maybe you will even get some favorable legislation as a bonus. So while it may not be a full blown conspiracy, the wool is being pulled over peoples eyes and the companies are still raking in the dough.