Edit: So this seems to be the original article:
www.gatestoneinstitute.org
-----
scenarieconomici-it.translate.goog
Machine-translation:
Have environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs), environmentalist Western movements and parties been possible, even unwittingly, collaborators of the Russian government over the past decade?
This question arises from a recent report by the Foundation for Political Innovation (Fondapol) in Paris. Fondapol director Dominique Reynié said in a recent interview:
" We found Gazprom funding in particular to environmental NGOs, which provided ministers to some European countries - Belgium for example - which then evidently embarked on a sort of return of favor by defending an exit from nuclear power " . Pefino ecological ministers were financed by legal studies close to Gazprom .
Similar allegations have already been made in the past.
The Guardian, as early as 2014, quoted then NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen as saying:
" I have met with allies who may report that Russia, as part of its sophisticated information and disinformation operations, has actively engaged with so-called non-governmental organizations - environmental organizations working against shale gas - to maintain European dependence on gas. Russian imported “.
These associations have prevented the development of the European shale gas sector which would have guaranteed almost complete European energy autonomy to the detriment of Gazprom. So their action would have increased gas imports from outside.
Hence the interest, for the Russian government, in organizing a vast disinformation campaign against shale gas and nuclear energy in the West, massively funding the groups that most likely "naturally" will oppose it: environmental organizations.
On June 29, 2017, two of America's top federal lawmakers on energy issues, U.S. representatives Randy Weber and Lamar Smith, sent a letter to then-Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin, calling for an investigation into the funding of U.S. environmental organizations from part of the government of the Russian Federation. According to The Hill:
“ The letter notes that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton complained in a speech at a private hearing in 2016, 'We even confronted bogus environmental groups, and I'm a big environmentalist, but these were funded by the Russians ... '"
These two congressmen demonstrated the mechanism, which can be summarized as follows: “ Funds from the Russian government -> 'Embedded' shadow company in Bermuda -> American Foundation -> American environmental organizations.
Why Bermuda? Because this state does not require any disclosure that the funds come from a foreign government, contrary to American law.
The Sea Change Foundation is a private nonprofit 501 (c) (3) organization based in the United States. Like any 501 (c) (3) American, Sea Change must disclose that it has received funds from overseas, in this case a Bermuda company. Nothing more.
A few days ago, on March 11, 2022, US representatives Jim Banks and Bill Johnson sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, calling for an investigation into the alleged Russian manipulation of American "green groups" who are apparently financed by “Money of obscure origin” (anonymous donations) . "Russia has spent millions promoting anti-energy politics and politics in the United States," Banks told Fox News Digital.
Their letter noted:
According to Sea Change's tax return, in 2010 the group received $ 23 million, half of its total annual contributions, from a Bahamian armed company linked to the Russian government. Sea Change then passed that money on to groups like the Sierra Club and the Center for American Progress, which lobbied heavily against fracking and energy policies to reduce competition with Russian oil and gas. In 2020, the Center for American Progress donated over $ 800,000 solely to Democratic politicians and groups, and Sierra Club Independent Action spent $ 3.7 million in support of environmental Democratic candidates.
The American environmental organizations specified in the letter are among the main ones, including the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters Education Fund, all heavily involved in opposing shale gas exploitation in the United States and which received a total of $ 10. millions a year from the American Sea Change Foundation, which is richly endowed by the umbrella company based in Bermuda.
In Germany, things were even clearer: the main environmental organizations WWF, BUND and NABU have set up an “environmental” foundation - Naturschutzstiftung Deutsche Ostsee - with the company Nord Stream AG. Headquartered in Zug, Switzerland, Nord Stream AG is an international consortium of five large companies formed in 2005 for the planning, construction and subsequent operation of two 1,224-kilometer pipelines across the Baltic Sea. The five shareholders of the consortium are Gazprom International Projects LLC, Wintershall Dea AG, PEG Infrastruktur AG, NV Nederlandse Gasunie and ENGIE. Gazprom International Projects LLC holds a 51% stake in the pipeline project.
The "environmental" foundation Naturschutzstiftung Deutsche Ostsee was endowed with 10 million euros by Gazprom, as Nord Stream claims. These German environmental organizations WWF, BUND, NABU were also, at the same time, fierce opponents of German civil nuclear energy and the exploitation of shale gas in Europe.
In particular, the example given by Dominique Reynié of the mechanism he described seems to be that of Belgium. In fact, the current Federal Minister of Energy of Belgium, Tinne Van der Straeten, of the environmental party Groen, was, before taking office, the co-owner - a 50% partner - of a law firm of which one of the " big ”customers none other than Gazprom, the Russian gas giant. When she became Minister of Energy in 2020, Van der Straeten worked on the complete decommissioning of the Belgian civilian nuclear park, in accordance with the ferocious will of environmentalists for nearly twenty years, to replace it with gas plants, which will have to be supplied, among the others, from - Gazprom.
It is of course the nuclear industry that often best demonstrates the duplicity of some environmental organizations. While these organizations consistently swear by reducing CO2 emissions in all things, when it comes to nuclear power, we see them asking to replace an energy source that emits almost no CO2, with fossil fuels that emit forty times more. In Belgium, the green parties Ecolo and Groen explicitly support the replacement of nuclear reactors with gas-fired power plants.
The allegations of being funded by the Russian government, even if signed by the Secretary General of NATO, the Director of the Foundation for Political Innovation and the United States Secretary of State, do not make them guilty of corruption, conflict of interest, non-disclosure of being funded and / or being an agent of a foreign government. The presumption of innocence applies to everyone.
The attack on Ukraine by Russia, whose armed forces are literally financed by European purchases of Russian gas - which is 40% of the gas consumed in Europe - all without any Italian newspaper having investigated in this direction. Who knows why. We note that the Draghi government has not yet contested any of the policies imposed by these groups that prevent the development of European energy, acting as an objective ally of the Russians. What does Tovarich Cingolani think?
Has Russia Been Financing Western Environmentalism?
"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
-----
Clamoroso: come i russi hanno finanziato i gruppi ambientalisti per lasciarci al freddo e indifesi. Non lo leggerete mai mainstream
Le organizzazioni non governative ambientali (ONG), i movimenti e i partiti occidentali ambientalisti sono stati possibili, anche inconsapevoli,
scenarieconomici-it.translate.goog
Machine-translation:
Clamorous: how the Russians have financed environmental groups to leave us cold and defenseless. You will never read it mainstream
Have environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs), environmentalist Western movements and parties been possible, even unwittingly, collaborators of the Russian government over the past decade?
This question arises from a recent report by the Foundation for Political Innovation (Fondapol) in Paris. Fondapol director Dominique Reynié said in a recent interview:
" We found Gazprom funding in particular to environmental NGOs, which provided ministers to some European countries - Belgium for example - which then evidently embarked on a sort of return of favor by defending an exit from nuclear power " . Pefino ecological ministers were financed by legal studies close to Gazprom .
Similar allegations have already been made in the past.
The Guardian, as early as 2014, quoted then NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen as saying:
" I have met with allies who may report that Russia, as part of its sophisticated information and disinformation operations, has actively engaged with so-called non-governmental organizations - environmental organizations working against shale gas - to maintain European dependence on gas. Russian imported “.
These associations have prevented the development of the European shale gas sector which would have guaranteed almost complete European energy autonomy to the detriment of Gazprom. So their action would have increased gas imports from outside.
Hence the interest, for the Russian government, in organizing a vast disinformation campaign against shale gas and nuclear energy in the West, massively funding the groups that most likely "naturally" will oppose it: environmental organizations.
On June 29, 2017, two of America's top federal lawmakers on energy issues, U.S. representatives Randy Weber and Lamar Smith, sent a letter to then-Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin, calling for an investigation into the funding of U.S. environmental organizations from part of the government of the Russian Federation. According to The Hill:
“ The letter notes that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton complained in a speech at a private hearing in 2016, 'We even confronted bogus environmental groups, and I'm a big environmentalist, but these were funded by the Russians ... '"
These two congressmen demonstrated the mechanism, which can be summarized as follows: “ Funds from the Russian government -> 'Embedded' shadow company in Bermuda -> American Foundation -> American environmental organizations.
Why Bermuda? Because this state does not require any disclosure that the funds come from a foreign government, contrary to American law.
The Sea Change Foundation is a private nonprofit 501 (c) (3) organization based in the United States. Like any 501 (c) (3) American, Sea Change must disclose that it has received funds from overseas, in this case a Bermuda company. Nothing more.
A few days ago, on March 11, 2022, US representatives Jim Banks and Bill Johnson sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, calling for an investigation into the alleged Russian manipulation of American "green groups" who are apparently financed by “Money of obscure origin” (anonymous donations) . "Russia has spent millions promoting anti-energy politics and politics in the United States," Banks told Fox News Digital.
Their letter noted:
According to Sea Change's tax return, in 2010 the group received $ 23 million, half of its total annual contributions, from a Bahamian armed company linked to the Russian government. Sea Change then passed that money on to groups like the Sierra Club and the Center for American Progress, which lobbied heavily against fracking and energy policies to reduce competition with Russian oil and gas. In 2020, the Center for American Progress donated over $ 800,000 solely to Democratic politicians and groups, and Sierra Club Independent Action spent $ 3.7 million in support of environmental Democratic candidates.
The American environmental organizations specified in the letter are among the main ones, including the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters Education Fund, all heavily involved in opposing shale gas exploitation in the United States and which received a total of $ 10. millions a year from the American Sea Change Foundation, which is richly endowed by the umbrella company based in Bermuda.
In Germany, things were even clearer: the main environmental organizations WWF, BUND and NABU have set up an “environmental” foundation - Naturschutzstiftung Deutsche Ostsee - with the company Nord Stream AG. Headquartered in Zug, Switzerland, Nord Stream AG is an international consortium of five large companies formed in 2005 for the planning, construction and subsequent operation of two 1,224-kilometer pipelines across the Baltic Sea. The five shareholders of the consortium are Gazprom International Projects LLC, Wintershall Dea AG, PEG Infrastruktur AG, NV Nederlandse Gasunie and ENGIE. Gazprom International Projects LLC holds a 51% stake in the pipeline project.
The "environmental" foundation Naturschutzstiftung Deutsche Ostsee was endowed with 10 million euros by Gazprom, as Nord Stream claims. These German environmental organizations WWF, BUND, NABU were also, at the same time, fierce opponents of German civil nuclear energy and the exploitation of shale gas in Europe.
In particular, the example given by Dominique Reynié of the mechanism he described seems to be that of Belgium. In fact, the current Federal Minister of Energy of Belgium, Tinne Van der Straeten, of the environmental party Groen, was, before taking office, the co-owner - a 50% partner - of a law firm of which one of the " big ”customers none other than Gazprom, the Russian gas giant. When she became Minister of Energy in 2020, Van der Straeten worked on the complete decommissioning of the Belgian civilian nuclear park, in accordance with the ferocious will of environmentalists for nearly twenty years, to replace it with gas plants, which will have to be supplied, among the others, from - Gazprom.
It is of course the nuclear industry that often best demonstrates the duplicity of some environmental organizations. While these organizations consistently swear by reducing CO2 emissions in all things, when it comes to nuclear power, we see them asking to replace an energy source that emits almost no CO2, with fossil fuels that emit forty times more. In Belgium, the green parties Ecolo and Groen explicitly support the replacement of nuclear reactors with gas-fired power plants.
The allegations of being funded by the Russian government, even if signed by the Secretary General of NATO, the Director of the Foundation for Political Innovation and the United States Secretary of State, do not make them guilty of corruption, conflict of interest, non-disclosure of being funded and / or being an agent of a foreign government. The presumption of innocence applies to everyone.
The attack on Ukraine by Russia, whose armed forces are literally financed by European purchases of Russian gas - which is 40% of the gas consumed in Europe - all without any Italian newspaper having investigated in this direction. Who knows why. We note that the Draghi government has not yet contested any of the policies imposed by these groups that prevent the development of European energy, acting as an objective ally of the Russians. What does Tovarich Cingolani think?
Last edited:
