“We don’t want the West to go and find alternatives,” he said, “because, clearly, the higher the price of oil goes, the more they have incentives to go and find alternatives.”

– Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia. (Toronto Sun)

And apparently, neither does Greenpeace and a host of other environmental groups operating in Canada. The Toronto Sun reports 100 professional environmental activists on the case to delay production of tar sand oil in Canada alone. Most of these people are not even employed by native Canadian firms, but rather foreign influence-peddlers seeking to sabotage the Canadian Petroleum industry for their clients such Prince Al-Waleed.

Of course Greenpeace publically decries the vile activities of Middle Eastern Oil Sheiks who soullessly rape the planet. Greenpeace also requires one million dollars a day in income to work for “the public good.” It’s hard to find rich, corporate sponsors who’s economic outcomes are actually improved by the continued existence of Greenpeace. Those with the begging bowl can’t get too picky about who they take money from.

Yet, there are alternatives to OPEC’s oil cartel Greenpeace ostensibly favors. These generally involve so-called alternative sources of energy that are busily creating green jobs and prosperity all across the Spanish Plain. Economists from La Universidad de Rey Juan Carlos describe the vast cornucopia of opportunity. “Spain’s experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created,…”

At this point the mentally facile defender of Greenpeace will alert us to the fact that Spain’s government chose this policy and that Greenpeace is an NGO. Judging from iteration 2.0 of the UNIPCC report, this would be only a partially accurate rebuttal. The corruption once more begins with Greenpeace’s $1mil/day burn rate, and the people they rely upon to fuel it.

The first sign of rot was yet another pedantic and disingenuous propaganda post to the UNIPCC Report. Working Group III of the IPCC claims to develop climate change mitigation strategies. It made the following claim regarding the efficacy of renewable energy sources.

Close to 80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies a new report shows. The findings, from over 120 researchers working with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), also indicate that the rising penetration of renewable energies could lead to cumulative greenhouse gas savings equivalent to 220 to 560 Gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (GtC02eq) between 2010 and 2050.

Then, the claim was evaluated by non-members of the UNIPCC….

The 80% statement came from a joint paper by Greenpeace and The European Renewable Energy Council (EREC). The EREC and Greenpeace both exist to politically lobby governments, rather than produce calm, dispassionate science. Greenpeace not only successfully smuggled agitprop into an IPCC report, they also had member Sven Teske editing the chapter in which said 80% claim appeared. It gets funnier; Teske co-authored the paper which he included in a report section while posing as an unbiased scientific referee.

Greenpeace takes meticulous care to not except any money from governments or corporations directly. They work through NGO foundations such as EREC, which connect back into corporate lobbies to bring in money. Thus EREC serves Greenpeace as a straw-man donor. EREC’s corporate support includes organizations such as European Wind Energy Association (EWEA), which represents 90% of the global wind power market.

When Exxon buys science in this manner, we of course denounce the creeping evil. We can’t have disinterested science corrupted by corporations that actually do things. These people actually create jobs in the absence of government permission and mandate.

The pay-for-play corruption so consumed Greenpeace that former founder Patrick Moore described what he saw the organization morph into.

Referring to Greenpeace’s “eco-extremism” in March 2000, he described the group in Oregon Wheat magazine as “Anti-human”; “antitechnology and anti-science”; “Anti-organization” and “pro-anarchy”; “anti-trade”; “anti-free-enterprise”; “anti-democratic”; and “basically anti-civilization.” Writing in Canada’s National Post in October 2001, Patrick Moore offered the following critique: “I had no idea that after I left in 1986 they would evolve into a band of scientific illiterates…. Clearly, my former Greenpeace colleagues are either not reading the morning paper or simply don’t care about the truth.”

This brings us full-circle to the 1.7 trillion barrels of oil trapped in the tar sands of Canada… The extraction technology does not yet exist to pull this oil out economically. Yet Prince Al-Waleed worries that an oil price of $100, over too long a run of demand, will inspire the creative genius of Canadian entrepreneurs to raise the level of geological science and expertise. Then, far more than 15% of the Alberta tar sands become good for more than just awesome dinosaur fossils.

Yet the Saudi Prince probably realizes he has an invaluable ally against the modernization and technological advancement of the West. All he has to do is make sure his lobbyists give Western environmentalists and crony capitalists their green piece. The western world is full of entities such as Greenpeace. These groups are perfectly capable of politically providing for the continued dominance of the OPEC economic cartel even without any sort of violent jihad.