Connect with us

Alberta

Alberta father irked by charity group (The 3% Project) that targets fossil fuel industry

Published

6 years ago

12 minute read

David Durda

With bassa Social Innovations Todayville recently introduced #visionCanada2119

#visionCanada2119 engages Albertans and Canadians in the types of conversations we need to move ahead as a province, a country, and an economy serving both.   Please consider posting your comments at the end of this article, or in the social media thread.   In some cases we will use these comments in future posts.   
Thanks for taking the time to make our province and our country just a little bit stronger!
#visionCanada2119
This article originally appeared on EnergyNow.
Get the FREE EnergyNow Daily Email Sign-up HERE
Follow EnergyNow on  Linkedin

PHOTO David Durda at his office with the Three Percent Project handout that was given to his son in school in Airdrie, Alberta, December 5, 2019.

David Durda is normally happy to have his 15-year-old son exposed to as many points of view as possible.

But the Airdrie, Alberta dad was deeply troubled when he learned an environmentally-focused non-profit, the 3% Project, was given the green light by school administrators to deliver what he believes is a misleading presentation to some 400 students at his son’s high school in October.

Some of the educational materials provided as part of the presentation contain what he considered to be misleading or incomplete information, and appear to directly target the fossil fuel industry and Alberta’s oil sands.

In just under two years, the 3% Project, the flagship campaign of the Toronto-based Foundation for Environmental Stewardship, has made presentations in 355 schools in more than 250 communities – from Mangilaluk School in Tuktoyaktuk, NWT, to Holy Heart of Mary High School in St. John’s, Nfld. – delivering the message that students represent “the final generation” who can solve a potentially “apocalyptic future.”

By next year, the project, according to its website, aims to make presentations in 600 high schools and ask 1 million Canadian youth (representing three per cent of Canada’s population) to sign the following pledge:  “I am more certain that climate change is happening right now, that it is mainly caused by human activities, and that we’re the final generation who can solve it.”

In its stated goals, the group says it also aims to “identify and heavily invest in three youth climate leaders,” cultivate a further 20 “youth advocates” to spread its message, and plans to have 200 youth identified by name in local media outlets sharing the group’s message.

After hearing that his son was required to go to what he called a mandatory presentation at his school, Durda, who works for a Calgary oil and gas firm, began digging into the group, founded by a 25-year-old climate activist who, according to the group, attended climate leadership training led by former U.S. vice-president Al Gore.

“They have pretty ambitious plans and I believe the school was misled about what the presentation was about,” Durda said.

“In my mind, they just presented one view.”

Much of the information in the campaign is straight-forward.

But some of the educational materials being provided to children as young as Grade 6 contain questionable information.

A review of the 43-page 3% Project handbook, available through the group’s website, finds several questionable statements and data points:

  • In making its case to battle “climate indifference” over Alberta’s oil sands, the non-profit suggests the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has estimated Canada is subsidizing its fossil fuel industry to the tune of $46 billion annually, which would account for 13 per cent of Canada’s entire 2019 federal budget. Not mentioned in the literature is the fact that that figure came from an IMF working paper, which according to a prominent disclaimer accompanying the report, doesn’t “necessarily represent the view of the IMF.” According to a 2016 study conducted by Canadian climate advocacy group Environmental Defence, annual subsidies from both provincial and federal governments amount to about $3.3 billion annually.
  • The 3% Project also suggests that between 2003 to 2010, the fossil fuel industry “invested $558 million in climate denial groups.” The source of that information, a 2013 study from Drexel University, only reviewed donations from the United States during that period, and of the 140 foundations identified as funding these groups, the “overwhelming majority of the philanthropic support comes from conservative foundations,” while the fossil fuel industry itself barely warrants a mention in the academic paper. The literature provided to students suggests industry fosters campaigns of misinformation, with one of the project’s key rationales suggesting: “Public education for youth influences their parents and is the best weapon against disinformation by the fossil fuel industry.” The document also makes no mention of the millions of dollars invested by U.S.-based environmental charities to help disrupt Canada’s energy industry as well as derailing some critical pipeline projects.
  • The report vilifies Canada for being “one of the most environmentally destructive populations per capita on earth,” citing, in particular, its globally high per capita rate of CO2 emissions. The literature fails to mention the fact Canada is middle of the pack when it comes to G7 countries, according to the World Bank, and its 537,000 kilotons generated are a bare fraction of those produced by the world’s top three emitters: China, the United States and India, which in 2014 contributed about 18 million kilotons between them. As well, Canada is quickly becoming a world leader in cleantech oil and gas development while making significant progress in lowering the intensity of greenhouse gas emissions in Alberta’s oil sands.
  • The literature also talks about “the possible apocalyptic future we may inherit.” While the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s most recent special report on climate, released in October 2018, highlights several risks associated with climate change, including increasing global temperatures, potential droughts, increased flooding, incremental sea level rising and significant risk to some ecosystems, participating scientists consider many of its predictions to be “medium confidence,” compared to other designations of low and high confidence used by the scientists who make up the panel.

A 3% Project spokesperson, through its website messenger system, declined to make anyone available to comment on any of the concerns raised prior to the publication deadline.

In a statement, the Calgary Catholic School Division said individual school principals are encouraged to invite external groups, and are given guidelines to aid in making those decisions.

“The Calgary Catholic School District recognizes the value of external agencies and organizations to provide information to enhance the curriculum and benefit student learning,” it read.

“Principals are encouraged to invite various external organizations to present information that strengthens the curriculum. Principals are given guidelines to assist their decision-making regarding the circulation of any balanced, approved materials or information at the school level.”

However, correspondence from the school’s principal to Durda included an apology for how the presentation came to be, suggesting it wasn’t thoroughly vetted beforehand.

“I did … apologize and agreed with you that we learned from this, that we need to vet the presentation more thoroughly, but also shared the 3% presentation wasn’t one we would bring back because it didn’t hit home with the kids,” read an email, in part, sent to Durda following the presentation.

Durda said he had recommended a separate presentation from Modern Resources CEO Chris Slubicki, who has emerged as a measured voice from industry touting the innovations and benefits of Canadian energy, which could educate students on the positive improvements that continue to be made, including a 30 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emission intensity of oilsands crude since 1990, and producing increasingly cleaner burning natural gas.

However, he was told such a presentation should be initiated by his son and like-minded peers, and would only be in front of a much smaller assembly of students who showed an interest in attending, which Durda feared would put his son in an unfair position.

According to documents from Revenue Canada, as a registered charity, the Foundation for Environmental Stewardship received some $545,000 from other registered charities in 2018. Among their sponsors are the Butterfield Family Foundation, Lush Cosmetics, the City of Vancouver and Service Canada.

In the group’s handbook, its authors suggest children are not being given all the facts about climate change and the fossil fuels industry. And it aims to mobilize kids as a conduit to influence their elders.

“Children engaging their own parents and grandparents most effectively cultivates behavioural change. Parents start taking action on climate out of love for their children, not of principle,” the handbook reads.

“And they can’t be lied to. Public education must engage youth with the facts before they are thoroughly confused with climate disinformation.”

For Durda, the fact the group was able to get into his son’s school has left him concerned about how many other Canadian students will be influenced by the 3% Project’s message.

“They only presented one view and I thought that view was pretty misleading.”

Related Topics:

After 15 years as a TV reporter with Global and CBC and as news director of RDTV in Red Deer, Duane set out on his own 2008 as a visual storyteller. During this period, he became fascinated with a burgeoning online world and how it could better serve local communities. This fascination led to Todayville, launched in 2016.

Follow Author

More from this author
International / 6 days ago

DOJ fails to fully comply with Friday deadline for Epstein files release

Alberta / 2 weeks ago

The Recall Trap: 21 Alberta MLA’s face recall petitions

Also Interesting / 1 month ago

Historic Return: NHL Confirms Player Participation in 2026 Winter Olympics

Alberta

Ottawa-Alberta agreement may produce oligopoly in the oilsands

Published on December 24, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Jason Clemens and Elmira Aliakbari

The federal and Alberta governments recently jointly released the details of a memorandum of understanding (MOU), which lays the groundwork for potentially significant energy infrastructure including an oil pipeline from Alberta to the west coast that would provide access to Asia and other international markets. While an improvement on the status quo, the MOU’s ambiguity risks creating an oligopoly.

An oligopoly is basically a monopoly but with multiple firms instead of a single firm. It’s a market with limited competition where a few firms dominate the entire market, and it’s something economists and policymakers worry about because it results in higher prices, less innovation, lower investment and/or less quality. Indeed, the federal government has an entire agency charged with worrying about limits to competition.

There are a number of aspects of the MOU where it’s not sufficiently clear what Ottawa and Alberta are agreeing to, so it’s easy to envision a situation where a few large firms come to dominate the oilsands.

Consider the clear connection in the MOU between the development and progress of Pathways, which is a large-scale carbon capture project, and the development of a bitumen pipeline to the west coast. The MOU explicitly links increased production of both oil and gas (“while simultaneously reaching carbon neutrality”) with projects such as Pathways. Currently, Pathways involves five of Canada’s largest oilsands producers: Canadian Natural, Cenovus, ConocoPhillips Canada, Imperial and Suncor.

What’s not clear is whether only these firms, or perhaps companies linked with Pathways in the future, will have access to the new pipeline. Similarly, only the firms with access to the new west coast pipeline would have access to the new proposed deep-water port, allowing access to Asian markets and likely higher prices for exports. Ottawa went so far as to open the door to “appropriate adjustment(s)” to the oil tanker ban (C-48), which prevents oil tankers from docking at Canadian ports on the west coast.

One of the many challenges with an oligopoly is that it prevents new entrants and entrepreneurs from challenging the existing firms with new technologies, new approaches and new techniques. This entrepreneurial process, rooted in innovation, is at the core of our economic growth and progress over time. The MOU, though not designed to do this, could prevent such startups from challenging the existing big players because they could face a litany of restrictive anti-development regulations introduced during the Trudeau era that have not been reformed or changed since the new Carney government took office.

And this is not to criticize or blame the companies involved in Pathways. They’re acting in the interests of their customers, staff, investors and local communities by finding a way to expand their production and sales. The fault lies with governments that were not sufficiently clear in the MOU on issues such as access to the new pipeline.

And it’s also worth noting that all of this is predicated on an assumption that Alberta can achieve the many conditions included in the MOU, some of which are fairly difficult. Indeed, the nature of the MOU’s conditions has already led some to suggest that it’s window dressing for the federal government to avoid outright denying a west coast pipeline and instead shift the blame for failure to the Smith government.

Assuming Alberta can clear the MOU’s various hurdles and achieve the development of a west coast pipeline, it will certainly benefit the province and the country more broadly to diversify the export markets for one of our most important export products. However, the agreement is far from ideal and could impose much larger-than-needed costs on the economy if it leads to an oligopoly. At the very least we should be aware of these risks as we progress.

Jason Clemens

Executive Vice President, Fraser Institute
Elmira Aliakbari

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Alberta

A Christmas wish list for health-care reform

Published on December 23, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Nadeem Esmail and Mackenzie Moir

It’s an exciting time in Canadian health-care policy. But even the slew of new reforms in Alberta only go part of the way to using all the policy tools employed by high performing universal health-care systems.

For 2026, for the sake of Canadian patients, let’s hope Alberta stays the path on changes to how hospitals are paid and allowing some private purchases of health care, and that other provinces start to catch up.

While Alberta’s new reforms were welcome news this year, it’s clear Canada’s health-care system continued to struggle. Canadians were reminded by our annual comparison of health care systems that they pay for one of the developed world’s most expensive universal health-care systems, yet have some of the fewest physicians and hospital beds, while waiting in some of the longest queues.

And speaking of queues, wait times across Canada for non-emergency care reached the second-highest level ever measured at 28.6 weeks from general practitioner referral to actual treatment. That’s more than triple the wait of the early 1990s despite decades of government promises and spending commitments. Other work found that at least 23,746 patients died while waiting for care, and nearly 1.3 million Canadians left our overcrowded emergency rooms without being treated.

At least one province has shown a genuine willingness to do something about these problems.

The Smith government in Alberta announced early in the year that it would move towards paying hospitals per-patient treated as opposed to a fixed annual budget, a policy approach that Quebec has been working on for years. Albertans will also soon be able purchase, at least in a limited way, some diagnostic and surgical services for themselves, which is again already possible in Quebec. Alberta has also gone a step further by allowing physicians to work in both public and private settings.

While controversial in Canada, these approaches simply mirror what is being done in all of the developed world’s top-performing universal health-care systems. Australia, the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland all pay their hospitals per patient treated, and allow patients the opportunity to purchase care privately if they wish. They all also have better and faster universally accessible health care than Canada’s provinces provide, while spending a little more (Switzerland) or less (Australia, Germany, the Netherlands) than we do.

While these reforms are clearly a step in the right direction, there’s more to be done.

Even if we include Alberta’s reforms, these countries still do some very important things differently.

Critically, all of these countries expect patients to pay a small amount for their universally accessible services. The reasoning is straightforward: we all spend our own money more carefully than we spend someone else’s, and patients will make more informed decisions about when and where it’s best to access the health-care system when they have to pay a little out of pocket.

The evidence around this policy is clear—with appropriate safeguards to protect the very ill and exemptions for lower-income and other vulnerable populations, the demand for outpatient healthcare services falls, reducing delays and freeing up resources for others.

Charging patients even small amounts for care would of course violate the Canada Health Act, but it would also emulate the approach of 100 per cent of the developed world’s top-performing health-care systems. In this case, violating outdated federal policy means better universal health care for Canadians.

These top-performing countries also see the private sector and innovative entrepreneurs as partners in delivering universal health care. A relationship that is far different from the limited individual contracts some provinces have with private clinics and surgical centres to provide care in Canada. In these other countries, even full-service hospitals are operated by private providers. Importantly, partnering with innovative private providers, even hospitals, to deliver universal health care does not violate the Canada Health Act.

So, while Alberta has made strides this past year moving towards the well-established higher performance policy approach followed elsewhere, the Smith government remains at least a couple steps short of truly adopting a more Australian or European approach for health care. And other provinces have yet to even get to where Alberta will soon be.

Let’s hope in 2026 that Alberta keeps moving towards a truly world class universal health-care experience for patients, and that the other provinces catch up.

Continue Reading

Trending

X