1. So @GreenpeaceCA recently accused me - albeit indirectly - of colluding with "oil industry insiders" to bias a federal government report. Seems worthy of a thread...
(1a. This is long and it'll get very wonky, so mute if that isn't your idea of fun.)
2. First, the report in question: "Canada's Energy Transition," prepared by NRCan's Generation Energy Council to provide the federal govt with a high-level vision of how to shift to a low-carbon economy in Canada in a generation nrcan.gc.ca/20093
3. Some representative press coverage of the report's launch:
globalnews.ca/news/4302691/f…
ctvnews.ca/politics/canad…
theglobeandmail.com/business/artic…
globalnews.ca/news/4302691/f…
ctvnews.ca/politics/canad…
theglobeandmail.com/business/artic…
4. The "vision" part of the report came from a synthesis of consultations with 300K+ Canadians, followed by the council's collaborative work over nearly a year.
5. The Generation Energy Council was a 14-member expert roundtable with membership ranging from oil and gas sector to clean energy advocacy. Its membership is not secret nrcan.gc.ca/21184
6. Early in the process, I was contracted by NRCan to attend council meetings and write the report in collaboration with the council members. There is literally not a word in the final report that I didn't have a hand in putting there or the opportunity to revise.
7. Before I get to Greenpeace's accusations of oil industry shilling, I should say I was impressed throughout with the council's meticulous work ethic and willingness to negotiate and compromise.
8. In some ways the council was a microcosm of Canadian climate and energy policy disputes. There were very deep divisions and heated disagreements. Until very close to the end of the process, whole sections of the report were in flux, some in danger of even being abandoned.
9. Does it sound like I'm describing a process and result that were anything but pre-determined? Because I am going out of my way to describe a process and result that were anything but pre-determined.
10. And so now to the response from @GreenpeaceCA: "Oil industry fingerprints on clean energy report" greenpeace.org/canada/en/issu…
11. I was reluctant to boost the signal on this at first. It's Greenpeace, it's a blog post, it was forgotten even by them the moment protesters clipped their harnesses onto a Vancouver bridge to block an oil tanker
12. I have decided to respond mainly so that Greenpeace's accusations about the nature of the council's work don't go unchallenged. Very good people worked way too hard to have their work so badly distorted.
13. Greenpeace's critique is built on what looks like diligent investigative journalism: an ATIP request that uncovered meetings between the Natural Resources minister and "oil industry insiders" 
14. Sure, we all know Greenpeace's politics. But if you knew nothing else about the report, that sure looks like a government caught in its own memos hiding something, right?
15. Please note how the Canada West Foundation is referred to as "an oil-funded think tank." CWF's donors aren't secret. They include multiple governments, CN Rail, Ledcor and the Port of Vancouver cwf.ca/support-us/don…
16. The Greenpeace post goes on to note two further meetings between Jim Carr and the "insiders." These are meticulously detailed:
17. Boy, that sure sounds like a lot of ex-CAPP and CWF people bending the government's ear. Then what happened, Greenpeace?
18. Note the gap in Greenpeace's timeline between October 2017 and June 2018. During that gap, THE ENTIRE REPORT WAS WRITTEN. There was only the roughest of outlines when I came on board in January 2018.
19. By this omission, Greenpeace implies that I joined with 13 professionals from the clean energy sector and dozens of NRCan staffers to participate in a six-month-long farce, all to serve the agenda of the former director of CAPP.
20. I mean, sure, it's Greenpeace. But that is a ridiculous, self-serving distortion that displays open contempt for the integrity of basically the entire clean energy business in Canada, all to score a single cheap point against the hated Libs and their pipeline.
21. Strip away the innuendo, and what Greenpeace has uncovered is that a major oil-producing nation's Natural Resources Minister talks to people in the oil business, along with scads of other experts and 300,000 Canadians, before launching a generation-scale visioning process.
22. This isn't just a shading of the truth. This is a massive misrepresentation of how the report was produced, either out of ignorance or malice. I probably shouldn't expect better from Greenpeace, but I did.
23. You think the report is biased? Show me where. Bring it. Unlike the civil servants and clean energy execs who have larger organizational interests to protect, I'm a free agent. I can say whatever the hell I want.
24. If the facts are to matter in the climate debate, everyone has to respect them. Greenpeace clearly doesn't. It does its own cause no favours on this front, and its allies in the eNGO community should call it out when it pulls this kind of crap. Is my point. /end
