|
epitome of incomprehensibility
|
I was wondering whether it's worth it to still give this thing money, not that my yearly $25 does a big difference. I wrote a bit about it on the comments section of something irrelevant. See, NCC does good things, protecting animals and plants and producing some nice photography, but it seems politically weak and prone to bad compromises. E.g.:
-One of the surveys NCC sent a couple of years back (I filled it out - this was before I had a full-time job) mentioned something about protecting nature and remaining non-political. I wrote in the blank that they could stand to be a bit more political. Stephen Harper, then prime minister, was openly cutting off funding for environmental science.
-In the same year (2014?) it displayed its list of donors, and one of the big ones was Enbridge. I mentioned this to the NCC staffer who called me on the phone, and she didn't seem happy about it either.
-A more recent letter was talking about an environmental initiative... in partnership with Shell. Much environment!
I'm conflicted on this. On one hand, too much political advocacy and the charity could potentially lose its tax status - plus, compromise is often necessary to push important deals - but on the other hand, cozying up to big oil/gas companies isn't a great sign.
|
161221
|
