Talk:Pembina Institute

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Climate change

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Energy

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Sentence from Policy Positions section

They have argued the position that uranium mines are bad because they causes pollution that renders caribou meat from nearby herds unsafe for one-year-old children to consume in large quantities.^[1]

I have removed this sentence as it really isn't a policy position, is poorly worded, and appears to be pushing a narrow POV... Johnfos (talk) 11:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's my difficulty. I can't find anything in the ref that doesn't push a narrow POV. So far as I can tell, it is completely devoid of any balance from the title on. Perhaps you can see what I can't? In the long version of the ref[1] the source document they drew from is cited as ref 100: Thomas P and Gates T (1999). "Radionuclides in the Lichen–Caribou–Human Food Chain near Uranium Mining Operations in Northern Saskatchewan, Canada". Environmental Health Perspectives. 107: 527–537. LeadSongDog (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there is some published criticism of the report or the Pembina Institute, we could certainly refer to that in the article. Johnfos (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this or this or this (I'm sure we can chase out the original publications.)LeadSongDog (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to have the sentence removed: one year old children rarely eat meat, as every parent would know (they don't have the teeth fully developed at that age).--Qyd (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Uranium mining Pembina Institute, (May 2007) page 3 accessed 2008-02-22

The Suncor Connection

We must remain aware of where the Pembina Institute gets some of its funding. By this I mean the conflict the Institute must be in for accepting money from Suncor. This is a documented fact yet the Pembina Institute tries to bury the truth by editing out the references I provide.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julianlawrence (talk • contribs) 16:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.pembina.org/reports/Suncor-Final.pdf

Funding

Regarding this section: "The Pembina Institute is primarily funded by a range of project-specific grants, event sponsorships (including those from energy companies such as Suncor, Shell and Bullfrog Power) and individual donations. To a lesser degree, the Institute performs fee-for-service research and advising to government and industry."

Why is fee-for-service research and advising prefixed as "To a lesser degree"? It seems like this is presented this way to distract from the significance of this area of their work.

From most recent annual report (2016):

Fee for service: $714,111 - Revenue received under contractual agreements for completing research and advisory services.
Donations from individuals: $69,024 - Individual responses to direct mail appeal and other gifts from individuals.

Fee for service is a much more significant source of funding than individual donations.

It is a minor difference in words, but it is bizarre that this area of their work is being minimized as a source of funding. Is it worth changing?

--DanPublicPolicy (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Uranium mining Pembina Institute, (May 2007) page 3 accessed 2008-02-22

[2] ttp://www.pembina.org/reports/Suncor-Final.pdf

[1]

[1]