Talk:Pembina Institute

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.

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)
 * 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 the source document they drew from is cited as ref 100:  LeadSongDog (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julianlawrence (talk • contribs) 16:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

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)