" 

 :::::::::The Economist on-line style sheet doesn't have anything to say about it, which I take it to mean that they haven't thought about it much. It isn't as if England has much in the nature of oil sands - most of the world's oil sands are in Canada and Venezuela.  
 :::::::::Google seems to treat ""tar sands"" and ""oil sands"" as equivalent and pulls up both. The page I pulled up on Google to match yours is quite interesting to analyze. There are three adverts at the top, one by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), one by Suncor Energy (the world's largest oil sands producer), and one by the David Suzuki foundation. The motivation behind the first two is obvious  but the David Suzuki Foundation is supposed to be a registered charity, which under Canadian tax law is not allowed to indulge in partisan political campaigning. The first paragraph of the article says: 
 :::::::::Ripping a page — or the cover — from fellow Conservative and former tobacco industry lobbyist Ezra Levant's book, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his new environment minister, Peter Kent, have taken to referring to the product of the Alberta tar sands as ethical oil. The Prime Minister and Mr. Levant go back a long way. It was Mr. Levant who reluctantly stepped aside as the Alliance candidate in Calgary Southwest so that Mr. Harper could run in a by-election there in 2002. But the ""ethical oil"" argument they promote has holes as big as the ones in the ground around Fort McMurray. 
 :::::::::That sounds awfully partisan to me, so the David Suzuki Foundation is now being audited by the CRA for breaching the constraints on tax free charities. Gentle hint, David - if you don't want to be audited, don't put stuff like this up on the Internet for everyone to read. 
 :::::::::Once past the adverts, I get to the real data:  
 :::::::::# Wikipedia at the top (good going, Wikipedia), still tax free 
 :::::::::# The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), heavily taxed Canadian oil companies, unlike lightly-taxed US ones 
 :::::::::# Greenpeace, which long ago lost its charitable status in Canada, after a tax audit for political activity  
 :::::::::# An Alberta government ""Our Business"" page (oil sands IS their business - the Alberta government owns it all except what the Indians own); 
 :::::::::# Oil Sands Truth (shut down the tar sands) which claims ""Oilsandstruth.org is not associated with any other web site or organization."" We'll see whether the tax auditors buy that one or not. The rest of the page is fiction as well. 
 :::::::::# Another Alberta government ""Our Business"" page. 
 :::::::::# Forest Ethics (STOP THE US DEMAND FOR CANADA’S TOXIC TAR SANDS). The CRA is on the case and Forest Ethics also up for a tax audit. ForestEthics: San Francisco / Bellingham More American billionaire money boldly protesting against Canadian oil from Northern California and the US Pacific Northwest. 
 :::::::::# Tar Sands Watch (Polaris Institute's Energy Program) campaigning against ""Canada's Petro-State"". And there's a DONATE button on their page. I think they can expect a visit from the tax auditors, too. Note: the Polaris Institute is a registered non-profit organization in Canada and has 501c3 charitable status in the United States If you live in the United States and would like to make a $US donation and receive a tax receipt, please contact us for information. If the CRA flags Polaris Canada on an audit, the IRS might audit Polaris US too because 501c3 charitable organizations are not allowed to engage in political activity, either (a rule more often ignored in the US than Canada). See the Wikipedia page 501(c)(3): 
 ::::::::: Political activity  
 :::::::::Section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from supporting political candidates, and are subject to limits on lobbying. They risk loss of tax exempt status if these rules are violated.[35][36] An organization that loses its 501(c)(3) status due to being engaged in political activities cannot then qualify for 501(c)(4) status. 
 :::::::::Due to the tax deductions associated with donations, loss of 501(c)(3) status can be highly challenging to a charity's continued operation, as many foundations and corporate matching programs do not grant funds to a charity without such status, and individual donors often do not donate to such a charity due to the unavailability of the deduction.  
 :::::::::The thing that strikes me about all these activist groups is that they are mostly funded from the US, mostly by US billionaires, and they wonder why the Canadian government is getting paranoid about where the money is coming from, and why. Just because the money crosses national boundaries doesn't give it diplomatic immunity, and due to the synchronization of Canadian and US tax law, if a charity breaches