If you’ve ever debated an environmentalist, it probably didn’t take him long to dismiss your sources on the grounds (with or without actual evidence) that they are (partially or wholly) funded by the fossil fuel industry. Perhaps he even linked to ExxonSecrets, SourceWatch, or Media Mouse. Often these leftist-environmentalist sites are misleading, neglecting to offer comparisons of such funding in relation to total funding from all sources, and often failing to provide adequate evidentiary documentation for their claims. Since leftist-environmentalists are so convinced that financial gain and the source of one’s funding determine the outcomes of one’s research and the ideas one holds, it seems only fair to compare budgets, examine the sources of their funding, and question whether and to what extent they stand to benefit from the CAGW hysteria they are promoting.
Donald Miller discusses how Gore benefits financially:
A basic rule of investigative journalism and criminal investigation is “Follow the Money,” or as Cicero put it, “Cui bono?” (“To whose benefit?,” literally, “[being] good to whom?”).
Al Gore profits handsomely from his climate crisis activities. Validation of the Solar/Cosmic Ray Theory poses a major threat to this source of income. He will not disclose his speaking fees, but he reportedly received $250,000 for a speech that he gave in Saudi Arabia recently, and his average speaking fee for his global warming lectures is said to be $50,000 to $100,000. Gore is also a founding partner and Chairman of Generation Investment Management (GIM), a firm that “manage[s] the assets of institutional investors… as well as those of select high net worth individuals.” [Emphasis added.] GIM invests in companies poised to cash in on CO2-caused global warming solutions, such as government subsidized solar and wind alternative-energy ventures and projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe.
The day after he won his Academy Award The Tennessean reported that Gore’s electrical and natural gas bills for his home in Nashville in 2006 were $27,360. This amount of energy, all of it generated from fossil fuels, is more than 20 times than that consumed by the average American household. A spokesperson for Gore pointed out that he buys “carbon offsets” to pay for his large “carbon footprint.” Gore invests these offset funds in GIM, the company he chairs [Note the shell game here -G]; and his apocalyptic climate forecasts (reinforced by those currently being made by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scare citizens and government leaders around the world and persuade them to invest in alternative energy programs, raising the value of GIM’s privately held shares.
Can an individual who stands to make millions from the CO2 global warming paradigm be trusted to present an unbiased review of this subject and view with an open mind alternative theories of climate change?
And how other advocates benefit financially as well:
Global warming is now a $5 billion industry, which benefits the government and its politicians and bureaucrats, environmental activists, the media, executives and shareholders of “green” industries, and climate scientists. Businesses profit by gaming the regulatory and planned “cap and trade” process rather than have to make money by producing things people want. The (“good news is no news”) media shamelessly plays along and profits by frightening people. And we see how the movement’s most prominent activist, former Vice President Al Gore benefits.
Climate scientists are awarded $1.7 billion a year in government grants to study climate change, but under the condition that these scientists continue to support the “consensus” or lose their funding. Climate scientist Richard Lindzen, in “Climate of Fear,” writes : “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.”
The global warming scare enables government to intervene and extend its control over people’s lives. The House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, looking for ways to keep Social Security and Medicare afloat and balance the budget, are investigating proposals for a carbon tax, under the pretext of cutting down on Greenhouse emissions.
Apparently the Green in Greenpeace stands for money and…gasp!…greed!
The “green” in Greenpeace, it turns out, stands more for money than for the environment. When its anti-biotech scaremongering drove consumers in Brazil away from genetically improved foods, Greenpeace swooped in with its own line of organic foods to fill the demand that its activists created. Greenpeace’s more recent reckless activism is a broader attempt to create the same sort of consumer shift here in the United States.
And why not? Greenpeace itself (as is the case with a variety of anti-biotech activist groups) is heavily invested in the organic foods industry. The International Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources noted in a November 2001 report that Lord Peter Melchett, the former leader of Greenpeace’s UK office “is one of the largest organic farmers in Europe.” So when Greenpeace campaigners send hundreds of threatening letters and e-mails, make phone calls by the thousands, and stage intimidating live protest “actions” against their corporate targets, their own bottom line (and that of their financial supporters) stands to benefit.
Even if you discount the impact of hidden financial motives, the more obvious ones are pretty convincing. Last year, Greenpeace USA raised over $8 million in cash, and its bean-counters know very well that the group isn’t completely immune from public backlash. In February 2001, Greenpeace issued a press release blasting genetically improved “golden rice,” the enhanced crop that could save hundreds of thousands of Third World children from blindness and death. In response, the biotech rice’s inventor went public with a scathing response, exposing the activists as “political extremists.” Within 24 hours, Greenpeace had backed down amid a slew of membership cancellations.
Environmentalists still accuse the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) of being funded by Exxon even though Exxon hasn’t given the organization any money since 2005.
Environmentalists complain about how much money Exxon gives to the “climate change denialist” movement but it is interesting to see how much money they themselves spend on climate change issues. Exxon paid out “$2 million in grants to organizations that oppose global warming alarmism last year.” I don’t have figures for the total amount of grants given by the fossil fuel industry as a whole, but I’m skeptical it exceeds the $100 to $150 million (presumably per year) spent by the environmentalists on climate change issues. Consider that many of the organizations that receive grant money from the fossil fuel industry are not single-issue organizations, meaning that they deal with multiple issue areas beyond climate change (or, more broadly, environmentalism), and the money they receive often goes into their general operating budgets and is not specifically earmarked for climate change projects. Moreover, to my knowledge, grant money from the fossil fuel industry and other corporations makes up only a small fraction of the revenues of these organizations.
Finally, The National Center for Public Policy has challenged “Greenpeace and its affiliates to disclose the sources and amounts of its 2006 donations exceeding $50,000. If it does so, The National Center for Public Policy Research will do the same.” To my knowledge, this challenge has gone unanswered. I doubt it will ever be met. What do they have to hide? I wonder if any of their funding comes from the fossil fuel industry? After all, many energy companies have either bowed to political pressure recently or sold out for rent-seeking reasons.
Hat tip to Marc Vander Maas of the Acton Institute’s PowerBlog, the latest victim of the watermelon smear campaign, for many of the links.
[Update #1 (9:35pm): I moderated a very vulgar comment by an anonymous user with some very ignorant misconceptions. For those who probably won’t bother to read my other posts and other writings, I’m a libertarian, not a right-winger, and so I’m against both the social welfare state and state-corporate capitalism.] [Update #2 (6/12 8pm): See here and here for two sources of funding for many leftist-environmental organizations. While not a direct connection, the money does ultimately originate from corporations, including, in the former case, from oil.]
Geoffrey is an Aristotelian-Libertarian political philosopher, writer, editor, and web designer. He is the founder of the