(This 11/03/2013 posting is being updated to include more comprehensive information regarding non-governmental organizations environmental contributions. The updates will be obvious as they will be in color.)
It is misinformation, largely based upon purposeful lies, that a giant conspiracy funded by Big Oil is making people skeptical of the theory of man-made global warming. Accordingly, this supposed campaign has been so good that the majority of people do not think that global warming is a significant issue. Surely that must be the explanation, they say. How else could such an insignificant number of people (skeptics) be so persuasive?
Lets assume that the premise that enough money can buy opinion is factual. If so, who is getting the money? The skeptics or the warmers?
This posting looked at Federal Government funding of the Warmers. It also looked at funding by non-governmental groups. But a new book”Cracking Big Green” by Ron Arnold and Paul Driessen has more comprehensive information about non-government funding and I think the reader will understand how vast the funding for the Warmers is. The amounts of moneys that the Green Organizations have is breathtaking. One small section is lifted from the book to supplement my original information. It follows:
Cracking Big Green: to save the world from the save-the-earth money machine “This is where we open our inquiry in detail. More than 26,500 American environmental groups collected total revenues of over $81billion from 2000 to 2012 according to Giving USA Institute, with only a small part of that coming from membership dues and individual contributions.
We became experts at reading Internal Revenue Service Form 990 annual reports of non-profit organizations, which are the sources of the following incomes of some better-known groups: The Sierra Club ($97,757,678) and its Sierra Club Foundation ($47,163,599); The Environmental Defense Fund ($111,915,138); The Natural Resources Defense Council ($98,701,707); The National Audubon Society ($96,206,883). That’s more than $353 million in one year for just these four groups.
Then there’s Greenpeace, USA ($32,791,149) and its Greenpeace Fund ($12,878,777);The National Wildlife Federation ($84,726,518); The National Parks Conservation Association ($25,782,975) and the Wilderness Society with its paltry $24,862,909 revenue. Oh, we almost forgot Al Gores’ struggling Alliance For Climate Protection at $19,150,215.
But the real Big Green Fat Cats include Conservation International Foundation ($140,766,897); The Wildlife Conservation Society ($208,495,555); The Greenpeace International ($406million) and the income winner most years, The Nature Conservancy ($949,132,306). All figures from IRS Forms 990.
If that sounds too intimidating to confront, it gets worse. Our research found a truly shocking blind spot: many major environmental groups get nearly half their revenue from private foundations like the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and WalMart’s Walton Family Foundation. Just the top foundations donors (out of 81,777) gave green groups $812,639,999 (2010 figures), according to the Foundation Center’s vast database.
The Foundation Center of New York shows us this sampling of Big Green funders, their sources of wealth and anti-production giving in 2012:
Walton Family Foundation (Walmart) $69,457,469
The Marisa Foundation (Getty Oil) $30,215,000
Richard King Mellon Foundation (Mellon Bank) $29,765,000
The Heinz Endowments (prepared foods) $14,158,568
Charles Stewart Mott Foundation (General Motors) $11,135,573
Rockefeller Brothers Fund (Standard Oil) $10,599,271
The Foundation Search USA database, a pay database, shows 345,052 environmental grants from 2000 to 2012 totaling $20,826,664,000 (that’s $21 billion, rounded up).
‘However it doesn’t list donations from individuals, and it profiles only about one-quarter of all environment-related foundation grants.
Giving USA Institute began separately tracking total giving to the environment subsector in 1987, but with no detail about specific grants. Its annual reports provide comprehensive numbers showing $80,427,810,000 (more than $80 billion) in giving to environmental recipients from 2000 to 2012—on average about $6.6 billion annually. “
I recommend that you get your own copy to read the entirety of this enlightening book.
In summary the Warmers get more than $25 billion per year. I am guessing here, but I “swag*” that the Skeptics pull in something in the range of $25 and $50 million at a maximum.
WARMER’S MONEY
The White House’s Fiscal Year 2013 report to Congress shows that more than $22 billions were spent on Climate Change Matters. Yes, that is billions.
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL CLIMATE CHANGE EXPENDITURES
Expenditure Category $ Millions
Global Change Research 2,463
Clean Energy Technology 5,783
International Assistance 797
Natural Resource Adaptation 95
Energy Tax Provisions That May Reduce Greenhouse Gases 4,999
Energy Payments In Lieu Of Tax Provisions 8,080
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 22,195
This isn’t the first year that the Fed’s have been lavishing money on those in the warmer community. The Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) had estimated “…. that since 1993, the US has spent $150 Billion on Climate Change.” Adding this current expenditure, it would suggest that it now is around $170 Billion. Those tax issues are generated by support and subsidies for wind farms, solar farms, and electric cars, for example, all designed to “stop” global warming. Think “Solyndra”, to get some idea of where this money is going. That buys a lot of support from the crony capitalism crowd.
The money supply for the Warmers does not stop with the US Federal Government. Many Governments in Europe also provide lavish funding to the warmers in their respective countries.
Then there is the Green movement, the Non-Government Organizations (NGO). The following table shows just one year’s expenditures by several of the major Green organizations that are advocating the man-made global warming theory. (For the source of this data click here.)
Green Organization (NGO) Program Expend, $
Nature Conservancy 672,757,000
World Wildlife Fund 139,971,000
Environmental Defense 70,755,000
Nature Resource Defense Council 76,931,000
Sierra Club Foundation 46,672,000
World Resource Inst. 34,831,000
Union of Concerned Scientists 18,029,000
Strats for Global Environment 5,641,000
Center For American Progress 31,390,000
Greenpeace 160,000,000
—————–
Subtotal 1,257,790,000
Program expenditures are the monies they devote to carrying out their programs. Cost of collection, and similar operating costs are not included.
At the upcoming UN sponsored COP19 in Warsaw beginning 11 November 2013, over 1,598 NGOs and 99 IGOs will attend this meetings. The preceding table list just 10 of the IGOs. These groups are committed to the theory of man-made global warming. Unfortunately, interviews with people attending these meetings make it clear that many of them have almost no comprehension of the science involved and worse, they don’t seem to care. Theirs is a religious experience that works on faith not facts. The IGOs include the World Bank, NATO, the OECD, and the International Energy Agency (IEA). All of these organizations have programs supporting theory of man-made global warming. And don’t think that money does not play a big part in their going along with the man-made global warming theory.
It appears that all that money has not been well spent. After all, they have no answer for why there is no statistically significant warming for the past 17 years in spite of a continuous growth of atmospheric CO2.
SKEPTIC’S MONEY
What is Exxon doing? Quoting from the March 20, 2013 posting: “Lets get ExxonMobil out of the discussion. From the ExxonMobil 2011 Corporate Citizenship Report we learn that they are no longer funding anyone that “questions the science of climate change”.
Most corporations in the energy business spend their money on “clean energy” programs—They are in the energy business, so it makes sense that they would do that research. It could also be a defensive move to prevent their being subject to Federal punitive actions to those who don’t toe the line.
The Koch Brothers are thought to be big spenders. They spend money on conservative causes but most of it is directed at policy issues. Some of which are environmental, but not the majority. The big money guy is George Soros who gives to liberal causes. Click here if you want to know more about Soros. You can be assured that his money never is given to a Skeptic or a Skeptical organization.
The infamous DeSmog Blog, whose job is to attempt to put skeptics in a“bad light” (in their opinion) very often tell you that the suspect is associated with the Heartland Institute or George C Marshall Institute, so these two must be the biggest winners in the “contributions to skeptic organization” contest. An examination of their contribution income last year was Marshall–$342,000 and Heartland—-$4,008,000 for a combined total of $4,350,000. Exxon has not given to Heartland for the past seven years and the Koch Brothers gave $25,000 last year for work on health care reform. That was the first money the Kochs had donated since 1998. So if Heartland and Marshall are the standouts in getting in getting oil money, the Skeptics are not doing well financially. How much, is anyone’s guess but its probably somewhere between $25 and $50 million at a maximum if you could get numbers from every possible skeptic source—including “tip jars”.
By the way, if you thought that Senator Joe McCarthy was the epitome of guilt by association, you were wrong. DeSmog blog holds that tile. Their main customers are the mainstream media, who willingly buy into their garbage. DeSmog Blog lets you know when they think that someone is unqualified to have an opinion. So it figures that Al Gore would be on the list, because everyone knows he is not qualified and because he sold his “on lifesupport” TV network to that oil rich nation, Qatar. Wow, Gore is not even listed. It must be that getting paid lots of money by big oil and having no qualifications are ok if you are a warmer.
*Swag=Scientific Wild Assed Guess
cbdakota
Climate Change Sanity 