The overwhelming majority of the money involved in the energy and climate debate in the U.S. today is not on the side of traditional energy producers.
Instead, the money, the media, and the momentum are clearly on the side of the NGO-corporate-industrial-climate complex. [emphasis, links added]
In 2021, the revenue of the top 25 NGOs in the anti-industry industry was more than four times the amount collected by NGOs that support the traditional energy sector.
Those 25 anti-hydrocarbon/anti-nuclear NGOs had total revenue of about $4.5 billion, which they use to fund campaigns on climate change, as well as efforts to promote renewable energy, stop the production of hydrocarbons, halt construction of new hydrocarbon infrastructure, prohibit the use of natural gas, oppose nuclear energy, and electrify everything, a move that would require massive increases in electricity production and the size of the electric grid.
The $4.5 billion sum, which I tallied over the past few weeks by compiling data from Guidestar and ProPublica, is more than four times the amount being raised by the top 25 NGOs that are either pro-hydrocarbon or pro-nuclear.
In 2021, the top 25 non-profit associations that represent hydrocarbon producers, the nuclear energy industry—along with their allies in the think tank sector—took in about $990 million, or less than one-fourth of the amount garnered by the top anti-hydrocarbon/anti-nuclear NGOs.
As can be seen in the graphic above, 14 of the anti-hydrocarbon/anti-nuclear NGOs have annual revenues of more than $100 million.
By comparison, as can be seen in the graphic below, only three of the NGOs on the other side of the policy divide have revenues of more than $100 million.
Furthermore, the amount of money being collected by the top anti-hydrocarbon/anti-nuclear NGOs is soaring. Between 2017 and 2021, the amount of cash being collected by the 25 top NGOs—which includes entities like the Sierra Club and Environmental Defense Fund—has jumped by 155%, going from about $1.8 billion to $4.5 billion.
Don’t expect to read about this vast funding disparity in legacy media outlets.
Some of the biggest news organizations in America are peddling a manufactured narrative that the growth of renewable energy is being hindered by “front groups” that are getting money from hydrocarbon producers.
In December, in The New Yorker, climate activist Bill McKibben claimed “front groups sponsored by the fossil-fuel industry have begun sponsoring efforts to spread misinformation about wind and solar energy.”
But McKibben didn’t bother to name a single such group. Also in December, the New York Times published an article that claimed the opposition to wind projects in Michigan included “anti-wind activists with ties to groups backed by Koch Industries.”
But the reporter who wrote the article, David Gelles, didn’t provide any names or any proof of any Koch connections. (Gelles did not reply to two emails asking him for proof of his claim.)
National Public Radio has published several articles claiming that rural opposition to renewables is being fostered by opponents who are using “misinformation.”
Last year, a San Francisco-based reporter, Julia Simon, published an article that claimed: “some of the misinformation comes from groups with ties to the fossil fuel industry, like the Texas Public Policy Foundation.” (2021 revenue: $26 million). But Simon didn’t provide an example to back up her claim.
Why won’t McKibben and NPR report honestly about the rural backlash to the landscape-destroying sprawl of renewable energy or the funding that drives the NGO-corporate-industrial-climate complex?
The answer may be about funding. Since 2019, 350.org, the climate-activist group that McKibben cofounded, (and has about 160 staffers) has received more than $400,000 from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
NPR is feeding at the same trough as the other NGOs. NPR is a non-profit. According to Guidestar, its 2021 revenues totaled $456 million.
Last September, NPR announced that it was opening a new “climate desk” that was being funded by “the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, whose funding is helping NPR to add a new Climate Solutions reporter, as well as The Rockefeller Foundation.”
My interest in the anti-industry industry is a continuation of the work I did for my January 26 article, “The Billionaires Behind The Gas Bans,” which is the most popular piece I’ve published on Substack. The numbers presented here are my best effort at collecting accurate data.
Before going further, let me be clear: I am not claiming that my lists of the top 25 NGOs on either side of the energy policy divide are the definitive ones. Some of the NGOs that are pro-hydrocarbon are not pro-nuclear. …snip…
But even with those caveats, the results are undeniable: the anti-industry industry in America is enormous, its revenues are soaring, and its success in getting local and state governments to adopt anti-hydrocarbon policies is obvious.
Indeed, the pro-hydrocarbon and pro-nuclear entities in America are outgunned and outmanned. And when it comes to policymaking, they are getting their collective butts kicked.
Efforts to ban gas stoves are only a small part of a broader agenda that aims to change the fuels we use, where we live, and what we drive.
The anti-industry industry has already succeeded in banning the direct use of natural gas in homes and businesses in communities across the country.
According to the Sierra Club, 74 communities in California have “adopted gas-free buildings commitments or electrification building codes.”
That’s a significant increase over what I reported last month. On January 26, when I published “The Billionaires Behind The Gas Bans,” that number was 69.
In September, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) voted to ban the sale of all natural gas-fired space heaters and water-heating appliances in the state by 2030.
In addition, New York City and Seattle have banned the use of gas in new construction. Massachusetts is rolling out a measure that will allow up to 10 communities to ban gas.
But these efforts are only part of what can only be called a radical agenda.
What is that agenda? Consider this statement from the Natural Resources Defense Council, which according to Guidestar has annual revenue of about $415 million.
In 2020, it said it would use a $100 million grant from the Bezos Earth Fund to “advance climate solutions and legislation at the state level, [and] move the needle on policies and programs focused on reducing oil and gas production.”
Or consider Earthjustice, (2021 budget: $124 million), which says its goals include:
“End the extraction and burning of fossil fuels… power everything with 100% clean energy… [and] cultivating a zero carbon emissions pollution-free electricity grid by phasing out fossil fuel power generation, eliminating barriers to renewable energy, and more.”
In short, while their activism is couched in language about climate change and climate justice, the goal of the “climate aristocracy” (a term coined by the Decouple podcast host and pro-nuclear activist Chris Keefer) is to shut down the hydrocarbon sector.
If the climate aristocracy succeeds in doing so, the results will be staggering increases in energy costs and dangerous decreases in the reliability and resilience of our electric grid.
Indeed, the surge in the size and funding of the anti-industry industry represents a threat to the long-term prosperity of the United States.
Its policies are already imposing regressive energy taxes on the poor and the middle class. The anti-industry industry is yet another sign of America’s decadence.
It’s an unaccountable parasitic force that employs thousands of lawyers, strategists, pollsters, and fundraisers, many of whom will spend their careers treading the revolving door between academia, media, government, and NGOs.
Read rest at Substack
There have always been multiple hearsay claims that the organizations and people favoring the use of fossil fuels are receiving money from the industry. The implication is there is something immoral about this. However, consider the money that anti-fossil fuel NGO groups are receiving from the trillion dollar renewable energy industry. Why is this okay? This is one example of liberal hypocrisy.
We also need to consider that the mainstream media has gone beyond one sided coverage and is actually a propaganda organization against fossil fuels. If this coverage were purchased at fair market value, the cost would be billions per year.
Tell me Greenpeace how big is your own Carbon Footprints with your Fossil Fueled Ships and Zodiacs