In a blast of publicity, the Rockefellers Brothers Fund (RBF) announced it would “begin” divesting all fossil fuel investments. The Rockefellers brothers, offspring of the founder of the industry, were said to be marking a major turning point in the great trajectory of climate change. Except, they still have holdings they aren’t talking about.
![350-org-logo[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/350-org-logo1.png?quality=75){kind=logo}
Note that RBF and 350.org are refusing to comment about the findings of Oil Sands Fact Check today.
First, two must read pieces on RBF, published in the past 24 hours.
- http://www.cfact.org/2014/09/25/rockefeller-divestment-is-shameless-climate-summit-eyewash/
- http://business.financialpost.com/2014/09/23/rockefellers-baby-boycott-why-nobody-in-4-65-trillion-fossil-fuel-business-will-even-notice/
And now this, the natives are getting restless:
KXL backers question timing of Rockefeller divestment
Manuel Quiñones, E&E reporter
Published: Thursday, September 25, 2014
Backers of the Keystone XL oil pipeline are questioning the timing of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund’s decision to divest from most fossil fuel holdings.
The website Oil Sands Fact Check, an industry-backed repository of information in favor of the transboundary pipeline, noted that the fund has significant fossil fuel holdings at the same time it was funding anti-fossil-fuel activities. The fund announced its change of investment strategy earlier this week (Greenwire, Sept. 22).
“Given that board members of RBF are heirs to the Rockefeller oil fortune, the media was led to believe that divestment from fossil fuels was a drastic change in practice for the foundation,” says a new post.
“Yet anyone who knows the least bit about RBF is well aware that the foundation has given millions to groups that oppose fossil fuels for years,” the post says.
KXL backers are focusing on the fund’s longtime support for the group 350.org, which has been a major force in opposition to the pipeline.
RBF has given 350.org $800,000 in recent years and almost $2 million to the 1Sky Education Fund, now part of 350.org, according to foundation records.
And beyond 350.org, RBF has funded other groups critical of fossil fuel interests through its sustainable development program. Its mission statement is to advance “social change that contributes to a more just, sustainable and peaceful world.”
But Oil Sands Fact Check says,
RBF said the fossil fuel divestment process has been an ongoing effort to better align its finances with its goals. “Our immediate focus will be on coal and tar sands, two of the most intensive sources of carbon emissions,” it said.
The group 350.org did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication.
Fossil fuel interests have made similar claims about billionaire climate activist and political donor Tom Steyer, who invested heavily in fossil fuels during his time as a hedge fund manager (Greenwire, July 15).
Steyer took to the pages of Politico to respond, saying the threat of climate change altered his thinking. “The past is the past,” he wrote, “and I am working as hard as I can to change our collective future.”
Source: http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2014/09/25/stories/1060006453
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Here is a selection of oil funded green bodies which I posted up in late 2013.
Why drive or teleconference when you can fly! It’s called a ‘Convenience Truth’.
We must act against the causes of climate change as we have a planetary emergency according to Al Gore – the frequent flyer!
The ultimate irony was that Stephen Schneider died on plane.
Ooops – ‘a plane’.
$800,000 to 350.org? That sounds like about the right amount of money to keep “Weepy Bill” in bicycles as he travels about the country. All those miles foregoing fossil-fueled transportation wears out bikes in a hurry, eh Bill?
I will take the dangers of ‘climate change’ seriously when Warmists take it seriously. This is nothing but a con job – you and I know it.
The BBC is a climate alarmist site. Here is the real BBC.
BBC Pension – Top equity Investments at 31 March 2013 in no particular order.
Altria Group [Tobacco]
Drax Group [Electricity generation]
BHP Billiton [Oil & mining]
British American Tobacco
BG Group [Oil & natural gas]
BP [Oil & natural gas]
Royal Dutch Shell [Oil & natural gas]
Imperial Tobacco
Centrica [Natural gas & electricity]
Reynolds American [Tobacco]
Petrofac [Oilfield services]
Occidental Petroleum [Oil & natural gas]
The above list “Does not include any assets held in pooled funds.”
For the record I have NO oil or gas investments. I am not employed or paid by any oil or gas company.
water melon fascists jimbo,that is the bbc in a nutshell.
Too bad. Good money in it. Ask the top CAGW alarmists ;o)
(Good links, as always, Jimbo. Thank you sir!)
I have no idea if I am. I have a broker who moves my money between funds. The funds comprise a lot of different companies. I pay him to make the right choices. When I retire, I may spend the time to figure it out for myself. Right now, all I care about is his maximizing my investment, and if that is in Oil/Gas or Tobacco, so be it.
The deniers are funded by Big Oil… no wait…
Anthony, there are two references to “RFB” rather than “RBF” in the second and third paragraphs.
[fixed, TY -mod]
Help me out. Why would they sponsor resistance to their own industry/portfolio? I work in fashion. That would be like me organising protest against buying nice clothes on a seasonal basis. I don’t get it
It costs $10+ per bbl to get oil out of the ground. Would you rather sell 100bbls @ur momisugly $12 or 10bbls @ur momisugly $100. The profit on the former is $200 and the latter is $900. Limiting production increases the price.
The annoyance for me is the manner in which our mainstream media friends portray the Rockefeller Brothers Fund as somehow being newly enlightened about the folly of being on the ‘wrong’ side of climate change, when in fact they have been active funders of the Center for Climate Strategies ever since 2006 or earlier, a highly suspect enviro-activist organization that forbade by contractual agreement any debate over the science of global warming when CCS dealt with multi-state government officials on setting up cap-and-trade plans within various states. You can read several of Paul Chesser’s reports on that situation around that time via this search: https://www.google.com/search?q=“paul+chesser”+”rockefeller+brothers+fund”
I’ll take the Rockefellers seriously when they don’t just divest fossil fuel stocks but give away all their money too, since it all originated from the same source they now disown. Not holding my breath.