Guest post by David Middleton
If being green was a mental illness, this guy would be the poster child…
HOME | NEWS | POLICY | ENERGY ENVIRONMENT
Dem mega-donor all in for 2016
Billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer plans to invest at least as aggressively in the 2016 presidential election as he did last year, when he became the biggest individual donor on either side of American politics.
[…]
Steyer is undeterred by critics who say he squandered more than $75 million of his own money supporting Democratic candidates who promised tough action on climate change — half of whom lost — during the 2014 election cycle.
The California-based former hedge fund manager, who said recently that he had quit investing “cold turkey” to focus full-time on climate change, refutes this charge of failure. He points out that last year was “an absolutely terrible” one for the Democratic Party, which lost control of the Senate to Republicans.
[…]
Steyer sees the 2016 presidential election as his greatest opportunity yet to turn more Americans into climate change activists and to pressure candidates to present detailed plans to reach his target of getting 50 percent of U.S. power from clean energy sources by 2030.
[…]
Steyer has already spent at least $5 million this campaign cycle to convince voters to pressure politicians on climate change. That’s a major investment at this early stage that puts him on pace with the biggest super-PAC donors on the Republican side.
Last week he announced a “seven-figure” advertising campaign in early-voting states, and his super-PAC NextGen Climate is investing heavily in digital technology and has opened offices in four key states: Iowa, New Hampshire, Florida and Ohio.
[…]
NextGen ran ads attacking the Koch brothers in the midterm election season, but asked whether he would do so again, Steyer said he is now less interested in negativity and more concerned about telling a positive story about why people should care about climate change.
“Their influence is gigantic,” Steyer said of the Kochs.
[…]
“They’re much bigger. They have much more money,” Steyer added. “Of course that’s important. … [But] we have to rely on the fact that the facts are on our side, the morality is on our side and the economics are on our side.
“And, you know if that weren’t true, we wouldn’t have a chance in hell.”
Hey Tom! It ain’t true…
“We have to rely on the fact that the facts are on our side”…
The facts are:
- There has been no global warming since the late 20th century.
- The climate is far less sensitive to changes in atmospheric CO2 than the so-called consensus says it is.
- Your “50 by 30” delusion would not affect the Earth’s climate in any statistically significant manner.
“The economics are on our side.”
The economics are on the side of natural gas and nuclear power.
“The morality is on our side.”
OPINION COMMENTARY
This Child Doesn’t Need a Solar Panel
Spending billions of dollars on climate-related aid in countries that need help with tuberculosis, malaria and malnutrition.
By BJORN LOMBORG
Oct. 21, 2015 6:36 p.m. ET
In the run-up to the 2015 U.N. Climate Change Conference in Paris from Nov. 30 to Dec. 11, rich countries and development organizations are scrambling to join the fashionable ranks of “climate aid” donors. This effectively means telling the world’s worst-off people, suffering from tuberculosis, malaria or malnutrition, that what they really need isn’t medicine, mosquito nets or micronutrients, but a solar panel. It is terrible news.
[…]
The morality is on your side? 
Somebody over at HotAir elicited this absolutely wonderful thought concerning Tom Steyer: ‘The Man In The Red Plaid Neck Ties’. What the commenter recommended (oh, do I wish I could take credit for this) was to find an endangered species on Steyer’s ranch.
I did a little checking out and discovered that it’s actually feasible. One thing about most wealthy environmentalists is that they love to own properties so the first thing I did was Google for Steyer’s mansions. Well, he’s got his San Francisco mansion that Obama visits, complete with a 40 vehicle motorcade, for fundraising. Steyer’s also got a home on Lake Tahoe. But, the beauty is that he’s got a 2,000 acre ranch in Pescadero. He and his sunrise tattooed wife raise grass fed cattle and some other hoofed munchies on it. The kicker is that the Pescadero Marsh (which is named the Pescadero Marsh because it happens to be in Pescadero) is home to a host of endangered species. Now, I have little doubt that grass munching cattle are not indigenous to Pescadero anymore than Bill Gates’ (an associate, along with Warren Buffett, of Steyer) 66,000 square foot mansion is indigenous to the coast of Washington State. So, those moo things, somehow or another, some way or another, if only in parts per trillion, must somehow, some way, affect those endangered species in the marsh. So, sorry Tom, those cows gotta’ go.
It’s always easier to dish it out than having to take it. But, having to take it can be a learning experience.
“Bill Gates’ … mansion … the coast of Washington State.”
Where do you think Bill lives?
His house is near a freshwater lake.
Thanks. I stand corrected.
I believe that, if not for the locks at Ballard, Lake Washington (and “lake” Union) would be whole lot lower and would be somewhat salty. Mr. Gates property would be located on a coastal marsh with a varying water surface that would be about 20 feet lower than it is now.
semantics, I know.
Wouldn’t it be nice for the good citizens of the greater Seattle area to get on the bandwagon and attempt to restore the costal marshes to their natural, and “very productive”, original state of being. Of course it wouldn’t be really nice for them, but it would be nice for the environment as nice is always defined by people like them.
DonM writes:
“… whole lot lower and would be somewhat salty.”
Actually, Lake Washington is now lower by about 9 feet. That drop did have wetland related consequences there, and for Salmon Bay that changed (mostly) from saline to fresh.
When the Cascadia subduction zone releases, the (real) coast of WA will likely drop about 10 feet and new wetlands will be created.
Steyer has his fingers in a lot of pies here in Canada. He was found to have given over $385 million dollars to a number of environmental organizations to fight the Embridge Gateway pipeline. Ducks unlimited, Suzuki Foundation and Forest First were some of the organizations named in the investigation. When the money was exposed the Canadian government audited some of these same organizations and found that the money was funneled through them to some of our Native groups to help them challenge the approval process for the pipeline. Some of these same environmental organizations also received government grants to study issues and do research. One of the contentious issues during our recent election was that Harper our prime minister was mussel ling scientists that did not agree with him. The real reason for the funding cuts was that these environmental organizations were not in compliance with the rules for receiving government funds because the Steyer money exceeded the allowable amount for charitable donations to these organizations. The penalty was the lose of the government funding. It was never reported that way in our “Unbiased” News media and Harper suffered a lot of credibility over this issue. It is amazing that a guy like Steyer can meddle in another country’s sovereignty with no recourse or a way to stop his illegal operations. The CIA should take notes on this as it was a classic example of how to over throw a government.
Hi Boris,
I’m curious about how the intended “muscling” turned into “mussel ling”. Is it a voice recognition system or word automatic processor correction? or were you just thinking of going scuba diving/fishing?
… and also, thanks for the informative post.
Stupid Auto correct.
How about “muzzling”?
I think the Gas not wind chart is being far too kind to wind and solar. Emissions are not relevant to we can chalk them off. And then capacity saved – this can’t be true since in order to allow the economy to function there must be full back-up capacity to cover the intermittence of wind and solar. So chalk that off too and we see that wind and solar are not viable – as we all know. There are media articles over here trying to claim that wind is the cheapest energy in the UK which I am sure is only achieved by some BS about ‘carbon costs’, taxes and subsidies. Nothing like trying to con the public.
Steyer and I have a common trait; I think Morality is on my side as well. But if I tried as hard as I could to force my Morality on some else then I wouldn’t be able to continue the claim.
Is he an ignorant lowlife or is he a smart, manipulative, power hungry CSer?
He may be an environmentalists, but the operative word is billionaire. He is making investments in his financial future. The play is financial not ideological.
I wonder how many more billions Steyer makes if his millions in political activism gets his goal accepted and acted upon?
This is how crony capitalism works; partner with politicians and you and your cronies get rich. It works the same for anyone on any part of the political spectrum. America, land of the free, er I mean special interests. The egregious part with Steyer is his best interests lead to economic malaise. Expensive impractical energy is the path to prosperity for Steyer and his cronies but not for anyone else.
He is rather instructive in showing how hedge fund managers and lawyers are alike. Both can be wrong in absolute terms and with the test of time. But they can be big winners from win-the-day tactics and also writing the tax laws in their favor while courting the power elite.
I take issue with the author’s claims that:
1.There has been no global warming since the late 20th century.
2.The climate is far less sensitive to changes in atmospheric CO2 than the so-called consensus says it is.
Claim #1: In the language of climatology the phrase “global warming” is polysemic. Under the several meanings of this term there has been no global warming since the late 20th century and has been global warming.
Claim #2: The author implies that the equilibrium climate sensitivity (TECS) is a constant but that TECS is a constant cannot be proved.
Speaking of economic sanity or a lack thereof, can others help me count the number of solar panels on Paul Krugman’s house? I mean … there are so many that I have keep starting over again …
http://contrakrugman.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/12118734_171505273189758_3130900308730878706_n-e1444454481884.png