Does Direct Private Funding of City Climate Bureaucrats Bypass Democracy?

The Court of Chancery, London, early 19th century.
The Court of Chancery, London, early 19th century. By Thomas Rowlandson (1756–1827) and Augustus Charles Pugin (1762–1832) (after) John Bluck (fl. 1791–1819), Joseph Constantine Stadler (fl. 1780–1812), Thomas Sutherland (1785–1838), J. Hill, and Harraden (aquatint engravers) – Unknown, Public Domain,

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Scientific American reports a disturbing new Rockefeller Foundation initiative, to green city administrations, by funding senior “Chief Resilience Officer” positions in town hall bureaucracies.

Coastal Cities Look to Resilience Chiefs to Combat Climate Change

Global warming has created a hot new job in U.S. coastal cities

More communities are seeking not just reassurance but leadership in the face of climate change. Often it’s coming in the form of a chief resilience officer, an emerging job title in cities, counties and even in states and at universities and businesses. Cities as large as Boston, San Francisco, Chicago and New York have chief resilience officers, as do smaller cities and towns like Berkeley, Calif., and Minot, N.D. In U.S. cities, the chief resilience officers, or CROs, often report directly to the city manager or mayor, depending on the form of government, and have broad authority to work across departments.

The job goes far beyond figuring out how governments or institutions should reduce greenhouse gas emissions or how to adapt to climate change—although climate change is the fundamental crisis fueling the need for the role in many cities. Chief resilience officers are being asked to help transform communities that face threats from sea-level rise or other stressors. They’re trying to find ways to create better-educated communities, to address chronic poverty and decades of inequity, to identify shoddy housing conditions, and to diversify their economic base, so that when the inevitable climate-related changes occur, people don’t get left behind.

Most chief resilience officers are funded by the Rockefeller Foundation’s 100 Resilient Cities program, which coined the term several years ago and started paying for the salaries of such positions in cities worldwide, as well as for the creation of resilience strategies. Cities compete to join the program, which is set on May 25 to announce its third and final round of cities.

Mayors desperately want their cities to be part of the program; 330 cities applied last year for 35 slots. The foundation pays for the chief resilience officer the first two years, and cities must commit to certain guidelines, including participating in a close-knit network of peers all working on many of the same challenges.

Read more:

So the Rockefeller Foundation is funding a few jobs in town hall. Why do I think this is a bad thing?

Imagine if say the nuclear lobby offered to fund hundreds of senior bureaucrat jobs in local city governments across America, jobs with “broad authority” to work across city departments. The response would be outrage – there would be concerns about undue influence, concerns, however unjustified, that the nuclear industry was using this insider access to influence decisions about planning approval for new nuclear power plants.

Why should we feel any differently, about greens placing their own people into senior town hall management positions?

It is one thing to openly support political candidates who advocate a favourable policy position. In my opinion it is an entirely different thing to fund the placement of senior bureaucrats, people who are relatively immune to the electoral cycle, and who potentially have less than transparent access to local government implementation of policy.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Stephen Richards
May 24, 2016 1:34 am

Is there one going in California? I’m in if there is. Nothing to do all day but take money from idiots

May 24, 2016 1:38 am

Not to mention the so called big oil , paying for certain city hall staff now wouldn’t that cause an outrage .

David A
Reply to  Robert
May 24, 2016 3:10 am

Indeed Robert, it would certainly be highly questioned if Big oil funding required that…
” cities must commit to certain guidelines, including participating in a close-knit network of peers (chosen by ?) all working on many of the same challenges.”
So Big Oil would choose who these peer are, the entire tone and tenor of the “challenges” and the solution, and feed their propaganda solution…
” directly to the city manager or mayor, depending on the form of government, and have broad authority to work across departments.
Yes Eric W, I have a problem with this as well. No government of any level should have this, let alone lobbyists of any kind. In fact, IMV, all policy recommendations to Government should be only through Government open public websites and public meeting’s. No private meetings with lobbyist, no lunches, no golf rounds. Thus if Rockerfellow, or Exxon, or Sorros, or, want input to government, they submit there proposed policy and the reason for it on that Government open web page, If they want to in greater detail have access, it is in a public meeting with an agenda clearly published, and those skeptical of the policy direction having equal input.

Reply to  David A
May 24, 2016 5:36 am

Yes, I did not realise that this project was actually inserting payed lobbyists in local government. Very unsettling idea. Imagine if it was McD or Cocacola providing nutritional advice and school meal planning !
I came across this project a few days ago since Vejle in Denmark we surprisingly claiming 250mm or sea level rise by 2050. This instantly seemed suspect since a lot of scandanivia has substantial post-glacial rebound and its rising out of the water.
I got the closest PMSL data from neighbouring Fredericia and this is what it looks like.comment image
I sent a WTF to the Guardian where I had seen this reported and, fair dues, they did reply and told be where the claim of 25cm came from: the city’s “resilience strategy plan”:
On page 32 we find :

By 2050
• Water level in the fjord: + 25 cm
• 100 year storm: + 200 cm
By 2100
• Water level in the fjord: +69 cm
• 100 year storm: + 244 cm
Source: The Governments mapping
of dangers and risks of flooding

So what are presented as “Facts” , just facts that just don’t happen to exist yet, are from a vaguely referenced “government mapping of dangers” , which is based on ….. who knows what.
And so the game of chinese whispers continues as the alarmist media regurgitates these unattributable not quite happened yet “facts” without even linking to the source from which they were culled or checking the credibility of the claims.
The resilience project sounds like very wise forward planning and is much wider than just climate change, but one wonders why they are not looking at sea level DATA when trying to evaluate future risks from sea level rise. What matters for planning is sea level measured at the sea side.
When their sea level has been DROPPING at 6 mm/y over the last decade, they are “expecting” 7 mm/y or RISE. What’s up with that?
Is this a cynical ploy to attract money from the Green Fund ? Money which, by rights, should be going to countries where the sea IS actually rising.
Expect to see more of this as the international lottery fund gets under way.

Reply to  David A
May 24, 2016 6:26 am

Sorry, money which by rights should stay where it is. The western developed world has enough of its own problems to deal with, without giving money we don’t have to a $100bn slush fund with no oversight.

Reply to  David A
May 24, 2016 6:44 am

Greg ,

Imagine if it was McD or Cocacola providing nutritional advice and school meal planning !

We’d be better off than with Michelle .
They have more expertise and cater to what people like .

Saul from Montreal
Reply to  Robert
May 24, 2016 4:52 am

A couple days ago he attacked the Thomson Reuters Foundation and now this strange logical fallacy, what does Eric Worrall have against charities?

Reply to  Saul from Montreal
May 24, 2016 4:57 am

problem reading Saul?

Reply to  Saul from Montreal
May 24, 2016 5:39 am

Saul, please don’t be so thick. Or at least come up with a better rebuttal.

Reply to  Saul from Montreal
May 24, 2016 6:48 am

Tiresome troll still can’t read.
I love it when trolls try to change the subject, it shows that they know they have already lost the debate.
PS: I was wondering if we should try to put together a crowd funding project in order to advertise for some new trolls. The existing ones are getting pretty pathetic.

Reply to  Saul from Montreal
May 24, 2016 8:19 am

Eric doesn’t think having, unelected, paid CAGW propagandists in local government is a good thing. Especially when CAGW is an unproven theory being presented by the propagandists as fact.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Saul from Montreal
May 24, 2016 6:17 pm

If your mayor is a crooked idiot like Denis Coderre then maybe a lefty, enviro-kook plant from a U.S. fund is no worse.

Mark - Helsinki
May 24, 2016 1:41 am

Private funding is hacking.
Gates essentially subordinated the WHO to the Gates foundation who now literally set the mandate.
The UN use tax payer money to buy small nation or despot ruled nation votes.
It’s fair to say that no public body should receive private funding because of the inherent risk of being taken over. Philanthropy hacking has been around a long time.
The Rockefeller foundation has been doing this for decades, Soros too, the world is a playhouse for the mega wealthy because there is nothing, literally nothing stopping them taking over with vast sums of cash

Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
May 24, 2016 6:50 am

As long as government has the power, people will do whatever it takes to control that power.
The only solution is to defang government. That way it won’t matter who controls it, because it has little to no power over our everyday lives.
PS: There is nothing that anyone can do to prevent the rich from buying influence. Every so called campaign finance reform has always made the problem worse.

Reply to  MarkW
May 24, 2016 9:28 pm

Small government?
We still need some form of government, some pollution control, etc. Without mandatory emission control, who would add these filters, cleaners, scrubbers that almost double the price of a coal plant?

Reply to  MarkW
May 25, 2016 6:42 am

Small government is not the same thing as no government.
About 1% of what the EPA does is of benefit, dump the rest.

May 24, 2016 1:41 am

i think that crosses the not so fine line between funding and bribery.

May 24, 2016 2:17 am

It’s a worrying development but it certainly is nothing new. Patronage by the wealthy has subtly, and occasionally not so subtly, influenced public policy in democracies for hundreds of years. In USA at least, I thought there was a presumption against this kind of thing in principle, if not in fact, but it seems that when a ‘generally agreed’ public good is being promoted, money can be taken from anywhere.
In UK the system has long been corrupted in favour of the big and powerful, most notably through the planning authorities. A big developer, or supermarket, gets its out-of-town planning okay on condition that the local authority gets new school, or bypass, or ‘affordable’ housing. Again, the big guys win, the small guys lose out by what is, in essence, a far-reaching corruption.
In the Rockefeller Foundation case now discussed, we all lose out by this because of the unfair influence over public policy that is its aim, but when a green label is attached to it, seems it will bypass proper scrutiny. Just imagine the outcry if an industry foundation were to propose inserting say, a fracking planning facilitator into those same institutions.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 24, 2016 3:18 am

I see no difference , both answer to masters other than the voters.

David A
Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 24, 2016 3:24 am

Yet all, as in 100 percent of any government business is owned by the public, therefore in my view all, as in 100 percent of actions and policy making should be, and with modern communication could be open to the public in real time. (Clearly certain military and National Security areas would require privacy, as theft and security measures in public buildings would also be excluded.)

Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 24, 2016 3:44 am

“may be it is not all it’s cracked up to be”
They may be just stooges, directed to generate as many brainless ideas as possible, compounding mistrust in the ‘environmentalists’ and local governments.
Rockefeller Foundation people are not stupid; remember that the foundation was started by Standard Oil’s money.
Among recent trustees beside the Mr. D.R. himself are former chairman and CEO of Young & Rubicam, Managing Director of Morgan Stanley (ex Salomon Brothers), certain Zimbabwean businessman, Finance Minister of Nigeria, Chairman of the Citigroup Board, etc. (source wikipedia)
Not exactly bunch of the common garden green loonies.

David A
Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 24, 2016 3:48 am

Vulverik, I suggest you read at Rogerthesurf post just below…
The Rockefeller Foundation is very much agenda 21.

David Chappell
Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 24, 2016 5:06 am

Maybe not green loonies but some of them, certainly, with flexible interpretations of the concept of honesty.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 24, 2016 7:36 am

Mr Chappell
I think you are a bit too generous, or perhaps forgotten /sark bit

Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 24, 2016 10:10 pm

“Rockefeller Foundation people are not stupid”
Indeed, Rockefeller Foundation managed to create the worldwide low rate dose radiation scare based on nothing, overcoming mountains of contrary evidence.
Is there anything more firmly established in epidemiology than the absence of danger of low dose radiation? Is there anything normally intelligent laypeople people fear more than radiation?

Reply to  mothcatcher
May 24, 2016 3:36 am

Our American friends may find it noteworthy that until today not one on-shore fracking license has been granted – due to opposition from local council planners. Even thought the current govt. officially support fracking, in principle.
All of that changed yesterday – when the first consent was granted, in the face of massive activist opposition. A big win for the forces of reason. Especially since the shortfall in gas extraction in the U.K. is made up by importing gas fracked off the shores of Norway. And further exposes us to dependence on Vladimir Putin. Currently 1/3 of EU gas comes from Russian Gazprom. And a rising proportion of the U.K’s gas. (about one tenth).
Our own gas extraction has fallen by about 70% since 2000.
Whilst gas generation has risen, driven partly by coal generation closures and largely also by the needs of balancing wind and solar.
It seems remarkably stupid that a large number of the citizens of our heavily indebted nation are so keen on resisting progress toward energy independence. Norway has no national debt. It actually has vast treasury reserves – go figure.
Anyway, yesterday we took one small step towards common-sense. After years of resistance by the “useful idiots”, who are programmed to promote the interests of Gazprom.
Disclaimer – most figures and facts in this post are sourced from memory – so please do not quote me without checking for recent data.

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
May 24, 2016 8:22 am

That’s good news for England. It is a shame there are so many people there who cannot see the benefits of fracking.

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
May 24, 2016 3:20 pm

They probably can, TA, a lot of the “protests” are orchestrated using out-of-towners – the same people turning up again and again in different spots. It’s rent-a-mob.

May 24, 2016 3:23 am

Read what the Rockefellers fund at my website. Or at their website.

David A
Reply to  rogerthesurf
May 24, 2016 3:44 am

Thanks Roger, good information and site.

Reply to  David A
May 24, 2016 5:45 pm

David, glad you found it informative.
My city has recently become on of the Rockefeller 100 Resilient Cities, and there is at least nzd$1million from the Rockefellers to fund a number of “resilience” officers. (whatever they may be) The council is also “coincidently” planning to move 18,000 homes to counter their belief that the sea level will rise 1 meter in the next 100 years. (Trouble is the empirical observations re showing no acceleration, but this does not seem o worry the council).
There is another blog in the making for my website to describe all this to you.

Reply to  David A
May 24, 2016 5:52 pm

PS did you look at the documentary on my site?

Dave Ward
May 24, 2016 3:44 am

Private funding or not, there are plenty of ways to bypass democracy. Do you know what your local council is REALLY up to? Take a look at the activities of ICLEI:
They have members across the USA:

Reply to  Dave Ward
May 24, 2016 8:03 am

Dave Ward,
And Canada included.

Reply to  Barbara
May 24, 2016 8:36 am

ICLEI, Sept.28, 2009
“Montreal Supports New Global Campaign for Climate Action’
ICLEI is one of the organizations that the Quebec government encouraged to set-up shop in Montreal.

Geoffrey Preece
May 24, 2016 4:22 am

If it fits with the democratically elected representatives policies and programs I don’t see a problem.

Paul Coppin
May 24, 2016 4:30 am

“So the Rockefeller Foundation is funding a few jobs in town hall. Why do I think this is a bad thing?”
Because, once upon a time, in a place far away, this was known as “influence peddling”, “racketeering”, and was illegal…

Mike McMillan
May 24, 2016 4:42 am

Maybe if New York had hired a real resilience officer, the dummies wouldn’t have flooded their darn subways.

May 24, 2016 4:46 am

A lot of problems could be solved by not doing dumb stuff like building on floodplains. That would make us a lot more resilient.
There is an organization, the Association of State Floodplain Managers. The knowledge is out there and easily available. In fact, we’ve known about floodplains almost forever. We apparently have state officials devoted to the problem.
Here’s a link to a story that says that the damage inflicted by Hurricane Sandy was self-inflicted. So what would our hypothetical resilience officer do about that? Rebuild New York elsewhere maybe … good luck.

Reply to  commieBob
May 24, 2016 4:15 pm

Who decides what a floodplain is, and where it is?
Who pays for the correcting the error if that someone maps the “floodplain” as being 100 feet above the flooding source?
FEMA defined and created and the flood maps throughout the U.S. for the purpose of ESTIMATING areas of flooding. The areas of the “floodplain” typically were not included in the detailed study; they were estimated and a means of correcting errors was established. Over the years the time/money involved in the correction process has snowballed into an expensive quagmire (of course every approval of a map amendment or revision results in less money going to FEMA).
FEMA was supposed to update the maps on a 10-year basis to correct for accuracy problems. I haven’t seen any FEMA initiated corrections/updates with respect hydrology or hydraulics in the 40 plus years that this government program has been running.
A large portion of the flood maps are crap. If your State Floodplain Manager indicates otherwise then they are either incompetent or lying.

Reply to  DonM
May 24, 2016 5:06 pm

DonM says: May 24, 2016 at 4:15 pm
Who pays for the correcting the error if that someone maps the “floodplain” as being 100 feet above the flooding source?

Somebody did that? Wow.

Reply to  DonM
May 25, 2016 10:40 am

More than once. Seems the felt pen used to mark-up the original maps was probably 375′ wide at the 1″ = 1000′ map scale; accuracy was not at the top of list.
The GIS map revisions, to date, aren’t much of an improvement. Although they are much prettier.

Steve Case
May 24, 2016 4:55 am

Does Direct Private Funding of City Climate Bureaucrats Bypass Democracy?

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Steve Case
May 24, 2016 5:06 am

Democracy is inherently open to circumvention by money influence.
Democracy leads to tyranny simply by being so susceptible to Money.
This is where the fourth estate is important, except the same money that owns politics owns the media

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
May 24, 2016 5:56 am

“This is where the fourth estate is important, except the same money that owns politics owns the media”
Exactly. The fourth estate has become the fifth column.

Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
May 24, 2016 6:55 am

The problem is that do gooders who think that all they have to do is to pass laws making it illegal to try and influence politicians always end up making the problem worse.
There simply is no way to prevent people with money or power from influencing politicians. No matter how many draconian laws are passed, all you end up doing is making it more difficult for average citizens to influence politicians, those with money and power will ALWAYS find a way around the laws.
The ONLY solution is to lessen the influence of government over our lives to the point where government power is no longer worth buying.

Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
May 24, 2016 5:49 pm

“”Democracy is inherently open to circumvention by money influence.””
Mark, You are correct to a degree but if the voters took more interest in things around them etc, the problem would be fixed.

Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
May 25, 2016 6:45 am

roger; the problem is that for most of, we have lives to live which interferes with keeping up with everything government is doing.
Beyond that, each of us has only one vote, so how do we vote against someone who is corrupt on the small things, but supports us on the big ones?
Or when presented with candidates, each of which is corrupt, but in different ways?
As government gets bigger, the ability of individual citizens to monitor and control it gets less.

May 24, 2016 5:00 am

So what exactly would a greenie implant work towards? Setting up public transportation? Outlaw lawn mowing to lessen the carbon footprint? Stop any further subdivision development? Turning every water puddle after it rains into a protected wetland? Plant trees along every street? Outlawing watering your lawn, flower beds, gardens and washing your car in the name of water conservation?

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Ryan
May 24, 2016 6:35 am

Here is a bio of a Rockefeller Foundation “implant” for the protection of the Foundation’s vested intere$t$ in fossil fuels, ….. to wit:

John Davison “Jay” Rockefeller IV (born June 18, 1937) served as a United States Senator from West Virginia, from 1985 to 2015. He was first elected to the Senate in 1984, while in office as Governor of West Virginia, a position he held from 1977 to 1985. Rockefeller moved to Emmons, West Virginia to serve as a VISTA worker in 1964, and was first elected to public office in the state, as a member of the House of Delegates, in 1966. Rockefeller was later elected West Virginia Secretary of State in 1968 and was president of West Virginia Wesleyan College from 1973 to 1975. He became the state’s senior senator when the long serving Sen. Robert Byrd died in June 2010. Excerpted from:

Moved to Emmons, WV ……………….. in 1964
Elected to WV House of Delegates .. in 1966
Elected WV Secretary of State ……… in 1968
Appointed president of WV WC …….. in 1973 to 1975
Elected Governor of WV ………………. in 1977 to 1985
Elected to US Senate ………………….. in 1985 to 2015

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
May 24, 2016 2:16 pm

The tax code gives foundations eternal life. This is made possible because a foundation only has to give away 5% of its assets each year. The dirty secret is that a competent manager can earn more than 5% on the foundation’s investment portfolio, at least on average. As long as the foundation’s investments out-earn their required gifting, they can stay in business. This is made worse by the fact that foundations have self-appointing boards, and don’t have to worry about customer’s boycotting them. They are free to agitate for whatever leftist causes they please and as long as they stay within the very broad laws, they can do so forever.
We can no longer afford this luxury. If the tax code were changed to boost the required level of gifting from 5% to say, 7.5%, this would force foundations to eventually pay themselves out. This would bring eventual mortality to the Soros, Ford and Tides foundations. Yes, leftist causes would have increased funding for a while, but given the vote last Tuesday, the Republic can stand this temporary surge in leftist activity. In the long run, the Republic would be better off.

Reply to  Ryan
May 24, 2016 6:40 am

Actually, the tree planting stuff works great. I used to belong to such a group in Brooklyn, we planted trees all summer long, we would get permission to put a hole in a sidewalk and go to work. Now, central Brooklyn where the brownstones are is very, very green and a lot, lot less hot during summer thanks to these many trees we planted 30-40 years ago.

Tom in Texas
May 24, 2016 5:30 am

Something else that little attention is being applied to about Rockefeller foundation:
how do things such as these become so prominent. What the Rockefellers are doing truly, does not come as a surprise.

Tom Judd
May 24, 2016 5:59 am

Jeff Hebert is the Chief Resilience Officer for New Orleans, Louisiana. According to the website Jeff “…is a recipient of the 2012 Excellence in Government Innovation Award from the Bureau of Government Research.”
Government innovation? I don’t think I need to say much more.

May 24, 2016 6:04 am

Who pays the benefits and retirement liability? Regardless of the soft money source of funding, is the employee a potential worker’s liability for the local government in their conduct or any double standards compared to other employees? This is why advocacy groups are housed across the street from city hall and not in the building. They can still manipulate the population quite effectively in between and during city council meetings.

Bruce Cobb
May 24, 2016 6:07 am

“Chief Resilience Officer” sounds like something thought up by Minitrue.

Kevin M
May 24, 2016 6:10 am

I don’t read WUWT often anymore because the AGW issue has faded in importance. I removed the shortcut from my browser about a year ago. I google “WUWT” to click through to here.
Google has always put the misleading Wikipedia attack article as the second link, which might be common practice – people use Wikipedia. More recently, the whole first page of search results has become attack articles. I wish there were a way to neatly pack the exaggeration, anger and single mindedness in a form independent of the issue of science.
In the early 1980s, Population Bomb was required reading in American university Liberal arts schools. I truly wish it still were.

Reply to  Kevin M
May 24, 2016 6:58 am

I always find it fascinating how the trolls only want us to talk about things that interest them.
They also want to make sure that nobody digs beneath the surface to see what the bigger strategies are.

Reply to  Kevin M
May 24, 2016 6:59 am

PS: So you really wish that disproven propaganda was still required reading?
No wonder you get upset when we discuss what the warmistas are up to.

Kevin M
Reply to  MarkW
May 24, 2016 7:15 am

You misunderstood.
I really wish that it were still required reading BECAUSE it is “disproven propaganda”. Its utterly destroyed thesis, projections and sentiments were presented as then-modern science.

Kevin M
Reply to  MarkW
May 24, 2016 7:38 am

This is still a fairly well trafficed site linked by other active sites with daily new content. Yet the first page of “WUWT” search results puts a nit picking response blog named “…and then there’s physics” fifth. The last post on that blog was updated on January 24, 2016. This indicates to me active suppression by a powerful, supposedly nonpolitical company. Memory of the wrongness happening now will be forgotten by uninterested masses later, buried by formerly extreme voices and repeated in the next anti-civilization movement.
I don’t care much about the specific AGW issue anymore – I’ve become an “uninterested mass”. However the bigger lesson of extremist creep into politics and pop culture should be taught to liberal arts students who will become the next generation of news readers and writers.

Reply to  MarkW
May 24, 2016 7:42 am

“However the bigger lesson of extremist creep into politics and pop culture should be taught to liberal arts students who will become the next generation of news readers and writers.”
This statement contradicts the whine in your first comment.

Reply to  Kevin M
May 24, 2016 7:14 am

Kevin , I’ve never looked even at the Wiki article . That whole first page of Google hits is as dominated by the attack blogs of the useful idiots . I wanted to fix at least the the word “denial” in the first sentence in the Wikpedia article : ” Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog[1] promoting climate change denial[2][3][4][5][6] that was created … ” but it’s a daunting task .
Heartland seeks assistance keeping its Wikipedia page honest , perhaps some WUWT readers might look at disinfecting WUWT’s .
Of course that won’t help the Google first page which likely unbiasedly reflects the amount of vitriol and energy expended by the eKoNazis trying to suppress WUWT .

May 24, 2016 6:17 am

“Chief resilience officers are being asked to help transform communities that face threats from sea-level rise or other stressors. They’re trying to find ways to create better-educated communities, to address chronic poverty and decades of inequity, to identify shoddy housing conditions, and to diversify their economic base…”
This is the trojan horse. What they are doing has nothing whatever to do with climate change. They are not proposing to build sea walls, move vulnerable housing or anything of the sort.
Just like the Citizens United decision opened the door to the wholesale purchase of political campaigns, this evil process opens the door to wholesale purchase of government administration. Politicians come and go – bureaucracy is forever.

Alex Avery
Reply to  markopanama
May 24, 2016 6:22 am

Mark, Citizens United did NOT open the door to “wholesale purchase of government administration.” It was a reasonable and sound decision that leveled the playing electoral field between two groups of CITIZENS: unions and private business owners (corporations are simply assemblies of human individuals working together to own/run a business). And remember — it was about a group that wanted to show a movie about Hillary Clinton and was told they couldn’t because of bogus election law restrictions.
The solution to free speech complaints is more speech, not more bureaucratic restrictions.

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Alex Avery
May 24, 2016 6:31 am

Corporations are “simply” no such thing except in concept, not in reality.
For example, the federal government is a revolving door for corporate types who them go back to corporate after serving in government, I can provide an extensive list of such individuals and the changes they made that suited their corporations while in public office

Reply to  Alex Avery
May 24, 2016 7:44 am

Corporations have interests, they have a right to protect those interests.
Just because you believe that people who disagree with you have no right to try and influence government doesn’t make it right to try and ban them.

bill johnston
Reply to  markopanama
May 24, 2016 6:40 am

“or other stressors”. What the heck does that mean? Are these people to start making “safe spaces” for our populace? What ever happened to reality?

Reply to  markopanama
May 24, 2016 7:01 am

Wow, people get so upset whenever others that they don’t like are not banned from politics.
Government has always and will always be bought.
People who think that pathetic little laws like those that were over turned by Citizen’s United did anything to prevent the rich from buying influence are clueless beyond belief. They probably also think that we can ban global warming by passing enough laws.
As long as government controls the buying and selling of things, the first thing bought and sold will always be politicians.

Reply to  markopanama
May 25, 2016 1:08 pm

One of the more insidious ascpects of the law, is that it provided an exemption to most of it’s restrictions for “news organizations”.
The problem was, who was a “news organization”. Obviously we can’t let people just declare themselves to be “news organizations”, so the solution is to let a government agency decide.
You don’t have to be a climate scientist to know where that is going.
Those organizations that report only what the government wants them to report, will get the coveted title “news organization”. Everyone else will have to operate under government imposed restrictions.

Alex Avery
May 24, 2016 6:17 am

I have the same concerns over tax breaks that localities give to businesses. If the tax laws are to be fair, how can they be arbitrarily waived just because one employer is big? How is that not an unfair application of tax laws? How is that fair to the smaller, less influential businesses? I personally think such individualized exemptions/breaks should be illegal/unconstitutional on the basis of equal protection.
Alex Avery

Mark from the Midwest
May 24, 2016 6:23 am

Just did a little homework, in Michigan it would all be subject to the open meetings guidelines, so that any time that someone in a “funded position” met with any public employee the time and place would need to be published, and any citizen of that municipality could just “sit in.” Further, nothing would prohibit those citizens from using audio or video recording devices. I think it would be great fun, and I’m all for it.
P.S. I would hope there are refreshments, or maybe a light lunch …

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
May 24, 2016 8:59 am

Did someone say lunch?
Hmm, for these “Chief Resilience Officer” positions will they be sending a “real” Rockefeller or just a garden variety “Greenie”

Tom in Texas
May 24, 2016 6:27 am

How long has the rockefellers beed associated with the U.N. Historical legacy[edit]
The second-oldest major philanthropic institution in America, after the Carnegie Corporation, the foundation’s impact on philanthropy in general has been profound. It has supported United Nations programs throughout its history, such as the recent First Global Forum On Human Development, organized by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in 1999.[40]
Can the truth be evident.

May 24, 2016 6:33 am

It’s fine. If any non-profit can create and fund a governmental regulatory body, then game on!

May 24, 2016 6:41 am

They are either govt employees or they are private citizens, they can’t be both.

May 24, 2016 6:44 am

“there would be concerns about undue influence, concerns, however unjustified, that the nuclear industry was using this insider access to influence decisions about planning approval for new nuclear power plants.”
I don’t see why you would consider such concern to be unjustified. The only purpose for creating such position is so that they can exert influence. Influence that is bought and paid for by those who are funding the positions.
It doesn’t matter who is doing the funding or what the job title is, it is almost by definition, undue influence.

May 24, 2016 6:51 am

This is similar to a the soviet era “political officer”. No doubt that its more than about resilience. This office will no doubt affect city planning and zoning also. The bigger problem is what happens when none of these threats materialize? These cities find that their ability to expand and grow has been hampered by purposeful political correctness.

Pamela Gray
May 24, 2016 7:07 am

So, what we have here is bonafide Big Green backed appointees and experts quite literally on Big Green’s payroll. What could go wrong.

Curious George
Reply to  Pamela Gray
May 24, 2016 8:02 am

A great idea, only not carried far enough. All governments should be funded by Rockefellers (or Steyers or their ilk.) Then we could forget about that long obnoxious word (‘democracy’) altogether and our lives would be so much easier.
As a first step, it looks very promising. Who would suspect a chief resilience officer to be in cahoots with a professor of climate change? True, they get paid by the same billionaire, but only skeptics would look for a conspiracy. Oh, and who pays Mr. Cook?

Joel O’Bryan
May 24, 2016 7:16 am

All those cities have an engineering dept with a Sr Civil Eng, PE. Working with state and Feds to flood control and disaster prep is part of what they do. This seems to dilute that tesponsibility to someone who, not paid by the city, may not be fully accountable. That position, if it is created, must be answerable (and fire-able to the Mayor and/or council, the elected officials who answer to the People, not the Rockefellers). That CRO needs to be a PE to boot, to ensure he/she understand engineering responsibilities.
Finally, what happens to the funding for those positions when the Climate Hustle finally finally collapses?

May 24, 2016 7:17 am

If the pause turns into decline, then they can recast themselves as Chief Excuse Officers (CEO).

John Robertson
May 24, 2016 10:11 am

Shall each have the adopted name of “Wormtongue”?
Every council should have an externally funded activist advising their wisdom.
As I keep finding, these people are beyond parody,have zero empathy and are way beyond ethically challenged.
Beyond parody , The Gang who cannot shoot straight.
Green Gangsters.
Gang Green by action.
Amputation via banishment is the only social cure.

John Robertson
May 24, 2016 10:14 am

On second thought, is this not what Donna LaFramboise found when she investigated both the IPCC and Environment Canada?
Activists first,public troughers second.

Ken G
May 24, 2016 10:31 am

Is this the same Rockefeller Foundation that advocated and heavily funded another pseudo-scienctific endeavor called Eugenics a few decades ago? Yes it is.

May 24, 2016 1:10 pm

Should there be a sunset clause on tax exemption of nonprofits like the Rockefeller Foundation?

Not Oscar, just a grouch
Reply to  Resourceguy
May 24, 2016 2:54 pm

I’m sure that you would find huge support for such a move from the “progressives.” That is, as long as the sunset clause applied only to non-“progressive” nonprofits.

Gunga Din
May 24, 2016 2:07 pm

Not sure if this directly relates or not but the city I work for has an active EMS program.
(Now we can’t rake leaves off of our intakes screens and send them downstream where they would have gone anyway. I guess once we touch them they aren’t “organic” enough?8-)

May 24, 2016 2:10 pm

A number of years ago, I was involved in a business that entered into an agreement with a state government agency. The state attorney general later ruled that agreement in violation of the state Constitution because it made funds available to that agency outside of the legislative appropriation process. In hindsight I had to agree.
Government must keep to government and business must stay out of government. That is how we get massive cronyism. Because cronyism requires people on both sides to collude to the effect that government violates the public trust, there is no such thing as “crony capitalism”. There is only cronyism.
In a different form, wen private business pays to get government to do its bidding, we call that corruption, plain and simple. It matters not that some in government are happy to agree.

Reply to  buckwheaton
May 25, 2016 6:48 am

If it is a form of corruption when private businesses pays to get government to do it’s bidding, what is it when government pays to get private busineses to do ITS bidding?

Red Chief
May 24, 2016 5:40 pm

When a city pays Hayhoe $116,000 for a 2 page whitepaper regurgitating known data modeling, privately funded “Resilience Chiefs” will just make the wait longer for a pull from the peace pipe. The tribe is already under the influence…

May 24, 2016 8:25 pm

Welcome to United Nations Agenda 21. These people are un-elected, so the voters can’t get rid of them – they can’t vote them out. For a more thorough explanation by an expert on emanate domain and local zoning laws, watch the first half of this video by Rosa Koire:

It’s very informative and entertaining too…

May 24, 2016 9:17 pm

I am submitting this for a 2nd time. If it appears twice, please remove one of them – Phil:
Welcome to United Nations Agenda 21. These people are unelected, so the voters can’t get rid of them – they can’t vote them out. For a more thorough explanation by an expert on emanate domain and local zoning laws, watch at least the first half of this video by Rosa Koire:

It’s very informative and entertaining too…

David Cage
May 24, 2016 11:58 pm

This is commercial lobbying. I assume they will equally accept a hookers group funding a street sexual entertainment officer as it is if anything a higher moral standing than any climate science output.

old construction worker
May 25, 2016 7:58 pm

“Chief Resilience Officer” positions: Sounds like a work program for ex EPA managers.

%d bloggers like this: