Author Russian Presidential Press and Information Office
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The House Science Committee has released a report detailing how Russia has been attempting to sabotage US domestic fossil fuel production, to promote their own fossil fuel exports, by stirring up climate activist opposition to US domestic fossil fuel production.
Republicans Accuse Russia of Using Social Media to Roil U.S. Energy Policy
By Ari Natter and Alan Bjerga
2 March 2018, 01:25 GMT+10 Updated on 2 March 2018, 03:56 GMT+10
The same Russian operatives accused of manipulating the 2016 U.S. presidential election used inflammatory social media posts to disrupt U.S. energy policy, including inciting environmentalists to protest against pipeline projects, House Republicans said in a report released Thursday.
The report, released by the House Science Committee, said it found evidence Russian-sponsored agents used Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram to suppress the research and development of fossil fuels and stymie efforts to expand the use of natural gas and fracking.
“This report reveals that Russian agents created and spread propaganda on U.S. social media platforms in an obvious attempt to influence the U.S. energy market,” Texas Representative Lamar Smith, the chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, said in a statement. “Russian agents attempted to manipulate Americans’ opinions about pipelines, fossil fuels, fracking and climate change.”
…
According to the report, Hillary Clinton was fully aware of Russian efforts;
… Former Secretary of State and then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, with access to intelligence reports, made a private speech in 2014, according to documents from WikiLeaks, which included statements about the struggles of dealing with Russian-backed environmental groups. According to a media report, Secretary Clinton said the following: “We [the State Department and the U.S.] were up against Russia pushing oligarchs and others to buy media. We were even up against phony environmental groups, and I’m a big environmentalist, but these were funded by the Russians to stand against any effort, ‘Oh that pipeline, that fracking, that whatever will be a problem for you,’ and a lot of the money supporting that message was coming from Russia.”
…
To that end, the Kremlin is attempting to make, as Senator Cardin’s report states, “useful idiots” of unwitting environmental groups and activists in furtherance of its energy influence operations.33 Although this is not a new tactic in the Kremlin’s playbook, it has been adapted to account for modern technological advancements like the Internet and social media. Throughout history, the Kremlin has engaged and manipulated unwitting individuals to disseminate propaganda in furtherance of its global agenda.34 The Kremlin continues to employ this tactic, which has become substantially more effective with the proliferation of the Internet and social media. By leveraging the sincerely held views and beliefs of unwitting agents, the Kremlin is able to exploit polarized issues in American democracy to influence action in furtherance of its agenda.
…
Read More: House Science Committee Report
The Bloomberg reporter contacted several people who appear skeptical of the claimed extent or aims of Russian propaganda efforts.
Fossil fuel exports account for around 16% of Russian GDP, 52% of government revenue and 70% of Russian exports, so it makes sense that Russian propaganda efforts would be focussed on protecting their one trick economy.
Very plausible as major U.S. interests are funding activists in Canada preventing the building of pipelines and allowing Canada to get the world price for Canadian oil.
Another case of exceptionalistan: they can dish it but they can’t take it…
Looks like Tom can’t tell the difference between private citizens and government.
Of course in Russia there is no difference, as private citizens aren’t permitted to disagree with the government.
Private citizens like Steyer, Rockefellers, Soros and the Obamas were working hand in hand. Who is benefiting from the anti oil sands campaign in Canada if not U.S. projects? During Obama’s 2016 visit to Canada, he praised the Alberta NDP Premier Notley, an employer of former Greenpeace anti oil activist…
to the WUWT moderation team
You need to add a shrink. Some commentators here appear to suffer from advanced mental pathologies and need help. You may leave their mostly off topic humbug, for therapeutic reasons, but pse label it as such, otherwise your blog degenerates to a collection of bizarre writings and ridicule. Not the image you want to project.
w p
Be more specific or run the risk of being labelled a bullsh!tter.
Addressed to the WUWT moderation team, not even meant to be published. A psychiatrist will easily spot the ‘specifics’. If you have the urge to respond to messages that are not addressed to you, then feel free, if it helps.
[???? .mod]
@wp, a well targeted comment.
This blog is open to being neutered and eviscerated by those who turn it in to a political screamfest. Sticking to science is how we will succeed against the alarmists/acceptors on AGW.
State propaganda has been around as long as states have existed. Stick to the science, ignore the political nut jobs…_
How dare people talk about anything I don’t want them to.
Anti fossil fuels, anti pipelines, anti fracking, anti oilsands, pro green energy, etc. etc. – all promoted by the same people, all deliberately harming our economies while wrapping themselves in the cloak of phony environmentalism.
These people are not pro-environment – many of their programs such as clear-cutting of tropical rainforests to grow biofuels, draining the Ogallala aquifer to grow corn for fuel ethanol, clear-cutting eastern US forests to provide wood pellets for British power plants, erecting huge wind power towers to slice up birds and bats, etc are ALL anti-environmental.
Their successful efforts to delay and ban fracking of petroleum-rich shales have caused great harm in Britain, continental Europe , and have hampered growth in Canada and the USA. Their successful efforts to shut-in the oilsands through anti-pipeline lies have cost Canada tens of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs.
By driving up the cost of energy and causing instability in electrical grids they have increased winter mortality and cost lives. Even greater loss of life has been caused in developing countries, where the installation of reliable fossil-fueled energy has been displaced by insistence on intermittent, near-worthless wind and solar power schemes.
Perhaps the greatest cost and loss-of-life has been due to the gross misallocation of global resources, where obvious first priorities such as clean water and sanitation systems, the fight against malaria, and the fight against world hunger have been displaced due to excessive spending on green energy follies.
These are crimes against humanity – they should be prosecuted and the scoundrels and imbeciles who promoted this nonsense should go to jail.
Great! So what are you waiting for getting Steyer, Hewlett and Packard Foundations and other Betty Moore Foundation, Tides based in San Francisco, Soros Open Societies Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers etc… behind bars? They are all U.S. entities no? Clean your own house before starting WW3!
Rude Tom wrote:
“Great! So what are you waiting for getting Steyer, Hewlett and Packard Foundations and other Betty Moore Foundation, Tides based in San Francisco, Soros Open Societies Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers etc… behind bars? They are all U.S. entities no? Clean your own house before starting WW3!”
For once, Tom, we agree. The funders of phony green activists have done great harm to America, Canada and other countries and they belong in jail.
At a minimum, it is time for class action lawsuits based in civil RICO statutes, etc. against these funders and their minions.
https://www.google.com/search?&q=putin+on+global+warming
Russian President Vladimir Putin says humans not responsible for climate change
(France24)
Climate change doubters may not be so silly, says Russia President
(CNBC)
Vladimir Putin: climate change is real – but it’s good
(iNews UK)
Russia’s Putin says climate change in Arctic good for economy
(CBC)
Vladimir Putin changes his mind and echoes Donald Trump to say (humans not to blame for climate change)
(Independent UK)
= = = = = = = = = = =
Annexation of Hawaii, 1898
https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/gp/17661.htm
Following the U.S. orchestrated coupi n the Ukraine…
… the people on the Crimean peninsula–historically part of Russia–overwhelmingly voted “yes” in a referendum to join the Russian Federation. It was a transparently democratic process.
The Crimea, unlike Hawaii, wasn’t “annexed.”
Climate activists and the communists. It’s an open secret
http://pot.politifake.org/image/political/1508/climate-czar-communism-best-fight-global-warming-climate-chi-politics-1440540733.jpg
The Russian trolls appear to be more capable of doing bad things than that nasty gas CO2.
Anyone who has been in and out of Russia over the past 25 years cannot help but be impressed with the progress in that country.
St Petersburg and Moscow are now far nicer than any city in the USA – and safer.
The vast majority of the people love Putin. They see him as a leader and their “saviour” (many of the older academic Russians do not share that view).
Over the past 15 years their standard of living has improved immeasurably while the USA standard of living continues to go down the gurgler – helped in no small way by Oh Bummer.
USA – wake up to yourselves when you drift back into cold war era criticism of Russia. If you refuse to educate yourselves on these issues, you will all finish up being Democrats – like the Russkies were in the 1950s.
“Over the past 15 years their [Russia’s] standard of living has improved immeasurably while the USA standard of living continues to go down the gurgler – helped in no small way by Oh Bummer.”
According the World Bank, the Russia Federation’s per capita GDP in constant U.S. dollars was $9,867 per person in 1989 – the point at which the Soviet Union collapsed. By 2016, the latest year in which reliable figures are available from this source, Russia’s per capital GDP was a paltry $11,279 per person. So, after 26 years Russia’s only managed to increase it’s per capita GDP by $1,412 per person or a paltry 14%.
In contrast, the United State’s per capita GDP was $36,330 per person in 1989 and steadily grew to $52,364 per person in 2016. So, after 26 years the United States managed to increase it’s per capita GDP by $16,331 per person or 45%.
In terms of wealth creation, you can see the U.S. economy has produced wealth at an average annual rate 11.6 times greater than Russia over the same period. ($16,331 per person/$1,412 per person = 11.6). Not bad, given the United States has had to deal with the Great Recession in between and the U.S. economy isn’t working on all cylinders.
Moreover, if you care to notice, the United States GDP per capita growth has been constant whereas Russia’s GDP growth has been erratic, at best, and has been virtually stagnate over the long run. See here:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD?locations=US-RU
I do find it interesting that your reference point is 15 years ago (circa 2003). The Russian economy’s lowest point occurred in 1998 when its Per Capita GDP was $5,505 per person. In 2003, Russia’s per capita GDP was only $7,639 per person.
In fairness, it can certainly be said Russia’s “standard of living has improved immeasurably” over the last 15 years. The problem is that that Russia’s “improvement” isn’t really that impressive compared to the rest of the world.
Correction
Where I stated:
“In terms of wealth creation, you can see the U.S. economy has produced wealth at an average annual rate 11.6 times greater than Russia over the same period.”
Should read:
“In terms of wealth creation, you can see the U.S. economy has produced wealth at a rate 11.6 times greater than Russia over the same period.”
The improvement was over the entire 26 years period not an “average annual rate”. My error.
That doesn’t matter, because Russians love Putin, whether they want to or not.
Dave,
You exemplify 1950s at its best.
Go and have a look.
If you prefer to believe your statistics rather than what the eye can see, so be it.
I have also been in and out of the USA since 1975 and have seen at first hand the deterioration in your country, particularly with respect to race relations.
You probably also have some statistics to dispel my observations.
Can you remember when Chicago and New York were pleasant places to visit?
Comment directed to MarkW March 4, 2018 at 12:10 pm
“That doesn’t matter, because Russians love Putin, whether they want to or not.”
Reply:
Wither Russia loves Putin or not is not relevant.
The questions are: 1) Do Russia’s ex-soviet neighbors trust Russia enough to create alliances with Russia? 2) Or, instead, do it’s neighbors distrust Russia and join alliances designed to thwart Russian’s perceived colonial tendencies? and 3) If free of perceived threat from Russia, how well do these countries prosper economically?
Former Soviet-block countries that joined NATO include: Czech Republic (1999), Hungary (1999), Poland (1999), Bulgaria (2004), Estonia (2004), Latvia (2004), Lithuania (2004), Romania (2004), Slovakia (2004), Slovenia (2004), Albania (2009), Croatia (2009), and Montenegro (2017).
These countries represent the bulk of Russia’s former allies on it’s eastern border. This would suggest that the bulk of the countries close to Russia don’t trust it. These realities alone plainly answer questions 1 and 2.
If one examines these new NATO-block countries per capita GDP, it’s also pretty clear that most are substantially more prosperous than Russia (with a 2016 per capita GDP of $11,279 per person).
The nine far more prosperous NATO members, in order of per capita GDP circa 2016, are: Slovenia ($24,460), Czech Republic ($21,894), Slovakia ($19,275), Estonia ($18,094), Lithuania ($15,895), Poland ($15,066), Hungary ($14,997), Latvia ($14,724), and Croatia ($14,452)
Five of these new NATO members are less prosperous than Russia. These are: Romania ($10,065), Bulgaria ($7,967), Montenegro ($7,492), and Albania ($4,685).
Romania is catching up with Russian and may soon surpass it. Bulgaria, Montenegro, and Albania are Balkan countries with limited resources and unstable neighbors who have a history of creating “mischief” – often with the support of Russia.
It’s clear that countries that prosper relative to Russia prefer to feel “protected” from Russia . And even counties poorer than Russia would prefer to enter into alliances that protect them from Russian influence.
While Russian likes to frame the creation of these NATO alliances as a threat, its not all that clear that it is. These NATO countries aren’t interested in invading Russia, they simply prefer not to be invaded or otherwise be free of excessive Russian influence in their affairs. And, they tend to prosper once free of perceived threat or arm twisting. So we have an answer to question 3.
Ultimately, I think, Russia would be better off recognizing that it has an image problem. Specifically, that no one trusts them. Consequently, I think, they would be better off simply accepting what they cannot change and work to proving themselves worthy of their neighbor’s trust. Until that time, Russia is just going to stew in relative poverty. Trust = Prosperity
Comment directed to toorightmate March 4, 2018 at 4:23 pm
” Go and have a look.
If you prefer to believe your statistics rather than what the eye can see, so be it. I have also been in and out of the USA since 1975 and have seen at first hand the deterioration in your country, particularly with respect to race relations. You probably also have some statistics to dispel my observations.”
Reply:
Well… I’ve lived and traveled in and out of the United States , fairly regularly since the 1960’s While some areas of the U.S. have deteriorated other have prospered. Boston was a high tech center while San Francisco is now. San Francisco is losing to Seattle. Atlanta has eclipsed Chicago in relative importance (In my view) . New York’s always been a bit nasty. Washington D.C. is pretty much a dump. Detroit is a hell hole. Houston, Austin, and Charlotte are pretty nice. Shrug, things change… when we don’t like it we move with our feet.
As for “race relations”, well… frankly, in my view race, relations are worse in most of the rest of the world. Those complaining here simply haven’t spent much time abroad.
Dave Kelly – I have worked overseas on six continents, typically running small companies or big projects. This included corporations or projects in the Americas, Europe, Australia, the Arab world, Asia and the FSU.
I agree with most or all of your comments.
When the FSU fell and Russia opened its doors to foreign investment, capital flooded in, only to be stolen or confiscated by local crime groups.
There is now little or no foreign investment going into Russia, and anyone who does invest is a fool who will lose his money, and perhaps his life.
Regards,Allan
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/01/weird-claim-bottled-water-sales-fueled-by-desire-for-immortality/comment-page-1/#comment-2733306
[excerpt]
Subsequently, a week before one of my trips through Moscow, a US hotelier named Paul Tatum was assassinated. Tatum was part-owner of the Radisson Slavyanskaya Hotel in Moscow and had built it into a secure venue for important international and local guests. Tatum’s hotel assets were then expropriated under “standard Russian deal” terms. I later became a business associate of his friend and lawyer, Sam Hammons of Oklahoma. Sam was quoted as saying: “”I think this is a historic moment. Russia is at a crossroads, and the symbol of that crossroads is Paul Tatum’s death.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tatum
http://newsok.com/article/2562663
Western investment in Russian energy ventures has pretty well dried up since then. I used to call it “the full-contact oil business”.
Regards, Allan
Surprise surprise!
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxon-mobil-wall-street/exxon-ceo-struggles-to-reverse-tillersons-legacy-of-failed-bets-idUSKCN1GJ0IE
HOUSTON (Reuters) – Exxon Mobil Corp’s (XOM.N) $200 million write-down last month on abandoned ventures in Russia – once its next big frontier – points to challenges facing Chief Executive Darren Woods in his second year leading the world’s largest publicly traded oil producer.
This has been obvious to anyone paying attention for the past couple years. I suppose the Bombshell! is Congress getting its act together and recognizing it.
‘doze ‘wikkid ‘wushins have been really successful (and likely justifiably pleased with themselves) remote controlling Germany’s Green Party (and Merkel?) – wind mills and solar panels to run industry and shut down nuclear electricity generation – while simultaneously building two giant gas pipes from Siberia to Germany….
In the USA – the clear interference by Venezuela seems to go almost unremarked – Josh Fox couldn’t I suspect have funded his two movies without support fro Chavist / Bolivarian revolutionaries?
“Russian propaganda against US fossil fuels”….pales into insignificance compared to the propaganda issued by US special interest groups specifically against Canadian fossil fuel interests. Hanoi Jane and Cruiseboat DiCaprio both doing oilsands flyover videos, paid tweeters twitting Canadian teenagers and politicians about carbonageddon. Mind control of the mindless…
Where are you Griff? Come back. All is forgiven.
no its not stay away
The Eighties called; they’d like their climatology back.
========================================
this is the most stupid idea I ever heard.
And one more thing: Al Gore is definitely a Cremlin Agent! 🙂