This document, from 2016 is part of the cache of John Podesta emails (campaign manager for Hillary Clinton), is a meeting packet for an NGO called The ClimateWorks Foundation. They say this on their web page:
Climate change threatens ecosystems, societies, and economies. These challenges require innovative responses and insights. Using the power of collaboration, ClimateWorks Foundation mobilizes philanthropy to solve the climate crisis and ensure a prosperous future.
And on their BOD page, U.N. climate crusader Christiana Figueres, who was executive Secretary of the UNFCCC from 2010-2016 along with Hillary’s campaign manager, John Podesta among others; an unholy alliance in my opinion.
In this leaked document (via Wikileaks) we see a list of billionaire foundations driving this NGO, who seem to be acting as if they are oblivious to the rule of law or domestic governments, working to create a global cap and trade system and funding a flurry of other environmental NGOs to change local policy.
One item from the document shows a session titled:
Cities as a Lever for Change Post‐Paris
As reported on page 80, they were helped by McKinsey and Company, the most influential management consulting firm in the world, which got a $42.4 million contract to help make this happen.
According to the budget document on page 170, the total 2016 budget for ClimateWorks Foundations was a whopping $66.6 million dollars! And alarmists claim climate skeptics are well-moneyed, sheesh!
Looking through the document. this seems like a RICO type of scenario to me. They are highly organized, and well-funded, where they planned to use all that money to influence local and state governments to enact climate laws, carbon trading, and put their tendrils even deeper into the deep state.
For example, here on page 20, they plan to influence California’s electricity grid. Shades of ENRON and rolling blackouts where the grid was crippled so greedmongers could eke out more money in trading. Here, they want to control virtually all of the western states, in one giant green monopoly:
Mr. McElwee described the grant to the Energy Foundation to support the U.S. Western grid integration. The grant to the Energy Foundation would support analysis for a recommendation for integrating the California Independent System Operation (CAISO) with a six‐state utility, following opportunities opened up by recent California legislation, and potentially leading to increased balancing of renewables across the region. The board discussed the goals and tactics of the proposal.
Just think what we’d be seeing if Hillary Clinton had won the presidency.
Here is the entire 208 page document, feel free to browse and post items of interest in comments.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/fileid/57594/16165
h/t to “JB”.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Koch Brothers: Over $100,000,000 directly to 84 groups denying climate change science since 1997.
That’s a lot of money to persuade people that basic science is not to be trusted.
Not sure if your numbers are correct, but even using your numbers
Hit return too soon. Using your numbers, that is less than 5 million a year
for 21 years. Split over 84 groups evenly (I’m sure it was not even), that works out to a little more than $50K per year per group. And the stolen memos by Peter Gleick showed that Koch gave Heartland about $50K one year but it was for a study on healthcare.
‘Peter Gleick showed that Koch gave Heartland about $50K one year but it was for a study on healthcare.’
I think you’ve hit on Alley’s methodology with his blanket statement – probably the total is money generally aimed at general right-wing interests rather than specifically climate change. Typical misrepresentation.
And still a fraction of what Big Green is funded by.
When you decide to make things up, you go whole hog..
PS: I love the way you continue to cling to the belief that all the real scientists agree with you. It’s so darn cute.
Why are you stating that facts are made up? Weird. Is this part of the “up is down” muddying of waters in the pseudo-science groups?
Made up facts are made up facts. You made the claim, support it.
Since you refuse to it’s just more proof that you can’t.
PS, I love the way you continue to make stuff up, like that scientists agree with me (what?) and then run with your meme.
It’s so cute.
Why don’t you concentrate on the most basic facts, like 1) Earth is warming (we all know this) and 2) CO2 is the primary forcing (most of us know this.)?
That the earth is warming is probably true.
That CO2 is a primary forcing has been disproven time and again.
The mere fact that the earth has been much warmer than today multiple times in the last 10K years, and CO2 didn’t cause it is enough to disprove the claim that CO2 must be causing this warming.
The mere fact that CO2 levels have exceeded 6000ppm with little to no warming is enough to disprove the claim that CO2 is a major factor in climate.
I don’t know how many billion spent to PROVE the Earth is warming, and they haven’t even done that. With 18 years of flat temperatures in spite of higher C02 levels, they’ve done everything from changing the unit of measure, out and out changing the data, and burying any counter messaging, AND of course parlaying a big El Nino as a product of AGW.
Then your blanket assertion – because you KNOW, right? Just like all the other monkey-see, monkey-do types – that C02 is the ‘primary forcing’, pretty much identifies you as a typical progressive parrot – you don’t even HAVE to make stuff up – you got all these money and political interests doing it FOR you.
And the amazing thing is that’s what you accuse US of.
Because 2 is false and 1 is likely to reverse within the next few years.
Earth is in a totally natural warming cycle, coming out of the LIA.
Please present evidence that CO2 is the primary “forcing” causing whatever warming has occurred since c. AD 1850. How do you “know” this?
Thanks!
Ah yes, the Koch Brothers – a quasi fictional pair of brothers that progressive lefties assign as responsible for any information that leaks out contradicting any mass-progressive messaging.
As I understand it, the Koch brothers are in the mid-fifties in number of top political donors.
That’s a lot of money that’s NOT the Koch brothers spent to persuade people that extrapolation based on computer models and massaged data is ‘basic science’.
It certainly worked on you.
What we must keep in mind is not only are such “NGOs” trying to influence the political process at all levels relative to AGW but if you cross reference names and organizations you will find connections with radical socialist organizations. I use to do something similar once a year for one of my bosses for environmental organizations. If you naively look at the relationship there seems to be not much there. If you then review who sits on which boards, the resumes of prominent staff, but especially the various attorneys involved it is amazing how interconnected they are. Looking at the attorneys for example. An attorney might just be listed as that for one organization, sit on one or more boards other similar organizations. The organization might list a law firm as their legal advisors, then prominent partners might sit on boards of similar organizations using their own name. The Clinton Foundation and associated foundations may be the most corrupt “charitable” organizations in history.
“Just think what we’d be seeing if Hillary Clinton had won the presidency.”
She would be seeking exile by now …
I wonder how long it took Lois Lerner to approved the exempt status of this 501(c)(3)?
Seriously, the IRS Form 990 filing (for 2016) makes interesting reading. They pay themselves well. The top 10 employees have a total compensation of over $3M. Also, although donor amounts are listed in Schedule B, identities are not, and I could not find any other indication of who they are. However, the top 3 donors accounted for ~ 96% of the ~ $48M total, with one donor contributing almost $33M. That donor IDs are not provided is indication that this organization is NOT considered to be a political organization by the IRS – which is a laughable and disgusting judgement (Lois at work?).
The really disappointing aspect of the organization’s history is that it was started by a group of foundations headed by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. It saddens me when foundations that have been started and funded by iconic capitalists and entrepreneurs (apparently) get taking over by those whose political views are antithetical to those of the founders.
Note the specific effort to FORCE policies on those that don’t want them. Apparently the Progressive eco-left is getting impatient with waiting for their near-constant propaganda to take hold, and they want to just skip right ahead to totalitarianism.
Of course, now I’m just waiting from another essay from our resident troll-flake about how the skeptic movement was so organized and well-funded, who’s paying us, and how we were given our conclusions due to our lack of critical thought.
And racism.
Just a comment about the comments. I got “snip” a day or so ago by a moderator, no worries I have been snipped in real life by very powerful people that didn’t like it when I basically said the “emperor had no new clothes”. What I said then was the commenter in question would never change their mind no matter how much hard evidence and data was presented to the contrary. I got the impression the moderator like to debate with the person in question. I then described as to why. I once tracked trolls on several blogs for a couple of years. Some are just nasty, never saying anything worth while generally using attacks ad hominem on the regular commenters. Others seem more considerate and do present their facts and arguments almost always from news media sources, while seldom resorting to direct attacks ad hominem, unless attacked, their purpose and focus is still the same. The third are even more considerate, they present their facts from what they claim to be “official sources.” They almost never, even when attacked personally resort to attack ad hominem. Then there are floating trolls a discussion for another day other than to say they are more lurkers, gathering data for someone. They often show and then are gone. Almost all the trolls are there for a purpose according to experts I consulted with. They first priority is to take up space. Their second is to force the subject to go tangential from the original primary focus. The more the primary focus is on subject and has validity the more they push the envelop AND often the more trolls that show up. Trolls communicate. Some will test the waters with comments to see what will drive the issue on a given day depending on what commenters are on line. Many trolls are paid. Some trolls are actually groups, not a single individual. It is why some forget what they said. Some are troll like They are just true believers in their chosen orthodoxy, fighting the good fight defending their religion; zealots, as have historically shown up in every religion throughout history. I find it sometimes fun to engage with trolls, making the mistake of leaving behind my old standard the experts told me to use, “don’t feed the trolls.”
Climate
In 2008, the foundation awarded the Climate Works Foundation approximately $460,800,000.[11] Hewlett funded restoration of the Bay Area Salt Ponds[12] and conservation of the Great Bear Rainforest in Canada.[13]
Hewlett’s Environment Program makes grants to support conservation in the North American West, reduce global warming and conventional pollution resulting from the use of fossil fuels, and promote environmental protection efforts in California. The Hewlett Foundation opposes coal and natural gas development.[5]
Hewlett foundation.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hewlett_Foundation
Grants and Contracts
Mr. McElwee reviewed the proposed $3.6 million grant to the Climate and Land Use Alliance (CLUA),
noting that ClimateWorks had received incremental restricted funding from the Hewlett Foundation for
this grant, and that the board had just approved a recommendation that would eliminate the need for
approval of grants under these conditions starting in 2016. A motion was presented to approve the grant
to CLUA as described on page 106 of the packet; the motion was seconded and unanimously approved by
all directors present.
“According to the budget document on page 170, the total 2016 budget for ClimateWorks Foundations was a whopping $66.6 million dollars! And alarmists claim climate skeptics are well-moneyed, sheesh!”
From the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy:
“Grantmakers made at least $10 billion in grants to environmental causes from 2000 through 2009, funding primarily top-down strategies.”
– Source: https://www.ncrp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Cultivating_the_grassroots_final_lowres.pdf
It was always about control.
(From March 9, 2009 interview here:
http://www.usnews.com/news/energy/articles/2009/03/09/on-climate-change-the-science-has-just-become-incredibly-clear)
“Eventually, we can get to a system where an electric company will be able to hold back some of th epower so that maybe your air conditioner won’t operate at its peak, you’ll still be able to cool your house, but that’ll be a savings to the consumer. And so [we will be] giving people and companies a role in the management of how we use electricity.” – Carol Browner, Former Director of the now defunct White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy