Yes, this Dicaprio, ~ctm
From The Mail Online
By Rebecca Lawrence For Mailonline
Published: 04:29 EST, 21 December 2018 | Updated: 04:31 EST, 21 December 2018
Leonardo DiCaprio‘s eponymous foundation has now raised $100 million towards helping the fight against climate change.
The actor, 44, set up the charity in 1998 to promote environmental awareness and throws several fundraising events a year, including an annual star-studded gala.
Over the past two decades he has supported over 200 environmentally focused projects, in their mission to support innovative projects that protect vulnerable wildlife from extinction, while restoring balance to threatened ecosystems and communities.
Fantastic fundraiser: Leonardo DiCaprio’s eponymous foundation has now raised $100 million towards helping the fight against climate change
Leonardo was recently honoured at the charity’s 20th anniversary event – a gala that was attended by the likes of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Madonna and Ellen DeGeneres.
Taking to the stage, the Oscar-winning actor announced that there would be $11 million worth of new funding – taking the charity’s contribution past the $100 million mark.
A statement on the foundation’s website read: ‘When I founded LDF 20 years ago, I did so based on the simple idea that we could make a real difference by directly funding some of the most effective environmental projects.
Money maker: The actor, 44, set up the charity in 1998 to promote environmental awareness and throws several fundraising events a year, including an annual star-studded gala
‘Whether it be individuals, grassroots movements or major nonprofits, we wanted to focus on getting critical funding to those who could have the greatest impact.
‘We are extremely proud to celebrate 20 years of this model. Since 1998, we have supported over 200 projects on every continent and in every ocean from habitat and species conservation, renewable energy, climate change, indigenous rights, and more.
HT/Cam_S
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So, in 20 years, Di Caprio has raised $100 million from his mates & flunkies. That amounts to the grand sum of just $5 million each year, which is pocket money to any self-respecting Hollywood star.
They are selfish, un-charitable hypocrites.
When you attempt to follow the money you don’t get very far.
From: https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/leonardo-dicaprio-foundation-comes-under-scrutiny
“Set up as a donor-advised fund at the California Community Foundation, LDF isn’t required to file itemized public disclosures about its revenues, expenditures, and disbursements. DiCaprio, LDF, and CCF all declined to answer the publication’s questions with respect to the foundation’s transparency.”
And about the California Community Foundation. Their mission:
“Our mission is to lead positive systemic change that strengthens Los Angeles communities. We envision a future where all Angelenos have the opportunity to contribute to the productivity, health and well-being of our region. And we believe that our common fate will be determined by how successfully we improve the quality of life for all of our residents. The impact we help create is of, by and for Los Angeles, because the community is our foundation.”
About the CCF’s finances:
“Our dedication to fiscal responsibility, transparency and careful stewardship of donor contributions has resulted in our being entrusted with more than 1,600 funds and $1.75 billion in assets. ”
And:
“We are stewards of donor intentions and beholden to the communities we serve. All of our donor funds are managed for utmost efficiency and effectiveness, balancing short- and long-term goals, in accordance with their specific missions.”
So DiCaprio’s Foundation is one of 1600 funds managed by the CCF. The CCF was set up to benefit Los Angeles, but DiCaprio’s foundation seems to fund projecst everywhere but L.A.
Yes, but look at all the money he and Hollywood saved in taxes by contributing to this fund.
The IRS needs to clamp down on these useless foundations and eliminate the tax deductions.
Lets see how much they donate if it’s not tax deductible.
US sceptics want to bankrupt their country. The longer no action is taken to mitigate AGW, the higher the financial costs will mount. Is is blindingly obvious: https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/2018/12/27/climate-change-huge-costs-of-warming-impacts-in-2018-bbc-news/
No actually it’s the Eco-Nazis that want to bankrupt all developed western countries, and all for nothing. “Bad weather “ has nothing to do with humanity’s minuscule contribution to CO2 emissions.
As the saying goes
“A fool and his money are soon parted”
James Bull
Wow – reading the comments you can feel the envy of people like di Caprio, who, like the other ‘famous people’ mentioned here, is no fool but very astute.
They, unlike most US sceptics who are not known for their astuteness, can see that private action like this is needed to help combat AGW.
That fool Trump should contribute, but he is well-known for his thrift when it comes to charitable donations. Except his own charity, of course, where he and his dreadful progengy were caught with their greedy fingers in the honeypot and which has since been forced to close.
IVAN PLEASE point me to the statistically significant empirical dataset (s) which PROVE Man = Global temperature change and by an even greater stretch of the imagination that man is responsible for the 4.5 billion year old habit of climate change. I ask because they do not exist! This is an unsubstantiated assertion and the shocking travesties of science which pass as climate science which claim to support it point to no more than a wish to get money. This is a trillion dollar a year gravy train. If I was part of this shocker I to would write any twaddle speculating about links between anything under the sun and climate change because there is money a plenty to be had. Here is an idea. Celebrate the fact that you live during an INTERGLACIAL, the clue is in the name. It is a brief respite in the middle of a glaciation. CO2 is plant food. Next time you pass a greenhouse growing cucumbers etc ask your self what that big cylinder with Carbon Dioxide written on it is doing there. Knowledge comes from many places but certainly not from the MSM.
You guys continue to amaze me with the same old trite argunents that realky no-one listens to any more – except perhaps the Don who is a dinosaur with a very low IQ.
https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/2018/12/25/earth-has-seen-co2-spike-before-it-didnt-end-well/
Although he’s probably made sure it’s not his money.
James Bull
Pay the costs to ameliorate the costs of AGW now, or expect your children and their children to be paying a heck of a lot more down the line.
US sceptics want to see the US economy suffer further substantial financial damage, which effectively makes them socialists because they do not want any action taken – effectively cutting off their nose to spite their face. Real smart thinking: https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/2018/12/27/climate-change-huge-costs-of-warming-impacts-in-2018-bbc-news/
Leonardo DiCaprio’s charitable foundation donates $100 MILLION to help fight capitalism.
Fixed.
Interesting Climate Change. It should be about science yet it is fronted by actors and failed politicians. Strange that………..He is just a virtue signaler on another scale from the usual virtue signalers. I wonder how deep into his own pocket he dipped?
Hey, Leonardo, help me out here . . . since you are dropping serious pocket change to fight “climate change”, perhaps you can better define that thing that you are funding. In other words:
1) NASA itself says* that “climate” is usually defined as the average weather for a particular region and time period, usually taken over 30-years or more.
2) Science has clearly documented that across the Earth, past climates have varied greatly on the time scales of decades, centuries, millennia, millions of years, and billions of years. Just look up “Ice Ages”, “interglacial periods”, “Younger-Dryas event”, “Medieval Warm Period” and “Little Ice Age” for the supporting scientific facts.
3) Many past events of changing climate have had both absolute changes and rates-of-change in global atmospheric CO2 content and global atmospheric temperatures much greater than what has occurred over the last 200 years since humans became largely industrialized and began emissions of CO2 from burning fossil fuels. Clearly, mankind was not responsible for any climate change that occurred earlier than around 200 years ago . . . so why do you think for a second that we can “fight” climate change, the natural forces in play on Earth?
4) If we humans are so presumptuous as to think we can fight, let alone stop climate change, don’t we first have to decide what is the ideal “climate” that we want to prevent from having any change? I’m waiting for someone, ANYONE, to precisely define what that ideal climate is . . . nobody else has done it yet. So, what 30-year (or longer) period in Earth’s history is the condition that mankind’s leaders should pick as the climate that we select to keep from changing. The last 30 years (remember atmospheric CO2 levels over this period are about 30% higher than they were from 200-500 years ago)? How about the period of 230-200 years ago? Why not the period of 10,030-10,000 years ago?
5) And who decides that any given selected 30-year period of climate from our historical record will be agreeable to all human populations scattered over the Earth? Will Eskimos like their climate to be “fixed” at what someone else decides is “ideal”. How about those people in and around the Sahara desert? Remember, the complex interactions of solar radiation, atmospheric circulations, ocean circulations/thermal inertia, geological and ocean organic and inorganic chemistry, and biomass life cycles on Earth all mean that one regional climate is sure to impact another over long time scales.
So, please talk to me about “fighting climate change” when you can properly address each of the above issues.
Finally, a little hint for you: “If you can’t define something you have no formal rational way of knowing that it exists. Neither can you really tell anyone else what it is. There is, in fact, no formal difference between inability to define and stupidity.” — Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
* https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html
Like Leonardo, Gordon, you should do a bit more reading on this topic. This is a good place to start when it comes to the issue of higher CO2 levels earlier in the planet’s history: https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/2018/12/25/earth-has-seen-co2-spike-before-it-didnt-end-well/
Ivan, thank you for your reply. I have consider the linked article against the paleoclimatology evidence that many C3-type plants originated and evolved in the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous periods (the span of 65 to 250 million years ago) during which atmospheric CO2 levels stayed continuously within the range of 1000-2500 ppm. In fact, many greenhouse growers today add CO2 inside their greenhouses to drive CO2 levels up to 800-1200 ppm to improve crop yields, taking advantage of the optimum growth “ambient” CO2 levels that are coded in their plants’ genetics. My conclusion: Earth did quite well over hundreds of millions of years with atmospheric CO2 levels 2 to 6 times higher than today, in comparison to what is asserted to be detrimental by your reference* to a CO2 “spike”.
Since you chose to reply, I will ask you the same questions I posed to Leonardo. So please provide, for the benefit of all WUWT readers, your exact definition of “climate change.”
*In case you didn’t think I would take the time to check out your linked article, I note the following:
1) The link is to a website titled “A Record of Mankind’s Degradation of Planet Earth” . . . all kinds of warning signs there, but I persisted.
2) The article is not found at your given link, but instead another link is provided to where the article is located . . . not good practice if you’re really trying to help someone.
3) The article itself starts of with this sentence “It’s unclear exactly what happened 252 million years ago as the planet warmed, but 90 percent of species went extinct.” So with this introduction, I am expected to find credible some claims that it was a CO2 spike that ended the Permian era??? Nothing was presented in the eventually-linked article that comes close to a paleoclimatology science group—ahem–consensus that this was a cause-and-effect relationship.
Out of the three suppositions – meteor strike, volcanic eruptions and increased C02/methane levels i.e. climate change, the latter is, however, the most likely.
I see that you are not addressing the simple question that I asked of you.
It figures.
1. It’s not “his” money. He’s just taking the credit for spending donor money because the foundation bears his name. He probably was talked into starting it, does nothing but be the occasional spokesperson, and knows nothing about the finances except what he’s told. Yes, he’s the responsible person though.
2. All charitable organizations are required to have open books. You can look up how much his foundation has taken in, salaries of those who run it, salaries of those who secure donations, operating expenses, and where and on what the money is spent.
3. If you decide to look at just about any celebrity/politician foundation you will probably find your cynical take on them is justified. If people were told up front how much of their donation actually reaches the intended target they probably wouldn’t donate. It’s appalling and most border on being scams. It’s a business where “profits” become the actual money used for what they advertise and most “businesses” couldn’t exist with those low margins.
So speaks the Oracle on charitable foundations who has probably never given a dime to a charity in his life … and probably never will.
DiCaprio doing great work in raising donations to combat AGW. Celebrate it my friend.
Where do I sign up for my sliver of the 100M, Leanardo?(not to be confused with the other one).