How Green Billionaires Groom the Public into Accepting Unworkable Net Zero Policies

From The Daily Skeptic

BY CHRIS MORRISON

In the 2019 U.K. General Election, the Green Party lost 465 seat deposits and secured a paltry 2.7% of the national vote. This was despite years of relentless climate apocalypse preaching across most media and political outlets. The latest report from the investigative journalist Ben Pile provides clear evidence as to why the green movement often fares badly in any meaningful democratic vote. “The green movement exists almost only because of support from a small number of philanthropic foundations,” he notes. Grants from fewer than 10 foundations account for well in excess of $1 billion of climate grant-making per year, he adds.

Activists often claim there is widespread support for their collectivist Net Zero fantasy, but this is because they ask questions such as: “Do you support Net Zero in order to save the planet?” Questions are rarely framed along the line: “Do you think we should remove 85% of our current energy within less than 30 years, and face widespread societal and economic breakdown, on the basis of an unproven hypothesis that humans control the climate?” Nevertheless, there are increasing signs that the public is starting to understand how an unworkable Net Zero policy is being foisted on them. Last year, an IPSOS survey sampling two-thirds of the world’s population found that four people in every 10 believed climate change is mainly due to natural causes. A recent poll conducted at Chicago University found that 70% of Americans were unwilling to spend much more than two dimes a week to combat climate change. Despite decades of green grooming, most Americans are unwilling to give the chump change from their back pockets to support Net Zero.

In his excellent report titled ‘“Clean” Air, Dirty Money, Filthy Politics‘, Pile gives an insight into the way green elites groom largely unsuspecting audiences. Air pollution policies such as London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) are “proxy battles” of the climate war. Organisations that are involved in air pollution policies “are wholly funded by climate change interests”, he observes. Seemingly localist civil society organisations such as C40 Cities, the Global Covenant of Mayors and UK100, which have lobbied for anti-car and air pollution policies, are funded through foundations distributing the cash of wealthy individuals such as Michael Bloomberg and Extinction Rebellion funder Sir Christopher Hohn. The Clean Air Fund, which supports a range of campaigning organisations and think tanks, was established by Hohn’s vehicle, the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, with a $21.4 million grant. “There are no grassroots air pollution campaigns of consequence,” reports Pile.

Backing up their campaigns, Pile argues that the foundations shape academic research priorities. The universities stress their independence, but the amounts they receive are huge. Imperial College, which has been at the centre of Covid and air pollution policy controversies, received $320 million from the Gates Foundation. While the College claims that it doesn’t take funding from fossil fuel interests because that would seem to undermine its research, Pile observes that $60 million has been received from the billionaire green investor Jeremy Grantham to fund Grantham Institutes at Imperial and LSE, both of which are extremely involved in U.K. climate policy.

It can be argued that any money given to Imperial for Covid, clean air or climate research has not been entirely well spent. Few now doubt that society would have been better off without Professor Neil Ferguson’s imaginative model prediction of 500,000 U.K. deaths at the start of the Covid epidemic. Imperial modelling lies at the heart of London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s promotion of Ulez since he quoted commissioned research from the university that suggested a saving of 4,000 premature deaths. It turned out that the deaths were a “statistical construct” based on imagined days of life lost within the population. Referring to the introduction of ULEZ, Pile notes that “the best that can be said about this urgent policymaking is that it got ahead of the science, which was only thinly related to the facts”.

On the climate front, Imperial is to the fore in the pseudoscientific attribution of individual weather events to long-term changes in the climate. Cash from the Grantham Foundation helps fund World Weather Attribution that specialises in this (guess)work. Sadly any results fail the basic principle of science in that they cannot be falsified. The noted science writer Roger Pielke Jnr. is particularly scathing about attribution work: “I can think of no other area of research where the relaxing of rigour and standards has been encouraged by researchers in order to generate claims more friendly to headlines, political advocacy and even lawsuits,” he said.

During the Pile investigation, the same people crop up on a regular basis. What news of Mark Carney, the Canadian green activist parachuted into the Bank of England in 2013 to oversee British financial institutions? Having spent a large part of his time as Governor printing money to prop up the assets of the already rich, he has recently moved into the Green Blob. The relationship between Carney and Michael Bloomberg is described by Pile as “obviously cosy”. It seems to have started in 2015 when Bloomberg was appointed to chair the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosure, an organisation recommending the disclosure of climate-related assets such as investments in vital energy companies deemed for political purposes to be ‘liabilities’. In essence, writes Pile, this is climate policymaking by the back door. It uses the financial system to increase the cost of Net Zero non-compliance, “without having to have those policies on the statute book”.

By increasing the cost of capital and forcing the misallocation of investment funds, continues Pile, “green lobbying has significantly contributed to the energy crisis, rising prices and the inflation seen since the end of the Covid lockdown – although the lockdowns themselves and the money printing are significant amplifiers of the problem”. Meanwhile Carney has collected a variety of jobs since leaving the Bank of England including a UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance, Climate Finance Adviser for COP26 and Co-Chair, with Bloomberg, of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero. This latter institution is said to manage $130 trillion of other people’s money, and is committed to accelerate the transition to a Net Zero global economy.

In August this year, Carney was appointed Chairman of the Bloomberg Board.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.

5 28 votes
Article Rating
48 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
November 19, 2023 6:15 am

Establishments like the Ford Foundation or The Rockefeller Brothers Fund metaphorically have their founders spinning in their graves.

Scissor
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 19, 2023 7:01 am

Somewhere, there is a Soros/Fauci protege working on a 15 minute furin cleavage site.

Willy
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 19, 2023 7:40 am

Why so? Do you reckon those guys would oppose the propaganda machine? In fact, the Rock Found was and is a mercenary organization up to no good.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Willy
November 19, 2023 7:51 am

Nelson and his brothers were not to my preference politically, but they were not bat-sh!t crazy greens.

Reply to  Tom Halla
November 19, 2023 9:31 am

Which Rockefeller was it that bought up the land in New York and donated it to the UN for their headquarters?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 19, 2023 10:00 am

These anti- American and misanthropic
institutions, which all-in on the the largest scale Crimes Against Humanity ever contemplated should should be delisted as a charity, fined hugely for false credentials, sued in a class action for the trillions in damages to global citizenry. Jail time for sedition also.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 19, 2023 5:50 pm

Tom Halla,

Yes, I researched some of that a few months ago.
Reader Bill Parsons commented thus:
Who are the biggest climate philanthropists? (This the “short list” on Google.)

  • Bezos Earth Fund — $586 million. …
  • Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation — $398 Million. …
  • Yield Giving — $384 Million (estimate) …
  • William and Flora Hewlett Foundation — $293 Million. …
  • Bloomberg Philanthropies — $275 Million. …
  • Rockefeller Foundation — $196 Million. …
  • David and Lucile Packard Foundation — $177 million.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/18/corruption-of-science-by-money-and-power/

Geoff S

William Howard
November 19, 2023 6:41 am

Americans aren’t willing to spend their own money on this nonsense but they vote for politicians that give away billions and billions to prop up this nonsense while bankrupting the country. Just like almost 80% of Americans say the country is headed in the wrong direction, but will vote for the same. politicians (mostly democrats) who put it on that direction in the first place. As PT Barnum said – no one ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of Americans

J Boles
Reply to  William Howard
November 19, 2023 8:26 am

Oh! But they are going to do it right the next time! I have found most lefties to be incorrigible, they see the world thru strong filters, as if Democrats can do no wrong. They never learn.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  J Boles
November 19, 2023 9:44 am

Those on the left have the upper hand. They appeal to emotion rather than logic and have been very successful in removing critical thinking from both K-12 and university. Throw in the gaggle of older voters that never had to develop or use critical thinking either in their home life or their jobs and you can understand why Conquest’s Second Law of Politics is as accurate for democratic governments as it is for any organizations. And, believe me, the lefties have learned to take full advantage.

Reply to  Joe Crawford
November 20, 2023 3:02 am

The Good News is for the first time in years, the new NBC poll shows Trump beating Biden, 46 percent to 44 percent.

Trump is steadily gaining ground.

November 19, 2023 6:48 am

Personally, I have the popcorn at the ready – reality is biting

fos
November 19, 2023 7:03 am

Is the image at the head of the article one of the AI fakes that now appear frequently on WUWT?

If so, this strikes me as reprehensible. Fantasy fakes are one thing, fakes with real people are not acceptable IMO.

For the avoidance of all doubt I am a longtime fan of this site and no fan of the personages represented.Just on principle, you shouldn’t be doing this kind of fakery.

Reply to  fos
November 19, 2023 7:33 am

Are you sure it’s fake? I see Bloomberg (?) and Obama- I don’t recognize the others. It probably is fake- most images used here are- just wondering what you saw that I didn’t see convincing you.

fos
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
November 19, 2023 8:05 am

The lighting is AI-style. Above all, there is no attribution – usually WUWT is punctilious about attributing image sources.

Reply to  fos
November 19, 2023 7:46 am

Looks real to me, Bloomberg and Obama, I’m sure there are lots of pictures of those two together.

The AI fake pictures used here are always of landscapes and systems not individuals.

fos
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
November 19, 2023 8:09 am

*were* ‘always of landscapes’ etc. I have no objection to such images, some of them were really attractive.

bobpjones
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
November 19, 2023 9:20 am

Have a closer look at Obama. It doesn’t look quite right. His upper half seems detached from the background, then look at his right elbow, it doesn’t appear to be resting on the armrest.

a_scientist
Reply to  fos
November 19, 2023 7:46 am

A search with google images suggests this is a real picture of Obama and Bloomberg
“Title:
Mayor Michael Bloomberg And President Obama Tour Of Hurricane Sandy Storm Damage In Nyc. Nov. 15”

https://www.posterazzi.com/president-obama-at-fema-hq-during-hurricane-sandy-history-item-varevchisl040ec184/

And many others.

fos
Reply to  a_scientist
November 19, 2023 8:10 am

The image to which you link bears no relation to the header image I am talking about.Where is Bloomberg in the phot you reference?

fos
Reply to  fos
November 19, 2023 8:17 am

Sorry, you’re right. I didn’t scroll down far enough. Where’s the attribution?

a_scientist
Reply to  fos
November 19, 2023 9:50 am

Another link from the google image search:

https://www.alamyimages.fr/photo-image-vue-aerienne-de-l-ouragan-sandy-dommages-le-long-de-la-cote-de-new-york-le-12-novembre-2012-dans-le-comte-de-nassau-new-york-58141164.html

Just copy the image from the WUWT article and paste it into Google images, you will get may hits for the picture.

Reply to  fos
November 19, 2023 7:49 am

In fact I think that pic was from hurricane Sandy, Bloomberg was ny mayor and Obama was president

fos
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
November 19, 2023 8:10 am

ditto

fos
Reply to  fos
November 19, 2023 8:12 am

Let’s be clear: if WUWT, which has been so clear about honesty in debate so far, starts faking images of people, it is moving into the John Cooke league…

Reply to  fos
November 20, 2023 3:05 am

Why don’t you wait until that happens before complaining.

Reply to  fos
November 19, 2023 8:48 am

How odd! You ask a question then without knowing the answer you declare that there is frequent, reprehensible fakery going on.

fos
Reply to  mkelly
November 19, 2023 10:06 am

“Is the image at the head of the article one of the AI fakes that now appear frequently on WUWT? If so…”

Where did I “declare that there is frequent, reprehensible fakery going on”? My suspicions about the image were not correct and I have admitted this. This is a good thing about WUWT, if you are wrong – as I was – someone sorts you out.

You have completely misrepresented what I wrote – an apology would be nice.

The lack of attribution does still surprise me, though, especially since the source of the article, the Daily Sceptic, uses a different image.

Reply to  fos
November 19, 2023 11:08 am

“… be doing this kind of fakery.”
”…strikes me as reprehensible.”
”…appear frequently…”

Those are your words.

John Hultquist
Reply to  fos
November 19, 2023 8:55 am

The image appears on the Wiki page for Michael Bloomberg — scroll down; taken in 2012.
It has nothing to do with the idea of this post — as it is a legitimate reason for the two of them to be seen together.
That said, I agree “fakes with real people” are not fair.
— unless it is an obvious cartoon on a site meant to be that way.

Reply to  fos
November 19, 2023 9:49 am
Jim Masterson
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
November 19, 2023 5:39 pm

LOL!

November 19, 2023 7:26 am

Air pollution policies such as London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) are “proxy battles” of the climate war…

Yes, ULEZ is very typical of these green initiatives. Climate is an excuse. ULEZ is a straightforward tax on poorer people with older cars. There are too few of them for it to materially affect air pollution in London, so having them either stop driving or buy new cars won’t help with that. It won’t reduce car usage materially. It also should be obvious it will have no effect on global climate.

The aim of these measures in London, starting with the Congestion Charge, has never been to reduce traffic. Its always been to tax it.

I think there is a real case for reducing car traffic in London, and for having dedicated car-free cycle and pedestrian streets to allow people safe and convenient alternatives. As well as speeding up buses. But ULEZ is not that.

Reply to  michel
November 19, 2023 7:30 am

Seem to recall a Yes Minister program a long time ago, when the group discussed an ‘integrated transport policy’, which Hacker stumbled on, patiently led there by Sir Humphrey, who then complacently mocked the idea…

The more things change. But what is actually needed is not these uncoordinated supposedly green initiatives but a proper plan for the end destination of city transport, and then a plan to get there.

Baileytheecologist
Reply to  michel
November 19, 2023 8:40 am

There was an article in the Telegraph today saying that they had received a leaked document from the advertising standards authority which concluded that Mayor Khan and his team lied about the science they used to support the introduction of the expansion of ULEZ.

Reply to  Baileytheecologist
November 19, 2023 9:02 am

Transport for London
TfL is a statutory body created by the Greater London Authority (GLA) Act 1999. This Act gives the Mayor of London a general duty to develop and apply policies to promote and encourage safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services to, from and within London.

The air quality data for the London Underground is, as far as I’m aware, unavailable. Any independent measurements show some lines are highly polluted, the rest just polluted

Reply to  Ben Vorlich
November 19, 2023 9:33 am

Yes, because public transport provision around London at that time was an uncoordinated jumble.
And expensive as it was dominated by the taxis and the underground.
There were a good number of Red Buses, but timetables were random and incoherent.

TfL set about the t ask with gusto and they actually delivered.
Bus routes and timing joined up with other routes, with underground timetables and with mainline arrivals/departures.
They got reliable bus routes running through the night when the tube had shut down
and they made it cheap
On my first excursions into The Smoke, £3 got you unlimited travel on any red bus from the moment you bought the ticket until 4 in the morning the next day.

They did it simply by properly organising the buses and getting the huge numbers of vehicles that spent all their days sitting in garages, out on the road and moving people around.

But but but, the vast majority of them were 40 and 50 years old and they all ran on diesel
Result was that at various ‘choke points’ such as Marble Arch/Oxford St/Tottenham Ct Rd, the air became impenetrable with black smoke as endless queues of buses inched along in opposite directions.
For London’s showcase tourist attraction and shopper’s paradise, this could not be allowed to continue

Hence we see nowadays: ‘what we see’

November 19, 2023 7:26 am

There are so many people around handwaving because of climate change, why cant they play handwaving music ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5qf9O6c20o
or polyphone:

Willy
November 19, 2023 7:31 am

‘This latter group manages 130 trillion USD.’ Huh? That’s 30% more than global GDP.

But otherwise, spot on — the gearing, or leverage, of the greenies is phenomenal. If it were a fictional antagonist, I’d love the book and the coming reckoning. Alas, it’s just a description of the real world.

November 19, 2023 8:06 am

These are not stupid men . . . the know exactly what they are doing trying to do.

Reply to  ToldYouSo
November 19, 2023 8:08 am

Ooops . . . typo . . . “they”, not “the”.

WUWT mods: please, please, please bring back the comment edit function!

Neil Lock
November 19, 2023 8:39 am

I’ve been writing about the same report. But Chris Morrison beat me to it. Here’s my view, which includes a few wider issues, notably the Conservative Environment Network:

https://libertarianism.uk/2023/11/19/clean-air-dirty-money-filthy-politics-a-summary/

November 19, 2023 9:52 am

As most of here know ,we don’t have a problem. And even here we sometimes get a little “influenced” for example to believe the high cost of new nuclear plant construction and inflexible base load characteristics of same is a problem. If we had some more flexible /streamlined regs and trained up large numbers of nuclear engineers managers , used streamlined new systems and good old mass manufacturing concepts, well those cost could be reduced. As for base load issues- not a problem , you just use the right mix of dispatch-able. and steady nucybase load

November 19, 2023 11:04 am

As an Imperial graduate, even though it was over 40 years ago, it saddens me to see how this great academic institution has prostituted itself.

Bob
November 19, 2023 12:44 pm

We need to inform the common guy about all of this. The sooner he is fully informed the sooner this fiasco will end.

DD More
Reply to  Bob
November 21, 2023 1:05 pm

How did the press & everyone else miss Professor Neil Ferguson’s imaginative model prediction of 500,000 U.K. deaths?

Looks like the same Neil.
In the 2000s, Professor Ferguson’s models incorrectly predicted up to 136,000 deaths from mad cow disease, 200 million from bird flu and 65,000 from swine flu.

But this time he was gonna be right on.

November 19, 2023 1:43 pm

Mark Carney has taken Amstel Rothschild’s dictum to heart and taken it to a new level:

Give me control over a nation’s money and I care not who makes its laws.

He’s gone international with it – not quite global.

November 20, 2023 3:18 am

From the article: The noted science writer Roger Pielke Jnr. is particularly scathing about attribution work: “I can think of no other area of research where the relaxing of rigour and standards has been encouraged by researchers in order to generate claims more friendly to headlines, political advocacy and even lawsuits,” he said.”

Everyone should be particularly scathing about CO2/Weather attribution work. It’s unscientific. It’s guessing, posing as established facts. It has no place in science.

Alarmist Climate Science is made up entirely of speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions. Attributing CO2 levels in the atmosphere to particulear weather phenomenon is just more of the same.

There is no evidence CO2 is causing any changes in Earth’s weather. None, whatsoever. People who claim a connection couldn’t prove it if their lives depended on doing so.