Exposing the Green Money Machine

Exposing the Green Money Machine

Enriching those who would drag humanity back to the Stone Age.

Exposing the Green Money Machine

Money Stacks

By Alan Caruba

It is doubtful that most Americans and others around the world know how vast the organizational structure of the environmental movement is and how much wealth it generates for those engaged in an agenda that would drag humanity back to the Stone Age.

If that sounds extreme, consider a world without access to and use of energy or any of the technological and scientific advances that have extended and enhanced our lives, from pesticides that kill insect and rodent disease vectors to genetically modified seeds that yield greater crop volumes.

AA - Cracking Big GreenTwo of my colleagues in the effort to get the truth out are Paul Driessen and Ron Arnold, both of whom are affiliated with a free market think tank, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, CFACT, They have done the research necessary to expose the wealth and the power structure of the environmental movement. They have joined together to write “Cracking Big Green: To Save the World from the Save-the-Earth Money Machine.” ($4.99, available through through iceagenow.info)

The Greens are forever claiming that anyone who disputes their lies is receiving money from big energy companies, but my experience is that it is think tanks like CFACT, small by any comparison with any major environmental organization, that support the search for the truth and its dissemination.

“Big Green” was formerly known as the Iron Triangle, “a mutually supportive relationship between power elites” so-named by Mark Tapscott, the Washington Examiner’s executive editor. It consisted of “government agencies, special interest lobbying organizations, and legislators with jurisdiction over their interests.” Today, it includes major environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council. To these add wealthy foundations and corporations that fund them.

It will no doubt astound many readers to learn that there are more than 26,500 American environmental groups. They collected total revenues of more than $81 billion from 2000 to 2012, according to Giving USA Institute, with only a small part of that coming from membership dues and individual contributions.

“Cracking Big Green” examined the Internal Revenue Service Form 990 reports of non-profit organizations. Driessen and Arnold discovered that, among the 2012 incomes of better-known environmental groups, the Sierra Club took in $97,757,678 and its Foundation took in $47,163,599. The Environmental Defense Fund listed $111,915,138 in earnings, the Natural Resources Defense Council took in $98,701,707 and the National Audubon Society took in $96,206,883. These four groups accounted for more than $353 million in one year.

That pays for a lot of lobbying at the state and federal level. It pays for a lot of propaganda that the Earth needs saving because of global warming or climate change. Now add in Greenpeace USA at $32,791,149, the Greenpeace Fund at $12,878,777; the National Wildlife Federation at $84,725,518; the National Parks Conservation Association at $25,782,975; and The Wilderness Society at $24,862,909. Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection took in $19,150,215. That’s a lot of money to protect something that cannot be “protected”, but small in comparison to other Green organizations.

“If that sounds too intimidating to confront,” say Driessen and Arnold, “it gets worse. Our research found a truly shocking blind spot; many major environmental groups get nearly half their revenue from private foundations like the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and Wal-Mart’s Walton Family Foundation. Just the top 50 foundation donors (out of 81,777) gave green groups $812,639,999 (2010 figures), according to the Foundation Center’s vast database.”

If you wonder why you have been hearing and reading endless doomsday scenarios about the warming of the Earth, the rise of the seas, and the disappearance of species and forests, for decades, the reason is that a huge propaganda machine is financed at levels that are mind boggling.

Allied with politicians in high places, Big Green can count on them to maintain the lies. When the Earth ceased to warming nineteen years ago, it changed its doomsday campaign to “climate change” but the objective is the same, keep people so scared they will accept all manner of restrictions on their lives at the same time the availability of the energy on which they depend is reduced by a “war on coal” and other measures to keep oil and natural gas in the ground where it cannot be used.

“We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations,” said President Obama on January 21, 2013, in his second inaugural address. “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and powerful storms.”

This may appeal to those who do not or cannot examine these claims, but the reality is that the climate is always in a state of change, is largely determined by the Sun and other factors such as the oceans and volcanic activity. Humans play virtually no role whatever and Big Green’s Big Lie, that carbon dioxide (C02) emissions influence the weather and/or the climate has long been disproved and debunked. The problem is that that the news and other media continue to tell the Big Lie.

For Big Green, science is not about irrefutable truth. It is an instrument of propaganda to be distorted to advance their lies.

The impact on their lives and on our economy can be seen in “higher energy bills, disappearing jobs, diminished family incomes, and fewer opportunities for better living standards for their children”, all factors that played into the outcome of the recent midterm elections.

For a short, powerful insight to Big Green power and agenda, I heartily recommend you read “Cracking Big Green.”

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Purchase Kindle: ($4.99)

Alan Caruba’s commentaries are posted daily at Warning Signs, and shared on dozens of news and opinion websites. His blog recently passed more than 3.1 million page views.

If you love to read, visit his monthly report on new books at Bookviews.com. It is ideal for anyone who loves to read, reporting on many new fiction and non-fiction titles.

For information on his professional skills,carubaeditorialservices.blogspot.com is the place.


19 thoughts on “Exposing the Green Money Machine

  1. The MSM (main stream media)support the hoax by telling lies by omission. When global temperatures were rising, it was big news. When they didn’t rise any more, they kept quiet. When Arctic sea ice was melting, it was big news, always tied to global warming. Antartice sea ice rising, that is no news. Arctic sea ice rising fast again, the MSM keep quiet.
    Heat waves are always headline news. Snowstorms are local news, they are seldom being reported by the MSM. Have you read this in any big newspaper? http://www.thelocal.se/20141104/swedes-warned-about-heavy-snowfall

  2. Last night there were news reports Australia was vulnerable to terror attacks on oil shipping. Apparently an energy rich country has allowed itself to get into the position that it has a mere week’s reserve supply of petroleum products.

    Even the climate biased ABC joined in this horror story.

    “You’d probably start to see the food run short in the shops in about three or four days.”

    “Businesses would start to close down if they couldn’t get fuel for a week or two and some businesses wouldn’t start up again.”

    “Our services that we take for granted, electricity supply, water supply – none of this can happen without fuel for the support elements for those functions, so you’d start to see society collapse.”

    Today they’re back to the climate alarm.

    Perhaps what we need to make people decide what they really value is to actually see what happens without reliable power.

    I remember the electricity rationing in Queensland due to some industrial action – 2 weeks of major disruption which no-one really enjoyed – some sais they re-connected over candlelit dinners but they still had some power.

    What if there were none and no prospect for a month ?

    This is a real scenario !

    BUT that was a mere inconvenience because the power plants continued to produce – the output was controlled for political purposes.

    My father was a power station supervising engineer at the time so I appreciated the danger.

    If a large power station actually shuts down it can be weeks before it can be returned to capacity.

    Firstly it requires copious quantities of electricity to fire the boilers and feed the coal.

    The turbines are massive coils of wire having huge masses and copious quantities of electricity are required to start them rotating slowly and accelerating to the point where they are driven by the steam.

    In the small plant my dad worked in it took 2 days to bring a 30 MW turbine completely on line – 30 MW = 2 days.

    Imagine a 1000 MW turbine.

    Dad’s power station was essential – it supplied power to keep the rest of the plants computer systems going and allowed them to close for maintenance – it was simply too important to close even though it was beyond its real use-by date – it only took 2 days with almost no electrical demand to fire up from cold.

    During the ’80s we had idiot politicians claiming the government should dismiss the strikers and bring the army in to run the power plants.

    During the 2 day running up of those turbines it must be kept within strict parameters and any speed increase in the rotation of the turbines must be gradual.

    Stray from this controlled acceleration and you can have many tons of rapidly spinning metal simply “breaking free” from its mountings.

    Imaging a spinning turbine of many tons getting out of balance at several thousand RPM and simply tearing itself through the sides of the housing and probably the building and surrounding buildings.

    So – as Robert has always said – little food, little transport and cold power stations which require at least a week or two to supply any worthwhile electricity, no central water or sewage systems – this is the likely outcome of the “green dream” !

    And this is what activist greens advocate all the time including Jim Hansen apparently who regularly chains himself to fences protesting coal generated electricity.

    Shut down of the energy supply for a month would be a human catastrophe – there would be complete anarchy and misery.

    Anyone who suggests that a few degrees increase in temperature (which is still not proven) over a hundred years is worse than that is simply insane – a total sociopath !

    Those who preach the precautionary principle are as bad.

    The precautionary principle says this climate change MAY happen so we should do what it takes to mitigate it just in case – sounds reasonable ?

    BUT we know nearly half of our fellow humans live lives of poverty and deprivation so the precautionary principle is really saying – F*** you we need to save the planet from this possibly real or maybe not real looming disaster and you get none of the cheap reliable energy supply which could save you.

    Well I am clearly NOT on the side of those who advocate genocide for whatever reason and especially those who use the excuse of the precautionary principle – because to ignore the plight of billions who live miserable lives is simply the ultimate cop out !

    I’m all right Jack – F off!

    • Well said there!
      Let’s see what came out of the US:
      Y2K Bug
      Ozone holes
      Global warming
      Carbon footprint
      Fossil Fuel (it is not!!)
      Peak Oil – all BS!!

      • The Y2K problem was quite real, but companies already had a handle on it. I think the press grossly overhyped the potential problems because they like scare stories, and know computer scientists are clueless about the press.

        But yes, if billions weren’t spent on fixing the problems, your bank accounts would have disappeared, planes could have fallen out of the sky and power plants would have shut down “to protect themselves”

        I worked on one of the projects. the Bank only had 2 fields for the date, so once y2k hit the bank accounts would go into the past. They chose a rolling window algorithm to solve the problem – just don’t hold an account with Citibank for more than 99 years.

    • The green great and the good have already made that decision to keep half of our fellow humans in poverty, depravation and Ebola, by not allowing soft loans to third world country to make use of their carbon based fossil fuel reserves. CO2 isn’t the problem, it is washed out by rain and taken up by plants as part of the normal carbon cycle that been underway since the Earth’s tectonic plates started to move. The problem is with the heavy metals and SO2, these are polluting, with these we have working technologies already fitted to power stations to clean and solve this problem.
      The IPCC isn’t a science fact based organization it is political committee, biased to the terrorist greens and anti western development.
      The UN is a socialist redundant organization, useless in fighting oppression, useless in fighting disease, brilliant in spreading lies regarding the world’s weather systems and spending loads of other people money on jamborees.

  3. Just to repeat an important inconvenient fact – sorry if you’ve already seen this.

    NASA says “Greenhouse gases absorb some of the energy and trap it in the lower atmosphere. Less heat radiates into space, and Earth is warmer.”

    Clear message – “less heat radiates to space” !!

    Then here –


    – they say they have satellite data showing MORE heat radiating to space from 1979 to 2005 and they produce a graph to prove it !

    Well excuse me – but how can you have “Less heat radiates into space, and Earth is warmer” if there is actually MORE heat radiating to space ???

    Simple answer – you can’t UNLESS the extra heat radiating to space is due to an external forcing and not an internal forcing !!

    Only a climate scientist could not find a paradox with their THEORY of less radiation and the REALITY of more radiation.

    we have a name for this “external forcing” – I call it the SUN !

    • Scientists say stupid things. On balance just as much energy leaves the Earth as comes from the sun (plus a bit extra from Earth’s own heat) what is different, if greenhouse gasses work as advertised is the average temperature on Earth might have to increase until the radiant balance out equals the radiant balance in.

  4. I’m a retired power plant engineer in New York. I worked at many of our company’s oil and/or gas fired steam facilities ranging from 100 – 400 MW, all built in the 1950’s and 1960’s. They’re still in operation to this day. We routinely brought the units online from cold start in under 24 hours, sometimes in as little as 12 hrs. The process described in an earlier post sounds bizarre, and is perhaps associated with very obsolete equipment, probably made in the 1920’s or 1930’s.

  5. Repeating here what I commented elsewhere – because I can’t think of a better opinion on the AGW fraud: “The globe can be getting warmer or colder, but the idea that the human contribution from burning carbon fuels has anything to do with it is not only IMHO the biggest political and intellectual fraud ever – but so says the IPCC itself: http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.com/2011/10/west-is-facing-new-severe-recession.html.

    The ongoing discussion pro and con is becoming akin to the scholastic argument as to how many angels can dance on the head of a needle. Which is, of course, exactly what is intended to achieve a worldwide disorientation away from the actual UN/EU/IMF/IPCC aims of global monetary and energy helotization – and bringing a whole, if not all of science into disrepute. Even the UK Royal Society, inter alia, has become Lysenkoist. viz. http://tinyurl.com/ptgrz34

    Besides, an elementary order-of-magnitude calculation – relying on the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics – shows that, even when allowing the IPCC calculation of man-mad global warming by 2100 reputedly caused by CO2, is so trivial when compared to solar input variability alone, as to be totally irrelevant to ‘climate’:

  6. Many studies have been done showing that GMO seeds, allowing heavy spraying of Monsanto’s RoundUp (glyphosate) is harming the human gut bacteria which are necessary for good health. I have no doubt the the Greenies are corrupt and money is the corruption tool. But don’t ever believe that all chemical advances are good for humans and other living things.

    GMO seed do not provide for bigger harvests. RoundUp resistant weeds are popping up everywhere RoundUp is used. In India, where a centuries old practice of allowing cows and goats to graze on cotton fields after picking the cotton, is coming to a stop because of GMO cotton seeds and RoundUp use. In the GMO fields, three or four days after the cows or goats graze, they are dying.

    Better living through modern chemistry and genetic modification of highly evolved and complex organisms is very dangerous.

    • Food from GMO roundup ready foods, is not allowed in the human foodchain. It has to be fed to animals first.

      How this would affect my gut in a negative way seems highly dubious. I am sure eating a diet of Twinkies or too many beans can also affect the gut flora and fauna as well.

      • hate to tell you butGMO corn soy and canola DO get into the food we eat without going through an animal first
        so does the gmo cottonseed oil used in far too many takeaway food items.
        eben in Aus 98% of our cotton is GM mod.
        and trusting monmongrels cruddy test data? no way.
        they wont allow people to test unless they have a rep to handle? how the test results are presented..
        says a lot.you dont allow them to “supervise the lab testing” you dont get access to the seed to work with.
        theyre a systemic especially the Bt, so if its in every cell of the plant and in soils then..eat at your own peril
        I wont, and wont feed my animals it either.

    • All GMO products will breakdown and leave an end result of heavy metals; on such a minute scale as to attach to the brain(not a good thing, eh).
      Really do not wish to fire a cell phone at my cranium which has been infiltrated by heavy metals to accumulate even the small amounts of radiation from them; adding to the horrible side effects of which these metals induce inside the brain.
      I do have to agree with D.M. on the bad bacteria ingested; in retrospect with all the syndromes we have today it is not be a good idea to weaken the immune system any more than we have to in the current situation.
      Yep, better living for those who reap the profits from these wonderful products……(will stop there)

      See Ya

  7. I’m trying to get people to understand what these people and the political factions that as supporting it is not perpetrating a hoax or scam, but are in fact committing a crime and in the United States it its called a criminal conspiracy.

    Also depending on who is talking to a group of psychiatrist’s and telling them about the crap these people are espousing, a group of you with the understanding of a handful psychiatrist’s could have some of these people taken in involuntarily for a lengthily mental evaluation. Much to be said who uses this first just like who files charges first in the eyes of a court of law carries more weight and if there is enough collective backing this is also doable.

  8. I can’t comment on other parts of the world but I’ve read (needs verification) that in Europe the anti-fracking and Green groups are to some extent being funded by Russia/the Kremlin, to continue the reliance on imported gas from Russia. Green groups being used for political advantage and energy blackmail.

    • The so called European green groups, particularly those that have grown out of the Ban the Bomb and CDN movements where funded by the KGB and the Kremlin until the fall of Soviets during the late eighties. Those links still remain.
      Putin has a need to sell his expensive gas to the West. He also has a problem with colonies of Russian ex soldiers in various ex soviet block countries around the Black sea who wish to rejoin mother Russia at any price and over any number of European bodies.
      Land grabbing is still an act of war against the EU. The two policies depend on a supine EU and no other source of energy being available. The French, idiots that they are, have banned fracking for gas as have other EU states. The Germans, obeying their green terrorists have abandoned base Nuclear in favorer of Russian gas and more lignite. Is there any wonder why the socialist EU republic is broke only able to live on tick, and is economically and politically redundant? The Euro and Germany will be the death of the EU.

    • problem is fracking DOES risk water tables.
      the bitter truth is the life of the frakking sites is NOT really long
      say 5 to 10 yrs max from what Im reading.
      we have plenty of standard oil/gas/coal reserves to use, all over the planet.

      • My understanding of the problem with water tables in America was that at some of the sites, the drillers skimped on the vertical well linings in which the cement fractured, allowing the affected water table to get ingested with carbons. Yes, there is a Risk, but this Risk is manageable based on the early experience for the US. There is risk in everything we do; we are more at a serious risk of an auto accident or catching a virus than being affected a generic issue with fracking, where criminal activity takes place in skimping on the technology used, the remedy is there for the people to take.

        • 2 summers ago the sheep in the river valley south, here in Arkansas were concerned that the big one was going; the largest fault line in North America; running from Mena up to Fayetteville and northward.
          Last time it quaked significantly was at the exact moment big one in Japan hit.
          False alarm! It was just mild tremors setting off the numereous fracked wells which had been drilled. Sounded like the firing range at Fort Chaffee just 30 ml. north of my location were having drills.
          Then to the east, south, west…..
          We were preparing for the worst until it was acknowledged that it was the bedrock collapsing and the wells caving in. Better have some BA lining to hold up under those conditions. However, with the wells collapsed the pipe liners become insignificant nevertheless.
          The quaking(collapsing)was relentless for days. Reminded me on a small scale of what it must have been like in England when the Nazis were bombing them.
          Perhaps it would be safe to frack? But not around major fault line incursions.
          In a major way we were bombed by the oil and gas industry and we may not know the full extent for decades to come.

          How Sad

Comments are closed.