$100s of millions of "dark money" funds climate denial movement

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
Another "how did I miss this" moment. Yes, this Scientific American article is from December of 2013, but that doesn't make it any less relevent.

Righties, ask yourself the question: Why is big oil trying so hard to hide the fact that its funding the climate denial movement? And also ask yourself the question: In a democracy, don't voters have a right to know who's funding organizations that can have a huge influence on legislation?

The largest, most-consistent money fueling the climate denial movement are a number of well-funded conservative foundations built with so-called "dark money," or concealed donations, according to an analysis released Friday afternoon [December, 2013].

The study, by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle, is the first academic effort to probe the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the climate denial movement.

It found that the amount of money flowing through third-party, pass-through foundations like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital, whose funding cannot be traced, has risen dramatically over the past five years.

In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.
Meanwhile the traceable cash flow from more traditional sources, such as Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, has disappeared.

The study was published Friday in the journal Climatic Change.

"The climate change countermovement has had a real political and ecological impact on the failure of the world to act on global warming," Brulle said in a statement. "Like a play on Broadway, the countermovement has stars in the spotlight – often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians – but behind the stars is an organizational structure of directors, script writers and producers."

"If you want to understand what's driving this movement, you have to look at what's going on behind the scenes."

Consistent funders

To uncover that, Brulle developed a list of 118 influential climate denial organizations in the United States. He then coded data on philanthropic funding for each organization, combining information from the Foundation Center, a database of global philanthropy, with financial data submitted by organizations to the Internal Revenue Service.

According to Brulle, the largest and most consistent funders where a number of conservative foundations promoting "ultra-free-market ideas" in many realms, among them the Searle Freedom Trust, the John Williams Pope Foundation, the Howard Charitable Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation.

Another key finding: From 2003 to 2007, Koch Affiliated Foundations and the ExxonMobil Foundation were "heavily involved" in funding climate change denial efforts. But Exxon hasn't made a publically traceable contribution since 2008, and Koch's efforts dramatically declined, Brulle said.

Coinciding with a decline in traceable funding, Brulle found a dramatic rise in the cash flowing to denial organizations from DonorsTrust, a donor-directed foundation whose funders cannot be traced. This one foundation, the assessment found, now accounts for 25 percent of all traceable foundation funding used by organizations promoting the systematic denial of climate change.

Jeffrey Zysik, chief financial officer for DonorsTrust, said in an email that neither DonorsTrust nor Donors Capital Fund "take positions with respect to any issue advocated by its grantees."

"As with all donor-advised fund programs, grant recommendations are received from account holders," he said. "DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund ensure that recommended grantees are IRS-approved public charities and also require that the grantee charities do not rely on significant amounts of revenue from government sources. DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund do not otherwise drive the selection of grantees, nor conduct in-depth analyses of projects or grantees unless an account holder specifically requests that service."

Matter of democracy

In the end, Brulle concluded public records identify only a fraction of the hundreds of millions of dollars supporting climate denial efforts. Some 75 percent of the income of those organizations, he said, comes via unidentifiable sources.

And for Brulle, that's a matter of democracy. "Without a free flow of accurate information, democratic politics and government accountability become impossible," he said. "Money amplifies certain voices above others and, in effect, gives them a megaphone in the public square."

Powerful funders, he added, are supporting the campaign to deny scientific findings about global warming and raise doubts about the "roots and remedies" of a threat on which the science is clear.

"At the very least, American voters deserve to know who is behind these efforts."
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,225
14,914
136
OP, I have to ask; if big oil came out and said they were not only against doing anything to positively change the climate and that they have been finding the anti climate movement for decades, do you think righties/republicans would change their tune or position?
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,378
5,123
136
The study, by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle, is the first academic effort to probe the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the climate denial movement.

That's you're answer right there in the first sentence.
There is no honesty on either side of the climate change issue. I've reached the "I don't give a fuck" point because it's nothing but finger pointing and trying to turn a profit. If we heat up enough, I'll have beach front property and we'll be growing crops in Alaska. Polar bears will all be dead but thats what happens when you have a foolish lobby.
 

Subyman

Moderator <br> VC&G Forum
Mar 18, 2005
7,876
32
86
Why is big oil trying so hard to hide the fact that its funding the climate denial movement?

Because profit? I'd be very surprised if big oil didn't fund deniers and didn't try to hide it. Obviously they'd do both.
 

oobydoobydoo

Senior member
Nov 14, 2014
261
0
0
It's not just big oil, it's the logging industry, the paper industry, the natural gas companies. Everybody who pollutes the air has an interest in convincing the world that their pollution has no effect on the environment.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,542
7,682
136
It's not just big oil, it's the logging industry, the paper industry, the natural gas companies. Everybody who pollutes the air has an interest in convincing the world that their pollution has no effect on the environment.
Dominionists and polluters are in lockstep about that. Fighting pollution of the air, water, and land is going against the will of almighty God.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
Another "how did I miss this" moment. Yes, this Scientific American article is from December of 2013, but that doesn't make it any less relevent.

Righties, ask yourself the question: Why is big oil trying so hard to hide the fact that its funding the climate denial movement? And also ask yourself the question: In a democracy, don't voters have a right to know who's funding organizations that can have a huge influence on legislation?


Lefties, ask yourself why you heap regulation upon regulation on American companies in the US, but turn a blind eye when these same companies, offshore their production because you don't want to pay for the regulated made in America product.

Pollution does not respect man made boundaries, yet many of you feel good phony environmental types look the other way as long as you get your cheap prices on gizmos, gadgets and whatnot, while pointing the finger at the Evil Koch brothers while talking/texting on your politically correct I-Phone.

How about holding these companies to the same US OSHA, EPA, Labor standards if they wish to sell their products and services in the USA no matter where the products/services come from,

It might cost more upfront and some of you cheapo's with short hands but deep pockets will have to pay a little more but in the end the whole world not just the first world would be better off for it.

http://www.allgov.com/usa/ca/news/c...acific-to-haunt-west-coast-140123?news=852240

China’s notoriously bad air pollution is now reaching the United States, in part because of off-shoring of manufacturing to the Asian giant by American and other companies.


Researchers from the U.S. and China—including the University of California, Irvine and Peking University—found emissions from Chinese factories are blowing across the Pacific Ocean and exacerbating poor air quality along the West Coast.


The study also says some of this exported pollution is a result of U.S. and European business decisions to buy goods made in Chinese factories instead of relying on domestic sources.


“We’ve outsourced our manufacturing and much of our pollution, but some of it is blowing back across the Pacific to haunt us,” UC Irvine Earth System scientist Steve Davis, a study coauthor, said in a prepared statement. “Given the complaints about how Chinese pollution is corrupting other countries’ air, this paper shows that there may be plenty of blame to go around.”


Davis and his colleagues claim their work is the first to measure how much of the pollution reaching the Western U.S. originates from China’s production of cellphones, televisions and other consumer products exported to the U.S. and other countries. About 21% of China’s export-related emissions—for such pollutants as anthropogenic sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and black carbon—came from exports that went from China to the United States.


It only takes days for chemical-filled wind to blow across the ocean from China and reach the U.S. West Coast. The researchers say nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide emitted by Chinese factories are responsible for at least one extra day a year of smog that exceeds federal ozone limits in Los Angeles. China’s trans-Pacific emissions also cause up to 25% of the sulfate pollution on the West Coast on certain days, according to the study.


The study additionally determined that, using 2006 as its model, Chinese manufacturing for the export of goods to the United States was responsible for between roughly 5-7% of harmful emissions in its own country.


“This is a reminder to us that a significant percentage of China’s emissions of traditional pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions are connected to the products we buy and use every day in the U.S.,” UCLA law professor Alex L. Wang told The New York Times. “We should be concerned, not only because this pollution is harming the citizens of China, but because it’s damaging the air quality in parts of the U.S.”


“International cooperation to reduce transboundary transport of air pollution must confront the question of who is responsible for emissions in one country during production of goods to support consumption in another,” Davis and his colleagues wrote.


–Noel Brinkerhoff, Danny Biederman​
 

gdansk

Platinum Member
Feb 8, 2011
2,107
2,606
136
Too bad I deny it for free. Where do I acquire some of this dark money and do they pay in shekels?
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,542
7,682
136
Lefties, ask yourself why you heap regulation upon regulation on American companies in the US, but turn a blind eye when these same companies, offshore their production because you don't want to pay for the regulated made in America product.

Pollution does not respect man made boundaries, yet many of you feel good phony environmental types look the other way as long as you get your cheap prices on gizmos, gadgets and whatnot, while pointing the finger at the Evil Koch brothers while talking/texting on your politically correct I-Phone.

How about holding these companies to the same US OSHA, EPA, Labor standards if they wish to sell their products and services in the USA no matter where the products/services come from,

It might cost more upfront and some of you cheapo's with short hands but deep pockets will have to pay a little more but in the end the whole world not just the first world would be better off for it.

http://www.allgov.com/usa/ca/news/c...acific-to-haunt-west-coast-140123?news=852240
Us phony environmental Nazis would love to have the US take part in many of the treaties that the rest of the world have signed, but unfortunately US business has so captured the US government that the US government is just one arm of US business, and hence won't take part in these treaties.

Treaties are how environmentalists get everyone to care about the environment under penalty of law. We can work inside the US, and work outside the US by making the US a signatory in treaties.

Why do you think that us environmental Nazis want the US to sign treaties limiting pollution? If we do it, we can tie trade with other nations to it. People love touting China as owning our debt. They actually own very little of it, whereas most is owned by US citizens.

What you can do is look at how much trade China relies on with the US to pay their bills and continue buying US treasuries. They are as much tied to our economy as we our to theirs. If we make pollution standards matter in trade, then they are virtually forced to change their own regulations overnight.
 

spacejamz

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
10,797
1,449
126
OP probably blew his load when he saw this article...amazing it took him this long to find this article from 2013.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Nice refutation of the various facts that the article dealt with. :thumbsup:

Does this article really bring a lot of facts? Whenever I hear "dark" anything followed up by estimates and guessing. I consider that opinion.

This guy hasnt been able to track Exxon Mobile contributions since 2008 to a self built list of climate deniers. Thus the automatic conclusion is "75% of donations comes from exxon, koch, ect um I mean unverifiable sources".

I find it rather amusing some on the left are starting to descend into kooky righty world where everything is a conspiracy.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,195
126
Money well spent, judging from Republicans and some of the posters here.
Stop watching television is my answer, and be very careful about online news you consume.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,195
126
^ OP thinks some energy company lobbying compares to government interests.

Millions don't compare to Billions.

You are a fool if you think hundreds of millions of dollars spent supporting or attacking politicians and policies don't influence the government.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,039
48,035
136
^ OP thinks some energy company lobbying compares to government interests.

Millions don't compare to Billions.

You're trying to conflate research grants with advocacy spending. They are not close to the same thing.

As a comparison, you're basically trying to count money spent on research into whether or not cigarettes cause cancer with the money spent by cigarette companies explicitly trying to convince you there was no link.

The parallels here are super strong. You have overwhelming findings by the scientific community fighting against deniers getting lots of funding from economically interested groups.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
An ironic condemnation, considering the whole of the global warming movement is supported by the left precisely for its political utility.
 

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,020
9
81
sometimes I think we need to take maters into our own hands and burn places that do shit like this to ground.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
You're trying to conflate research grants with advocacy spending. They are not close to the same thing.

As a comparison, you're basically trying to count money spent on research into whether or not cigarettes cause cancer with the money spent by cigarette companies explicitly trying to convince you there was no link.

The parallels here are super strong. You have overwhelming findings by the scientific community fighting against deniers getting lots of funding from economically interested groups.

The only reason you don't want to compare the two is it makes your side look bad.

The global warming fear mongers are very dependent on the government tit. And the big money is in global warming fear mongering, both their research, conclusions, and influence are spent on selling global warming. Step out of line and you'll be labeled a flat lander.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,542
7,682
136
The only reason you don't want to compare the two is it makes your side look bad.

The global warming fear mongers are very dependent on the government tit. And the big money is in global warming fear mongering, both their research, conclusions, and influence are spent on selling global warming. Step out of line and you'll be labeled a flat lander.

Yes, there's no money in oil and coal companies lobbying against globel warmin!
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Lefties, ask yourself why you heap regulation upon regulation on American companies in the US, but turn a blind eye when these same companies, offshore their production because you don't want to pay for the regulated made in America product.

And there it is.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,039
48,035
136
An ironic condemnation, considering the whole of the global warming movement is supported by the left precisely for its political utility.

That's like saying liberals accepted that cigarettes give you cancer because that was politically useful.

Sometimes reality is just reality.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,039
48,035
136
The only reason you don't want to compare the two is it makes your side look bad.

The global warming fear mongers are very dependent on the government tit. And the big money is in global warming fear mongering, both their research, conclusions, and influence are spent on selling global warming. Step out of line and you'll be labeled a flat lander.

Yes, the only reason I don't want to compare scientific research to lobbying is because...wait what?

You're an idiot. They aren't remotely close to the same thing. You're just once again trying to find a way to ignore science that tells you things you don't want to hear.