The Sierra Club released a “holiday” poem Tuesday attacking political opposition for being well funded, but during Christmas environmental groups historically act like Ebenezer Scrooge and rake in billions.
In 2012, The Sierra Club took in $97.8 million with its Foundation getting another $47.2 million. For example, despite Greenpeace celebrating “the holidays” by running a gift shop with environmentally-themed holiday cards, the organization uses the season to solicit donations of up to $200,000. These money-making methods allowed Greenpeace to spend $260 million dollars in 2011.
The same year, the Environmental Defense Fund listed $111.9 million in earnings, the Natural Resources Defense Council took in $98,7 million, the National Audubon Society took in $96.2 million, and the National Wildlife Federation got $84.7 million.
At least $23 million of this tidal wave of green cash came from organizations tied to Vladimir Putin’s Russia, which has a vested interest in preventing America from accessing its oil and natural gas.
The more than 26,500 American environmental groups collected more than $10.5 billion in 2014 alone, according to Giving USA Institute. The Institute also notes the amount of money donated to environmental groups is growing faster than for any other “charity.”
Meanwhile, opposition to global warming activism is the Tiny Tim to alarmist Scrooges. The 91 conservative think tanks only raised $46 million for global warming or environmental related projects according to analysis by Forbes. That’s almost six times less than Greenpeace alone and that money isn’t diluted by addressing other issues like economic policy or health care policy.
Greenpeace has heavily criticized Koch Industries for allegedly sending a mere $79 million to anti-alarmist groups since 1997. Greenpeace took in three times that amount in a single year.
However, it isn’t just green groups. Individuals can also make huge amounts of money as environmental activists.
Academics who study global warming have turned into cash-rich Scrooges as well. Studies that receive financial support from the public sector don’t have to disclose it as a conflict of interest, even when that support amounts to millions of dollars.
Recent studies that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is using to support the scientific case for its Clean Power Plan saw the EPA itself give $31.2 million, $9.5 million, and $3.65 million in public funds to lead authors, according to EPA public disclosures. Universities typically received about 50 percent of that money, making them deeply dependent upon federal funding and encouraging them to produce studies which will come to conclusions the government wants.
The author who received $3.65 million, Charles Driscoll, even admitted to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that the result of his study was predetermined, saying “in doing this study we wanted to bring attention to the additional benefits from carbon controls.”
Send tips to andrew@
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].