Posts Tagged ‘green money’

EPA Doles-Out Taxpayer Dollars to Environmentalist Activist Groups

Tuesday, May 24th, 2011

Source:  Heritage Foundation

In November 2009, a dozen protesters triggered a traffic jam in an intersection of Chicago’s financial sector by laying down in a circle in the middle of the road, locking their arms together inside pieces of pipe. They were protesting the city’s climate exchange, part of a scheme to regulate CO2 emissions through permits. Ironically, it was a case of a left-leaning plan being attacked by the far left.

After a few hours, the activists were arrested, including among their ranks members of groups like the Little Village Environmental Justice Organization (LVEJO). According to an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) website, about six months later, the agency awarded LVEJO a $25,000 environmental justice grant, which was to be directed to “…work[ing] in coalition with their partners to implement 3 areas of Climate Change Mitigation…” The first “area” is to “…conduct a grassroots Clean Power Campaign in the Chicago Region to address coal power plant emissions…” (more…)

Still not getting it

Wednesday, April 20th, 2011

Source:  Nature News

Money not the problem in US climate debate

Environmental groups spent nearly as much as their opponents to lobby for cap-and-trade legislation, but still lost.

by David Adam

In the fight over cap and trade, environmental groups were not quite the financial underdogs they are often assumed to be.Alex Wong/Getty Images

Environmental groups and their supporters spend more money on climate-change and clean-energy activities and campaigns than sceptical right-wing groups and their industry supporters, according to a report by a US social scientist, who questions some of the most common reasons given for US political inaction on global warming.

According to the report, conservative think-tanks, advocacy groups and industry associations raised some US$907 million during 2009, and spent a total of $787 million on their activities, with $259 million of that devoted specifically to climate and energy policy issues. Over the same period, national environmental groups had revenues of $1.7 billion and spent $1.4 billion on their programmes, which included $394 million devoted to climate and energy issues. (more…)

Big Green Pay Checks

Wednesday, September 29th, 2010
Source:  Washington Examiner
by Mark Tapscott
Leaders of 15 top Big Green environmental groups are paid more than $300,000 in annual compensation, according to an Examiner analysis of the organizations’ most recent IRS Form 990 tax returns.

At $584,232, the Conservation Fund’s Richard L. Erdmann, the group’s executive vice president and general counsel, is the most highly paid official among the 15 organizations examined. Erdman received $438,954 in salary and $145,278 in “other compensation,” according to the fund’s return. All figures cited are taken from 2008 returns unless otherwise noted.

The second most highly compensated is Environmental Defense Fund President Frederic Krupp, who receives total compensation of $496,174, including $446,072 in salary and $50,102 in other compensation.

Close behind Krupp among Big Green environmental movement executives is World Wildlife Fund President Carter Roberts, who was paid $486,394, including a salary of $439,327 and other compensation of $47,067.

The median salary among all 15 of the highest-paid Big Green environmental officials is $261,295, while the median total compensation for the 15 is $308,465. (more…)

Big Green CEOs Earn More Than Climate ‘Deniers’

Wednesday, September 29th, 2010

Source:  American Spectator

By

From this morning’s edition of the Washington Examiner‘s weeklong series on Big Green:

The median salary among all 15 of the highest-paid Big Green environmental officials (the nonprofits like Environmental Defense Fund, Nature Conservancy, etc.) is $261,295, while the median total compensation for the 15 is $308,465….

You know — these are the leaders of the groups who constantly wail that nature is under unrelenting assault by Big Oil, whose money and influence they say is the Goliath to the enviros’ David.

Meanwhile:

[Big Green] opposition nonprofits analyzed by The Examiner included the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute, Concerned Women for America, Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Citizens Against Government Waste, National Taxpayers Union, and the American Conservative Union.

An Examiner analysis found a median salary of $228,703 among the opposition groups, or nearly $33,000 less than that received by the environmental executives. The gap is even wider when media total compensation figures are compared, with top executives at environmental opponents receiving $254,605, or nearly $54,000 less than the top 15 environmental executives. (more…)

Pots and Kettles – Follow the money

Wednesday, September 15th, 2010

Source:  the Air Vent

Bob Ward (Andrew Montford’s recent nemesis), has written a piece titled – Why ExxonMobil must be taken to task over climate denial funding.  Before we get into that, his recent review of Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion was incredibly biased, missed the technical meaning of nearly the whole thing and bordered so much on libel he was forced to change it.  The purpose of pointing this is to show the Taminoesque personality we’re dealing with and the fact that, intellectually,  Bob is perfectly comfortable with publishing pro-AGW climate disinformation.

In this case, Bob Ward goes after Exxon for funding conservative groups accused of publishing, you guessed it,  disinformation on climate. I hate to break it to him, but I’ve seen a lot more disinformation from main stream climate science® than I have from any conservative group.  Hockeysticks, melting Antarctic, melting Himalayas, melting sea ice, drought, ridiculously exaggerated sea level rise, expanding hurricanes, shrinking fish, sheep, birds and plants (no I’m not kidding on the last four).

So what Bob Ward is apparently saying, is that it’s ok to fund hockeystic temp curves which have no more relationship to temperature than a kid with a crayon, but not to fund those who point out the errors.  Clear now? (more…)