Robert, Great piece, very informative and persuasive. In your list of Pro-Hydrocarbon/Pro Nuclear NGOs, I noticed that you included the Society of Petroleum Engineers and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists but left out the American Association of Professional Landmen. That in my view was an oversight. Paul Yale
Interesting that the elite now have a lot of money to use to fiddle with society, and f**k the poor. Nothing really changes. I agree with this ending in something akin to feudalism if not checked.
Either these climate howlers don’t understand the end of fossil fuels due to their ignorance of science and engineering, or more cynically, they see themselves as benefitting from it. You’d think Bezos would see his business critically threatened by shortages of diesel and gasoline. He’s not stupid, so..what does he think will replace the fuel for his trucks?
Can you explain why the NGO’s that are against fossil fuels are also against nuclear ? It’s puzzling to me as nuclear is the most dense of all energy sources. France has 70% of its electricity needs supplied by nuclear and Germany is scrambling to get 2 reactors back on line.
I understand clearly why fossil fuel advocates do not support nuclear. That’s a lay up.
2. they don't want affordable, reliable, abundant, on-demand electricity to proliferate, esp. to the developing world, who God forbid might ever reach our living standards (high consumption, need 5 earths, that routine). in that regard, remember the words of Paul Ehrlich (paraphrasing) - giving cheap energy to the world would be like giving an idiot child a machine gun.
If anything you are being too charitable to the “pro” side of this analysis. Generalist outfits like Heritage and the Manhattan Institute are hardly focused on fossil fuels and nuclear- that is only a tiny part of their portfolios. (To be honest, I wish Heritage would focus more on important stuff like this than the populist culture war nonsense they have fallen into lately, but I digress...)
In reality this is even more skewed than presented here!
Great article as always, Robert. Our nascent Rhode Island group, https://green-oceans.org/ , is questioning the wisdom of packing the Outer Continental Shelf with thousands of 80-story high wind turbines. For that unpopular position, we are being accused of spreading misinformation, taking money from fossil fuel interests, and most damningly, owning coastal property—which means we must be NIMBY. These folks need to come up with some new material.
The activists keep pushing out people like me who actually do want to do something about the climate, and the rest of the environment too (and most importantly improving the lives of other Humans!).
All it took was doing some simple back of the envelope math on renewables and batteries that didn’t add up, and then I asked a few questions and then I was kicked out of the “good people” tribe.
Long story short, welcome to the heretics club! I have a feeling like we are or are close to the majority at this point...
Questioning renewable energy and it's effects on the environment is the green equivalent to saying something overtly racist—it's disorienting to be kicked out of one's own club
The ties to the media are also of interest. It seems to me that as traditional regional outlets have faded, NGO funded media has risen. And they are all tied together.
“ No, they didn’t ask for mute buttons. But what we journalists must keep struggling with is how to manage the overwhelming volume of climate disinformation that is funded by fossil fuel, utility and other (e.g., agriculture, chemical) industries. Disinformation that is often created and amplified by PR firms earning hundreds of millions of dollars at a time when media companies are still laying off journalists.”.
There's a reason why our first two Substack subscriptions were no brainers - Robert Bryce & Doomberg. Superb, Robert.
We've loosely tracked this for over a decade. Since 2010, in round figures, whether you cut it by top 10, 20, or 25, it's always been in the range of 2X - 4X funding for the anti-industrial environmental NGOs vs. Oil/Gas/Nuclear NGOs
Despite funding skewing the opposite of the media/NGO-fueled perception and the fear mongering with it, and "traditional energy getting its butt kicked in the policy arena", and the David vs. Goliath appearance, we have two overwhelming long-term advantages:
1) Science (physics, economics, environmental and climate)
2) Art
Re: #1, we'll borrow from Doomberg (paraphrasing): "in all of history, in the battle between platitudes and physics, physics is undefeated". (We'd substitute "ideology" for "platitudes", but, semantics...). 2022 pretty well proved that in Europe.
Re: #2, Substack and Twitter are our (you, Doomberg, Keefer, Lomborg, many others) platform for the art. Yes, we are badly outnumbered. But Goliath got his ass kicked by little David with physics.
How is "art" even relevant to this existential battle for human prosperity, readers might ask?
For relevance, and motivation, we leave you with the closing of the speech Solzhenitsyn gave to the Swedish Academy upon the award of his Nobel. As you consider how badly outgunned we might seem on the surface, consider his words, then consider the role the Gulag Archipelago played in the fall of a malevolent, misanthropic ideology and the USSR, and our roles as writers in this context:
"The simple act of an ordinary brave man is not to participate in lies, not to support false actions! His rule: Let that come into the world, let it even reign supreme—only not through me. But it is within the power of writers and artists to do much more: to defeat the lie! For in the struggle with lies art has always triumphed and shall always triumph! Visibly, irrefutably for all! Lies can prevail against much in this world, but never against art.
And no sooner will the lies be dispersed than the repulsive nakedness of violence will be exposed—and age-old violence will topple in defeat.
This is why I believe, my friends, that we are capable of helping the world in its hour of crisis. We should not seek to justify our unwillingness by our lack of weapons, nor should we give ourselves up to a life of comfort. We must come out and join the battle!
The favorite proverbs in Russian are about truth. They forcefully express a long and difficult national experience, sometimes in striking fashion:
One word of truth shall outweigh the whole world."
Consider his contribution to the fall of the Soviet Union, and the destruction of any ability to justify Communism, and the tools he had.
Keep plowing ahead, Robert. Physics and art (words) carry more weight than money in the end.
What is surprising to me is that these large foundations funding economically regressive cost increasing policies are treated under law as charities. Charities don’t hurt the poor by making them poorer. These organizations are anti-charities. Tax laws should be amended to remove charitable receipts for such organizations.
That would be a good start. But the legal basis of charities began in 17th century English law. The basis was primarily relief for and aid to the poor, not lobbying government to change energy use. Our law has gone far away from any real notion of charity to have taxpayers supporting all sorts of non-charitable causes through tax deductions.
I think charities should not advocate or lobby, just do useful things. This would simplify as now it seems that many political entities who would be taxed simply send $ via “charities.” A side effect, more useful positive actions would actually get done..
A couple of minor points - I believe humans are driven by their accepted moral code. The goal, albeit misguided, of all too many people is to have a better world. The problem clearly is that anyone of us may be wrong. Inflatability is not a human attribute. The other problem is that few people will actually challenge their own thinking and resent and resist change when other suggest they do so. The most effective way for anyone to learn is from reality, and so I say, let people act and don't stand between them an the consequences of what pain they inflict on themselves.
Tragically, there is always a human cost for poor thinking skills.
On the issue of consequences of losing an industrial society, I would be surprise if the human cost would be less than 95% of the population on this planet. If the climate change gang achieves their goal, truly they will be guilty of mass murder. If we let them, we will be committing suicide.
It will take more than just letting folks endure the pain they inflict on themselves.
As they experience that pain, the anti- groups will lie about the cause. See, for example, the Feb. 2021 Texas ice storm. Before the crisis was over, there were already articles blaming gas generators (50% available) and exonerating wind generators ( 3 - 9% available) because "wind wasn't expected to show up anyway."
True, better thinking skills would help folks see through these lies, but the point is that it is not enough to feel the pain and start looking for the cause, they also have to engage their brain and see through the lies, because even as billions are dying, the liars will not stop their lying.
Thanks Jeff. When I say let reality beat up on them, I mean they need to be denied sccess to hydrocarbon energy , to live by their claim that gas and oil are evil. Should they not upgrade their thinking, after a few months they'd no long present a problem. Cheers.
Can’t wait to see what you find on the dark money, dark funding for these groups. Once upon a time Wyoming citizens were attempting to investigate Sierra Club and a local group, Powder River Resource Council who continue their influence against hydrocarbons (even though Wyoming receives 70%-80% of their GDP from hydrocarbon taxes and development) but these same groups have been amazingly silent on wind and solar rejections throughout the state.
I’ll give a hint on where this dark money was coming from *cough* China and Russia *cough*
After watching environmental activists of all breeds, I have been appalled by the legal warfare being used to insure nothing energy or electrical gets built. Even worse is the fact that it is being done without any penalties for frivolous lawsuit.
Indeed, just delaying large such projects has kept many, many of their technological upgrades from ever being built.
This was published by the Alberta government in April 2020. Authored by Dr. Tammy Nemeth.
A New Global Paradigm: Understanding the Transnational Progressive Movement, the Energy Transition and the Great Transformation Strangling Alberta’s Petroleum Industry
It was trashed by all of the usual "useful idiots" as being anti-science and promoting conspiracies.
Be careful Robert, I love your reporting, but you are poking the bear with a stick. These people have unlimited money and virtually no morals.
This idiot (Jacobson) from Stanford claims we don't need fossil fuels. He assumes new energy storage technology (long duration battery storage), which does not exist, will allow wind and solar to power the world. He is from Stanford so politicians believe this crap and investors pour millions into it. Stanford is happy to put its name behind this crap because it is part of the same anti-Industry Industry cabal. Nasty old physics just keeps getting in the way. https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/21-USStates-PDFs/21-USStatesPaper.pdf https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/25/form-energy-raises-240-million-on-iron-air-battery-promise.html
Latest episode of Decouple talks about his model. https://youtu.be/0__qpTuLaGg
Last year Standford received a large donation.
"Stanford's first new school in 70 years gets $1.1 billion — and it's focused on climate | CNN"
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/04/us/stanford-university-climate-school/index.html
The school may be offering summer executive programs.
Robert, Great piece, very informative and persuasive. In your list of Pro-Hydrocarbon/Pro Nuclear NGOs, I noticed that you included the Society of Petroleum Engineers and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists but left out the American Association of Professional Landmen. That in my view was an oversight. Paul Yale
Interesting that the elite now have a lot of money to use to fiddle with society, and f**k the poor. Nothing really changes. I agree with this ending in something akin to feudalism if not checked.
Either these climate howlers don’t understand the end of fossil fuels due to their ignorance of science and engineering, or more cynically, they see themselves as benefitting from it. You’d think Bezos would see his business critically threatened by shortages of diesel and gasoline. He’s not stupid, so..what does he think will replace the fuel for his trucks?
Nice piece Robert. Food for thought.
Very interesting discussion, thank you.
Can you explain why the NGO’s that are against fossil fuels are also against nuclear ? It’s puzzling to me as nuclear is the most dense of all energy sources. France has 70% of its electricity needs supplied by nuclear and Germany is scrambling to get 2 reactors back on line.
I understand clearly why fossil fuel advocates do not support nuclear. That’s a lay up.
Many thanks.
1. partly depleted fuel ("nuclear waste!")
2. they don't want affordable, reliable, abundant, on-demand electricity to proliferate, esp. to the developing world, who God forbid might ever reach our living standards (high consumption, need 5 earths, that routine). in that regard, remember the words of Paul Ehrlich (paraphrasing) - giving cheap energy to the world would be like giving an idiot child a machine gun.
#2 is probably the most relevant. Thanks.
It is. But do not miss a critical point.
The first is held up as a justification for the second. But to anyone who understands risk and engineering, it is not.
I understand.
Can you point me to a reliable article that discuss #1.
There is so much propaganda out there.
I’d like to learn more.
Many thanks.
Thank you.
If anything you are being too charitable to the “pro” side of this analysis. Generalist outfits like Heritage and the Manhattan Institute are hardly focused on fossil fuels and nuclear- that is only a tiny part of their portfolios. (To be honest, I wish Heritage would focus more on important stuff like this than the populist culture war nonsense they have fallen into lately, but I digress...)
In reality this is even more skewed than presented here!
Great article as always, Robert. Our nascent Rhode Island group, https://green-oceans.org/ , is questioning the wisdom of packing the Outer Continental Shelf with thousands of 80-story high wind turbines. For that unpopular position, we are being accused of spreading misinformation, taking money from fossil fuel interests, and most damningly, owning coastal property—which means we must be NIMBY. These folks need to come up with some new material.
It’s the same pattern every time, isn’t it?
Being accused of receiving funds from FF groups is one of their “you’re a witch” spells.
The activists keep pushing out people like me who actually do want to do something about the climate, and the rest of the environment too (and most importantly improving the lives of other Humans!).
All it took was doing some simple back of the envelope math on renewables and batteries that didn’t add up, and then I asked a few questions and then I was kicked out of the “good people” tribe.
Long story short, welcome to the heretics club! I have a feeling like we are or are close to the majority at this point...
Questioning renewable energy and it's effects on the environment is the green equivalent to saying something overtly racist—it's disorienting to be kicked out of one's own club
The ties to the media are also of interest. It seems to me that as traditional regional outlets have faded, NGO funded media has risen. And they are all tied together.
E.g. https://www.sej.org/publications/watchdog/climate-censorship-part-ii-courtesy-wall-street-journal-editorial-board
Hopefully your Substack will not be thought of as "disinformation."
Whoops, didn’t put the quote in from the link
“ No, they didn’t ask for mute buttons. But what we journalists must keep struggling with is how to manage the overwhelming volume of climate disinformation that is funded by fossil fuel, utility and other (e.g., agriculture, chemical) industries. Disinformation that is often created and amplified by PR firms earning hundreds of millions of dollars at a time when media companies are still laying off journalists.”.
There's a reason why our first two Substack subscriptions were no brainers - Robert Bryce & Doomberg. Superb, Robert.
We've loosely tracked this for over a decade. Since 2010, in round figures, whether you cut it by top 10, 20, or 25, it's always been in the range of 2X - 4X funding for the anti-industrial environmental NGOs vs. Oil/Gas/Nuclear NGOs
Despite funding skewing the opposite of the media/NGO-fueled perception and the fear mongering with it, and "traditional energy getting its butt kicked in the policy arena", and the David vs. Goliath appearance, we have two overwhelming long-term advantages:
1) Science (physics, economics, environmental and climate)
2) Art
Re: #1, we'll borrow from Doomberg (paraphrasing): "in all of history, in the battle between platitudes and physics, physics is undefeated". (We'd substitute "ideology" for "platitudes", but, semantics...). 2022 pretty well proved that in Europe.
Re: #2, Substack and Twitter are our (you, Doomberg, Keefer, Lomborg, many others) platform for the art. Yes, we are badly outnumbered. But Goliath got his ass kicked by little David with physics.
How is "art" even relevant to this existential battle for human prosperity, readers might ask?
For relevance, and motivation, we leave you with the closing of the speech Solzhenitsyn gave to the Swedish Academy upon the award of his Nobel. As you consider how badly outgunned we might seem on the surface, consider his words, then consider the role the Gulag Archipelago played in the fall of a malevolent, misanthropic ideology and the USSR, and our roles as writers in this context:
"The simple act of an ordinary brave man is not to participate in lies, not to support false actions! His rule: Let that come into the world, let it even reign supreme—only not through me. But it is within the power of writers and artists to do much more: to defeat the lie! For in the struggle with lies art has always triumphed and shall always triumph! Visibly, irrefutably for all! Lies can prevail against much in this world, but never against art.
And no sooner will the lies be dispersed than the repulsive nakedness of violence will be exposed—and age-old violence will topple in defeat.
This is why I believe, my friends, that we are capable of helping the world in its hour of crisis. We should not seek to justify our unwillingness by our lack of weapons, nor should we give ourselves up to a life of comfort. We must come out and join the battle!
The favorite proverbs in Russian are about truth. They forcefully express a long and difficult national experience, sometimes in striking fashion:
One word of truth shall outweigh the whole world."
Consider his contribution to the fall of the Soviet Union, and the destruction of any ability to justify Communism, and the tools he had.
Keep plowing ahead, Robert. Physics and art (words) carry more weight than money in the end.
How ‘bout this one:
Platitudes are the gamblers, physics is the house.
Gamblers may win in the short term but in the long term its the house that always wins.
(Image of Wiley E Coyote running off a cliff before realizing there’s no ground underneath him)
What is surprising to me is that these large foundations funding economically regressive cost increasing policies are treated under law as charities. Charities don’t hurt the poor by making them poorer. These organizations are anti-charities. Tax laws should be amended to remove charitable receipts for such organizations.
These orgs smell of money laundering operations to be honest. To cover up the ultra wealthy.
That would be a good start. But the legal basis of charities began in 17th century English law. The basis was primarily relief for and aid to the poor, not lobbying government to change energy use. Our law has gone far away from any real notion of charity to have taxpayers supporting all sorts of non-charitable causes through tax deductions.
I think charities should not advocate or lobby, just do useful things. This would simplify as now it seems that many political entities who would be taxed simply send $ via “charities.” A side effect, more useful positive actions would actually get done..
Are they? interesting..
Thanks Robert for your diligent research.
A couple of minor points - I believe humans are driven by their accepted moral code. The goal, albeit misguided, of all too many people is to have a better world. The problem clearly is that anyone of us may be wrong. Inflatability is not a human attribute. The other problem is that few people will actually challenge their own thinking and resent and resist change when other suggest they do so. The most effective way for anyone to learn is from reality, and so I say, let people act and don't stand between them an the consequences of what pain they inflict on themselves.
Tragically, there is always a human cost for poor thinking skills.
On the issue of consequences of losing an industrial society, I would be surprise if the human cost would be less than 95% of the population on this planet. If the climate change gang achieves their goal, truly they will be guilty of mass murder. If we let them, we will be committing suicide.
It will take more than just letting folks endure the pain they inflict on themselves.
As they experience that pain, the anti- groups will lie about the cause. See, for example, the Feb. 2021 Texas ice storm. Before the crisis was over, there were already articles blaming gas generators (50% available) and exonerating wind generators ( 3 - 9% available) because "wind wasn't expected to show up anyway."
True, better thinking skills would help folks see through these lies, but the point is that it is not enough to feel the pain and start looking for the cause, they also have to engage their brain and see through the lies, because even as billions are dying, the liars will not stop their lying.
Thanks Jeff. When I say let reality beat up on them, I mean they need to be denied sccess to hydrocarbon energy , to live by their claim that gas and oil are evil. Should they not upgrade their thinking, after a few months they'd no long present a problem. Cheers.
Can’t wait to see what you find on the dark money, dark funding for these groups. Once upon a time Wyoming citizens were attempting to investigate Sierra Club and a local group, Powder River Resource Council who continue their influence against hydrocarbons (even though Wyoming receives 70%-80% of their GDP from hydrocarbon taxes and development) but these same groups have been amazingly silent on wind and solar rejections throughout the state.
I’ll give a hint on where this dark money was coming from *cough* China and Russia *cough*
They want to turn Wyoming into what they’re turning Colorado into - an ultra elite playground.
https://fleetingwest.substack.com/p/hiking-is-a-petroleum-sport
McClendon's mistake is that he didn't "launder" the money through other "charitable" foundations before giving it to The Sierra Club.
That's how this is typically done. That way the ultimate source of the funding is obscured.
Must be nice to get your Public Relations/Propaganda department to operate tax-free by calling it a "charitable" NGO...
Great post. Motivated a long-ish Twtter thread https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1626950145245077504?s=20
(and a good one at that!)
Great piece, Robert.
After watching environmental activists of all breeds, I have been appalled by the legal warfare being used to insure nothing energy or electrical gets built. Even worse is the fact that it is being done without any penalties for frivolous lawsuit.
Indeed, just delaying large such projects has kept many, many of their technological upgrades from ever being built.
This was published by the Alberta government in April 2020. Authored by Dr. Tammy Nemeth.
A New Global Paradigm: Understanding the Transnational Progressive Movement, the Energy Transition and the Great Transformation Strangling Alberta’s Petroleum Industry
It was trashed by all of the usual "useful idiots" as being anti-science and promoting conspiracies.