The hypocrisy of the mega-rich billionaires who are funding the energy class war is off the chain. My new mini-documentary spotlights the most odious offenders.
Superb breakdown of the hypocrisy here. The quantification of yacht maintenance costs vs potential clean fuel initiatives in the global South really puts the misalocation into perspective. I've seen smaller NGOs struggle for funding while these foundations pour millions into anti-gas-stove campaigns when folks in Nepal are still dying from indoor cookstove polution. The contradiction between their carbon footprints and policy prescriptions basically undermines the entire moral authority they're trying toclaim.
This group of mega bills too often gives capitalism a bad name, not because of their financial success but their sponsoring economic vandalism and bludgeoning social cohesion.
Thank you for your excellent article. The "Follow the Money!" companion article by Al Christie came out today, January 29, 2026.... "How the Fall of the Soviet Union and End of the Cold War in 1991 Led to the Climate Change Movement - The elites in power needed a new excuse to promote government spending that they could profit from." https://alchristie.substack.com/p/how-the-fall-of-the-soviet-union
Robert you are a national treasure! Hysterical hypocrites…..funny, no not funny! All the good they could do if they supported getting affordable and abundant energy in to the people they are harming with the groups they fund!
Good point. Imagine if instead of spending those hundreds of millions of dollars on the yachts, these billionaires were funding clean-cooking fuel initiatives in Africa or the poorest regions of Asia.
The cost of maintaining a superyacht is about 10% of the purchase price EVERY YEAR. (See: https://tinyurl.com/4wkb6udx)
Bezo's two yachts cost about $800M. Thus, the maintenance costs alone are about $80M/yr. Imagine how far that much cash would go toward creating propane distribution cooperatives in places like Nepal, India, Ghana or Kenya. Then imagine how many lives would be saved due to the reduction in indoor air pollution.
As Evan Osnos pointed out after publishing his book on the superrich, these yachts are the "most extravagant and indulgent form" of the "culture of excess" that we are seeing with these billionaires.
I was just thinking about the NGO’s and other organizations they fund. They have created empires and made a lot of people rich along the way. I just wish they would support actual projects and programs like you outline instead of the bad ones they support now. Really enjoy your work and content. Your books are awesome too 👏👏
Robert, the video is fine as far as it goes, but what’s the ultimate motivation behind all their disingenuous climate alarmist posturing? Surely there’s more to it than just trying to appear noble to their peers. They didn’t amass their billions being “nice guys”. Is this in fact neo-feudalism by design or is that merely a collateral outcome of their blind self-indulgence?
Back in the 70s there was a bit of a bifurcation into the dystopian future, motivated by swallowing the junk put out by Club of Rome and the optimistic that still believed humans can build and accomplish great things.
Our society as whole, seems to have largely gone down the former path. Why?
Why are none of these billionaires in the optimistic camp?
It doesn't seem to be about what they predict, but what they want.
The pessimist malthusians want a dystopian future. They read a dystopian novel or view a dystopian film, finish it, nod a couple of times, and say, "That sounds like a good idea. Let's do that."
The folks who believe in humanity want to do things to improve people's lives and make living better.
What's the motivation? I can only speculate, but one of them may be as simple as innoculation from bad press coverage from the groups that they are funding. I might be wrong, but NPR (which got money from Zuckerberg) hasn't covered Zuck's yachting adventures.
That thesis (inoculation from critique) begs the question: how can NPR and other so-called news outlets benefiting from billionaire largess and championing climate alarmism turn a blind eye to the energy poverty of most of the developing world...and how that's exacerbated by "green" policies that not only perpetuate it, but spread it to the developed world? Europe is clearly on its way, Germany leading the lemmings.
I'm surprised that Bill Gates is left out of the discussion. Maybe it's because he's now decided there is no climate crises while he funds AI start ups that require, you guessed it, massive amounts of energy. Nothing to see here folks. 😡.
I particularly liked the OXFAM article showing the "Richest 1% emit as much planet-heating pollution as two-thirds of humanity (5 billion poorer people)". We in the US must act to reduce income inequality at least in our own nation. I'm a conservative, surprised to find myself in one area of agreement with the activist Robert Reich. We need antitrust action, a repeal of Citizens United to reduce big corporate money in politics, and a law reducing share buybacks if used for executive compensation. Ford Motor's Jim Farley is paid ~$4 or $5 million a year in salary, but for several years another ~$20 million in stock, meanwhile the company lost $19 to $35 billion on a push to curry favor with Biden's Federal government by investing in EV's.
I do not favor direct taxation of wealth. I prefer indirect policies to prevent further increases in wealth of the 1%. Failure to focus on inequality provides constant motivation to elect Mamdani, Wilson, Bass, Hochul, Pritzker, and Walz. They can win elections but are incapable of helping those who elect them, with the exception of enriching themselves and a few cronies.
The uber-rich megayacht owners can put their money to good work by placing orders for nuclear propelled yachts. They could be the maritime nuclear energy equivalent of Tesla roadster buyers.
Other than a military vessel or Russian ice breaker ….
I understand that other than these, there aren’t any nuclear propelled container ships or merchant vessels and port fears are one of the reasons. Is that incorrect?
Wouldn't it be difficult just on regulatory issues alone? Or infrastructure? A lot of debate about nuclear seems to center on "waste" and what to do with it.
The waste is just more “environmental BS” if you’re a Doomberg subscriber they had a really informative article about so called nuclear waste last year. It was very educational.
Hmmmm. I kind of like that idea. But before they put reactors on their yachts, they should be funding the rapid development and deployment of new nuclear here on terra firma.
Superb breakdown of the hypocrisy here. The quantification of yacht maintenance costs vs potential clean fuel initiatives in the global South really puts the misalocation into perspective. I've seen smaller NGOs struggle for funding while these foundations pour millions into anti-gas-stove campaigns when folks in Nepal are still dying from indoor cookstove polution. The contradiction between their carbon footprints and policy prescriptions basically undermines the entire moral authority they're trying toclaim.
Very well done Robert
This group of mega bills too often gives capitalism a bad name, not because of their financial success but their sponsoring economic vandalism and bludgeoning social cohesion.
Thank you.
Thank you for your excellent article. The "Follow the Money!" companion article by Al Christie came out today, January 29, 2026.... "How the Fall of the Soviet Union and End of the Cold War in 1991 Led to the Climate Change Movement - The elites in power needed a new excuse to promote government spending that they could profit from." https://alchristie.substack.com/p/how-the-fall-of-the-soviet-union
The elites identified in Al's article are Left-leaning. He cites a 2011 book by James Delingpole, Watermelons: The Green Movement's True Colors. https://www.amazon.com/Watermelons-Green-Movements-True-Colors-ebook/dp/B005BE0S02?ref_=ast_author_mpb (A watermelon is green on the outside and red on the inside.)
Robert you are a national treasure! Hysterical hypocrites…..funny, no not funny! All the good they could do if they supported getting affordable and abundant energy in to the people they are harming with the groups they fund!
Good point. Imagine if instead of spending those hundreds of millions of dollars on the yachts, these billionaires were funding clean-cooking fuel initiatives in Africa or the poorest regions of Asia.
The cost of maintaining a superyacht is about 10% of the purchase price EVERY YEAR. (See: https://tinyurl.com/4wkb6udx)
Bezo's two yachts cost about $800M. Thus, the maintenance costs alone are about $80M/yr. Imagine how far that much cash would go toward creating propane distribution cooperatives in places like Nepal, India, Ghana or Kenya. Then imagine how many lives would be saved due to the reduction in indoor air pollution.
As Evan Osnos pointed out after publishing his book on the superrich, these yachts are the "most extravagant and indulgent form" of the "culture of excess" that we are seeing with these billionaires.
Imagine how many nuclear reactors, world wide, could have been built for the money squandered on so-called renewables....
Germany could be as low of CO2 as France by now if they had gone nuclear instead of wind/solar/stupidity.
I was just thinking about the NGO’s and other organizations they fund. They have created empires and made a lot of people rich along the way. I just wish they would support actual projects and programs like you outline instead of the bad ones they support now. Really enjoy your work and content. Your books are awesome too 👏👏
Robert, the video is fine as far as it goes, but what’s the ultimate motivation behind all their disingenuous climate alarmist posturing? Surely there’s more to it than just trying to appear noble to their peers. They didn’t amass their billions being “nice guys”. Is this in fact neo-feudalism by design or is that merely a collateral outcome of their blind self-indulgence?
I have often wondered the same.
I read a lot of science fiction.
Back in the 70s there was a bit of a bifurcation into the dystopian future, motivated by swallowing the junk put out by Club of Rome and the optimistic that still believed humans can build and accomplish great things.
Our society as whole, seems to have largely gone down the former path. Why?
Why are none of these billionaires in the optimistic camp?
It doesn't seem to be about what they predict, but what they want.
The pessimist malthusians want a dystopian future. They read a dystopian novel or view a dystopian film, finish it, nod a couple of times, and say, "That sounds like a good idea. Let's do that."
The folks who believe in humanity want to do things to improve people's lives and make living better.
Why do so many think the former path is cool?
What's the motivation? I can only speculate, but one of them may be as simple as innoculation from bad press coverage from the groups that they are funding. I might be wrong, but NPR (which got money from Zuckerberg) hasn't covered Zuck's yachting adventures.
That thesis (inoculation from critique) begs the question: how can NPR and other so-called news outlets benefiting from billionaire largess and championing climate alarmism turn a blind eye to the energy poverty of most of the developing world...and how that's exacerbated by "green" policies that not only perpetuate it, but spread it to the developed world? Europe is clearly on its way, Germany leading the lemmings.
Maybe it's as simple as guilt.
Been wondering myself. My conclusion is that are sociopaths. Ultimately their policies lead to the end of the human race or at least serfdom.
Good question
I'm surprised that Bill Gates is left out of the discussion. Maybe it's because he's now decided there is no climate crises while he funds AI start ups that require, you guessed it, massive amounts of energy. Nothing to see here folks. 😡.
Ranks up there with the social media CEOs saying they'll fix the algorithms to protect children
I particularly liked the OXFAM article showing the "Richest 1% emit as much planet-heating pollution as two-thirds of humanity (5 billion poorer people)". We in the US must act to reduce income inequality at least in our own nation. I'm a conservative, surprised to find myself in one area of agreement with the activist Robert Reich. We need antitrust action, a repeal of Citizens United to reduce big corporate money in politics, and a law reducing share buybacks if used for executive compensation. Ford Motor's Jim Farley is paid ~$4 or $5 million a year in salary, but for several years another ~$20 million in stock, meanwhile the company lost $19 to $35 billion on a push to curry favor with Biden's Federal government by investing in EV's.
I do not favor direct taxation of wealth. I prefer indirect policies to prevent further increases in wealth of the 1%. Failure to focus on inequality provides constant motivation to elect Mamdani, Wilson, Bass, Hochul, Pritzker, and Walz. They can win elections but are incapable of helping those who elect them, with the exception of enriching themselves and a few cronies.
A lot of coal went into making those hulls.
They’re floating hydrocarbon castles, burning copious amounts on top of that fixed in their structures.
Great boogity woogity!!!
Palatial yachts for me, dinghies for thee...
The uber-rich megayacht owners can put their money to good work by placing orders for nuclear propelled yachts. They could be the maritime nuclear energy equivalent of Tesla roadster buyers.
Eventually.
But you of all people know what a female dog it is to get ports to allow them right now even for economically vital purposes.
I’m not sure I do. When was the last time a port refused entry to a nuclear powered ship?
Other than a military vessel or Russian ice breaker ….
I understand that other than these, there aren’t any nuclear propelled container ships or merchant vessels and port fears are one of the reasons. Is that incorrect?
Wouldn't it be difficult just on regulatory issues alone? Or infrastructure? A lot of debate about nuclear seems to center on "waste" and what to do with it.
The waste is just more “environmental BS” if you’re a Doomberg subscriber they had a really informative article about so called nuclear waste last year. It was very educational.
I'll look for it. Thx.
Hmmmm. I kind of like that idea. But before they put reactors on their yachts, they should be funding the rapid development and deployment of new nuclear here on terra firma.
Why not both?
Deal.
Look at the skin cancer rates Australia vs USA.
Chlorine, Bromides, Hydrogen Fluoride. Especially space weather cycles cause weather change. Not climate change
Perform research and not reacting. I’m right of center but realize no correction can be made.
Everything we make, all processes for industry release these.
8 billion persons, what do you think would happen. Those are facts.
Atmospheric level impacts result in all types of current changes.