Skip to content

Is Putin Funding America’s Environmental Movement?

April 22, 2018

By Paul Homewood


Repost from Power Line:



With all the attention being paid to Russian “collusion” these days, it is remarkable that there has been so much focus on Facebook ads while far more serious meddling by Vladimir Putin goes mostly unremarked. In particular, Russia’s subsidizing of U.S. environmental groups, specifically those who oppose development of U.S. energy resources by blocking fracking and pipelines, has long been known but is too often forgotten.

That’s why this video by Clear Energy Alliance is so important. It is produced by Mark Mathis:


  1. Hivemind permalink
    April 22, 2018 10:05 am

    Why would anybody be surprised? The communists were behind the anti-nuclear movement through to the ’80s.

  2. MrGrimNasty permalink
    April 22, 2018 10:09 am

    I thought it was common knowledge Russia is meddling/funding/agitating/propagandizing the UK anti-fracking campaigns.

  3. dennisambler permalink
    April 22, 2018 10:40 am

    This “Russia did everything” narrative knows no bounds and is probably pushed out by the Democrats to boost their “Trump/Russia Collusion” play. It is an old story and clearly in the US, if true, the Russians didn’t manage to stop fracking:

    If there is funding from Russia, it is a flea on an elephant compared to the massive amounts coming from “eco” billionaires such as George Soros and his Open Society Institute,

    Then we have the Rockefeller Institute, Tom Steyer and many more.

    We have the Grantham Institutes in the UK funded by US hedge fund billionaire Jeremy Grantham, who funds Environmental Defense and WWFUS, the CEO’s of both are on the Grantham Advisory Board.

    The funding from BP to environmental groups is detailed here:

    BP was also a founding member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership:

    They gave substantial funding to the climate-change-related lobbying efforts of the environmental groups within it, which include the Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, the Nature Conservancy and the World Resources Institute.

    The scaremongering Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, funded by the German government, doesn’t like fracking:

    And then there is the EU:
    “EU pays to be lobbied on global warming”

    Whatever the problems of the world, Russia did it.

  4. Steve Borodin permalink
    April 22, 2018 11:40 am

    Unsurprising. They funded CND. They used nerve agents and polonium in the UK. There appear to be no moral or legal restrictions on their actions. Why would they not exploit the many useful idiots in the West?

    • bobn permalink
      April 22, 2018 11:57 am

      Except of course no evidence has ever been presented to prove Russia used nerve agents and polonium in the UK. The UK Govt has assumed they have, and thats good enough for the many useful idiots in the West who have faith in the always correct BBC, mainstream media and neverwrong UK Govts climate change policies!
      We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. So perhaps we should demand evidence before believing every Govt propaganda piece?

      • Steve borodin permalink
        April 22, 2018 1:12 pm

        It is certainly novel for me to be accused of believing the BBC. I don’t get my information from such unreliable sources. I also think the Government’s climate policies are barmy.

        I presume you understand that evidence is never 100%, which makes your post rather a cheap shot. Sooner or later, as in a court of law, you have to draw conclusions on the balance of probabilities. In this case I think that balance points strongly to Russia and thus express my opinion. Do you have an alternative plausible explanation?

      • Nigel S permalink
        April 22, 2018 1:12 pm

        bobn: No evidence that Markov was killed with ricin either I suppose. Please tell us is more likely to have used polonium.

      • sarastro92 permalink
        April 22, 2018 4:38 pm

        Correct Bob… US militarist fanatics are itching to start a shooting war with Russia… meanwhile, I’d like to see details of Stiles’ accusations, dates, accounts, amounts of money passed on from Russian sources to anti-pipeline / fracking groups

      • RAH permalink
        April 23, 2018 3:02 pm

        The fact is anyone knows that getting in a shooting war with a nuclear power is a dangerous proposition. Though the conventionally the US is well ahead of Russia and going to go way out ahead with the recent massive investment in the military which Russia simply does not have in the industrial/economic base to match, nobody wins in nuclear war. Trump knows this contrary to what the idiot partisans and the fools that believe them say.

        The fact is the US doesn’t need to have a shooting war to put Putin in his place. It is starting to win the economic war and oil exports are the weapon:

      • RAH permalink
        April 23, 2018 6:41 pm

        Even Newsweek, an establishment leftist organ says it is so:

  5. bobn permalink
    April 22, 2018 11:50 am

    While the paranoid video makes allegations, it doesnt contain any evidence. However I wouldnt be in the least surprised if russia funds these movements, as part of their retaliation for the economic warfare (sanctions) the West has unleashed on them. Its called ‘payback’. We meddle and attack Russia so they meddle back. However its likely the Saudis and Qatar also fund these groups. Soros (big Hilary supporter) certainly does, and EU (indirectly through funding Greenpeace, FoE, WWF etc) also fund these Green groups.

  6. April 22, 2018 11:52 am

    There is a lot of corruption in extremist environmental organisations, so this should come as no surprise. They exploit useful idiots.

  7. christopher booker permalink
    April 22, 2018 12:26 pm

    Back in that same year 2014 we had a puzzle in my part of north Somerset as to who was funding the meetings being staged in almost every village by an anti-fracking campaign. Obviously there was a lot of money behind it, for hire of village halls, leafletting, propaganda materialand probably payment of speakers. Similar campaigns were taking place in other parts of the UK and indeed across Europpe. The organisers were notably cagey as to who was paying for it all and one suggestion I heard at the time was that a good deal of of the money was coming from Russia. But I was never able to pin this down, which was not surprising, since clearly quite determined efforts were being made to cover up the money trail and who was really behind the campaign It is not necessarily “paranoid” to speculate along these lines , since the whole point of paranoia is that it is based on fears that are wholly imaginary, Circumstantial evidence does seems to suggest that Russian money being involved was at least a plausible enough possibility not to be just dismissed out of hand as paranoia.

    • NeilC permalink
      April 22, 2018 2:45 pm

      Christorpher, it is also plausible the Russians want to protect their gas industry, which they supply a lot of to the EU including the UK. They certainly don’t want countries to become like the USA, in having a successful fracked gas industry.

    • Ben Vorlich permalink
      April 22, 2018 6:33 pm

      Just because you’re paranoid it doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.

    • Athelstan permalink
      April 22, 2018 11:48 pm

      It wouldn’t be paranoia to suggest that during the Soviet era the Bolsheviks had a very keen interest in subverting and influencing major western nations, not least here in Britain. Further to that, it’s a supposition of mine, that because Britain did and overtly attempt to aid the ‘White Revolution’ which was anti the formative Soviet Republic, Lenin sought to as best he could destabilize the UK as some form of payback for so called UK ‘interference’, even in post Soviet era, did that sort of stuff ‘political subervsion’ ever cease?

      It could be argued that the present Russian administration indeed would be much relieved if the UK did not pursue Hydraulic Fracturing with the intensity of the US fracking industry. Though, what greatly irks me, and as no doubt Mr.Booker you will be aware of, most of the drilling occuring presently is merely prospective, ie exploratory wells, to investigate the plausibility of Fractured methane gas potential – I suspect that there are large reserves in the Bowland plays but we don’t really know.

      We know for a fact that, the EU funnels UK taxpayer’s contributions back to green NGOs, would it be such a surprise if some of this funding reaches the pockets of local anti fracking nimby’s?
      If Russia doesn’t like the idea of the UK drilling for gas underneath the countryside, it could be equally argued that most of the gulf states don’t either, funding anti fracking films for public consumption in the USA, it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that similar anti fracking campaigns could be ‘helped’ in dear old Blighty – is it?

      Nor could it be totally impossible for some large banks, investment hedgers, green tinged conglomerates with interests in the ruinable industry (bird mincers and PV arrays) be half interested, in sticking the potential UK fracking industry right back in the substrata.

      Next; ‘Open Society Foundations’ that old dope smoking weasel, I wouldn’t put anything past him, closing, shafting an incipient gas drilling industry in Britain – quite, is, just what he’d order.

    • April 23, 2018 3:44 pm

      Venezuelans were enthusiastic backers of Josh Fox’s anti fracking film making – showing up at the premieres…. Arabian oil money has been poured into institutional Greenery – notably International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) I wonder at UN climate funding – one commenter at Bishop Hill has been looking at the COP 23 attendees – there’s a magic money tree somewhere.

      • Athelstan permalink
        April 24, 2018 10:56 am

        There is a magic money tree, but all access is barred unless you want to pick green apples and only green apples, picking green apples is so easy, the taxpayer helps and the government enforces it but don’t go into the garden and expecting some helpful government advisor to aid you if – IF you want to start prospecting for some common sense, let alone seek out fossil fueled remedy.

  8. April 22, 2018 12:30 pm

    Reblogged this on Roald J. Larsen.

  9. marlene permalink
    April 22, 2018 12:35 pm

    The proof will come, eventually.

  10. Nigel S permalink
    April 22, 2018 1:16 pm

    Fracking is the answer whatever the problem. We need to get on with it to reduce the power of Putin’s gang and the Saudis and Iran. Even Israel has fracking potential finally overturning the joke about wandering for 40 years to find the only bit of the Middle East without oil.

  11. April 22, 2018 1:55 pm

    In Canada, our activists are funded by Tides and others. Verified. And our last remaining pipeline – Trans-Mountain – is at risk. And no one cares that foreign entities are flowing money into Canada to disrupt our economy.

  12. RAH permalink
    April 22, 2018 2:14 pm

    Of course they are! Without oil and gas sales Russia’s already miserable economy would be 3rd world status! This fact alone destroys the claim that the Russians colluded with the Trump campaign to help them win. Trump from the beginning campaigned on US energy independence, “drill baby drill”, cutting regulations to allow for more exploration and exploitation of resources, and opening of government lands for oil and gas exploration.

    • Bitter&twisted permalink
      April 22, 2018 4:16 pm

      Spot on!

  13. Jack Broughton permalink
    April 22, 2018 4:26 pm

    I agree with Bobn that although Russia have a bad track record in ethical policy they are far from the only possible culprits in the on-going publicity wars: especially as reported by the Biased Bullshit Corporation. The CIA have a far from unblemished world-wide record of interference in the affairs of other countries, recently Germany.

    The USA fracking success has certainly helped to overcome the aim of OPEC to price oil higher (Russia is a partner in the OPEC cartel now of course. Europe would be fracking too, if it were not for the climate lobby. The reds-under -the-beds fear campaign has certainly diverted much attention from governmental incompetence in several EU countries.

  14. mikewaite permalink
    April 22, 2018 9:13 pm

    Interestingly , according to the “related topic” above the comments , no less a giant (giantess?) of our times than Hilary Clinton accused Russia of funding antifracking groups :

    -“Hillary Clinton has confirmed what green activists have long indignantly denied: the big money behind many anti-fracking campaigns comes from Putin’s Russia.
    She admitted this in a private speech on June 18, 2014 which has just been published on Wikileaks.”-

  15. J Martin permalink
    April 22, 2018 9:20 pm

    I would think it unlikely, given that generous funding is readily available locally from green fruitcakes and people such as Doris. I don’t think Putin would waste money on such a pointless exercise that is bound to achieve nothing.

    I don’t doubt that the Litvinenko polonium poising was done by the KGB or FSB as they are nowadays. If they are also responsible for the Skripal thing then Putin clearly does not have full control over the activities of the FSB, just as US presidents don’t seem to have full control over the CIA. The Skripal affair was hugely damaging to the Russian economy and cannot possibly have been sanctioned by Putin.

    I still think the CIA, FBI, Clinton, DNC, ongoing treason unseat Trump saga in the US is the most likely actor in the Skripal case.

  16. paul weldon permalink
    April 23, 2018 6:58 am

    Just keep the source of funding secret and the Russians are automatically blamed. What a good cover! Group think?

    • Ben Vorlich permalink
      April 23, 2018 7:15 am

      All nations have a secret service. Those exporting oil and gas and no other form of $ income are not keen on nations becoming self sufficient in oil and especially gas. Therefore apart from billionaire green fundamentalists anti-fracking groups have a fairly decent number of income sources including but not exclusively Russia.

      • dave permalink
        April 23, 2018 10:55 am

        “Fracking” has become so much more effective, in just the last few years (a “proven technology” now,) that any delay caused by anti-fracking fervor was a blessing in disguise. Of course, with improving oil and gas prices, it is time for vigorous development in the U.K. to proceed. Whether or not the green blob can stop this by dogged, rear-guard, action is an open question.

  17. AngryScot permalink
    April 23, 2018 7:47 am

    I cannot wait for J Craig Venter to upscale his synthetic life forms – which convert nasty CO2 and sunlight to (m)ethanol and sugar – to an industrial scale so that we can kick the cartel back to where they belong!

  18. Tim permalink
    April 23, 2018 10:42 am

    More efficiently than plants?

  19. April 23, 2018 12:22 pm

    The former USSR was behind the so-called “student” unrest of the 1960’s in the United States. SDS (Students for a Democratic Society or Students to Destroy Society) was funded and backed by them.

    Nothing new, nothing to see here. Putin is KGB and will always be so.

    • dave permalink
      April 23, 2018 3:16 pm

      Americans are rapidly becoming savvy.

      According to Rasmussen Polls, 54% of likely US voters distrust the political news they see, e.g. the propaganda of the MSM.

      The MSM is blowing its capital, with its transparent campaign to demonize Trump. The fools really thought they could get rid of an old, natural pacifist, by pretending he was a hot-headed, young, nutcase.

      The MSM is committing hara-kiri.

      • April 24, 2018 11:23 am

        I will volunteer to hold their coats for them and serve coffee and doughnuts to the onlookers.

  20. Gerry, England permalink
    April 23, 2018 1:02 pm

    Where Soviet interference was all to destabilise Western governments and replace capitalism with communism, the Russians are trying to achieve economic changes. Of course they would want to see the spread of fracking delayed to benefit their gas industry. In the same way, Saudi Arabia abandoned its traditional role as the balancer of the oil price by varying its output to keep pumping out oil to drive the price down and reduce US production. The problems with this are that even the Saudis have a finite amount of cash and it is costing them big to keep the price down. And it is much easier to stop and start onshore oil production than offshore so US wells can slow down or pause and then easily open up again.

  21. Tom O permalink
    April 23, 2018 6:49 pm

    What a marvelous article to discredit the site. Well done.

  22. john cooknell permalink
    April 24, 2018 12:15 pm


  23. Colin Brooks permalink
    April 24, 2018 12:56 pm

    If he is NOT funding it then he is not the man we all know, love and trust.


  24. Bitter&twisted permalink
    April 24, 2018 1:57 pm

    OT but another blow to “consensus science”
    Here’s new paper that further undermines “consensus science”
    HT The GWPF

    A paper just published by the Journal of Climate concludes that high estimates of future global warming from most computer climate simulations are inconsistent with observed warming since 1850. The implication is that future warming will be 30 to 45% lower than suggested by the simulations.

    The study estimates climate sensitivity — how much the world will warm when carbon dioxide levels increase* — from changes in observed temperatures and estimates of the warming effect of greenhouse gases and other drivers of climate change, from the mid/late 19th century until 2016.

    The paper also addresses previous criticisms of the methodology used, finding that these are unfounded.

    Nicholas Lewis explains,

    “Our results imply that, for any future emissions scenario, future warming is likely to be substantially lower than the central computer model-simulated level projected by the IPCC, and highly unlikely to exceed that level.”

    Nicholas Lewis adds,

    “Our new sensitivity estimates are slightly lower than those obtained in a predecessor study published several years ago, despite the inclusion of the strong 2015–16 El Niño warming. Importantly, the upper uncertainty bounds of the new estimates are much lower.”

    Nicholas Lewis and Judith Curry, 2018: The impact of recent forcing and ocean heat uptake data on estimates of climate sensitivity. Journal of Climate, Early Online Release []


    Energy budget estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate response (TCR) are derived based on the best estimates and uncertainty ranges for forcing provided in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Scientific Report (AR5). Recent revisions to greenhouse gas forcing and post-1990 ozone and aerosol forcing estimates are incorporated and the forcing data extended from 2011 to 2016. Reflecting recent evidence against strong aerosol forcing, its AR5 uncertainty lower bound is increased slightly. Using a 1869–1882 base period and a 2007−2016 final period, which are well-matched for volcanic activity and influence from internal variability, medians are derived for ECS of 1.50 K (5−95%: 1.05−2.45 K) and for TCR of 1.20 K (5−95%: 0.9−1.7 K). These estimates both have much lower upper bounds than those from a predecessor study using AR5 data ending in 2011. Using infilled, globally-complete temperature data gives slightly higher estimates; a median of 1.66 K for ECS (5−95%: 1.15−2.7 K) and 1.33 K for TCR (5−95%:1.0−1.90 K). These ECS estimates reflect climate feedbacks over the historical period, assumed time-invariant. Allowing for possible time-varying climate feedbacks increases the median ECS estimate to 1.76 K (5−95%: 1.2−3.1 K), using infilled temperature data. Possible biases from non-unit forcing efficacy, temperature estimation issues and variability in sea-surface temperature change patterns are examined and found to be minor when using globally-complete temperature data. These results imply that high ECS and TCR values derived from a majority of CMIP5 climate models are inconsistent with observed warming during the historical period.

Comments are closed.

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: