Financial independence is so important and this article lays out where academics, who serve as experts on climate change, are benefiting financially from their roll as expert.
If they want to cash in on their expertise, they should leave academia and work for one of the companies engaged in exploiting the climate catastrophe.
You should definitely change that sentence...unless the paper above and I don't know what we're talking about. Perhaps you meant "shouldn't," rather than "can't"?
The Many Ways to Look at Al Gore’s Environmental Activism
By Stephen Heins
Al Gore is a well-known advocate for sustainability and environmental stewardship, and his business ventures have reflected this commitment. One of his most notable projects is Generation Investment Management, a sustainable investment firm that he co-founded in 2004. The company's mission is to invest in companies that prioritize sustainability and environmental stewardship, while also delivering strong financial returns for its investors.
In addition to Generation Investment Management, Al Gore has been involved with a number of other businesses that prioritize sustainability. For example, he is the chairman of The Climate Reality Project, a nonprofit organization that works to educate people about climate change and promote solutions to this global challenge. He is also a board member of Tesla and Apple, the electric vehicle manufacturer that is leading the charge (no pun intended) toward a more sustainable transportation future.
However, it is important to note that Al Gore's advocacy work and business ventures are not separate from each other. In fact, Al Gore has many conflicts of interest. It’s surprising that the SEC has never mentioned it.
Like all conflicts, they are two sides of the same coin. Through his advocacy work, he has helped to raise awareness about the urgent need to address climate change, and by supporting sustainable businesses, he has profited handsomely, said to be over $400 million.
Non-government organizations (NGOs) and Al Gore are often seen as agents of change and progress, but unfortunately, some have succumbed to environmental misconduct. The largest is the conflict I mentioned above.
Some of these scandals have had severe implications, ranging from the destruction of natural habitats to an increase in air and water pollution. In recent years, a number of high-profile cases have brought to light the severity of environmental misconduct perpetrated by nonprofit organizations.
One of the most well known cases of environmental misconduct by an NGO was the Deepwater Horizon oil spill of 2010. This disaster was caused when a rig operated by the BP oil company exploded and leaked an estimated 4.9 million barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico. A nonprofit organization named Ocean Conservancy was implicated in the scandal.
Another example of environmental misconduct by an NGO is the case of the former Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS). In 2017, the New York State Attorney General’s office filed a complaint alleging that the WCS had improperly managed $100 million in taxpayer money and other funding that had been allocated for conservation projects. The organization was accused of diverting resources and funds away from their original purpose, leading to an overall lack of progress in conservation efforts. This case highlighted the need for greater transparency and accountability within NGOs and the necessity of holding them to a higher standard.
Finally, NGOs around the world have been criticized for destroying ecosystems in pursuit of economic gain. In Latin America, for instance, numerous NGOs have been accused of large-scale deforestation in order to clear land for cattle grazing or other forms of agricultural or extractive activity. This kind of environmental misconduct has been linked to species extinction, the deterioration of water quality, and reduced access to essential resources such as clean drinking water.
Environmental misconduct including Greenwashing Greenwishing, and irregular accounting by NGOs can have severe consequences. It is therefore essential that we take steps to address this problem.
While Governments have many of the same conflicts, they must take the lead in enforcing regulations and ensuring transparency and accountability within all participants. At the same time, citizens must hold governments, private sector, and environmental NGOs to a higher standard and demand greater transparency and ethical practices.
Together, we can create a more sustainable future free from environmental misconduct and providing the electricity that will lift them out energy.
In the matter of catastrophic climate change, we have the same assortment of characters as in any human activity: the evangelists, the analysts, the believers, the doubters, scoffers, charlatans and opportunists. Climate change is real, but catastrophic climate range is like a religion because the details are so ephemeral that the average person cannot reach them, and it comes down to whether you believe or don’t believe.
Religions, with dubious foundations, typically requiring belief in imaginative stories written a thousand or more years ago, with no further verification since then, require everyone to participate, otherwise their weaknesses might be exposed. That is why there are persecutions of non-believers.
The first wave of evangelists, analysts, and believers enshrined in the religion of catastrophic climate change required everyone to participate, because they believed that draconian measures are needed to save the planet, and without a huge ground swell of public support, it would be difficult to get the needed draconian measures passed. Inevitably, these measures required doing without, which resonates with the Judeo-Christian ethic that doing without is an act of righteousness.
The first wave has been fairly successful and we now have a huge investment in technology and policy to avoid putative catastrophic climate change, Now, that the funding is in place, the second wave of charlatans and opportunists will milk those programs, as Roger has observed.
Donald, I don’t quite agree on your analysis of religion. Thinking about say, the Inquisition, they really believed that souls would be lost. True believers (the ends justify the means types), and with a veneer of asceticism (for thee but not for me), which is more Christian than Jewish. Religions don’t “require everyone to participate” - as in our society today. And for many of us believers it’s not so much the scripture as the direct experience. Scripture is best understood as a cloth to polish our innate spiritual sensors.
God this stuff makes me sick. It’s pervasive in every aspect of our society. Media is joined at the hip with the left. The left is convinced the world is going to melt or drown. The media writes stories about it so it must be true. Meanwhile all these so called experts make money at the expense of the poor slob that must depend on fossil fuels for their very economic existence.
It sucks, bought your book The Climate Fix, my only complaint so far is the prints to small.
I am reminded of the 2021 movie "Don't Look Up", where Meryl Streep plays POTUS (as a very thinly disguised Hillary Clinton), and Leonardo DeCaprio plays a scientist whose grad student discovers a planet-killer asteroid on a collision course with earth. Streep and Co. do everything in their considerable power to deny there is any danger, while scheming to save their own rear-ends. In a hilarious (or terrifying, depending on your ability to match it up to current climate change demagoguery), Streep holds patriotic rallies vilifying DeCaprio's character and demanding that her loyal followers "Don't Look Up!", while anyone who *does* look up can clearly see the asteroid (which somehow looks more like a comet - and takes forever to approach the earth - but I digress). So, it is a 'comedy' (or horror show) where the evidence is literally written all over the sky, but the government insists that 'all right thinking people' should dismiss what their own eyes tell them.
Change 'planet-killing asteroid' to 'impending climate catastrophe' and Streep to 'IPCC8.5/Gore/Climate Scientists/Davos/Greta Thunberg' and it wouldn't miss a beat. Well, almost, but the 'Climate Catastrophe' mongers are MUCH more dangerous than a humorous/terrifying spoof, and the contrary evidence is just as obvious as the asteroid, if only people would actually use their brains rather than accept blindly whatever they hear/see on MSNBC.
I think it is clear to anyone who 'Looks up' that the entire climate catastrophe industry/academic/political cabal is just that - a way of frightening into submission the very populations the are supposed to be serving, and demeaning/smearing anyone that doesn't toe the line. I think politicians have probably been doing this kind of thing forever on a local/national scale, but have now discovered that due to the internet and fast world-wide communications, can now collude to do it globally. It is sort of laughably ironic that the very things that western civilizations adore (fast communications, global internet connections, high-technology mobile devices) are the same things being used to enslave us, while the real dictatorships don't need any of that - they just murder and 'disappear' people directly - no technology involved!
Until I came across your writings I was a fairly uncritical consumer of information related to Climate Change. My naive belief was such potentially devastating scenarios would prompt sober, clear-eyed analysis and policy. Silly me: leave it to the oligarchs to monetize everything, even the prospect of global scale devastation.
Roger, I think you should name these people. Just as they named you during the years when they hounded you for not adhering 100% to the alarmist agenda. Lay it out. Put it on the table.
Guess what? I have been asked to contribute 3 poems to an Anthology they are publishing in England for a children organization to sell. Plus they want me to read three poems on a Podcast soon. It only took me until I was 78, Roger.
Thank you for this. I am not quite convinced regarding the impact of global warming but I am ready to be educated by people of integrity. One of my main stumbling blocks is the bad faith and dishonesty of some of the most vocal advocates. Calling out bad actors, regardless of their position is a good step forward.
Great article Roger.
Financial independence is so important and this article lays out where academics, who serve as experts on climate change, are benefiting financially from their roll as expert.
If they want to cash in on their expertise, they should leave academia and work for one of the companies engaged in exploiting the climate catastrophe.
"Your doctor can’t prescribe you drugs from a company that pays him fees."
I don't know what you're writing about, because as far as I know, doctors can and do routinely prescribe drugs from companies that pay them fees:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8315858/
You should definitely change that sentence...unless the paper above and I don't know what we're talking about. Perhaps you meant "shouldn't," rather than "can't"?
I agree, there is a data base somewhere on the internet where you can search for your doctor and who pays him.
The Many Ways to Look at Al Gore’s Environmental Activism
By Stephen Heins
Al Gore is a well-known advocate for sustainability and environmental stewardship, and his business ventures have reflected this commitment. One of his most notable projects is Generation Investment Management, a sustainable investment firm that he co-founded in 2004. The company's mission is to invest in companies that prioritize sustainability and environmental stewardship, while also delivering strong financial returns for its investors.
In addition to Generation Investment Management, Al Gore has been involved with a number of other businesses that prioritize sustainability. For example, he is the chairman of The Climate Reality Project, a nonprofit organization that works to educate people about climate change and promote solutions to this global challenge. He is also a board member of Tesla and Apple, the electric vehicle manufacturer that is leading the charge (no pun intended) toward a more sustainable transportation future.
However, it is important to note that Al Gore's advocacy work and business ventures are not separate from each other. In fact, Al Gore has many conflicts of interest. It’s surprising that the SEC has never mentioned it.
Like all conflicts, they are two sides of the same coin. Through his advocacy work, he has helped to raise awareness about the urgent need to address climate change, and by supporting sustainable businesses, he has profited handsomely, said to be over $400 million.
Non-government organizations (NGOs) and Al Gore are often seen as agents of change and progress, but unfortunately, some have succumbed to environmental misconduct. The largest is the conflict I mentioned above.
Some of these scandals have had severe implications, ranging from the destruction of natural habitats to an increase in air and water pollution. In recent years, a number of high-profile cases have brought to light the severity of environmental misconduct perpetrated by nonprofit organizations.
One of the most well known cases of environmental misconduct by an NGO was the Deepwater Horizon oil spill of 2010. This disaster was caused when a rig operated by the BP oil company exploded and leaked an estimated 4.9 million barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico. A nonprofit organization named Ocean Conservancy was implicated in the scandal.
Another example of environmental misconduct by an NGO is the case of the former Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS). In 2017, the New York State Attorney General’s office filed a complaint alleging that the WCS had improperly managed $100 million in taxpayer money and other funding that had been allocated for conservation projects. The organization was accused of diverting resources and funds away from their original purpose, leading to an overall lack of progress in conservation efforts. This case highlighted the need for greater transparency and accountability within NGOs and the necessity of holding them to a higher standard.
Finally, NGOs around the world have been criticized for destroying ecosystems in pursuit of economic gain. In Latin America, for instance, numerous NGOs have been accused of large-scale deforestation in order to clear land for cattle grazing or other forms of agricultural or extractive activity. This kind of environmental misconduct has been linked to species extinction, the deterioration of water quality, and reduced access to essential resources such as clean drinking water.
Environmental misconduct including Greenwashing Greenwishing, and irregular accounting by NGOs can have severe consequences. It is therefore essential that we take steps to address this problem.
While Governments have many of the same conflicts, they must take the lead in enforcing regulations and ensuring transparency and accountability within all participants. At the same time, citizens must hold governments, private sector, and environmental NGOs to a higher standard and demand greater transparency and ethical practices.
Together, we can create a more sustainable future free from environmental misconduct and providing the electricity that will lift them out energy.
Stephen Heins
Marketing Director
ESG University
steve@heins.com
stephenheins@Substack.com
(920-918-8098)
In the matter of catastrophic climate change, we have the same assortment of characters as in any human activity: the evangelists, the analysts, the believers, the doubters, scoffers, charlatans and opportunists. Climate change is real, but catastrophic climate range is like a religion because the details are so ephemeral that the average person cannot reach them, and it comes down to whether you believe or don’t believe.
Religions, with dubious foundations, typically requiring belief in imaginative stories written a thousand or more years ago, with no further verification since then, require everyone to participate, otherwise their weaknesses might be exposed. That is why there are persecutions of non-believers.
The first wave of evangelists, analysts, and believers enshrined in the religion of catastrophic climate change required everyone to participate, because they believed that draconian measures are needed to save the planet, and without a huge ground swell of public support, it would be difficult to get the needed draconian measures passed. Inevitably, these measures required doing without, which resonates with the Judeo-Christian ethic that doing without is an act of righteousness.
The first wave has been fairly successful and we now have a huge investment in technology and policy to avoid putative catastrophic climate change, Now, that the funding is in place, the second wave of charlatans and opportunists will milk those programs, as Roger has observed.
Donald, I don’t quite agree on your analysis of religion. Thinking about say, the Inquisition, they really believed that souls would be lost. True believers (the ends justify the means types), and with a veneer of asceticism (for thee but not for me), which is more Christian than Jewish. Religions don’t “require everyone to participate” - as in our society today. And for many of us believers it’s not so much the scripture as the direct experience. Scripture is best understood as a cloth to polish our innate spiritual sensors.
Thanks for the line to Jessica’s testimony and Substack! Subscribed immediately.
God this stuff makes me sick. It’s pervasive in every aspect of our society. Media is joined at the hip with the left. The left is convinced the world is going to melt or drown. The media writes stories about it so it must be true. Meanwhile all these so called experts make money at the expense of the poor slob that must depend on fossil fuels for their very economic existence.
It sucks, bought your book The Climate Fix, my only complaint so far is the prints to small.
I am reminded of the 2021 movie "Don't Look Up", where Meryl Streep plays POTUS (as a very thinly disguised Hillary Clinton), and Leonardo DeCaprio plays a scientist whose grad student discovers a planet-killer asteroid on a collision course with earth. Streep and Co. do everything in their considerable power to deny there is any danger, while scheming to save their own rear-ends. In a hilarious (or terrifying, depending on your ability to match it up to current climate change demagoguery), Streep holds patriotic rallies vilifying DeCaprio's character and demanding that her loyal followers "Don't Look Up!", while anyone who *does* look up can clearly see the asteroid (which somehow looks more like a comet - and takes forever to approach the earth - but I digress). So, it is a 'comedy' (or horror show) where the evidence is literally written all over the sky, but the government insists that 'all right thinking people' should dismiss what their own eyes tell them.
Change 'planet-killing asteroid' to 'impending climate catastrophe' and Streep to 'IPCC8.5/Gore/Climate Scientists/Davos/Greta Thunberg' and it wouldn't miss a beat. Well, almost, but the 'Climate Catastrophe' mongers are MUCH more dangerous than a humorous/terrifying spoof, and the contrary evidence is just as obvious as the asteroid, if only people would actually use their brains rather than accept blindly whatever they hear/see on MSNBC.
I think it is clear to anyone who 'Looks up' that the entire climate catastrophe industry/academic/political cabal is just that - a way of frightening into submission the very populations the are supposed to be serving, and demeaning/smearing anyone that doesn't toe the line. I think politicians have probably been doing this kind of thing forever on a local/national scale, but have now discovered that due to the internet and fast world-wide communications, can now collude to do it globally. It is sort of laughably ironic that the very things that western civilizations adore (fast communications, global internet connections, high-technology mobile devices) are the same things being used to enslave us, while the real dictatorships don't need any of that - they just murder and 'disappear' people directly - no technology involved!
Prof. Weinkle left off one important co-conspirator - the federal government.
Until I came across your writings I was a fairly uncritical consumer of information related to Climate Change. My naive belief was such potentially devastating scenarios would prompt sober, clear-eyed analysis and policy. Silly me: leave it to the oligarchs to monetize everything, even the prospect of global scale devastation.
Roger, I think you should name these people. Just as they named you during the years when they hounded you for not adhering 100% to the alarmist agenda. Lay it out. Put it on the table.
Guess what? I have been asked to contribute 3 poems to an Anthology they are publishing in England for a children organization to sell. Plus they want me to read three poems on a Podcast soon. It only took me until I was 78, Roger.
Very timely, Roger.
Thank you for this. I am not quite convinced regarding the impact of global warming but I am ready to be educated by people of integrity. One of my main stumbling blocks is the bad faith and dishonesty of some of the most vocal advocates. Calling out bad actors, regardless of their position is a good step forward.
Powerful post, Roger. And brave.