I know it's already a month old, but Adam White had a great article back in February in the Weekly Standard highlighting one of the biggest contradictions of the modern environmental movement: how they are so committed to renewable energy in the abstract, but oppose every actual project that is proposed.
Adam's jumping off point is the big solar project slated for the Mojave desert in California.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Follow The Money: McKnight Foundation
I have added a new page above for "Follow the Money" where I link to Google Doc lists of some of the more interesting grant awards I have come across.
The latest additions to the Follow the Money page are for The McKnight Foundation. This foundation distributes the billion-dollar fortune of Willliam L. McKnight, who made his money with the 3M corporation.
I can't resist highlighting this grant from McKnight, as it resides in a place beyond parody,
"Trustees of the Hamline University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN
$75,000 for One River Mississippi, a program that raises awareness of water quality issues through community artistic performances
Year Approved: 2005"
The latest additions to the Follow the Money page are for The McKnight Foundation. This foundation distributes the billion-dollar fortune of Willliam L. McKnight, who made his money with the 3M corporation.
I can't resist highlighting this grant from McKnight, as it resides in a place beyond parody,
"Trustees of the Hamline University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN
$75,000 for One River Mississippi, a program that raises awareness of water quality issues through community artistic performances
Year Approved: 2005"
Monday, March 28, 2011
EU to Ban Cars in Cities by 2050
Any cheap vacation flights, too. It's all part of the new (im)mobility. The Daily Telegraph is on the case.
(Via National Review Corner)
(Via National Review Corner)
KSTP-5 is Following the Money
First aired last night, our local ABC affiliate, KSTP Channel 5, has a report on Minnesota's mandated utility energy efficiency programs and one of the non-profit beneficiaries of the program.
This watchdog report is currently listed as one of the most watched stories on the station's website.
Minnesota's Freedom Foundation takes note.
This watchdog report is currently listed as one of the most watched stories on the station's website.
Minnesota's Freedom Foundation takes note.
FTM: The Energy Foundation, Part 5
In this final Follow the Money post on The Energy Foundation, I contemplate the fate of Japan. As everyone knows, the nuclear crisis in Japan is having profound implications on that country and its economy.
Bloomberg reports today, in the context of the impact on the Japanese auto industry, that 15 percent of Japan's electric generating capacity is off-line and Tokyo is subject to rolling blackouts, in the wake of the crippling earthquake and tsunami earlier this month.
While we do have nuclear power here in Minnesota, we are more dependent on coal, which accounts for about half of our power. Which brings us back to The Energy Foundation and their searchable grants database,
"Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (St. Paul , MN ) $48,000, Grant Period: Dec, 2009 – Nov, 2010, To oppose existing coal in Minnesota ."
We can agree or disagree on whether new coal plants are a good idea. However, there can be no disagreement that lives and livelihoods are dependent on coal power in this state. How can an organization, in good conscience, go after the most critical part of our energy infrastructure?
Bloomberg reports today, in the context of the impact on the Japanese auto industry, that 15 percent of Japan's electric generating capacity is off-line and Tokyo is subject to rolling blackouts, in the wake of the crippling earthquake and tsunami earlier this month.
While we do have nuclear power here in Minnesota, we are more dependent on coal, which accounts for about half of our power. Which brings us back to The Energy Foundation and their searchable grants database,
"Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (
We can agree or disagree on whether new coal plants are a good idea. However, there can be no disagreement that lives and livelihoods are dependent on coal power in this state. How can an organization, in good conscience, go after the most critical part of our energy infrastructure?
FTM: The Energy Foundation and Media, Part 4
Of course, what good does having a message do you if you can't get the word out? You would expect media to be a big part of any large foundation's work and The Energy Foundation of San Francisco is no exception.
The Foundation has an excellent searchable grants database. One of the most recent entries is this grant,
"Cater Communications (San Rafael , CA ) $150,000, Grant Period: Jan, 2011 – Jul, 2011, To support media outreach on climate change issues."
I don't know why this is listed as a grant. From what I can gather from their website, Cater Communications is a private PR and consulting firm. Why should they be treated any differently from an accounting or law firm, providing professional services to a non-profit?
Another recent grant was listed as follows,
"American Security Project (Washington , DC ) $40,000, Grant Period: Nov, 2010 – Jan, 2011, To support a radio tour focused on the economic impacts of climate change on specific states."
Presumably, this grant would support the non-profit's efforts to get the word out on its important work.
But then I came upon this grant,
"Kentucky Public Radio Inc. d/b/a Louisville Public Media (Louisville , KY ) $40,000, Grant Period: Jan, 2009 – Mar, 2010, To support a series of feature stories on global warming as part of the Ohio River Media Project"
Kentucky Public Radio is that state's public radio network, affiliated with National Public Radio. As we all know, NPR and its local stations are (partially) tax-payer funded entities and are considered by most to be part of the "mainstream media". But if they are accepting money from a foundation to do a specific series of stories on a specific topic, how "balanced" would you expect those reports to be? Would KPR interview anyone who dismisses global warming's impact on the Ohio river? He who pays the piper, calls the tune.
I guess you can judge for yourself here, third story.
The Foundation has an excellent searchable grants database. One of the most recent entries is this grant,
"Cater Communications (
I don't know why this is listed as a grant. From what I can gather from their website, Cater Communications is a private PR and consulting firm. Why should they be treated any differently from an accounting or law firm, providing professional services to a non-profit?
Another recent grant was listed as follows,
"American Security Project (
Presumably, this grant would support the non-profit's efforts to get the word out on its important work.
But then I came upon this grant,
"Kentucky Public Radio Inc. d/b/a Louisville Public Media (
Kentucky Public Radio is that state's public radio network, affiliated with National Public Radio. As we all know, NPR and its local stations are (partially) tax-payer funded entities and are considered by most to be part of the "mainstream media". But if they are accepting money from a foundation to do a specific series of stories on a specific topic, how "balanced" would you expect those reports to be? Would KPR interview anyone who dismisses global warming's impact on the Ohio river? He who pays the piper, calls the tune.
I guess you can judge for yourself here, third story.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
FTM: The Energy Foundation, Part 3
The Energy Foundation also has a transportation program. Here are a few grants that caught my eye on that issue:
"International Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture (Minneapolis , MN ) $15,000, Grant Period: Feb, 2007 – Jul, 2007, To support Congregations Caring for Creation to develop a strategic Plan for its global warming work with faith communities in Minnesota ."
It's good to see the global warming crowd putting their faith in something larger than "the science".
"Regents of the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor , MI ) $50,000, Grant Period: Mar, 2007 – Feb, 2008, To support media and policymaker outreach on oil dependence and the auto industry"
Given the state of Michigan's auto industry the past few years, I am not sure how well the state was served by this grant. But the next time you hear that the Universities' pronouncements cannot be questioned because they represent "science" and "truth, just remember who is paying the bill.
"The Truman National Security Project Educational Institute (Washington , DC ) $124,600, Grant Period: Feb, 2011 – Apr, 2011, To deploy veterans and security leaders in support of clean cars standards in California ."
It's not just academics and believers being drafted for the fight against global warming, our fighting men and women are asked to do their part for the cause.
FTM: The Energy Foundation, Part 2
In "Follow the Money" part 2, we present two more gems from The Energy Foundation's searchable grants database:
"Rockefeller Family Fund (New York , NY ) $40,000, Grant Period: Oct, 2007 – Jun, 2008, To support the Izaak Walton League of America's work to promote carbon controls in Minnesota ."
Why would a foundation in San Francisco give money to a foundation in New York to support work being done by a non-profit in Minnesota? I am not familiar with the ways of the non-profit sector, but what purpose does this money laundering serve?
"Rockefeller Family Fund (
Why would a foundation in San Francisco give money to a foundation in New York to support work being done by a non-profit in Minnesota? I am not familiar with the ways of the non-profit sector, but what purpose does this money laundering serve?
"Prairie Stewardship Network (Ashley , ND ) $52,000, Grant Period: Aug, 2009 – Nov, 2010, To educate North Dakota policymakers on the moral dimensions of climate change and the availability of low-carbon energy solutions."
Moral dimensions? I understood the debate surrounding climate change to be strictly about "the science". When did "moral dimensions" enter the debate?
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Follow the Money: The Energy Foundation, San Francisco
I'm instituting a new feature in this space: Follow the Money. I will be, occasionally, shining a spotlight on some of the money flowing through the non-profit space.
Here are a few gems I pulled out of the EF database:
The Energy Foundation is a big non-profit that aggregates money from bigger non-profits (Pew, McKnight) and distributes it to smaller non-profits. I was browsing through their (searchable) grants database and found some interesting items. Apparently, they don’t like coal power.
"Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (St. Paul , MN ) $25,000, Grant Period: Nov, 2006 – Oct, 2007, To support efforts to discourage permitting of the 600-megawatt Big Stone II pulverized coal plant."
Isn't that a bit specific? I get the idea of opposing new coal power, but a grant to an out-of-state non-profit to defeat a specific private commercial undertaking?
"NextEnergy Center (Detroit , MI ) $100,000, Grant Period: Jan, 2008 – Dec, 2008, To provide formal assistance on energy policy to the office of Governor Granholm."
Now this is odd. A grant to an out-of-state non-profit to assist a sitting Governor in her work. If the Michigan Legislature wants to appropriate money to help the governor with energy policy, that would be fine. But an out-of-state non-profit donates money "to provide formal assistance"? To my non-lawyer eyes, this looks more like a campaign contribution.
"Rockefeller Family Fund (New York , NY) $250,000, Grant Period: May, 2008 – Apr, 2009, To support research and analysis to undermine the financial incentive for banks to invest in coal-fired power plants."
So much to cover here. First, does the Rockefeller Family need the money? I thought that they were doing well on their own. Second, how exactly is the Rockefeller family "to undermine the financial incentive"? Third, I see the date was before the late financial crisis, but still it bothers me to see "undermine" and "banks" in the same sentence of a grant application. And finally, did anyone consider the optics of having the Rockefeller family meddling in the banking system? Just saying.....
.....More to Come....
Don't Touch My Light Bulb
Rich Lowry devotes the latest edition of his syndicated column to one of my favorite subjects: the plight of the incandescent light bulb.
As Rich puts it,
"[I]f the new bulbs are so wondrous, customers can be trusted to adopt them on their own. Are we a nation of dolts too incompetent to balance the complex factors of price of bulb, energy efficiency and quality of light on our own?"
(Via National Review Online and The Oklahoman).
As Rich puts it,
"[I]f the new bulbs are so wondrous, customers can be trusted to adopt them on their own. Are we a nation of dolts too incompetent to balance the complex factors of price of bulb, energy efficiency and quality of light on our own?"
(Via National Review Online and The Oklahoman).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)