Trouble in paradise: Climate alarmism defunds traditional environmentalism

Although they seem to be a very united group, family interns also appear on the woke agenda. Just as within feminism a cruel civil war breaks out between traditional feminists and LGTB+ radfems, in the environmentalist family, tensions are growing. The green rivalry has been unleashed around money, a classic, since funds that were historically allocated for the conservation of species and the fight against pollution are now allocated to the fight against the climate. Traditional environmental groups fighting pollution and saving elephants and pandas seem to have lost their charm.

It happens that government donations and subsidies are being directed massively to organizations dedicated to the climate change agenda, leaving traditional green foundations without support. Recently The New York Times reported that the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which for decades led the litigation against the Department of Energy over the cleanup of radioactive waste, is closing its nuclear mission. Also Sierra Club, a wildlife defense institution, is in serious financial problems, similar to those affecting Defenders of Wildlife, one of the largest and oldest American organizations that, since 1947, has been working to protect endangered species and suffers from a huge budget deficit.

On the other hand, the global budget raised by the multipurpose climate change phrase reaches exorbitant figures, especially in the United States and Canada, according to a survey by the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy at Indiana University. Money has flowed to groups like the ClimateWorks Foundation, which gets hundreds of millions of dollars in funding annually. International funding for the climate agenda has reportedly tripled since 2015, abandoning anti-pollution agendas almost entirely.

The environmental damage caused by the manufacture and use of alternative energies such as solar or wind energy is causing real havoc on various species and soils.

Failed disaster forecaster John Kerry, does not lower his arms in his hysterical preaching and says that trillions of dollars will be needed to “solve” climate change, and he is one of the many bureaucrats who support the narrative that allows the flow of tens of billions of dollars that the Central governments are spending to support the woke alarmism industry. All this money, taken from poor taxpayers, finances lavish conferences and impractical proposals around the world. This money also supports protests that attack works of art and traffic on roads or propaganda campaigns in the media and schools. A political, legal and marketing lobby structure that also designs the ESG sustainability standards that are printed in supranational, multilateral credit and financial investment organizations and that bring governments and companies to their knees. A framework whose dimensions reach the condition too big to fail.

The position of traditional environmentalists is complicated, since they cannot cast doubt on the global climate narrative, which has penetrated public opinion so much and whose appeal to alarmism demands top priority. But at the same time they kick themselves for having lost all funding and try, without success, to convince donors that their old objectives are still under threat. One of the controversies between the conflicting groups is seen in relation to nuclear energy, which the old environmentalism defenestrated but which the new environmentalism is accepting as a source of clean energy. The tensions in the environmental group have a clear winner: it is the climate side, which takes government funds and is also more attractive to obtain the support of billionaires and celebrities such as Greta Thunberg, Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg or Jeff Bezos.

For example, the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) priority list begins with "addressing climate change," despite growing voices pointing out that the climate agenda drives policies that destroy the environment rather than saving it. The environmental damage caused by the manufacture and use of alternative energies such as solar or wind energy is causing real havoc on various species and soils. These green energies use 10 times more land than fossil fuel plants and, around the world, the pursuit of zero-emissions policies is paving the landscape with calamitously polluting devices and waste. In less developed countries, the recipes implemented, on the recommendation of the generals of the war against fossil fuels, have resulted in much more hunger and pollution.

The more governments spend on the climate agenda, the more the United Nations insists on expanding budgets.

The outlook is not optimistic, instead of efforts being concentrated on seeking financing to guarantee drinking water in places that lack it, the funds are directed to installing windmills and solar panels that do not solve the real demands of the people and that also threaten their natural resources and their fauna. Additionally, the increase in the price of energy, due to the battle against cheap energy, takes away resources for development and worsens the quality of life of the most vulnerable, which is counterproductive when it comes to keeping the environment clean, since it is the richest countries that can afford to spend money on cleaning the air, water and preserving wildlife. The most important question that donors and philanthropists of environmental causes should ask themselves is: what generates more results, providing clean water and waste treatment systems or supporting unworkable causes, with failed forecasts (- Hello, dear Mr. Kerry!) and without measurable results?

The more governments spend on the climate agenda, the more the United Nations insists on expanding budgets. UN maintains that it is necessary to spend more than 4 trillion dollars every year until 2030 to stop global warming, a plan that systematically makes water and that has no commitment from the world's largest emitters, who are not willing to stop burning fuel to stop their development. There are growing demands from specialists who have been pointing out that the political agenda, which moves the threads of the climate narrative, threatens a green agenda that fights against pollution. This imbalance is worsening the condition of the environment, while our crazed elites demand the implementation of a ridiculous zero emissions plan to save the planet. Curious ways of the new philanthropy, something smells very bad in the goody-goody paradise.