Climate Hypocrite George Soros Bets Big on Fossil Fuels


George Soros spent $160 million investing in fossil fuel companies in the final quarter of last year alone.

This makes him a huge liar or a massive hypocrite or an outrageous cynic – or, likely, all three – for almost no one in the world has spent more campaigning against “climate change” than Soros.

The Daily Caller reports:

In the last quarter of 2017, Soros Fund Management reported investments in eleven new fossil fuel corporations totalling nearly $160 million, according to his company’s December 31, 2017, filing before the Securities and Exchange Commission reviewed by TheDCNF.

His investments in fossil fuels undermines his public pledge to use his money to eliminate the oil, gas and coal industries, claiming they threaten the planet by accelerating climate change.

The billionaire’s most recent political efforts to warn about climate change was his underwriting of the organizations behind the April 29, 2017, “People’s Climate March” that marked the 100th day of President Donald Trump’s administration. Soros donated $36 million to 18 of the march’s 55 steering committee organizations between 2000 to 2014, according to the Media Research Center.

As with his pal Tom “Rhymes with Liar” Steyer – another billionaire environmental campaigner who has made a chunk of his fortune from fossil fuels – it appears to be a case of “do as I say, not do as I do.”

Read the rest on Breitbart.

Why I Totally Hate Big Oil – And Why You Should Too…

Did you hear the speech that Al Gore gave in Texas the other day saying that the oil industry should take climate change more seriously, that oil could peak in the next decade, that the “social acceptance” for oil was disappearing, that there needed to be a meaningful tax on carbon emissions and that he “strongly supported” the Paris climate agreement?
Oh no, wait. It wasn’t Al Gore. My bad. It was actually Ben van Beurden, chief executive of Shell speaking at an oil industry gathering at the U.S. oil capital of Houston.

Now do you see why I so hate Big Oil?

Well, partly it’s bitterness. For many years now, I – and many sceptics like me – have been accused by climate alarmists of being “in the pay of Big Oil”. But even though we deserve it for promoting fossil fuels so enthusiastically and fighting their critics so heroically, few of us have ever received even a penny for our troubles. That’s because Big Oil is far too busy trying to greenwash its image – as Shell itself did by sponsoring the Guardian’s environment pages for many years – to waste time on the plucky, outspoken heroes who do a better job for Big Oil’s PR than the Big Oil’s paid PR departments do.

Mainly, though it’s disgust. Big Oil has this public image of being an industry for fearless, no-nonsense manly men who aren’t afraid of getting their hands dirty or braving the environmentalists’ wrath in order to do their ugly but important work supplying the world with much-needed energy.

Yet it’s an image almost entirely undeserved.

Almost everyone at a senior level in Big Oil is a craven, simpering, politically correct, spineless, surrender-monkey corporate shill. They’re cowards who are scared of free markets, won’t speak up for capitalism, won’t even defend their core business. Typical of this attitude was the current Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

One of his first moves on becoming CEO of Exxon in 2006 was to announce it would stop funding organisations like the Competitive Enterprise Institute “whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner.” Unlike his punchier predecessor Lee Raymond, Tillerson clearly decided that discretion being the better part of valor, he would throw his industry’s supporters to the wolves.

One of the first big energy stories I covered for Breitbart was the incredible true story of how Chevron Oil fought off a $9.5 billion damages case filed on behalf of Ecuadorean natives whose lands had supposedly been polluted as a result of Chevron’s negligence.

The truly incredible part of the story was that Chevron decided to defend the case. The more usual position of Big Oil is to surrender as soon as possible and settle out of court.

If Big Oil won’t speak out for the oil industry, who will?

Sadly, the burden invariably falls to that small group of maverick believers in free markets and honest science who don’t care about all the brickbats they get for being defenders of “dirty fuel” because they’d rather speak the truth than be popular.

Among them is Steve Milloy who, May 2008, intervened in an Exxon shareholder meeting on behalf of all those shareholders who think that Exxon’s core business should be drilling oil and creating value for shareholders – not getting distracted by trying to make themselves look cuter for their Watermelon (green on the outside, red on the inside) critics. Follow this link and you can hear the huge round applause Milloy won from shareholders when he proposed that Exxon should amend its bye-laws so that it no longer had to waste time on politicised interventions from “nuisance shareholders”.

Stock ownership has become politicized. Many shareholders own stock in publicly-owned corporations for the sole purpose of advancing the shareholders’ own social or political agendas, while simultaneously assailing the corporations’ legitimate business operations. These activist shareholders are “nuisance shareholders.”

A primary tool of nuisance shareholders is the submission of non-binding precatory (advisory) proposals for discussion and vote at annual meetings of shareholders. Proposals from nuisance shareholders can coerce management into making decisions not in the best interests of the Company and its bona fide shareholders, and turn the annual meeting into a media-activist circus.

You’d think Exxon would have been grateful for this fire support from their public. Not one bit. We can see this from Exxon’s response to a submission from Milloy that he intends to make a similar proposal at Exxon’s next shareholder meeting this May. They applied to the SEC to try to get Milloy’s proposal excluded.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Exposed: The Green Activists Who Cooked up the RICO Conspiracy against Big Oil

Before I reveal their identities, let me give you some examples of just how successful they have been.

Hillary Clinton has called for an investigation into what Exxon really knew about climate change. (By weird coincidence, this came just after Exxon stopped funding an organization called the Clinton Foundation).

Sheldon Whitehouse and three other Democrat senators have written to Exxon accusing it of supporting “climate denial” and “anti-climate policy advocacy.”

A bunch of climate alarmist scientists have written to President Obama urging him to use RICO legislation against corporations which may “knowingly have deceived the American people about the risks of climate change.” (Though they’ve been a bit less vocal since one of their number got himself embroiled in the “largest science scandal in US history”)

Two separate journalistic investigations have claimed that Exxon’s scientists “knew” about the threat of global warming as early as the late 70s and that the company is guilty of some kind of cover up. Now Scientific American has jumped on the bandwagon too.

It’s all mendacious nonsense, as I explain here. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that unscrupulous lawyers, shyster politicians and green NGOs won’t go ahead and seize this flimsy excuse to intensify their war on capitalism in the guise of concern about the environment. Exxon, for example, may have no case to answer. But that won’t stop its operations, its reputation and its share value being seriously disrupted by a potential lawsuit, however ill-founded and vexatious.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

The Real Villain of the Gulf Oil-Spill Disaster: Not BP but PC

Hands up who thinks BP’s public image has been improved as a result of pumping upwards of half a million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, ravaging eco-systems, depriving fishermen of their livelihoods, incurring the pantomime wrath of President Obama and the undying hatred of half America?

Hmm. That’s not many hands.

But I suspect your crowd wisdom is quite right here. BP has spent the last decade rebranding itself as Beyond Petroleum in order to make out that it doesn’t do anything so disgusting and immoral as plundering Mother Gaia of her dwindling supplies of precious black blood. Yet I doubt all that strenuous greenwashing has been enough to offset the damage done by even a single one of those photographs of ickle pelicans smeared in oily gunk.

As Patrick Hayes argues in a brilliant article at Spiked, this is not the fault of BP’s beleaguered CEO Tony Hayward, but of his fantastically wrong-headed predecessor Lord Browne of Madingley.

Under Browne’s stewardship, BP became the first multinational oil company to accept a causal relationship between increased carbon emissions and global warming. In 2005 it famously developed a carbon footprint calculator for use on its website. According to Mathis Wackernagel, executive director of the Global Footprint Network, the media campaigns around BP’s calculator played an important part in establishing the notion of a ‘carbon footprint’ in popular consciousness.

As a result, BP, the world’s second-largest oil company, came to rank high on a wide range of the ‘key performance indicators’ so beloved by companies. It was lavished with awards, including a gold ‘Effie’ at the American Marketing Association awards. Brand research revealed that BP was seen as the most environmental oil brand, and BP’s brand awareness rose from four per cent in 2000 to 67 per cent in 2007. It has been claimed that the rebranding generated considerable increases in sales for BP. In 2007, Business Week speculated whether the AA risk rating awarded to BP by credit agency Innovest was a result of its commitment to invest $8billion in renewables.

Funny to remember how Browne was revered in so many profiles of the era as the kind of modern, touchy-feely, visionary boss all go-ahead companies should emulate. What we can now recognise is that Browne did about as much for BP’s unfortunate shareholders as Kenneth Lay did for Enron’s.

Had BP spent a fraction of the budget it has dedicated to greenwashing (its 2001 rebranding alone cost $200 million; it has squandered further millions on solar and wind power) on doing the job its supposed to do – ie drilling for oil as safely and efficiently as is reasonably possible in so risky business; definitely not cutting corners – the Gulf Oil disaster would almost certainly have never happened. Exxon gets a lot of stick from the green movement. But its safety procedures are much more stringent than BPs.

And while we’re on the subject of the warped, self-destructive tactics of eco-zealots, lets not forget the disastrous role America’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has played in all this. Thanks to the EPA’s bizarre sense of ecological priorities, the US government initially turned down an offer from the Dutch to provide 4 oil skimmers capable of scooping up 146,000 barrels of spilt oil per day.

The Dutch offered to fly their skimmer arm systems to the Gulf 3 days after the oil spill started. The offer was apparently turned down because EPA regulations do not allow water with oil to be pumped back into the ocean. If all the oily water was retained in the tanker, the capacity of the system would be greatly diminished because most of what is pumped into the tanker is sea water.

This crazy decision has since been rescinded. But as I’ve argued before, for Obama and his eco-fascist chums in the global green movement, the more damage this disaster is allowed to do to the image of Big Oil and Big Carbon the better. For them this crisis isn’t a disaster at all. It’s the opportunity of a lifetime.

Related posts:

  1. There’s nothing greens love more than a nice, juicy oil-spill disaster
  2. So I was right about the BP oil spill…
  3. The Great Wind Farm Disaster (ctd)
  4. BP oil spill: ‘mass hysteria on a par with the Dutch tulip bubble’

4 thoughts on “The real villain of the Gulf oil-spill disaster: not BP but PC”

  1. Gus Walters says:21st June 2010 at 9:26 am“……. for Obama and his eco-fascist chums in the global green movement, the more damage this disaster is allowed to do to the image of Big Oil and Big Carbon the better. For them this crisis isn’t a disaster at all. It’s the opportunity of a lifetime.”

    Pure truth. Of the 40% here that approve of Obama, half are naive and the other half ignorant on a grand scale, a portion of each continuing with the Bush-hating mentality. With all the information and raw evidence available of this man’s philosophy and intentions, they still just don’t get it.

    Gus Walters

  2. JLK says:21st June 2010 at 7:59 pmHi James
    Hi James
    You got the wrong culprit for the total cock-up in what is laughingly here called the “clean up process”. The reason the Dutch and all the other countries who offered were turned down was something called the “Jones Act”.
    One of the most destructive pieces of legislation in our history (before Barry’s Health Care)the Act states that no foreign flag carrier is allowed to ship port-to-port within the US. As a result the unions were happy but the US Merchant Marine industry almost ceased to exist. Barry (unlike Bush during Katrina) REFUSED to suspend the Jones ACT in order to allow foreign carriers to help out. Gotta pay back your biggest contributors right?

    Gets worse all the time doesn’t it?

  3. Myra Legier says:22nd June 2010 at 2:41 pmThere are many methods for extracting oil from tar sands and tar sands don’t always exist on the surface, such as in Alberta Canada where the sands are too far below the surface for open pit extraction.
  4. Pete Hayes says:23rd June 2010 at 7:15 am“Exxon gets a lot of stick from the green movement. But its safety procedures are much more stringent than BPs. ”

    Not sure where you get that nugget from James. Having worked with oil service companies for 25 years I would say only one thing about the majors, they are all the same and only care about the profit.

    Hence, they squeeze the service companies to the pip shoots out. They are ALL safety mad until it gets in the way production.

    Trust me, when they get to the bottom of this, and there is plenty out there already, it will be seen that BP’s presence on the rig had been warned of problems by the operators but were overuled.

    Operations on rigs are fraught with danger and very little has been heard about accidents and operating errors until now. Have a look at
    and you will see a very lucky operator just make it out of the way!

    There are many such incidents on the Internet if one cares to look but bare this in mind, none of us wants to die or cause a pollution incident. That said, the majors pay us and the piper calls the tune? I bet the relatives of the dead 11 (who already seem to have been forgotten due to the Pelicans) wish someone had strangled the piper!

Comments are closed.

Post navigation