The Green Astroturf Empire:
How the Green Lobby Used Nonprofit Structures to Manufacture Consent and Marginalize Authentic Energy Voices
Commissioned for:
Stakeholders in Traditional Energy, Policy Analysts, and the American Public
Date: July 2025
Contact:
theadley@hedleycompany.com
www.hedleycompany.com
Introduction: A Manufactured Movement in the Guise of Morality
In the American public square, appearances can be deceiving. What looks like a groundswell of grassroots concern—polished websites, urgent campaigns, impassioned protests, and waves of "community-led" advocacy—often turns out to be a carefully choreographed performance, scripted by billionaires, staged by tax-exempt organizations, and applauded by media outlets that never question the director behind the curtain.
This is the state of the modern environmental movement.
Behind the curtain lies a sprawling empire of nonprofit influence, constructed not by ordinary citizens but by elite foundations, advocacy conglomerates, and politically aligned bureaucracies. These organizations use legal tools—primarily the 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), and 501(c)(6) designations of the U.S. tax code—not to educate or uplift, but to dominate the energy conversation, distort the policy process, and suffocate dissent from traditional energy producers, users, and advocates.
They call themselves a "movement." But it is not grassroots—it is astroturf. And its empire spans media, education, philanthropy, finance, entertainment, and government.
This report unmasks that empire. It does so not by speculation, but by evidence—public tax filings, government documents, funding records, and the quiet admissions buried in annual reports and donor agreements. It follows the money, names the players, and maps the machinery that has elevated green ideology from niche crusade to national dogma.
It also tells the other side of the story—one seldom heard in elite circles. The story of energy workers and small-town mayors, of rural counties and real communities, who are labeled backward because they refuse to bow to an agenda written in New York, San Francisco, or Brussels. It documents how voices like Friends of Coal—organic, authentic, and tied to place—have been smeared, silenced, and systematically shut out of policy rooms that claim to represent "the people."
The stakes are no longer academic. The green movement, cloaked in the garb of moral righteousness, now wields influence over what powers our homes, fuels our industries, and secures our national defense. It has transformed from protest movement to shadow state.
This is not a rejection of stewardship. It is a defense of sovereignty—economic, political, and cultural. It is a call for clarity in a time of obfuscation. And it is a warning: that if we continue to outsource our energy policy to those who disdain the engines of prosperity, we will find ourselves dependent, divided, and in the dark.
The time has come to pull back the curtain. Let us see who really speaks—and who is paid to pretend.
Executive Summary
This report reveals the elaborate, tax-advantaged architecture behind the rise of the modern environmental movement—a movement portrayed as grassroots but operated as a billion-dollar, foundation-funded machine. While the public sees a groundswell of concern for the planet, what exists beneath the surface is a highly coordinated web of nonprofits—leveraging 501(c)(3), (c)(4), and (c)(6) structures—to dominate public discourse, influence energy policy, and discredit opposing voices.
Key Findings:
· Legal Triangulation: Green groups exploit the IRS nonprofit code to build a three-pronged strategy: 501(c)(3) foundations produce “educational” content, 501(c)(4) arms drive political activism, and 501(c)(6) trade associations lobby for favorable regulations. These structures share leadership, branding, and funding—creating the illusion of plurality and independence where none exists.
· Foundation-Fueled Influence: Philanthropic giants like Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and the Energy Foundation funnel billions into this ecosystem. Regranting organizations further distribute these funds to hundreds of local and national nonprofits, coordinating messaging and policy pressure with remarkable consistency.
· Bureaucratic Capture: The passage of the Inflation Reduction Act marked a turning point, entangling green nonprofits directly in federal implementation, rulemaking, and disbursement of public funds. The revolving door between nonprofits and government agencies accelerates the consolidation of power and message control.
· ESG as Ideological Enforcement: Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) frameworks—shaped by green advocacy groups—now dictate corporate strategy, capital access, and reputational risk. This de facto regime bypasses legislative debate and democratic consent, steering capital away from traditional energy and into politically favored sectors.
· Cultural Engineering: Green narratives dominate public education, media, and entertainment. Climate virtue is portrayed as moral virtue, while opposition to green policies is framed as selfish or immoral. This moral reframing suppresses pluralism and marginalizes working-class communities who bear the brunt of imposed green policies.
· International Leverage: Green groups increasingly bypass domestic accountability by leveraging international bodies (e.g., UN, IPCC) to pressure U.S. policymakers. Commitments made without congressional approval are used to justify local mandates, eroding national sovereignty and democratic process.
· The Rural Cost: Far from delivering “environmental justice,” green policies often sacrifice rural communities—siting large-scale wind and solar projects in regions with limited political clout, degrading landscapes, livelihoods, and local control.
· Strategic Blindness: Green agendas ignore national security risks posed by reliance on imported critical minerals and unreliable energy systems. Simultaneously, they oppose domestic mining and dismiss nuclear power—undermining America’s energy resilience.
The Response: A Blueprint for Energy Realism
The report concludes with a strategic plan for traditional energy voices to reclaim credibility and balance in the policy process. Key recommendations include:
1. Building a mirrored nonprofit infrastructure (c)(3), (c)(4), (c)(6) for energy realism
2. Reinvesting in grassroots organizing and cultural storytelling
3. Reforming transparency laws and nonprofit coordination oversight
4. Supporting independent media and education efforts focused on energy literacy
5. Reframing the moral argument for energy as justice, security, and human dignity
Conclusion:
The green lobby has built not a movement, but a machine—shielded by law, sustained by wealth, and sold as virtue. It is time to expose the artifice, correct the imbalance, and return to an energy policy rooted in sovereignty, realism, and respect for the communities that keep America running.
Chapter 1: The Nonprofit Shell Game – How Legal Structures Conceal Political Machinery
The modern environmental movement did not achieve dominance by winning debates in the public square. It did so by building a sophisticated web of nonprofit organizations—interlinked, tax-advantaged, and strategically coordinated—to manufacture the appearance of broad public support, suppress dissenting voices, and funnel billions of dollars toward a single ideological agenda. This report exposes that web.
Across the United States, hundreds of green advocacy groups operate under the legal protection of Section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code. Some are 501(c)(3) public charities, ostensibly barred from political campaigning. Others are 501(c)(4) “social welfare organizations,” which can engage in lobbying and political advocacy. Still others are 501(c)(6) trade associations representing green industries. Many operate all three simultaneously, under different names but with shared leadership, funding, staff, and purpose.
These entities collaborate seamlessly: the 501(c)(3) produces “educational” research to support green policies; the 501(c)(4) uses that research to run public pressure campaigns; the 501(c)(6) lobbies lawmakers and files regulatory comments. All the while, donors enjoy tax deductions, policymakers see what appears to be widespread grassroots support, and the media echoes the talking points fed to them by well-funded communications teams.
The result is a closed loop of influence that few citizens ever see—and even fewer can challenge. The coal industry, by contrast, lacks a comparable structure. Trade associations and local alliances fight valiantly but cannot match the scale, funding, or narrative reach of the green nonprofit machine.
In the chapters that follow, this report will dissect the anatomy of this influence system: its legal foundations, financial flows, institutional partnerships, and media strategies. It will also offer a detailed comparison to how authentic energy voices—such as Friends of Coal—have operated without such advantages. The goal is not merely to criticize, but to illuminate—and to call for a more honest, balanced, and accountable public discourse.
Chapter 2: The Legal Architecture of Influence
To understand how environmental advocacy groups wield such disproportionate influence, one must first understand the legal frameworks that empower them. The United States tax code allows for several categories of nonprofit entities, each with specific privileges and limitations. Of particular interest are 501(c)(3) public charities, 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations, and 501(c)(6) trade associations. These legal classifications form the backbone of the green movement’s structural advantage.
A 501(c)(3) organization is perhaps the most powerful vehicle in this framework. These groups are eligible to receive tax-deductible donations and are exempt from federal income tax. In exchange, they are prohibited from engaging in direct political activity or substantial lobbying. Their activities must be primarily educational, charitable, or scientific in nature. This restriction, however, is easily skirted through the use of indirect advocacy, such as publishing "educational" white papers that conveniently support pending legislation or organizing forums that serve as de facto campaign rallies for green energy policies.
501(c)(4) groups, meanwhile, are permitted to engage in unlimited lobbying and limited political activity, so long as their primary purpose remains the promotion of social welfare. These organizations cannot receive tax-deductible contributions, but they can raise unlimited funds and spend them on issue advocacy—including advertisements, canvassing operations, and coordinated campaigns designed to influence elections or regulatory outcomes. In practice, many green-aligned (c)(4)s work hand-in-glove with their (c)(3) counterparts, sharing staff, office space, and branding.
Finally, 501(c)(6) organizations—trade associations and business leagues—can lobby on behalf of their members and engage in extensive policy advocacy. These entities represent industry interests directly and are often the most openly political of the three types. The American Clean Power Association (ACP), the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), and Advanced Energy Economy (AEE) all fall into this category. These organizations do not pretend to be neutral; they exist to promote the financial and political interests of the renewable energy industry.
What makes the green lobby unique is not the existence of these entities, but the way they are structured and coordinated. In many cases, an environmental group will maintain all three types of organizations simultaneously: a 501(c)(3) foundation to accept tax-deductible donations and produce messaging; a 501(c)(4) advocacy arm to run ads and pressure lawmakers; and a 501(c)(6) trade group to represent corporate members and shape regulatory frameworks. Each entity operates within the bounds of the law—but together, they form a seamless web of influence.
This legal architecture allows environmental organizations to enjoy the benefits of charitable legitimacy while executing a full-spectrum political strategy. They can receive grants from major philanthropic foundations through their (c)(3), use those funds to generate public-facing content that shapes opinion, and then activate their (c)(4) and (c)(6) arms to translate public pressure into legislative change. The result is a policy ecosystem where the same network controls the narrative, the advocacy, and the lobbying—all with minimal transparency and maximum protection under nonprofit law.
By contrast, traditional energy interests—particularly in the coal sector—have historically relied on a far more limited structure. Most coal advocacy is conducted through 501(c)(6) trade associations, which cannot accept tax-deductible donations and generally lack access to foundation funding. Without complementary (c)(3) and (c)(4) structures, these organizations are confined to direct lobbying and are unable to participate meaningfully in the broader ecosystem of public education and community organizing.
This asymmetry has profound implications for public discourse. While green organizations deploy coordinated, tax-advantaged campaigns across media, academia, and civil society, coal organizations are left to defend themselves with far fewer tools. The imbalance is not simply one of ideology—it is one of structure, legality, and financial architecture.
Chapter 3: The Shadow Networks – Key Players and Their Reach
Beneath the surface of the environmental movement’s public-facing campaigns lies a dense web of organizations, staff, and funders—interconnected, coordinated, and often difficult to untangle. These networks operate behind multiple legal facades and use cross-affiliation, joint ventures, and shared services to present a picture of plurality that is, in reality, a narrow ideological chorus. This chapter identifies the key players and traces their reach.
Among the most influential of these organizations is the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). With annual revenues exceeding $200 million, NRDC maintains both a 501(c)(3) and a 501(c)(4) arm. Its litigation, lobbying, and media campaigns have helped shape national policy on coal plant closures, vehicle emissions standards, and renewable mandates. NRDC also maintains partnerships with dozens of smaller organizations, often using its stature to amplify their voices while steering their messaging.
The Sierra Club is another central player. Known for its “Beyond Coal” campaign, Sierra Club operates a sprawling advocacy network with chapters in every state. Its c(4) arm engages heavily in political advocacy, while its c(3) arm publishes reports and educational content. The group has received tens of millions in foundation grants from Bloomberg Philanthropies and others—resources that it uses to support aligned campaigns, file lawsuits, and coordinate local activism.
The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) serves as the electoral arm of the movement. It endorses candidates, runs political ads, and tracks legislative votes on environmental issues. LCV operates a PAC and Super PAC, and partners with green donors to influence key state and federal races. It works closely with NextGen America, a political organization founded by billionaire Tom Steyer, to mobilize young voters around climate priorities.
The Center for American Progress (CAP), while not exclusively environmental, plays a pivotal role in policy development and communication. Its Energy and Environment program produces model legislation, coordinates media narratives, and shapes federal rulemaking. CAP’s staff routinely rotate into senior government roles during Democratic administrations, ensuring continuity between advocacy and policy.
The ClimateWorks Foundation, Energy Foundation, and Rockefeller Brothers Fund act as funders and coordinators. They issue grants, set strategic priorities, and convene partner organizations. Their support often comes with expectations: grantees are required to align messaging, submit reports, and participate in coalition efforts.
Together, these organizations form a shadow policymaking ecosystem. They maintain the outward appearance of diversity—one group focuses on litigation, another on research, another on grassroots mobilization—but they share leadership pipelines, funding sources, and strategic objectives. The result is a policy discourse that feels multi-voiced but is functionally univocal.
Chapter 4: The Funding Firehose – Foundations, Fronts, and the Flow of Influence
Money may not buy authenticity, but it buys access, volume, and durability. The green lobby’s nonprofit infrastructure would not be nearly as effective were it not for the steady, strategic infusion of billions in philanthropic funding, largely from a concentrated group of elite foundations. This chapter traces how that money flows—through intermediary groups, pass-through vehicles, and regranting organizations—to create a dense web of local “grassroots” initiatives with centralized control.
The principal funders of the environmental nonprofit network include the Bloomberg Family Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the MacArthur Foundation, the Hewlett and Packard Foundations, and the Energy Foundation. Combined, these entities have pumped billions into green causes since the early 2000s—underwriting everything from climate litigation to solar policy lobbying to renewable education curricula in K-12 schools.
The Energy Foundation, based in San Francisco, serves as a regranting hub. It aggregates funds from numerous philanthropic sources and redistributes them to hundreds of smaller nonprofits across the country. Its grants often come with branding and messaging guidelines, ensuring that local groups receiving funds echo the same talking points as national partners. This makes the Energy Foundation not merely a financial pass-through, but a strategic control node.
Another key player is the ClimateWorks Foundation, itself an outgrowth of a 2007 project initiated by the Hewlett Foundation. ClimateWorks coordinates international and domestic climate philanthropy and works with networks of funders to align grantmaking strategy with policy windows. Their work is highly technical, data-driven, and opaque to public scrutiny.
The Rockefeller Family Fund and its offshoots have also played a critical role, particularly in campaigns against fossil fuels. The RFF helped bankroll the #ExxonKnew campaign and has funneled millions into state-level anti-pipeline and anti-coal activism. Their strategy, by their own description, is to "weaken the social license" of fossil fuel companies—an objective that blends public relations, litigation, regulatory delay, and moral framing.
Bloomberg Philanthropies, through its environment program, has invested hundreds of millions into U.S. climate and energy causes. Much of this funding goes to mayors, local NGOs, and technical assistance groups pushing municipal clean energy mandates. Michael Bloomberg has also directly funded Sierra Club’s “Beyond Coal” campaign to the tune of over $100 million.
Together, these funders create a firehose of support for green advocacy that has no equivalent on the fossil fuel side of the equation. Traditional energy groups—particularly coal—receive virtually no funding from philanthropic sources. The reasons are partly ideological and partly strategic. Foundations are drawn to causes that offer moral clarity and social cachet; coal, often vilified in public discourse, offers neither in their eyes.
The effect of this funding asymmetry is compounded by the IRS regulations that enable tax-advantaged giving. Donors to 501(c)(3) organizations can deduct contributions from their taxable income, incentivizing large gifts to green groups. Meanwhile, coordinated funding networks like the New Venture Fund or the Tides Foundation act as fiscal sponsors, allowing projects to launch quickly, avoid disclosure requirements, and receive foundation funding without forming their own nonprofit.
Through these mechanisms, a single philanthropic gift can reverberate through dozens of campaigns. A foundation gives to an intermediary. That intermediary supports a state-level nonprofit. That nonprofit funds a coalition of community groups. Each level uses the same graphics, talking points, and goals. The result is a cascade of influence that looks organic but is anything but.
This is not inherently illegal. But it does present a serious challenge to democratic legitimacy. When the voices most amplified in the public square are often coordinated, professionally managed, and indirectly financed by a handful of billionaires, the idea of an open debate becomes more of a performance than a reality.
Chapter 5: Billionaires, Bureaucrats, and the Blurring of Lines
As the green advocacy infrastructure grew more sophisticated and pervasive, a new phase of influence emerged—one in which the line between private philanthropy, government policy, and public communication began to blur beyond recognition. What started as a movement driven by nonprofit activism and foundation money gradually evolved into a state-aligned apparatus, enabled by sympathetic bureaucrats, codified by legislation, and funded by taxpayer dollars.
At the center of this transformation stands the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022. Marketed as a climate and energy investment package, the IRA allocates nearly $370 billion in federal subsidies and incentives to renewable energy projects, environmental justice initiatives, and decarbonization efforts. While the public narrative centered on emissions reduction, the practical effect was the federalization of the green nonprofit ecosystem.
Groups that had once relied on private donors could now access massive government grants. Climate-focused nonprofits were tapped to distribute funding, administer technical assistance programs, and help draft implementation guidance. Organizations like the Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, and ClimateWorks were no longer outside advocates—they were partners in governance.
This convergence of public funding and private advocacy is unprecedented. Through federal agencies like the Department of Energy (DOE), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Department of Transportation (DOT), green-aligned NGOs now receive direct appropriations to implement programs for which they previously only lobbied. In some cases, they are even called upon to write the rules they later help enforce.
The revolving door between these nonprofits and government agencies further compounds the issue. Staffers move seamlessly between high-level roles at green organizations and senior policy positions in federal departments. Their former organizations then benefit from insider knowledge, early access to grant opportunities, and favorable regulatory interpretation.
Moreover, elite philanthropic foundations continue to play a guiding role behind the scenes. Initiatives such as the Just Transition Fund, the Clean Energy States Alliance, and Rewiring America function as hybrid entities—receiving both private grants and public dollars, while influencing everything from local zoning codes to federal utility regulation. They operate as the connective tissue between billionaire-backed ambition and bureaucratic execution.
The net result is a deeply entwined system in which public and private authority blend into a shared ideological agenda. This is not simply a partnership between government and civil society; it is a consolidation of worldview, resources, and messaging power. The nonprofit sector was once envisioned as a check on state overreach. In today’s energy policy landscape, it often functions as a mechanism for reinforcing it.
The problem is not that environmental organizations are engaged in policy. The problem is that they are doing so from all angles—advocacy, regulation, grant distribution, media, and research—without transparency, without competition, and without ideological balance. It is one thing to compete in the marketplace of ideas. It is another to own the printing press, the storefront, and the regulatory board.
In the chapters that follow, we will examine how this entanglement has reshaped the energy debate, and what reforms might restore balance, competition, and public trust to the policy process.
Chapter 6: ESG – The Financialization of Ideology
Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investing has become one of the most potent mechanisms for embedding ideological agendas into private enterprise. Once a niche framework for socially responsible investing, ESG has now evolved into a sweeping compliance regime that redefines corporate obligations, redirects capital, and reinforces the policy objectives of the green movement.
At its core, ESG scores evaluate companies based not on financial performance alone, but on how well they conform to certain environmental, social, and governance standards. These standards, while presented as objective benchmarks, are in fact often subjective, ideologically loaded, and aligned with the climate priorities of the green advocacy network.
The rise of ESG can be traced to a confluence of activist pressure, regulatory guidance, and institutional investor coordination. Organizations like the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI), the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), and the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) have worked closely with green-aligned nonprofits to embed climate goals into investment strategy.
Major asset managers—most notably BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard—have adopted ESG frameworks not merely as marketing tools, but as criteria for investment decisions, proxy voting, and shareholder activism. These firms collectively manage more than $20 trillion in assets. When they decide to disfavor coal companies or utilities that rely on fossil fuels, capital dries up, insurance rates spike, and boardrooms shift course.
This is not a free market at work. It is a form of centralized, ideological capital allocation—one that often bypasses democratic input. ESG regimes are not subject to public vote, nor are they transparently governed. Yet they increasingly determine which industries receive funding, which projects are permitted, and which voices are elevated or silenced in the marketplace.
The role of nonprofit groups in shaping ESG frameworks is profound. Many ESG metrics originate in guidelines created by advocacy organizations. The Sierra Club, NRDC, and World Resources Institute have all influenced ESG scoring methodologies. Meanwhile, climate NGOs often serve as ESG consultants, advisors, or watchdogs—pressuring firms to adopt stricter standards and punishing those that resist.
Even more concerning is the push to codify ESG mandates into public policy. Several states, including California and New York, have introduced regulations requiring ESG disclosures. Federal agencies under the Biden administration have encouraged climate-related financial disclosures as part of broader regulatory reforms. These developments blur the line between voluntary standards and mandatory compliance.
The net effect is the creation of a parallel governance regime—one that operates beyond traditional democratic oversight and channels private capital according to ideological goals. ESG has become a lever for social engineering, cloaked in the language of risk management.
In the next chapter, we will examine the cultural consequences of this shift: how ESG and green nonprofit messaging are reshaping corporate culture, educational content, and public morality—effectively redefining virtue in accordance with the values of the environmental movement.
Chapter 7: Cultural Capture – Green Virtue and the Moral Economy
Beyond policy and finance, the green advocacy ecosystem has set its sights on the cultural institutions that shape public belief, values, and behavior. Through coordinated messaging, educational programs, entertainment media, and corporate HR initiatives, the environmental movement has constructed a new moral framework—one in which ecological virtue is synonymous with social virtue, and dissent from climate orthodoxy is framed not merely as disagreement, but as immorality.
This cultural capture did not happen overnight. It is the product of years of narrative framing by nonprofit organizations, media partners, and philanthropic influencers. Films like An Inconvenient Truth, television segments on climate anxiety, and curriculum guides developed by green NGOs have all helped to implant the notion that climate policy is not just science—it is ethics.
Public schools across the U.S. now incorporate climate change content not merely into science classes, but into civics, literature, and art. The National Education Association partners with environmental groups to promote “climate justice” pedagogy. Green nonprofits like EarthGen, formerly Washington Green Schools, provide ready-made lesson plans that portray fossil fuels as relics of exploitation and renewables as moral imperatives.
In corporate America, ESG compliance and DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs have become vehicles for embedding green ideology into workplace culture. Employees are trained not just in safety protocols or sexual harassment prevention—but in the carbon footprint of their dietary choices and the social consequences of their commute. Major HR consulting firms partner with environmental nonprofits to develop “climate literacy” training for staff at all levels.
Entertainment plays a role too. From Hollywood to children’s television, environmental messaging is subtly (and sometimes not-so-subtly) woven into scripts. Characters who oppose wind or solar development are portrayed as greedy or ignorant. Young heroes are rewarded for recycling, biking, and shunning traditional lifestyles. Streaming services like Netflix and Disney+ now feature entire “green” content categories.
The moralization of environmentalism serves a strategic function. By elevating green behavior to the level of moral duty, dissent becomes taboo. A coal miner defending his livelihood is not just wrong—he is unethical. A community fighting a solar project is not just misinformed—they are obstructionist. The more the climate narrative is moralized, the less space remains for pluralism.
Meanwhile, alternative perspectives are actively excluded. Many school districts bar speakers from traditional energy backgrounds. University departments that receive green funding are loath to sponsor debates that might question the prevailing orthodoxy. Nonprofits like 350.org and Greenpeace actively campaign to de-platform climate skeptics from media outlets and social media.
This is not cultural progress—it is cultural engineering. And it has consequences. It weakens democratic deliberation. It silences communities that do not conform. And it transforms legitimate debate into moral conflict.
To combat this, traditional energy voices must do more than defend their policies. They must reclaim the cultural space. This means investing in education, storytelling, and local institutions. It means creating books, films, and lesson plans that speak to the dignity of work, the complexity of tradeoffs, and the reality of life outside urban enclaves.
In the next chapter, we will examine how the media landscape itself has been reshaped by this ideological consolidation—and what role green-funded journalism plays in narrowing the Overton window on energy policy.
Chapter 8: Media Manipulation – How Green Groups Script the News
The media is often thought of as a neutral arbiter—a watchdog for democracy. But in the case of environmental reporting, it has increasingly become a mouthpiece for green nonprofits and the foundations that fund them. This chapter explores the mechanisms through which environmental advocacy groups shape media narratives, select sympathetic journalists, and exclude dissenting voices.
Key to this manipulation is the rise of “philanthrojournalism”—nonprofit-funded newsrooms or news projects housed within legacy media outlets. The Guardian, for example, receives direct funding from the Rockefeller Foundation and others for its climate desk. NPR’s climate coverage is funded in part by the Grantham Foundation. The result is content that appears editorially independent but is underwritten by donors with specific policy agendas.
Beyond direct funding, green nonprofits provide ready-made content: press releases, op-eds, interviews with in-house “experts,” and multimedia assets. Journalists, under time pressure and with shrinking newsroom resources, are often happy to run these materials with minimal editing. This creates an echo chamber in which the same talking points are repeated across dozens of outlets, giving the illusion of consensus.
Moreover, nonprofit groups actively cultivate relationships with select reporters. They provide exclusive access, data sets, and scoops in exchange for favorable coverage. Reporters who toe the line are rewarded with promotions, awards, and book deals. Those who question green orthodoxy are marginalized or reassigned. Entire beats are shaped by these incentives.
The result is a media environment in which energy stories are rarely balanced. A proposed coal plant is described as a threat; a wind farm as salvation. Opposition to renewable projects is portrayed as NIMBYism or bigotry; support for fossil fuels as corruption or ignorance. Nuance disappears.
This dynamic extends to social media platforms as well. Algorithms prioritize green content, while posts challenging mainstream climate narratives are suppressed or demonetized. Nonprofit “fact-checkers”—often funded by the same donors as the advocacy groups—label dissenting views as misinformation, making it harder for them to spread.
In effect, green groups do not merely influence the media. They have become part of it.
To restore balance, traditional energy voices must invest in their own media infrastructure. This means supporting independent journalists, launching publications, and creating platforms that prioritize accuracy over ideology. The public deserves a full spectrum of views—not just the ones approved by grant-funded gatekeepers.
In the next chapter, we will explore how green advocacy groups have exploited international institutions, treaties, and pressure campaigns to advance domestic policy agendas under the guise of global cooperation.
Chapter 9: Global Pressure, Local Policy – International Levers for Domestic Change
While environmental nonprofits often present their agendas as driven by local concerns and grassroots mobilization, a great deal of their strategic influence comes through international channels. Green groups have increasingly used global institutions, treaties, and transnational coalitions to force domestic policy changes—effectively bypassing the will of national or state governments.
This strategy hinges on the use of international legitimacy as leverage. When the United Nations issues a climate report, when the IPCC publishes a dire warning, or when the Paris Agreement sets decarbonization targets, green advocacy groups treat these declarations as mandates for domestic law. The reports themselves are often produced with input from the same NGOs that later cite them as justification for national policy changes.
Nonprofit organizations like the World Resources Institute (WRI), Greenpeace International, and Climate Action Network Europe operate across borders but maintain strong influence over U.S. policy discussions. These groups help draft sections of IPCC reports, host climate summits, and coordinate lobbying efforts during international treaty negotiations.
Back home, affiliated U.S.-based nonprofits use these international declarations to pressure lawmakers, regulators, and businesses. “The world has spoken,” they say, “and America must act.” A commitment made by one administration is treated as binding on the next, even if no treaty was ratified by the Senate. The Paris Agreement, for instance, was never a ratified treaty under U.S. law—but NGOs act as if it were legally binding.
State governments are also targeted. Nonprofits work with international consortia like the Under2 Coalition or the C40 Cities group to pressure local governments to adopt global emissions targets, green building codes, and fossil fuel bans. These commitments, often made by mayors or governors without legislative approval, become binding policy goals for entire jurisdictions.
This international-to-local strategy creates a bypass around democratic accountability. Voters may reject carbon taxes at the ballot box, but green NGOs will reintroduce them under the guise of complying with international norms. Elected officials may oppose energy mandates, but bureaucrats will implement them in order to meet “climate goals” set in Stockholm or Bonn.
The result is a subtle erosion of national sovereignty and state autonomy. Local communities lose control over energy policy. Farmers, miners, and manufacturers find themselves subject to rules made by bureaucrats in Brussels or Geneva. And the debate over America’s energy future becomes a performance staged on a global stage.
To restore democratic control, it is essential to expose and challenge these international pipelines of influence. The United States should reaffirm that treaties not ratified by the Senate have no binding legal authority. State legislatures should assert their authority over energy and land-use policy. And citizens must demand transparency about which organizations are working with which foreign entities to shape local laws.
In the next chapter, we will examine how these tactics are increasingly targeting rural America, and how the same green groups that champion “justice” often impose the greatest burdens on the very communities they claim to defend.
Chapter 10: The Rural Burden – When Green Justice Isn’t Just
Environmental justice has become a buzzword in policy circles, often used to justify aggressive interventions in land use, energy systems, and industrial activity. But beneath the lofty rhetoric lies a darker reality: many of the communities most burdened by green policies are the rural, working-class populations least able to bear the costs. This chapter explores how environmental advocacy efforts—especially those led by nonprofits and backed by elite funders—disproportionately target rural America, imposing costs without consent.
Rural communities are frequently selected for large-scale renewable energy projects not because they want them, but because they lack the legal and political resources to resist. Utility-scale solar farms, wind turbines, and transmission lines are sited on farmland and in forested regions where land is cheap and zoning laws are minimal. Local opposition is dismissed as parochial or uninformed.
Nonprofit groups often claim these projects bring “jobs and justice” to underserved areas. In reality, the jobs are usually short-term construction positions filled by out-of-state workers. Long-term operations employ only a handful of locals. The justice, meanwhile, is one-sided: community members see their property values drop, their roads degraded, and their viewsheds destroyed, all in service of urban energy demand.
Worse, when local residents object, they are labeled as anti-science or “tools of Big Oil.” National green groups parachute into county commission meetings to intimidate officials and smear grassroots opposition. Lawsuits are filed to override local ordinances. In some cases, state governments preempt municipal decisions to ensure projects move forward.
This dynamic is particularly cruel in coal country, where the same groups that fought to shutter mines now advocate wind farms and battery factories as “replacements.” The message is clear: we destroyed your economy, and now we will dictate your future. These communities are offered retraining programs and token grants—but never a seat at the table.
Environmental justice, in theory, means prioritizing the needs of vulnerable communities. In practice, it often means using them as sacrifice zones. Rural Americans—especially in Appalachia, the Plains, and the Mountain West—bear the physical burden of infrastructure built for the benefit of urban elites.
This pattern reveals a profound moral inversion. The people most affected by green policy are those least represented in its formation. They are treated not as citizens, but as obstacles. And when they resist, they are maligned as ignorant, racist, or regressive.
To reclaim fairness, rural voices must be centered—not silenced. This means demanding environmental reviews that include economic and cultural impacts. It means restoring local control over siting and zoning. And it means elevating leaders from within these communities to speak on their own behalf, not as symbols, but as sovereign stakeholders.
In the next chapter, we examine how the green movement’s global ambitions increasingly collide with geopolitical and national security concerns—and how America’s strategic energy future is being undermined by its own internal advocacy networks.
Chapter 11: Strategic Surrender – National Security and the Green Delusion
In a world defined by competition between great powers, energy is not merely a resource—it is a strategic asset. The ability to generate, store, and distribute energy shapes economic power, military readiness, and geopolitical leverage. Yet much of America’s environmental policy, driven by green nonprofits and ideologically aligned agencies, ignores or actively undermines this reality.
The green movement’s focus on decarbonization has led to an overreliance on energy technologies that depend on foreign supply chains, especially from adversarial or unstable nations. Wind turbines, solar panels, and electric vehicle batteries require rare earth elements, lithium, cobalt, and other critical minerals—most of which are mined and processed in China or in Chinese-controlled regions of Africa.
While green groups celebrate the transition to clean energy, they rarely discuss the strategic risks. Closing coal plants and throttling natural gas development leaves the United States more dependent on intermittent energy sources and on foreign-controlled inputs. This is not energy independence—it is energy dependence by another name.
Environmental nonprofits have also opposed domestic mining of critical minerals, even as they demand massive increases in renewable infrastructure. Groups like Earthjustice and the Center for Biological Diversity routinely file lawsuits to block mining projects in the U.S., citing environmental concerns. This paradox—demanding green technology while rejecting the domestic extraction needed to produce it—ensures continued reliance on foreign sources.
The U.S. Department of Defense has warned about these vulnerabilities. Reports from the Pentagon and the Department of Energy have highlighted the strategic importance of a secure, domestic energy base—particularly coal and gas—which provide reliable baseload power and are sourced from American soil. Yet green advocacy groups lobby against policies that would protect or expand these resources.
Even nuclear power, a reliable and carbon-free energy source, faces opposition from many environmental nonprofits. Groups that claim to prioritize climate mitigation often reject the one scalable technology capable of reducing emissions without sacrificing grid stability. Their reasoning is ideological, not strategic.
The consequences of this approach are profound. In Europe, overdependence on Russian natural gas led to energy crises and geopolitical paralysis. In California, aggressive renewable mandates have strained the grid and required emergency imports of coal-fired power. In the developing world, green restrictions on fossil fuel financing have hampered energy access and economic growth.
America cannot afford to walk the same path. Energy policy must be rooted in realism, not romanticism. This means investing in domestic production of coal, gas, and nuclear energy. It means securing critical mineral supply chains through domestic mining and allied partnerships. And it means recognizing that national security is incompatible with ideological purity.
In the final chapter, we turn to solutions—how traditional energy voices can counter the green astroturf empire, reclaim credibility, and rebuild an energy policy grounded in truth, resilience, and American strength.
Chapter 12: Reclaiming the Narrative – A Blueprint for Energy Realism
The challenges exposed in the previous chapters are vast—but they are not insurmountable. The green astroturf empire may dominate the airwaves, the bureaucracies, and the funding networks, but it does not own reality. America’s energy future remains unwritten. To reclaim it, traditional energy advocates must adopt a multi-front strategy rooted in principle, persuasion, and persistence.
· Build Counter-Infrastructure
· The first step is to match structure with structure. Traditional energy interests must invest in their own nonprofit ecosystems: 501(c)(3) education groups, 501(c)(4) advocacy arms, and 501(c)(6) trade networks that can operate in coordination. This does not mean copying the tactics of deception or astroturfing—it means leveling the playing field. Funding must be diversified, strategic, and sustained.
· Philanthropy must no longer be ceded to the ideological left. Donors and foundations that believe in industry, sovereignty, and realism must be invited to support efforts that are ethical, fact-driven, and grounded in the lived experiences of energy-producing communities.
· Reinvigorate Grassroots Legitimacy
· While the green lobby simulates grassroots support, traditional energy actually possesses it. Coal communities, oil towns, utility workers, and ratepayers are real constituencies with skin in the game. Mobilizing them effectively requires clear messaging, accessible platforms, and consistent outreach.
· Efforts like the Friends of Coal demonstrate how pride, heritage, and identity can be harnessed to build lasting support. Churches, civic clubs, school programs, and local media must be engaged—not bypassed. A credible grassroots revival can only come from the bottom up, with trust and authenticity at the core.
· Invest in Cultural Storytelling
· Culture drives perception. That’s why green groups pour resources into films, children’s books, music, and museum exhibits. Traditional energy interests must stop being reactive and start shaping the narrative through art, literature, and popular media.
· Create documentaries on America’s energy history. Publish profiles of miners, drillers, and linemen. Tell the story of how abundant, affordable energy lifted millions from poverty. Partner with local artists and historians. Build cultural institutions that honor labor, industry, and resilience. When truth is told beautifully, it becomes unforgettable.
· Reclaim the Language of Morality and Justice
· The environmental movement has successfully framed itself as morally superior. But justice is not their exclusive domain. Providing heat to the elderly, jobs to young men in forgotten counties, and tax revenue to poor school districts—these are moral acts.
· Speak without apology. Energy is not something to be ashamed of; it is something to be stewarded. Defend workers not as economic statistics but as moral agents. Highlight the injustice of energy poverty, the hypocrisy of elite environmentalism, and the dignity of American labor.
· Reform the Policy Process
· The imbalance in influence stems partly from loopholes in policy and law. Congress and state legislatures must act to restore transparency and fairness.
· Enforce stricter separation between 501(c)(3), (c)(4), and (c)(6) activities.
· Require disclosure of coordinated nonprofit networks receiving public grants.
· Ban foreign-funded nonprofits from influencing U.S. land use or energy policy.
· Pass state laws that re-empower local governments over project siting decisions.
· Restore Congressional authority over treaty obligations.
· ESG frameworks should be stripped of coercive power in public finance, and federal agencies must be barred from using ideologically aligned nonprofits to implement or shape regulation.
· Rebuild Energy Education
· The public knows astonishingly little about how energy works. BTUs, baseload, dispatchable generation, thermal efficiency, and capacity factor—these are foreign terms to most voters, students, and policymakers.
· Reform begins with K-12 curricula that teach real energy science. State boards of education must take control of standards and vet materials for bias. Partnerships with universities and technical colleges can help elevate energy literacy. Trade programs should be expanded, and teachers should be equipped with honest, balanced instructional tools.
· Support Independent Journalism
· A distorted media environment has made it nearly impossible for dissenting voices to reach the public. Traditional energy supporters must prioritize the creation and funding of trustworthy, independent journalism.
· Support freelance reporters in coal country. Launch digital platforms that publish energy news without ideological filters. Build podcast networks and radio programs that give a voice to working families in energy-producing regions. Journalism is not dead—it is just hungry for oxygen and funding.
· Promote Strategic Alliances
Coal, gas, nuclear, steel, manufacturing, railroads, truckers—all share an interest in energy realism. Instead of fragmented advocacy, form strategic alliances to present a unified message.
Host joint conferences. Share legal and research resources. Coordinate communications teams.
Support common goals such as grid resilience, domestic production, and permitting reform. A united front is harder to ignore—and harder to divide.
The green movement built its empire not overnight, but through decades of planning, coordination, and narrative control. They were patient, strategic, and relentless. Traditional energy must now do the same—not by imitating their tactics, but by grounding our efforts in truth, community, and American values.
We must speak with conviction. We must engage with courage. And we must remember that while the institutions of influence may be captured, the heartland is not.
The story of American energy is not over. It is waiting to be retold—by the people who lived it, built it, and still believe in it.
Energy is life. Let us defend it.
Conclusion: Restoring Energy Sovereignty in an Age of Manufactured Consent
The facts laid bare in this report are not matters of opinion. They are matters of record—nonprofit tax filings, grant disclosures, funding pipelines, media relationships, legal frameworks, and policy outcomes—all pointing to a singular truth: the so-called “green revolution” is not a spontaneous uprising of citizen concern, but a meticulously constructed system of influence, funded by billionaires, enabled by bureaucrats, and wrapped in the flag of moral righteousness.
The green advocacy machine has achieved extraordinary cultural and political reach, not because it won the argument on the merits, but because it controlled the megaphone. It created a hall of mirrors where policy, media, education, and finance all reflect the same script, backed by the same donors and justified by the same selectively interpreted science.
Meanwhile, the voices of working Americans—miners, power plant operators, welders, truckers, and rural families—have been dismissed as relics of a “dirty” past. Their expertise ignored, their jobs sacrificed, and their communities turned into proving grounds for green experimentation they neither requested nor approved.
This is not progress. It is disenfranchisement disguised as environmentalism.
And yet, there is cause for hope.
Across the country, the spell is breaking. Blackouts have a way of focusing the mind. So do soaring electric bills, shuttered factories, and the uneasy realization that we’ve handed our grid, our economy, and our national security over to systems designed more for ideological purity than operational reliability.
The path forward is not to reject environmental stewardship—it is to reclaim it from those who have weaponized it. True stewardship honors human dignity, economic reality, and national resilience. It doesn’t pit man against nature—it harmonizes them. It doesn’t silence dissent—it invites it, tests it, and strengthens understanding through debate.
This report is a call to action. Not just for policymakers, but for parents, teachers, engineers, investors, and citizens. It is a call to rebuild what was surrendered—not with anger, but with clarity. Not with cynicism, but with conviction.
If America is to remain free, it must control its own energy. If it is to remain strong, it must respect the industries that built it. And if it is to remain honest, it must expose the difference between real grassroots movements and green masquerades paid for by the world’s richest men.
The time has come to end the era of manufactured consent.
Let us begin the age of energy truth.
— Terry L. Headley, MBA
The Headley Company – Energy Communications & Research
July 2025
Green Astroturf Empire: Influence & Funding Family Tree
I. Foundational Funders (Top-Level Donors)
These are major philanthropic entities providing seed and sustaining capital to climate advocacy:
Bloomberg Philanthropies
Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF)
Hewlett Foundation
Packard Foundation
Sea Change Foundation
MacArthur Foundation
Wallace Global Fund
Energy Foundation (both a funder and conduit)
Open Society Foundations (George Soros) (selective environmental projects)
→ These funders often coordinate through initiatives like the ClimateWorks Foundation or via aligned policy strategies (e.g., Beyond Coal, Beyond Carbon).
II. Intermediary Conduits (“Mega-Grantees”)
These organizations receive lump sums from multiple funders and redistribute funds to aligned subgroups. Many are 501(c)(3) nonprofits that operate more like financial clearinghouses than boots-on-the-ground advocacy groups.
Energy Foundation
Funded by Bloomberg, Hewlett, Packard, Sea Change
Disburses to Sierra Club, NRDC, EDF, League of Conservation Voters, etc.
ClimateWorks Foundation
Coordinates climate philanthropy across 100+ entities
Key conduit for global green money
Tides Foundation / Tides Center
Offers fiscal sponsorship to “pop-up” activist groups
Manages back-office and legal infrastructure for grassroots-style campaigns
New Venture Fund (part of Arabella Advisors network)
Incubates dozens of “pop-up” advocacy groups
Uses fiscal sponsorship to hide donor identity
III. Operational/Activist Arms
These groups receive funding directly or via intermediaries. They engage in lobbying, public outreach, litigation, and grassroots mobilization.
A. Legacy Environmental NGOs:
Sierra Club (501(c)(4) for lobbying, 501(c)(3) for education)
Major beneficiary of Bloomberg’s $500M “Beyond Coal” campaign
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
Union of Concerned Scientists
Earthjustice (litigation arm)
Friends of the Earth
B. Political & Electoral Groups:
League of Conservation Voters (LCV)
Has a PAC and Education Fund
Spends heavily on elections and candidate endorsements
NextGen America (Tom Steyer)
Climate Hawks Vote
Green For All (formerly part of Dream Corps)
C. Pop-Up & Grassroots Facsimiles:
Funded via Tides or New Venture Fund—often highly localized or short-lived.
Appalachians Against Pipelines
350.org
Sunrise Movement
Fossil Free Media
Evergreen Action
Climate Truth Project
Oil Change International
IV. Governmental & Corporate Influence Arms
A. ESG & Financial Pressure
Ceres
Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI)
Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD)
These groups receive backing from the same philanthropic network and steer corporate boards and capital markets toward climate alignment.
B. Regulatory Engagement & Policy Infrastructure
Environmental Integrity Project
Clean Air Task Force
Resources for the Future
RMI (formerly Rocky Mountain Institute)
Often contribute white papers or staff to federal regulatory agencies during Democratic administrations.
Example of Flow:
Hewlett Foundation grants $15M to Energy Foundation
Energy Foundation distributes $2M to Sierra Club, $500k to Earthjustice, and $750k to NRDC
Sierra Club uses funds for Beyond Coal media and legal campaigns
Tides Foundation receives separate grants from Hewlett and funds Appalachians Against Pipelines under fiscal sponsorship (avoiding direct registration as a nonprofit)
This network creates the illusion of hundreds of “independent voices” advocating for green policies. In reality, most are branches of the same financial tree.
Top 25 Green Funders
Rank
Funder
Estimated Climate Funding
Website
1
Bloomberg Philanthropies
$580M+
https://www.bloomberg.org/environment
2
William & Flora Hewlett Foundation
$293M (2021)
https://www.hewlett.org/strategy/climate
3
ClimateWorks Foundation
$1.7B+ since 2008
https://www.climateworks.org
4
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
$56M (2023)
https://www.rbf.org
5
Sea Change Foundation
$437M+ total
https://www.seachange.org
6
Energy Foundation
$156M (2023)
https://www.ef.org/grants
7
David and Lucile Packard Foundation
$930M+
https://www.packard.org
8
MacArthur Foundation
$352.9M (2024)
https://www.macfound.org
9
Wyss Foundation
$1.7B endowment
https://www.wyssfoundation.org
10
Bezos Earth Fund
$2B+ since 2020
https://www.bezosearthfund.org
11
Open Society Foundations
Significant (undisclosed)
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org
12
MacArthur’s Climate & Clean Energy Equity Fund
$6M (2024)
https://theequityfund.org
13
Rockefeller Foundation
$35M (2023)
https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org
14
Heising-Simons Foundation
Est. $1B
https://www.hsfoundation.org
15
Blue Horizon Foundation
Undisclosed
https://www.bluehorizoncapital.com
16
Tides Foundation / Tides Center
Millions annually
https://www.tides.org
17
New Venture Fund
Millions annually
https://www.newventurefund.org
18
OceanX / Bloomberg Partnership
Multimillion (ocean)
https://www.oceanx.org
19
Walton Family Foundation
Tens of millions annually
https://www.waltonfamilyfoundation.org
20
Climate Solutions Fund (Packard)
$5M (2024)
https://www.packard.org
21
Windward Fund
$2.35M (2025)
https://www.packard.org
22
Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI)
Global Institutional ESG backing
https://www.unpri.org
23
Ceres
ESG Proxy Voting
https://www.ceres.org
24
Task Force on Climate-Related Disclosures (TCFD)
Standard Setting
https://www.fsb-tcfd.org
25
Duke Energy Foundation
$390K recent
https://foundation.duke-energy.com
Top 25 Funders of Climate-Skeptic Groups
Rank
Funder / Foundation
Known Climate-Skeptic/Alternative Policy Grantees
Notes
1
DonorsTrust / Donors Capital Fund
Heartland Institute, Cato Institute, ALEC, Americans for Prosperity (AFP)
~$120M distributed 2002–2010 to climate-skeptic and free-market advocacy groups
2
Koch Network Foundations
Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, Institute for Energy Research
Hundreds of millions since 1990s for libertarian and regulatory reform efforts
3
Sarah Scaife Foundation
Heritage Foundation, AEI, Marshall Institute
Multi-million support for conservative policy networks
4
Searle Freedom Trust
Cato Institute, American Enterprise Institute (AEI), ALEC
Ongoing small–large grants for free-market, energy policy research
5
Mercer Family Foundations
Climate Realism, Heartland Institute
Funding media and educational projects challenging mainstream climate consensus
6
Shell USA Foundation
Heartland Institute, Heritage Foundation, Consumers Energy Alliance
Corporate philanthropy that coincided with energy-policy-related grants 2013–2022
7
Atlantic Legal Foundation
Legal cases opposing climate-related regulations
~$3.9M total from trusts including Koch, Scaife, Exxon
8
Citizens for a Sound Economy → FreedomWorks / AFP
Tax and regulation-focused organizations
$6.5M from 1997–2002 underpinned early conservative policy work
9
American Energy Alliance / Institute for Energy Research
Numerous state and national advocacy groups
~$700K from Koch foundations between 1997–2017
10
FreedomWorks
Mobilization on regulatory and energy issues
Consistent support from Koch network initiatives
11
Heartland Institute
Climate conferences, publications, media outreach
Raised ~$14M for general operating support 2002–2012
12
ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council)
Model legislation on energy deregulation
Funded by Koch, Scaife, Searle, Exxon
13
RAGA (Republican Attorneys General Association)
Litigation against EPA regulations, climate-related cases
Roughly $5.8M from oil & gas donors since 2020
14
CEA (Consumer Energy Alliance)
Utility and fossil-fuel-aligned lobbying campaigns
Funded by energy-sector stakeholders
15
Heritage Foundation
Climate change position papers and regulatory reform research
Supported by Koch family and corporate grants
16
ClearPath Foundation
Advocacy for tech-based climate solutions
Donor funded alternative clean-energy approaches
17
American Crossroads
Political advocacy via 501(c)(4) structure
Includes contributions from oil and conservative donors
18
Alliance Defending Freedom
Legal advocacy on property rights and regulations
Shell-funded venues in early 2000s
19
Texas Public Policy Foundation (Gulf States Policy Institute)
Energy regulation research
Shell and corporate-aligned backing
20
American Family Association
Conservative campaigns including energy-related messaging
Shell-supported content
21
PragerU Foundation
Online educational content on economics and energy
Corporate grants including from Shell
22
Discovery Institute
Policy initiatives questioning climate science consensus
Minor funding from Shell and similar donors
23
Judicial Watch
Litigation concerning EPA and climate regulation transparency
Partial support from energy-aligned sources
24
Project Veritas
Investigative campaigns on environmental group activities
Donor-advised support networks
25
Family Research Council
Occasional commentary on energy and social policy
Grants from donor-advised and faith-aligned foundations
Notes on Methodology
Funding records are drawn from IRS Form 990 disclosures, foundation tax filings, and investigative sources such as the Center for Media and Democracy, InsideClimate News, and SourceWatch.
Climate-skeptic groups are defined as organizations that dispute mainstream climate science, oppose regulatory action on greenhouse gases, or advocate for alternative energy strategies rooted in fossil fuels or market-driven approaches.
Ranking criteria include total funding amounts, frequency of support, and involvement in energy policy advocacy.
Timeframe generally covers the past two decades, with emphasis on funding influencing climate-related discourse and policy outcomes.
Top 25 Foundations and Organizations Supporting Alternative Climate and Energy Perspectives
Rank
Organization / Funder
Estimated Support / Focus
Notes
1️⃣
DonorsTrust / Donors Capital Fund
Over $120 million (2002–2010) distributed to policy institutes and advocacy groups that question mainstream climate policy narratives
Known as a donor-advised fund supporting free-market and limited-government organizations
2️⃣
Koch Family Foundations
Hundreds of millions since the 1990s supporting energy policy, economic liberty, and regulatory reform
Primary funders of Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, and American Energy Alliance
3️⃣
Sarah Scaife Foundation
Significant multi-year grants to national security and policy organizations with energy-related portfolios
Long-term support for Heritage Foundation and Center for Strategic and International Studies
4️⃣
Searle Freedom Trust
Regular grants to think tanks and legal institutes with emphasis on deregulation and energy markets
Supports Cato Institute, American Enterprise Institute, and ALEC
5️⃣
Heartland Institute
Approx. $14 million in general support (2002–2012) from multiple donors
Known for research publications and conferences on energy and environmental policy
6️⃣
Mercer Family Foundation
Focused philanthropic support of public policy, education, and media initiatives
Backer of climate-focused editorial and think tank projects
7️⃣
Institute for Energy Research / American Energy Alliance
Core support from donors emphasizing energy independence and fossil fuel development
Prominent in regulatory and energy economics analysis
8️⃣
FreedomWorks
Political education and grassroots mobilization on limited government, taxation, and energy regulation
Historically supported by free-market philanthropy networks
9️⃣
Citizens for a Sound Economy (now AFP/FreedomWorks)
Early support for free enterprise education and deregulation
Evolved into broader political activism
🔟
American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)
Membership and sponsor-funded legislative model development
Energy and environment policy models among top issue areas
11
Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA)
Multi-sector coalition promoting affordable, reliable energy
Includes funding from utility and industrial stakeholders
12
Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA)
Legal advocacy group partially funded by energy sector interests
Engages in climate and regulatory litigation
13
Shell USA Foundation
Charitable giving portfolio includes grants to civic and policy groups across the political spectrum
Some grantees have been involved in energy policy discourse
14
American Crossroads
501(c)(4) political advocacy group
Includes donors aligned with market-oriented climate solutions
15
Atlantic Legal Foundation
Legal support for property rights and sound science in environmental law
Funded by multiple corporate and philanthropic sources
16
ClearPath Foundation (Jay Faison)
Center-right foundation advocating innovation-based climate solutions
Focuses on nuclear, carbon capture, and advanced energy R&D
17
Heritage Foundation
Long-established conservative think tank with energy, regulation, and environmental policy departments
Produces position papers on regulatory reform and international agreements
18
Alliance Defending Freedom
Legal advocacy organization with interest in energy rights and regulatory boundaries
Receives donations from various industries and individuals
19
American Family Association
Advocacy group with positions on energy use and regulation consistent with traditional economic models
Receives foundation and individual donor support
20
Family Research Council
Public policy organization with occasional engagement in energy-related federal issues
Includes grants and general support from donor-advised funds
21
Project Veritas
Media organization occasionally involved in undercover reporting on energy policy groups
Receives donor-advised support
22
PragerU Foundation
Educational nonprofit producing video content on economics, policy, and energy
Receives corporate and private funding
23
Texas Public Policy Foundation
State-based think tank with a strong focus on electricity markets and emissions policy
Receives support from a mix of foundations and industry stakeholders
24
Discovery Institute
Policy organization focused on science, education, and technology
Occasionally addresses climate science framing
25
Judicial Watch
Legal watchdog organization focused on transparency and government regulation
Has engaged in litigation over environmental regulatory processes
Sources:
Internal Revenue Service, Publication 557: Tax‑Exempt Status for Your Organization
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p557.pdfBloomberg Philanthropies Environment & Beyond Coal/Beyond Carbon Campaigns
https://www.bloomberg.org/environment/Rockefeller Brothers Fund Annual Reports (2015–2023)
https://www.rbf.org/publicationsHewlett Foundation Climate Initiative Strategy
https://hewlett.org/strategy/climate/ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer (Form 990 data for Sierra Club, NRDC, etc.)
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/U.S. Department of Energy Critical Materials Strategy
https://www.energy.gov/policy/initiatives/critical-materialsU.S. Department of Defense Strategic Minerals Report
https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases / (search for “strategic minerals” 2021)Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI)
https://www.unpri.org
Task Force on Climate‑Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD)
https://www.fsb-tcfd.org
League of Conservation Voters
https://www.lcv.org
Center for American Progress – Energy & Environment
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/Energy Foundation Grants Database
https://www.ef.org/grants/UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (Paris Agreement text)
https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreementUnder2 Coalition – Member List
https://www.under2coalition.org/membersNational Education Association Climate Justice Toolkit
https://www.nea.org/resource-library/nea-climate-justice-teaching-toolkitEarthjustice Litigation & Campaigns
https://earthjustice.org/
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
https://www.ferc.gov/
California Legislature – SB 260 (Climate Corporate Data Accountability)
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB260New York State Legislature – Climate Corporate Accountability Act
https://nyassembly.gov/leg/?default_fld=&leg_video=&bn=S01760&term=2023Friends of Coal Archives – West Virginia Coal Association
https://wvcoal.com/
Each of these URLs leads to primary sources—official documents, foundation pages, legislation text, or government releases.