Mark, there is vast need in the human psyche for guilt.
=====

"Can condoms counter climate change?" Why did Josh immediately come to my mind? Followed by Gwendolyn - the mind boggles at the comedic possibilities.

"Climate Change: Time to “Think Family Planning” " I can honestly say that it never ever occurred to me.

If it wasn't from you Mark I would think you are having a good laugh; what a terrible shame that it's probably all so very sad.

It's true, I'm afraid. I struggled to believe it myself, but there you are. The possibilities are, indeed, endless!

Malthusians should demonstrate their commitment to their beliefs by performing self castration. Future generations will benefit from their sacrifice, knowing their swampy gene pool has been drained for the last time.

It's going to be cold in Afghanistan?

Obama: "I guess the heat from those bombs don't last long anyways?"

"You Spent $20,000,000 On Firewood in Afghanistan?" Jason Chaffetz Infuriated With The DoD.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_xsPZW5n3s

Gwendolyn. Your entreaty - "Malthusians should demonstrate their commitment to their beliefs by performing self castration" would appear to be highly sexist! I'm sure the absence of the word "self-oophorectomy" was pure oversight.

Ms Supertroll, somethings are just unmentionale in polite intercourse.

Apropos nothing in particular, Surfrider Foundation Europe sent 2 delegates to COP22. "Surfrider Foundation is a worldwide not-for-profit organization dedicated to the protection and enhancement of lakes, rivers, the ocean, waves and the coastline. Founded in 1990 by a handful of local surfers it gathers today over 9,000 members in Europe and is represented in 14 countries through its chapters of volunteers." So far so good - who could object to that? I don't.

But then they're regular recipients of grants from the David & Lucile Packard Foundation:
"Surfrider Foundation
Date: 2013
Purpose: For continued support to build grassroots support for coastal conservation in Oregon and Washington
Amount: $540,000
Term: 24 months
Program Area: Conservation and Science > Marine Fisheries
Grantee Location: San Clemente, California , United States
Grantee Web Site:
www.surfrider.org

Other Grants to Surfrider Foundation:
2011-36356
2016-63794
2015-62680
2014-39900
2013-38188
2015-63287
2015-62870
2012-37806
2016-65151"

So it's no surprise that there's a whole section of their website dedicated to the usual climate change stuff: "European Union State members alone are accountable for 10% of the world’s greenhouse gases emissions. With this observation in mind Surfrider has inducted awareness-raising and educational programmes since its creation in 1990, to encourage citizens to reduce their carbon footprint individually and to highlight the issues related to ocean acidification, through the content of such programmes." Plus much more in similar vein:

http://www.surfrider.eu/en/our-missions/protect-the-oceans/climate/

Surfrider Foundation Maroc sent 6 delegates to COP22, but I suppose that's not surprising, given where it was held. Needless to say there's lots on their website about it.

Mark Hodgson

Awareness training or raising, normally translates into propaganda and indoctrination, but wealthy benefactors do not wish to be connected with such extremist terminology.

I think the Packards are linked to Hewlett Packard. They have bought many indulgences.

In fairness to the David & Lucile Packard Foundation, their website lets you search to see who/what they fund with grants. In 2016 they made awards under the heading "conservation & science", inter alia to:

Resources for the Future - $40,000. They sent 3 people to COP22.

International Society for Reef Studies - $50,000.

Trust for Conservation Innovation - $130,000.

Land Empowerment Animals People - $50,000.

Regents of the University of California - Santa Barbara - $500,000. University of California sent someone to COP 22 as part of the 7-man Holy See delegation; someone as one of the 8-person delegation sent by the Association of American Geographers; and a 15-person delegation in their own right.

New Venture Fund - $50,000. They sent a delegation of 4 people to COP 22.

Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation - $10,000. They sent a delegate as part of the 3-man delegation sent by the David & Lucile Packard Foundation!

The Nature Conservancy - $975,000. They sent someone to COP22 as part of the 17-person delegation of the International Centre for Research in Agroforestry; one person as part of the 9-person delegation of Climate Action Reserve; one person as a member of the 5-person delegation sent by The Climate Registry; and a 9-person delegation of their own.

Resources Legacy Fund - $650,000.

Wildlife Conservation Society - $50,000.

Ocean Conservancy - $225,000.

PT Hatfield Indonesia - £50,000.

Wildcoast - $400,000.

Trustees of Princeton University - $875,000.

California Institute of Technology - $875,000.

Prescott College - $20,000. (A search reveals that they sent nobody to COP22, but John Prescott was there...).

Yale University - $875,000. They sent 4 members as part of the 6-person delegation sent to COP 22 by the Asian-African Legal Consultative Organization; confusingly they sent someone as part of the 9-person University of Minnesota delegation; and they sent their own 5-person delegation.

Regents of the University of California - San Diego - $175,000 (see above re COP22 attendance).

Zoological Society of London - $45,000. They sent a delegation of 4 to COP 22.

Center for International Forestry Research - $60,000. They sent a delegation of 11 to COP22.

Fishchoice - $171,470.

MRAG Americas - $50,000.

Bipartisan Policy Center - $125,000.

The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford, Jr. University - $15,428.

ClimateWorks Foundation - £420,000. They sent a delegation of 5 people to COP 22.

The Nature Conservancy - $625,000 (in addition to their earlier $975,000 - nice work!).

Oxfam-America Inc - $250,000. They sent 2 people as part of the Oxfam International delegation of 16 to COP 22.

Wilderness Markets LLC - £115,000.

Shakti Sustainable Energy Foundation - $2M.

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society - $80,000.

Greenpeace Japan - $456,000. Greenpeace International, unsurprisingly, sent a 47-strong delegation to COP22.

Surfrider Foundation (see above). Under the heading "Organisational Effectiveness) - $145,000.

Regents of the University of California - Davis - $875,000. (See above for University of California Attendance at COP22).

What a tangled web, and how generously funded by the Packards. And that's just from the first 15 pages of the 465 pages of their website devoted to grants! More tomorrow, all being well.
Tides Foundation - $400,000.

Mark Hodgson, and then there are the Hewletts ......

If only Big Oil was as generous as Big Indulgency/Inheritance Guilt.

Big Guilt is actually contributing to the maintenance of poverty and high death rates, but they think they are saving the planet.

The Packard Foundation seems to have a few favourites. Further 2016 grants went to:

Resources Legacy Fund - $650,000.

Wildlife Conservation Society - $50,000.

Ocean Conservancy - $225,000.

PT Hatfield Indonesia - $50,000.

Pacific Rim Conservation - $50,000.

University of Washington - £875,000.

Consultative Group on Biological Diversity - $130,000. They sent a sole delegate to COP22.

Voces por la Naturaleza, A.C. - $200,000.

Springboard Partners LLC - $160,000.

University of Victoria - $49,500. If that's Victoria University, Wellington, then they sent 3 delegates.

Stockholm University - $50,000. They sent a delegation of 4 to COP22.

Green Diversity Initiative - $30,000.

That gets us to the end of page 20 of their website. Not sure I can be bothered to look at the next 445. I think I've got the picture!

Mark Hodgson

"Pacific Rim Conservation - $50,000."

I wonder how much of the Pacific Rim they actually conserved? At least it wasn't Taxpayer's Money.

Of course you are, sg. It's all backwards, it's as if with this manifestation of guilt the culture has taken a shine to the view in a mirror.

And of course, once the plants have the vote, they'll vote themselves even more AnthroCO2, and perhaps pause to offer their thanks to us, we poor dependent animals.
===============

I'm bored with the Packards now. I've seen enough to realise how much damage their philanthropy is doing.

Meanwhile, Kejibaus Youth Development Initiative sent 8 delegates to COP22. Their website starts well:

"At Kejibaus Youth Development Initiative, we work with our partners to:
Help eradicate Africa of preventable diseases and world hunger
Promote gender equality
Look after the ageing population by nurturing the young
Build sustainable practices to help the environment"

But then it goes downhill:

"Since 2012, we have gained the support of people all across the world and in particular, the United Nations.
Kejibaus Youth Development Initiative was granted Special Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) of the United Nations in 2012. After being nominated as an observer organization to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), our vision continues to be fulfilled.
Although we believe the root of these problems can only be solved if our youth are taught to think differently, this is only the first piece of the puzzle. Today and everyday, the team at Kejibaus Youth Development Initiative invites passionate people to help us fight as a united front."

No, don't teach youth to think differently, just teach them to think - including critically assessing the wisdom of sending 26,000 people across the globe to a conference to tell us (inter alia) we urgently need to stop flying across the globe.

No mention on their website of where their funding comes from.

I'm signing off on this thread, as I've depressed myself greatly, and there's just too much to go at. If anyone else wants to have a go at it, be my guest!

Mark Hodgson, don't despair! Some of these people have another year or so of funding to spend talking, flying, writing, conferencing, flying again, whining and dining before they have to get real jobs.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/01/17/days-before-trump-takes-office-obama-gives-500-million-to-un-green-climate-fund/

$500m buys a lot of Airmiles and Fair Trade coffee.

gc - good spot!

No doubt I'll have plenty to write about after COP23 (and COP24, COP25, COP26 adinfinitum...).

Mark. I do hope that after a respite you might take up your sleuthing again. As I wrote earlier I think potentially there's a good book in there, if you had the incentive to write it - but I would quite understand if you didn't (I certainly wouldn't be able to).
If not, you probably have some overarching thoughts about what you have discovered during your near-thankless quest. Do share.

Supertroll

I may return to it, if energy for it returns to me. Main thoughts for now:

1. As Hilary Ostrov has tirelessly shown, the UN has morphed into a multi-headed hydra. There are now too many vested interests within the UN ever to see it displaying objectivity. It can no longer be trusted.

2. There is a huge industry in being UN accredited as a charity or other NGO. There also seems to be a kudos associated with it, which helps to generate cash, whether from individual donors, or from the unwitting taxpayer who provides the funds which politicians use to grandstand and virtue-signal.

3. Many organisations attending COP22 have some positive aspects and do some good work, but they are brainwashed and hijacked by the whole "climate change" mantra, which undermines much of what they do, and diverts them from doing something useful.

4. There is an alarming amount of brainwashing of the young, and a lot of money is being diverted to that purpose.

5. Many people (typically aged 20-40), have utterly useless CVs. Sadly, they often seem to be thoroughly decent people who genuinely want to do good, but who have no understanding that they are (in my opinion) wasting their lives, achieving nothing of value, and enjoying good salaries that their "work" does not merit. They display their CVs proudly, convinced that they have terribly useful skills, which they don't.

6. A surprisingly large number of wealthy individuals and trusts give huge amounts of money to this stuff. Given that many of them are intelligent people, who applied their intelligence to making a lot of money, it is a mystery to me that they can't see that they're wasting it, and far from doing good, they are doing a lot of harm. It's their money of course, so it's up to them, but it's sad to see so much money owned by well-meaning people being wasted, when if spent differently, it could do so much good.

7. Just like FTSE 100 & 250 companies, where a lot of executive directors of company A serve as non-execs on the boards of companies B,C, D etc, there seems to be a similar amount of back-scratching with huge amounts of inter-relatedness between "green" organisations. My provisional view is that this helps them in their propaganda and fund-raising campaigns.

8. There is a huge amount of overlap between organisations doing fundamentally the same thing. Even assuming that what they do is beneficial (an assumption I don't share) they would do well to cut out this overlap, as it's wasteful. However, there would then be fewer troughs for all those snouts....

9. A LOT of taxpayers' money goes to these people, largely without the active informed consent of said taxpayers. I imagine a lot of people would be very angry if they knew what was going on. If the BBC wasn't the main propagandist for this sort of thing, it could easily use Panorama or Costing the Earth or some such to expose all this. But they won't, of course.

10. Australia and Canada seem to be among the main centres of climate change alarmism, with a plethora of such organisations, and some of the loudest agitators.

11. It's a matter of concern that organisations which, on the face of them, have nothing to do with climate change, but work it into their websites, and attend COP22 etc. I suspect a cynical realisation that climate change is where the money is.

No doubt there's more, but that's enough for now.

Mark. good God man, you've done all the heavy lifting for that book. Take each of your points, flesh it out a little and offer proof in the form of evidence you have already documented. An introductory chapter setting the COP scene and the reasons you chose to undertake you investigation and you would be there. A spinkle of humour would not go amiss.

Mark Hodgson, there is nothing in your post that I disagree with. I do not mean that to sound like a reason for celebration, triumph or pride. It is actually quite sad. What is sadder still, is that those nearer the base of the pyramid, generally under 40, can't see how they are being used to self perpetuate the entire pyramid, especially those in the top 5%.

As you have noted, they have actually achieved very little, that wasn't previously done for free, by genuine charities, voluntary organisations, and religious groups (all faiths)

The EU has progressively destroyed it's own credibility, as it has become more powerful, arrogant and self important. I think the UN is about to get a rude awakening about value for money, from it's biggest source of money. No wonder there is so much panic from all the worthiest, but most useless people.

Mark Hodgson, you were right about the Aussies .....

http://joannenova.com.au/2017/01/last-minute-500-million-dollar-gift-to-un-climate-fund-from-obama/