When politicians announce new climate targets, most people assume these policies emerge through the normal democratic process. Governments consult experts, scientists publish research, legislators debate proposals, and elected representatives ultimately decide the direction of public policy.Across the world, an extensive network of charitable foundations, non-governmental organisations, think tanks and advocacy groups works to influence climate and energy policy. Lobbying itself is neither unusual nor inherently improper. What deserves closer examination is the scale, funding and influence of the organisations operating within today’s climate policy landscape—and where their funding originates.One organisation that has attracted increasing attention is the European Climate Foundation (ECF), established in 2008 and headquartered in The Hague.Dutch science journalist Marcel Crok recently examined the Foundation’s role in European climate policy, arguing that it has become one of Europe’s most influential climate-focused philanthropic organisations while remaining largely unknown outside specialist circles. His investigation raises important questions about how climate advocacy is financed and organised. According to publicly available information cited by Crok, the ECF received approximately €275 million in funding during 2023 from other philanthropic organisations. Among the listed supporters are major foundations including Bloomberg Philanthropies, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and several European charitable foundations.The Foundation describes its mission as supporting the transition toward a climate-neutral Europe through partnerships with hundreds of organisations working across policy, research and civil society.Grant recipients include research organisations, environmental NGOs, communications initiatives, legal advocacy groups and media projects. Marcel Crok notes that organisations such as Carbon Brief, the European Environment Bureau and CAN Europe have received ECF support, although each organisation has its own governance and editorial policies. Carbon Brief publicly discloses philanthropic funding, including support from the European Climate Foundation.None of this information is hidden. It is largely available through annual reports, grant disclosures and tax filings. Yet surprisingly little public discussion focuses on how these philanthropic networks operate collectively or how they may shape the wider climate policy conversation. Does the public have sufficient visibility into the networks that help shape policy debates?Climate policy today extends far beyond climate science itself. It influences industrial strategy, financial regulation, banking, agriculture, transport, housing, taxation and long-term investment decisions. Governments increasingly work alongside NGOs, philanthropic foundations, research institutes and private-sector organisations in developing climate policy.The result is an interconnected policy ecosystem in which scientific advice, political objectives, financial interests and advocacy campaigns often reinforce one another. The European Climate Foundation appears to be one important part of that ecosystem.It is also far from unique. Across Europe and North America, major philanthropic foundations fund research institutes, advocacy organisations, public communications projects and policy initiatives relating to climate and energy. Many of these organisations collaborate with governments, international institutions and civil society groups in pursuit of shared objectives.Central bankers are funding the advancement of the world climate change ‘project’One example of this wider funding ecosystem is its growing connection with the international financial sector. Climate policy is no longer shaped solely by governments, scientists and environmental organisations. Over the past decade, major banks, asset managers and multinational corporations have become increasingly involved in developing climate-related financial frameworks.In December 2015, the Financial Stability Board established the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), which represents $118 trillion of assets globally, see Endnote [i]. The taskforce brings together representatives from many of the world’s largest financial institutions and corporations to develop climate-risk reporting standards. Over subsequent years, climate-related disclosure became an increasingly important component of financial regulation, investment strategy and corporate governance.Critics, however, contend that they have also accelerated the financialisation of climate policy, embedding net-zero objectives within banking, investment and corporate decision-making. Whether one agrees with either perspective, climate policy has clearly become closely intertwined with the global financial system.When the world’s largest banks, corporations, and institutions, all align to push a climate change agenda that, in my view, is not supported by robust empirical evidence, one can see there is another major agenda going on behind the scenes. This climate agenda tries to convince the public to make sacrifices and to accept significant economic and social changes under the emotive guise of “saving our planet.” Meanwhile, corporations, financial institutions and investment funds stand to benefit financially, and political institutions implement worldwide technocratic policy systems under the banner of combatting man-made CO2-induced climate change. Ultimately, critics argue that this agenda aligns with the objectives of UN Agenda 2030 while creating, or potentially creating, trillions of dollars in new financial opportunities for major banks and investment firms.As a former science adviser at the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change, and one of more than 2,000 scientists and academics who have signed the Clintel World Climate Declaration, I believe this close relationship between climate policy and financial institutions deserves far greater public scrutiny. The Clintel declaration argues that CO₂ is not the dominant driver of climate and that natural variability plays a much larger role than is commonly acknowledged.Critics also point to the historical role of Rockefeller family foundations in promoting climate initiatives.How the Rockefeller banking dynasty became leading advocates of the global warning agenda is described in a report titled The Rockefeller Way: The Family’s Covert ‘Climate Change’ Plan published by The Energy & Environmental Legal Institute in December 2016. An article published by the institute, see Endnote [ii], states:“In their Sustainable Development Program Review, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund boasts of being one of the first major global warming activists… Their highly complex integration of hedge funds, interlocking boards positions, and non-profit organizations has steered public policy on these issues and provided them with foreknowledge of emerging markets and access to the developing worlds’ natural resources…”Meanwhile, the highest-emissions pathways that caused a decade of alarmism are no longer considered plausibleIf hundreds of millions of euros are being spent to influence climate policy, one obvious question is whether the underlying scientific assumptions remain as settled as the public has been led to believe. For years, high-emissions scenarios such as RCP 8.5 and its successor SSP5-8.5 were widely presented as plausible representations of the future. They formed the basis of thousands of climate-impact studies, government reports, media articles and policy recommendations. These scenarios were frequently used to justify increasingly urgent calls for rapid decarbonisation and net-zero policies.Yet the scientists responsible for developing the next generation of climate scenarios have themselves acknowledged that these highest-emissions pathways are no longer considered plausible representations of likely future development. Nevertheless, projections derived from these scenarios had already influenced climate litigation, investment decisions, public policy and public perception around the world.If some of the scenarios that helped justify sweeping policy changes have since been recognised as unrealistic, why has this received so little public attention?A broader question concerns the underlying assumptions built into today’s climate models. Is carbon dioxide truly the dominant driver of climate, as argued by the UN IPCC, and can current models isolate its influence with the degree of precision implied by modern attribution studies? Many scientists and researchers—including the more than 2,000 signatories of the Clintel World Climate Declaration—argue that CO₂ is not the dominant driver of climate and that natural variability plays a much larger role than is commonly acknowledged.ConclusionSupporters argue that funding of net-zero initiatives accelerates action on an urgent global challenge. Critics contend that concentrated philanthropic funding amplifies particular policy perspectives while making alternative viewpoints less visible within public debate.Regardless of one’s view of climate science, organisations spending hundreds of millions of euros to influence public opinion and public policy deserve greater transparency and public scrutiny. Citizens have a right to know who is shaping climate policy, how it is being funded, and whether competing scientific perspectives are receiving a fair hearing.Readers interested in a more detailed examination of these subjects will find a fuller treatment in the newly updated 2026 edition of my book Climate CO₂ Hoax: How Bankers Hijacked the Real Environment Movement. Its purpose is to distinguish genuine environmental concerns from claims that, in my view, are not supported by robust empirical evidence.[i] Source: https://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2019-0718/Green_Finance_Strategy.pdf[ii] Source: https://www.globalresearch.ca/rockefeller-familys-covert-climate-change-plan/5678775The post Who Funds the Climate Agenda? appeared first on LewRockwell.