Royal Dutch Shell founded and ran the World Wildlife Fund International. Its former president of 15 years, John Loudon, stepped out of Shell to become the WWF president for four years. WWF was then funded by British Petroleum for 40 years, spending $238 million in 2011 alone. In 1961, Shell Oil gave WWF-UK $663,000. That is the tip of the iceberg. In the next 40 years, WWF received a wave of donations from oil giants like British Petroleum, Shell, and others until 2000.

Does it not seem odd that oil-polluting multinationals finance anti-pollution projects? Perhaps their conscience tells them to save the environment they are polluting. That is a good corporate move. Clean up your mess.

But can it also be an excuse for oil multinationals to keep polluting the environment? Is there, in fact, a subtle conflict of interest between environmental advocacy and oil multinationals who campaign against nuclear energy to protect their oil revenues and who hire scientists to refute that fossil fuels are causing global warming?

Is the anti-nuclear campaign of Greenpeace for the vested interest of anti-nuke oil multinationals who donate millions in funds? Nuclear energy is a formidable rival to oil energy. Are Greenpeace and other green NGO giants, without knowing it, being used by oil multinationals to suppress nuclear energy production? Or do they know but do not care and so turn a blind eye to get much-needed funds?

Was the campaign of green NGO giants to discredit climate change mere rhetoric “ordered” by the oil multinationals? Do they fear energy producers that use fossil fuels will be compelled to lower their production due to climate change? A Newsweek cover screamed, “Global Warming Is a Hoax.” Green giants carry oil interests, and some are diametrically opposed to green advocacy.

Greenpeace wrote: “There’s a difference between free speech and a campaign to deny the climate science with the goal of undermining international action on climate change… Freedom of speech does not apply to misinformation and propaganda.” Standard Oil funds Greenpeace, and so does Sierra Club, another green NGO, as reported by the website Activist Cash.

Other green NGO giants like ACORN are funded by Standard Oil. Sierra Club received over $25 million from the gas industry led by Chesapeake Energy from 2007 to 2010. BP’s CEO John Browne was on the board of Conservation International. BP gave $2 million to CI and $10 million to Nature Conservancy.

The Environment Defense Fund, which does not accept corporate donations as a policy, partnered with BP, Shell International, et al. to form Partnership for Climate Action. Environment groups joined BP Wind Energy in 2008 to form the American Wind and Wildlife Institute.

Was WWF’s conservation program in the Coral Triangle an “advance party” for oil exploration? The 1.6-billion-acre Coral Triangle, reputed to have the richest marine biodiversity on the planet, covers six countries and is believed to have vast oil reserves. WWF and Nature Conservancy have forged a conservation cooperation with these six countries through the USAID-funded Coral Triangle Support Partnership.

Are the green sheep we see oil wolves in disguise? Is the World Bank-ADB-USAID consortium, as a “development” funder, supporting this conflict of interest?

Here are some statistics from Infowars(dot)com — a list of donations from the Rockefeller Foundation to green giants: 1) Rockefeller Brothers Foundation to Greenpeace $1,080,000 from 1997 to 2005; 2) to Sierra Club $710,000 from 1995 to 2001; 3) to ACORN $10,000 in 2002.

John D. Rockefeller was an oil tycoon during the Industrial Revolution. The Rockefeller Family Fund donated to Greenpeace $115,000 from 2002 to 2005; 2) to the Sierra Club $105,000 from 1996 to 2002; 3) to ACORN $25,000 in 1998; 4) the Rockefeller Foundation to Greenpeace $20,285 in 1996 — 2001; 5) Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors to Sierra Club $38,250 in 1997–2000. (Source. http://www.infowars.com/big-green-oil-money-wwf-founded-with-money-from-royal-dutch-shell/print/)

The partnership between polluters, who give funds, and the anti-polluters, who receive them, may be the greatest example of a subtle conflict of interest on a grand scale that today people still do not see because it hardly gets into media, which is partly controlled by the oil multinationals.