The Associated Press climate and energy reporting is paid advertising for the renewable energy industry

There's nothing objective about the Rockefellers, so there's nothing neutral about their funding.

At the bottom of Associated Press articles on climate and energy issues is this little footnote.

While it’s good the AP discloses this funding, the outlet is obscuring the political aims of the organizations making these grants. It’s presented as money from neutral charitable organizations who are looking to support journalism as an important institution in our democracy. This is absolutely not the case. 

In 2022, the AP reported it would receive $8 million over three years, which would support 20 climate reporter positions, a beat that overlaps with energy. Five organizations were contributing to this largesse: the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Quadrivium, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Walton Family Foundation.

While the Howard Hughes Medical Institute promotes scientific education in general, the others are proponents of net-zero emissions climate policies. They actively work to advance this agenda, which is hostile to fossil fuels and supportive of the wind and solar industry. 

Yet, the AP’s “climate initiative” page makes no mention of this fact. Instead, it offers up quotes from these organizations telling readers there are no agendas behind the funding other than objective journalism. 

“Unbiased, fact-based journalism has never been more important or imperiled,” Larry Kramer, president of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, told the AP readers. 

“We are proud to be supporting a trusted nonpartisan global news source to expand fact-based, localized climate reporting at this crucial time,” said Quadrivium Foundation Co-founder and President Kathryn Murdoch. 

The closest the AP gets to honestly revealing these organizations’ agenda is a quote from the aggressively anti-fossil fuel Rockefellers. 

“We really are all in this together and we have to understand that only collective, global action that ensures a more rapid and equitable transition to renewable energy for everyone, everywhere will mitigate the danger,” said Eileen O’Connor, senior vice president for communications, policy and advocacy for the Rockefeller Foundation. 

The AP insists its entirely independent of its funders, and I’m sure the Rockefellers don’t participate in AP news meetings. However, there are at least 20 reporters covering climate and energy whose jobs will go away if the Rockefellers aren’t happy with the money they’re spending. To believe the outlet is independent of its funders is to believe that the AP’s overtly biased coverage of climate and energy reporting is merely a coincidence. 

It’s quite easy to spot how this funding is influencing the AP reporting to be friendly toward renewable energy. Consider this gem from December 2023:

Contrary to politicians’ claims, offshore wind farms don’t kill whales. Here’s what to know.

The article’s lead paragraph sets the stage for what is to come.

“Unfounded claims about offshore wind threatening whales have surfaced as a flashpoint in the fight over the future of renewable energy.”

Notice that they didn’t describe these issues as “controversial claims” or “these experts argue.” No, they tell the readers flat-out that there is no basis whatsoever for the claims that offshore wind is harming endangered whales and no evidence to the contrary should ever be considered. This is bad journalism, and it’s astounding this got past the editors. 

Since 2016, the critically endangered North Atlantic whale population has seen unusually high mortality levels. This increased mortality corresponds to the period in which offshore wind developers began development along these whales’ migration routes. Meanwhile, environmental groups including Greenpeace, federal agencies, and media outlets like the AP continue to deny there’s any connection between the two.

After some information about the number of wind farms under construction, which leaves out the part about where they have to pound 30-foot wide pylons into the seabed floor to erect all these towers, the AP reports write,

Experts say there’s no evidence that limited wind farm construction on the Atlantic Coast has directly resulted in any whale deaths, despite politically motivated statements suggesting a link. Rumors began to swirl…

“Limited wind farm construction,” by the way, means over 2,000 800-foot high towers. Totally limited. And by “experts say,” the AP writers mean “the experts we picked to support our narrative say.” 

Then we come to a rather startling admission:

 “While the exact causes of recent whale strandings along the East Coast mostly are not known, whales do face dangers from human activities.” 

So, after telling us that that there’s no way a flood of sonar vessel traffic or pounding 30-foot pylons into the sea bed floor is killing whales, the AP “reporters” admit the cause is unknown. Maybe it’s some other things humans are doing, they write, such as the fishing operations that have been going on for centuries. It’s definitely not, however, the massive industrialization of the East Coast that was initiated at the same time whales began to die in increasing numbers.

After quoting from cherry-picked experts that support this narrative, the AP reporters then quote a spokesperson from the offshore wind developer Orsted, who assures readers the industry would never, ever hurt a whale. Hear that guys? The offshore wind industry says they’re not hurting whales. All good then.

There’s nothing wrong with quoting industry voices. I quote petroleum industry sources all the time, and I leave it to readers to consider the bias there. But the AP quotes the industry after weaving a narrative in support of that industry. The reporters also take, without question, Orsted’s claim that its “bubble curtains” protect whales. 

Robert Rand, an acoustician whose done research into the effectiveness of these mitigation efforts, has two studies — one of which that was released prior to the AP article — that concluded mitigation procedures are not adequate. The AP has never, ever interviewed Rand or reported on his research. Not once. 

Rutgers professor Apostolos Gerasoulis performed a statistical analysis and found a strong correlation between where whales are dying and offshore wind development. The AP did not do a single story on Gerasoulis’ findings.

As it continues with its press release, the AP reporters quote Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Heritage Foundation expressing concerns about the impacts to birds and whales, which the AP’s reporters dispute with a statement from Orstead’s spokesperson. The AP reporters also quote H. Sterling Burnett of the Heartland Institute, who says that offshore wind development should be held to the same standards as oil and gas. The AP reporters also mention there’s some community groups that are opposed to offshore wind development. They never quote any members of these groups, even though they are quite easy to reach and happy to discuss their concerns. 

Finally, the AP reporters suggest the mysterious deaths of whales may be caused by … wait for it … global warming. Of course.

This article is nothing more than a paid advertisement for the offshore wind industry. While it’s true that there is no definitive proof that offshore wind is causing the increased mortality of endangered whales, this article presents final conclusions on the issue that are obviously intended to provide PR for the offshore wind industry.