Imagine my surprise in learning that The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation owns over 7 million shares of BP - equivalent to roughly 0.25% of the common stock.
Just to emphasise an important point, the Gates Foundation invests in some other oil companies. Investments of the Gates Foundation range from anything like alcohol to other drugs. Greenpeace is still under the illusion that Gates actually fights against emissions. They confuse PR with reality and this new post is just embarrassing. Here is the part about Microsoft, which is burning up energy just like Gates with his private jet/s and mansion:
Thus far, Microsoft’s CEO, Steve Ballmer, has failed to articulate the urgent need for government policy to drive a clean energy transformation. By comparison, Microsoft’s competitor, Google, is the top scoring Leaderboard company on advocacy for the clear position taken by its CEO, Eric Schmidt, in support of political action to drive transformative investment in clean energy technologies.
Later on it speaks about Microsoft PR like Microsoft’s Hohm. It's hogwash. And anyway, not a month goes by without the mainstream press pretending that Bill Gates is an economist because he is rich and he invests (for profit) in many 'charitable' companies like BP and Walmart. What is this report all about?
Gates Sees European Crisis Among ‘Headwinds’ to U.S. Rebound
Microsoft Corp. co-founder Bill Gates said the European debt crisis and U.S. state government budget cuts are among “headwinds” endangering the economic rebound.
Bill Gates is not qualified in economics. It's time for the press to stop quoting him on the subject; there are many university professors who have more of a clue, they just don't have a famous brand name like "Bill Gates". While we're at it, and since BP is the main subject of this post, here is an explanation of how the climate debate gets distorted by people who are not climatologists at all (and many of whom receive money from energy companies). It's a video from last week and it explains how the corporate media pretends there are two sides to this debate and there needs to be 'balance'. ⬆
Last week IBM laid off almost 1,000 people in Confluent and the media didn't write anything about it, so don't expect anyone in what's left of the media to comment on Fedora's demise and silent layoffs at Red Hat
In an age when ~1,000 simultaneous layoffs aren't enough to receive any media coverage, what can we expect remaining publishers to tell us about Microsoft layoffs in 2026?
Is the "era of AI" an era when none of the media will mention over 800 layoffs? [...] There's a lesson here about the state of the contemporary media, not just IBM and bluewashing
