Climate-related appropriations grew from $315 million in fiscal 2009 to $1.3 billion in fiscal 2010.
CLIMATE: GOP senators decry ‘bailout’ for developing countries
Gabriel Nelson, E&E reporter
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/print/2010/12/02/4
Top-ranking Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee have asked Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to freeze all future requests for climate-related spending, saying that it is inappropriate to transfer money to developing nations while the U.S. economy is struggling.
The letter — signed by Sens. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, David Vitter of Louisiana, George Voinovich of Ohio and John Barrasso of Wyoming — warns U.S. negotiators not to give away too much during the U.N. climate conference that is under way in Cancun, Mexico.
“We simply cannot afford any massive spending programs with such debt owed by America’s future generations,” it says.
Climate-related appropriations grew from $315 million in fiscal 2009 to $1.3 billion in fiscal 2010. The Obama administration requested $1.9 billion for fiscal 2011 so it could pay its share of an international fund for adaptation to climate change, which would total $100 billion through 2020.
The adaptation fund was part of the Copenhagen Accord, an agreement that emerged from last year’s talks in Denmark. Negotiators were trying to pin down more of the details in Cancun, but the biggest development so far has been Japan’s insistence that it won’t work to extend the Kyoto Protocol when the agreement — which provides the basis for the climate talks — expires in 2012 (ClimateWire, Dec. 2).
Barrasso, the top Republican on the Senate panel’s oversight subcommittee, compared the agreements to the government-funded rescue of the financial system.
“It makes no sense for the United States to now spend billions of taxpayer dollars to fight climate change in other countries,” Barrasso said in a statement. “Americans are concerned about jobs, the economy, the debt and spending. If the administration is serious about listening to the American people, they will cancel this international climate change bailout.”
Full Text of the letter:
December 2, 2010
The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520
Dear Secretary Clinton:
As the sixteenth Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is set to enter its second week, we remain opposed to the U.S. commitment to full implementation of the Copenhagen Accord, which will transfer billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to developing nations in the name of climate change.
We understand that climate-related appropriations for 2010 totaled $1.3 billion, which is more than triple from 2009 levels at $315 million. The President also requested another sizeable increase of $1.9 billion for Fiscal Year 2011, as the Administration seeks to fund its share of this $100 billion global commitment by 2020. We do not believe that billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars should be transferred to developing countries through unaccountable multilateral or bilateral channels for adaptation, deforestation and other international climate finance programs.
In the November 2nd election, Americans clearly expressed their concerns about record deficit spending. The U.S. Treasury Department’s Fiscal Year 2010 year-end report showed that the federal deficit hit $1.29 trillion, topping $1 trillion for the second straight year in a row. These deficits are in addition to our existing debt, which is currently at $13.6 trillion. We simply cannot afford any new massive spending programs with such debt owed by America’s future generations.
Concern about deficits and spending stems in large part from the fact that millions of Americans are struggling to find employment. In October, the unemployment rate in the United States stood at 9.6 percent. As spending dramatically increases, Americans believe there is a connection between Washington profligacy and the ability of employers to create jobs.
In addition, several of the findings of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concerning the eventual impacts of climate change in developing countries were found to be exaggerated or simply not true. We understand that reforms of the IPCC process are currently underway and we believe that no American taxpayer dollars should be committed to a global climate fund based on information that is not accurate.
In light of the federal government’s dire financial situation and the poor state of the economy, in addition to ongoing reviews at the IPCC, we request that the Administration freeze further spending requests to implement international climate change finance programs. This would include making no additional international commitments to fund such programs.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
h/t to Congress, they appear to be listening to the voters for a change.
Now, if Congress can either replace the loon heading the EPA with someone intelligent or cut off its funding, we might be turning a corner on this lunacy.
So can’t the House just not fund the hoax and the money for the scammers?
A little parallel news from last week, in case anyone missed it:
Canadian climate research fund drying up
November 23, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/11/23/climate-research-funding-cfcas.html
The commenters on this story, on that site, were predictably howling.
OK hope I’m wrong but this petition will fail. It already has in one respect. It’s far too sensible and employs logic.
Wrong strategy to employ when appealing to the Cuckoo Nest inverted thought process that today’s politicians use as an invisibility cloak to thwart apple-pie attacks.
Great idea, guys and gals. Poor timing and a poorer audience.
10/10 for trying though!
Well, it is a wealth redistribution scheme. How can they redistribute our wealth if we don’t donate?
Sic ’em boys!
Yikes, that’s a very disturbing photo.
To the American, European, Canadian, other rich country taxpayers — in case you think that your tax money is really helping improve or reduce poverty in poorer countries like the Philippines, think again. Foreign aid, like climate aid, is government to government. Thus, much of the foreign aid money is spent on politicians, bureaucracies (USAID, WB, UN, ADB, IMF, etc.), national bureaucracies and bureaucrats, consultants, and their endless travels and meetings. Little is left on the target beneficiaries, the poor. The same thing will happen with climate foreign aid.
We gave 1.3B to the UN? And want to give more next year? We truly are insane….
Time to get out of the corrupt cesspool UN.
We need to take care of our own. The Federal reserve buying Harley davidson bonds makes more sense than funding rickshaws.
As soon as republicans get control of the house they can jsut refuse to provide the money. Could lead to a standoff, but I’d imagine that it’s one that the american people would enthusiastically support.
So THAT is the grin behind the cackle ! How interesting.
How can you “fight climate change in other countries”?
Other than a small handful of “developed” countries,
all of the vast majority of countries are mostly exempt.
Russia, China, India, etc are not considered “developed” countries……….
Science News
Food security wanes as world warms
Global warming may have begun outpacing ability of farmers to adapt
By Janet Raloff
Web edition : Wednesday, December 1st, 2010
Since summer, signs of severe food insecurity — droughts, food riots, five- to tenfold increases in produce costs — have erupted around the globe. Several new reports now argue that regionally catastrophic crop failures — largely due to heat stress — are signals that global warming may have begun outpacing the ability of farmers to adapt.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/66902/title/Food_security_wanes_as_world_warms
There is no climate emergency. Everything observed today is fully explained by natural variability. The climate is well within its past parameters. In fact, the temperature now is especially benign. Despite the squeals of those financially benefitting from the money confiscated from taxpayers and handed over to them, there is no verifiable evidence showing that CO2 makes any difference at all. It may make a minor difference, but the effect is insignificant compared with natural variability.
The extravagant spending at Cancun shows exactly how our tax money is being wasted by these scoundrels. And we are expected to give them more??
Those tens of thousands of international parasites will intercept this proposed “bailout” money, and pocket it. And the global temperature will not change by one micro-degree as a result. This proposed giveaway is nothing less than looting the working people based on the AGW scam being promoted by UN/IPCC kleptocrats.
The promoters of “climate change,” “AGW” and “carbon” are ravenous hyenas who can never get their greedy hands on enough of other peoples’ money. And they always demand more, more, more, having come to expect their taxpayer-provided feasts of lobster, caviar, brie and champagne – profligate gluttony which is always paid for by working stiffs, and by the deluded fools who send their money to NGOs like the WWF, Greenpeace, etc.
It is worth reading Professor Richard Lindzen’s prescient remarks again:
As they try to roll back modern society, the greedy UN connivers party the days and nights away at Cancun this week, where they jetted in, and took limos from the airport to their $450 a night hotel rooms – paid for by ordinary folks like you and me.
The bursting of the AGW bubble cannot come soon enough.
Stop the money, that’s the ticket! I wish the ( unpostable ) turds in the UK gov. would do the same.
Does anybody notice, we have no money to hand out?
From the letter:
“In light of the federal government’s dire financial situation and the poor state of the economy, in addition to ongoing reviews at the IPCC, we request that the Administration freeze further spending requests to implement international climate change finance programs. This would include making no additional international commitments to fund such programs.”
=======================
I would add:
Unless such funds come from the duly elected officials campaign war chest.
Subject to whatever kind of transparency is being flouted, of late.
This is probably all just another déjà vu red herring thrown out by the republicans to get the quail/pheasant hunt’n buddy aristocrats back in power and the lemmings are licking it up again. In a decade you’ll all be screaming at the top of your lungs after their big money friends pull off their smokescreen fallacy. The republic is toast.
Save the World, impoversih a Progressive Warmist before they impoverish you!
PaulH said on December 2, 2010 at 3:24 pm:
Recall the lore about the famous “glowering bulldog” photo of Churchill, how the photographer had just snatched away Winston’s cigar.
Hillary looks like the photographer had just slipped her one. 😉
Please – PLEASE – on behalf of all mankind … give sufficient warning the next time the Hildabeast’s image is going to appear on the pages of this most-revered website.
… I implore you in the name of all that is rational and sane …
.
A 300% increase, cheap at half the price. Think of the photo opportunities.
If we would quit turning food into fuel, we wouldn’t have a problem.
Hillary, while First Lady of Arkansas served on the Wal~Mart board of directors. According to press accounts at the time, she was a show horse at the company’s annual meetings when founder Sam Walton bussed in cheering throngs to celebrate his non-union empire, which is headquartered in one of the country’s poorest states. According to published reports, she was placed in charge of the company’s “green” program to protect the environment and promote the buy American smokescreen fallacy. But nobody got greener than Sam Walton and his family. Shipping boats back and forth between Chinese slave labor factories and the Port of LA or Oakland is not green, efficient or sustainable (even if a Show Pony propagandist is paid to greenwash it).
The Clintons depended on Wal-Mart’s largesse not only for Hillary’s regular payments as a board member & litigator but for travel expenses on Wal-Mart planes and for heavy campaign contributions to Bill’s campaigns there and nationally.
The Clintons were the greatest republicans a repub could ask for.
Alpha Kappa Psi – Towson University
http://www.akpsiok.com/about.php
Famous Brothers include: Sam Walton, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon
These huntin’ buddies with the tag along Bush crime family gave Walton a globalization death grip over the “means of production” (others shortly adopted) by thrashing the trade agreements that had built our modern economy and protected US businesses for almost 200 years.
These quail hunter aristocrats gave preferred trading status to Communist China about 1972. Coincidentally the same time as Edmund de Rothschild and Maurice Strong hatched the global warming scheme followed by UN, IPCC, etc.
The notion that human activity and manmade greenhouse gasses are in any way contributing to something catastrophic is simply a fantasy designed to extract large amounts of cash for people’s research careers and to facilitate global redistribution of wealth by forcing industrial production to move to less restrictive countries.
We’ve been had. We are better than this. Have we turned into mongoloids?
That’s why I vote for the small candle in the dark. Constitution Party we can make it into whatever we voice.
It will be ignored of course, however sensible it is.
My question: When all this CO2 demonisation is over and the facts shine through and no warming (above the natural) occurs, will the recipients of these $billions give it back?