… more concerned with spending money than in monitoring its effectiveness.”
From Fox News, which has the exclusive story:
Inadequate oversight, lax bookkeeping, sloppy paperwork, haphazard performance agreements and missing financial documentation have plagued U.S. State Department spending of tens of millions of dollars to combat climate change, according to a report by State’s internal financial watchdog — and the problem could be much, much bigger than that.
The audit report, issued last month by the State Department’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG), casts an unflattering spotlight on a relatively obscure branch of the State Department that supervises climate change spending, and depicts it as over-extended in its responsibilities, unstaffed in critical monitoring posts, and more concerned with spending money than in monitoring its effectiveness.
…
According to a State Department website, the U.S. has contributed some $5.1 billion in climate change funding to developing countries in 2010 and 2011 alone, with additional money still pouring forth in 2012.
- OIG looked at seven of 19 program grants totaling $34 million, and discovered they contained no specific plans for monitoring the results. As the report demurely noted, “Without comprehensive monitoring of grants, the department may not always have reasonable assurance that federal funds were spent in accordance with the grant award; that the grant recipient performed program activities as dictated in the grant award; and that the program’s indicators, goals and objectives were achieved.”
- So-called grant oversight officers whose responsibilities included developing the monitoring plans, also failed to provide written reviews of compliance with State Department reporting standards, along with a variety of other financial procedures. In some cases, there apparently weren’t enough oversight officers to go around; when three left their jobs, OIG found evidence that only one was replaced.
- Oversight officers apparently didn’t do a lot of overseeing. The OIG discovered that actual visits to climate change sites were rare, and when they occurred, not much effort went into examining the actual paperwork involved. In one series of Indian cases examined by OIG, the officers’ reports “typically summarized meetings held with grantee officials where only the statuses of the programs were discussed.”
- Requirements that grant recipients submit quarterly financial statements were apparently ignored, even though procedures called for cutoffs if the statements were not provided. The report cites an unnamed recipient in Hyderabad, India, who got two separate grants totaling $1.1 million: funding continued to be doled out throughout the project, even though the reporting requirements were completely ignored. And in other cases, even when quarterly reports were received, they were often flawed.
- The same cavalier attitude toward reporting apparently applied even when projects ended. As the report discreetly puts it, overseers “did not always obtain the final reports needed to ensure that final deliverables were achieved, funds were reconciled, and proper closeout of the project was completed.”
- One reason for this, apparently, is that reporting requirements for detailed results toward specific indicators — along with general goals and objectives — were not included in any of the seven grants examined by OIG. One of the missing indicators in a number of cases was the actual amount of greenhouse gases removed from the atmosphere by the project.
Here’s the complete de-classified report
http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/195671.pdf
It’s all about the money. These fools aren’t solving anything related to climate with this spending.
h/t to WUWT reader Robbin Harrell
“… more concerned with spending money than in monitoring its effectiveness.”
Well, given that the spending of the money will have no detectable effect on the climate, it would appear that the whole purpose of the department is just to spend money.
Picky, picky, picky.
According to a State Department website, the U.S. has contributed some $5.1 billion in climate change funding to developing countries in 2010 and 2011 alone
It is not credible that billions were spent on climate change funding in developing countries.
You’ve got to be kidding me, right? That’s the narrative now from CC skeptics? That spending is a mess? Come on now…
Ahh I retract my previous comment as I failed to properly read this (failed to read this). So my understanding is the state department might not even be USING the funds in the way they are even intended? Sigh…It seems the state department is best qualified for that kind of behavior.
“So-called grant oversight officers whose responsibilities included developing the monitoring plans, also failed to provide…”
Apparently, the IG does not have a lot of confidence in these oversight officers.
More than likely that State Department arbiters are fully aware of the nonsense of AGW climate change and are using dedicated funds for excesses and kickbacks (lots of big travel parties). If greenhouse gas levels were given serious concern by any lever of government, then all global waterways would be undergoing cleanups to improve their Sink Capacity for commerce (accumulating heavy debris for 500 years; no clean up)….State Department would never expose Carbon Trading hypocrisies…kinship investments…… twitter/chaerophon
We are broke. Is borrowing money worth it for these programs?
I think NOT.
Cut all this spending, we cannot afford it.
Five billion in 2 years? Wow!
I am writing my representatives. Delete these budget items.
A nice little bit of wealth redistribution, that’s all…really!
I consider the whole money-throwing culture of that part of the Green coterie ensconced in public office deplorable. The more governments succeed in trashing life in general, the more of this we can expect to see.
This is an old story, the version I remember involved a little boy, money for music lessons and a candy store.
And one politcal side will see this as a shortage of funding. If they just give them more money then they can staff people to correct these mistakes.
“It is not credible that billions were spent on climate change funding in developing countries.” – Leif Svalgaard
Such levels of waste are not only credible in the US government, they are expected. It’s kind of the whole point of the whole thing.
Theater of the Absurd
Follow the money, Anthony. We’re giving away money on this climate hoax, while Russia is licking its chops. Even if we climate change were real, we wouldn’t be able to stop it. Russia is up in the Arctic increasing its military presence in the Arctic and making preparations to drill for gas, oil and mineral resources. Russia perceives (correctly) that global warming would be a good thing. Russia wants global warming.
They should be called ‘overlook officers’ then. 🙂
Leif Svalgaard says:
“It is not credible that billions were spent on climate change funding in developing countries.”
While it appears incredible, that is what the State Department web site claims:
“Since Copenhagen, the United States has substantially increased its investments in international climate finance. U.S. fast start financing in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 totaled $3.1 billion, consisting of $1.8 billion of Congressionally appropriated assistance and $1.3 billion from development finance and export credit agencies. To date, the U.S. contribution to fast start financing from these sources totals $5.1 billion, including a contribution of $2.0 billion from FY 2010. Ultimately, the total U.S. contribution to fast start financing will also include funding from FY 2012.”
http://www.state.gov/e/oes/climate/faststart/c48618.htm
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 15, 2012 at 8:22 am
It is not credible that billions were spent on climate change funding in developing countries.
Look for yourself….US State Department Website on Climate Change –
http://www.foreignassistance.gov/Initiative_GCC_2012.aspx?FY=2012
@ur momisugly Leif: Here’s the link to the Dept of State website which discusses the funding for meeting the Fast Start commitment:
http://www.state.gov/e/oes/climate/faststart/index.htm
Bruce
There’s been loads of climate change near my house recently, and I’m overseas. Where do I apply for one of these grants?
http://www.state.gov/e/oes/climate/faststart/index.htm
“Since Copenhagen, the United States has substantially increased its investments in international climate finance. U.S. fast start financing in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 totaled $3.1 billion, consisting of $1.8 billion of Congressionally appropriated assistance and $1.3 billion from development finance and export credit agencies. To date, the U.S. contribution to fast start financing from these sources totals $5.1 billion, including a contribution of $2.0 billion from FY 2010. Ultimately, the total U.S. contribution to fast start financing will also include funding from FY 2012. “
Remember who heads the Department of State. She is from Illinois (a bunch of con artists), she has a law degree and practiced in only one case, let’s other women do her job for former White House residents ;), and has a caboose the size Manitoba. OIG should go after her for not providing accountability as leader of that department. She has wasted billions of US tax dollars on an Al Gore fraud that has no foundation in science or reality. Something needs to be done, NOW!
“, and more concerned with spending money than in monitoring its effectiveness.”
That’s what taxnspend lib/progressives do. Can’t wait for Nov to get rid of the pos stinking up the oval office and all his lackies.
One dime spent on this nonsense is too much.
It’s OK . Climate change believers are universally so high-minded and so devoted to saving Mother Gaia for the benefit of all Humanity that grubby considerations of finance and audit and effectiveness are beneath their notice. Their moral purity means that there is no need for external monitoring or control.
It is only those Nasty Evil Deniers who indulge in fraud or misappropriation or theft.
/sarc