Newly declassified document from Inspector General: U.S. climate change spending abroad is a mess

Seal of the United States Department of State.

Seal of the United States Department of State. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

… 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

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
GlynnMhor

“… 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.

Theo Goodwin

“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

Jay

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.

Neil Jones

A nice little bit of wealth redistribution, that’s all…really!

Geoff Alder

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.

Jared

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.

William McClenney

Theater of the Absurd

Jim

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.

Drave Robber

Oversight officers apparently didn’t do a lot of overseeing.

They should be called ‘overlook officers’ then. 🙂

Taphonomic

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

@ 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

steveta_uk

There’s been loads of climate change near my house recently, and I’m overseas. Where do I apply for one of these grants?

Doug Huffman

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. “

David Larsen

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!

Curiousgeorge

“, 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.

pat

One dime spent on this nonsense is too much.

Latimer Alder

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

Nice, more party favors for the world while the U.S. economy stays in a state of stalled. So, in the midst of our worst recession in 80 years, we increase spending on some imaginary boogyman.

John West

These fools aren’t solving anything related to climate with this spending.”
Hmmmm…..
These fools [charlatans] aren’t solving anything related to climate with this [irresponsible] spending [of other peoples’ money].
There. That’s better.

gregole

It’s the American way! /sarc

Bill Parsons

RE: “U.S. climate change spending abroad is a mess”
“…abroad” ?!?

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 15, 2012 at 8:22 am

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.

Perhaps. What is perfectly credible however is money really spent on other things would be labeled as “combating climate change” because that was politically popular and would win easy approval.
While it’s tempting to say we could simply wipe out $5.1 billion in unnecessary US federal expenditures, I have a strong suspicion that a lot of that spending would still take place but be called something else.
Certainly even if it were all legitimate, $5.1 billion buys you essentially zero CO2 reduction so we could still cut it out and the climate wouldn’t notice the difference.

Matt

RE: “U.S. climate change spending abroad is a mess”
Not only “…abroad”???, but “climate change…”???
Name one US federal agency who’s spending isn’t a mess.

Bloke down the pub

Being a cynical old sod, I wonder how much of this funding will end up being spent on ‘projects’ in Syria?

kramer

… more concerned with spending money than in monitoring its effectiveness.”
Of course Democrats are more concerned with redistributing our money to the rest of the world. They want to redistribute our wealth to the rest of the world in part because they are beholden to foreign interests and in part because they feel like this generally conservative, Christian, and capitalistic nation robbed the third world of it’s riches via colonialism.
They shoveled out our top secret nuclear weapons secrets to the world in the 90’s under Clinton. They have been working since the 70’s at shoveling out our manufacturing base to the world. Add in the shoveling out our wealth to the world and you have an economic disemboweling of America in progress.
The only way they get away with this disemboweling is because the vast majority of the MSM protects them and markets their leftist ideals.

Ian W

This spending abroad is the same as ‘climate’ funding domestically – it is a money laundering scheme for passing taxpayers’ money to friends of politicians.

David

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 15, 2012 at 8:22 am
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.
——————————————–
True, as the climate can change with or without funding!.. However it is credible that the money was spent on something.

“It is not credible that billions were spent on climate change funding in developing countries.”

Leif grasps the sheer size of a billion dollars, but maybe he is taking “spent” too literally. To better capture the reality think, “gave it away,” “threw it away,” or maybe “left it lying in a pile in central Bombay.”
The rate at which money that can scattered on the wind (or doled out to politically connected parties) is pretty much unlimited. Something to do with that “no oversight” part.

tadchem

“Transparency” and “accountability” are NEVER required of the party in power. Those are strictly tools for intimidating minority political groups.

paddylol

What is troubling about this type of expenditure is that there is no budget item to authorize it nor an appropriation law to allow payment. Obama’s refusal to provide a specific budget coupled with the Senate blocking all matters of this kind will continue unabated, Republicans have collaborated by agreeing to continuing resolutions that give Obama a free hand. The Democrat controlled Senate and Obama continue to flagrantly violate the laws designed to keep government honest.
Four more years of Obama and the ruination of the democratic republic of the USA will be completed.

more soylent green!

@Leif: Are you familiar with the US government?
First, $5 billion is chump change. Sure, a billion here, a billion there and soon we’re talking real money, but $5 billion to save the world is a small price, isn’t it?
Second, the way the government accounts for money, they might have lumped together new buildings, furniture, conferenes and parties in order to boost the total and make it appear like they are doing more.

David Larsen

Remember who were both in the White House under slick Willie. Al Gore was there as VP and Hillary was the first lady. And the scam continues.

Jim G

So, what makes anyone think the US government would spend money any more effectively or efficiently abroad than we do at home?

Berényi Péter

Is there a standard (and safe) procedure in place for these government employees to divert a fraction of that money to their personal bank accounts? If so, the whole mess starts to make sense.

temp

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.”
No doubt that Leif buys into the well debunked propaganda that believers are poorly funded and nothing is being spent by government supporting global warming/eugenics/whatever they are calling it now.
I’m surprised only by the fact its so small. The EU was spending that probably back in the early part of 2000.

Jim G

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 15, 2012 at 8:22 am
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.”
Here we agree. The money was more likely stolen, given to political cronies, or relatives of same either here or abroad. The only climate that will be impacted is the financial climate of the beneficiaries.

graphicconception

I’ve got an idea for the climate modellers who say that it must be CO2 because we can’t think of anything else.
Money “spent” on environmental problems should be a model parameter.
Also, I suspect positive feedback, the more money that is available the more “problems” there will be!

Rob Crawford

C’mon, we all know what happens. State Department drones pump the money into projects run by the brothers-in-law of the local powers-that-be, a hefty chunk of the money ends up in the pockets of the local powers-that-be, and then after the State Department drone retires he’s hired to make speeches to groups funded by the local powers-that-be.
Everybody wins but the taxpayers and the people who have to live under the local powers-that-be.

TonyG

Seems to be a few different interpretations of Leif’s comment…
My take – the claim that $5B was spent by the government on anything is certainly credible. The claim that the money actually went to the purposes it was claimed to go for is less so. The claim that the money was put to such use in the end is absolutely NOT credible.

Bill Parsons

From Wiki

The 2010 United States federal budget proposed to support clean energy development with a 10-year investment of US $15 billion per year, generated from the sale of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions credits.

At that rate, U.S. taxpayers have “invested” about 45 B so far. The 3 B for developing countries doesn’t seem so bad then. Does it? Everybody here knows the waste, I assume. But if you’re curious, Google “Colorado” along with “solar”, and any pejorative adjective you wish: “crash”, “bankruptcy”, “collapse”… and you will get an eyefull. Do the same with “wind energy”. Be sure you read about “Primestar”, “Abound” and “GE”. “Vesta” for breaking wind news… er…

“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.”
And how much did Heartland receive when Joe Romm was hyperventilating about it?
Of course, the US will get absolutely zero credit or thanks for this money, even from the Kleptocrats who have stolen it.
But a little problem.
When the wheels eventually come off this juggernaut, how do you think these poor countries will react when the tap is turned off? The West’s “Climate Debt” unpaid?

SnickFromArabia

Real journalism from the most popular news network? And tube dresses! Wherever you have a Net connection, even: http://ihelps.net/foxnewslinks.htm