… 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
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.
“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.
It’s the American way! /sarc
RE: “U.S. climate change spending abroad is a mess”
“…abroad” ?!?
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 15, 2012 at 8:22 am
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.
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.
Being a cynical old sod, I wonder how much of this funding will end up being spent on ‘projects’ in Syria?
… 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.
This spending abroad is the same as ‘climate’ funding domestically – it is a money laundering scheme for passing taxpayers’ money to friends of politicians.
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.
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.
“Transparency” and “accountability” are NEVER required of the party in power. Those are strictly tools for intimidating minority political groups.
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.
@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.
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.
So, what makes anyone think the US government would spend money any more effectively or efficiently abroad than we do at home?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
From Wiki
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?
Real journalism from the most popular news network? And tube dresses! Wherever you have a Net connection, even: http://ihelps.net/foxnewslinks.htm