Luetkemeyer Seeks to Prohibit Federal Funding for Job-Killing UN Climate Change Initiatives
WASHINGTON, D.C. _ Following last night’s State of the Union Address in which the president pledged to implement a job-killing climate change agenda, U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-3) today introduced legislation to prohibit the United States from contributing taxpayer dollars to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Luetkemeyer said the IPCC has received a great deal of criticism over the last several years, particularly when emails publicly released from a university in England showed that leading global scientists intentionally manipulated climate data and suppressed legitimate arguments in peer-reviewed journals. Researchers were asked to delete and destroy emails so that a small number of scientists could continue to advance their environmental agenda. Since that time, more than 700 acclaimed scientists have challenged claims made by IPCC. Luetkemeyer added that UNFCCC uses IPCC suggestions and data to implement its job-killing agenda.
“The American people should not have to foot the bill for an international organization that is fraught with waste, engaged in dubious science, and is promoting an agenda that will destroy jobs and drive up the cost of energy in the United States,” Luetkemeyer said. “Unfortunately, the president appears to be ready to fund these groups, revive harmful policies like cap and trade, and further empower out of control federal regulators at a time when we should be doing everything possible to cut wasteful spending, reduce regulatory red tape, and promote economic growth.”
Under the Obama administration, IPCC and UNFCCC have received an average of $10.25 million annually from U.S. taxpayers and the president’s FY13 budget included a $13 million request. Comparatively, the Bush administration was averaging roughly $5.7 million in annual contributions before reports of gross scientific misconduct. Since then, the Obama administration has nearly doubled U.S. contributions to IPCC and UNFCCC.
Luetkemeyer added that his bill would not only prohibit the aforementioned contributions as reported by federal agencies, but would also apply to in-kind contributions that often go unreported.
Luetkemeyer introduced legislation in the 111th and 112th Congresses to prohibit funding for the IPCC, but this year added UNFCCC to the legislation because the group uses IPCC’s suggestions and data to implement its job-killing agenda.
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@Philjourdan
“#1 – Poltifact is not a good source.”
I don’t always agree with Politifact. See the following link about global warming, if you really want to get annoyed at them.
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/aug/31/kevin-coughlin/gop-senate-candidate-kevin-coughlin-says-theres-no/
But: they do quote their sources, which means, you can check for yourself.
The CBO is the closest I know to be authoritative. I would not consider the assessments of the CBO “talking points”. Can you suggest a better source?
My point here is: there is a big difference between a “minor effect” (which I worded somewhat sloppily as “more or less no impact”) and “a job-killing agenda”.
@S. Meyer – I gave you a warning, not a command. I blew away your rebuttal with the rest of the response. The CBO does not agree with you. “minor” and “long term” do not equate with 0.
And you will not find any reputable Economist that argues price increases do not affect demand.
S. Meyer says: – “He announces executive actions. I read this as meaning: invest in infrastructure and research, provide incentives for renewables, provide more stringent standards for emissions and for energy efficiency.”
The infrastructure he usually invests in is high profile white elephant to boost temporary construction jobs rather than anything mundane but useful. It rarely gets a business case justification.
“Incentives for renewables” means subsidizig the inefficient and thereby removing incentive for it to become viable.
“provide more stringent standards for emissions ”
May be beneficial or may just be waste but in either case is an increased burden and not a boost for jobs.
“and for energy efficiency” This comes about through technological improvement rather than subsidizing failure.
Money wisely invested on cost/benefit basis produces wealth and jobs. Money squanderd does the opposite.
S Meyer – How many jobs have been lost because of the EPA regulations regarding coal fired power plants?
If even one, that is one too many caused by needless regulation based on an agenda designed to control the people and limit our prosperity and freedom. The amount of reduction in ” harmful” particulates is negligible. the cost to install the new equipment makes the electricity non competitive so they close the plant or switch to natural gas either way screwing the coal miner. I am all for capitalism and free enterprise, if the company CHOSE to switch because it made good market and economic sense then so be it.
Please take off the rose colored prism through which you view this president and his agenda.
Great idea. Cut all their funding as far as I am concerned. Total waste of space.
@ur momisugly Lew Skannen says:
February 13, 2013 at 6:07 pm
“The infrastructure he usually invests in is high profile white elephant”…
Really? I looked at “recovery.gov” which lists a very large number of all kinds of construction projects. Most very mundane, I saw an estimate that the part of the stimulus which was invested in construction created ca 1,000,000 jobs. References below.
60607http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/papers/2010/wp10-17bk.pdf
http://www.recovery.gov/espsearch/Pages/advanced.aspx?data=recipientAwardsList&State=OR
——–
Incentives for renewables” means subsidizig the inefficient and thereby removing incentive for it to become viable.”
Or this can mean jump-starting a process. Renewables (as any new technology) become less expensive through economy of scale. This effect is called a “learning curve”.
———
“provide more stringent standards for emissions ”
May be beneficial or may just be waste but in either case is an increased burden and not a boost for jobs.”
Or could save lives.. More about this later.
———–
“and for energy efficiency” This comes about through technological improvement rather than subsidizing failure.”
As an example:
How about giving home owners low interest loans for better insulation of their houses?
Better insulation -> less energy use-> reduced demand for energy -> lower energy prices -> better economy -> more jobs.
———
“Money wisely invested on cost/benefit basis produces wealth and jobs. Money squanderd does the opposite.”
Finally something we can agree on…
@ur momisugly Matthew R Epp P.E. says:
February 13, 2013 at 7:06 pm
“S Meyer – How many jobs have been lost because of the EPA regulations regarding coal fired power plants?
If even one, that is one too many caused by needless regulation based on an agenda designed to control the people and limit our prosperity and freedom. The amount of reduction in ” harmful” particulates is negligible. the cost to install the new equipment makes the electricity non competitive so they close the plant or switch to natural gas either way screwing the coal miner. I am all for capitalism and free enterprise, if the company CHOSE to switch because it made good market and economic sense then so be it.
Please take off the rose colored prism through which you view this president and his agenda.”
The harmfully effects of particulate matter (and other pollutants) in coal burning emissions have been known for many years. If you had argued that CO2 is not a pollutant I’d agree, but coal emissions are not harmless at all. You’d rather lose a life than a job? Please provide a link about your statement that EPA regulations lead only to a negligible reduction.
One of many references. Scholar google ” coal and pollution” to see for yourself.
http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/med/2005-1214-200002/IVR 3A1 Brunekreef et al (2002).pdf
@ur momisugly philjourdan says:
February 14, 2013 at 4:41 am
“@ur momisuglyS. Meyer – I gave you a warning, not a command. I blew away your rebuttal with the rest of the response. The CBO does not agree with you. “minor” and “long term” do not equate with 0.
And you will not find any reputable Economist that argues price increases do not affect demand.”
——-
[snip . . this is trolling . . mod]
Mods: trolling? How so?
Well, I should have known better. I honestly thought that there could be a real dialogue between liberals and the more conservative people on this site. My objective in this thread was simply to point out that labels such as “a job-killing agenda” are needlessly inflammatory and should not be used if they cannot be backed up by good data. For that, I have been told to “study economics”, and “not to come back and cry”. I have been accused of “using talking-points”, and of “wearing rose-colored prisms”. And then, the coup de grace, I am accused of trolling (and I still have no clue what in my deleted comment would qualify as trolling). Not really a pleasant experience. Not helpful.
Sorry.