Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
The US has some of the world’s most boring looking money—it’s all green. So we have terms like “greenbacks” for dollars, and “long green”, meaning lots of money.
I offer this as context for what I found when I got to wondering what had happened to the United Nations “Green Climate Fund”. You may recall that the Green Climate Fund was set up by the UN as the only result of the recent Rio de Janeiro Cancun conference on climate idiocy. When the Fund is going full throttle, it is supposed to disburse no less than $200 billion ($200,000,000,000) dollars each and every year to the developing countries.
It turns out that, unlike those of us skeptics who are falsely accused of receiving big bucks from big oil, the “Green Climate Fund” has already raked in millions of dollars to spend on fighting the evil forces of carbon. They have a catchy slogan, viz: “The urgency and seriousness of climate change call for ambition in financing adaptation and mitigation”. Ambition in financing? What’s not to like?
Now, I’ve worked for development organizations before. The rule of thumb is that no more than 15% of the funds should go for administration, the rest needs to go to the eventual intended recipients of the largesse.
So … how many of the millions of dollars that have been “donated” by taxpayers in a variety of countries have gone to the actual poor, to aid them in their battle against the dread CO2?
Let’s start how much money we’re talking about.
Here’s a list of the countries who are both rich and improvident enough to squander their taxpayers’ money on the Green Climate Fund. It’s the usual suspects, my condolences to their citizens who are paying for this:
Australia, $513,000
Denmark, $608,000
Finland, $648,000
France, $326,000
Japan, $500,000
Germany, $1,053,000
South Korea, $2,099,000
Netherlands, $286,000
Sweden, $752,000
UK, $770,000
TOTAL, $7,555,000
The Koreans put in two megabucks … but then, they also negotiated a deal where the Green Climate Fund is headquartered in Seoul. So no tears for them, they’ll make out like bandits. Landing a UN drone hive is like landing a money machine, the local landlords will be overjoyed.
Now, of course, $7.5 million, that’s a long ways from their goal of dispersing $200 billion per year. In fact, it’s about this far from their goal:
I see this as very good news—perhaps the countries of the world have figured out that they have better things to do with their money.
Anyhow, I started all of this out with a simple question. How much of the $7.5 million went to help the people it’s supposed to help?
Here’s the not-so-simple answer. When you do this kind of thing, first you have to hand out the plum jobs. Among those are the Members of the Board. Of course, then you have to pay for their travel, and a place for them to meet, for their meetings. And it turns out that three Board Meetings cost just under a million dollars. Expensive meetings. Very expensive meetings.
Oh, can’t forget the Board Committees, Panels, and Working groups. They cost just under four hundred thousand. Total, a million three …
The next round of plum jobs are the people who make up the “Interim Secretariat”. From the name, I take it that these folks are just placeholders until we get more parasites for the real Secretariat …in any case, there’s two million in the budget to hire fifteen people. My mathematics makes that $133,000 per person per year.
So one thing is clear. The UN Personnel came to do good for the poor … and they’re doing very well indeed. A hundred and thirty grand per person? You can see why the South Koreans will be the big winners in the deal.
It gets worse. They actually hire themselves to do the work, at incredible rates. For example, from the UN FCCC they are hiring one full-time and one part-time person, plus some administrative support … for a cool half million dollars. One and a half people. Half a megabuck.
And from the UN GEF, same deal, one full-time and one 60% time person, cost, another half million.
Now, you and I might be satisfied by that. But the UN folks are realists. They know that even if all those fifteen UN drones could somehow work together, they still couldn’t organize a booze-up in a frat house. For that, they always hire consultants. You know, people who can actually do the stuff the UN employees can only talk about.
So the Green Climate Fund has three-quarters of a million bucks in the budget for consultants, to make sure something gets done.
Oh, and did I mention $200,000 per year for the Executive Director?
Now, you gotta know that you can’t have fifteen pluted bloatocrats, plus 3.1 loan-drones from other UN agencies, and three-quarters of a million dollars worth of consultants, without renting some executive-type hive to house the worker bees. Plus phones and faxes and the like, that’s a million two …
Of course, you can’t do business by email, phone, and Skype. Gotta have a travel budget … three hundred grand.
Add all that up, and the “Interim Secretariat” costs $5.3 million …
Lastly, a Trust Fund needs an Interim Trustee. The Green Climate Fund hires that service from the World Bank for just under three-quarters of a million dollars per year … one trustee …IT costs … I can hardly believe it myself, but by a strange coincidence, what it costs them to run the Green Climate Fund adds up to … well … about seven and a half million dollars.
And that means that of the $7.5 million dollars donated by taxpayers all over the world, the people in the developing countries will get …
None.
Like I said, while I bemoan the waste of resources, I see all this as good news. Any country that takes a serious look at what’s happened to the first seven plus million that was donated to the Green Climate Fund will certainly have second thoughts about giving them money.
And that’s a good thing, because if they are this profligate with the first seven and a half million … can you imagine these same pack of over-fed fools in charge the dispensing of two hundred billion dollars to the developing world? I shudder to think of the waste, corruption, bribery, blackmail, and tribalism that would be involved in that kind of an industrial-scale goat-rope. The only people who’d be happy if that happened would be corrupt developing world leaders … and of course, Swiss bankers …
w.
DATA: I do give the GCF high marks for one thing: transparency. All relevant documents are here.
These figures relate to the first year only, who is going to pay for the next year and the next and the next…I wait, I know.
Let me hazard a guess that if anyone with media clout started investigating the accounts they might not be quite so available all of a sudden. And if the figures involved rise into the hundreds of millions, let alone billions then the accounts will be sealed tighter than the UEA data vault.
Thanks a lot, Willis, for this devastating report. In my country of Norway, the former social democrat government were eager supporters of this fund, so it is a bit strange to see that Norway is not on the donor list. Anyway, I have on several native websites asked the question about what became of this highly hyped fund (at least in my country), without getting any answers, so it is great to have this overview.
Actually, I thought the aim of the fund was to have 100 billion dollars by 2020. To be able to hand out 200 billion per year seems too much for any fund in the world. Is this really what they expect as a fund surplus? In that case, the capital of the fund must be beyond my calculator. Or did you mix up fund capital with surplus to be distributed? 200 billion handed out every year, that seems just about impossible. Unless a fresh sum of the same size is pumped in every year also. But could even the UN imagine such a money flow?
But it is really great to have these figures, and not least to see how the money is already put to work for the “good cause”. Thanks again.
I hope you can read, or translate, this Dansih article.
http://politiken.dk/politik/ECE2095767/forargede-politikere-loekke-maa-forklare-luksusrejser-for-bistandspenge/
http://climatereason.wordpress.com/
My thoughts exactly, just a mere matter of order of magnitude & decimal point shifting! 4/100ths of 4/10,000ths & all that!
… pluted bloatocrats…
Priceless!
Someone here used a term that fits this coterie of parasites: The Porkoisie. Perfect.
“Any country that takes a serious look at what’s happened to the first seven plus million that was donated to the Green Climate Fund will certainly have second thoughts about giving them money.”
I had not previously taken Mr. Eschenbach for a slow learner.
If you are serious about putting up an organaization that in say ten years is to spend $200000000000 annualy I say using 7550000 in the first year is frugal, probably irresponsible. Willis rule of thumb is 15% to overhead on a well run development program. Now that would be $30000000000 each and every year, 4000 times what they spent in their first year when they obviously incur a lot of start up expenses.
The good news as I see it they cant be serious, had they really expected to have a lot of money coming in after a treaty in 2015 they would have expanded faster. They didn’t have more money to spend you say? Well, their credit is obviously no good. 😉
Thanks to Willis for digging it up and thanks for UN transparency that made this relatively easy. If only the Scientific community had been held to these standards.
As a tip, why dont look into a very similar fund, the https://www.adaptation-fund.org/ . It’s up and running, sited in Germany and claims: “Over the past three years, the fund has dedicated more than US$ 190 million to increase climate resilience in 28 countries around the world.”
They also explain how they get their money:
“Under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), emission-reduction projects in developing countries can earn certified emission reduction (CER) credits. These credits can be traded and sold by industrialized countries to meet a part of their emission reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol. Financing for the Adaptation Fund comes mainly from sales of certified emission reductions. The share of proceeds amounts to 2 per cent of the value of CERs issued each year for CDM projects.
The fund also receives contributions from governments, the private sector, and individuals.”
Unfortunately for this fund CERs have been cheap for a long period so 2% is no longer what it was expected to be.
To ConTrari: This fund has received more coverage in Norway than the “Green Climate Fund”, you can find a long list of Projects partyally paid with Norwegian climate indulgence payments (=your money)
A couple of sets of numbers I would like to see – and, of course, broken down into individual categories – is just how much is spent annually on the bureaucracies, consultants, facilitators and other parasitic hangers on in the UN and EU.
So much money for so many pointless people.
Nothing makes me madder than the incredible waste in foreign aid programs and how little gets to the people they are supposed to target. These aid organisations are mostly ‘run’ by people who would be unemployable in the private sector.
However, in this instance it may just be an indication that the days of governments publicly waving their green credentials, and pouring vast amounts of unaccountable funds towards those wallowing around in the troughs of climate environmentalism, are coming to an end. If they want to wave their green credentials, then no problem from me, but for God’s sake don’t do anything more to support these utterly pointless causes.
John Trigge says:
October 28, 2013 at 2:15 am
In Oz recently, our profligate ex-government spent $4.6M to redesign the logo of our major welfare organisation, Centrelink. Not because they changed their name but because other organisations were placed under their name.
Trying to get anything done by Centrelink is fraught with long queues, slow responses and oft-duplicated form-filling. No money for more staff but lots for a new logo, no doubt recommended by a consultant.
Not surprisingly, none of the Ministers of the then government will admit to approving the expenditure.
=================================
and so after that spending spree?
todays news has then considering Auspost offices to handle centrelink?
people who cant handle our mail on time?
getting access and control of seriously personal info?
oh thats clever isnt it?
if we thought c-link was bad it could get SO much worse.
Willis, I think there are a few changes you may want to make. The establishment of the GCF actually preceded the June 2012 Rio+20 shindig by a few years:. Although I don’t doubt for a moment that it may well have been mentioned in the Rio “outcome document”.
According to the intro to “draft arrangements“:
COP 16, was the 2010 session of the UNFCCC, held in Cancun. So, Cancun or Rio … well, they’re both South of the border down Mexico Way:-)
Anyway, at COP 17 (2011 in Durban, unless I’m mistaken), in the UNFCCC documentation (FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.1), under the topic of Long Term Finance, one finds:
Btw, they also allocated $200K for an “Executive Search” firm to assist in the recruitment of an Executive Director (whose salary may or may not be the $200K you mention above). But, in June of this year, the GCF Board did settle on: Ms. Hela Cheikhrouhou “as the Fund’s first Executive Director” (although she didn’t “officially” take up this position until early September).
Not sure where you got the $200 billion from. I haven’t looked at all the Board Minutes, so it’s entirely possible that the Board – or the Interim Secretariat, or someone else behind the scenes – decided to up the ambition ante, so to speak!
But the above suggests to me that expenditures to date may well be indicative that things may well be, well, far worse than you might have thought!
As you state, Willis – credit for their transparency.
Can’t help but note their circular irony:-
“Travel Arrangements – Carbon offset
41. The Fund will adopt a scheme of special funding for offsetting carbon emissions based on an approach proposed by the Secretariat and approved by the Board.”
@sigmundb wrote:
“To ConTrari: This fund has received more coverage in Norway than the “Green Climate Fund”, you can find a long list of Projects partyally paid with Norwegian climate indulgence payments (=your money)”
Well, in my view the GCF was heralded loudly by the previous prime minister Jens Stoltenberg, who also expressed a strong will to help establishing the capital. So it seems strange that Norway is not on the donor list. That we contribute to aother climate funds does not surprise me. There’s a lot of that going on, mostly without any mention in the media or any quality check.
What’s a few measly million bucks spent by dedicated people who are out there daily fighting to save the third world and the planet? Sooner or later a few bucks will accidentally be spent on the deserving poor along with great fanfare.
Policycritic
Re: The Gates Foundation
These are serious and shocking revelations. Do you have a link or other information about this horrible waste of the Gates’ own money?
Willis, if Australia’s moronic “climate change” political parties aka the Greens & Labor get back in, this mob of charlatans aka the Green Climate Fund will be rolling in it. But thank you for warning my countrymen. Maybe some of them will listen and think for themselves.
Well, this is really pathetic.
The $200 billion per target just started getting talked about this summer, people just making it up it seems. The official number is still $100 billion per year.
But what is truly a surprising amount, is the funds spent in 2012 on climate change (renewable energy, energy efficiency, adaptation to climate change and climate research).
A cool $359 billion.
U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres said it needs to be $ 1.0 trillion per year.
What a waste of resources. On the good side, it is only 0.5% of world GDP and it was down slightly from last year.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/22/climate-investment-idUSL5N0IB32X20131022
thanx for detailing this, Willis.
heard the following on BBC Radio a day or two ago, also boasting how it means Ethiopia can EXPORT energy to its neighbours. sounded like an extravagant claim to me, but what do i know. can’t find any BBC link. however, it would be interesting if someone with the expertise could explain the economics of the project, what the loans mean in real terms, etc:
28 Oct: BusinessSpectator: Reuters: Ethiopia opens Africa’s largest wind farm
Africa’s biggest wind farm began production in Ethiopia on Saturday, aiding efforts to diversify electricity generation from hydropower plants and help the country become a major regional exporter of energy.
The Horn of Africa country – plagued by frequent blackouts – plans to boost generating capacity from 2,000 MW to 10,000 MW within the next three to five years, much of it coming from the 6,000 MW Grand Renaissance Dam under construction on the Nile.
The plan also consists of raising wind power generation to more than 800 MW and geothermal capacity to less than 100 MW.
The 210 million euro ($US289.68 million) Ashegoda Wind Farm was built by French firm Vergnet SA with concessional loans from BNP Paribas and the French Development Agency (AFD). The Ethiopian government covered 9 per cent of the cost…
Experts put Ethiopia’s hydropower potential at around 45,000 MW and geothermal at 5,000 MW, while its wind power potential is believed to be Africa’s third-largest behind Egypt and Morocco…
Groundbreaking for the Ashegoda Wind Farm was done in 2009 with completion set for 2011 but logistical constraints delayed its finish. It is the second such project in the country after the 51 MW Adama I wind farm, which began production in 2011.
“Ethiopia might have one of the most impressive investment plans in renewable energy in Africa,” Vergnet’s site manager Roman Coutrot told Reuters.
“It’s not only talking, they are acting and signing contracts. The problem they might face is financing but they are not worried about that,” he said…
Last week, Ethiopia also signed a preliminary agreement with a U.S.-Icelandic firm for a $US4 billion private sector investment intended to tap its vast geothermal power resources and produce 1000 MW from steam.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/10/28/wind-power/ethiopia-opens-africas-largest-wind-farm
When are these damn developing countries going to be developed? Seems like they’ve been “developing” all my life.
You are not factoring in the cost of unpaid parking fines racked up by UN personnel. See here . The table at the end is eye-opening. from 1997 to 2002 UN diplomats in New York City racked up violations per diplomat ranging from a high of 246 (Kuwait: 9 diplomats), 140 (Egypt: 24 diplomats), 124 (Chad: 2 diplomats), 119 (Sudan: 7 diplomats) 118 (Bulgaria: 6 diplomats) down to those perrenial boring goody-goodies like UK, Canada, Netherlands, UAE, Australia, Azerbaijan, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Columbia, Denmark, Ecuador, Sweden Greece, Ireland, Israel, Jamaca, Japan, Latvia, Norway, Oman, Panama and Turkey who all had 0 unpaid parking violations. Japan has the largest UN delegation (47) with no unpaid tickets; UK comes in second with 33. Dominican Republic, Finland, Guatemala, New Zealand and Switzerland all get honorable mentions for having only 0.1 unpaid violations per diplomat.
Zimbabwe, which under the inspiring leadership of Robert Mugabe has gone from being Africa’s largest food exporter to unable to feed her own population, can nonetheless maintain a staff of 14 diplomats at the UN racking up an average of 45.6 unpaid parking violations each. This notable effort only earned them 18th place in this dubious distinction.
As of May 2011, Foreign missions owed NYC $17 million in unpaid parking tickets. One wonders how many other bills these cossetted diplomats leave unpaid. There are almost certainly secondary costs due to the example set for the rest of New Yorkers, encouraging other violations.
Somebody will make out like a bandit under this Green Climate Fund, but I don’t think it will be the good citizens of Seoul.
Thanks for an excellent article Willis. I feel quite depressed now, not that any of it is really surprising. Unfortunately, discovering things going on that are depressing is part of the price one pays for not signing up to the Alarmists’ happy-clappy bandwagon.
John Law says:
October 28, 2013 at 12:19 am
M Simon says:
October 27, 2013 at 11:54 pm
“I need a job. Are they hiring?”
Only if you are completely useless, corrupt, or both!
=======================
OK, I can do useless. I’ll have to work on corrupt, but I have high hopes in that direction.
cheers,
gary
Suggestion for South Korea:
Put in two million additional dollars, on the condition the Green Climate Fund headquarters be relocated to North Korea. It will be cheaper for you in the long run and all those green “pluted bloatocrats” might as well get a first hand look at where their energy policies will lead.
There will be savings for the rest of us also, as I suspect fewer and smaller NGO delegations will be junketing off to spend a fun-filled week in luxurious Pongyang.
“UN drone hive” – great expression, Willis. Spot on.