GWPF Calls For Halt To UK Low Carbon International Climate Funding

gwpf_logo

PRESS RELEASE: Embargoed until 19 November 2014 – 00:01am

The Global Warming Policy Forum is today calling for the UK’s new international climate finance contribution to go towards helping developing countries with adaptation measures to increase their resilience, rather than the funds being allocated to low carbon development.

It has been reported that David Cameron will later this week pledge £650m to the Green Climate Fund, which aims to help the developing world deal with climate change.

The Government has already allocated £3.87 billion of taxpayers’ money to international climate finance. Since 2011, more than half of this funding has been allocated to low carbon energy development with only around a quarter being used for adaptation purposes.

It is also estimated that of the $35 billion of global international climate aid over the period 2010-2012, less than 15% was allocated to measures helping poor nations to cope with climate change.

Responding to reports of the UK’s contribution to the Green Climate Fund, Dr Benny Peiser, the director of the GWPF, said:

“International climate finance for low carbon development is a detrimental use of aid money. The international community should be encouraging the development of the cheapest forms of electricity generation that offer populations in the developing world the best chances of escaping poverty. It is irresponsible to be actively promoting expensive alternatives that have already led to increasing fuel poverty in the UK and the EU.”

“We are also concerned about western green investors profiteering from the Green Climate Fund; something that Governments around the world should ensure does not happen.

“The UK’s contribution to international climate finance should be targeted at helping the developing world become more resilient instead of making energy more expensive for developing economies.”

Notes to Editors

  • The Green Climate Fund aims to catalyse climate finance from public and private sources, and at the international and national levels, to help the developing world adapt and mitigate climate change.
  • The UK has already allocated £3.87 billion for international climate finance for the period 2011/12 – 2015/16. The Independent Commission for Aid Impact estimates that 56% has been directed to low carbon development, 27% to adaptation and 7% to forestry from 2011 to Feb 2014 [link].
  • For the period 2010 – 2012, the World Resources Institute estimates that only $5 billion of international fast start climate finance was allocating to adaptation, comparing to a total of $35 billion [link].
0 0 votes
Article Rating
63 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
markl
November 18, 2014 4:12 pm

Finally some sanity but what will the money actually be spent on? This should be interesting. How do you ‘protect’ against something that has been happening for millennia with a positive influence on humanity?

Reply to  markl
November 19, 2014 4:57 am

I know how to fix it.
Tomorrow let the UK and the US each give the UN 100 trillion pounds and dollars.
With the UN having 200 trillion they should be able to save the world.
We don’t have the money but that doesn’t stop the spending.
Let’s do the right thing and save the world and just give $500 trillion.
I’m sure Obama and the US Congress could make that work and all the world will be fed, clothed and housed.
Simples.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  markl
November 19, 2014 10:46 pm

Chinese paper hand fans that will cost $50 a piece.

Ken
November 18, 2014 4:32 pm

This action, while sounding laudable is only perpetuating the fraud that is Global Warming. These funds would be far better spent encouraging developing countries to use their own more available and cheaper resources than to saddle them with something that is both costly and unsustainable.

Dave VanArsdale
November 18, 2014 4:33 pm

The number one killer on the planet is lack of clean water. Shame of humanity. Warming schmarming…

Reply to  Dave VanArsdale
November 19, 2014 5:03 am

Nothing will work without the rule of law.
In the US Obama changes rules as he pleases.
No good for personal freedom nor business growth.

John fisk
November 18, 2014 4:50 pm

Condoms, clean water and food would be a better use of the money

ShrNfr
Reply to  John fisk
November 18, 2014 4:57 pm

New disposable syringes would solve an awful lot of health problems in a lot of countries too.

Alex
Reply to  John fisk
November 18, 2014 5:08 pm

Condoms only work when people desire smaller families — which happens with development, not cajoling by global do-gooders.

lee
Reply to  Alex
November 18, 2014 5:28 pm

Only with heterosexual couples.

Mario Lento
Reply to  Alex
November 18, 2014 6:14 pm

That’s correct. Prosperity eventually leads people to have more satisfaction with life, other than focusing on the goal of procreation. Today, they are kept energy poor and reliant on others to give them basic sustenance… which leads to well…

latecommer2014
Reply to  Alex
November 18, 2014 8:11 pm

“Condominiums? Never use them”– Rocky

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  John fisk
November 18, 2014 6:01 pm

Coal fired electricity.

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
November 19, 2014 3:10 pm

Using scrubbers, unlike our Asian neighbors. I get tired of the argument that coal has caused so many deaths. They don’t want to compare that to how many deaths this whole CO2 driven war on the third world has caused. Couple that with the mortality cost of nuke testing and accidents in recent history and burning coal with the presently available technology is apparently safe enough, and appears to be the most cost-effective option for the immediate future.

Athelstan.
November 18, 2014 5:12 pm

Sea walls in need of repair all over, on the coastline of Britain, rivers in serious need of dredging and embankment collapse, levee building etc – work not being done because the treasury says, “there’s no money!”
This year, the UK will top out or, north of £1.4 trillion in nation debt!
The UK, we are still borrowing £100 billion pa. UK.gov will waste £11.4 billion of foreign aid and send £19 billion on to the Brussels Empire. Then, we’re gonna send £70 billion down a black hole on something called HS2 – so that senior EU officials can ride in luxurious comfort from Brussels to Brum [this railway is not for us plebs!]. To arrive at conference and so they can hear about British taxpayer funding being wasted on buying Merx cars for African dictators – oooops ” £3.87 billion for international climate finance”……..
Foreign aid! so says our PM is our ‘moral duty’ – and “we can afford it!”
Yup………………It’s time we rose up an’ relieved them of their sinecures, and started making the wheels for a new train – of tumbrels.

SAMURAI
Reply to  Athelstan.
November 18, 2014 7:22 pm

Athelstan– The Brits are pikers when it comes to national debt. The US has almost $18 TRILLION in national debt, plus another $100+ TRILLION in unfunded liabilities… LOL!
Anyone that believes the US will ever pay this colossal debt off with dollars worth any real value is naive. We’ll just keep printing US$ and “pay it off” with worthless pieces of paper….
This charade will continue until US bondholders figure out America’s real game plan… When bondholders do wake up, they’ll dump their bonds for whatever price some fool will pay for them, bond yields will spike, and that’ll be all she wrote….
In the meantime, the US will continue to negotiate treaties with China to reduced US’ CO2 emissions and build massive solar/wind farms paid for with printed dollars and watch prices for everything “necessarily skyrocket”..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNSZ62xiD4M
Oh, goody! That’ll work…

Athelstan.
Reply to  SAMURAI
November 19, 2014 1:33 am

Samurai,
The green agenda breathes disease settling onto open sores and the financial-corporate body is ailing, metaphorically speaking it is the virus sapping an already [overloaded system] dying body.
It’ll all come tumbling down! ‘Funny money’ – It can’t go on indefinitely, there has to be a correction but how that will play out – who knows but………………… it will be bad for a couple of years.

Silver ralph
Reply to  SAMURAI
November 19, 2014 7:08 am

The US should declare war on the Middle East – that will get rid of half the debt. Then there is only China to worry about ………. errrrr ……
Or the US could do an Argentina, and renege on all overseas debts. That just leaves the internal debt to worry about, plus a very angry China. ……. errrr. ….
Or you could retire to a cave in Montanna, and forget about the world. (Until an angry Chinaman stamps out your fire, and asks for some bever skins in payment….)
R

Henry Galt
Reply to  Athelstan.
November 19, 2014 2:08 am

Athelstan – The rail link (HS2) is EXACTLY for us plebs. We cannot afford to live in London. We could just about scrape train fare and a mortgage in Birmingham. We plebs are still ‘needed’ by ‘them’ to clean up and run their mansions. On minimum wage. Which wouldn’t buy you a garage in “The Smoke” now-a-days. 3 hours added to your daily grind is nothing if you have mouths to feed and renting somewhere in town would put you into negative equity.
SAMURAI – The Chinese are running around attempting to buy… well, anything they can including mountains because they see where this is going. They already sold us their plastic junk at half-price and now we (maybe) want to devalue their ‘savings’!? I don’t think so. They have trillions of US$ to get rid of spend.

Athelstan.
Reply to  Henry Galt
November 19, 2014 6:06 am

Always provided that you are daft enough to want to work in Londonistan – I don’t recognize the place any more……..And all thanks to the EU – something called the single market [a stupid political construct, as is the €zero] and open borders, the politicians driven by their corporate backers and the madmen of International Socialism ref; George Soros, Barrack Obama.

James Abbott
November 18, 2014 5:13 pm

Given that the GWPF is a pro-fossil fuel lobby organisation, this is hardly a surprise. For years their mission has been to attack ANY form of energy production that is not fossil fuel based (check their 2 websites).

markl
Reply to  James Abbott
November 18, 2014 5:40 pm

Still a good statement. It won’t happen but the point is it would be money…..however ill gotten….used better than intended. At least it would help rather than hurt people who need it the most.

Gerry, England
Reply to  James Abbott
November 18, 2014 5:41 pm

Don’t have a problem with that. Keep that fossil fuel coming.

John Catley
Reply to  James Abbott
November 18, 2014 5:46 pm

Exactly what we should expect from our alarmist friends.
Never mind the message, attack the messenger.
When will you people ever stop trying to mislead and deal with the content rather than the source?
Global Warming Policy Foundation is an organisation set up to inject common sense into a deluded world hell bent on spending vast sums of money on pointless activities.
The clue is in the name.

dmacleo
Reply to  James Abbott
November 19, 2014 11:37 am

no dead dinosaur ever fed the tank of my Crown Vic.
geological processes have fed it though.

Billy Liar
Reply to  James Abbott
November 19, 2014 12:16 pm

It is a pity that non-fossil fuel sources (excluding nuclear and hydro with a decent head) only produce pitiful amounts of energy. If non-fossil fuel sources were so good, the Netherlands would still be covered with 17th century windmills.

Bill Illis
November 18, 2014 5:16 pm

It looks like only $51.41 million has actually been paid into the Green Climate Fund despite all the $billions of public commitments made by governments to date.
http://fiftrustee.worldbank.org/webroot/data/GCF_TR_06_14.pdf
Its hard to tell of course but it looks like all the money has been spent on administration to date.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Bill Illis
November 18, 2014 6:07 pm

Yep, 90+% has gone into administration. Nice job if you can get it.

Just Steve
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
November 18, 2014 7:17 pm

If government bureaucracy was a private charity, administrators would be staring at prison time for [perpetrating] a fraud. In government, its business as usual.

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
November 18, 2014 11:31 pm

This is interesting look into how you get plugged into the gravy train:
http://www.gcfund.org/fileadmin/00_customer/documents/Accreditation/GCF_Accreditation_Introduction_November_2014_final.pdf
There are several levels of project (read: cash) size. ‘Micro’ projects are $10 million or less – so you can slice $100,000,000 into a hundred little Micro projects at $1 million each for one country. These would be cash disbursements projects arranged for local despot’s pals (despot gets Medium to Large cash disbursement project).
The paperwork cluster alone from such a setup would hide thousands of thieving hands. They’re hoping for billions to disburse this way.

Louis
Reply to  Bill Illis
November 18, 2014 6:11 pm

The report says $51.41 million of $56.25 million pledged has been deposited into the fund. If the British and U.S. governments have pledged billions, where, or what fund, did they pledge to?
Is the fund really named the “Green Climate Fund Trust Fund”? That’s almost as bad as “The Department of Redundancy Department.”

Reply to  Louis
November 18, 2014 11:46 pm

Is the fund really named the “Green Climate Fund Trust Fund”? That’s almost as bad as “The Department of Redundancy Department.”
Like most Carbon Cult communication, ‘Green Climate Fund Trust Fund’ cryptically tells you what it is with too many words trying to sound smarter than it is.
They could learn a thing from real socialists; nobody beat the Soviets for cryptic names for cryptic bureaucracies – the organization responsible for thermonuclear weapon procurement was the Ministry of Medium Machine Building. Kafka’s ghost shed a tear of joy first time he heard that I bet.

D.I.
November 18, 2014 5:28 pm

In the 1980s it was called ‘Slush Fund’ money,now it is called ‘Aid’.

Lord Jim
Reply to  D.I.
November 18, 2014 11:35 pm

What a perfect name… the UN climate slush fund.

Robert of Ottawa
November 18, 2014 6:00 pm

End the funding of Swiss bank accounts.

Brute
November 18, 2014 6:49 pm

I attended a small conference last weekend. It was a small affair, some forty people at best.
The invited speakers were flown first class from the other side of the planet and stayed at a five star hotel. We are talking about one of the most expensive of the largest capitals in the world.
This is common… for those in the “loop”. And, no, my field does not enjoy even a fraction of 1% of the funds available for climate science.

Barry
November 18, 2014 6:57 pm

This shifts the burden to the average taxpayer, while big fossil fuel corporations continue to reap subsidies and excessive profits and are allowed to pollute the planet. Government is just a convenient scapegoat (in the pocket of the big corporations if they go along with it).

Reply to  Barry
November 18, 2014 7:57 pm

Your average taxpayer is the consumer of the fossil fuel/energy industry.
Why the disgust with what people need? What does the world look like without energy for cooking/heating and transportation?

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Barry
November 18, 2014 9:42 pm

There are various toys that have a button. Press the button and the toy says something. Press the button and the toy says something else. After a few presses the toy starts repeating. Here is one of the things said:
big fossil fuel corporations continue to reap subsidies and excessive profits and are allowed to pollute the planet
Anyway, my retirement fund has stock in energy companies, including, so called, fossil fuel ones. I thank you for the excessive profits.
What’s an average taxpayer?

Stephen Richards
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
November 19, 2014 1:16 am

Mine as well John but the FF shares have not been going too well recently with the move to even cheaper fuel. 🙂

Brute
Reply to  Barry
November 18, 2014 11:06 pm

Which subsidies? And excessive profits compared to what? Unless you are paid to troll, your motivation cannot be other than to inform others of these crimes. Please provide specific and verifiable details. And please elaborate at length. I await for the evidence as do many others.

Billy Liar
Reply to  Brute
November 19, 2014 12:23 pm

Barry’s not up to that: he just quotes from his Big Green Book of Progressive Mantras.

Just Steve
Reply to  Barry
November 19, 2014 1:36 am

Define excessive profits. Most oil companies average 10-11% returns, low enough to get a CEO fired in some industries.

Reply to  Just Steve
November 19, 2014 1:44 am

Steve,
I’ll define excess profits: the cut the gov’t takes. It is far more than what the company makes. The government takes zero risks, it does nothing to produce energy, and it always has its hand out for more, more, more. Always more.
Maybe ‘profit’ isn’t quite the right word for the government’s confiscation. But “excessive” sure is. Here in California we must pay more than 80 cents per gallon in taxes. That is EXESSIVE! They have a lot of gall always blaming “Big Oil” for “gouging” consumers. Big Gov’t is the real gouger.

Just an engineer
Reply to  Barry
November 19, 2014 6:16 am

This is one of the problems with the AGW crowd. “They know so much that just ain’t so”. (paraphrasing Will Rogers)

dmacleo
Reply to  Barry
November 19, 2014 11:39 am

name a subsidy.
depreciation is not a subsidy.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  Barry
November 19, 2014 10:56 pm

The companies that are really polluting the planet are all in China. Go picket their embassy.

November 18, 2014 7:03 pm

No doubt that pollution is the major Global Problem. Definition of pollution: the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects
In other words a real concrete problem a problem that GWM never was or will be. If founded money is used to stop ALL pollution being spent on best filters possible to stop SO2 (major problem in most areas) and other being spread into the air from industrial plants down to heating systems used in cold environmental homes,
IF founded money helps clean the water available for drinking,
then
the founded money would be used in the best way.
Pure clean water and clean breathable air should and ought to be included in the Human Rights.
But as I said before: There never ever been a Global CO2-threat. What’s existed before human set foot on Earth is micro-level to local regional problem due not to CO2 (most of the CO2 leaked origin from existing or dead vulcanos)
the GWM problem has been a problem of undereducated scholars who never learnt to understand that “Snuttification doesn’t give an understanding of more than the bits and pieces they studied. IF and that’s ususally the case the undereducated scholars never understood or studied Theories of Science – Basic knowledge than they hardly have what it takes to understand difference between sound conclusions and political drawn conclusions….
The new faith of IPCC: Humans are Universe’s centre
Btw snuttification is a word used last 40 years to explain "studying a bit here and a bit there without having been taught how to learn to understand the full picture)
And….it doesn't help the undereducated scholars' case not having understood mathematical statistic nor that bad or incomplete input always ends in bad and unreliable output no matter which model they use.

November 18, 2014 7:33 pm

Duh!!!!

LogosWrench
November 18, 2014 8:35 pm

How does money lower temperatures? This is just stupidity masquerading as compassion.
Typical.
Lift them out of poverty by helping them acquire cheap abundant power. It’s just common sense.
Why does the left claim to be guardians of the poor while constantly stomping on them?
What a bankrupt ideology.

RoHa
Reply to  LogosWrench
November 18, 2014 9:45 pm

“How does money lower temperatures? ”
It certainly lowers emotional temperature. Send me $27,000,000 and see how much calmer I become.

1saveenergy
Reply to  RoHa
November 18, 2014 11:07 pm

OK,….it’s on its way,….the check is in the post.

Reply to  LogosWrench
November 19, 2014 5:43 am

And all this time I thought it was theft masquerading as stupidity.
Silly me.

Stephen Richards
November 19, 2014 1:14 am

These polis are completely insane. Money to the UN is money to crooks and thieves. Europe already gives $billions to poorer countries and to the UN in the form of aid.
Me, I would cut all funding to the UN until it was cleaned right through, from top to bottom.

rogerthesurf
November 19, 2014 1:23 am

I think the money should be given back to the poor people that are being ripped off by their government.
That is the British Tax payer.

In economic circles it is well known that government appropriations are the major cause of economic recession. These people are paying the billions mentioned above with their standard of living i.e. poverty and job losses.
For a conservative government, the Brits seem to have copied New Zealand. A so called conservative government spending untold taxpayers money irresponsibly on a non existent problem.
I have mentioned before the we have significant taxpayers money being allocated to find out ways to stop cattle and sheep from farting. Whats particularly stupid about that is that the farting (methane) is a renewable resource but that hasn’t saved the taxpayers here any.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

Mervyn
November 19, 2014 1:42 am

The western world has had enough decades of experience to understand that the solution to providing financial aid to third world countries is not by going through the United Nations such as this latest Green Climate Fund, and is not by directly providing cash to third world governments. Any country providing aid must provide the project itself.
Hence, if the UK wishes to help a third world country with its health or education, the UK should, itself, take responsibility to build schools or hospitals and directly fund positions and resources, if that is to be the case. Money for such purpose must never be given to anyone in these countries because by the time each corrupt official has taken a cut, the original purpose of the aid is irrelevant and the people it was to benefit do not get that benefit.
And the same would apply with this Green Climate Fund… the billions of dollars will simply end up lining the pockets and bank accounts of corrupt people and swallowed up in administration,very and little of the money will end up being used to benefit the people in third world countries.
Just look at Haiti and the pledges of aid after its earthquake. Go see Haiti today and ask yourself about what happened to the money… and where did it all go?

Tim
November 19, 2014 2:59 am

“…It is irresponsible to be actively promoting expensive alternatives that have already led to increasing fuel poverty in the UK and the EU.”
(Maybe it is against the agenda to be allowing 3rd world nations to acquire a level of prosperity that may someday lead them to be a trading or combat threat to developed nations.)
Let them use windmills.

Silver ralph
November 19, 2014 6:59 am

I wrote a long 8-page missive on Sunday, on the disinformation, half-truths and lies being propogated by the Climate Alarmism political lobby. It was sent to all 250-odd Conservative MPs. I hope it has an effect.
Like most media reporters, many MPs are empty vessels with no idea what is happening in the real world. Unless you fill those empty vessels, they will forever remain ignorant. And at present, the likes of the BBC and Grauniad are determined to fill these vessels with disinformation, half-truths and downright lies.
Hopefully, the graphs I sent will conflict with the usual misinformation songreatly, that these MPs will be jarred back into the real world.
R

November 19, 2014 9:21 am

The Government has already allocated £3.87 billion of taxpayers’ money…
Wrong!
The government has allocated £3.87 billion of money they haven’t got so they will have to borrow it, The grandchildren of the taxpayers will be expected to pick up the bill.
There, fixed it.

tadchem
November 19, 2014 9:48 am

The problem with throwing money at any problem is that there are no guarantees of what will be done with it by the people standing in front of you to catch it.

Peter Miller
November 19, 2014 2:32 pm

A complete waste of money, just to make those smug prats suffering from ‘Save the world syndrome’ feel even smugger.

Eugene WR Gallun
November 19, 2014 10:44 pm

What will the money be spent on?
Chinese paper hand fans that will cost $50 a piece.
Eugene WR Gallun

Michael
November 19, 2014 10:46 pm

There’s no guarantee to lessen the carbon usage, even if you fund a lot of money internationally.. Just stop this BS! http://www.sourcetecindustries.com

%d bloggers like this: