"Republicans plan multi-billion dollar climate budget raid"

Guest post by David Middleton


By Megan Darby in Marrakech

US Republicans are expected to axe billions of dollars in climate finance when they take the White House and Congress in January.

Funds to help poor countries adapt to the impacts of global warming and develop sustainably will be redirected to domestic priorities.

“We are going to cancel billions in payments to the UN climate change programmes and use the money to fix America’s water and environmental infrastructure,” said President-elect Donald Trump in his 22 October Gettysburg address.1

With a Republican majority in the Senate and House of Representatives, there appears to be little standing in his way.

“That brings a fear to African countries,” Akabiwa Nyambe, a Zambian official, told Climate Home at a side meeting of COP22 climate talks in Marrakech. “We have been looking forward to the US bringing a lot of funding into projects… It drops our faces.”


Climate Home

How mentally deficient does one have to be to refer to the cancellation of billions of dollars of climate-related welfare payments as a “raid”?

Simple Definition of raid

  • : a surprise attack on an enemy by soldiers or other military forces

  • : an occurrence in which police suddenly enter a place in a forceful way to find criminals, illegal drugs, etc.

  • : an act of going into a place (such as a bank) in order to steal something

The ignorance of these people is mind boggling…

Rachel Kyte, head of the UN’s Sustainable Energy for All programme, said Trump did not have a mandate to reverse US climate finance commitments. “All developed countries made promises,” she said. “A promise made has to be a promise kept.”

The U.S. has no “climate finance commitments.”  Outgoing President Obama had a commitment.  He made the promise.  These United States did not make any promises or commitments.  The only ways in which this country could have made such a promise would have been through a treaty or legislation.  Furthermore, President-elect Trump has a mandate.

Simple Definition of mandate

  • : an official order to do something

  • : the power to act that voters give to their elected leaders


Having won the Election, President Trump will have a mandate to carry out the duties outlined in Article II of the U.S. Constitution, nothing more and nothing less.

Outside the UN processes, institutional inertia and a measure of Republican support is likely to keep some funding streams open.


Then there was President Obama’s personal championing of the cause. In 2014, he ordered all international development aid to be climate-proofed – the kind of precaution a sceptic administration could easily reverse.

And he channeled diplomatic efforts into persuading G20 allies, for example, to stump up. “We won’t have that and we won’t really have the administration leadership valuing that part of the picture,” said Peterson.


 “President Obama’s personal championing of the cause” and his channeling of “diplomatic efforts into persuading G20 allies, for example, to stump up” were his efforts and his alone.  The fact that virtually none of those efforts were sent to Congress for ratification or enabling legislation means that they will be null & void on January 20, 2017.
The Warmunists are literally left with nothing more than a lemming-like chant…

What a Trump Win Means For the Global Climate Fight

Donald Trump’s ascension to the presidency signals an end to American leadership on international climate policy. With the withdrawal of U.S. support, efforts to implement the Paris agreement and avoid the most devastating consequences of global warming have suffered a huge blow.

by David Victor

With the unexpected triumph of Donald Trump, what’s in store for U.S. climate and energy policies?

One thing is clear: The Trump administration will inflict more harm on global cooperation around climate than any prior president. After the successful Paris agreement last year, that cooperation was finally poised to make progress with decisive U.S. leadership. I doubt that a Trump presidency will kill the Paris process — too many other countries are too invested in its success. But it will shift the intellectual and political leadership of the process from the United States to other countries, most notably China.
If the U.S. leaves Paris and eliminates its leadership role, that leaves China to steer the ship.

David Victor is a professor at the School of Global Policy and Strategy, University of California at San Diego and chairman of the Global Agenda Council on Governance for Sustainability at the World Economic Forum. He is also co-chair of the Brookings Initiative on Energy & Climate. Victor is author of Global Warming Gridlock and numerous essays on climate cooperation.

All that they are left with is, “If the U.S. leaves Paris and eliminates its leadership role, that leaves China to steer” the lemmings off a cliff.


Featured image source.

221 thoughts on “"Republicans plan multi-billion dollar climate budget raid"

  1. ‘Donald Trump’s ascension to the presidency signals an end to American leadership on international climate policy.’
    Au contraire. Trump will be a great leader on international climate policy. It will just be led in a direction they don’t want.

    • David M,

      The only ways in which this country could have made such a promise would have been through a treaty or legislation.

      Beyond the poorly stated comment, you’re right. The USA can redefine the UNFCCC in a NY minute or simply walk away from the table.
      This is going to be fun!

  2. If we could only get the lunkhead in Ottawa to stop giving away money we don’t have. Money that has been borrowed with interest, at a time when the Canadian Government is in record debt. But of course Trudeau is loved by the people receiving the money, they say so in the news, so it must be true. No doubt if he gave away even more money he would be liked even more.
    Trudeau pledges $2.65B to help poor countries fight climate change

    • Money we Canadians can’t afford. Trudeau leads our Liberal party. He ran his election campaign promising to go into deficit by no more that 10B, so far he is up to 30B. It’s always easy to spend other people’s money!

    • That’s because Trudeau is a centrist. He’s like the Mac dude, prancing about feeling very educated and quietly superior, despite the fact that PC is a billionth the price and used by people who need oodles of power. He’s a mess when it comes to climate science, accept to say, “I follow the advice of the 97%”. Which amounts to flippidypuff. The cautionary principle is expensive and stupid, but that’s not the point is it? The point isn’t to establish safeguards against Co2 forcing. The point is to monetize a central global power. And finally America has a president who gets hives when he thinks of funding such a stupid thing

      • It’s astonishing to me that so many Canadians want to pay more taxes. They already pay 45% of their annual incomes in taxes, they already pay about $2/gallon in carbon taxes on gasoline, yet they still want to pay more.
        I always thought people wanted to pay less taxes, but not Canadians.
        How did Canadians end up there?

      • Ahh, the old, we can’t con other idiots into believing our bullshit so we’ll just import greater idiots from severely impoverished countries to bribe into voting for us con.
        Seems to a be a strategy certain groups tend to use wherever they exist, and they do seem to exist in a lot of places too for some reason. Almost like they don’t have a country of their own to ruin.

    • Only until such time as it becomes difficult for Paul to support them. For instance, if they want their money back.

  3. This will devastate African and other leaders in the developing world. Where will they get the money to buy build palaces and monuments to themselves?

  4. I have had a grin so big since last Tuesday’s election that the joker looks sad…. Sorry I had to stop to laugh. What a great country I guess we could always use the money to provide affordable, dependable energy and still have some left for clean drinking water.

    • BINGO! If the USA still wants to help Africa, they could use a fraction of that amount and build clean coal or natural gas fired electrical generation plants, and provide clean drinking water. But this strategy would not enrich Africa’s ruling elite as much as the Paris treaty.
      Worth a read… ‘The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels’ by Alex Epstein

      • Jeff in Calgary —
        So right. In Africa the enrichment of the ruling elite comes first, middle and last. Any pennies they missed stealing might somehow make to the poor — but that is rare.
        Eugene WR Gallun

      • “…enrich the elite..” That is the real complaint. Without the Obama funds, where is the money for corruption going to come from?

      • If the elite are no longer enriched by money they scam out of the West you can expect to see a few revolutions on the African continent in the years ahead.

      • ” If the USA still wants to help Africa”
        There was a case, many years ago in an Arab country, where a bunch of American do-gooders went in and asked what the natives needed. They were a nomadic people and largely self-sufficient and only wanted a place to bury their dead. This wasn’t good enough for the Americans, who promptly decided that they new better. So they dug a well for drinking water and installed the latest gleaming, shiny high-tech pump. It used lots of electric power, so they also had to install a diesel generator and lay a road for regular supplies of diesel fuel. All of this cost a motza. much more than it would have cost to build a simple graveyard.
        Now, the natives, they didn’t want any of this. All they needed was a place to bury their dead. So after a few months, the latest gleaming, shiny high-tech pump needed maintenance. It didn’t like working in such a sandy place, after all. It needed specialized maintenance – skilled technicians and precision tools. But the Americans were long gone and there was nobody to repair it. The diesel stopped working when the fuel ran out. There were no Americans left to buy fuel, either. The road was quickly covered in sand and became unusable.
        The moral of this story is that if the USA wants to help Africa, then they should let Africa alone to work out what it’s problems are for itself, instead of constantly preaching at them to adopt American philosophies.

      • Well, since the Second world War, no foreign aid or government programme has gone out and built gas and coal plant in Africa, let alone the necessary grid…
        and many African countries do not have gas or coal or the means to import it… Morocco for example is Africa’s largest fossil fuel importer due to its limited resources, so it is using solar CSP and soalr panels to reduce the drain on its economy.
        Kenya is getting electricity for all financed by the World Bank – but it is by increasing wind, solar and geo-thermal for the most part.
        Renewables are delivering power at all levels in Africa where gas and coal haven’t and won’t.

        • But not the kind of power needed for industrial development. Solar to a poverty stricken village still leaves a poverty stricken village.

    • Jeff in Calgary
      November 14, 2016 at 1:34 pm
      TG, I would like one of those Electric coal generators… 🙂
      Hands off I just invented the term, know I getting busy on the design. Oh boy its a bit of a problem? OK back to the standard coal fired electricity generating plants.

  5. The pledge was made almost exactly one year ago. Any word on whether money has actually been shipped out?

  6. While cancelling the foreign aid portion of the Paris Accord is a good thing, most of the money associated with the Paris Accords is in the US compliance promises. Eliminating “renewable energy” subsidies and madated purchase requirements will have a much larger effect, along with the cost to industry and consumers of Obama’s climate plan compliance.

      • That raises an intriguing point. Nixon created the EPA by means of executive order. I hope that means our next president has the authority to dismantle the EPA by means of executive order. I hope Mr. Trump takes a long, hard look at not overhauling but rather doing away with the EPA.

      • The EPA was initially created with executive orders. However, over the years those executive orders have been backed up with numerous congressional bills. It would take an act of congress to break it up now.

        • President “The Donald” Trump’s FY 2018 Budget request for the EPA need not include all of the spending authority as that contained in the current FY 2017 Budget.
          MarkW, please assure me that a Republican House and Senate would insist the President add back funding for the EPA.
          Oh, BTW, precedent has it that all allocations need not be expended by the Executive.
          Naivete abounds.

      • Dave, one of the beefs that the Democrats had with Nixon was Nixon’s insistence that he didn’t have to spend money on things that he (Nixon) deemed unnecessary. After he resigned, the new Congress in 1975 changed the rules. When Carter was elected, they made it so that the President had to spend it and brought in ‘baseline’ budgeting, if I am remembering correctly. Reagan tried to get a line-item veto. Congress didn’t agree with him. I think Reagan’s case went to court and failed.

    • Likely because the next occupant has actually lived in the real world. You know, where money doesn’t grow on trees and where there are consequences for effing-up.

      • That’s why I like this line (original Ghostbusters)
        Dr. Raymond Stantz: “Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities, we didn’t have to produce anything! You’ve never been out of college! You don’t know what it’s like out there! I’ve WORKED in the private sector. They expect *results*.”

  7. The sheer hypocrisy of warmists denying the third world cheap available power then hitting Trump for pulling futile/wasteful “sustainability “funds is mind boggling.

  8. seems like a case of fraud.. Tax payer money sent to a foreign country while money is sent back to the issuer through a back door…. Are you referring to Hillary Clinton? .. Oh I’m sorry, Yes for one who has been recently outed.

  9. Take the money. Make huge public hay of spending it to replace lead lined water pipes in Flint Michigan and others cities that decades of Democrat rule have run into the ground. Fund a surge of policing in those same cities.
    Out smart and out politic the left which promises heaven while delivering hell. Will some of the money be stolen by the politicians? Yes unfortunately. Better than throwing down the green hole it was headed for.
    The UN enterprise is overdue for roots up reform. Pushing it physically out of the US is a good start. We do not desire the post of hegemon. We look for fair trade and friendship with those of goodwill. As to the rest…. our powder will be kept dry.

    • >>Make huge public hay of spending it to replace lead lined water pipes in Flint Michigan <<
      Kate, from SmallDeadAnimals.com, thinks that a rescue of Flint Michigan is in the offing. It would be great to see

  10. They are entirely correct to do so!.
    Warming due to the accumulation of greenhouse gasses is an untested hypothesis, and the recent discovery that temporary increases in average global temperatures occur whenever there is a business recession (100% correlation since 1850) proves that there is another factor which can increase global land-ocean surface temperatures, other than greenhouse gasses..

  11. “We have been looking forward to the US bringing a lot of funding into projects… It drops our faces.”
    Too bad, so sad. Not our problem. The good news is that China has agreed to take our place, so if you ask them nicely, I’m sure they will be happy to open their wallets up.

    • lol — good one, Mr. Cobb. 🙂

      Funds to help poor countries adapt to the impacts of global warming and develop sustainably buy windmills, solar panels, and other like junk will be redirected …

      As others have pointed out, such funds could be redirected to providing:
      clean water, 24-hour electricity (coal-hydro-nuclear), non-polluting (as in real pollution) cooking appliances, decent roads, etc., …. and
      MONEY in their pockets because they have a decent income thanks to IT facilities and factories powered reliably, so they can then buy reliable transportation and go to school! Or make it to a doctor in time! And there will be a dentist in their town!
      And remember, wealth = true “green” as in public parks and clean rivers and lakes, etc..
      Sigh. And, yes, as Mr. Penrose points out, they also need to ditch their socialist governments…. or they will be like Haiti, one of the most richly endowed countries in the world
      and look what it has done for them. 🙁

      • While most of us will celebrate when these poor start getting reliable power and begin to lift themselves out of poverty.
        Unfortunately once that happens the usual chorus will start screaming about another group of foreigners who are now competing with US workers.

      • Yes, I hear you, MarkW. And we will answer them with a big smile: “Oh, but, didn’t you know? THE PIE JUST GOT BIGGER!” iow: American workers will have more $$ to spend on what is made overseas and vice-versa and it is going to be GREAT for ALL! 🙂
        “All ships rise with the tide.”
        (someone, sometime)

  12. There’s been quite a lot of optimism at this site since the election victory of Donald Trump. But unless he works at addressing the science, they’ll continue to snap at his heels until it becomes too painful. Then he’ll start to conform.

    • @D. Carroll: Exactly what I have been preaching here at WUWT repeatedly. Pulling out of the Paris Agreement and pulling the funding for the climate scare campaign isn’t enough. Unless he assembles a panel of scientists to show the American people, the U.N. and the world what the scientific problems are with the CAGW theory, Trump is going to get what I believe will be a sizeable and very painful backlash and demands for vengence from the Green Community, the U.N. and foreign governments who are looking to get the palms greased from the Green Fund.
      If he caves in to the climate scare camp without demonstrating why their science is faulty, it will be a serious setback for sound and honest science. Religious cults of this size and scope will not go away quickly or easily without a great deal of effort.

      • No, President The Donald doesn’t need to “demonstrate” anything. A level playing field provided by Federal Executive Branch agencies will take care of the climate scare. Science will have to stand on its own.

      • Marinus
        If the raw temp data is still around (kind of like Hillary Clinton’s Rose Law from billing records during Whitewater), Dr Mann will have some ‘splaining to do: he testified in a FIOA law suit that the records were destroyed in a fire…

      • @Dave Fair November 14, 2016 at 3:48 pm
        “No, President The Donald doesn’t need to “demonstrate” anything. A level playing field provided by Federal Executive Branch agencies will take care of the climate scare…….”
        Dave, I sincerely hope you are right about that. I really do.
        In my mind though, the U.N. has done a great deal of damage to climate science, and the Obama Administration has been complicit in the last 8 years with its riding on the the U.N. climate scare bandwagon. The politics and money of government can and does corrupt anything it get its hands on, and simply leveling the playing field here represents a failure of government to admit to the damage it has done to climate science. Does it not have an obligation to admit that it has done so?
        If the leveling of the playing field is indeed enough, then fine. What I fear though is that the political, financial and other vested interests in climate alarmism are so great that it won’t be that easy. The socialist wealth redistributionists at the U.N. and the greenies can be a very determined and stubborn bunch, and I don’t dismiss the possibility that they will succeed in keeping the climate alarmist faith alive indefinitely unless they are discredited by the contrary evidence that is presented to the American people and the world.
        And a complicit MSM doesn’t help either.

        • Well, CD, you are probably right about the MSM spin. I am, however, as concerned as much about “conservative” science as I am about “liberal” science.
          It has been documented that media outlets coordinated their messaging with the Obama administration and green NGO activists. I believe that existing MSM will not be coordinating messaging with Trumpistas, though. I assume the MSM would still hew to the watermelon line.
          It has also been documented that the IPCC has been populated with watermelons. U.S. staffing of its IPCC positions have followed that pattern.
          If we do not withdraw from the IPCC completely (see the Palestinian issue, among others), and assuming a Trump administration put skeptics in its IPCC positions, IPCC SPMs would arguably look vastly different.
          It will take 5 to 10 years for actual temperature, precipitation, etc. to tell us if the world is going to hell. Let us just see.

      • The principle at Law is that the accuser, libeller or whatever must prove his case. The principle in science is that proof must first be shown, then any contradictions must be answered.
        In this case, settled science says that AGW could raise the temperature by 1.7C. Which on its own will make scarcely any difference to the climate. The rest is unproven hypothesis, and is therefore not science. We don’t have to disprove claims which have yet to be proven.

    • D. Carroll November 14, 2016 at 12:17 pm
      Hello D. Carroll Why would you say that? He can instruct the Department of Education to notify all school districts and Federally funded Universities that if they do not have acceptable provisions to discuss and present all viewpoints on claim change they will receive no federal funding. The can totally remove any reference to the subject from the curriculum until said time that all scientific explanations are taught and permitted on campus.
      In other words simply to get funding they will have to make available courses on natural climate variation.

      • climate change not claim change but then again when it comes to CAGW I may have had it right the first time
        michael :->

      • “He can instruct the Department of Education to notify all school districts and Federally funded Universities ..” That presupposes there’s a Department of Education left standing. What are the odds?

  13. Leftists view everything as belonging to them.
    By that measure, when they get less than they wanted, you have stolen something from them.

    • Here is a quote that seems to confirm your statement, although, I have been unable to independently verify it:
      “Theoretically there is nothing that could stop the government from taxing 100% percent of income so long as the benefit is commensurate with their income that is taxed.” Barack Obama Sr. ” Problems Facing Our Socialism” East Africa Journal (1965)”
      This would go along with that egregious phrase uttered by any given number of Congressional Democrats during budget negotiations – “pay for tax cuts”.
      One thing I hope Trump will address is Baseline Budgeting, where the US automatically grows government expenditures by 4% (?) every year. The Government is growing at a faster rate than the US economy.

      • I wish I could remember the actual numbers (so I’ll just make up some). I believe it was Newt Gingrich who once calculated that if we could slow the growth of government to just 1% less than the growth rate of the economy, we could eliminate the deficit in 20 years.
        Of course that was using the 1980 deficit.

  14. Most of the world doesn’t understand how constrained is the POTUS. They will thus be surprised to find out that Obama’s ‘commitments’ aren’t worth very much.

  15. Will China start cutting emissions immediately? – NO
    Will China start handing out tens of billions in aid to third world countries (instead of being the recipient)? – NO
    What sort of “leadership” do they suggest?

      • I’ve been voluntarily switching to LED, in my opinion they have reached the point where they are cheaper than incandescent bulbs.

      • I switched out our entire house to LED (the range and performance of LED’s is now such that it’s cheap enough and they put out a better quality of light than tungsten). I never ever used the hideous mercury laden CFL’s as the light from them made me feel ill.
        I didn’t switch to LED for any overriding sense of greenness, but to save money, which I have, in spades. When they jack the electricity rates in the UK by 10% this year, all due to new green taxes, of course, we’ll be laughing a fair bit.

        • We briefly replaced some incandescent with the CFLs, but fortunately we had enough of the Incandescent hoarded that as any lights need replacing, I go LED. Still a bit pricey, but as you said, the quality is a lot better and they do save a lot in electrical cost!

          • Yes, I did the same thing initially when it was announced in the early 2010’s that incandescents would be banned from sale in the UK (which wasn’t exactly 100% true in practice, but enough to make things slightly inconvenient).
            Having seen some of the (very expensive) high output tactical torches/flashlights in the late 2000’s, I had an idea that general LED’s were going places, but didn’t know how long that would take – e.g. some of the earlier LED cluster spots were abysmally poor. So I bought a bulk box of bayonet 100w tungstens and stuck them in the attic. Didn’t cost very much buying them online, but it seemed like a reasonable backup plan. As luck would have it, LED’s matured really fast and I am now left with around 30 incandescents I don’t need. Oh well, Hi Ho, so it goes.
            I don’t know about LED’s being pricey though… I bought the “STATUS” brand from a local cheap shop and they have worked flawlessly for over a year now and the light quality is superb. They ranged in price from £2.50 – £3.50, with only a couple of very specialist spotlights (LED imitation PAR’s) costing around £6 – spent around £60 total converting the whole house. Worked up an EXCEL spreadsheet (sad, I know) with the old and new wattages and usage (I have 3 daughters who think they need 1000w of lighting every waking hour they are not at school) and calculated that my payback time just for power savings alone was about 3-4 months. With the cost of the LED’s taken into account, I saved about £190 just in the first year on power. If the “cheapo” LED’s only lasted 6 months they would have more than paid for themselves, but we’re over a year now and no failures.

          • @G. Lambert – When I say “pricey”, I meant the initial outlay. I have not really calculated the energy savings (although my electric bills have definitely gone down!) to see a pay back. I just prefer the light given off over the CFLs, so did not worry about the initial outlay.

  16. How about we use at least part of that money to help poor African countries wean themselves from government corruption and empty socialist promises that have kept them in abject poverty for decades.

    • It’s a nice dream to buy them freedom and democratic governance, but it is not possible. They will have to get it the same way we did; they will have to earn it for themselves. The best we can do is to stop enabling their oppressors and to treat them fairly in the global marketplace.

    • Kamikazedave
      Say what? We can “give” other nations freedom from socialists & government corruption? Where exactly has this rich people giving “giving” nations freedom actually worked (other than, arguably, Japan & Nazi Germany after WW2)?
      What you been smoking, boy?

      • Paul, Javert, Marcus, You guys are absolutely right, though what was written was not what was going through my head at the moment. My thoughts were to help them help themselves, not give them anything. We’ve done way too much of that already and to no avail. After re-reading what I wrote, I thought it sounded like something Griff would post. Sorry about that. I wasn’t smoking anything, Javert but was sipping on some really fine Scotch, Ardbeg Uigeadail.

  17. Agree with some of the comments above. Pulling out of Paris only part of the solution. The main game is to reprogram the billions of people globally who have been indoctrinated by the AGW fanatics. The need is now to explain to people the science ( or non science) of the AGW religion. Senator Roberts is taking the right approach in asking for debate or discussion on the science. Give me some empirical proof of your position . We need to make everyone realise the emperor has no clothes. The attack has to be on the compliant media and compromised academe to force them to listen, observe, debate and discuss. Trump gives us the opportunity but it has to be actively grabbed it won’t just happen.

    • I wish I could agree, unfortunately the same (phony) graphs and (misplaced) logic will just be drawn out again and again. Look the ‘line’ goes up, it must be ‘bad’. Unfortunately it will take years to organically undue, if it can be undone at all.

    • I agree that Trump will need to attack the AGW “consensus” in order to build some credibility against what has been an overwhelming narrative on the evils of warming. The good news is it’s way down most people’s list, even after years of propaganda (lies).

    • According to the UN’s Ban, Climate change action has become unstoppable.
      He also hinted that countries will start to tax US exports if we don’t go along with their insanity.

    • I agree with many voices here that the bad science needs to be addressed while the climate hustle gets rooted out. If it is not, we will simply see a shrill media spend four years calling him and others names. While I have no illusions that this is easy or even possible with many true believers, but it should be undertaken for the benefit of those who simply have only ever seen the media’s version of the world.

    • Surely the way to do this is to not ratify the existing Paris agreement, and place a moratorium on all new grants for solar / wind turbines *until* a Congressional Hearing (like the hokey stick one) comes to a conclusion on the science.
      That would force the climate opportunists to show their science quickly, and have a decision in place, so that it doesn’t affect the 2018 elections negatively for the Republicans.

  18. “US Republicans are expected to axe billions of dollars in climate finance when they take the White House and Congress in January”
    We can but hope!

  19. I have a feeling that Trump will make investing in America look so easy that the Dems will be in full panic mode in four years.

  20. Perhaps the EU economy would not be in the ditch the way it is if they had spent that trillion plus dollars they have spent on renewable energy and crippling their industry and impoverishing the citizenry on solving real problems. Trump can legally cancel climate “commitments” made by Obama, and can kill the Iran deal by complaining to the UN about violations of the agreement such as manufacturing too much heavy water. I wonder what future all those bright, gleaming climate mitigation college graduates have now, with the grant money drying up and the subsidies going away. They might have to be like Bob and get a real job.(thanks George Thorogood)

  21. I drive a Tesla, and would happily buy shares had I had any money left… 😉 Byline: Where is the toot for replication of the climate science on these pages? If you believe half of what you write, and claim that the peer-review has failed (of which I might partly agree), there is only one path ahead: To get free-minded scientists try to replicate the IPCC et Co’s finds – and see where that ends up. Oh, forget it. You all seem as camped up as that other camp. Have a happy camping! 😛

    • Real Scientists would much rather investigate NATURAL climate change, rather than be forced to hunt for just human causes like the IPCC was by its very inception.
      Remember that it was form ONLY to find human causes of the very slight global warming we have thankfully had out of the LIA. Hamstrung into propaganda rather than science, from the very start.

    • OJ, you have just made the argument for the sceptics. There hasn’t been proof of CAGW and not one penny should have been spent on mitigation until there was. No one can prove something that doesn’t exists.

  22. Elite European and US College campuses are the the incubators of Green thought. Money flows to poor country elites who use it to pay full tuition for thier children at these same universities. A nice little racket if you can get in on it.
    Obama giving press conference now pleading for his legacy. The appointment of Steve Bannon indicates that Obama’s plea will fall on deaf ears.

    • I expect Obama to be very NICE to Trump, as Trump holds Obama’s legacy in his hands, and Obama knows it.

  23. The Trump administration will inflict more harm on global cooperation around climate than any prior president.


  24. So now it looks like the Hollywood stars, liberals, progressives, the Clintons, Algore and anyone else who have been so comfortable spending OPM will have to pony up their own cash to save the cause they so vehemently support with words.
    (Apologies to anyone who gagged so hard that coffee is now on their screen)

    • ..Wait, I thought they were all moving to Canada ? ( Notice they didn’t say “Moving to Mexico” ?….LOL

  25. I have seen a lot of debate on how the US can get out of the Paris agreement. What most miss (for the non-natives, an understandable omission) is that since Obama did not want to subject it to debate in the Senate, all it is, is HIS agreement! And is not legally, morally or ethically binding on Trump.
    But the important lesson here is that when you become a slave to anyone, you lose control over your welfare. The Climate cabal has been an arm of the Federal government for a long time. Now they have to learn to make an honest living.

  26. How are the ruling elite in developing countries supposed to buy European Luxury cars without Climate Relief Aid?

  27. This reminds me a bit of this about GW Bush’s tax cuts.

    Tax code explained in Beer
    Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100…
    If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…
    The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
    The fifth would pay $1.
    The sixth would pay $3.
    The seventh would pay $7..
    The eighth would pay $12..
    The ninth would pay $18.
    The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
    So, that’s what they decided to do..
    The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20”. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.
    The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
    They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
    So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
    And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
    The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
    The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
    The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
    The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
    The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
    Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
    “I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”
    “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”
    “That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
    “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”
    The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
    The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
    And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
    David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
    Professor of Economics.

    The Greens have been soaking up tax dollars for years. Now that those tax dollars they shouldn’t have been getting to begin with may be cut off, they call it “a raid”?!
    Any tax dollars that go toward research should go to actual scientific research, not research for “politically-correct science”.
    Flagpoles sway. To move the dollars from the left toward the center is not a “raid”.

    • (((APPLAUSE!)))
      Now, if the federal government (just around the corner!! 🙂 ) will just repeal “climate ed.”
      and replace with Econ 101 and 102 (Macro and Micro),
      all the voters would eventually be economically literate and
      vote accordingly and
      this country will be perpetually GREAT!
      Like you, Mikeyj, still smiling!!! 🙂

    • I wish that many of our so called anti-free traders would notice the part about “might even choose to drink beer overseas”.
      You want to fix the trade problems?
      Step one, stop doing those things that drive companies over seas.

    • @ Gunga Din November 14, 2016 at 3:20 pm
      Professor of Economics” well that explains the poor math skills! The original bill is 100 dollars and each are paying in dollars, so they are each paying in percentages* (Per hundred don’t you know!) It doesn’t matter what the total bill is (In any other case, after the initial setup of the story.), the proportion for each will be in exactly the same ratio! So a reduction in the total is a reduction for all, no less! The confusion in this misleading argument, comes from assuming the distribution was fair to begin with! 😉
      *A percent is a ratio whose second term is 100. Percent means parts per hundred. The word comes from the Latin phrase per centum, which means per hundred.

      • Again, the “trick” here is hide the fact that the original distribution is a percentage. The original 100 dollar amount obscures this somewhat, when in fact is should be a helpful give-away for solving the problem. The second error is in attempting to convert the dollar amounts into percentage savings of the smaller ($80) discounted total. This is how it should look and each save 20% (-20% for those that pay nothing ;-):
        1st – 4th 0.00
        5th 0.80
        6th 2.40
        7th 5.60
        8th 9.60
        9th 14.40
        10th 47.20
        total $80.00

      • Dear Mr. Bennett,
        The hypothetical’s facts included this: reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle {not the exact percentages} of the tax system they had been using, . They did not distribute the $20 savings per the original %’s. This was to mimic the new-and-“improved” %’s.
        I think the professor’s hypothetical is internally consistent. You make some very valid points, though, about math/percentages.
        Anyway. We can, at least agree (I think!), that the POINT of the beer — tax hypothetical was right on the money. 🙂
        Janice (still praying ….. and I realize you consider that a waste of time 🙂 )

      • But. But. But. Scott, you missed the point entirely. What should have been done was to pay the $20 to the 4 poor soles who already get the free beer. They get to drink the beer and take home an additional $5 each

      • Hi Janice,
        I’ve never said you are wasting your time, by the way! 😉
        “My people suffer from lack of knowledge” is a biblical quote that a like.
        And your god – that also made me – would want me speak my truth, wrong or right!
        I’m sorry and in the friendliest way possible, I have to say that the “Beer Tax” trope is just a “trick” of poor logic. You are asking me to accept an absurdity! I would not be honest if I did not try to warn people that they are being duped by this math myth!
        I should be doing other things, as I’m going OS in a few days for a long time! 😉
        I don’t have the time to explicate in english, a treatment that might make it easier to understand.
        The point you make: “reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was” is exactly what occurs in very truth!
        My figures below lay it out based on the solution that the “tax” is distributed as a percentage. It should be clear that the poorest did get the largest percentage discount contrary to the muddled headed professor (Who I suspect is a myth also, as I’ve seen this math puzzle before!)

         #       $ Paid      % saved    $ paid       % saved        % saved of $20
        1st - 4th 0.00    100%
        5th    1.00          99%         0.80            99.2 %            19.84 %
        6th    3.00          97%         2.40            97.6 %            19.52 %
        7th    7.00          93%         5.60            94.4 %            18.89 %
        8th   12.00         88%         9.60            90.4 %            18.08 %
        9th   18.00         82%        14.40           85.6 %            17.12%
        10th  59.00        41%        47.20           52.8 %            10.56%

        Peace be with you.

      • Dear Scott,
        Thank you for taking the time to explain. That was kind of you, especially in view of your busyness right now.
        I’ll carefully look it over again, but, I’m seeing that the %’s listed are not a % of the $20 but of each person’s tax bill, thus, the %’s in your table are not what, I think, the “professor,” intended us to use? Well. I defer to you, in the meantime.
        And, good! Glad you do not consider my talking to God about you a waste of time. 🙂 Yes, lol, that verse, lifted wholesale out of its context, is, even so, a good one, esp. vis a vis AGW. 🙂
        Thanks again for such a courteous and thoughtful reply. What a treat to have someone “talk” to me! May you have a lovely time overseas — then, safely home, once again.
        Take care,

  28. Or better still, 250,00 tonne oar propelled aircraft carrier USS D TRUMP powered by scores of naked chained liberals.

    • lol, the “sustainable” version. Or, bicycle powered. No irons required. Just tell them they are saving the planet by riding their bicycles. And feed them ONLY vegetables. And they will be happy. That’s about all they do now (the true believers, I mean).

  29. We have a procedure for treaties and international agreements.. if it did not follow this procedure then it is a hollow promise with no backing. It does not matter what Kerry is promising, or what Obama has promised the congress did not ratify anything as per our law.

    • They have the same attitude the Russians have: “What’s mine is mine, what’s yours is negotiable.”

  30. As a long time observer of the American culture and a longtime believer of never assuming an American that lost will be happy to standby while you celebrate; PlLEASE STOP SPIKING THE FOOTBALL! Pass the problem on to the ACGW, as ladies and gentlemen should, please.

    • Dear Mr. Korp,
      Begging your pardon and asking you to, if you would, please, hold onto your tea cup with both hands,
      ….. watch out, ‘cuz, cuz (I’m 3/4 English), we Americans are going to keep right on

      Because we are OPTIMISTIC — all will be well!!!
      Still as optimistic as all of our immigrant ancestors were,
      standing on the decks of all those ships, straining their eyes to catch a glimpse of the east coast;
      wiping the sweat off their brows with a grin, yelling, “Wagons, ho!” as the oxen gave a mighty pull and started the long trek across the continent; and
      as their descendants were,
      gazing up in wonder as as THE ROCKET — TOOK — OFF!
      Hold on Tight to Your Dreams!!!

      Yeeeee — haw! We — can — DO — it! 🙂
      Okay. You can set the tea cup down on the doily, now. 🙂 Enjoy your quieter life over there. Aren’t you glad we left? 🙂
      Janice the American (in case that wasn’t clear, heh)

  31. I’ve not seen anything about future funding for NASA (and GISS). How has it been done in the past, and what plans does the administration elect for any changes? Have I missed something important?

  32. Not just the U.S. liberal elite, but the entire establishment world did not see the American voter moving away from the politically correct meme. The U.S. Senate, House of Representatives, State governors and State houses have been moving conservative/populist for years. It is not like the 2016 elections should have been a surprise, had people been listening to American discontent. Obama policies truly did divide the populace. There was and is an obvious backlash against his social justice and climate warriors.
    World governments and NGOs convinced themselves that U.S. climate policy would forever be defined by Obama, his appointees and Congressional and State house fellow travelers. They assumed that American voters would be forever in thrall of globalist ideals. They misinterpreted Obama heartthrob by some for progressive zeal by a majority.
    America will not be pulling the CAGW bandwagon for a few years. I doubt China will want to make the substantive commitments required for it to take the lead. The EU is fracturing. Your guess as to the future of “climate commitments” is as good as mine.

  33. Like Canada, Australia’s government is forging ahead with committing the country to further debt and reduction in economic activity,
    When all those protesting liberal celebraties carry through with their threats to emigrate from a Trump led US, I’m going to look to getting a green card.

  34. I guess when Barbara Boxer wanted four trillion in carbon tax revenue, that would have been a ‘down payment on the future’.
    STOP that payment and it’s a raid.

  35. Rachel Kyte, … said Trump did not have a mandate to reverse US climate finance commitments. “All developed countries made promises,” she said. “A promise made has to be a promise kept.

    In the history of the world, since when has any politician been held to keep his/her promises. That’s a pipe dream.
    I venture, though, that President-elect Trump will do much better in this regard than the outgoing (“…if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”) president.

    • Yes, F. Ross — AND remember who made the promise the Kyte is screeching about (O, not Trump and not the U.S.A., either — just O).

  36. 35% tax reductions for the middle class, I nearly cried when I heard that.
    Because before Donald J Trump ever “raids” them of their billions for foreign interests, they raided us of our thousands.

  37. “That brings a fear to African countries,” Akabiwa Nyambe, a Zambian official, told Climate Home at a side meeting of COP22 climate talks in Marrakech. “We have been looking forward to the US bringing a lot of funding into projects… It drops our faces.”

    Donald J Trump has emphasized that he will negotiate trade deals with individual countries. The UK is also going to be available to trade with the world. Trade, not aid, is much much better for the prosperity of these African countries.

    • Just think of the billions of dollars spent during this election..how many poor, would no longer be poor if those dollars were redirected.. ?

      • Marcus, those billions went into the economy, where they went around and around at least five (5) times, enriching us all. Contrary to watermelon thinking, free economies are not zero-sum games. Watermelons reflect discredited Malthusian thought.

      • Zeke
        The 2014 midterm election cycle (2016 figures not yet available) is officially the most expensive in U.S. history, an impressive $3.67 billion being committed to both Republican and Democratic campaigns, according to estimates by the Center for Responsive Politics.
        And yet U.S. consumers are currently spending about $6 billion annually on just potato chips, with Frito-Lay taking nearly 60% of total market share, according to figures published by Forbes.
        “How many poor would no longer be poor if”… we just stopped eating potato chips?
        J Wurts

        • @J Wurts – Potato Chips are much more productive than politicians. The people making them are earning an honest dollar. And those eating them are getting enjoyment. Neither of which can be said for elections. 😉

  38. “Funds to help poor countries adapt to the impacts of global warming and develop sustainably will be redirected to domestic priorities.”
    The good news, but I think they might have a jaundiced view, is that there is no global warming to worry about and thus they do not need all those funds for adapting to something that is not happening. I am sure there will be a stunned silence when they realize that the freebies for no reason are going to stop coming. But, hey, they need to adult up and start working as if they were not dependent on largess.

  39. “A promise made”… you mean like the promise to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan until they were stable? The promise not to abandon Israel? Those promises that the 0bama administration abandoned?

    • Good one, I mean ones, CodeTech. Glad to see you comment. It’s been awhile. Hope all is well up there and the autumn/winter on the pond is as lovely as it usually is.
      Sure wish we’d hear from some other “regulars” …. a bit concerned. It’s been over a year since I’ve seen several, including Andres Valencia, Brian H, and Jimbo (guess he’s just gone, now, 🙁 — someone saw him at Climate Audit about 6 months ago, I think). And others, like Pamela Gray, R. A. Cook, and D. B. Stealey (they have appeared within the past month or so, but, sadly, rarely comment, now).

      • Bummer. For ME, WUWT is part of my real life! And a very good part. Well, better that than some of the other alternatives….
        Was “Charlie Skeptic” Charles the Moderator?? Well, anyway, I have seen CS here within the past month or so — not worried about him.

        • Charlie Skeptic was not Charles the Moderator, lovely Janice.
          Charlie Skeptic had fun while conducting guerrilla warfare, especially in pointing out Mr. Mosher’s “Wandering in the Weeds” bad habits.
          Charlie Skeptic, after helping win the final guerrilla battle on 11/08/2016 against overwhelming watermelon forces, returned home from his jungle hideout.
          Charlie Skeptic resumed his prior identity and now spends a bit of time puncturing inflated CAGW egos.
          Charlie Skeptic will, hopefully, not be needed back in the jungle for at least another 8 years.
          Charlie Skeptic remains vigilant.
          Dave Fair

  40. It’s not a budget raid if the money isn’t there in the first place.
    The US is about $20 TRILLION in debt, which means we’d have to come up with that amount just to get back to “broke”.

  41. When the Swamp Gets Drained the Climate Changes . The con game global warming is in its death throws
    and when the money gets cut off it’s finished . China is no have not country . What a joke .
    Trump will put an end to the robbery of its citizens by the self dealing liberal global warming promoters .
    If the FBI is standing down on the Clintons they should have time to investigate the transfer of $$ billions to the “renewable ” grant seekers who have ripped off tax payers .

  42. Now what is needed is for Trump to make an executive order for all universities to release any untouched climate data that has been paid for with government funds.

  43. “That brings a fear to African countries…We have been looking forward to the US bringing a lot of funding into projects… It drops our faces (sic).”
    Pan African enemas so soon?

    • Had African elites been following actual American political results for the past 6 years, they would not have been surprised that unpopular commitments by a lame duck President would not stand.
      People ignore the fact that the thought of a $100 billion per year slush fund prompted many signatures on the Paris Accord. Only Europe and Obama actually put up hard economy-harming commitments.

  44. A few billion dollars is a pathetic amount compared to half a trillion redistributed from Medicare to sustain an illusion of Obamacare, ironically, “viability”; And trillions more for his cronies from the multi-trillion dollar debt saved, created, and progressed. A down payment for his progressive wars and immigration “reform” including the refugee crises.

  45. A “raid” is appropriate, since most of the money goes to thieves in the governments of the countries involved and thieves consider anyone standing in their way to be “raiding” their territory or stash.
    As for poor countries, they can contact Tom Steyer, George Soros, Leo DeCaprio, most of Hollywood, Bill Gates— all these people fully believe in climate change, want to do their part and set a good example, and would be most happy to fund any needed projects. They can start their own company and build utopian villages in third world countries that show Americans the true way to live. For extra convincing power, it’s best if they move to these areas to showcase their achievements. We look forward to the wonderful transformation that these caring individuals while show all of us.
    I think the writer means “election to” not “ascension to”. An easy mistake to make after eight years of King Obama.

  46. In 20 years, they’ll be blaming the USA saying that if only we had been involved, there wouldn’t have been any warming; or something to that effect, just because we pulled out and don’t want to go bankrupt on the basis of statistical models.

  47. “avoid the consequences”
    Crushing poverty brought on by massive global regulation the likes of which we have never seen before and can only kind-of imagine? Government control of money? Hospital blackouts? Laws about the number of children you can have? Laws about what you can eat? Rationing of water and probably food?
    that’s just the start. these people don’t care about the environment, they care about control.
    Thank goodness we’ll be avoiding those consequences.

  48. “One thing is clear: The Trump administration will inflict more harm on global cooperation around climate than any prior president. ”
    I certainly hope so. The current administration has done serious harm to our economy and to science itself by pushing the demonstrably false narrative of CAGW arising from CO2 emissions. Luckily for us and the world, a Hillary president would have made this harm inextricable.

  49. The Obama adminiatration is already years late with the budget cuts that were suppose to have gone along with the tax hike on the rich and the ACA taxes as part of the President’s balanced approach to deficit reductions. It is the Democrats that should have alrady reduced spending in this area.

  50. “The U.S. has no “climate finance commitments.” Outgoing President Obama had a commitment. He made the promise.”
    Obama says he’s still fired up about his causes. If so, then I hope he spends all his time and effort convincing the like-minded half the country that they should uphold this commitment out of their own pockets.
    Half the US is better than nothing, right? If they want to commit, what’s stopping them? They should join ranks with Obama and fund the entire amount needed to keep Obama’s promises to the world community.

  51. A splendid article: many thanks David.
    “THIRD WORLD” ( ? ? ? )
    If you really mean “poor countries” it is better to say so. There is no such thing as a third world.
    Good to have these Marrakech Morons exposed:-
    Megan Darby
    [moron at “climate home” website]
    Rachel Kyte
    [Gravy Train head of the UN’s Sustainable Energy for All]
    David Victor
    [A “let’s keep the Global Warming Grants coming in” professor at the School of Global Policy and Strategy, University of California at San Diego and chairman of the Global Agenda Council on Governance for Sustainability at the World Economic Forum].

    • Much as I agree with the need for Africa to help itself rather than rip off Western “aid” and, more generally, the need to stop “climate” payments, it needs to be pointed out that actually Zambia is not Zimbabwe. Zambia has been independent since the mid 60s and has seen relatively free elections and no coups. One of the better African countries.

Comments are closed.