Guest post by David Middleton
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.”
[…]
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.
11 NOV 2016: ANALYSISWhat 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.[…]ABOUT THE AUTHORDavid 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.
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”.
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 .
No, he’s not just pleased to see you, warmies. That really is an axe in Trump’s pocket.
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.
“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?
More like more money for rich people in poor countries!
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
“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.
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.
“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.
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].
Regards,
WL
Zambia complains? Consider that Zimbabwe was once the breadbasket of Africa. And these plutocrats want the US to bail them out using the UN Green Fund as a vehicle … what next South Africa and Zuma crying foul as they work on destroying its economy and after Durban expecting the US to bail them out also? Think not…
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2010/07/24/zimbabwe_from_breadbasket_to_basket_case.html
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.
How much of this money will I, personally, receive?