Bloomberg Offers to Pay for the UN Green Fund

Michael Bloomberg

Michael Bloomberg. By Bloomberg Philanthropies – https://www.flickr.com/photos/bloombergphilanthropies/29828795984/, CC0, Link

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is so upset that President Trump has cancelled payments to the UN Green Fund, he is sending his own money to the UN.

Mike Bloomberg doubles down to ensure America will fulfill the Paris Agreement

Today, Mike Bloomberg, the United Nations Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Cities and Climate Change, announced a commitment of up to $15 million to support the operations of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Executive Secretariat, including its work to help countries implement their commitments under the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change. Bloomberg will also work with other governments and philanthropies that may be interested in supporting the UNFCCC at this critical time. The pledge aims to fill a significant funding gap that comes as a result of President Donald Trump’s announced withdrawal from the Paris agreement and proposed steep budget cuts for international programs, including on climate.

“Americans are not walking away from the Paris Climate Agreement,” said Bloomberg. “Just the opposite – we are forging ahead. Mayors, governors, and business leaders from both political parties are signing onto a statement of support that we will submit to the UN – and together, we will reach the emission reduction goals the U.S. made in Paris in 2015. As a sign of our commitment, Bloomberg Philanthropies, in partnership with others, will make up the approximately $15 million in funding that the U.N.’s Climate Secretariat stands to lose from Washington. Americans will honor and fulfill the Paris Agreement by leading from the bottom up – and there isn’t anything Washington can do to stop us.

Patricia Espinosa, the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), said “We are grateful to Bloomberg Philanthropies for this generous contribution. While funding from governments remains central to our work, this kind of support is crucial for the work of the Secretariat to assist nations in their efforts to implement their commitments under the Paris Climate Change Agreement. In order to achieve Paris in full and deliver a low emissions, resilient and more secure future for every man, woman and child, it is very encouraging to see that all actors reaffirm their willingness to work together.”

Trump indicated the administration will terminate all support for UN climate change efforts. This would slash the US contribution to the operations of the UNFCCC – the climate negotiating body of the UN — creating an immediate gap. It will also cut previously promised funding for the Green Climate Fund, which provides billions of dollars in support for developing countries to meet their Paris Agreement commitments. The Green Climate Fund recently launched a request for proposals from private sector companies to cut emissions or improve climate resilience in developing countries, offering a total $500 million in funding overall.

From 2014 to 2016, Bloomberg Philanthropies supported the UNFCCC – the climate negotiating body of the UN – for its work with “non-state actors” including cities, states and businesses. Bloomberg Philanthropies can fill the gap left by the US government backing out of its commitments. Support would be allocated to cover staff costs in Bonn, Germany associated with their climate negotiations and communications efforts.

About Bloomberg Philanthropies: Bloomberg Philanthropies works in more than 120 countries around the world to ensure better, longer lives for the greatest number of people. The organization focuses on five key areas for creating lasting change: Arts, Education, Environment, Government Innovation and Public Health. Bloomberg Philanthropies encompasses all of Michael R. Bloomberg’s charitable activities, including his foundation and his personal giving. In 2016, Bloomberg Philanthropies distributed over half a billion dollars. For more information, please visit bloomberg.org or follow us on FacebookInstagramSnapchat and Twitter @BloombergDotOrg.

Media Contact:

Rebecca Carriero, rebeccac@bloomberg.org +1-212-205-0182

Source: https://www.bloomberg.org/press/releases/bloomberg-philanthropies-commits-15-million-fill-budget-gap-left-trumps-revoking-us-support-un-climate-treaty/

This move simply reinforces my perception of President Trump’s genius when it comes to getting a good deal for US taxpayers. There never was any need for the USA to put taxpayer’s money into the UN Green Fund – rich virtue signallers like Bloomberg are happy to pick up the tab.

Now if only Trump can persuade Bloomberg to pick up the tab for the USA’s entire UN contribution. Maybe we could define all UN contributions as “green money”.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Yes, if people want to throw their money away, that’s fine by me. Hopefully when they see it achieves nothing, they’ll think twice next time.

David Johnson June 4, 2017 at 2:37 am :
Yes, the stupidity of these people is absolutely amazing. They just don’t get it.

vukcevic

Apparently Mr. Bloomberg is worth about US$ 50 billion, while $15 million is the meagre 0.03% of his fortune. He can’t possibly believe that world is facing catastrophic global warming disaster by being so mean. I would urge Mr. Bloomberg to raise his contribution to at least 3% ($ 1.5 billion) of his fortune to saving the world.

commieBob

vukcevic June 4, 2017 at 4:03 am
Apparently Mr. Bloomberg is worth about US$ 50 billion, while $15 million is the meagre 0.03% of his fortune.

Lots of folks are worth a million bucks. For them, 0.03% would be $300.
I know many people (many of whom aren’t worth a mil) who regularly make charitable donations exceeding $300. I agree Vuk, Bloomberg’s 15 mil is unremarkable.

philincalifornia

Is it even his own money? Sounds like somebody else’s, as usual. At the very least, the IRS’s:
“Bloomberg Philanthropies, in partnership with others”

Leo Smith

if I had $50bn I’d build a nuclear power station

Samuel C Cogar

So saidith ….. vukcevic, to wit:

I would urge Mr. Bloomberg to raise his contribution to at least 3% ($ 1.5 billion) of his fortune to saving the world.

Personally, I do not for one (1) second think that Michael Bloomberg is the least bit interested in “saving the world” or any of its inhabitants, be they man, beast or vegetation.
If a person truly cared about the environment of the world upon which he lived, …… why would he wait until AFTER he had accumulated an estimated US$ 50 billion before he became active at “claiming” his intentions to “help save planet earth”?
Thus it should be obvious to everyone that the “root” of Michael Bloomberg’s philanthropy is to acquire personal notoriety, name recognition and a “grand n’ glorious” reputation among the clueless, dueless, miseducated populace. To wit:
Excerpted from above published commentary:

As a sign of our commitment, Bloomberg Philanthropies, in partnership with others, will make up the approximately $15 million in funding that the U.N.’s Climate Secretariat stands to lose from Washington.

The wee small portion of the above $15 million in funding that the Bloomberg Philanthropies are promising to donate is but a “drop-out-of-the-bucket-of-Bloomberg-cash” compared to what Bloomberg has already given to the Sierra Club’s anti-coal campaign, …… to wit:

04/08/2015 – The Sierra Club’s anti-coal campaign is getting a boost of up to $60 million from donors including Michael Bloomberg, who pledged $30 million Wednesday to further the group’s new goal of shuttering half the nation’s coal-fired power plants by 2017.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/michael-bloomberg-donate-sierra-club-116761

Jul 21, 2011 – Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg announced on Thursday that he would donate $50 million to the Sierra Club’s campaign to shut down coal-fired power plants across the United States.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/22/nyregion/bloomberg-donates-50-million-to-sierra-club-coal-campaign.html

James Bull

Probably find it would all be written off against tax or something so isn’t actually going to cost him anything.
James Bull

Greg

The pledge aims to fill a significant funding gap that comes as a result of President Donald Trump’s announced withdrawal from the Paris agreement and proposed steep budget cuts for international programs, including on climate.

Well if Bloomberg is worth $50bn he could pay the remaining $2bn of the existing US “pledge”, not just a poultry 15 mil.
How cheap is that ? He does not give a damn otherwise he’d make a meaningful donation not a weakly symbolic one.
He’s just trying to buy himself some media air time. What a cynic.

Menicholas

“would urge Mr. Bloomberg to raise his contribution to at least 3% ($ 1.5 billion) of his fortune to saving the world.”
If he honestly believes the fate of the world is at stake, anything less than 100% of his money, plus as much as he can get out of his wealthy friends would be total admission that he is a planet hating baby killer.

Hivemind

What it looks like is that the “five key areas for creating lasting change: Arts, Education, Environment, Government Innovation and Public Health.” are going to suffer by a large amount of money. So far from devoting money to support poor people around the world, Bloomberg is going use it for virtue signalling instead.

Retired_Engineer_Jim

Folks, Bloomberg isn’t contributing any money – he has his foundation giving the money. Yes, that may be money he gave to the foundation in the past, but it isn’t as if he’s writing a new check. Secondly, the title of this article is incorrect – Bloomberg isn’t contributing to the Green Climate Fund. He’s contributing to an overhead organization in Bonn.

Steve Keppel-Jones

Greg said:

not just a poultry 15 mil

That 15 mil is just chickenfeed for him!

Gerry, Engliand

Is it no bad thing that the climate science fiction mob are funded by the deluded rich instead of by ordinary people through donations and once again through their taxes.

Chris Riley

One of the most beneficial organic societal processes has always been the separation of fools and their money. Bloomberg will, and should be lauded for his action. His donated money will do no harm. It will be squandered in a few weeks on rich salaries, fine wine and luxury travel to exotic locations for the NGO parasite class. Hopefully Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg, Branson and the execrable George Soros. Will step up to the plate as well.

Chris Riley

correction last sentence should read
Hopefully Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg, Branson and the execrable George Soros will step up to the plate as well.

barryjo

I am curious about where the money for the foundation comes from. Is it contributions from individuals? Obviously, it is not from Bloomberg’s income. So if it is from individuals, are their contributions tax deductible?
If so, then we must make up the difference by paying more taxes. Anyone have an idea?

PiperPaul

It will be squandered in a few weeks on rich salaries, fine wine and luxury travel to exotic locations for the NGO parasite class.
I question the notion that this money donation “does no harm”: it encourages more of this type of behavior.

Patrick B

I would argue that the donation does probably harm the United States. First, I assume this will be made either directly or indirectly through a foundation as a tax deductible donation and/or through a foundation that takes all of the funding outside of the estate tax. In either case the US will be losing tax revenue that it otherwise would have received. (I think Gate’s Foundation and all the other billionaire’s “giving pledges” are jokes – they are getting praised for “giving” their money to family controlled foundations and avoiding large estate taxes; thus their “giving” keeps the money within their family’s control and away from the federal government.)

John Harmsworth

I love this!!! I f this is a global, existential threat there should be no problem getting individuals to: Contribute
Stop using fossil fuels
Stop exhaling
Why does the government have to be the middle man when they can’t do their regular job properly?

philincalifornia

Is Branson a parasite? I’ve seen no evidence for that, although if there is evidence, I’ll stand corrected. I thought he made his money fair and square from Virgin Records, Virgin Airlines etc. OK, he’s doing the Carbon War Room sh!te, but not sure it’s parasitism.

Chris Riley

I did not label Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg, Branson and the execrable George Soros as parasites in my comment. The NGO’s play the role of the tapeworm. Bezos et. al. are playing the unenviable role of host.

Barbara

barryjo
Bloomberg Philanthropies now encompasses all of Bloomberg’s charitable activities.
Appears that a large portion of the fund consists of investments. No donor page on the website.
Annual reports are online.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

The money [15 million US dollars] serve his tours expenses as the United Nations Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Cities and Climate Change.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

MRW

Furthermore, the $15 million is a theft against the taxpayers in his state. Rather than go to the state and benefitting New Yorkers (as a tax payment) it’s going to a bunch of transnational businessmen who run the UNFCCC.

effinayright

MRW and Patrick B, you are thinking like utter communists.
Michael Bloomburg’s money is HIS money. It doesn’t “belong” to the state, so his giving it to a third party is not “theft”. The tax code itself allows for charitable deductions, so how can laws allowing such giving be any sort of “theft”?
What if he had given the same amount of money to a environmental cause you favored? Would it still be a “theft”?
Get a grip.
We expect better thinking here at WUWT.

MRW

effinayright, sure it’s his money. But he gets to write it off as a tax deduction which reduces his taxable income. And yes, the tax code allows for charitable deductions. No argument there. But I’m not impressed with his so-called charity. Saying so does not make me a communist as you falsely accuse me of.

Kalifornia Kook

The tax code itself allows for charitable deductions

is the UNFCcC a charity? A 501, or 503 or otherwise recognized charitable organization? If not, then your comment doesn’t apply. Giving money to other governments does not qualify as charitable deduction, but if it is a tax, then a deduction is due. On the other hand, very little oversight of “charitable foundations” occurs, which is why so many of them pay out less than 5% of their spending for actual charity, versus fund-raising, salaries, office accouterments, travel, etc. That’s far less than I pay even the state of Kalifornia in income taxes, and I don’t get to take home the office art to hang in my home.

Ric Haldane

So, where does the money go? Well, after Obama gave the first $500mil, the GCF went and hired 120 people. Living in Seoul is quite reasonable, salaries for saving the planet, not so much. Accountability from the UN? You are kidding. Last year it was reported that one part of the UN could not account for $500mil. They have no idea where it went.

Greg

… and of course anyone working for the UN has diplomatic immunity and can not be prosecuted under any jurisdiction on the planet. NO ACCOUNTABILITY AT ALL.
$100bn per year slush fund with NO ACCOUNTABILITY , what could possibly go wrong?

They probably know where it went. They’re just not talking. Regardless, you can tell where the fertilizer landed.. Just look where the taller mansions pop up in the neighborhood weeds. (Better /sarc this. Don’t want to seem frothy. It’s sunday here.)

Goldrider

Hey, go for it! If the “donor class” would like to pick up the tab for ALL the idiocy the American taxpayer is sick and tired of paying for, knock yourselves out.

Why doesn’t bloomberg pay off New Yorks debt? Wouldn’t that be a big help to the city? Or how about housing for new Yorks homeless? Funny he has money for the UN when so many problems he could have solved when mayor remain.

RockyRoad

Why doesn’t Bloomberg spend his money on more altruistic causes?
Because Bloomberg has been brainwashed into thinking CO2 is the “control knob” of Earth’s climate (or weather, or whatever–they seem to swallow anything that comes along).
With power like that, who wouldn’t put up huge (notice I didn’t say “YUGE”) sums of money to be in control–it’s all about power and greed.

Ken

Bloomberg OBVIOUSLY is not motivated by saving civilization from the perceived threats of climate change. If he were, he would be building a 10 meter high sea wall around NYC.
What a scam. What a scam artist, although still an amateur compared to Gore.

David A

10 meter high? Would not a low curb do?

Bloomberg fits the old saying – “a fool and his money are soon parted”.

Auto

David J,
Viscerally, I am at one with you.
Much of this charity nonsense is poor-ish people in rich nations giving money to be abused by rich folk in very poor countries.
That said, sometimes charity giving can work wonders.
Micro-finance – where a few score or, rarely, a couple of hundred dollars is lent to a small business – very often run by a female – can result, very often, in a viable profitable, growing business.
Excellent outcome, especially if training is involved.
The big BIG Charities often have high costs.
Smaller ones often not. Do, please, seek to discriminate.
Thanks.
Auto.

David Johnson: do you know what is the
purpose of the UN fund, and where the
money is going?

Paul Mackey

Bloomberg has made his money off of your saving and pensions, via the banks.

getitright

Unfortunately, it is Bloomberg foundation money being offered up, as I understand it. Much of that comes from donations from someone or somewhere. So Bloomberg is making hay in the backs of others as usual for him.

Butch

“, offering a total $500 million in funding overall.”
The Green Climate Fund already has billions of dollars in it’s bank accounts, but is only coughing up $500 million overall ? Am I reading that correctly ?

RP

You are indeed reading that correctly, Butch.
Furthermore, according to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) web-site ( here ), that $500 million will not go directly into green projects but will be distributed first to private banks with whom the GCF is “partnered” and the banks will then use it to issue loans to individual companies to carry out green development work in poorer countries. However, under the international system of fractional reserve banking, the banks will be entitled to issue loans far in excess of the initial $500 million – a process which the GCF calls “catalyzing climate capital” and “unlocking private sector finance in developing countries”.
I did not see any mention of interest-rates on loans or expected returns on capital investments at the GCF’s glossy web-site, but somehow I can’t imagine that at least the commercial banks with whom the GCF is partnered will be doling out all those green development loans without expecting to make a profit on them, even if the GCF itself doesn’t feel a need to do that too (which I suspect it does).
Of course, the final effect of all this green loan-giving will be to create new debt to the private commercial banks in developing countries. And since we are talking here about loans for green technology, which has already proven its economic disastrousness wherever it has been tried, it is predictable with very high confidence (i.e. p > 99.9%) that the end-result of the GCF’s adventure in international green banking will be the creation of yet another South Sea Bubble which, when it bursts, leaves the environment in worse shape and the human victims of its crackpot loan-scheme in worse poverty and misery than they were before the GCF came along to help them.

Greg

So this whole GCF con is just yet another bank bailout plan, designed to get people in poor countries even poorer and more in debt.
I’d been trying to find out recently at what point this “aid” turned in loans and usury. “Aid” is never given, it always has a price tag.
Thanks for explaining “catalyzing climate capital”.

You have that right, Butch. What we seem to have here is just a different form of money laundering offsite and out of reach of the government’s citizen taxpayers it came from.

Greg

Money laundering by a UN which is immune from prosecution in all lands. Nice idea.

I take it he's getting Dicrapio to open his wallet?

“It is very encouraging to see that all actors reaffirm their willingness to work together”

So, if states and cities are going to go along with the UN, they still will be ripping off their tax payers to support the “Accord”. Trump only controls federal taxes. Looks like left hand/right hand for lots of folks. A question for our US readers. If Trump withdraws from the “Accord”, will the states and cities be breaking laws if they enter into any formal deals with a “foreign” entity? Are individual citizens breaking any laws? I actually think Bloomberg is setting himself up to run for President in 2020. Peanuts from Canada.

rogerthesurf

Maybe Bloomberg could pay for the wall as well. What a great man he would be. 🙂
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

i doubt
Bloomberg is in favor
of a wall.
is he?

rogerthesurf

Maybe it would be appropriate to create a petition to the Bloomberg foundation to finance the wall. 🙂

so you don’t
know if Bloomberg is in favor
of a wall or not?
that’s what i suspected.

It makes a change from socialists wasting other people’s money.

MRW

Baloney. He’s stealing from fellow NY-ers. That money should be paid to NYC and NY State–as a tax payment–to benefit the people he lives among. “Philanthropy” is such a scam sometimes.

MRW: how is Bloomberg stealing?
what taxes is he avoiding?

John Harmsworth

He is a socialist! It’s easy to be a socialist with other people’s money when you’ve already got loads.

John: Bloomberg got rich by providing a
product (his terminals) and service (financial
data) that people wanted.
in other words, he got rich as a first-rate
capitalist.

rogerthesurf

US$15 million?
I must have misread!
Doesnt he mean US$15billion which is closer to Obama’s promise?

RAH

I thought that if the US signed they were committed to putting 3 billion dollars in the till every year? With a net worth of over 45 billion Bloomberg can do that for a time but it’s going to leave a mark.

TinyCO2

I thought the same thing. These billionaires need to stump up a lot more if they want to live up to their claims of concern.

MRW

😉 But the point, TinyCO2, is to bilk all the developed countries that create their own currency. A freebie. The goal all along has been to get the US to fork over trillions to transnational corporations in the name of solving climate change, or global warming, take your pick without the transnationals having any real skin in the game. Just take a look at the principals mentioned in the UNFCCC financial operations. It’s right there. No different than what the banks, with the help of Cheney and Biden, did in 2005 getting government guarantees for student loans (and locking it in by not allowing kids to remove their debts in bankruptcy) to destroy the upcoming generation with debt servitude.
And some here on this board wail “socialism” about doing what was done after WWII to provide every kid with a free state university education because they’re not informed–or old–enough to remember.. (For shame)

Trebla

What about Exxon? Weren’t they complaining about Clexit? They could do way more than Bloomberg to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by simply shutting down all their oil-based operations.

Dave Fair

Roger, the $15 mil goes into UN overhead in Bonn.

John in Oz

Mayors, governors, and business leaders from both political parties are signing onto a statement of support that we will submit to the UN

I have to wonder which definition of ‘submit’ they are referring to:
1. to put forward as an opinion or contention
2. to yield to governance or authority
They possibly mean the first but appear to be following the second

Steve Fraser

Anbiguous, eh?

TA

Both I think, John.

Edward Hurst

Sounds a bit like the UK’s ‘Big Society’.

Ted O'Brien.

Guess who’s running for POTUS in 2020!

Greg

No, the next dem. candidate will be a homo or a transexual. They’ve played the “first black” and the “first woman” cards ( that did not go quite to plan, so we’ll skip repeating that mistake ); the next token minority the left will play will almost certainly be the “first sexually disoriented president”.

Dave Fair

Pocahontas!

A C Osborn

Now if they could just get all the other Warmist Billionaires and Millionaires to donate their cash they could use the cash to help the poor in 3rd world countries get clean drinking water, clean cooking and some form electricity.
But don’t hold your breath that they will give any money in the first place, or that the UN will hand it out if they did.

MRW

or that the UN will hand it out if they did.

No kidding.

RockyRoad

I don’t think “Climate Change” has anything to do with clean drinking water, clean cooking, and any form of electricity whatsoever.
However, you certainly listed the very areas they should be targeting.

Bruce Cobb

“Americans are not walking away from the Paris Climate Agreement,” said Bloomberg. “Just the opposite – we are forging ahead.”

richard

I think the whole world is walking away-
“U.N. sponsored global poll rates climate change dead last”

Ed Zuiderwijk

Keen on spending other people’s money on feeling good about yourself.

Jbird

“The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” Margaret Thatcher

Dodgy Geezer

…This move simply reinforces my perception of President Trump’s genius when it comes to getting a good deal for US taxpayers. There never was any need for the USA to put taxpayer’s money into the UN Green Fund – rich virtue signallers like Bloomberg are happy to pick up the tab….
What does this fund pay for? You can’t limit CO2 simply by putting money into a fund.
I suspect that the fund is one of the main ways that environmental activists get paid. It exists to maintain a fifth column of anti-capitalist strike troops in our midst, and to enable them to subvert our technological civilisation by transferring resources to capital projects which are proven failures.
People like Soros are already spending their own money on this aim. So I am not surprised that they offer to pay – they are simply continuing to do something they are already doing…

Some of the fund is no doubt skimmed off for “expenses” and local “facilitation services”, but a lot remains, and is being spent on improving resilience of agriculture to extreme weather.
The US could easily turn the tables on the shrieking “Green” mob by diverting its money to its own overseas aid budget, spending money on worthwhile resilience projects that make sense regardless of whether or not extreme weather is getting worse.

Steve Fraser

Power plant construction comes to mind.

Samuel C Cogar

The US could …… by diverting its money to its own overseas aid budget

Lefty liberal government “troughfeeders” don’t have a worry or pressing need for much anything simply because most everything they need or want is provided by federal and/or state Agencies …… and thus it never dawns on them that “charity begins at home” and not in some foreign country.
Lefty liberal government “troughfeeders” do not pay “income taxes” on any income, wages or salaries that they are paid by their government employer or benefactor …… and thus most really don’t care how much “tax dollars” are diverted to “overseas aid budgets”.

David A

Steve Fraser on June 4, 2017 at 5:48 am
“Power plant construction comes to mind.”
———‘—-
Bingo!

ozspeaksup

like gates and zuckerbergs grandstanding donations
its a HUGE taxbreak isnt it?
so at the end of the year he will not pay 15 mil taxes TO usa

Richard M

As far as I know the GCF is not a charity. So, it should not be deductible from one’s taxes. Maybe someone knows for sure.

Catcracking

So Soros and Bloomberg they go well together as birds of a feather.

willhaas

People can spend their own money any legal way they want. But this does not change the fact that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control. If you think that the use of fossil fuels is bad them stop making use of them and all goods and services that involves their use. Remember that it is your money that keeps the fossil fuel companies in business.

The gores and DiCaprio’s of the world want you and I to take a smaller slice of the pie so there will be more for them. They would never take their own medicine.

Willhaas,
I just made the same (or similar) comment to family members urging me to join them in a movement to “dis-invest” in fossil fuel companies. They said that was the most effective way to fight DJT’s “awful decision”. (None of us own fossil fuel stocks, but apparently that was of no consequence.)
After a short lecture on what determines the price of stock, I suggested that disinvestment would really have no impact on those companies (except allowing someone like Buffet to swoop in a pick up cheap stocks like he did with depressed coal companies).
However I DID suggest that the REAL way to hurt EXXON was to completely stop buying gasoline!
I asked who was going to go first?

John F. Hultquist

None of us own fossil fuel stocks, …
Pension funds for workers and retirees, and mutual funds of many sorts do own stocks or bonds of companies that are part of the economy that runs on carbon based fuels. A person will have to live in a hut and eat crickets to escape the economic world.
Your family members should follow their instincts.
A Darwin Award awaits.

brians356

What you really need to do is educate them on the flawed and politicized so-called “science” which underpins their belief there’s a crisis, and educate them on the looming growth in global energy requirements and the utter futility of counting on “green” energy to ever displace fossil fuels (even if you count nuclear as “green”).

nabbiz

willhaas: Right on! Your second sentence says it ALL! If one disagrees, just have a look at the plot “Recent Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO2”, by NOAA. Clearly, quarterly variations in CO2 content cause the seasons!\sarc.

“Today, Mike Bloomberg, the United Nations Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Cities and Climate Change, announced a commitment of up to $15 million to support the operations of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Executive Secretariat,”
He is funding supranational totalitarians with national public money. Not good.

Patrick MJD

His own money? Fine…

Dave Fair

Reducing his tax burden, not fine.

John W. Garrett

Michael Bloomberg got his start working for Salomon Brothers.That tells you all you need to know about his integrity.
He is a born meddler with an unfortunate tendency to preach. He likes nothing better than to impose his values on other people.

Peta from Cumbria, now Newark

Just more noise.
Did we *really* need to know this Mr Bloomberg?
In actuality are you just claiming to be be ‘more caring’ than everyone else, making yourself to me superior to everyone else (DJT especially) or that your willy is bigger than mine?
The superiority bit is where ‘socialism’, for all its claims about equality, will *always* fail. The socialists simply have to brag about, about how they are more equal. What made people so dumb?
Ordinary US Americans are already, by far, the largest givers to charity and do they make this much fuss about it?
Never mind fake news, we’ve got legions of Fake People and they’re so dumb they don’t see it.

Geoff Sherrington

Elsewhere WUWT discussed to Green Climate Fund. Much of the discussion was about bloggers learning what was going on.
I did not see it stated that there are several pathways of funds to the Green Climate Fund. These are harder to find than national Government contributions. Among them are contributions from individuals (a la Bloomberg) from States and regions, like California might try to do (Brussels, Wallonia, Flanders have started) and from cities (Paris has started) and interestingly, from local governments. The Agenda 21 plan spawned the spooky “ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability” plan which is in hush-hush territory here in Australia when I have tried to meet with Councils to investigate it. It spreads to programs for education of children.
Some of the details are here, with PSF being “Private Sector Fund. http://www.greenclimate.fund/partners/private-sector/about-this-facility .
A quote from it, “PSF is actively engaging with pension funds, insurance companies, corporations, local and regional financial intermediaries, and the capital markets.”
If you consider the Green Climate Fund as evil, as I do, you will be surprised how much more evil you can find by digging. What I have written here just scratches the surface. It has been evolving for years and is full of commitments and pledges little known to the taxpayers from whom the fund eventually are taken.
In passing, if Bloomberg amassed $45Bn, then he was engaged in a lot of activity that disturbed, maybe harmed, the environment. Maybe it is guilt that is causing him to enter into reparations. But why dress up guilt as hate for the US President?
Geoff.

The real pea to be watching is the pension funds. Organizations that control the investments of pension funds could put vast amounts into the CAGW scam. Once in, pensioners will be supportive of these activities just to protect their pensions. Collapse of the scheme would devastate millions of folks. This, to me, is a shrewd endgame – operated, of course, by financial institutions (banks and investment firms – think Davos and Bilderberg). Administered through the UN, the system would be free of all laws and regulations from sovereign states. The EU is the prototype for control by unelected officials. The final leg on the stool would be a World Court controlled by the UN, and a UN army for enforcement. Everything mentioned has been either proposed or discussed since the release of the Club of Rome gospel in the 70s.

2hotel9

Since the CAGW “scam” is in full collapse without huge amounts of tax dollars to keep it going any pension fund investing in any of the multitudinous schemes(wind,solar,spaghetti monster farts) would be immediately sucked dry. With no return on investment all the money vanishes and prosecuting the grifters will be another waste of money. Very nice, circular scam to drain away people’s money and leave them dependent on government handouts, which will continually shrink as more and more people are drawn into the system. Destroy America without firing a shot, Stalin and Mao would be so proud.

I Came I Saw I Left

“… up to $15 mil…”
Notice the “up to” and lack of time specificity (up to $15 mil/year, or total?). There’s always a catch and an out.

PaulH

I think I’ll offer to donate “up to” $15 million too! Heck, make it “up to” $15 Billion! Money for everyone! (Although it might not be as much as you want.) 😀
Seriously though, Bloomberg is welcome to spend his money any way he wants. Whatever floats his boat is fine with me.

PiperPaul

Hey, he’s just using error bars in his estimate of the donation – give him a break.

I’m personally donating up to $100 trillion billion.

I Came I Saw I Left

LOL. I see and raise you $100 quadrillion.

If you look at the money these green billionaires and funds have, one finds it must be pretty high. Right now the green fund shortfall is not so big. Only $3.8 bn. I’m sure that’s a better use of their money than paying Greenpeace, Sierra, etc. Even so, it’s a shame they can’t do something useful with it like eradicate disease or cure cancer:
http://i.imgur.com/6TgxU6q.png

joel

It is funny seeing Japan at the top.They have a huge national debt, worse than ours.

MRW

Japan creates its own currency.

lewispbuckingham

This money would be better spent creating a new Manhattan project to build efficient ‘renewables’. that produce electricity cheaper than coal and gas.
Once built they would be free to develop by the end manufacturer.

Latitude

$6.5 billion…
I read somewhere that they spent over $6 billion on offices, employees, etc

RockyRoad

Clean water followed by electrification for a third of the earth’s population would be the best place to start.
However, I’m not convinced those areas will be allowed–certainly not coal-fired power plants that somehow (through inventive reasoning) “contribute” to Climate Change.

michael hart

He can give all the money he likes, as long as it is his to give and that the process is lawful. Lining the pockets of bureaucrats and foreign politicians was certainly always one part of the raison d’être of the Paris job. The other part was that it was designed to pave the way for new laws restricting fossil fuel use. Fortunately that is something Bloomberg will now probably not achieve during the next four years in the US.
If he wishes to ahem…”persuade” the foreign governments, maybe he should just give the money to them directly and cut out the middle men at the UN? However, I would caution him that these days he will find that a few $ tens of millions is not enough. They were kinda hoping for $ hundreds of billions per year, and even then Bloomberg would find that there is no guarantee that he would actually get the laws he is paying for.
Of course, it may just be a piece of open virtue signalling to make sure that ‘the right people’ are still the beneficiaries of green government-spending around the world, spending that does not have Trump’s pen hanging over it like the Sword of Damocles.

This is what I have been looking for.
The pro-global warmers can spend their own money on their own belief.
So far, they have really just wanted to spend your money.

Tom in Florida

Now we will see who really believes. Funny how having to spend your own money makes people much more conservative.

Louis

Does Mr Bloomberg realize that the 100 Billion for the green fund is a yearly sum? He is just greenwashing his image, not interested in the fund itself.

As it always should be, progs in favor of more higher taxes can step up and put their money where their mouth is. Good people ought to be armed as they will, with wits and guns and The Truth.

Yes let all the Tom Steyer , Leo Decrepido types send their money to the GCF. Also downsize their homes, park their limos, Mothball their private jets.
Let’s just see.

joel

Liberals give less to charity than conservatives. The L’s think its the govt’s job to succor the poor.
So, I don’t expect to see a lot of L’s coughing up money on their own. They love to spend other people’s money.
I am reading Rising Star. The “liberal” mindset doesn’t change. It’s not complicated if you follow the money.

MRW

They love to spend other people’s money.

It’s not other people’s money. It’s the US federal government’s. That’s the big prize. Unlimited funds. The USG creates the USD. Instead of spending those USDs on the US people, providing free healthcare and free university education, they want the creation of USD to go to their transnational bank accounts.

The USG doesn’t create the USD. It borrows the $$$ from the Fed – which is a private company. Now you know where the real money is.

RockyRoad

…and the Fed has been completely opposed to any audit whatsoever (as if they had the collateral to make the huge loans to the US Government in the first place).
An interesting aspect of this relationship is the consequences to any US president that has suggested that the US Government issue its own currency (they have to guarantee what the Fed provides, so why not?)–every such president has been shot.
Consequence or conspiracy theory? You’re free to draw your own conclusions.

MRW

Dead wrong, ferdberple.
The USG creates physical cash, which is only 11% to 12% to all USD, through the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, a US Treasury department. Banks that want to increase their vault cash must put up 100% of their demand in collateral to a Federal Reserve Agent at one of the 12 District Federal Reserve Banks before they can get it.
The USG creates treasury securities, which are a cash equivalent, and sells them at public auction to US businesses including banks, US households and individuals, and foreign governments and investors. The Federal Reserve is not allowed to purchase these BY LAW. The act of selling treasury securities at public auction is termed “borrowing,” a horrific misnomer but a leftover from the gold-standard days which the US has not been on domestically since 1934.
The Federal Reserve is not a private corporation. I don’t care what G. Edward Griffin claims. He’s wrong. And so are you. Do your homework.

MRW

The US Treasury can only issue treasury securities in amounts that Congress has authorized in appropriation (or “spending”) bills, whether past congressional sessions or present.
Last year, for example, the US Treasury issued $95.6 trillion in new USD. See the end-of-year Daily Treasury Statement Table III-A on page 2 of 2 here: https://www.fms.treas.gov/fmsweb/viewDTSFiles?dir=a&fname=16093000.pdf

Barbara

People should pay for their own university education like people used to do. Go to school part- time and work part-time to pay for an education. Or go to night-school and work full time.
Borrow money to take courses that don’t lead to jobs, and expect to pay-off loans.

MRW

Barbara,

People should pay for their own university education like people used to do. Go to school part- time and work part-time to pay for an education.

Before 1970, people worked part-time to pay for their room and board and/or food. Not for their education. University education was either free (majority of the country) or a nominal fee. In CA, for example, state students paid something like $58/semester; out-of-state students and foreigners paid way more. CA state property taxes, like most states, paid to educate their kids until the elites got Reagan to abolish high property taxes and replace needed revenue with a variety of higher state income taxes that shifted the revenue burden to the poor and working class.
Private universities, like Princeton, charged for education. It was up to $650/year in the 1950s.

MRW

RockyRoad

…and the Fed has been completely opposed to any audit whatsoever (as if they had the collateral to make the huge loans to the US Government in the first place).

Completely incorrect. Another common myth, perpetuated mostly by Ron Paul (a decent man, but misinformed).
”How the Federal Reserve Is Audited”
https://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed35.html
”All Federal Reserve Banks and branches, like commercial depository institutions, are audited and examined regularly.
Internal audits are conducted by a permanent audit staff at each Reserve Bank. Each audit staff is headed by a general auditor who reports directly to the Bank’s board of directors. In addition, a private CPA firm conducts an annual examination of each Reserve Bank and its branches on behalf of the Federal Reserve Board. External audits were instituted in recent years in place of annual examinations by the Board of Governors to ensure total independence in this process.”

You can read them here. They are included in the Federal Reserve Annual Reports, along with the name of the private and independent CPA firm hired in any given year to conduct it: https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/annual-report.htm

MRW

RockyRoad

An interesting aspect of this relationship is the consequences to any US president that has suggested that the US Government issue its own currency (they have to guarantee what the Fed provides, so why not?)

You got a buck in your pocket? Pull it out and look at it.
Look at the titles of the two signatures: “Secretary of the Treasury’” (right side), and “Treasurer of the United States” (left side).
It doesn’t say Chairman of the Federal Reserve anywhere on that bill, nor does the Chairman of the Fed sign it.
The seal on the face side says “The Department of the Treasury,” not the Federal Reserve. On the back, there are two seals that make up the front and back of The Great Seal of the United States.
The only place on that bill that mentions the Federal Reserve is across the top of the face side: “Federal Reserve Note.” And “Note” doesn’t mean what you think it means. It does not mean that the Federal Reserve issued it or owns it, which is what most people think it means.
”Note” is a time-honored word for a liability. A mortgage is alternatively called a note. A car loan is alternatively called a note.
“Federal Reserve Note” means that the Federal Reserve is legally obligated to accept that dollar as legal tender for the payment of taxes and all debts denominated in USD. That’s all it means—conspiracists of the G Edward Griffin ilk notwithstanding.
Macroeconomist Paul McCulley explains it simply here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sdhv2WuoYGM [He talks really slowly, suggest you speed it up under the gear in the lower right.]
The United States of America issues the USD, issues the currency, issues the “unit of account” of the USG, and that dollar bill proves it.

Catcracking

MRW
“Before 1970, people worked part-time to pay for their room and board and/or food. Not for their education.”
I guess those of us that worked during high school, saved enough for tuition, went to Co op schools were foolish.
Maybe a college education was free in California and some other states but many of us went to “private engineering factories”, mostly living at home and paid our own Tuition bills. Of course most of those schools were built by the local rich folk who gave back to society. Furthermore, then a good College degree was a no nonsense program, no place for buttercups. Professors spent time in class teaching instead of studying who knows what? When you are paying your own way one is more interested in getting through and getting a good paying job.
Of course the opportunity I enjoyed has been destroyed by the government, the universities, and others, it is impossible to save enough on part time jobs to pay the outrageous tuition bills of today. There was no such thing as student loans. I feel sorry for parents who struggle to pay the outrageous tuition bills today.
Has the government made things better?

MRW

I agree with you, Catcracking.
When I got my first Masters at Rutgers in the mid-70s, it cost me $458/semester, so $916 for the year. I got my second Masters from Columbia at the end of the 70s, not half a decade later. Price? $12,000/year. The NYC bankers by that time had figured out how to turn Columbia and NYU (via bankers installed on their boards) into real estate powerhouses under the rubric of ‘protecting our endowment’. And it’s only got worse. That disease has spread across America. Deans and college prezzies go along with because they are paid a fortune to.
I blame our spineless Congress who want those bank lobby dollars, the federal government failing to clamp down, and the collusion of the banks. And have our universities produced better students? All they seem to learn is identity politics and sobbing about it.
Engineering schools seem to turn out pros, but I’m no expert. I do know that the engineering schools in Canada and the US are considered the best in the world, which is why China is sending their best students here to get advanced training so they can beat us back home. [It’s also why I think those students should be forced to spend 10 years here after earning graduate and advanced engineering degrees instead of going home to best us at our own businesses. Those 10 years are critical: they’ll meet spouses, have children, maybe buy a house, develop some loyalty to this country. But that’s just me. But I’ll probably get accused of being xenophobic for such thinking.]

MRW

RockyRoad

An interesting aspect of this relationship is the consequences to any US president that has suggested that the US Government issue its own currency (they have to guarantee what the Fed provides, so why not?)

You got a buck in your pocket? Pull it out and look at it.
Look at the titles of the two signatures: “Secretary of the Treasury’” (right side), and “Treasurer of the United States” (left side).
It doesn’t say Chairman of the Federal Reserve anywhere on that bill, nor does the Chairman of the Fed sign it.
The seal on the face side says “The Department of the Treasury,” not the Federal Reserve. On the back, there are two seals that make up the front and back of The Great Seal of the United States.
The only place on that bill that mentions the Federal Reserve is across the top of the face side: “Federal Reserve Note.” And “Note” doesn’t mean what you think it means. It does not mean that the Federal Reserve issued it or owns it, which is what most people think it means.
”Note” is a time-honored word for a liability. A mortgage is alternatively called a note. A car loan is alternatively called a note.
“Federal Reserve Note” means that the Federal Reserve is legally obligated to accept that dollar as legal tender for the payment of taxes and all debts denominated in USD. That’s all it means—conspiracists of the G Edward Griffin ilk notwithstanding.
Macroeconomist Paul McCulley explains it simply here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sdhv2WuoYGM [He talks really slowly, suggest you speed it up under the gear in the lower right.]
The United States of America issues the USD, issues the currency, issues the “unit of account” of the USG, and that dollar bill proves it.

MRW

Catcracking, economic historian Michael Hudson wrote an article about this just last week called “Are Students a Class?”
http://michael-hudson.com/2017/05/are-students-a-class/
Hudson started working for the big banks on Wall Street in the 60s. His job then? To figure out how to impoverish Latin American countries with debt servitude for his employers. He got out of that. He’s in his mid-70s now, still going like a house on fire. He’s seen it all. I think you’ll find his explanation for what is happening now, and why, interesting.

Herbert

Bloomberg Philanthropies , in partnership with others, is making up the deficit in funding the UNFCC secretariat administrative costs it stands to lose from Washington. This seems to approximate the $15 million mentioned.
This is chump change and does not address the loss of ( some?) of the US payments ($3 billion ) to date to the Green Climate Fund and the many billions to follow if the US remained in the Paris Accord.
The US would have been committed for perhaps $24 billion of the $100 billion targeted by 2020. In addition to the Green fund, there was a call at Bonn recently for a further $300 billion to be raised annually.
Will Bloomberg, the US states, cities and ( celebrity) individuals pony up real money for this noble cause?
It underlines the central issue in President Trump exiting Paris.

David A

Good summary. If 15 million was all the CAGW alarmists needed, it would be of zero consequence. This is a trillion dollar scam attempting to place disparate sovereign nations under ever greater international control of unelected socialists.

MRW

Agree with you, but they’re not socialists. They’re profiteers.

the Paris accord is/was an attempt to make the rich countries pay for the developing countries’ green energy, mostly nuclear. It is a re-distribution of wealth, argued from the principle that there is / was a debt to be paid.
However 1)
IMHO nuclear is not a safe or good replacement for fossil fuel…..it causes much more H2O (g) which is a stronger GH gas than CO2….
However 2)
there should be a clause that the country giving the support should get a guarantee that the developing country that gets its support would buy its ‘green’ energy on offer.
For example, it seems clear to me from recent press reports, that aid going to India [from the EU and USA) would be spend in Russia for nuclear plants. So, I am asking, what is Russia paying?
Trump wisely picked up on this and rejected the deal, as it stands today. He is a good businessman.

Dave Fair

Everyone seems to forget President Trump is a good businessman. They are distracted by the sideshows as he moves forward.

ozspeaksup

lets see eeeelon donate your taxfunds hes scored back!;-)

MRW

No sh*****t, ozspeaksup. Elon, a transplanted South African, has scammed the federal monetary system big time to pay for his lavish schemes and lifestyle.

toorightmate

Bloomberg’s efforts should be matched by Oh Bummer, Soros, Clintons, Gore, Mann, etc.
These jerks will easily achieve the billions required to boost Robert Mugabe and Joe Zuma’s Swiss bank accounts.

MRW

But no, it’s the poor in the rich countries that wind up paying for the rich in the poor countries.

Catcracking

Agree, good point that gets missed everyday

LittleOil

It is very interesting to look at Der Spiegel’s report on President Trump’s Paris exit.- http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/trump-pulls-out-of-climate-deal-western-rift-deepens-a-1150486.html
The president’s speech looked at the numbers and showed that the Paris agreement was ineffective at reducing emissions and unfair on the USA.
Der Spiegel opens with the title- “Donald Trump’s Triumph of Stupidity” and goes on to say “His speech was packed with make-believe numbers from controversial or disproven studies. It was hypocritical and dishonest. In Trump’s mind, the climate agreement is an instrument allowing other countries to enrich themselves at the expense of the United States”.
Their conclusion is that- “ It’s America against the rest of the world, along with Syria and Nicaragua, the only other countries that haven’t signed the Paris deal.”
I find it amazing that after so many billions have been spent on researching Climate Change there is still a chasm between opposing viewpoints as to what is fact.

Roger Knights

This chasm is why a GOP-branded or Trump-backed site is needed to defend Trump’s exit statement and climate skepticism. Such a site couldn’t be ignored by the mainstream the way current skeptic sites have been. Its arguments would have to be engaged with.

2hotel9

Trump Admin can simply seize these illegally transferred funds and direct them to the border wall. Win/win! Bankrupt Bloomberg and build wall.

sean2829

$15 million? That’s not even enough to cover the bureaucrats salaries.

Tom in Florida

Or bribes.

R. Shearer

Bloomberg is short by a couple of zeros.

AndyG55

I doubt Al Gore or Di Paprio will be “green” enough to follow suit.
or that Seyers guy.
There is nothing in it for them.
Maybe Elon Musk can use some of the government subsidies he has squirreled away.
Come on all you yapping multi-millionaires. put your money where your yapping is.

Tom in Florida

If Bloomberg really believes in man made climate change, why did he wait so long to help out? And where are all the other rich liberals with their donations? We all know the answer. (Methinks Bloomber is not a very popular man with the rich elites right now)

Dave Fair

Tom, let’s take your concept a bit further: Every time a loudmouth cries about the U.S. exiting Paris, a coordinated effort should be made to shame the fool for his not putting his money where his mouth is.

RAH

Just my two cents. But I don’t get why so many here jumped right into the idea of spending the supposed savings of Climexit on some kind of other foreign aid? We have plenty of places right here where those funds could be used that would better serve us. A Social Security system that is on the path to failure and already has failed to keep the promises it made. A trillion or so about to go to much needed infrastructure improvements. A VA that is failing miserably. Etc, etc, etc……..
Don’t get me wrong. I understand the need and benefits of judiciously applied foreign aid. I just don’t get where so many here seem to have jumped right to the idea those funds should be used outside the US?

William Astley

Are Mikey and his friends going to shell out for the Paris Accord Green fund?
The agreement’s objective is to set a Green Fund funding floor of $100 billion/year (see figure 1 attached link) to waste on whatever, including a funds for a massive new UN bureaucracy.
The Paris Accord is a future legal black hole, to justify/help legal action, to get forced funding and forced action.
The Lefty/Socialists/Cult of CAGW nefarious plan is to make the Paris Accord in the future legally binding and/or to expand the world courts mandate to address the climate change crimes (i.e. Countries that do not take ‘action’ or pay necessary funds to run the scam.)
http://www.climatefocus.com/sites/default/files/GCF%20and%20Paris%20Brief%202016.new_.pdf

Funding ambitions
The Paris Agreement does not explicitly refer to the GCF (Green Climate fund) and the amount of funding that it is to mobilize. The text recognizes however that ‘the Financial Mechanism of the Convention, including its operating entities, shall serve as the financial mechanism of this Agreement’ (Art. 9.8).
The Financial Mechanism was established under the Convention (Art. 11) to formalize and streamline efforts to provide concessional financial resources to developing country Parties.
Designated bodies – the operating entities – are entrusted to realize the goals of the Mechanism. The GCF, together with the GEF, are the two operating entities of the Financial Mechanism of the Convention and the Paris Agreement and as such represent the main channels through which future sources of international climate finance are expected to flow in the years to come.
The Paris Decision, serving as guidance for the implementation of the Paris Agreement and pre-2020 action, ‘strongly urges developed country Parties to scale up their level of financial support, with a concrete roadmap to achieve the goal of jointly providing USD 100 billion annually by 2020 for mitigation and adaptation’ (para 115).
The Decision furthermore mentions that prior to 2025 the COP shall set a new ‘collective quantified goal from a floor of USD 100 billion per year’ (para 54). The reason both quantitative targets are missing from the actual Agreement is a pragmatic one – in doing so the COP has enabled the US President to adopt the Agreement as ‘sole-executive agreement’ under US law, without the requirement for the US Senate to approve.

Comments:
Ignoring the fact that the entire Paris Accord was/is based on fake science. The IPCC fake equation (Bern Equation) for the estimated retention time of CO2 in the atmosphere is 200 years and 22% of the emitted CO2 is estimated to stay in the earth’s atmosphere for greater than 1000 years.
During the Paris Accord, the developing countries argue that the developed countries should be responsible for all of their past CO2 emissions, in terms of determining how much the developed countries should be forced to pay into the Green Fund.

Michael Ozanne

So how long would it take green tinged leeches, wastrels and hangers on to burn their way through 15 million dollars? 1 or 2 days? 15 minutes?

Hocus Locus

AND SO… for the cost of ~90 seconds of Super Bowl halftime advertising ($5m/30sec), he’ll get days of face-time on the gliberal media. A bargain really. If he really wants to broadcast his message he should invest a cool $1 billion and take out a REAL Super Bowl halftime ad — a whole hour and a half. Sports fans, can’t you just feel the love?

Hocus Locus

FUN FACT FOR THE DAY: At $5m/30sec, Super Bowl halftime ad cost of reading John Galt’s speech: ~$1.8 billion dollars. Thanks to this helpful source and especially to Amber, who invites you to read it yourself. And I highly recommend this brilliantly conceived reading with interesting visual clips. FOOTBALL WILL NEVER BE THE SAME

ScienceABC123

The key phrase in all that was “a commitment of up to” with emphases on “up to.” Bloomberg could send them just $10,000, pocket change for him, and still claim credit.

$15million?
He’s a bit short
The “Price Tag” is
$1billion

Julien

15 million usd is still a ridiculous amount compared to the 300 billion the USA should have paid. But well it’s fine by me, trumps decision is definitely the right one. The planet will be fine in a century wether we do something for the climate or not. The climate has always changed and it will keep doing so.
Regarding this, I’ve recently realized that the current rate of sea level rise, despite the adjustments made to it by the corrupt scientists, is not alarming nor unprecedented at all. According to geologists, the sea level was 125 meters below the current at the minimum of the last ice age, 25000 years ago. Even if we put aside the fact that a more rapid rate of sea level rise occurred between 15000 and 5000 years ago, the average sea level rise until now is 50mm per year, compared to the 32mm of “adjuted” sea level rise that climate scientists report for the last few decades.

PiperPaul

But now sea levels are rising rapidly due to all the climate alarmists’ tears! Oh well, at least it’s salt water and won’t totally dilute the oceans’ salinity.

Samuel C Cogar

rapid rate of sea level rise occurred between 15000 and 5000 years ago
In actuality, the most recent “rapid rate of sea level rise” occurred between 21,000 and 8,000 years BP, with a really rapid “rise” occurring between the 15K and 14.5K BP dates, as per the following proxy graph.comment image
And ps, the near-surface air temperatures had to have been pretty “hot”, during both winters and summers, …… to melt that much glacial ice in that short of time (500+ years).

Clyde Spencer

SCC,
“…the near-surface air temperatures had to have been pretty “hot”, during both winters and summers, …… to melt that much glacial ice in that short of time (500+ years).”
Or at least above freezing most of the time.

Samuel C Cogar

Right you are, Clyde S, …… because most of the “summer melt” will simply “re-freeze” when the precipitation returns with the “freezing” winter storms.

David A

Julien, the problem with your math is it ignores the fact that SL has fluctuated.
Within the past 7000 years sea levels were likely one to two meters higher then current levels.
I do of course agree that the current rate of rise ( maybe 1.5 mm per year) is of little consequence relative to past rates of SL change.

Wharfplank

Proves this has nothing to do with “climate” and everything to do with money. From the bottom of my heart, thank you, President Trump. Now get someone from the EPA to present a slideshow, Algorian style, rebutting the flawed modelling and the “science” that flows from them.

Erik Pedersen

It had been just as good for the worlds climate if mr Bloomberg sent his money to me…

Jbird

I’m going to donate “up to” $15 billion as well. I will pay it all out over the next 1000 years (from my estate when I am gone). I’ll begin with my first installment of $1.00 for the current fiscal year. Additional amounts over the coming 999 years will be dependent upon how much others are willing to contribute to my “fund” and how much the fund is able to earn in the future. Of course payments will need to be reduced somewhat by the management fees I’ll need to extract for my time and effort, but be assured I’ll pay out “up to” $15 billion. Of course, if the fund goes broke in the next 5 years, well, who is gonna notice?

Has the Pope offered up anything out of the massive Catholic Church’s money pile? He seems to have a big mouth, but does he have a big wallet?

Ric Haldane

Great point Griff. The Church has always supported the true science through out history. Or maybe not.

Pop Piasa

I’m not surprised that the church would file that little edict of quasi-biblically derived truism in a subfolder named “stories”.

The church is legalized extortion. Give us your money or you will burn in hell. They believe in other people giving so they can receive, thus ensuring that the faithful follow scripture.

John Harmsworth

Ferd
That is exactly the same as the climate change extortion!! Lol!

Catcracking

Arthur, good point, he probably needs the money to maintain the wall that he has but decries the fact that we need one. I Normally respect the Church but this guy makes it difficult

Japan seems to be very confused , not to mention stupid as hell. They still have all but 4 of their 80 sum nuclear reactors offline, despite years of evaluations of their plant’s safety systems, sometime accompanied by changes in equipment and policies. All of their plants have gone thru an extensive
system of checks, yet they are still importing oil and LPG to run power generators for their electricity, an this is cosing thme a lot of money, plus increasing their emissions enormously. I do not know if the Japanese have been intelligent enough to copy the U.S. systems of emergency centers that can airlift all of the equipment required to prevent any major accidents at any of our nuclear facilities, which are mnitored full time I believe by representatives from the NRC. None of the accidents that have occurred at Western nucear plants, including Japan’s of several years back due to the tsunami flooding, would have resulted in any damage to the reactors had this system been in place at that time. The U.S. has two emergency centers located on both sides of the country. It would probably be virtually impossible at this point for a nuclear plant malfunction of any conceivable type to do major damage to either plant or its personnel. The public, naturally, remains totally ignorant of all this, compliments of the anti-nuclear (and also very ignorant), news media.

SocietalNorm

Bloomberg Philanthropies and others gives $15M. They get good PR among their donor base of other rich people. They get virtue signaling that not only are they saving the world, but they are also fighting for the “revolution” against evil rich white guys (forget that the donors are rich white guys and their wives).
Bloomberg is no dummy. They will get far more in donations than the $15M that they spend.
Now if he gave personally the $2B that Trump isn’t extracting from the American taxpayers, I would be impressed.

Michael Jankowski

He’ll probably spew plenty of CO2 jet-setting somewhere for a photo-op where he can provide one of those giant cardboard replica checks.

JBom

So Bloomberg Philanthropies is paying Michael Bloomberg his salary for being “Special Envoy for Cities and Climate Change” and Michael Bloomberg pays to Bloomberg Philanthropies a portion of his wealth yearly as a charitable contribution, and gets a tax deduction, on his Federal Tax form.
Ponzi Scheme!

Curious George

I hope his pledge is legally binding. Paying it from his own pocket would be really impressive.

Michael Jankowski

Both of his daughters also sit on the Board of Directors. One is uniquely qualified, having spent her career as an equestrian rider.
Michael Bloomberg isn’t wanting for money and devotes millions/billions towards philanthropic endeavors. I wouldn’t call it a Ponzi scheme. He’s also not like Gore or the Clintons.

Curious George

It is a nice example of a family enterprise. Contrast it with the Trump’s totally dysfunctional family, where Ivanka and Melanie are – pardon, were – both running their own business. And Democrats accuse Trump of turning the government into a family business.

2hotel9

“Trump’s totally dysfunctional family” Really? They are highly successful and from all appearances quite stable. What definition of “dysfunctional” are you using? Compared to who? The Kennedys? The Pelosi Clan? The Reids of Nevada?