Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Here’s what we, the US taxpayers, have spent on climate since 1993 … can anyone tell me what we bought that is worth ~ $180 BILLION dollars?
Next week we’ll be spending another hundred and forty megabucks or so on this nonsense … where is it going, and what are we getting for our hard-earned taxes?
The world wonders …
w.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
kristi s,
Yes, it all seems very obscure. I tried the link (first thing I did), but, as I said in another comment that has not shown up yet, the link did not work for me. I tried going elsewhere, and got the impression that most of the money goes to the Department of Energy. Question is: What do THEY really do with it ? … What accomplishments EXACTLY are being made with it ? Do they just give it to a bunch to university research programs, then do a simple okay on the funding-use report at project’s ending and say, “that’s that”? .. rinse/repeat? … or is there an actual record somewhere of what those funds bought?
The reports that I’m reading are not very specific. … lots of words and generalities, few specifics, at least, not up front, plain and simple — as opaque as CO2 is to those IR bands, which, really, seems consistent with the whole alarm fest.
Robert,
Here is the link to the report:
https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/691572.pdf
Is that where you were looking? It’s complex, sort of, in an accounting sense, but there’s a lot of info there.
The DOE got a lot for clean energy initiatives: research into nuclear, batteries, reducing emissions from coal plants, more energy-efficient construction and vehicles…that kind of stuff. Implementation was part of that, I think.
Quite a lot of the “climate change” research had the capacity to help weather forecasting and disaster prediction – double duty.
Any opacity is likely a function of the aims of the document. It’s not that the information isn’t out there some where, it’s just that the report would be reproducing what is recorded elsewhere, and that would be a waste of money.
No, they don’t just give it to university research programs. Every grant is applied for, with details about the intended research, where it fits in the context of other research, why it’s important, and a cost break-down. Often it will include salaries for research assistants and post-docs – but usually not the researchers’ own, since they have salaries from the institutions they work for (generally speaking). It’s very time-consuming, but beneficial for the researchers themselves to make it clear in their minds what they need to do and how it fits together with the whole picture. So, yes, somewhere there are thousands and thousands of grant applications archived that have been funded or rejected.
Science is itself accomplishment, with a product. It seems that many here think it’s a waste of money. But it seems to me that if we assume that the science is wrong, and so stop funding it, that could leave us it a terrible situation if it’s right. CO2 mitigation aside, we need to know what to plan for, otherwise we will spend trillions of dollars in disaster relief rather than billions in prevention, all the while remaining in the dark about what to do next. Are people really so certain that it isn’t happening that they are willing to take that risk? If the science is not conclusive, what are they basing their certainty on? And if they think it is conclusive, on what basis? What evidence demonstrates that CO2 is having NO effect on climate?
Hey look at this shiny object here in my hand… No, No, don’t look at what the other hand is doing… Look at this Shiny object…Squirrel!!!
And Obama spent not a dime on advanced nuclear reacroes, like the molten salt reactors. A couple of months ago it was big nuclear news when the govt put out a few million bucks to several molten salt developers.
While I roll my eyes at kent once again banging on about the vaporware known as “molten salt reactors” (is there any topic to which he doesn’t include a mention of those things when he replies?), at least he has a point on this one. If even some of the money spent on the climate change scare went to research on molten salt reactors instead, there’s at least a slim chance that something might actually have been accomplished towards moving it out of the vaporware stage and into having a real world working version.
$140 million a week, US alone. And to think our trolls get bent out shape over $150 million over 10 years from the entire world, part of which goes to some of the scientists who disagree with the global warming scam.
..but they couldn’t find $5 billion for a wall……
The Democrats are dead set against putting anything in the way of their future voters.
No doubt, much just vanished, wasted, but much also had a net-negative effect on the economy. Take the Kill Coal campaign, for example. Or the incredibly misguided, and destructive “Cash For Klunkers” campaign, which destroyed perfectly good cars.
Cash for Klunkers made the existing used cars MUCH more expensive. Lack of supply of used cars drove up the price for the remaining cars on the market. This situation persisted for nearly two years. It distorted the used car market tremendously and punished the poor folks who needed a car. It was an unintended punishment unleashed on poor and lower middle class folks after the financial crisis killed their jobs. All of this was done in the name of saving Mother Gaia.
I turned in a lease vehicle a year after the program started. The value of the car was $4K more than my residual value due to the market conditions. I decided to buy the car and then trade it in. I came out $3500 to the good. I benefited from the market distortion. Folks trying to buy a used car were punished with much higher prices.
Actually something was accomplished. Higher energy prices than otherwise than would have been.
*Willis please provide direct links to your data rather than hiding them in the figure.
I cannot seem to find the data you used but looking around the links provide I found these:
from second ref under graph:
https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/691573.pdf
“Based on its review of the budget justifications of six agencies representing 89 percent of OMB-reported funding, GAO identified few programs (18 of 533) whose primary purpose is to address climate change. The remaining programs were multi-purpose—the budget justifications included other program goals in addition to addressing climate change. The 18 programs represented about 6 percent of these agencies’ reported climate change funding for fiscal year 2017”
links from 1st ref:
https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/691572.pdf
Clean Energy Technology. DOE programs accounted for most of the $3.5 billion increase in annual clean energy technology funding. Specifically, funding for DOE’s fusion, sequestration and hydrogen research (about $1.9 billion), energy efficiency and renewable energy programs ($656 million), as well as its carbon capture and storage and power systems research ($564 million) accounted for about 88 percent of the $3.5 billion funding increase from fiscal years 2010 through 2017, with a portion of the increase offset by decreases in other DOE programs, according to our analysis of OMB reports for this period. Funding for National Science Foundation ($486 million) and DOD ($417 million) research accounted for another 26 percent of the funding increase.16 • Science. NASA programs accounted for most of the $653 million increase in annual science funding. In particular, funding for NASA’s science programs accounted for about 84 percent ($546 million) of the $653 million funding increase from fiscal years 2010 through 2017, based on our analysis of OMB reports. Funding for DOE’s biological and environmental research accounted for about another 12 percent ($77 million) of the funding increase.17
more from pdf
OMB category
[Change to text format for data table. .mod]
Willis
The DOD spent 2$B on an audit that found an unaccounted 21 trillion of taxpayers cash.
The bank’s got over a trillion after 2008 no one really knows how much.
Etc.
Why would the US taxpayers start worrying about a mere $180B, it’s peanuts.
My kindest regards
https://www.globalresearch.ca/how-21-trillion-in-u-s-tax-money-disappeared-full-scope-audit-of-the-pentagon/5638534/amp
I did a speed-read of the first bullet points in the report. Shocking. However, I think these problems are not unique to the DOD, but rather to all government agencies, as well as many of the “private” companies set up under government directives (both legislative and executive, oh, wait, the judiciary also sets up private agencies because Special Interest Groups) such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and etc. And this is a place where presumed innocence goes out the window, the only way I would believe otherwise is upon the completion of a full-scale audit of everything bureaucratic that shows they have kept their checkbook(s) balanced.
Ozonebust, you are being a bit misleading. The audit found an unaccounted 21 trillion in *transactions*, not cash. Those transaction were both positive and negative (and cancel out for the most part) and where the result of shuffling money around from account to account such that it was impossible to trace how exactly it was eventually spent. And spent it was. There isn’t a pile of $21 trillion sitting around in the pentagon basement. At best there’s a few billion across various account in transit towards being eventually spent.
Now add in all the money at the state and local levels … it truly is a massive waste.
Nasa budget in unformatted table mode:
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CLARREO Pathfinder NASA — — — — — — — 19.3 Glory Mission NASA 31.8 12.9 — — — — — — Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite NASA — 3.8 0.7 — — — — — ce, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite-2 NASA 38.9 59.7 130.5 165.9 182.2 126.5 117.4 112.4 Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 NASA 62.0 89.0 93.4 80.3 38.2 17.5 — 10.2 Orbiting Carbon Observatory-3 NASA — — — 7.4 16.8 1. — 26.3 Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment NASA — 4.6 5.3 5.2 5.4 5.4 — 5.4 Total Solar Irradiance Sensor-1 NASA — — — — — 1.0 — 19.6 Total Solar Irradiance Sensor-2 NASA — — — — — — — 9.6It’s another government trough where bums and good for nothings come to feed like corrupt pigs.
What do you mean “like”?
Down the toilet
That is not actually that much money given the scale of the US government. It has an annual budget of about 4 trillion dollars. And in comparison an audit of the US department of defence found that $21 trillion dollars is unaccounted for going back to 1998. In addition the current US military budget is about $700 billion per annum.
Looking at the links much of the money is being spent on adaption to climate change which presumably would need to be spent whether or not the change is caused by human activity or not. So the US citizen is probably getting better value out of preparing for climate change (irrespective of the cause) than in buying more F-35 fighters at $90 million each.
Percy Jackson December 19, 2018 at 4:15 pm
The F-35s the military needs. When properly equipped the military needs not be concerned with climate change.
Factories and power generation are a necessity for the quick production of military supplies and equipment. Also the needs of the nations normal economy . Wind and solar can not produce 24/7/ 365. Domestic produced Gas and Coal can, debate over.
So how much are the Chinese and Russians paying you to disarm and impoverish my country?
Si vis pacem, para bellum
michael
Mike,
The US and indeed nobody apart from Lockheed need the F-35 fighters. They are over priced and under specced. And unlikely to ever be used except against some tin pot country with no air defences.
Percy Jackson December 19, 2018 at 7:58 pm
You ever work in the industry?
Name a few aircraft that were bad mouthed and then went on to shoot down everything they encountered.
I will give you one the F-15. The fighter jocks pushed for the development of the F-16. How many aircraft has the F-15 and the F-16 shot down. All countries with them.
We can go on about all the duds that became world leaders.
michael
“Name a few aircraft that were bad mouthed and then went on to shoot down everything they encountered.
I will give you one the F-15. The fighter jocks pushed for the development of the F-16. How many aircraft has the F-15 and the F-16 shot down. All countries with them.”
I’m not sure that that’s a fully accurate description of how things went down.
https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/outrageous-adolescence-f-16-180949491/?page=2
dont get me started on the F35
Yet another area in which Steve has no knowledge, but no shortage of opinions.
By all means Mosh, get started. Show us how knowledgeable (or not) you are on the subject rather than doing a substantive-less drive-by that displays no such knowledge.
There’s a large body of work by qualified SME’s that pretty much deals with most of the “F-35 is rubbish” myths. So by all means fill your boots…
nearly a week later and I see Steve has nothing to say to about the F35 beyond his substantive-less drive-by. Color me not surprised.
an audit of the US department of defence found that $21 trillion dollars is unaccounted for going back to 1998
Percy as I pointed out to another poster who used that misleading comment:
The audit found an unaccounted 21 trillion in *transactions*, not cash. Those transaction were both positive and negative (and cancel out for the most part) and where the result of shuffling money around from account to account such that it was impossible to trace how exactly it was eventually spent. And spent it was. There isn’t a pile of $21 trillion sitting around in the pentagon basement. At best there’s a few billion across various account in transit towards being eventually spent.
With trillions spent on reenoobs, particularly in Europe, with grants, unrepaid loans, failed big reenoob manufactureres for 80 cent/kWh power, feed in tariffs, subsudized rooftop solar, some billions given to NGO activists by governments, tax deductible dashy from billionaire champaign sloshulists, dole for 30,000 dulligates to attend exotic-localed binges with prosty pin money, I dont think the diagram even touches a tiny sample of what was spent.
To me it looks like the graph is a lefty setup to deflect what really went on. Kristi Silber was right. There wasnt much to see here. Remember when sceptics hammered on the deep cooling
lasting almost 40 years after 1940 that had climate scientists heralding CAGC, also blaming humans? Remember also that lefty climateers mocked up an old bogus Time Magazine with a different date than an actual issue on the cooling and then “showed” it to be fake news! This article may be a similar cook up.
Very Old Social Law
Definition of a Promotion:
“In the beginning, the promoter has the vision and the public has the money.
At the end of the promotion, the promoter has the money and the public has the vision.”
The Climate thing has been the most audacious promotion in history.
In second place is the nonsense that a committee of economists can “manage” a national economy.
There is no such thing as a “national” economy.
97% of that is now sitting in Swiss bank accounts, untouchable.
Thank you WUWT and all of you regulars who do think and are not like those who “pretend to think”. I like coming here, as a mere layman, to find actual reports and “truth in advertising”.
It’s just an anomaly. (/sarc)
Nice post, Willis, and nice reply to Kristi Silber. I have been corresponding with her off line thanks to CtM on a potential upcoming post or posts (CtM calls) on soundbites and supporting crowdsourced references. I have come to believe she means well, but despite her science degree (inferred from Atherton Tablelands, 3 years field research, see her WUWT comment to IPCCAR4 extinctions guest post) hasn’t really studied ‘climate science’ and its conundrums personally or deeply. So, IMO she is welcome here as might eventually learn some real sciency climate stuff despite the ‘consensus’.
Where did the money go? It went to socialist ideas, or in other words, the dustbin of history.
An infinite part returned to the local economy. Hosting, catering and moving delegates to COP and alike junkets is a highly sought after opportunity.
Another chunk went to PR activities, brainwashing, lobbying. Consecutively to shady numbered bank accounts.
Mansion and yacht makers, luxury goods and high-life perks got quite some since climate subsides are crafted to benefit those who are intended to harvest them.
Put the payola to claiming and equally corrupt vocal countries, pay China it’s due.
No wonder that the usual gang of con-science artists and their supporters chant and preach for more at each UN sponsored congregation venue.
There will be a few happy to be rich as long as there are countless satisfied to be poor.
A fool and his money are quickly parted. The essential business model of any self-sacrifice claiming sect.
It provided comfortable, high-paying jobs for people in the crisis industrial complex who could never get such comfortable and high-paying jobs in the private sector.
“Ask not where the money went, ask how much more we can give to save our world.” – UN IPCC
Killing birds, especially Bald and Golden Eagles.
A 2013 study published in The Wildlife Society Bulletin found that wind turbines killed an estimated 573,000 birds annually in the United States. Wind turbines are the most threatening form of green energy. (With the possible exception of the Ivanpah Solar Electric
Generating Facilityincinerator.)At the infamous Altamont Wind Resource Area alone, more than 2,000 Golden Eagles have been killed by the wind turbines there. Based on a sample of a limited area of the APWRA, it is estimated that between 570 and 835 raptors are killed there annually.
Of course the government had a solution to the killing of our national bird that for anyone else would be fined and/or serve hard time:
Our government has a solution to every impediment.
Dennis is correct. Here is a series of 2016 articles further highlighting the travesty of massive bird destruction by wind farms. https://www.masterresource.org/cuisinarts-of-the-air/harvesting-eagles-1/
MOD: wondering where my comment went?