By David Wojick
The UN Green Climate Fund (GCF) is neither Green nor about climate. They are mostly just doing normal foreign aid that the donor countries would be better off doing themselves. They have received and spent over $20 billion to date, with more billions coming.
For example, they fund a lot of water supply systems in dry countries. They call it “climate change adaptation,” but it is not adaptation to climate change. It is addressing a condition that has always existed. It is fraud to call this “climate funding.” The same is true for flood protection in flood-prone areas or improving existing farms, which they also do a lot of.
Moreover, much of this so-called adaptation funding actually increases CO2 emissions, so it is not even green.
A fine example is their biggest funding to date, which is part of the huge Jordan Desalination Project. The GCF says that Jordan is among the world’s driest countries, so it certainly needs water. But Jordan has been this dry throughout its history, so the project has nothing to do with climate change.
Then too, desalination uses lots of electricity, and Jordan’s electric power production is around 70% fossil-fueled, mostly with natural gas. The project includes a token solar facility, but it only covers a small fraction of the 24/7 energy required for desalination and pumping the water up to the users, most of whom are around 1,000 meters higher than the plant.
Nor is this a GCF project. Exact numbers are hard to come by, but the GCF share of the $6 billion budget looks to be around just 5%. The rest is an international grouping of standard foreign aid sources, including development banks and individual countries.
In fact, GCF boasts that it normally just co-funds projects via a minority share. In many cases, probably most, these co-funders are standard foreign aid sources. This may help explain why many of the projects GCF funds are neither green nor climate-change-related. Countries getting foreign aid are getting real help.
The glaring question is why GCF donor countries are running some of their foreign aid through the GCF. If they want to do green climate stuff, they would be better off doing it themselves. If they think the GCF is doing green climate stuff with their money, they are being cheated.
What makes this trickery even worse is that the GCF is a truly inefficient, hence bloated, bureaucracy. A lot of the money is going to administrative costs and fees, which normal foreign aid does not incur.
To begin with, the GCF does not fund projects directly. It does it via what are called “accredited entities.” Here is how the GFS puts it:
“The GCF AE network comprises 158 entities approved by the Board for accreditation. The network includes a wide range of entities such as government ministries, national development banks, multilateral and commercial banks, United Nations agencies, international financial institutions, and national and international non-governmental organizations.”
These entities bring proposed projects to the GCF. In many cases, perhaps all, the budget will include their fee, which could be substantial. Accreditation itself is an elaborate process that must get paid for.
Then too, the project proposals and the proposal process are so elaborate that the GCF has a program to fund their preparation called the “Project Preparation Facility. Here is the GCF’s description:
“The Project Preparation Facility (PPF) provides financial and technical support through grants, both reimbursable and non-reimbursable, as well as equity, to support the development of high-quality project and programme funding proposals for submission to the Green Climate Fund (GCF).”
There are also things called “institutional capacity building” and “readiness.” GCF is even developing regional offices in developing countries around the world.
All of this expensive administrative spending is just waste when compared to the existing system of standard foreign aid.
It makes no sense for donor countries to run billions of dollars of their limited foreign aid money through the fraudulent and wasteful Green Climate Fund.
Ah, but to the UN, the administrative overhead is the purpose of projects.
The real purpose is to take money away from Western democracies, take their resources away from improving their own countries. Although $20 billion is a pittance, it’s just another “death by a thousand cuts” project.
Actually some 15 years ago the UNFCCC secretariat staff themselves jokingly called CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) “China Development Mechanism”. Because they fully realized that they were just a part of a big global fraud. I’m interested how do these parasites call GDF informally nowadays. Does anybody know?
The practice by governments and bureaucracies to assign names to policies & programs that are more for political effect than real explanation of purpose is ubiquitous these days.
It is unnecessary, since taxpayers know they’re going to be milked for some boondoggle or other no matter what the program gets named.
A cynical take on use of funds? You bet.
But don’t blame me for it, governments.
You started it .
“Countries getting foreign aid are getting real help.”
A very questionable statement, given the recent exposure of USAID activities. It seems that most of the funds stop in the NGO “charities” themselves, and in the recipient government agencies.
What?? You mean funding a trans play in Peru isn’t useful spending??
It definitely reduces CO2 thus climate change. /s
From the article: “It makes no sense for donor countries to run billions of dollars of their limited foreign aid money through the fraudulent and wasteful Green Climate Fund.”
It makes sense to politicians who want to appear to be fighting against the “CO2 climate crisis”. They virtue signal with taxpayer money.
Grifters and Greens, Grifters and Greens
They go together like franks and beans
This I tell you brother
You can’t have one without the other
Thanks, David.
From the git-go, this was designed to be a slush fund for UN & friends. Someone (I think E. M. Smith of Chiefio; not certain about this) looked at the design document prior to the first funding. That was 16 years ago and names and dates don’t stick well.
“Wasteful fraud” is an understatement. The UN is a long running total catastrophe.
You say that some of the adaption funding actually increases CO2 “emissions” so is not “green”.
I think anything that increases CO2 production is good for the planet and most certainly is “green”.
It makes no sense for donor countries to run a single nickel through the fraudulent and wasteful Green Climate Fund.
FIFY
If its OK David, I’ll like to take umbrage at this line.. 🙂
“Moreover, much of this so-called adaptation funding actually increases CO2 emissions, so it is not even green.”
CO2 emissions are absolutely “green”…. they help the world be “green”.
The world would not be green without CO2.
I am shocked SHOCKED I tell you to fine graft going on in this establishment.
(Here’s your kickback check sir)
I’d bet there are many funds and initiatives supposedly devoted to fighting the deleterious effects of climate change, but a close examination of what they’ve achieved since their inception would be likely that they’ve consistently fallen short. I’d also bet that a closer examination of exactly where the money went would find it was often diverted to unrelated enterprises. Parts of Canada’s national and provincial climate levies were found to have gone to fund children’s fitness initiative and a few other enterprises only marginally related to the environment. And what about all the money that has gone into funding the COP conferences? Haven’t fossil fuel consumption and global carbon emissions continued to rise since their inception three decades ago? So who’s really benefiting from these meetings except those who are getting free flights, meals and accommodations? So the partial culprits here are the governments that keep throwing taxpayers’ money at enterprises that really don’t have to show any results.
It’s operating exactly as intended. POSIWID.
I can’t see anything being done more effectively by an international organization.
David,
Please keep doing more work like this.
In my Australia, our Federal Government donated $200 million and $50 million to the Green Climate Fund.
It is hard to discover any Government report about what the benefit was to we ordinary Aussies. So, I floated an Internet question, whose response was mainly:
.Increased Australian status in the International do-good community including United Nations, is a benefit.
.Helping small Pacific Island nations love Aussies more than Chinese as big brothers is a pleasant alternative to war.
.Giving money to fight climate change that is causing sea level rise and future threat is nice for Pacific islanders.
………..
My summary, no clear defined benefit came to ordinary Aussies. $250 million was gone with the wind.
It is indefensible to continue to plead the threat of rising sea level. The main scientific research reveals no past or existing threat because most Pacific islands studied are stable or increasing in land area.
Governments who fib to voters get voted out sooner than later.
Geoff S