According
to Richard K. Lattanzio, analyst in Environmental Policy, the Global Climate
Change Initiative (GCCI) aims to “foster low-carbon growth, promote sustainable
and resilient societies, and reduce emissions from deforestation and land
degradation.” (Congressional Research Service)
GCCI
is actually three programs, adaptation assistance, clean energy assistance, and
sustainable landscapes. The total budget request for FY 2013 is $769.5 million.
It may seem like a rounding error when compared with the trillions spent in the
past four years, but it is significant.
The
adaptation program helps “low-income
countries reduce their vulnerability to climate change impacts and build
climate resilience” in Africa, Asia, and Latin America in infrastructure,
agriculture, health, water, decision-making, sound governance, and food
security. Least Developed Country Fund and Special Climate Change Fund address
climate resilience and food security. The adaptation program will receive
$202.5 million.
The
clean energy program will reduce
greenhouse gas emissions through clean energy technologies, policies, and
practices. International trust funds such as the World Bank, U.N. agencies, and
non-governmental organizations will administer the money. The Clean Technology
Fund and Program for Scaling-Up Renewable Energy in Low Income Countries will
assist the select low-income countries. The amount dedicated to this program in
FY 2013 is $390 million.
“The
sustainable landscapes programs aim to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.” Forest governance, forest
cover, and land use change monitoring systems will see that sustainable
forest-based livelihoods will be maintained in select lower-income countries
through improved regulation and enforcement, biodiversity, and sustainable land
use. The watchdog for the latter will be the Global Environmental Facility. The
sustainable landscapes programs requested $177 million for FY 2013.
“The
Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI) is funded through programs at the
Department of State, the Department of the Treasury, and USAID. Funds for these
programs are appropriated in the Administration’s Executive Budget.” The budget authority is provided by H.R. 3288,
the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010. (Richard K. Lattanzio)
The
author of the study, Richard K. Lattanzio, suggested the following
Congressional concerns:
-
Fiscal constraints – Our taxpayer
dollars should be used for domestic priorities such as job creation and economic
growth instead of other countries at a time when Americans feel the pinch of
high unemployment and prolonged recession.
-
Potential for
misuse
– Bloated bureaucracies, graft, corruption, lack of transparency of how the
funds will be used should be huge concerns.
-
Lack of
consensus on climate science – “Current uncertainties and
ambiguities regarding the fields of atmospheric chemistry and climatology have
been offered by some as reasons to postpone and/or reconsider international
climate change assistance policies and programs”
I
would like to address the use of the phrase “consensus on climate science.”
There is no consensus in science. Science is exact and a fact, it is not
determined based on “consensus.” Therein lies the problem of the global
warming/climate change fraud – it is all based on consensus and that is neither
scientific nor science. “Consensus” is based on someone’s feelings, opinion,
judgment, or beliefs. The dictionary definition of consensus is “agreement in
the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole,” and that group is the
environmental, green growth, sustainability crowd.
Richard
K. Lattanzio also provides five reasons why assistance may be necessary:
-
Commercial interests – International
climate change assistance benefits U.S. businesses by providing American goods
in that market instead of the European Union or China.
-
Investment efficiencies – Working today
to avoid climate-related disasters, instabilities, conflicts, and technological
needs (This assumes that “climate catastrophes” are man-made and I am not
buying that premise because it cannot be proven in any way.)
-
Natural disaster
preparedness
– “Climate proof” developing countries instead of helping them with ad-hoc
disaster such as rebuilding of poor countries’ capital, urgent humanitarian
needs, and food shortages. (I can see helping with food and immediate needs in
case of a natural disaster; the question remains, why is it always the
responsibility of the United States to take care of everybody? There are many
other rich countries around the globe that contribute precious nothing in times
of crises)
-
National security –“International
climate change assistance addresses and mitigates risks to national security.” (I
really do not buy this explanation.)
-
International leadership – “International
climate change assistance to lower-income countries is a method to increase
U.S. leadership in global environmental issues.” (I do not buy this premise
either since “climate change” is driven mostly by United Nations and other
socialist countries and dictatorships. Climate changed all the time through the
ages but it is not a doomsday issue.)
Congress
and its various subcommittees on Foreign Affairs, Financial Services,
International Monetary Policy and Trade, State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs, International Environment Protection are responsible to oversee the
GCCI. Good luck with that since the total amount is such a paltry sum ($769.5
million) for their outrageous spending habits.
The
whole effort wastes taxpayer dollars at a time when we cannot afford it. These select
low-income countries are not involved in heavy manufacturing that pollute the
environment extensively, when you compare them to a major polluting economy
like China or the U.S. There may be a cumulative effect but I am sure it pales
by comparison.
No comments:
Post a Comment