The Global Climate Change Initiative, More Waste of Taxpayer Dollars

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.