There are billions of dollars of money sneaking out the door of Western Nations and being used to feed the monster bureaucracy, the UNFCCC and its cohort.
In The Carbon Tax that Ate Australia Tony Cox and David Stockwell point out the Australian contributions fly so under the radar (despite being millions of dollars) that even the Australian government seems to have forgotten they agreed to pay them. Greg Combet, the minister for Climate Change promises “every dollar of the Carbon Tax will be given back to the people”:
Every dollar raised by the carbon price will be dedicated to supporting households with any price impacts, and supporting businesses through the transition to a clean energy economy. Because we are a Labor government, we will support the most vulnerable in our community — the people who need help the most.
But Combet in Cancun promised 10% of the Australian carbon tax as a tithe to the UN. (And there’s the $599 million as part of the Fast Start Finance program over three years that is in the pipeline.) So which commitment will the Australian government break? Or, let me guess, in the world of spin, the government can give all the tax money back to Australians because the other 10% “of that” comes from … err… other taxes? (That’s how 100+10 = 100.) Well that’s all right then… let’s call it “tax-creep”. Could the carbon tax quietly be 10% bigger than advertised?
The Copenhagen Accord seemed like such an innocuous piece of face-saving wall-paper, but a river of money flows to its organizers and patrons. The US — past the point where it can pay what it owes as its foreign debts mount — committed $1.7 billion last year. The UK, facing mass riots over public spending cuts, has given even more per capita. The Scandinavians are punching far above their weight too.
From the Fast Start Program site:
(Note the values are in local currencies but if you “Click” on the calculator it will convert…)
|total pledged||total committed||programmes|
|Australia||AUD 599 million||5|
|Belgium||EUR 150 million||EUR 42,0 million||–|
|Canada||CAD 400 million||–|
|Denmark||DKK 1 200 million||DKK 308,0 million||12|
|European Union||EUR 150 million||EUR 50,0 million||8|
|Finland||EUR 110 million||7|
|France||EUR 1 260 million||EUR 1 260,0 million||24|
|Germany||EUR 1 260 million||EUR 291,9 million||51|
|Iceland||USD 1 million||–|
|Japan||USD 15 000 million||–|
|Luxembourg||EUR 9 million||EUR 9,0 million||–|
|Malta||EUR 1 million||EUR 0,1 million||2|
|Netherlands||EUR 310 million||EUR 310,0 million||7|
|Norway||USD 1 000 million||USD 382,0 million||20|
|Portugal||EUR 36 million||EUR 12,0 million||–|
|Slovenia||EUR 8 million||2|
|Spain||EUR 375 million||9|
|Sweden||EUR 800 million||17|
|Switzerland||CHF 140 million||–|
|United Kingdom||GBP 1 500 million||GBP 568,0 million||8|
|United States||USD 1 700,0 million (for 2010)|
Ponder that this program manages some $5 billion USD (of committed funds) and 4 months after Cancun, (and 14 months after the Copenhagen Accord) the website documenting it appears to be the part time work of one man in the Netherlands. Perhaps I’m missing something, and the real official site is somewhere else. At least they are not wasting funds on glossy graphics, but it’s disconcerting to say the least that there are so few details. Are they kidding? Is this really the official site for a program this size?
Remember, as you admire the empty cells and out-of-date information on the Fast Start site, that this is what “transparency” looks like from the closest thing we have to a world government.
The most generous interpretation is that these funds are merely rebadged foreign aid amounts that would have been used in foreign aid anyway. But why shuffle them through the UN or the UNFCCC — the kind of people who aim to try to hold back a tide that is barely rising at 2 or 3 mm a year. I mean, levees to stop the ocean rising must be low on the wish list for countries where children die of malaria every day. Are children lost because some bureaucrat hijacked foreign aid to build a sea wall that will probably never be needed?
Thanks to Tony Cox and David Stockwell.
Just to put a razor fine point on it commenter Lawrie writes on the last thread that the Canadian wheat crop cycle is being cut short just as David Archibald predicted (thanks to UN aid, those kids who will need wheat to eat are getting levees instead):
David Archibald is sure this SC24 [solar cycle] and possibly SC25 will both be short and weak leading to a Dalton Minimum type cooling. He also states that should such cooling occur the Canadian wheat crop would be seriously reduced. This is one of several stories coming out of the northern prairies: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-18/canadian-wheat-sowing-may-be-delayed-on-wet-weather-board-says.html
It seems late snows and melt are delaying sowing 10 to 20 days. The same region experienced a number of early frosts last year. Combine the two and the short growing season will see yield reductions. Maybe it’s La Nina and maybe it’s the solar cycle or maybe a bit of both. Either way cold weather equals less food.