As if it weren’t bad enough that the U.S. has already wasted billions of taxpayer dollars to save the developing world from the presumed ills of global warming, millions more will go to a Philippines-based project that aims to combat climate change in the Pacific Islands.
Is there no end to this madness? Last year a congressional report revealed that during the Obama presidency, American taxpayers have already doled out a ghastly $3 billion to help poor countries fight global warming and the money will continue flowing. The goal, according to the administration, is to make climate financing efficient, effective and innovative since global warming threatens to diminish the “habitability of our planet.”
The administration has created this heightened drama to justify funding this preposterous worldwide initiative. In the last few years the U.S. government has produced or funded a number of sensational reports warning that climate change could cause everything from mental illness and cancer to a more violent world with a “dangerous” food supply. One recent taxpayer-funded study said the Washington D.C. area and surrounding government infrastructure will be virtually destroyed by global warming over the next century. Click here to read Judicial Watch’s ongoing coverage of this outrageous nonsense.
Now we learn that the Obama administration has created a special Pacific American Climate Fund (known as PACAM) to distribute cash to “civil society organizations throughout the Pacific Rim in support of climate change adaptation measures.” Though mostly funded by Uncle Sam, the project is based in the Philippines and the money goes to a dozen islands throughout the Pacific, including Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea, the Republic of Marshall Islands and Kiribati. The ultimate goal is to “strengthen the resiliency of vulnerable communities in Pacific island countries to adapt to the negative impacts of climate change,” according to the U.S.
With an astounding national debt of more than $17 trillion and perpetually high unemployment in this country, most Americans probably don’t consider filling the coffers of these remote islands a priority. The government agency funneling the cash, the famously corrupt U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), explains in a lengthy report that the money will finance regional activities that aim to reduce “long-term vulnerabilities associated with climate change and achieve sustainable climate-resilient development.”
Does anybody know what this really means? More importantly, why should Americans care? USAID explains: “Many Pacific Islands countries depend on tourism, fisheries, and agriculture as their main source of income, foreign exchange, and economic livelihood. Climate change impacts such as beach erosion, sea level rise, warming temperatures, reduced freshwater access, bleaching of coral reefs, increased incidence of vector borne disease, and increasing storm intensities pose risks to these sectors and other economic activities.”
What role does a “pre-existing vulnerability” play in the life of a “climate shock” victim and does it affect their food security? A better question may be; what does this even mean? Or does anybody really care?
If you pay taxes in the United States, take note because you have doled out a chunk of change to get the answer to this rather bizarre and seemingly irrelevant question. Like many of the government-funded global warming projects this one appears to be a complete waste of public funds, but it’s too late. The money has been spent and more will likely flow to these sorts of causes.
A team of academics at a public university in Arizona has received millions of dollars from the Obama administration in the last few years to research the effects of global warming on poor and underserved communities. This includes a $3.9 million grant to study “urban climate adaptation” a few years ago. More recently the team got $66,185 to examine “resilience and vulnerability to climate change,” the connection between food security and global warming.
The money has flowed through the National Science Foundation (NSF), created by Congress in 1950 to promote the progress of science and advance national health. The agency has been plagued by a number of scandals over the years—including employees spending significant portions of their workdays watching pornography—and is notorious for frivolous spending. Recent examples include giving a New York theater company $700,000 to produce a play about climate change and a public university in Montana $141,002 to study dinosaur eggs in China.
The more recent allocation to the Arizona professors is part of a broader and quite costly Obama administration effort to expose the ills of global warming. In the last few years the initiative has produced a number of sensational reports warning that climate change could cause everything from mental illness and cancer to a more violent world with a “dangerous” food supply. One recent taxpayer-funded study said the Washington D.C. area and surrounding government infrastructure will be virtually destroyed by global warming over the next century. Click here to read Judicial Watch’s coverage of this sensationalized nonsense.
The Arizona academics set out to answer these two “pressing” questions: “What role does pre-existing vulnerability play for people who experience a climate shock? Does it amplify the effect of the climate shock, or is the effect negligible?” It’s unlikely Americans were losing sleep over this, but they were forced to fund the project because it’s important to examine how people can be most resilient to climate change when it comes to food security, according to the researchers, in this case four archeologists.
The team used long-term archaeological and historical data from the North Atlantic Islands and the U.S. Southwest to form the basis of their understanding of changing dynamics in these areas, according to a university announcement. Each case in their study included information on evolving social, political and economic conditions over centuries, as well as climate data. The extended timeframe and global scope allowed them to witness changes in the context of vulnerabilities and climate challenges on a wide scale.
Surprise, surprise, the researchers found a strong relationship between vulnerability to food shortages—not the actual experience of the food shortage—prior to a climate shock and the scale of the impact of that shock. “The pattern is so consistent across different regions of the world experiencing substantially different climate shocks that the role of vulnerability cannot be ignored,” said Margaret Nelson, the professor who has been awarded the government climate change grants. She teaches in the School of Human Evolution and Social Change.
Just when you thought you’ve heard it all regarding the ills of global warming, a new taxpayer-funded study reveals that it will make the world more violent. That’s because when temperatures rise, so does aggression.
In fact, shifts in climate change have long been associated with violent conflicts, according to this new study (Quantifying the Influence of Climate on Human Conflict) conducted by a public university in northern California. At the rate we’re going, with the current “warming” patterns, violence and human conflict will increase significantly, the academics found.
“We find strong causal evidence linking climatic events to human conflict across a range of spatial and temporal scales and across all major regions of the world,” the report says. Here is the short version of how this conclusion was reached; the researchers drew from “archeology, criminology, economics, geography, history, political science, and psychology.” Then they analyzed dozens of the most rigorous quantitative studies and came up with what they assert is a “remarkable convergence of results.”
In a nutshell, the researchers found that studies conducted in natural human situations as well as laboratory settings have showed a connection between heat and violence. Higher temperatures have been linked to innocuous hostile behaviors, such as horn-honking while driving, and more serious behaviors such as domestic violence within households, assault and rape. Furthermore, cops are also more likely to use force at higher temperatures.
“Human behavior is complex, and despite the existence of institutions designed to promote peace, interactions between individuals and groups sometimes lead to conflict,” the report says. “When such conflict becomes violent, it can have dramatic consequences on human wellbeing.” This may be true but to blame it on global warming seems a bit far-fetched, to say the least.
It’s as if the government is leaving no stone unturned to warn Americans about the damages of climate change. In the last few years Uncle Sam has funded a variety of studies cautioning that global warming will make food and water dangerous, cause mental illness, cancer and even threaten national security.
In fact, a consortium of Obama administration scientists from several government agencies—including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the State Department and National Institute of Environmental Health Science—have confirmed that global warming is one of the “most visible environmental concerns of the 21st century.” It’s a government-wide global warming frenzy!
Last fall yet another publicly-funded study disclosed that the Washington D.C. area and surrounding government infrastructure will be virtually destroyed by global warming over the next century. Before that the U.S. government’s National Science Foundation (NSF) published a report stating that global warming is much worse than previously imagined because the ocean actually masks the true rate of damage for periods of up to a decade. There appears to be no end this madness.
The Obama administration has used the hysteria to justify investing tens of millions of dollars to counter climate change. Not surprisingly, the administration has determined that people from low socioeconomic backgrounds and those living in urban areas (this usually means ethnic minorities) are more “susceptible” and “vulnerable” to diseases exacerbated by climate change. That can only mean one thing; taxpayer dollars will inevitably be allocated to further study this phenomenon.
The global warming frenzy has gone international with the World Bank announcing that it’s committing billions of dollars to combat its effects in poor African and Asian countries that stand to suffer most.
Why should Americans care about this? Because, as is the case with a number of leftist international organizations that aim to save the planet, the United States is the World Bank’s largest contributor, annually filling the poverty-fighting institution’s coffers with hundreds of millions of dollars. Take a look at the U.S. Treasury 2013 budget request for international programs that include the World Bank.
It’s bad enough that the Obama administration has published a number of reports warning of the ills of global warming, likely to support public funding for the cause. The government-sanctioned studies have determined over the years that climate change will lead to a worldwide increase in mental illness and cancer, that it will threaten the world’s food and water supply and even national security. In fact, one government report confirmed that global warming is one of the “most visible environmental concerns of the 21st century.”
The World Bank has published two scary reports of its own to make a case for financing its exorbitant global warming projects. The first one, released last year, determined that adverse effects of global warming are “tilted against many of the world’s poorest regions” and are likely to undermine development efforts and goals. It projects extreme heat-waves and life-threatening sea level rise that will devastate water and food supplies in some parts of the world.
The second report was released this week, to coincide with the World Bank’s big announcement that it’s committing billions to combat climate change in poor nations, especially those in Sub-Saharan Africa and South East Asia. It also warns that poor communities will be the most vulnerable to climate change and describes the risks to agriculture and livelihood security in Sub-Saharan Africa; the rise in sea-level, loss of coral reefs and devastation to coastal areas in South East Asia and the fluctuating water resources in South Asia.
As the coastal cities of Africa and Asia expand, many of their poorest residents are being pushed to the edges of livable land and into the most dangerous zones for climate change, according to the findings. Their informal settlements cling to riverbanks and cluster in low-lying areas with poor drainage, few public services, and no protection from storm surges, sea-level rise and flooding.
Warming on critical areas like agriculture production, water resources, coastal ecosystems and cities paint a “dramatic picture of a world of climate and weather extremes causing devastation and human suffering,” the report says. “In many cases, multiple threats of increasing extreme heat waves, sea-level rise, more severe storms, droughts and floods will have severe negative implications for the poorest and most vulnerable.”
Indeed this is a dramatic scenario and the U.S. will undoubtedly provide a huge chunk of cash to help make things better. Otherwise a “warmer world will keep millions of people trapped in poverty,” according to a World Bank press release announcing the latest climate change report. We can’t have that, says World Bank President Jim Yong Kim of the U.S., who stresses that “urgent action is needed.”
Just when you thought the U.S. government’s global warming frenzy couldn’t possibly get any worse, the Obama administration announces that it’s dedicating a whopping $19.5 million to study the effect of climate change on cows.
This crazy story comes via the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which is giving several academic institutions the cash to support research, education and other activities associated with climate solutions in agriculture. The goal is to uncover the impacts of climate variability and change on dairy and beef cattle, according to an agency announcement released this week.
“We have seen the impact that variable climate patterns have had on production agriculture for the past several years,” according to Obama’s USDA Secretary, Tom Vilsack. “These projects will deliver the best tools available to accurately measure and respond to the effects of climate on beef and dairy production.” This is the same guy who heads President Obama’s special White House Rural Council that among other things is supposed to expand “ecosystem markets” and develop “renewable energy projects.”
Vilsack has also overseen the distribution of billions of reparation dollars to minority farmers that claim they were discriminated by the government and under his leadership the USDA spends a record $80.4 billion annually on food stamps. Like his boss, Vilsack is dedicated to combatting global warming and has dedicated tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to a variety of green energy projects. Among them is a $30 million initiative to advance “biofuels, bioenergy and high-value biobased products” and a $12.2 million experiment to “accelerate bioenergy crop production.”
This month’s $19.5 million allocation aims to develop methods that will “increase the resiliency of dairy production systems while reducing greenhouse gas emissions” and “better understand vulnerability and resilience of Southern Great Plains beef in an environment of increased climate variability.” The academic teams will also develop an agricultural education curriculum with an “urban foods focus.”
In an apparent effort to justify spending large sums of taxpayer dollars on these experiments the government has published a variety of alarming reports over the years exposing the ills of climate change. One claims global warming is the “most visible environmental concerns of the 21st century” and could lead to a worldwide increase in mental illness and cancer. Others have determined that climate change will threaten the world’s food and water supplies and another asserts that it will destroy the Washington D.C. area and surrounding government infrastructure.
Other taxpayer-funded studies have claimed that global warming is a threat to national security because it will spread disease among people and animals and that it’s destroying infrastructure, crops and shorelines. Just a few days ago several members of Congress sponsored a resolution asserting that climate change will actually drive millions of poor women into prostitution!
The global warming madness seems to have reached a plateau with several members of Congress sponsoring a resolution claiming that it will actually push millions of women into prostitution!
This appears to be the icing on the cake for a U.S. government-backed movement fueled by climate change alarmists. In the last few years a variety of government-funded studies have claimed that global warming causes mental illness and cancer and that it threatens everything from national security to health, the world’s food supply and even water. One taxpayer-funded study revealed that global warming could wipe out government or at the very least destroy the Washington D.C. area and surrounding infrastructure.
Those who thought that couldn’t possibly be topped need to take a look at a resolution recently introduced in the House by Barbara Lee, a northern California Democrat who advocates for a murderous communist dictator. It asserts that warming temperatures will drive around 3 million people into poverty and that women will disproportionately face harmful impacts from climate change, particularly in poor and developing nations where they regularly assume increased responsibility for growing the family’s food and collecting water, fuel and other resources.
Here is where the hooker part comes in. Food insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, sexually transmitted infections, unplanned pregnancy and poor reproductive health, the resolution says.
“Whereas the direct and indirect effects of climate change have a disproportionate impact on marginalized women such as refugee and displaced persons, sexual minorities, religious or ethnic minorities, adolescent girls, and women and girls with disabilities and those who are HIV positive,” according to the resolution.
Women in the United States are particularly affected by climate-related disasters, the resolution points out. As evidence it offers this; 83% of “low-income single mothers” were displaced when Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast region several years ago. How did this happen? The “ability of women to adapt to climate change is constrained by a lack of economic freedoms, property and inheritance rights, as well as access to financial resources, education, family planning and reproductive health, and new tools, equipment, and technology.”
The resolution has some interesting recommendations, among them that congress recognize the “disparate impacts of climate change on women and the efforts of women to globally address climate change” and the use of “gender-sensitive frameworks in developing policies to address climate change.” Does anyone really know that this means?
Here is another good recommendation to remedy this tragedy; a commitment to educate and train women to “develop local resilience plans to address the effects of climate change” and a commitment to “empower women to have a voice in the planning, design, implementation and evaluation” of strategies to counter climate change. The rather amusing document ends by encouraging the president to integrate a gender approach in all policies and programs in the United States that are globally related to climate change and ensuring that those policies and programs support women globally to prepare for global warming.
It’s interesting to note that the Congresswoman behind this crazy measure is no stranger to controversy. As head of the Congressional Black Caucus, Lee praised Cuban dictators Fidel and Raul Castro during a rendezvous on the communist island aimed at lifting U.S. sanctions against the notorious human rights violator that for years has appeared on the State Department’s terrorist-sponsoring nations.
A year later Lee gave the Supreme Court a minority quota mandate after pressing Justice Clarence Thomas, who happens to be black like the congresswoman, on the lack of diversity among the court’s prestigious clerkships. Lee skeptically asked Thomas about the court’s efforts to attract clerks from minority groups and particularly from law schools that are not in the prestigious Ivy League. It was an unusual topic for a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing on an unrelated subject.
Following a bombardment of frightening assessments—largely funded with taxpayer dollars—on the ills of global warming, the U.S. government has finally placed climate change on its official High Risk List.
It’s a goal the Obama administration has worked hard to meet. In the last four years a variety of government-funded studies have warned that global warming will make food and water dangerous, cause mental illness, cancer and threaten national security. In fact, under the Obama administration, a consortium of scientists from several government agencies—including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the State Department and National Institute of Environmental Health Science—have confirmed that global warming is one of the “most visible environmental concerns of the 21st century.”
As eerie as this may sound, it’s not even the full picture because the ocean actually masks the true rate of damage for periods as long as a decade, according to a government study from the National Science Foundation (NSF). According to this logic the crisis is way more severe than what it appears because the sea is storing the heat that damages the earth, making it appear as if there is a sort of hiatus in global warming when there really isn’t. When this ocean-stored heat will show its evil face will probably be the subject of the next taxpayer-funded study.
All this certainly makes a powerful case for the administration’s latest move of adding climate change to its 2013 High Risk List. Updated every two years to identify situations that could make the government vulnerable or programs that must be improved, the list is prepared before the start of a new Congress. It also includes enforcement of tax laws, Medicare, Medicaid, restructuring the U.S. Postal Service and protecting the nation’s cyber critical infrastructures, among others.
Climate change was added because it poses “significant financial risks,” according to the report, issued by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), announcing the new dangers this month. “Climate change is a complex, crosscutting issue that poses risks to many environmental and economic systems—including agriculture, infrastructure, ecosystems, and human health—and presents a significant financial risk to the federal government,” the report says.
It goes on to reiterate a lot of what we’ve already seen in all those alarming government reports that warn about the ills of global warming. “Among other impacts, climate change could threaten coastal areas with rising sea levels, alter agricultural productivity, and increase the intensity and frequency of severe weather events.” In fact, “rare” events will become more common and intense due to climate change.
However, the report does acknowledge that “exact details cannot be predicted with certainty” though “there is a clear scientific understanding that climate change poses serious risks to human society and many of the physical and ecological systems upon which society depends, with the specific impacts of concern, and the relative likelihood of those impacts, varying significantly from place to place and over time.”
Never the less, the administration will move forward with an aggressive green initiative that has already cost American taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. It’s all “for the sake of our children and our future,” President Obama said during this month’s State of the Union Address. “I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.”
American taxpayers should prepare to dole out a chunk of change for yet another global initiative—this one headed by a former Mexican president—that needs hundreds of billions of dollars annually to tackle climate change through “green infrastructure investment.”
Launched over the summer in Los Cabos, the Green Growth Action Alliance is a “global action-focused agenda for clean energy” headed by former Mexican President Felipe Calderon and it needs money, lots of it. For starters the new alliance claims there’s a $1 trillion annual shortfall in green infrastructure investment that can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and all the other evil stuff that’s ruining the planet.
The idea is to get corporations with deep pockets to help out, but “public funding” is essential to “leverage private investment.” The money will promote free trade in green goods and services, achieve robust carbon pricing, end inefficient subsidies and other forms of fossil fuel support and accelerate low-carbon innovation. Undoubtedly, the U.S. is expected to provide a major portion of the funding for this new endeavor which is dear to President Obama’s heart.
This week, at an annual forum of world leaders in Switzerland, the Green Growth Action Alliance will promote its agenda and, undoubtedly hit prosperous countries like the U.S. up for money. The yearly powwow, which aims to shape global, regional and industry agendas, will offer a world stage for the Green Alliance to present its new report that determines “greening” global economic growth requires a $700 billion yearly investment that must span decades.
Calderon, whose Mexican presidency ended in November, says it’s clear that the world is facing a “climate crisis” with impacts to the global economy that could be devastating. The key to solving this potential devastation is to gather lots of government cash to meet this critical “climate challenge.” In the report Calderon puts it a bit more diplomatically, writing that “additional investment is needed to meet the climate challenge…” His ideal figure is $7 trillion per year!
The Obama Administration has already spent billions of dollars to save the developing world from the presumed ills of global warming, mainly through a program called Global Climate Change Initiative. In 2009 the administration gave $323 million to the program and the figure nearly tripled to $939 million in 2010. In 2011 funding dropped slightly to $819 million and in 2012 it dipped a bit more to $773 million. Last spring the administration asked Congress for an additional $770 million.
Uncle Sam has also funded other foreign programs that aim to counter global warming. For instance, a few years ago the U.S. spent $50 million to replace “inefficient cook stoves” that contribute to climate change and deforestation in developing countries. That check was made out to the Global Alliance for Clean Cook Stoves, which is run by the famously corrupt United Nations. Just last summer the administration invested $20 million in a green energy venture in Africa that’s supposed to create renewable energy in that part of the world.
Domestically, the government has also wasted huge sums on preposterous green projects. For instance, it blew $21 million to install thousands of solar panels at a Navy base that are supposed to save money by lowering utility bills. Instead it will take an astounding 447 years to benefit from the investment! Who can forget the boondoggle of them all; the northern California solar panel company (Solyndra) that folded after bilking taxpayers out of $535 million, an allocation pushed through by the White House.