United Nations

Liberals rage as Trump eyes killing UN green scheme

30
Photo: Gage Skidmore/Flickr (cc by-sa 3.0)

Photo: Gage Skidmore/Flickr (cc by-sa 3.0)

Liberals are seething after President-Elect Donald Trump’s transition team asked a simple question.

How much taxpayer money are we spending on international “global warming” programs?

The answer will have you seething, too.

Though the United States Senate never ratified the United Nations’ Paris climate treaty, the Obama administration has been following its dictates and funneling billions of taxpayer dollars into the required U.N. programs.

But no one knows exactly how much taxpayer money is being shipped overseas.

So members of Trump’s transition team did what any fiscally responsible citizen would do.

They asked.

“As part of a list of questions posed last week to the department’s Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, according to multiple people familiar with the matter, the Trump landing team asked, ‘How much does the Department of State contribute annually to international environmental organizations in which the department participates?,’” The Washington Post reports.

And liberals are freaking out. Why?

The dirty secret of “clean” energy is it requires hundreds of billions of tax dollars.

“According to a 2013 Congressional Research Service report, federal spending on climate change initiatives between fiscal year 2008 and 2013 totaled roughly $77 billion. Two-thirds of those funds went to developing carbon-free technology and deploying those advances, and most of that work was undertaken by the Energy Department rather than State,” the Post reports.

Under the terms of the U.N. climate treaty, the U.S. would pay $3 billion over four years. The payments started a year ago, when the State Department shipped the U.N. $500 million, taken out of a program to stop the spread of the Zika virus.

The Obama administration and liberal media then attacked Republicans over the sudden lack of funds to fight Zika.

Trump has told supporters he will cut off such payments to the U.N.

“(Trump’s) campaign released a policy statement (Nov. 1) suggesting that he would ‘cancel all wasteful climate change spending,’ which would include the elimination of all of the federal government’s international and domestic climate programs as well as a rollback in regulations aimed at cutting carbon emissions,” the Post reports.

“The campaign estimated that these moves would save $100 billion over eight years,” the Post reports.

Trump wants to spend that money on U.S.-based environmental programs, telling supporters he will “use that money to support America’s vital environmental infrastructure and natural resources.”

  • donald540

    I KNOW that we could do better in getting the environment from being polluted as much as we have been doing BUT NOT a SUDDEN STOP of everything that pollutes the environment.

    Some things pollute, YES! but there is NOTHING to replace them with anything even CLOSE to what we need to replace them with to KEEP our way of life and also going down in flames by doing it our LIAR-in-CHIEF’s way.

    • Ryan

      Nobody is proposing a sudden stop, they are proposing a fiscally neutral tax, to shift incentives.

      You won’t be able to keep your way of life when every costal city around the world is flooded. There is not enough infrastructure to hold civilisation together, of that happens.

      • donald540

        I was talking about GLOBAL time or Earth time humans on Earth is only a blip on the Earth time.
        Our LIAR-in-CHIEF’s idea to change our environmental pollution problem would be to STOP ALL polluting NOW and NOT tomorrow with HIS PLAN to change the environment for his idea of what is good for the world even though the rest or at least MOST of the world will NOT stop their polluting NOW or tomorrow and maybe NOT until they are FORCED to stop.
        Our environment is constantly changing the Earth has gone through several GLOBAL coolings and several GLOBAL warmings over the HISTORY of the Earth even before humans emerged on Earth and humans have NOT done anything to do with those changes and we have LITTLE to do with today’s changes.
        I do agree that we might have hastened some changes but we are NOT the complete cause of these changes.
        THE SUN has some influence on our GLOBAL change.

        • Hal Guernsey

          The Sun’s radiation and electromagnetic energy, along with the physical Earth-Sun relationship has 99% of the influence on Earth temperatures.

          • donald540

            YES!, and I heard that the environmental computers have NOTHING that shows what relationship the SUN has on the Earth and it predicts our CLIMATE CHANGES with NO actions from the SUN, as if it does NOT exist.

            That is like saying ICE on some roads can NOT be the cause of a LOT of accidents on THAT ROAD, so we will NOT consider it in trying to find the cause of those accidents.

    • Hal Guernsey

      Resources spent to reduce water and air pollution (not CO2) should be fairly and honestly evaluated on a cost/benefit analysis. Keep in mind that in America, we have good water and air unless something goes wrong at some location. Achieving our quality levels is affordable. However, nonsensical schemes such as those of the rogue EPA to achieve (more and more power and control) “perfect” water and air standards is unaffordable. Each additional increment of unnecessary quality costs a magnitude more money.

      No money should ever be spent associated with atmospheric CO2 or “global-warming.”.

      • donald540

        Sounds like YOU have GOOD handle on what the EPAIS doing to America and the world.

  • Karll

    It’s past time to cut spending on b.s. across the board!

  • MarcJ

    After repeated de-masking of the original “New Ice Age” Hoax in the 1970’s, followed by the “Global Warming” Scam in the 1990’s, which in turn became (after 20 consecutive years of cooling) “Climate Change” Flimflam in the 2010’s, and now turning into “Cap & Trade” Power Grab, one would hope that most of us would be disgusted. But no – Obama has placed his Cap & Trade program on his priority list of things to do. He means “Nationalize everything!”

    • Ryan

      It was a scam? A scam coordinated by most governments around the world, thousands of scientists and economists, hundreds of universities, and the united nations? That has to be the most insane conspiracy theory in history

      • MarcJ

        Get on the Internet and ask for the Oregon Petition and for the Manhattan Declaration to read the names of about 32,000 scientists who called out that gigantic communist conspiracy.

        • jervis121

          It’s here: http://petitionproject.org/
          But I’ve noticed a rampant increase of late in the number of blogs and pro-CAGW scam websites claiming that the petition is fake, or that many of the names listed are not scientists, blah-blah-blah, etc…
          The alarmists and scaremongers are clearly the frightened ones now. They are panicking, because their evil, Socialist plan for humanity that this scam was designed to facilitate, is about to fall in a heap!
          Mr Trump is now running America and it will NOT fall to Socialism.

      • jervis121

        Yes Ryan. A SCAM and a HOAX run by Socialist wannabe tyrants in the communist owned and run United Nations. Trump has already begun the process of destroying it all. Hillary lost the election. God Bless America!

      • jervis121

        Insane conspiracy theory? Really? Oh how I wished it was…
        You can start here: http://carbon-sense.com/category/agenda-2030/
        But there is MUCH more out there if you care to find it and read it, and most with genuine references.

      • Hal Guernsey

        It’s been a scam from the beginning, and the scaremongers have been well paid, starting with Al Gore, who was one of the first to get onboard the gravy train. It is an open conspiracy: not a theory. Most anything associated with the UN is fraudulent and a scam. Donald will fix it.

  • Ryan

    Easily worth it. The science is clear, the costs of inaction are orders of magnitude greater.

    • jervis121

      Socialist green Idiot, The CAGW SCAM is over. Get used to it and stop your (now pointless) scaremongering. You’re making a fool of yourself. Hillary LOST the election, get over it.

    • Hal Guernsey

      The ill-informed alarmist talking-talking points are getting kind of tired. There is only pseudoscience associated with “global-warming.” Even though there is no anthropomorphic “global-warming,” the slight general and natural warming that has occurred over the extended 20th century (1880 to present) has been beneficial and has resulted in a more habitable planet for all Earthlings. As is typical from inter-glacial periods, there is a slight rise in ocean levels, but so far this hasn’t been of significant effect: for the remaining part of our inter glacial, any additional sea rise will occur over dozens of generations, and the ingenuity of mankind will have no trouble abrogating the impacts, just as it always has. By the way, the costs of silly and futile attempts to alter the ENTIRE temperature of the planet and taking the world economy/standard of living back to the 19th century for nothing, is actually several magnitudes worse than putting up a few local sea walls, and dealing with the other minor negative effects of this warming–far outweighed by the positives. But then, that is obvious.

      • Ryan

        “Anthropomorphic global warming”. I stopped reading there. Go and get an education, then try again. Best of luck to you.

        • Hal Guernsey

          Your reading skill level can’t handle the big word, so I have to “go and get an education.” That’s pretty dumb on your part! I already have an education and also over 6 years of study on the subject. You seem to be an uninformed hack (who wants to stay that way) and are merely in comment land to annoy people and embarrass yourself.

          • Ryan

            Anthropogenic, not anthropomorphic. Unless your understanding of climate science is even more twisted than I suspected. Either way, I’m embarrassed for you.

          • Hal Guernsey

            Thanks for the typo correction. A typo hardly makes anything about me twisted, but your obnoxiousness doesn’t allow me to say the same about you. You are pitiful, rude, hater and baiter.

            Actually, I just read a number of your comments: you aren’t stupid–you’re just a patsy and on the wrong side of the “global-warming” debate.

          • Ryan

            I’m sorry, I probably got a bit fired up. I’m sympathetic to the right wing, I just believe that global warming is a huge problem, which markets can solve. It obviously isn’t something that either of us will convince the other of, I just ask you to keep an open mind. Happy new year.

          • carmella

            I think a huge part of the problem is we don’t listen to each other, we don’t know how to disagree without calling people names. We don’t know how to debate. We won’t educate ourselves because it’s much easier to have someone tell us what we should think. Both sides are at fault.

  • MarcJ

    The communist attack on our country continues with changing names:
    1) New ice age prediction in the 1970’s; remedy nationalize everything;
    2) When that failed – proclaim Global Warming scam in the 1990’s; remedy nationalize everything;
    3) After 21 consecutive years of GLOBAL COOLING – switch to Climate Change hoax recently; remedy still the same;
    That government paid conspiracy ($25 billion per year) continues, under the careful supervision by the UN socialist panel.

  • Hal Guernsey

    Go Donald! Only three weeks to go before Bama is tossed out on his big ears, and Donald will start making America great again! Considering how Bama hates America and was continually trying to bring it down, he’s lucky that Americans didn’t tar and feather him, and run him out of town on a rail.

  • carmella

    Researchers at Stanford and UC-Davis recently issued a landmark study that
    has policy makers buzzing. Crunching the numbers on energy and
    economics, the researchers conclude that — with existing technology —
    the world could be entirely powered by renewable energy within 20 to 40
    years.

  • carmella

    Germany leads record wind power growth in Europe (theguardian.com)
    “The report reveals Germany was by far the biggest market last year, installing nearly half of new wind farms in the EU.”

  • carmella

    The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy recently ranked the
    world’s 16 largest economies by energy efficiency. The group took a
    variety of factors into account, including each country’s national
    energy savings goals, vehicle fuel economy standards, and total energy
    consumed per square foot of floor space. Germany ranked quite well,
    largely due to the country’s ambitious plans to drastically reduce both
    industrial and consumer reliance on fossil fuels. Italy also scored
    quite well, largely due to the country’s much-used rail system. China
    scored highest in terms of residential construction efficiency.
    Ultimately, though, the true test of these countries will take place in
    the years to come. Renewable, sustainable energy models are clearly the
    way of the future and, in time, we will see if countries stick to their
    ambitious plans.

  • carmella

    If we don’t lead, we’re destined to be left behind.

Sign up for our FREE newsletter!

Name:
Email:
Sign up to receive daily updates, political news, action letters and additional messages from Conservative Republican News

View our Privacy Policy

Join our FREE Newsletter!